We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council evictions begin
Comments
-
-
There are only so many things we can do with the unemployed underclass
(a) put them down
(b) let them starve
(c) put them in prison
(d) put them in asylums
(e) pay them benefits
(f) give them work they can do (which might be limited)
Simply demanding that they change isn't going to work though. You have to fill in the "or else" part.
That's easy!
For the unemployed, we should do (f) "or else" you don't get (e), then we should not be too concerned about (b) since that could be deemed 'suicide' since it would be totally self-inflicted. Either way, they must obey the law, "or else" (c) will apply. We should assume they are sane enough to make their own choice, "or else" (b) will apply.
But to be serious, you should really analyse the basic question of "things we can do with the unemployed underclass". I emphasise the "do".
You can only go so far. You can give "Opportunities" of learning (schools). You can give opportunities for health (NHS). And you can give opportunities to earn money. I would much rather do that then give money for no work [except in genuine disabled of course], but sadly this country is too namby-pamby for this. Hence we shell out money for 'nothing'.
If that isn't "doing" enough, I don't know what is! In other words, every single person in this country has the absolute opportunity to feed and clothe themselves (however basic).
Whether you are a banker on £750,000 plus bonus, or a young JSA lad on £50 a week, we expect (as a matter of principal) that all of these obey the law or pay the consequences. This can only leave people who choose not to take up these opportunities for education or jobs and apart from continuing to give 'opportunitites' I really don't think we should consider "doing" anything. There is always a time at which you have 'done enough'.
Setting the 'bar' at a reasonable level (and this country sets it particularly high) is all we can "do" and those that fall under it must be treated with "zero tolerance" since it is 100% self-inflicted. To do any different simply 'raises the bar' and creates a different population of 'underclass' to bleat about.0 -
Sorry, we are talking about COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT here. That is, punishment merely because of assocation with a rioter.
You don't lose your job or your home because your son drives his BMW over a central reservation and kills a family of 4.
You just don't seem to be getting this. In the vast majority of cases this is not collective punishment. Parents need to be responsible for their kids - it is completely fecckless to let your kids out when there is trouble going on. It is a dereliction of duty.
How can even compare an accident to something done deliberately, in the full knowledge it is a crime?0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »
In 2005 election what percentage of the population voted Labour?. Think it was about 40%.Do we have a Democracy? Will let you be the judge of that....;)
There are limitations with all forms of democracy, direct or representative or otherwise.
Personally, as much as I'd like to be a class warrior on this, I think it's wrong to argue that our current set of politicians should be disqualified from service solely because of their social background.0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »0
-
leveller2911 wrote: »In all honesty do you seriously believe an hour or so down in Peckham or Toxteth gives him/them a true prospective of life?..Lip service springs to mind.......
Your joking right? aren't you? say yes coz i'm worrying about your sanity.:D..
They would get my respect if before they took up politics they actually spent some quality time in troubled areas.They say they are in Politics to make Britain a better place to live so what better way that to "walk a mile in my shoes"?..(not mine personally of coarse,figure of speech dont ya know)
So would you rather be governed by a bunch of chavs?0 -
Compared to a bunch of smirking Eton schoolboys and the Chipping Norton set? I'll have to think about it. Could be close.So would you rather be governed by a bunch of chavs?"It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Dunno about Milliband, but Cameron was director of a media company for 7 years.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Just a thought...but maybe thats why he goes and visits them?
Typical with the public, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.
Is it the same for Ed Milliband? just like to hear you defend him
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
You just don't seem to be getting this. In the vast majority of cases this is not collective punishment. Parents need to be responsible for their kids - it is completely fecckless to let your kids out when there is trouble going on. It is a dereliction of duty.
How can even compare an accident to something done deliberately, in the full knowledge it is a crime?
Does that include the ones that drive off leaving a 12 yo girl dying in the gutter?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards