There is a historical precedent for the current uproar concerning – according to your political leaning – either ‘benefit scroungers’ or the ‘deserving poor’, and that is the position of conscientious objectors during World War ll.

Nobody took any notice of those who said they did not want ‘to kill’ during the affluent peacetime era, but when backs were to the wall and ‘Jerry’ was on the doorstep, they became the object of national derision, coercion, abuse and worse.

Much the same is happening to those in receipt of tax payers enforced largess now that the country is broke and the population scrabbling for every penny it can get.

As with those in receipt of benefit, conscientious objectors were not a homogeneous group.  They came in many shapes and forms. Some, the Quakers, went to prison. Others found a way to enforce their right not to kill, placate their religious beliefs – and emerged as decorated heroes rather than objects of derision.

Since my own Father was one of those who emerged as a decorated hero, I have given some thought to how this transition was accomplished. It was a matter of lateral thinking. He, and many hundreds of young men like him – volunteered for bomb disposals. There they were saving lives, not taking lives. Such was the PR spin of their actions that even I didn’t realise until recently that most of the Royal Engineers bomb disposal squad were actually despised and denigrated conscientious objectors.

I am not suggesting that those on benefits volunteer for bomb disposal – or even as human mine detectors, though I am sure some would cheer that suggestion; what I am suggesting is that there might be a halfway house between the polarised views of the Daily Telegraph comments sections – ‘benefit scroungers should get a job’ v. ‘there are no jobs and why should they be penalised for having ten children’.

Assuming that there is an argument that one has the right to have ten children, particularly if it arrives through religious beliefs, and that a civilised society has a duty to support those children if you are neither capable of earning sufficient or there simply are no jobs available at Poundstretcher or wherever –  does it follow, if you are hale, hearty and fit, that you also have the right to sit at home doing nothing more taxing than watching Jeremy Kyle?

This theory has been posited before, but has always fallen foul of the unions – ‘we’re not prepared to see our unskilled jobs, dustman, road sweeper, prison officer, whatever, handed over to the unemployed’; or the health and safety brigade – ‘can’t have just anyone painting old ladies fences’; or the bleeding heart liberals ‘community service is a punishment and the deserving poor shouldn’t be punished’.

There is another avenue of work, and that is the army. No, get your knee down! Not as soldiers – there is no reason why our military should be forced to take on everybody who is unemployed, they are a thoroughly professional service these days – however, they are also mass employers of the unskilled and potentially unemployable.

On every base, in particular overseas, somebody washes dishes, somebody peels potatoes, somebody operates the laundry and it is generally locals. Not a pleasant job, but it still costs money. Money that the MOD, or who ever pays the charwallah these days, could well do with saving.

Some of the 67,000 households that the DWP now say will be affected by the proposed benefit cap will undoubtedly contain the severely disabled, some will be single parent families – I am specifically discounting them from my proposal, I don’t think the British public en masse feel the same rage about the level at which they are supported.

I am pointing the finger at those households who contain one or more able bodied men who are part of a household receiving benefits over the £26,000 level simply because they live in an expensive part of the country, and wish to remain there, or who have chosen to raise a large number of children.

Let the household keep its benefits for all the reasons which have been regurgitated a hundred times over – but is there any good reason you can think of why the men in the house shouldn’t be out in Helmund peeling spuds or washing dishes rather than sitting at home crying ‘there aren’t any jobs good enough’?

At the moment it is a double whammy – not only do they not have to work in order to support their families – they get to stay home with them all day watching the telly.

Can you come up with another plan to give the ‘employable but economically unemployable’ a chance to gain the admiration of the nation and turn their fortunes round from being ‘benefit scroungers’ without upsetting the unions or impacting on the cheeeldren.

Alan January 26, 2012 at 18:46

A potential solution:

It is not entirely palatable but the biggest sticking point I see is
getting the state to accept and deal with the distortions it causes via the
welfare state. Civil servants who devise these systems always seem to fall
into the trap of believing that rational behaviour = what they would do yet we
all have different views and different values.

The way to do this is to maintain benefits for those currently receiving
them but allow no more claims, or much reduced claims, based on the date when
you start claiming. If the state has been paying people to have large families
and now wants to cut the income for those families it isn’t entirely decent to
do that. The choice those parent/s made was based on the benefits they knew
they would get. But you could certainly say to the baby factories that they
will qualify for *no more* child benefit and not automatically receive better
accommodation. And apply that equally to everyone else too – those who have no
children yet won’t get child benefit. Those with children won’t get an
increased child benefit just for having more children. Everyone is treated
equally.

Do likewise with housing benefit to achieve the same aim. A reduced or no
HB for claimants after a cut-off date but maintain those who already receive
it.

It would stop the problem continuing from one year to the next. The cost
would diminish over time without having to do anything. The biggest problem
imo isn’t the choices people have already made – to choose to live a
comfortable life at the cost of others – the state allowed them to make that
choice. The biggest problem is that the state shows bugger all interest in
preventing those same choices being made by future claimants.

Such a cut off mechanism would steadily create more space for charitable
and voluntary support networks in our communities too as the amount of
crowding out the state does would diminish gradually.

Mrs Turatian
January 26, 2012 at 08:46

I am so proud of Mick. This year he is working upto his 50th resit of the
11+ after securing the Kilroy trophy for the best bog art at Craptown
Junior.

SadButMadLad
January 26, 2012 at 07:28

Quite topically I just heard on the local
news that Debbie Purdy (she in support of assisted dying and with MS) is
in serious debt and has been taken to court for not paying her council tax.
Her fault? Not telling her husband to stop working as a musician and to go and
sign on. This straight from the benefits office (five times) who tell her that
she will be better off because the state will help with her council tax, free
prescriptions, mortgage interest, etc. She already receives disability living
allowance and incapacity benefit.

If the welfare state which was set up to help those who cannot work is
failing people like Debbie Purdy but allowing those who can work but don’t to
get 40″ flat screen TVs then it seriously not working and is not fit for
purpose.

Rob H January 25, 2012 at 20:44

Anna is right. We do need to look at this. It is easy to stand on the
sideline calling people scrubbers and then watch their lives unravel even more
than they have already.

When the state retreats, as we hope it will, there has to be something to
fill the gap. The Victorians saw that it was a moral poverty, not just
financial, that caused much of the harm. To talk of such paternalism in some
libertarian circles would lead to derision but the paternalistic Victorians
managed to bring friendly societies, the much criticized homes for fallen
girls (what else would have happened to them with no support or ability to
work?) and the culture of discipline, Christian charity and family.

Now that the cultural revolution has destroyed the institutions that filled
the gap that the state now occupies who will build the new ones in the future
and what will they look like?

I’m game if you are. Think about it.

Rick Hamilton
January 25, 2012 at 08:57

Over here in the Orient there is very little in the way of welfare except
for the seriously disabled, and unemployment benefits end after 6 months.

There is however a fallback support system known as “the family”. Naturally
most people are reluctant to have a lot of unemployed relatives knocking on
their door, so they take whatever jobs they can get however demeaning to avoid
the shame of having to beg from their nearest and dearest.

Teenage pregnancies are dealt with by getting the sharp edge of mother’s
tongue and having to live at home with grumbling parents rather than being
given a nice furnished flat at taxpayers’ expense. Which is I believe what
used to happen in the UK before socialism took over.

There will always be genuine hardship and there must be a certain level of
assistance from the state. But if you are daft enough to encourage idleness
and fecklessness – and to tolerate the likes of the Bishops and BBC defending
it – then as ye sow, so shall ye reap.

right_writes January 25, 2012 at 08:43

This thing (a bit of a side issue in this piece) about having ten kids and
having the rest of us pay for it, is something which can be dealt with quite
simply.

The answer is localism…

In Switzerland, the political landscape is one of pure federalism with the
top layer, being more or less unemployed, the federal cabinet consists of
seven members, and they meet four or five times a year. As one travels down to
the lower levels of government, the participants become more aware of their
surroundings… At the lowest level a government (often voluntary) worker is
looking after a hamlet, one street or block of flats.

Now, if one is a typical British teenage mum, who has chosen (in Daily Fail
parlance) to breed for a living, tried to do the same thing under those
conditions, she would be aware, every time she walked down the street with her
three baby buggy, just where their breakfast was coming from… Her
neighbours.

In Switzerland, the government largesse is delivered at that very low
level. Only after all other avenues have been exhausted, like the father, or
other family members able to support, is accommodation or finance available…
The stimulus to breed is just not there.

The problem is that in the rest of the world, government is becoming ever
more remote, and further away from the streets where we live.

macheath January
25, 2012 at 09:13

Perhaps the Swiss raise their young to be more conscientious than their
UK counterparts; I seriously doubt whether it would worry a prolific teenage
mother here that the people around her were picking up the bill – at least
from what I have seen in the classroom on a regular basis.

The word ‘entitlement’ has been much bandied about over this issue, but
it’s hard to find another way to express the idea that the state will, can
and should supply not merely the bare necessities but a defined standard of
living.

Anna has made the point elsewhere that, in the French system, families
are expected to take some responsibility. That was once the unofficial
practice here; my parents, the only ones from their families to go to
university (thanks to state scholarships) felt obliged to step in when other
family members suffered the results of recession.

Throughout my childhood, there were times when money ran short at home
because an uncle had lost his factory job and needed a loan, or my
grandparents needed to borrow money to move house. They were proud people;
they accepted benefits where absolutely necessary but otherwise we looked
after our own.

john malpas January 24, 2012 at 23:45

Why not take the UK to its inevitable conclusion?
Break the country up
into tribal ghettoes where local rule prevails by dint of violence and
corruption.
“the (local) people” will decide if they want to support non
producers.
Natural selection will take place and the biggest ethnic groups
will prevail.

Engineer January 25, 2012 at 10:36

They tried that in Northern Ireland (unofficially). Didn’t work.

2Mac January 24, 2012 at 22:14

Since I am still standing on my soap box.

Why is it we consider Civic Nationalism where everyone contributes to be
demeaning to the unemployed.

Surely an efficiently run public service staffed by ex military personnel
would be ideal. Skills would be learned, streets would be clean, unemployment
would never be idleness, food could be grown, beaches cleaned, houses built,
items exported, money earned, etc.

I grew up in a really rough estate where most of the criminality was idle
youth trying to find money in a society that did not help them. The kids were
not bad but they could become bad over time.

Maximising the potential of every single member of society is how you
succeed.

Engineer January 25, 2012 at 10:35

The last sentence is very true. There’s a link here with education
policy. How do you build an education system that aims to find each person’s
talents and abilities and nurture them, whilst trying to correct the
weaknesses? The worst sort of ‘one-size-fits-all’ child-centred
comprehensive education clearly doesn’t help the problem, indeed, it may
well contribute to it.

2Mac January 24, 2012 at 22:04

Maybe it would be better to explain this by reducing it to a micro
level.

Small village, 1000 people, 600 working to provide provision for the
remainder.

200 are the older ones who worked to provide for previous generations and
build the village and the children of those working.
100 are sick/disabled
and unable to work so they are provided for by others.

100 are just sitting watching everyone else do the work while doing
nothing. complaining they are not being looked after enough and want the best
houses so they can relax their whole life while never contributing and having
large families that everyone else pays for.

100 more arrive from a far away village and they want to join the
unproductive ones and relax in a big house doing nothing.

Seems ridiculous but that is benefit tourism. Economically ridiculous,
morally corrupt and socially destructive.

Engineer January 24, 2012 at 21:54

Total public expenditure this financial year, about £700bn (of which £140bn
is borrowed).

The Welfare budget is £200bn, the Health budget is £120bn. So these two
combined make up the thick end of 50% of all government expenditure.

The Welfare State may have it’s worthy elements, but oh boy does it
cost…

Some people find that spending Other People’s Money is remarkably easy, and
are very quick to cry foul when others try to be responsible with said
spending.

The bottom line is that we just can’t afford it – so how do we support the
genuinely deserving while reducing the heamorrhage of money to those who
choose not to make the effort to help themselves?

To answer Anna’s question, how about a National Thrift Drive, collecting
and recycling all waste and scrap materials. The unemployed could do the
collecting, sorting, delivery of cleaned materials to processing plants,
composting of organic matter, repair overhaul and sale of reclaimable
equipment. Payment would be linked to results, so no income for Thrift site,
minimum bennies; good turnover, better bennies. (Might even stop the incessant
flow of charity bags, many from organisations with very tenuous links to
charity – my alltime record, six in one week.)

Failing that, the Russians used to have a good system. Move a huge pile of
coal from one end of a factory site to the other with a shovel and
wheelbarrow. Next week, move it back. Bennies linked to volume shifted. Couple
of weeks of that, and they’d soon find that they’re not so unemployable after
all.

2Mac January 24, 2012 at 21:54

It is very complex. This is precisely the reason that no government has
been able to design a perfect system. So what do we do? Argue about the
examples of the extreme circumstances and the emotionally charged sob
stories?

Any welfare system can be manipulated by people intent on deception but
that is people for you. The best we can hope for is a system that is fair for
most.

In my ideal welfare system I would have the following groups excluded from
unemployment benefits and they should have a seperate system of welfare
provision.

Mentally & Physically Disabled – Disability Provision
Injured,
Disabled, Mentally Impaired Military, Firemen, Policemen Special Pension &
Sheltered Housing where they can live together in quality housing not the
shittest schemes in the country. These people risk their lives and should be
rewarded by the society they protected. We have billions for Overseas Aid yet
abondon our servicemen.

So what about unemployment benefits.
Benefits tourism stopped. People
presenting themselves as homeless, unemployed and not UK passport holders
should be deported ASAP. The cost of deporting & temp housing charged to
the Embassy of their country of origin and deducted from Overseas Aid budgets
for said country.
Students coming to study should be here to study. If they
cannot afford it tough. No work permits for overseas students, no grants,
housing or even council tax rebates.

Unemployed people to be assessed on the basis of their past work
contribution to the society. People who have worked for 20 years and made
unemployed to get a higher rate. People who have never worked to get less.

(Anna’s Idea Modified) A Community Work and Training Program to be formed
using the Military model, ex service personnel employed to run these programs.
Singles 16-25 year olds (the ones who cause most trouble) who have never
worked will be placed into camps where they learn work skills, contribution to
society & motivation. Part of the week is spent appling for jobs and those
who succeed in getting placements will move to semi sheltered accomodation
where they can continue for a max of 2 years while seeking private or social
housing but they are free to come and go as they please similar to University
Dorms.

Child Benefit for women is maxed at 3 children. If you cannot feed you
child do not have one. If you want to have more pay for them yourself.

Obviously you can remain at home with your parents who will have to pay for
you until you find work.

It is not the job of society to provide for Idle people. It is the job of
society to provide a safety net to protect your welfare.

Housing Benefit would never be paid on private property. The state can
build housing and provide maintenance. People who are made unemployed who have
enough credits of years of work in the system could have rent paid for
specific period and remain in their house.

Under no circumstances should a family arrive in the UK from abroad, never
pay a penny in tax, have 6 kids and live in a house costing the tax payer £800
per week. I beleive in London their are over 50,000 people who fit this
category. I would deport anyone who comes to the UK and makes no attempt to
work. If there are no jobs then sending them home makes sense economically.

Obviously this is a rough outline and their will be many gaps. But I think
you get the direction.

Humble Observer
January 24, 2012 at 22:22

“The cost of deporting & temp housing charged to the Embassy of their
country of origin and deducted from Overseas Aid budgets for said
country.”

Bless. As we all know, “they” arrive in this country via the proper
channels (no pun intended) and they all have valid passports aswell.

Moppy January 24, 2012 at 22:48

I believe many of them have “lost” their passports, so they cannot be
deported, and of course they claim asylum, saying they would be tortured
in whatever country they believe would serve their purpose.

Cue handwringing, think of the cheeeeldren, have a big house.

Or perhaps we should just grow a pair and send to wherever they say
they are escaping from, I suspect they would soon remember their real
origin, and have relatives to prove it.

JimS January 24, 2012 at 20:54

The ‘answer’ is very simple.

Apparently there are some people in this country that are so talented that
they are worth million pound salaries and bonuses that are multiples of those
salaries, (rather than the sub-multiples than the plebs hope to get). These
people are wealth creators. Having created that wealth they then try and
divert as much of it as possible into their own pockets but sometimes they
divert some of it towards the politicians in the hope of gaining an
‘honour’.

The later diversion, is, of course, frowned upon nowadays. Why not open up
the process? Create 1,000 jobs get an MBE, create a million pick up the
ermine!

Sadly there is a problem here because at the moment a lot of their ‘wealth
creation’ is often achieved by getting rid of jobs. However I like the idea of
adding a bit of tension in their lifes: cut some jobs, get a bonus, make some
jobs, get a ‘K’!

Brian January 24,
2012 at 20:48

“Nobody took any notice of those who said they did not want ‘to kill’
during the affluent peacetime era”

Er, what about the “King and Country” Debate of the Oxford Union in 1933?

Lytton Strachey attempted to avoid conscription in WWI by claiming to be a
Conscientious Objector:
“Would you care to tell us what you would do if you
saw a German soldier raping your sister?” asked the military representative on
the tribunal. “I should try and interpose my own body,” replied Strachey.
Priceless! His application failed but he was turned down on medical
grounds.

carol42 January 24, 2012 at 20:22

Restrict benefits to the first two children only and you will be amazed at
how fast the ‘right’ to have children disappears.

Joe Public January 24, 2012 at 18:57

“Assuming that there is an argument that one has the right to have ten
children, particularly if it arrives through religious beliefs, and that a
civilised society has a duty to support those children if you are neither
capable of earning sufficient or there simply are no jobs available ……”

I totally disagree, those who think they have ‘the right’ to children have
the equivalent responsibility.

If people breed for religious reasons, others of their faith should provide
the support. Why should (for instance) Muslims pay extra taxes to raise
Catholics?

Fred January 24, 2012 at 18:21

Gosh this is interesting reading, I’m a scrounger work shy, would never
work for the min wage, gosh no, would need a lot more then that.

Mind you I would give my left leg to get a job only I have no left leg, I
might even give my right leg sadly nope it’s gone.

OK my hands well by the time I go through all that’s missing it would just
make me feel tired.

I served my country as well, hero if dead but a zero if your brought back
injured, I’m now classed as Paraplegic .

It’s been interesting to read this, cannot say I would enjoy meeting some
of you mine you, am I real yes sadly.

Bob January 24, 2012 at 19:04

Presuming Fred, that you are real, and not joking, nobody here would
apply their irritation to you or your situation. I for one am incensed at
the despicable treatment of our injured soldiers when compared to
others.
However, this country has clearly created a society that thinks
it is fair to tax the poor, and give it to lazy sods.

Fred January 24, 2012 at 19:35

Oh yes I’m real….

M Barnes
January 24, 2012 at 19:50

Oh dear Fred, you have put a spanner in lots of over-blown rhetoric.
Que’ll surprise, not everyone on benefits is the ‘scounging feckless
parasite with 50 children, sky sports, an ipad, an iphone, a flat screen
telly and an 8 bedroom mansion on easy street paid for by my
taxes’.
You precisely encapsulate my problem with this whole debate:
it’s all Daily Mail headlines and no damn facts. While everyone is busy
making sure the system doesn’t encourage generational unemployment, they
are forgetting there are people for whom it is a genuine and justifiable
lifeline. They also forget to moderate their language. Good Luck.

PS Do keep up with this blog – you won’t necessarily agree with
everything but it’s never dull, always informative, usually
entertaining, hardly any mindless shouting down, the limericks are of an
incredibly high quality, and someone will always quote some bloody
obscure bit of philosophy you then will feel strangly compelled to read
up on.

Anna
Raccoon January 24, 2012 at
20:03

Do keep up with this blog – you won’t necessarily agree with
everything but it’s never dull, always informative, usually
entertaining, hardly any mindless shouting down, the limericks are of
an incredibly high quality, and someone will always quote some bloody
obscure bit of philosophy you then will feel strangly compelled to
read up on.

Beautifully put M.Barnes, precisely why I stick around day after
day – the blogworld’s best commentators on here, can’t get enough of
them myself, better than any open university course!

Ed P
January 24, 2012 at 21:03

The limericks fail to explain
Why M. Barnes feels he must
complain
Poor Fred has few limbs
But can still suck quims
And
“I’ll get my coat” yet again.

macheath January 24, 2012 at 22:02

Dear Fred, stick around and you’ll see
That, although we don’t
always agree,
The myriad charms
Of our own Raccoon Arms
Mean
it’s really a great place to be.

Mick
Turatian January 25, 2012 at
09:36

Ed P, please, although I’m your fan,
I don’t think M Barnes is a
man.
But here is the crux
Your limerick sucks
Because I’m
afraid it don’t scan

M Barnes
January 25, 2012 at 09:57

aaaaaaaand they’re off!
EdP goes into an early lead, taking the
pack by surprise
Macheath smoothly moves through the gears like the
rolls royce of limericks she is
And here comes the mighty Mick
Turatian! On the rails. A cheeky run and it’s anyones race now……..

Gloria
Smudd January 25, 2012 at 11:40

I have one thing to add and it’s this:
Whether M Barnes is Mrs
or Miss,
Whether Rev or Esquire,
We need not inquire –
Mick
Turation’s just taking the piss!

Mick
Turatian January 25, 2012 at
12:27

My life is not short of delights
But there’s one face that keeps
me up nights:
Not so much a girl as
An old trout in
curlers
Who alas has got me banged to rights.

Gloria
Smudd January 25, 2012 at 12:58

I’m delighted to learn that, like me,
You’re troubled at night,
Mr T:
For, without exceptation,
I curse ‘micturation’
Each
time I wake up for a wee.

Mick
Turatian January 25, 2012 at
13:32

I’m sorry that when you’re undressed,
‘Tis not I who troubles
your rest
And what’s even sadder
Is blaming your bladder
Not
the yearnings of your girlish breast!

Gloria
Smudd January 25, 2012 at 15:40

Mick Turation, it might now be best
To put this whole subject to
rest
For who can sleep easy
Without feeling queasy
When the
subject matter’s my chest?

macheath January 25, 2012 at 16:17

I’d say that’s a dead heat – and a superb effort, way out of my
league.

Well done, both!

Mick
Turatian January 25, 2012 at
17:08

Yup! I think the waiters are putting the chairs on the tables on
this thread.

Good fun, though and thanks fellow muses and Macheath is far too
modest: “a red sky at night / means your turbine’s alight” was a
joyous couplet that stays in the memory.

Anna Raccoon January 25, 2012 at 17:12

Weird – that one of Macheath’s sticks in my mind too….totally
inspired.

Ed P
January 25, 2012 at 23:45

It’ll be like ring a ring o’ roses in a few hundred years.
They’ll learn Red sky at night at whatever replaces primary school
– probably uploading induction assembly at the nutri-point – a
Mach classic is born!

Gloria
Smudd January 25, 2012 at 17:21

Agreed – macheath is too modest!

M Barnes
January 25, 2012 at 19:24

What’s this? Gloria Smudd has come round the outside and taken them
all by surprise. Mick Turatian has been put off his stride by the deep
muscular chest of this seasoned filly. They’re neck and neck……
powering towards the line…..

Oh And it’s a Photo Finish. Well I never! They couldn’t be
separated.

And I think the crowd are truly appreciative of the fine
entertainment that’s been provided by these thoroughbreds of the
Limerick trade.

Ed P January 24, 2012 at 17:18

I question the generally-held assumption that all these thousands of
unemployed people are unskilled. Certainly there are fewer unskilled jobs
available these days, with many East Europeans apparently willingly taking on
jobs found to be unpalatable/uneconomic by locals.
But to take one example,
many of the younger jobless must havevaluable computer skills (even if they
are presently mainly gamers) – employing these does not require physical
relocation, just a web connection.
Are job centres “fit for purpose” in
matching people to opportunities?

JuliaM January
24, 2012 at 17:22

Job Centres being public sector employers, one could argue it isn’t in
their interest not to ensure a large pool of people need to keep coming
through their doors, hmm?

Brian January
24, 2012 at 18:19

Actually, Julia I was a Personal Advisor for long term unemployed
people who was made redundant from a JobCentre in 2005 because unemplyment
had fallen.
We had annual targets to exceed to get people into work.
One reason why we saw regular clients was the large-scale replacement of
permanent jobs with short term, zero-hours, minimum wage, contract jobs to
increase the profitability of businesses. It was ironic that many people
on minimum wage were eligible for tax credits and other benefits to bring
their take home pay up to a living wage. And why did the industrious and
reliable Eastern Europeans take those jobs? Because they paid four times
the rate back home. Find a country that pays four times the average
British rate and even the inhabitants of the Chatsworth Estate will
migrate there.

Woman
on a Raft January 25, 2012 at
10:08

Related: this also means we’ve been sucking the most useful citizens
– the workers, the builders, the nurses – from other nations for years,
making their bad situations worse.

The reason why it is useful to have locals providing services to the
army is that at least that way they are paid a reasonable wage to stay
home and rebuild those countries, instead of trying to get here.

Captain
Ranty January 24, 2012 at 16:54

I don’t wish to be Mr Selfish here but surely the right to have 10 children
ends when someone else has to pay for them?

I don’t care if Mr & Mrs Nexdoor have 34 children. As long as I don’t
have to chip in for their upkeep.

CR.

Dave January 24, 2012 at 16:49

Hi Anna,
Glad to picked up on the union angle. Someone recently asked
why they never see anubody doing community work. There is plenty of work that
would benefit the community out there. For instance, clearing drains and
ditches by the side of the road. Since they stopped walking the streets to
sweep and resorted to using a mechanised sweeper the drains have become more
and more choked. Ditches are full of discarded trolleys and detritus. A squad
of community workers could keep all that clear- except that the unions won’t
agree to anyone other than their members doing the work. Abolish closed shops.
Make community service mean something.
Until we destroy trade unions and
their job protection schemes we will never get “work for welfare” up and
running.
The unemployed should be reclassified into job seekers and
unemployable. Most of the people I see in our town during the day fall into
the second category. There are solutions but most are currently unthinkable.
Give it time.

Brian January
24, 2012 at 17:53

Community service is a good idea in theory except that the supervisors
are normally on only £8-10 per hour and the “volunteers” don’t want to work
and will threaten the supervisor with a brick through his window or car
torched if he files a complaint: is it worth the hassle? As for stopping
benefits for non-compliance, the paperwork needed to send a case up to a
Decision Officer was complex and, more often than not, rejected on a
technicality.

Humble
Observer January 24, 2012 at 22:01

“…the supervisors are normally on only £8-10 per hour…”

I once had an IT contractors job paying £9.50 an hour, I thought I’d
won the f@cking lottery. The “Life” of Brian must be very rosy indeed…

Brian January 24, 2012 at 23:14

Not rosy, just dreary greyrealityas this recent example shows.
I wouldn’t recommend changing your career to working with members of the
criminal underclass if money is your main motivator .

Mick Anderson
January 24, 2012 at 16:25

I suspect that the Armed Forces use local labour when out and about partly
as a PR exercise – showing the locals that they have a human side, and are not
just there to impose the will of some foreign power.

I’d have the idle blighters who demand “free” money at work picking litter,
clearing snow and leaves, fetching shopping for the elderly (no money needs to
change hands), and anything else that needs time but no skill. If they don’t
like it, they can either compete in the labour market or take the Queens
Shilling. If the Unions don’t like it, they can withdraw the funding from
their pet politicians….

http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/ January 24, 2012 at 16:15

It’s clearly better than doing nothing, but I don’t accept the argument
that you have a right to have ten children and expect others to look after
them or the right to still get benefits if you refuse any job which you are
capable of doing.

There is simply no good argument why some people should have the right to
choose to take food from the mouths of their neighbours, rather than take a
job just because they don’t like it much, or it pays too little.

gladiolys January 24, 2012 at 16:22

…”no good argument why some people should have the right to choose to
take food from the mouths of their neighbours, rather than take a job “…

…is one of the most hysterical (not in the sense of funny, but in the
sense of out-of-your-mind) comments I have ever read. Keep swallowing the
propaganda, but be careful, you’ll choke if you swallow too much.

JuliaM January
24, 2012 at 17:20

Do tell us what you find so amusing – is that you think OF COURSE there
should be such a right?

Because taxing us all to ensure that these families don’t go without is
indeed taking food from the mouths of those neighbours.

gladiolys
January 24, 2012 at 17:37

I’m not saying there is a right. I’m saying that with JSA of £67 pw,
no unemployed person is taking the food off a working man’s table. To
quote something you often say, Julia, “Simples”.

As for Housing Benefit, if fewer greedy gits were buying to let, and
forcing rents up (and with that, the amount at which HB is paid), maybe
we would not need to pay so much. The housing rental market needs as
much reform as benefits. Landlords are profiteering from the welfare
state too, but nobody talks about them stealing from workers’ mouths do
they?

Brian January 24, 2012 at 18:05

Without the distorting safety net of Housing Benefit prices in the
rented housing market would be reduced. Blame it on economics.

As for JSA Income-Based that does take food off a working man’s
table as it is a qualifying benefit for HB, Council Tax Benefit, free
specs, dental care, prescriptions, etc.

JuliaM January 24, 2012 at 18:24

What Brian said.

I guess it is ‘simples’ after all…

Woman
on a Raft January 25, 2012 at
09:02

I’m saying that with JSA of £67 pw, no unemployed person is taking
the food off a working man’s table. To quote something you often say,
Julia, “Simples”.

And the £67 comes from where?

Engineer
January 25, 2012 at 10:26

“And the £67 comes from where?”

Currently, about 80% comes from the taxpayers’ pockets. The other
20% is borrowed by the gubbermint.

Pompey Cowboy
January 24, 2012 at 19:16

Well said Murray– spot on

Ian Thorpe January 24, 2012 at 20:43

Murray, you hit that old rights nail on the head. I guess you remember
the scene in The Life of Brian where the revolutionary group votes a man the
right to have babies even though he cannot have babies because he’s a
man.

Of course every couple has the right to have ten children but should they
choose to exercise that right they have a duty to support those children to
the best of their ability too.

A right and an entitlement are two different things

Caedmon’s
Cat January 24, 2012 at 16:02

Anna – if I understand you correctly – and I believe I do – you’re
suggesting that the able-bodied long-term unemployed become camp followers to
the Armed Forces. Now, what would the gay rights brigade think of that?
;o)

Antisthenes January 24, 2012 at 15:31

A totally impracticable solution and the fact someone of your calibre could
suggest it surprises me.

Anna
Raccoon January 24, 2012 at 15:48

I’m always prepared to listen and learn – can you tell me why it is
impractical?
Do you have another suggestion?

JuliaM January
24, 2012 at 16:14

Well, for one thing, there’s the huuuuuuuge resource implication in
training them and in keeping an eye on unwilling drafted labour (did you
see the curious case of the Soupe de Pisson served at a court last
week?).

ivan January 24, 2012 at 16:37

Given that which Anna is proposing I think that sort of thing would
be countered rather quickly out in Helmund.

JuliaM January 24, 2012 at 18:23

So the men that would be standing watch on the wall are standing
watching the kitchen instead?

Or…perhaps Anna’s human bomb location services come into play?

Elena
‘andcart January 25, 2012 at
10:03

But at least it would have an impact on the number of children they
could breed.

M Barnes
January 24, 2012 at 17:58

What IDS is saying in a nice, roundabout way with a pretty bow on top,
is that benefits for the permanently, willfully unemployed will be reduced
or stopped beyond a certain point thereby forcing them to get a job or beg
on the streets. What he is hoping is that they will choose the former and
what he assumes is that there will be a job somewhere in the country that
they can go to. It’s not a bad gamble as it goes. BUT it relies on the
economy creating jobs and on the majority believing that it won’t apply to
them just to ‘others’.

Johnnydub
January 24, 2012 at 21:11

There are plenty of jobs – the millions of foreigners that have
arrived in the prvious few years are tetsimony to that.

The problem is that the permanently unemployed are in a lot of cases
unemployable… being borderline anti social halfwits or drunks etc..

Simply put a life on permanent benefits should suck arse.. Those that
can will those that can’t get the bare minimum…

Before the knee comes flyiongh in to label me a “heartless tory
bastard” the sad fact is that the social effects via entitlement culture
and a “you can’t touch me I’ve got my rights” culture are overall far
more damaging than a few people living skint…

And once you stoppped lavashing largesse on the hopeless, you might
have a spare few quid to improve the lot of the genuinely needy i.e.
people like bendy girl who have real problems and deserve better than to
be lumped in with the lazy and feckless…

John77
January 25, 2012 at 23:38

NO, they won’t be forced to get a job, but they *will* be better if
they get a job than if they sit at home watching TV while their wife
does all the housework. They will NOT be forced to beg on the streets on
£26k a year after tax.
I periodically get a card through my door
inviting me to deliver leaflets or act as a charity “chugger” or
whatever. I’ve been asked if I’ll do a paper-round (because a few years
ago I covered for my son for a few days when he couldn’t walk) . There
are low-paid jobs around in the high-rent areas for anyone willing to
take them. IDS says you’ll be better off in work than on the dole so
no-one, but no-one will be forced to beg or starve unless they choose to
do so.

alan January 24, 2012 at 20:56

The Army doesn’t employ enough people, but the general idea is sound…..
Just needs tweaking for modern times.

The Guardian, and others, keep suggesting that people returning to work
in the fields is a good idea, sustainable living, saving co2, less
complicated life with less materialism.

So surely the “perfect” socialist solution should be to put the
unemployed at work in farms as replacement for tractors? The unemployed
can lead the way transitioning the UK to the ideal socialist/green
nirvana. No jobs lost. No training required. No evil fossil fuels being
used. Help tackle the obesity epidemic.

And think of the cross party support. Even the Tories want everyone to
start growing vegetables, rejuvenating the British spirit of WW2, to fight
the evils of climate change.

JuliaM January 25, 2012 at 10:46

“So surely the “perfect” socialist solution should be to put the
unemployed at work in farms as replacement for
tractors</b.?”

Or, in the case of a great deal of the women, Friesians…