Evil Tories

[Nibor]

have finally come up with a policy I could agree with.

Absolutely spot on, no more money for those who can't be arsed to even try to work, kill off the something for nothing culture.

Reassess everyone on incapacity benefit properly - 500k people under 35 too ill to work long term is clearly not right.

I really am not a Tory but the country needs something like this, too many people are taking the piss and that means they're taking resources away from those who are truly ill or in hardship and need the support.

[Rob k]

have finally come up with a policy I could agree with.

Absolutely spot on, no more money for those who can't be arsed to even try to work, kill off the something for nothing culture.

Reassess everyone on incapacity benefit properly - 500k people under 35 too ill to work long term is clearly not right.

I really am not a Tory but the country needs something like this, too many people are taking the piss and that means they're taking resources away from those who are truly ill or in hardship and need the support.

They will walk the next election.

[Barrs Court Red]

Ive said for a long time that it's about time we cut off benefits for the work shy. I don't see why we should subsidise a lazey llifestyle for those who aren't willing to work.

[Redhyde]

Wow if they come out with more decent policies i might actually vote for them instead of going along and writing non of the above.

It'll be novel to actually register a vote for the first time ever.

[reliant_robin]

have finally come up with a policy I could agree with.

Absolutely spot on, no more money for those who can't be arsed to even try to work, kill off the something for nothing culture.

Reassess everyone on incapacity benefit properly - 500k people under 35 too ill to work long term is clearly not right.

I really am not a Tory but the country needs something like this, too many people are taking the piss and that means they're taking resources away from those who are truly ill or in hardship and need the support.

the system is too complex.you have to have a safety net for people.claimants have all sorts of problems on the dole.

community training schemes for the jobless are expensive to run. cons in prison should be the first to do this work

the tories always target the unemployed this time of year.nothing changes!

[Nibor]

the system is too complex.you have to have a safety net for people.claimants have all sorts of problems on the dole.

community training schemes for the jobless are expensive to run. cons in prison should be the first to do this work

the tories always target the unemployed this time of year.nothing changes!

I don't want cons on the streets.

The tories don't appear to be talking about genuine jobseekers who are out of work and looking for a job, just the idle ######s who do nothing and have no intention of getting a job.

It's not complex, after a certain amount of time on the dole without getting a job you have to do community work. What's wrong with that? They can still have time to find a job and they stop getting something for nothing.

There's still a safety net for people who fall on hard times, there's just no lazy selfish idle bastards consuming my taxes without working.

[reliant_robin]

I don't want cons on the streets.

The tories don't appear to be talking about genuine jobseekers who are out of work and looking for a job, just the idle ######s who do nothing and have no intention of getting a job.

It's not complex, after a certain amount of time on the dole without getting a job you have to do community work. What's wrong with that? They can still have time to find a job and they stop getting something for nothing.

There's still a safety net for people who fall on hard times, there's just no lazy selfish idle bastards consuming my taxes without working.

do i get the hint that youre in a low paid job?. i admit isee loads of jobless chavs(18-23) hanging around town centres doing f"ck all during the day. you see them in mcdonalds loafing around. the worlds unfair!

[Nibor]

do i get the hint that youre in a low paid job?. i admit isee loads of jobless chavs(18-23) hanging around town centres doing f"ck all during the day. you see them in mcdonalds loafing around. the worlds unfair!

Far from it actually mate, I pay enough tax to resent it

It's those jobless chavs I want to see cleaning the streets instead of dropping McDonald's wrappers all over them.

[Mr Mosquito]

have finally come up with a policy I could agree with.

Absolutely spot on, no more money for those who can't be arsed to even try to work, kill off the something for nothing culture.

Reassess everyone on incapacity benefit properly - 500k people under 35 too ill to work long term is clearly not right.

I really am not a Tory but the country needs something like this, too many people are taking the piss and that means they're taking resources away from those who are truly ill or in hardship and need the support.

Not forgetting the 'idle Tory rich' put them to work as well lest we be accused of class discrimination.

[fka dagest]

Not forgetting the 'idle Tory rich' put them to work as well lest we be accused of class discrimination.

Beat me to it. I'd much rather see the Tories tackle the parasites at the top of the pile, but then they're hardly likely to start on themselves are they?

[Mr Mosquito]

Beat me to it. I'd much rather see the Tories tackle the parasites at the top of the pile, but then they're hardly likely to start on themselves are they?

The bare face cheek of it is that..........

The Tories were the political party of the 1980's that did collectively boast "unemployment is a price worth paying" !!!!!!!!

The Tories thus actively encouraged the workforce to claim dole rather than work. Tory economic policies consisted of taking subsidies from state industries such as coal mining, steel production, shipbuilding and car manufacture with the resultant loss of about one million UK jobs. Now the Tories are moaning about the amount of people claiming dole and other benefits. :noexpression:

[Nibor]

I'd much rather see the Tories tackle the parasites at the top of the pile

Why? At least they're not claiming benefit and I'm not paying taxes to subsidise them sitting around doing **** all.

Dealing with the silver spooners will make nowhere near as much difference to those of us who work for a living as sorting out the idle millions of dole addicts will.

[Mr Mosquito]

Why? At least they're not claiming benefit and I'm not paying taxes to subsidise them sitting around doing **** all.

Dealing with the silver spooners will make nowhere near as much difference to those of us who work for a living as sorting out the idle millions of dole addicts will.

Nibor, you obviously haven't seen the size of the Giro cheques the Royals get via the civil list. Nor have you seen the size of the European Union cheques that the toff/snob land owners get from the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

There's nothing I resent more than paying my hard earned taxes to subsidize this country's inbred toff/snob 'blue blood' fox and stag hunting aristocracy.

[Nibor]

Nibor, you obviously haven't seen the size of the Giro cheques the Royals get via the civil list.

The civil list costs the taxpayer about £10m a year and funds work done by the Royals that generates far more than that for UK business.

The royals DO actually work though I agree they have a massively privileged life. I wouldn't want it though.

£10m a year is absolute peanuts compared to the astronomical bill measured in the TENS OF BILLIONS that dole scroungers present to us hard working tax payers annually for their "sitting on our arses watching Jeremy Kyle every day" services.

Nor have you seen the size of the European Union cheques that the toff/snob land owners get from the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

I think you completely misunderstand CAP, the nature of the rebate and the reasons for it. If our rebate were scrapped we would effectively be funding French farms. If CAP were scrapped we would end up without a farming industry which is a very bad plan from a security perspective.

There's nothing I resent more than paying my hard earned taxes to subsidize this country's inbred toff/snob 'blue blood' fox and stag hunting aristocracy.

Red Goblin, you're making the same mistake communists do, they care more about taking things off the rich than they do about improving their own lot.

Your ire is sadly misdirected, what other people have doesn't affect you in the slightest. You are having to work several hours a week so that lazy scroungers can sit on their arses all day squirting out tribes of yet more dole scrounging kids.

If we got rid of the royal family tomorrow nothing would change for any of us. If we got the dole scroungers into work a huge amount of burden would be lifted off the working class.

[Mr Mosquito]

Your ire is sadly misdirected, what other people have doesn't affect you in the slightest. You are having to work several hours a week so that lazy scroungers can sit on their arses all day squirting out tribes of yet more dole scrounging kids.

My ire is but the equal and opposite of your ire. Lazy inbred toffs and snobs squirting out yet more brats that eventually become overpaid and corrupt Crown Prosecution Service lawyers is what concerns me. Oh I do love class generalizations.

[Nibor]

My ire is but the equal and opposite of your ire. Lazy inbred toffs and snobs squirting out yet more brats that eventually become overpaid and corrupt Crown Prosecution Service lawyers is what concerns me. Oh I do love class generalizations.

Rather a few hundred of one than a million of the other. I love irony

[fka dagest]

Oh dear Nibor I disagree with you on so many counts that I'd be here all day arguing with you and quite frankly the days of my spending hours on here writing essays are long over. Suffice to say I don't believe the Royal Family work, nor do any of their hangers on. Nor do I believe that any of the knobs associated with the CBI work or any of the Corporate #### who spend all day speaking a nonsense language. Call me old fashioned if you like but I don't believe all the ranks of consultants drawing up pointless flow charts actually contribute anything either.

[Nibor]

Oh dear Nibor I disagree with you on so many counts that I'd be here all day arguing with you and quite frankly the days of my spending hours on here writing essays are long over. Suffice to say I don't believe the Royal Family work, nor do any of their hangers on. Nor do I believe that any of the knobs associated with the CBI work or any of the Corporate #### who spend all day speaking a nonsense language. Call me old fashioned if you like but I don't believe all the ranks of consultants drawing up pointless flow charts actually contribute anything either.

Anarchists would rule the world if they could be arsed.

[fka dagest]

Anarchists would rule the world if they could be arsed.

If you believe that then you really don't get it. The point being that no one rules anyone. Do I think it's possible? Not in the context of a state or any other hierarchical power structure. Maybe on a remote island or some remote community. Utopian? - yes, but I'd rather cling to a dream rather than accept the pack of lies that modern society is built upon.

[reliant_robin]

Nibor, you obviously haven't seen the size of the Giro cheques the Royals get via the civil list. Nor have you seen the size of the European Union cheques that the toff/snob land owners get from the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

There's nothing I resent more than paying my hard earned taxes to subsidize this country's inbred toff/snob 'blue blood' fox and stag hunting aristocracy.

what does prince andrew and edward do all day? they bark orders at the servants. moaning about their egg yolks, boxer shorts not ironed enough!

isay..cut a good deal for yourself wheter your working or unemployed. everyone thinks of no1

[Nibor]

If you believe that then you really don't get it. The point being that no one rules anyone. Do I think it's possible? Not in the context of a state or any other hierarchical power structure. Maybe on a remote island or some remote community. Utopian? - yes, but I'd rather cling to a dream rather than accept the pack of lies that modern society is built upon.

I was being flippant.

It's not actually about power is it? It's about economics.

Even your remote island utopia needs people to produce food and shelter, how is that going to happen without some form of co-operation?

Once you've got that you've got economics and then the most efficient system wins - and that's the one we have.

I'm not saying there isn't a better way but noone's thought of it yet so instead of wistfully hoping they do I'm just going to climb far enough up this one to be able to drop out of it young enough to enjoy the rest of my life.

[fka dagest]

I was being flippant.

It's not actually about power is it? It's about economics.

Even your remote island utopia needs people to produce food and shelter, how is that going to happen without some form of co-operation?

Once you've got that you've got economics and then the most efficient system wins - and that's the one we have.

I'm not saying there isn't a better way but noone's thought of it yet so instead of wistfully hoping they do I'm just going to climb far enough up this one to be able to drop out of it young enough to enjoy the rest of my life.

I really don't understand why you don't think anarchists would cooperate. If you look at the work of Kropotkin ( I know you won't, so trust me) then you'll see that cooperation is fundamental tenet of anarchism. In fact he celebrates cooperation as opposed to competition. Look at Mutual Aid:

Synopsis of Kropotkin

[Nibor]

I really don't understand why you don't think anarchists would cooperate.

Ever tried to build a house?

[Mr Mosquito]

Ever tried to build a house?

It might be worth you reading up on the very English, Republican and Anarchistic 'Digger' movement from the time of Oliver Cromwell and the great victory over the Royalist toff/snob elite.

"An undercurrent of political thought which has run through English society for many generations and resurfaced from time to time (for example, during the Peasants' Revolt in 1381) was present in some of the political factions of the 1600s, including those who formed the Diggers, and held the common belief that England had become subjugated by the "Norman Yoke." This legend offered an explanation that at one time a golden Era had existed in England before the Norman Conquest in 1066. From the conquest on, the Diggers argued, the "common people of England" had been robbed of their birthrights and exploited by a foreign ruling class.

More important was the democratic, even anarchist aspect of the Diggers' beliefs. They contended that if only the common people of England would form themselves into self-supporting communes, there would be no place in such a society for the ruling classes. The ruling elite would be forced to join the communes or starve, as there would no longer be anyone left to hire to work their fields or pay rent to them for use of their property."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers_(True_Levellers)

[Nibor]

More important was the democratic, even anarchist aspect of the Diggers' beliefs. They contended that if only the common people of England would form themselves into self-supporting communes, there would be no place in such a society for the ruling classes. The ruling elite would be forced to join the communes or starve, as there would no longer be anyone left to hire to work their fields or pay rent to them for use of their property."

If this was anything other than purest fantasy it would have happened by now. Self supporting communities join up and become big communities, leaders emerge, then a government does. It's natural for humans to do this because they can see it's better for the tribe as a whole, it's more efficient, safer - survival instinct. Millions of years of evolution have programmed us this way, a couple of crackpot theories won't change it.

Here's a question for you:

Would you rather live in a society that had a more even spread of wealth, even if everyone was worse off than they are in this society in which there is an uneven spread of wealth?

You see, capitalism is efficient. Some idyllic co-operative might be able to score more highly on abstract fairness, but is it really fairer if everyone is worse off than they would be otherwise?

[Mr Mosquito]

Would you rather live in a society that had a more even spread of wealth, even if everyone was worse off than they are in this society in which there is an uneven spread of wealth?

You see, capitalism is efficient. Some idyllic co-operative might be able to score more highly on abstract fairness, but is it really fairer if everyone is worse off than they would be otherwise?

OK, to be honest, the Free Market economy represents better use of resources than a Command economy in producing the products that people actually want and producing them more cheaply and efficiently - so said my economics lecturer many moons ago.

However, this country swung from being almost a pure Free Market economy in 1900 - with a massive economic gap between rich and poor - to a Command economy in war time 1940. My Grandparents said they were actually happier in the early 1940's than their parents were in the 1900's. To use your words - the co-operative fairness of the wartime 1940's UK Command economy might score more highly on real not 'abstract' fairness. Everyone was worse off with rationing but people were happier and had more community spirit than now. People were not afraid to leave their doors open in the 1940's as they had nothing worth stealing - literally !!!! Would you risk leaving your door open these days? - each of us now has to live in a fortress to keep our 'precious' TV's, videos and computers etc safe.

[Nibor]

OK, to be honest, the Free Market economy represents better use of resources than a Command economy in producing the products that people actually want and producing them more cheaply and efficiently - so said my economics lecturer many moons ago.

That's pretty much it.

Humans are gregarious, we group together and we see benefits from making bigger and bigger groups. This is what anarchism ignores. You can't stop it happening really.

It can of course go a bit too far.

Bigger businesses reach a point where they become far less efficient than smaller ones (this is where you get the army of consultants talking b***ocks and drawing flow charts). Eventually those businesses fail, and get broken up into smaller ones or the individuals go off and start/join other groups... Overall the process is healthy, the whole economy becomes richer and everyone has more even if it's not well spread.

Governments do the same. They grow and grow as people solve problems by making bigger groups, then they become unwieldy top heavy states and then go through a radical change and slimming down, which I think is what we're in for next election. It's overdue.

However, this country swung from being almost a pure Free Market economy in 1900 - with a massive economic gap between rich and poor - to a Command economy in war time 1940. My Grandparents said they were actually happier in the early 1940's than their parents were in the 1900's. To use your words - the co-operative fairness of the wartime 1940's UK Command economy might score more highly on real not 'abstract' fairness. Everyone was worse off with rationing but people were happier and had more community spirit than now. People were not afraid to leave their doors open in the 1940's as they had nothing worth stealing - literally !!!! Would you risk leaving your door open these days? - each of us now has to live in a fortress to keep our 'precious' TV's, videos and computers etc safe.

OK so we just need to start a war and everyone will be happier with less!

I think that's a combination of nostalgia with wartime fighting spirit.

There's certainly something to be said for a less materialistic outlook but systems that ignore basic human greed (communism notably) fail.

[Barrs Court Red]

So then socialists on this thread, what DO you think we should do with the dole claiming layabouts that are fit yet unwilling to work? Why should people like me pay for their lifestyle? Why should I fund Charmaines 13 kids while 13 absent fathers pay nothing?

It's all well and good saying "tax the rich" but then at least in some shape or form "the rich" make a contribution to society in a positive way, be it through taxes of charitable donations.

The royal family is a different debate to be had. So come on, lets see some REAL imput rather than the tired and defunct class war nonsense.

[zookeeper]

So then socialists on this thread, what DO you think we should do with the dole claiming layabouts that are fit yet unwilling to work? Why should people like me pay for their lifestyle? Why should I fund Charmaines 13 kids while 13 absent fathers pay nothing?

It's all well and good saying "tax the rich" but then at least in some shape or form "the rich" make a contribution to society in a positive way, be it through taxes of charitable donations.

The royal family is a different debate to be had. So come on, lets see some REAL imput rather than the tired and defunct class war nonsense.

I'm happy for my taxes to be used in this way. I have no real beef with the concept of my money being used to support people. I do think that it should be distributed differently with less of an emphasis on benefiting people who play or fiddle the system. People who can't get work and have legitimate reasons should be supported by the group. People who have been found to fiddle it should not be supported in the future.

Also to add to a point earlier there was a programme on TV last night about salaries in the UK and farmers would have been paid only £5k average if they hadn't recieved £10K in subsidies. Surprised the hell out of me! Also said that most people on benefits live on about £5k a year (but obviously don't pay council tax, housing costs etc). I guess this is disposable income and isn't too bad but if they are looking after a few kids this money will fly out!

[Mr Mosquito]

I'm happy for my taxes to be used in this way. I have no real beef with the concept of my money being used to support people. I do think that it should be distributed differently with less of an emphasis on benefiting people who play or fiddle the system. People who can't get work and have legitimate reasons should be supported by the group. People who have been found to fiddle it should not be supported in the future.

Also to add to a point earlier there was a programme on TV last night about salaries in the UK and farmers would have been paid only £5k average if they hadn't recieved £10K in subsidies. Surprised the hell out of me! Also said that most people on benefits live on about £5k a year (but obviously don't pay council tax, housing costs etc). I guess this is disposable income and isn't too bad but if they are looking after a few kids this money will fly out!

Those farmers would be out of business without those Government subsidies. Interestingly, I wonder who the Welsh farmer in that TV programme was renting his farm from - some layabout inbred toff/snob aristocrat or senior Royal perchance???

A must read for this thread: Kropotkin and his Theory of "Mutual Aid" by Moya K. Mason - a quite brilliant article. I'm not sure how many have read fka dagest's article that he gave the link to, but it really is well worth reading - the link is below..........

http://www.moyak.com/researcher/resume/papers/kropotkin.html