The harsh truth about Tory policies

wageslave

I wont vote in the next election.

Can't bring myself to vote Conservative and Labour has made such a mess of things they don't deserve, nor can the country afford, another four years of their nonsense.

God help any representive from either party who turns up on my doorstop canvassing my vote.

I will set the bliddy dog on them.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

kabayiri wrote: »

It's weird isn't it.

Few would argue 4.5K per month on a single benefit item is sustainable. What's that, about 6 tax payers per year supporting solely that item?

Yet, it seems no matter how much we try to engineer a social system for fairness, you get these clear aberrations.

I'm really not sure there is an answer now.

These aberrations only occur with families. It's because the Labour Party have a policy of trying to lift children out of poverty. The money isn't been given to the adults, it's been given to the families to try and help the kids - which is why we never hear of single people and couples receiving too much benefits. However, it seems to have the unintended consequence of making many really angry

What's to be done? Don't kids of poor parents deserve a little help? Isn't it cheaper to target them when they are young than wait until they are in jail, which is pretty expensive too?

StevieJ

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

What's to be done? Don't kids of poor parents deserve a little help? Isn't it cheaper to target them when they are young than wait until they are in jail, which is pretty expensive too?

A little condecending, I think.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

StevieJ wrote: »

A little condecending, I think.

Not as condescending as telling you, you can't spell?:rolleyes:

wageslave

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

These aberrations only occur with families. It's because the Labour Party have a policy of trying to lift children out of poverty. The money isn't been given to the adults it's been given to the families to try and help the kids. However, it seems to have the unintended consequence of making many really angry

What's to be done? Don't kids of poor parents deserve a little help? Isn't it cheaper to target them when they are young than wait until they are in jail, which is pretty expensive too?

Unfortunately it has also had the unintended consequence of making parenthood a career choice for people who are either unfit or unable to make a halfway decent job of it.

No-one (except maybe Hamish) wants to see any child live in squalid conditions or go hungry.

Flinging large amounts of money at the problem of child poverty and neglect hasn't done a huge amount to solve it though.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

wageslave wrote: »

Flinging huge amounts of money at the problem of child poverty and neglect hasn't done a huge amount to solve it though.

I think it has helped the kids but led to a great deal of resentment and will probably cost the Labour Party the next election. I don't know how this problem can be addressed. Leaving kids in poverty just creates expensive problems further down the line?

wageslave

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

I think it has helped the kids but led to a great deal of resentment and will probably cost the Labour Party the next election. I don't know how this problem can be addressed. Leaving kids in poverty just creates expensive problems further down the line?

I think (although God knows I am no expert) far less money should have been paid out via tax credits and a damn sight more should have been paid into education, after school clubs etc in deprived areas.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

wageslave wrote: »

I think (although God knows I am no expert) far less money should have been paid out via tax credits and a damn sight more should have been paid into education, after school clubs etc in deprived areas.

Don't tax credits only go to working parents? Posters seem to resent money going to the non-working parents. I'm not sure schools can totally overcome poverty in the home, but maybe nurseries, afterschool clubs can go some way.....

wageslave

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Don't tax credits only go to working parents? Posters seem to resent money going to the non-working parents. I'm not sure schools can totally overcome poverty in the home but maybe nurseys, afterschool clubs can go some way.....

Child tax credits go to both the employed and unemployed I think.

I dont think posters resent money going to non-working parents per se, I think it is more that they resent the money being spent on the adults rather than the children.

Education can provide both an immediate escape and hope for a more permanent way out of poverty in the future.

Many things have cost the Labour party the next general election. The economy and Iraq being only two on a long list.

Action against child poverty isn't one of them.

kabayiri

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

These aberrations only occur with families. It's because the Labour Party have a policy of trying to lift children out of poverty. The money isn't been given to the adults, it's been given to the families to try and help the kids - which is why we never hear of single people and couples receiving too much benefits. However, it seems to have the unintended consequence of making many really angry

Of course it makes people angry. Allowing a situation where a single housing benefit can run into thousands a month is a PR disaster waiting to happen.

Anyone can see this.

Isn't there a point where affordability comes into play when balancing the fair society goal?

I've spent literally thousands on medical drugs, because of a postcode lottery. I accepted I had to spend this money, so the car had to last for a few years longer.

So you can imagine the joy I feel when clear examples of people milking a generous benefits system are unearthed on a regular basis.