Oh dear, the benefit scroungers are scared!

[Angilion]

I must be the on,y person in the UK who hasn't seen this by the amount of hoohaa I read and hear about it everyday.

It's superb propaganda. It's disgusting and very harmful, but I grudgingly respect the skill with which it's made. If they want to move society a bit further towards a "final solution to the poor people" scenario, this program is the right idea for this period of time (along with the ongoing government campaign along the same lines).

Not yet, of course, but the point of propaganda is to manipulate public opinion over a period of time. It makes sense - if some people can't be employed (and there's no way we'll have 100% employment again) and the state is unwilling or unable to support them, then the only option is to kill them. That requires a sustained propaganda campaign to dehumanise and demonise them first, obviously.

 

[Mickie]

you're not just to the left of your pc, you're more far right..

People are angry because their tax is wasted on people like this but the big issue isnt these people at all, they're the tiny minority that take from the tax payer..

the bigger picture is tax avoidance/evasion which hinders the tax payer more imo.

 

[Caged]

(and there's no way we'll have 100% employment again)

Here's the crux of the issue that people who endlessly spout off "get a job!", "bootstraps!" ad infinitum can't address. Our economy simply needs less people than it once did, there's only so many call centres that are required. The massive employers such as the NHS are public sector and in danger of being cut back, and what manufacturing remains requires far less people than it used to. There's only room for so many coffee shops and small businesses.

The figures look even worse if you put people on zero hours contracts getting 6 hours work a week back into the unemployed pool because if you're topping up their salaries from the state pot then you might as well be paying it all.

The Swiss universal income thing is a nice idea but I can't see it doing anything other than pushing prices up.

 

[Angilion]

Undoubtedly, but the number of people on benefits who won't work is a problem.

Is it? Do you have any idea what that number is? Any idea how much it costs the country? Any idea how much it would cost to suppress the revolution and kill them all if we didn't pay it? That would happen, obviously - it would be extremely foolish to assume they would all peacefully commit suicide and that would be the only other option available to them.

As for the figures showing that its not worth working for some people my answer to that is that benefits must pay too much.

You might find a more accurate answer if you tried to live on them. All we hear about is freak cases of people abusing an exploit in the system, but that's obviously extremely far from representative.

If I believed a word of the utter rubbish talked about much money people living on benefits get, I'd do it myself. It would obviously be far superior to most jobs - you'd have more money and far more life. But you wouldn't really, because in reality the benefits systems isn't like that at all.

 

[Mickie]

Here's the crux of the issue that people who endlessly spout off "get a job!", "bootstraps!" ad infinitum can't address. Our economy simply needs less people than it once did, there's only so many call centres that are required. The massive employers such as the NHS are public sector and in danger of being cut back, and what manufacturing remains requires far less people than it used to. There's only room for so many coffee shops and small businesses.

The figures look even worse if you put people on zero hours contracts getting 6 hours work a week back into the unemployed pool because if you're topping up their salaries from the state pot then you might as well be paying it all.

The Swiss universal income thing is a nice idea but I can't see it doing anything other than pushing prices up.

The thing is tho government need more people working to pay for pensions, not their own pensions but currently old people in their pension right now as they take up almost all of the welfare money pot..

we need more industry in the country and thats why i believe they're still pushing for this hs2 and green energy because its creating jobs long term..

but the biggest percentages of unemployment is up north and i dont believe they're pushing hard enough to bring industry back up here..

 

[Caged]

I think the country should have got on with infrastructure projects as soon as the recession looked like it wasn't going away after a year or so. We still have no issues borrowing money and it would have been an ideal time to double down and get HS2, Crossrail, Heathrow expansion etc sorted out, maybe build social housing stocks up again. The extra debt would have been a drop in the ocean and you'd have people employed and some infrastructure out of the deal.

 

[Angilion]

you're not just to the left of your pc, you're more far right.. [..]

Oh go on, please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

I think communism is a good idea in theory. Utterly impossible to implement in any society with any people in it and an inevitable road to corruption and oppression, but a good idea in theory. In every election bar one, I have voted Liberal Democrat on the basis that they're the party I least disagree with.

Good luck with the far right thing...

 

[Mickie]

You're claiming the program is trying to somehow manipulate its audience but if anything its making chan4 look bad because i believe the country isn't stupid enough to believe that's how everyone is on benefits.. You're also talking about killing these people off because they do nothing for society but struggle to see how your views aren't far right..

 

[regulus]

I couldn't even bring myself to consider thinking about watching this.

I don't even know what it is.

If it's not on a certain website's Top 100 I don't know about it.

I'd imagine it'll be something like the Daily Mail, in motion pictures.

 

[Meridian]

Apparently there was a couple where both of them worked that were filmed extensively for nearly a year. For some reason the show got cut from five episodes to four and they got cut out completely. I'd have to suspect some less than honest decision making by Ch. 4 there!

Well duh. Whatever it might call itself, this show is NOT a documentary, it's Big Brother featuring a whole street. There would have been a decision taken, probably pretty early, on what editorial stance to take, and then the massive amounts of footage would have been edited to suit. The makers care not in the slightest how accurate it is, only how much advertising space they can sell. Which, given the large numbers of people who have swallowed the editorial line hook line and sinker, must be a lot. The makers are probably crying all the way to the bank over the criticism.

 

[Meridian]

That idiotic "blame the rich" statement as per usual.

Exactly - let's blame the poor instead. Actually we ought to be blaming the pensioners and the working poor, because they take up most of the benefits budget, but let's not let facts spoil the bias.

 

[Dolph]

Exactly - let's blame the poor instead. Actually we ought to be blaming the pensioners and the working poor, because they take up most of the benefits budget, but let's not let facts spoil the bias.

I am blaming the system that traps people in this lifestyle. That's why I support a much fairer universal policy based around minimum income guarantees and negative income tax ideas.

The transition wouldn't be easy and there would need to be some protection for the people failed by the current system while they adjust, but in the long term it would be much better for everyone involved in the system.

 

[dowie]

Exactly - let's blame the poor instead. Actually we ought to be blaming the pensioners and the working poor, because they take up most of the benefits budget, but let's not let facts spoil the bias.

I'm not sure how you can blame people for getting old, yes we can all point at a pie chart that lumps pensions in together with other benefits and shows they take up a big slice of it all... Perhaps as healthcare continues to improve we can raise the retirement age for the state pension further however paying elderly people a pension is a bit different to paying people money when they're perfectly capable of working...

As for the 'working poor' the system we've got means there needs to be some transition - if everything stopped when someone transitioned from being on benefits to getting a minimum wage job then there would be even less incentive to work. Capping child benefit at two kids, not subsidising people who live in accommodation with more bedrooms than they need etc.. can also help bring the budget down a bit.

 

[kindai]

the main reason its at 7.7% is because their arent the jobs there for that 7%

Please, the jobs are there, its just the people don't want to do them.

Thats why we have all this "cheap european labor coming and causing these problems". Well no, the europeans arn't causing any problem if people would sotp being such apathetic wastes of space and signing up for the job instead.

 

[elmarko]

As for a country with minimal welfare state: Japan.

Japan has welfare for the old, the ill, pensions. That's it. No "i don't want a job I will live for free" welfare.

4% unemployment rate in 2013 out of the whole population.

Compare that to the UK's 8% and rising...

An interesting example to use Japan, a nation with the lowest income gap in the developed world (ergo not requiring mass welfare to compensate for the deficit).

R/P 20%: The ratio of average income of the richest 20% to the poorest 20%

Japan = 3.4 - UK = 7.2

It's not complicated, pay people a reasonable wage & you will find the government doesn't need such a large welfare state.

So I assume you are strongly in favour of promoting income equality to solve this social problem (to emulate Japan)?, or let me guess - you have no idea what the hell you are talking about?.

I challenge you to name a single nation without either a small income gap or a strong welfare state which fits any of the generally agreed criteria for the developed & cohesive society.

 

[Dolph]

An interesting example to use Japan, a nation with the lowest income gap in the developed world (ergo not requiring mass welfare to compensate for the deficit).

R/P 20%: The ratio of average income of the richest 20% to the poorest 20%

Japan = 3.4 - UK = 7.2

It's not complicated, pay people a reasonable wage & you will find the government doesn't need such a large welfare state.

So I assume you are strongly in favour of promoting income equality to solve this social problem (to emulate Japan)?, or let me guess - you have no idea what the hell you are talking about?.

Would you support promoting the social structures that japan has? For example, strong promotion of nuclear family and stigmatising unwed and divorced single mothers?

You cant just slap min and max wage caps on and hope for the best...

 

[Efour]

stigmatising unwed and divorced single mothers?

yep cos that doesn't happen in the UK at all... lol

 

[elmarko]

Would you support promoting the social structures that japan has? For example, strong promotion of nuclear family and stigmatising unwed and divorced single mothers?

You cant just slap min and max wage caps on and hope for the best...

I wouldn't suggest that either, I'm simply pointing out that removing the welfare state in the UK would not give us a society like Japan unless we also adjusted other elements (such as the income gap).

I agree you can't just slap on arbitrary changes - which is exactly my point, you can't just remove the welfare state in the UK & have low employment like Japan.

 

[Angilion]

You're claiming the program is trying to somehow manipulate its audience but if anything its making chan4 look bad because i believe the country isn't stupid enough to believe that's how everyone is on benefits..

You can believe that if you like, but it's not relevant to what I wrote even if it is true.

I did not write "this program will instantly make everyone believe that's how everyone is on benefits".

You're also talking about killing these people off because they do nothing for society but struggle to see how your views aren't far right..

Ah, I see the problem. You picked out some words but didn't understand the post.

When someone says "your position would lead to bad things", that does not mean that they are supporting those bad things. It means they are opposing the position that would result in those bad things - which, obviously, means that they are opposed to those bad things.

How did you interpret my statement "It's disgusting and very harmful" as support for it?

Let's say, for example, that someone argued that it would be a good thing for the government to mass-produce all illegal drugs, package them up into ready to use packs and put lots of them into containers for anyone to help themself, free of charge, with a genuine guarantee that there wasn't any monitoring of the containers other than stock levels so that they could be resupplied when any drug ran low. That would stop the illegal drug trade overnight - a very good thing that would reduce crime, etc, etc.

Someone might reply "doing that would result in lots of people becoming addicts and probably lots of people overdosing. Especially children, given the total lack of monitoring. It would also make murder much too easy because it would make it trivially easy to secretly obtain enough drugs to kill a person."

Would you think that the second person was speaking in support of lots of people being drug addicts, lots more dying from overdoses, children having free access to all drugs and a safe and convenient way being set up to murder anyone?

 

[Diagro]

Those people on that street are all scummy people tbh.