Toggle sidebar

Brainwashed Britain.!

  • Thread starter Thread starter -
  • Start date Start date
Sort by date Sort by votes
Simple to fix - increase benifits to provide a decent living income and require all claimants to work at least 20 hours per week in community service / council run work programs.

Job done, next issue please..................
 
Upvote 0
Beachcomber said:
Simple to fix - increase benifits to provide a decent living income and require all claimants to work at least 20 hours per week in community service / council run work programs.

Job done, next issue please..................
Click to expand...

Sorry but the post was about the difference in peoples perception and reality.:|
 
Upvote 0
Well what would you rather do - solve problems or tackle perceptions?

You will always have those who don't have a clue, those who believe what they read in the media, those who believe what their parents believed and those who know the truth.

If you resolve the problem, the perception is irrelevant.

Be part of the solution rather than just banging on about the problem.
 
Upvote 0
It's a poll conmmissioned by the Trades Union Congress.

I agree that media do brainwash people and exaggerate everything one way. But there is a problem with over generous benefits. My own view is largely formed from people I know and talk to rather than media.
 
Upvote 0
dingbat said:
It's a poll conmmissioned by the Trades Union Congress.

I agree that media do brainwash people and exaggerate everything one way. But there is a problem with over generous benefits.
Click to expand...

I suspect the problem is more to do with overpriced housing,food,basic utilities,travel e.t.c.;)

Or in laymans terms Greed.out of necessity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
That just supports the spending figures, not the TUC's "what people think" figures. Most people wouldn't include pensions in the "benefit" total, I'd imagine. Or you could argue that benefits to "unemployed people" should actually include pension payments, as pensioners aren't employed.

Or you can point out that "benefits to unemployed people" isn't solely the payment of jobseekers allowance (which is where they get the 3% figure from), as the unemployed will get various other benefits too.

In summary, it's a politically motivated survey designed to prove a point.
 
Upvote 0
Beachcomber said:
Simple to fix - increase benifits to provide a decent living income and require all claimants to work at least 20 hours per week in community service / council run work programs.

Job done, next issue please..................
Click to expand...

Do you not think this would have already been done if it was feasible?
 
Upvote 0
I feel pretty sure there are many people who would be happy to work for their benefits provided that that any employment expenses incurred could be recovered. I know I would.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N8rbos
Upvote 0
A smal proportion maybe Podge. Pop down to a large council estate with high unemployment and see how they would feel about working for their benefits. Especially the long term third generation "unemployed."

Sorry mate but whilst I accept that some would, it's likely to be the exception as opposed to the rule.
 
Upvote 0
Which is why I said "many" and not all.

I live on a largish council estate and know of the people you speak about, but there are hundreds of thousands of people not working who would like to be. I work voluntarily in a charity shop just to get me out of the house and there will be many many people doing the same. if we were ever (which I doubt) to see full employment again half the charity shops would have to close because there would be nobody to work in them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: N8rbos
Upvote 0
I actually don't think all politicos are that bad, and the bad ones I've met were just thick. We elect them, so we must bear some of the blame for what they do, perhaps?

I saw a comment by a senior politician last year where he said they knew how to fix the recession/banking/credit crisis problems, but they didn't know how to get re-elected if they did it.

Similarly, every government since Thatcher has looked at and then abandoned tax reform, probably because any reform would lose more votes than it gained.

This means, in a way, we the voters are responsible for sensible changes not being made as we will only vote for those who offer us bribes. We might not be bent, but certainly short sighted. If we are brainwashed it's because we want to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sirearl
Upvote 0
I'm sorry Beachcomber but that just doesn't wash.

Public opinion is with the government in bashing the benefit claimants. There quite simply isn't the funds to organize mass employment even unpaid, if there were it would have been done. People still need supervising, health and safety need to be considered, protective work wear for those doing work that require it, etc etc.

A nice idea but completely unworkable.
 
Upvote 0
Nuno said:
I saw a comment by a senior politician last year where he said they knew how to fix the recession/banking/credit crisis problems, but they didn't know how to get re-elected if they did it.
Click to expand...

well if they started after an ellection they would have 4 years to prove themselves.

I agree the sollution would be radical and many would be upset by them,but they are pretty obvious to most people I know so maybe their fears are groundless.?
 
Upvote 0
Nuno said:
I saw a comment by a senior politician last year where he said they knew how to fix the recession/banking/credit crisis problems, but they didn't know how to get re-elected if they did it.
Click to expand...

guess work of what might happen

to be honest most of the time 8 years is the most you get then you lose anyway. its rare for any party to be in more than that.

the above statement doesnt wash with me.
you get 4 years. do it right or better than the other lot you get 8.

just do it
 
Upvote 0
hmmm said:
guess work of what might happen

to be honest most of the time 8 years is the most you get then you lose anyway. its rare for any party to be in more than that.

the above statement doesnt wash with me.
you get 4 years. do it right or better than the other lot you get 8.

just do it
Click to expand...
Just do what?

Perhaps keep going as now, mild inflationary expansion without growth, declining employment and real wages, stagnation with growing poverty , hunger and unrest, leading to civil unrest, (see below), or

Massive cuts to fix the structural deficit, probably resulting in widespread poverty, hunger and unrest and a suspension of civil liberties for the 'temporary' (ha!) imposition of direct rule. Or

Borrow heavily for infrastructure projects and hope that the infrastructure repayment cycle of 10 to 15 years doesn't work this time (in a Gordon Brown "No more boom or bust" sort of way). When it does work as normal; devaluation, credit rating drop, massive cuts, (see above...)

These won't probably 'wash' with you either. So, do tell. In your opinion, what will give that Persil moment?

(Personally I'm coming round to the view that we should go bankrupt as a nation and start again: clean slate, new rules.:))
 
Upvote 0
seems to me its the conservatives that are the fall guys in all this. They are the only ones willing to do unpopular things. I actually think the idea of universal credit is a good one as at last I think it is dawning on people that the gravy train has come to a stop and they have to think for themselves.

Tenants asking for rent reductions from their landlords or moving to a cheaper geographical area to save money - who'd have thought it? certainly no one when Labour were in!

and then we have stopping of child benefit for over 50K earners and in time means testing of pensioners for free TV licence and winter fuel allowance.

Good, at least this government is doing soemthing....

lol just seen Earls BANNED!!!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Podge said:
I'm sorry Beachcomber but that just doesn't wash.

Public opinion is with the government in bashing the benefit claimants. There quite simply isn't the funds to organize mass employment even unpaid, if there were it would have been done. People still need supervising, health and safety need to be considered, protective work wear for those doing work that require it, etc etc.

A nice idea but completely unworkable.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is utter rubbish.
Do you really think the only thing stopping a plan like this is the want of a few yellow jackets and foremen? :rolleyes:

Just take a moment to consider the total uproar there would be if people had to actually contrabute to their benifits through work - cast your mind back to last year when one silly old bint was told she would have to take a work placement and she took it to the courts as an infringement of her human rights!!!

The only thing stopping a scheme like this - that would get people into the habit of working, teach them new skills and show a prospective employer they are capable - is the fear of unpopularity and controversy.
 
Upvote 0
I'm afraid you're the one talking utter rubbish.

"A few yellow jackets and foremen."

What jobs do you suggest the unemployed do?
What happens to people already doing those jobs?
Where does the money come from to to employ the maybe 250,000 foremen?
Where does the money come from to set up the monitoring of such a scheme?

What you would like to see happen is I'm afraid blinding you to the reality.
 
Upvote 0
Podge said:
I'm afraid you're the one talking utter rubbish.

"A few yellow jackets and foremen."

What jobs do you suggest the unemployed do?
What happens to people already doing those jobs?
Where does the money come from to to employ the maybe 250,000 foremen?
Where does the money come from to set up the monitoring of such a scheme?

What you would like to see happen is I'm afraid blinding you to the reality.
Click to expand...


really? :rolleyes:

It's that kind of defeatist, blinkered attitude that holds so many people back these days and make it hard for those in power who have challenging new ideas to get anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nuno
Upvote 0
Beachcomber said:
Sorry, but that is utter rubbish.
cast your mind back to last year when one silly old bint was told she would have to take a work placement and she took it to the courts as an infringement of her human rights!!!
Click to expand...

Or, to put it a little more factually: a university graduate who was already doing unpaid voluntary work relevant to her degree and intended career, who was forced to quit that job to instead stack shelves.

I spoke to an A4E advisor last year who admitted himself that it was an appalling mistake by the girl's Job Centre, and that she was right to have taken action over it.
 
Upvote 0
why is there a need for a foreman?
why cant someone work with a group already working. many hands make light work.
there is always something to do.
the woman in question was asked to work for two weeks if i remember correctly
maybe the time should start at one day for a period of time then up to two.
hare and turtle
 
Upvote 0
hmmm said:
the woman in question was asked to work for two weeks if i remember correctly
maybe the time should start at one day for a period of time then up to two.
hare and turtle
Click to expand...

But why do that to someone who's already got an ongoing unpaid job, lasting far longer than two weeks, that's giving them valuable experience? It makes no sense.

For people who've got a can't-work-won't-work attitude then fair enough, but not for an already pro-active jobseeker.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Articles

Top Bottom
Back