BristolUK

Ssshhh...they might be reading. That's if that silly woman hasn't already given them some ideas with her 'cockroaches' column in The Sun.

rivingtonpike

What a result! Who'd have thought it 24 hours ago? The next poll/referendum on here should be "In or out of the EU". Anyone know how to set it up? Or is it too early?

BeenTrainingDogs

You've never been poor, have you? It shows.

I have, I was incredibly fortunate to be born and raised in Scotland. My parents couldn't have afforded to send me to university if they had to pay fees. I had A's in every subject when I applied for university and my parents received a significant amount of benefits that stopped me from going hungry, even though they still worked, at times, 3 jobs between them. This was in the early Blair years.

Before I moved to Canada I was paying tens of thousands back in deductions from my pay every year and I was in my mid-20's. It's for people like me that benefits exist. To give kids the chance to achieve. Why should I be judged by my parents background and choices? I'm my own person. I needed a bit of help when I got to adulthood and there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other kids in the same boat. That is what welfare is for.

The rich take advantage of the poor on a daily basis by paying them ridiculously low wages for their hard work and services. For that reason, the rich should be paying more tax, which should then be given as benefits back to those they exploit so that future generations are given a chance to fully realise their potential.

Oink

The problem is structural, without fees the poorer end up subsidizing higher education for the middle and upper classes. They pay for the mechanism that maintains their disadvantage. The only solution is rigorous means-tested subsidies. Scotland is slightly a difference case as you have a much healthier and more equitable relationship with education.

MarkG

Except means testing means that those who've paid the most taxes see the least benefit, and therefore see no reason why they should pay.

withabix

I have.

My parents divorced when I was 12. I moved between them until I left school at 18. I worked for 4 hours (from 4.30am) before school every day and at weekends from 16 so that I could do A-levels.

I funded myself through University and left with large debts.

Ten year later I got divorced with even larger debts.

I got up and did something about it.

I wasn't free of these unsecured debts until I was 35.

Too many people can't be bothered and expect everything to be handed to them on a plate. Free Money. Free houses bigger than they need (and bigger than those who pay for their own). etc.

That is a consequence of having a welfare system that has been TOO generous for too long.

Everyone should have to do something for their benefits unless they are actually incapable through disability. That way they might be more inclined to do something about their situation.

BeenTrainingDogs

But that's the point. Most benefits go to people who do DO work. Many of them full-time. That's before you look at Sports Direct for instance. A zero-hours contract is not employment.

By your statement, you're saying people should work for benefits. I'd agree, just pay them the living wage (or at least the minimum wage), none of this 1.50 an hour Workfare stuff that goes on at Poundland and the like. What you've got to remember is that the UK has 6% unemployment, although in many regions that's more like 15%. But under-employment which is almost as big an issue, is about 20%. All in all that means that in the UK there are only enough jobs to adequately cater for 90% of the working population. The million dollar question is how you deal with that? That's the responsibility of the government to pressure the over-profitable parts of the private sector into hiring more people.

MarkG

The British welfare state is completely broken. Today it mostly seems to exist to keep government employees in jobs collecting and handing out the money, and reduce wage bills for big corporations by subsidizing their workers.

Of course, not one of the major parties has any intention of fixing it... or would even know how.

Oink

Presumedly they've benefited from a decent job, a successful business or inherited a packet. Their success is dependent on being part of community/society. Probably not a lot of inherent wealth if your have a ton of cash or you're top brain surgeon if you're Robinson Crusoe.


That's just hyperbolic nonsense with no bearing on the reality.

MarkG

And those people did fine before Britain had a bloated government that sucked up nearly 50% of the wealth.

withabix

But the problem with that is that there is no motivation to do anything other than that then, because they would be getting the minimum wage anyway.

By 'doing something' it could be fitness training, attending further education classes, being free of illegal drugs (which should be a condition for receiving benefits anyway) or other such beneficial things.

Steve_

However it's set up, the answer is going to be to stay in the EU looking at the vote in this election. If all the Liberal/Labour/SNP voters voted to stay, you'd only need a fifth of the Tory vote to vote in favour. Bear in mind it's a referendum, so it's a straightforward majority.

Steve_

So my only interest really in this election is to follow the trajectory of the SNP, which so far has mirrored that of the BQ.

Referendum loses narrowly, check.

So people who voted yes vote overwhelmingly for separatist party at next general election, check.

No-one wants to form any sort of coalition with separatists, check.

So what happens now in a desperate attempt to stay relevant is they blame the governing party for everything going wrong in the area they represent, which is definitely the SNP playbook.

But eventually it dawns on both the people in the party and outside they have no real power, they run out of things to complain about and two or three elections from now they go down the toilet. Also, anyone with any actual ambition won't want to sit on the backbenches forever so they'll eventually migrate to another party. But in the meantime, there will be various stupid moves to placate them by central govt.

So welcome to the high water mark of the SNP. Really they're even more marginalized than the BQ, because Scotland only has 8% of the population of the UK, whereas Québec has 20% of the population of Canada.

Shard

It's not government's responsibility to pressure the private sector, but otherwise an excellent post.

Shard

On the other hand, absolute drivel. Especially the part about denying drug addicts benefits. What next, a poorhouse for those who can't afford to repay their credit cards.