Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
If I was out of work for two years, picking up litter would be a godsend.
how do u get a chav to pickup litter and how do u cost justify the checking hes doing it?
or is it just community service for being unemployed? nice.
it provides a go-between between unemployment and full-time employment, which ranting and rage aside, is likely to be a very intimidating thing when you've been out of work for that long.
for applying to be a bin man! :D
as a bit of a snob in this thread.
I considered commenting on his use of 'chav'
intentional. Generalising is fun.
those out of employment for 2 years are not in that position deliberately and have previously worked, it isn't 'free' money
of the welfare state, are is funded by taxes. Workers pay taxes.
If I go to an NHS hospital for treatment, it isn't 'free' as such. I've already paid for it.
'free'. It isn't 'free', as in not paid for or funded. Even if someone who hasn't contributed NI payments for any reason, legitimate or otherwise, recieves treatment, it isn't free. They just aren't paying for it.
Its a pedantic point, I know.
It's not free and it's not 'free'. Nope.
because I obviously acknowledge money isn't handed over.
But the treatments, staff, procedures, medicines etc all still cost money, and are paid for by the taxable workforce. I too resent the idea that they are 'free'. Anyone who thinks that can have a look at my wageslip and see the difference between gross and net pay.
why it isn't free, even under those circumstances.
I forgot the words 'I agree', despite thinking I'd put them at the start. Whoops.
I had assumed I was right and that everyone would agree with me anyway. Its standard procedure
So much choice.
Besides, I was being willing naive and optimistic. You're probably right.
get more back by way of wages. Very very few people live a comfortable life on benefits, so I don't understand why there's such jealousy of them.
work jobs they hate for ridiculously long hours and still don't manage to scrape together a standard of living markedly better than those on benefits?
Just because you are employed doesn't mean you are well-off.
be better off than people on benefits. Would you really want to sit around all day doing nothing? I've had my time doing that and it gets very unpleasant very quickly. To the extent that if I had a choice between working 9-5 or getting benefits for the same money, I'd probably work 9-5.
I really do think there's way too much jealousy of 'benefit cheats' and so on. I can't imagine it's often a happy existence. Certainly not one many would want as a long-term lifestyle.
but I think you've missed the point somewhat. I don't think anyone is jealous of benefit cheats. I think they're fucked off that they work all day and pay taxes to cunts who cheat the system.
Which of course, not all or even many of the people on benefits do.
Thieves, cheats, con artists. It's human nature. You just kind of have to live with it, I think. And focus on the positives of the system we have now.
but I'm all for making their existence harder
of others who've done nothing wrong.
I'm of the opinion that the proposed changes wouldn't do that. Those who want to work have to, those who don't get no benefits.
I'm in support of the changes. Was going off on a bit of a tangent, there.
but that's fair enough and a different issue.
Frankly it's hard to speculate about this.
If I could be at home on benefits or working for the same amount of money it might seem attractive on a quick assessment but you know what? I'd really miss a lot of human interaction and learning, and just generally a whole social aspect of my life.
This is why I am now finally back in the office instead of working from home.
I'd probably be bored to shit...
even people in work, paying taxes probably "recieve" more from the state in tax credits, nhs treatments etc than they "pay". it's not necessarily a question of people "owing" the state anything
but those taxes pay for things to which you are entitled and do not have to pay back
Rather than the 'state owe me'?
Where is this owing agreement?
I was born into a land where there were arbitary rules about use of land....apparently I was not allowed to use it as if I was an animal.....yet i am an animal.....(yes im being simplistic, but so is claiming that i owe the state.....I do not try to do many things that I as an animal might otherwise try to do....surely the state owes me for that?)
argues something you believe in it religeously? Where do you stand on Hobbs etc etc etc
"I do not try to do many things that I as an animal might otherwise try to do....surely the state owes me for that"
is groping towards the social contract. Hence the Rousseau reference, i'd imagine.
'great men' and their theories, because arguments then tend to fall between that and another 'great man' ....look we've all assimilated that thinking, but we have to rethink stuff and come up with new ways of putting it. I normally get hit buy others in arguments with 'the social contract'....there is no such contract....its the wrong word to use.....contract is quite specific and involves explixcit agreement.
Goverenment has used implicit agreement, but it has not honoured its side....I have never signed ort indicated willingness to accept this social contract.
Yet this does not make me antisocial, as many rules are moral ones (which is lucky)..and in other areas, it is a natural sense where you would not want to have vastly more than others or not do the same they are expectedto that keep one social (after all there might be a lot of others that aer not one hundred percent happy either)
It is often people who buy into 'if theres not a law against it then its fine to do....no matter how antisocial or selfish it is'
I follow rules in as far as they coincide with what I believe.
I also moderate my behaviour to not upset (unreasonably) other reasonable people.
I also moderate my behaviour if i feel i might get severely repressed and punished by others (no matter how unfair) if the behaviour suppression is minor compared wit hthat which would be inflicted on me
It was more a joke really...I don't even know enough about Roussau to believe anything.
Hobbes was a bit of a nobber in parts though eh? He bummed the sovreign a bit too much.
He WELL looked like Des Lynham though.
except the last bit.
If the people at the top have no economic responsibility, then it kind of nullifies any relevence 'economic responsibility' might have to you
up trash is great thou :D
with the bottling out of properly taxing the super wealthy non domiciles, instead giving them the £30,000 single tax payment. Also the indignant frothing of MP's across the board at having to account for their own mismanagement of expenses
Strikes me as a desperate government severing any ties with old Labour and going for fullon Blairism. Also trying to make token gestures to people who maybe voted for them but who will vote conservative next time round
something else which has been suggested is free university education up to and including degree level for anyone who is/was in the armed forces. Nothing similar for teachers or nurses etc
re the shake up, private firms are going to be paid up to £62,000 to get someone off of incapacity benefit and into a job for three years. Since incapacity benefit is less than £5000 a year inc income support some people are going to be making a lot of money out of this and it won't be the people taken off of benefits
And how many seconds do you think the super wealthy would stay in this country if they were properly taxed? I'm not saying it's a good thing, but they're going to get out of tax whatever is done, and if that means leaving the country that's what they'll do.
I can't quite tell. It was very successful in the US after the war. And teachers and nurses presumably already have education up to and including degree level in order to be in their professions.
The armed forces are currently facing recruitment problems, so in order to get more people to join they're offering free university education to those in the armed forces.
Now then it's the working class who are most likely to join the armed forces. Who are those most likely not to be able to afford university education in the current system? Again it's the working class. So on top of the fact that being in the armed forces generally pays better than other jobs within reach of those with few qualifications they are now incentivising the chance to get shot at and potentially be killed with free university education.
This means that those wanting to get in to higher education but simply lacking the financial resources will now see serving in the armed forces as a means to that end. Higher education should be free to everyone, and universal grants should replace studnt loans. Instead we see a plan whereby if you sign up to fight an immoral, unwinnable and illegal war in Iraq or a just plain immoral and unwinnable war in Afghanistan, be shot at and separated from friends and family for months on end by joining the armed forces then you get free education. Economic drafting is just plain wrong. It's exploitation of those who desire higher education but cannot afford it.
my post seems a bit incoherent to me though, like I'm kind of repeating myself but not quite.
How is that being paid for? And what's the point of universally giving grants to those who don't need them?
so, if they don't want to pick up litter or clean off graffiti they don't have to ?
But they won't get any benefits.
free will doesn't exist
they could do what they want
free will just doesn't exist
there is limited choice within the context of what we're talking about but there is definitely not free will
I meant free will within a reasonable context. Absolute free will couldn't really exist. We'd probably all be dead.
of living off the land available....because it has all been enclosed.....since this is the case and since there are too many people all land should be communal....obviously this causes problems for admin because all land is not equal, either economically or food productivity/building resources wise
are you serious? I mean, really?
or to work out the degree of how much.
As a moral statement what I said is fine.......as a practical thing to introduce tomorrow it is not practical.
Tell me.....do you think land should be owned?
If you are keen on animal free will, then owning land would be one of your very first actions - the claiming and holding of territory. I can see no moral problem in the principle of owning land.
Of course there is a graduation of meaning it is not black or white....however I suspect that tehr is some distance on what meaning we are both focussing on.
I am focussing on the idea perhaps of being landless (and my mum landless) and therefore being considered to be inferior (by society....incl;uding a good deal of obviosly inferior tosspots) in not owning land.....yet I was not given an opportunity to go and get any land....or even use it.....much open land is owned by many....early on it becomes apparent that common or open land was not available for me to live on...
Land enclosures and clearances have been a constant part of our history...not only in britain but in the rest of the world....at the moment in china there are many stories about how peasents are having their village agrarian life removed with no recompence to make way for inductial cities....the only way to earn a crust is then becoming a slave to the city....this was much the same here in britain......
At present the people of britain are not in a state where they would 'grow their own' but there is also no support system to help them become more self sufficient.
I am always in danger of overstating my case (putting it too strongly....when in actual fact im a very moderate equitable man.......it is because the extant system has been SOOOO one sided (effec tively so, with power and authority to back it up....althjough nowadays it naturally has a more liberal seeming vernacular to comply with modern sensibilities)
do you want an agrarian economy, or a commune, or the Good Life? Let's all grow vegetables, yes, but perhaps stay clear of year zero and the killing fields.
Being made to feel inferior for not owning land is obviously very wrong, but it is not a reason to dismiss the idea of anyone owning land at all.
it is the concept of wealth beyond needs or worth....whilst everyone is not equal, the extant system DOES enforce extreme differentiations.
Whilst co-operation gives increased yealds when it comes to staple production, there is little need to attach all virtues to wealth when many super wealthy do not exhibit humility or compassion (beyond pet projects).
Societies originally praised the wealthy land owners because they were successful in producing an excess of staple food which enables societies to flourish....but then they did nothing to limit or moderate the differentiation...indeed virtue and vice and justice and medical treatment and dating and safety, all start to depend on the common denominator of wealth which has its roots in extreme land ownership.
Some of our benefits as a society came about through the progression of forced use of the land......but at the same time many of our societies evils were also excacerbated by this. whilst many of societies rules are concerned with maintaining outright ownership of land (not just use of) the movement for justice to free people from some of societies evils have had to come hard fought and won.
Whilst continuation of land use seems quiite right and sensible.....it must also be reasonable.....why should land (originally taken by an obscure patrilineal lineage by force and duress on others) be passed down to a few? ...when it is within their reasonable needs (and even a little beyond) that is fine).
When it is way beyond their needs then this is unreasonable if others legitimately have far more desperate needs.
Although it may seem nowadays that the poor are feckless and lazy.
Mostly poorer people have had to work far harder than the very rich in thae past.....although in our society you supposedly can climb up if you are capable, not all of us want to tread on others hands on the rungs (or use their heads as rungs)
Bizarrely we now reach a sort of paradox where the obscurely antiquainted monarchy has in Charles (although a dreadful husband to Diana, and apallingly weak) a relatively benificent land administrator...because he HAS inherited land rather than purcheased it for profit.
Because now3adays corporate or fiscal (funds or whatever) ownership of the land is far more rapacious in demanding a 'current' return.
I believe that Charles is about 2nd in a list of green benign big landadmins, it is one of the few good aspect of the royals..that they are not entirely modelled on modern business practice
'What I want' it is that i want this sort of dialogue being introduced, these sort of concepts to be discussed. The most I might hope for would be a compromise, because things cannot change overnight, they need to be moved towards....however you need to actually consider them somewhere you might want to move more towards.
At present all governments offer is one direction (but they offer different flavas of how to get there)
Our society (for all its cosmiopolitanism and bohemian romance) is dangerously 'monoculture'
of which there are only a handful that haven't been either broken up or given to the nation since the War. And as you concede, a well-run estate can be highly beneficial to many people beyond its owners. The rest seems to be rhetoric.
Things happened in sequence as a consequence of other things....attitudes also grew up and mutated with these changes.....prevailing attitudes and social behaviour is conditioned by the past.
Ownership is fought over way beyond need.
Courts would enforce ownership over something trivial of little need above anothers far greater need, most of society would agree, as it is compliant with what it is told as long as that is the majority consensus (which it is as it is the extant consensus)
charles being benign, you have to be less specific in your search for my meaning
the problem is that most jobs available to those with few qualifications are very poorly paid considering that a decent living wage is around £8 per hour and the minimum wage for someone 22 and over is only £5.52 an hour. So joining the armed forces seems an attractive option to many as the pay is considerably better than other jobs they could take. Obviously I'm not arguing that people in the armed forces should be paid badly, quite the contrary in fact; their wages are pretty poor as it is and need raising considering how much danger they put themselves. However there needs to be a massive hike in wages for those working in "ordinary" jobs.
Unfortunately none of this is likely to happen in the near future as all three major political parties are still wedded to the neo-liberal agenda of the market knows best, little regulation of business and a view that wage increases cause inflation. Trade unions however have the power to change this at present. The Labour Party is suffering a crisis of funding and are now reliant on unions for the vast majority of funds. As a result of this the general secretaries of each trade union could be placing stringent demands on wage increases, improved working conditions etc by placing the threat of withdrawal of funding to the Labour Party. No one else would back Labour financially to the same sum that the unions are at present, yet the unions aren't sufficiently exploiting this position.
In short, raise pay and improve conditions for ordinary workers, ditto for the armed forces.
Where would the money come from you might ask? Well if the Trident and it's replacement scheme were both scrapped then over 50 years £115 billion would be saved (http://www.cnduk.org/images/stories/briefings/trident/cost_british_nweapons_07.pdf). Our continued presence in Iraq costs £1bn a year (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/1631bnayear-cost-of-war-in-iraq-would-be-better-spent-on-nhs-hospitals-439988.html) and that source was dated 2007, since then the cost has risen even more but I don't have the figures to hand. Therefore withdrawal from Iraq is not only a moral issue but provides savings that could be spent else and up to 2006 our presence in Afghanistan cost another £1bn (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1534664/Anger-at-andpound7bn-cost-of-war.html) so you can add even more to that for a 2008 figure (again I can't find one at present). Furthermore a 50% tax on earnings over £100,000 would provide further income for public spending too.
of trying to recruit with dosh the poor to do a grunts work (like in the US)
However all your other stuff about finance whilst laudable and seemingly workable, it only works if you are starting off with the account sheet relaticvely in balance.
Unfortunately it isnt, it wildly out of kilter, and the measures being taken will do nothing to stop it from yawing
and I state these solutions as a short to medium term "fix" of sorts, although it still doesn't account for or provide real solutions to the alienation and exploitation of workers by the ruling class and profit rates are not high enough for this to continue on forever. The golden age of capitalism is long gone, but the hope of any alternate system replacing it is equally distant at present.
Any fundamental change in society has to be delivered from below and must eventually take place on a worldwide scale, if one country experiences a revolution and capitalism is overthrown to be replaced with socialism from below (not the state capitalism of the former Soviet Union) then it must do all it can to spread this revolt to neighbouring countries and these countries then must do the same again. For if they did not and instead declared something along the lines of socialism in one country then if the country is not crushed or survives attacks by counter revolutionary forces then it will eventually fall prey to the remaining forces of international capitalism. That is also why it is vitally important that any revolution either happens in an industrialised, more economically developed nation or if it does not start in one then it must spread quickly; we need only look at the October Revolution in Russia, then a backward and mainly agrarian society with little in the way of an organised working class and the crushing of the revolution in Germany in order to learn our lesson.
but what does any of it actually mean? How will any of the things you talk about be achieved? What is 'socialism from below'?
because i think it has to be kind of voluntary.
Governments in comfortable profitable societies (democracies?) do not want the possibility of a soft revolution....perhaps that would be the wrong term to use.......popular reformation might be a better term.
by people who want to find phantom government money for their cause, but it's just not there.
The entire lifecycle cost of Trident, including capital acquisition, is around £25bn in 2006 prices. It was also delivered substantially under budget, unusually for such a project.
Its replacement will cost £15-20bn, and though it could be cheaper with a smaller system, across 15 years of government money from 2012-2027, that is not very much money - around 0.1% of GDP. That is nowhere near enough to pay for what you suggest, even if it were a good idea.
before the next gen election.
I think its disgusting. People who can't find work should be supported by the government, end-of. Moves like this will lead to extremes such as people actually having to do something to survive.
Labour triangulating a Tory policy, and a bad one at that. However I can't work out if you're taking the piss with your post or what?
I don't like the way the BBC words it as "forced" - to me it gives it an unreasonably negative connotation.
Any coheisve society has to be a two-way process of people both feeling society will help them when they're in need but also them contributing to society when they are able to - i.e. financially if they are in work in the form of taxes that fund the welfare state and also in terms of contributing to the community in other forms if they cannot contribute financially. Obvuiously benefits shoudln't be seen as free money but vital social support and it's good the government it's treating it in this way.
Frankly this is the most socialist policy Labour have adopted in a long, long time.
for little 13 and 14 year old shits to drop even more litter and tag even more building site walls
I'm just not entirely clear what your logic is for it - I can't see why people would drop litter/graffit more than they do already.
They already expect someone else to clear up after them - I can't see why a change of person who clears up after them'll make 'em more likely to do it.
Plus I honestly think the cleaner an area is the less liekly people are to drop litter/graffiti there. That's not to say they won't do so but I think in areas of graffiti and litter people do it 'cos there's so much there it doesn't matter if there's more...
so the JSA force in Richmond or Hampton are going to be bussed to Staines ?
I dunno, it seems like we totally agree about all the problems concerning 'dole scroungers' and the perception thereof but I just think that this is not the solution
i'm just iffy about how much they'll be getting paid for it.
I don't understand how people are confused by that.
i.e. the point is they're already being given the benefit money anyway. All this is simply asking for a contribution to society in return.
So they'll be the same financially as they are now but
a) it'll potentially allow people to actually feel they're doing something valued and useful rather than sat around feeling useless as they can't get a job and hence may actually build self-esteem/make it easier for people to return to work.
b) it'll preserve the status benefits as something that help people in need and end accusations they're an easy option for people who can't be arsed to work.
So it'll hopefully mean the people who criticse the benefits system'll have more confidence in it and the people who are on benefits will have more self-esteem/sense of purpose.
This strikes me as a double-win.
why doesn't the government just employ more council workers to pick up litter an clean graffiti
they're just trying to save money and massage unemployment statistics
and for all that I agree with the idea that anyone unemployed for two years or more is going to feel the positive outcome of having a purpose in being part of a JSA workforce, they'd feel much more worth if they were actually employed by the council at full union rates with full work benefits
but I still think this is better than nothng.
And I think it's more than just saving money and massaging statistics. I think it's about ending a culture of JSA being seen as free money/an alternative to working (which leads ot the right-wing press constanstly slagging off people on beneifts and claiming they're spongers rather than people in need of support). if people are helping the community in exchange for JSA it shows this isn't the case.
What is the difference between someone paid a full wage to clean streets and someone "on benefits" doing exactly the same job?
One is being paid less. For no reason that I can see.
at the monent someone on JSA is being paid however much they're being paid and not asked to do any work whatsoever.
Surely someone in a low-paid job could look at someone on JSA being paid almost as much as they are (and who actually has more money once childcare allowance etc. are taken into considersation) and ask why that's fair.
but if someone's job is being done by someone else for less money, why is anyone's job worth more money?
Just because the current system isn't fair, doesn't mean that this newly proposed one is.
but still see this new system, while imperfect, as a big improvement on the current system.
the TGWU (or someone) organise a walk-out because their workers are being laid-off and replaced by the JSA force
seems to me like a recipe for disaster, not to mention a wedge being driven between the two lowest economic classes
No surprise it should come out when there's an economic downturn.
you have to go to courses and get sent on work stuff after 6 months on job seekers alouance.
More opertunities for people finding it tough to get work is a bonus mind.
I use to work for a national park and we would get big groups of people from the job centre out every week and teach them countryside skills and all that good stuff. Alot of them were well glad to be given the opertunity to do stuff.
The binmen in westmidlands, get paid more than I.
After rubbish collection days the streets are often quite strewn with unpleasent debris. (sometimes cats/badgers/foxes/rats attacking bins bags during the night.....but often by binman placing all bags in heap spilling way out into roads...thsi happens sometimes a good while before the dustcart comes along....rush hour and school traffic then often bursts said bin bags.......sometimes one can witness a bin bag bursting as they are thrown into dustcart....more often as not this might not be swept up by bin men.
Basically the most unpleasent non bagged up stuff would then be have to be puicked up by people on less than the minimum wage.
An extreme case of total utter discrepancy in wages..........this is unworkable, (due to fear of equal pay claims....lawyers will push for something like this I can guarentee it) councils will not want this sort of thing to happen..
It wont be introduced (unless local or central government are absolute cretins....oh wait)
fire all the litter pickers
is that the genuinely disabled need to be protected. they're feeling pretty victimised and hacked off after years of benefit reforms already, most of which have made them worse off. i haven't had time to check over this one, so don't know the details, so i hope it's not the same.
my mother is basically paralysed from the neck down. she can move her arms a little, but it's intensely painful, and she's prescribed methadone as a painkiller. people still resent her claiming benefit, and people still turn up regularly to try and convince her to try some sort of work and remove the benefits. as i said, i haven't looked into this properly, but i hope it's not another inquisition. i know the official target of the reforms is those who can work and don't, but there always seems to be some collateral damage.
leaders encouraging 'side taking' of having confrontational politics, and having an often irresponsibly sensationalist/dramatic press/media.
Sure there seems to be a bit of a tendancy to pick on people, but this is also naturally countered by compassion.....our leaders emphasise (by their actions and speeches) the negative approach though
which may have been around before)) to get out of blame on themselves