Poll: General election voting round 5 (final one)

[elmarko]

Couldn't agree with you more. I do get sick of the tory view that if your poor your lazy, some of the poorest in our country are the hardest workers.

It's worse than that really.

As usual Conservatism is about 100 years behind what we know about human behaviour - it's entrenched in traditional & outdated modes of thinking. It's entirely regressive & a fundamental barrier to positive social change.

My main problem with it is that it does not work, it has never worked & it will never work.

People should most certainly be incentivised & encouraged to work & engage in society - it's better for everybody involved including the people targeted - but first we need to address the underline causes & ensure there is a sufficient supply of jobs available. Until this is done punitive measures are objectively worthless.

 

[Mr Jack]

Disabilities, poor starts in life, that sort of thing. The two things can also go hand in hand, poor parenting or a difficult childhood both disadvantages the individual and also increases the likely hood of making poor life choices.

But, of course, none of those things are related to society.

However, life is what you make of it. Our systems don't encourage or support people to improve their lot, in fact they often work directly against it. That is what needs to change.

But, of course, without changing society: because society makes no difference.

Seriously, Dolph?

 

[Dolph]

Give me an example of a nation which is doing this better by increasing overall poverty or reducing welfare.

Welfare traps do need to be addressed, but is there a shred of evidence to suggest that punitive measures will achieve that?. The same can be achieved via others means.

I don't support punitive measures. Our current means tested system leads to a requirement for punishment to prevent abuse. That is because the system itself is broken. Changing to a system that provides support while ensuring you will always be better off working and doesn't reward poor choices and the need to punish goes away.

There is a need for a transition period though, as some people!e have structures their lives around the current system and shouldn't be punished for making bad choices that a bad system rewarded.

 

[Glaucus]

Well in the last five years the media and government has labelled all benefit claimants as scrongers

Does anyone think places like the job centre actually help people find work? They don't they process, they label and they sanction

Job centres are a disgrace and have been for about 10years. They used to be good and helpful.

 

[elmarko]

I don't support punitive measures. Our current means tested system leads to a requirement for punishment to prevent abuse. That is because the system itself is broken. Changing to a system that provides support while ensuring you will always be better off working and doesn't reward poor choices and the need to punish goes away.

You can make people better off working by slashing benefits or by increasing the rewards of work. I've got a feeling your leaning towards the former (coming from the tax is theft point of view you hold).

If the changes you suggest result in a lower overall income for those out of work then it's punitive & likely collective punishment (to the families with children).

 

[SpeedFreak]

The perennial question is how to incentivise people to work without resulting to punitive punishment which inevitably impacts the children of those people.

I guess one way is to throw resources at those in such a situation with young families in the hope that this breaks the cycle for the children in said families.

 

[Mr Jack]

The perennial question is how to incentivise people to work without resulting to punitive punishment which inevitably impacts the children of those people.

Well, firstly, you'd need to show it's remotely necessary in the first place and then I guess you'd need a reason not just to have companies pay people better.

 

[elmarko]

The perennial question is how to incentivise people to work without resulting to punitive punishment which inevitably impacts the children of those people.

I guess the way to break the cycle is to throw resources at those in such a situation with young families in the hope that this breaks the cycle for the children in said families.

Increased standards of education for the poor, reduce poverty, expand social schemes such as sure-start, increase social mobility, in tackle ghettoization, greater emphasis & training for new parents on a myriad of different subjects (self-control, temporal discounting, genuine self-esteem) - to name just a few. As it stands, the economic privilege of parents is the strongest deciding factors in predicting a persons success.

While parents influences indeed can't be entirely mitigated by external forces, others nations (such as the Nordic ones) do not magically have better parents - better parents are made by changes in each generation.

These are long-term social problems which require a rational & logical approach - ones which none of the major entities are looking at, but are directly against the mainstream Conservative ideology.

 

[Mr Jack]

Charlie Brooker beeping out the 'work' in 'worker' and 'working' in leader's speeches is childish but it's also ****ing funny

 

[Glaucus]

Paying people more never really works as the price if everything just raises.
Property/rent needs to be cheaper that's the biggest cost.

 

[McPhee]

While this all sounds nice in theory, you are missing the quite obvious 500 foot concrete elephant in the room.

In our standard social model for rich people to exist poor people must also, not everybody can be rich due to how the distribution of wealth works.

The question isn't "can everyone be rich?". The question is "How rich/poor do people have to be?".

There's no reason why people should be using food banks. They are a product of our society's" The sky is the limit" view of wealth.

 

[MrMoonX]

You can make people better off working by slashing benefits or by increasing the rewards of work. I've got a feeling your leaning towards the former (coming from the tax is theft point of view you hold).

If the changes you suggest result in a lower overall income for those out of work then it's punitive & likely collective punishment (to the families with children).

Or just enforce a living wage and ensure the housing market is depressed by massive building allowing all workers to spend a sensible proportion on housing. Unlike the current system which makes sure low end workers can't afford dick

 

[elmarko]

Paying people more never really works as the price if everything just raises.

This is entirely unsupported by evidence.

Labour costs are only a fraction of total business expenditure & a significant increase in the minimum wage would only increase the cost of some goods & services by a significantly smaller margin.

Property/rent needs to be cheaper that's the biggest cost.

This on the other hand is entirely correct.

The question isn't "can everyone be rich?". The question is "How rich/poor do people have to be?".

There's no reason why people should be using food banks. They are a product of our society's" The sky is the limit" view of wealth.

Of course, which is my point on distribution.

If we want mega-rich, we will have mega-poor - this is how it works, this is how it will always be. If we want to address the bottom end of poverty then somebody else needs to take a small portion of the total wealth.

 

[Dolph]

You can make people better off working by slashing benefits or by increasing the rewards of work. I've got a feeling your leaning towards the former (coming from the tax is theft point of view you hold).

If the changes you suggest result in a lower overall income for those out of work then it's punitive & likely collective punishment (to the families with children).

The government can't really control the rewards of work. They can try (minimum wage laws etc) but they cannot control it fully. Raise the cost or risk of employing too much, and unemployment goes up and automation/outsourcing goes up, because ultimately the market determines what is a sustainable wage for a role, not the government.

That means the government should concentrate more on what they can control, which is the benefits system. The situation we have at the moment where we cap income at the average take home of a wage earning family is ridiculous.

So yes, some families would lose out compared to what they can currently claim, that is why I say we would need transition arrangements. We would also need to build more social housing, end right to buy and review social rents as a proportion of income rather than an absolute figure, but none of it is insurmountable. We also need better interventions, better education and better non financial support structures compared to what we have now. However, the last part, the real key is we need to become communities again. It shouldn't be a government's role to support, but the people should be directly involved. We have separated the people from supporting others and it doesn't work.

 

[cupidstunt]

`temporal discounting`

Ive never heard of that. Going to look it up, always an eye out for a bargain.

 

[SpeedFreak]

Increased standards of education for the poor, reduce poverty, expand social schemes such as sure-start, increase social mobility, in tackle ghettoization, greater emphasis & training for new parents on a myriad of different subjects (self-control, temporal discounting, genuine self-esteem) - to name just a few.

These are long-term social problems which require a rational & logical approach - ones which none of the major entities are looking at, but are directly against the mainstream Conservative ideology.

My mother is currently seconded to specialised educational program working with children from deprived social backgrounds. What she has found difficult is the number of parents from affluent backgrounds petitioning schools for her time. She is fortunate in that she is able to make a final decision and typically works with children living in the less socially affluent areas. Some of the family situations she describes are horrible but getting to the children on a 1-1 basis has a great impact. From what she describes, so many of the dysfunctional families consistently make extremely bad choices which to most people seem easy to avoid.

 

[Dolph]

Charlie Brooker beeping out the 'work' in 'worker' and 'working' in leader's speeches is childish but it's also ****ing funny

Indeed, best election show so far,although interested to see Dave's election coverage from south thannet tomorrow night.

 

[cupidstunt]

`temporal discounting`

Ive never heard of that. Going to look it up, always an eye out for a bargain.

Ok...I get it..but I kinda dont.

But no bargains were to be had

 

[ubersonic]

I'm just stunned, if a UKIP member said that it would be chaos

I didn't say I agreed with them, but if they are going to refuse to vote for an openly gay candidate because of their "beliefs", why is he moaning that people are telling the bigots he's openly gay? he's losing the votes of people who hate him and who he probably doesn't like, why does he really care /shrug.

 

[elmarko]

The government can't really control the rewards of work. They can try (minimum wage laws etc) but they cannot control it fully. Raise the cost or risk of employing too much, and unemployment goes up and automation/outsourcing goes up, because ultimately the market determines what is a sustainable wage for a role, not the government.

That means the government should concentrate more on what they can control, which is the benefits system. The situation we have at the moment where we cap income at the average take home of a wage earning family is ridiculous.

The cost of goods would simply increase by a smaller percentage of the rise for the lowest earners.

If anything what I'd advocate is a system in which people in work don't need government support - this saving could be used for a minor decrease in corporation tax. Personally, if we had a competent taxation department (we don't so it's a nice to have) I'd support a variable corporation tax rate based on how much assistance the government has to give the employees.

The worst situation is one we have now where we are taking tax from Company A, then giving a percentage of that tax back to employees of company A in the form of tax credits - it's a huge waste of time.

So yes, some families would lose out compared to what they can currently claim, that is why I say we would need transition arrangements. We would also need to build more social housing, end right to buy and review social rents as a proportion of income rather than an absolute figure, but none of it is insurmountable. We also need better interventions, better education and better non financial support structures compared to what we have now.

These all appear to be reasonable changes.

However, the last part, the real key is we need to become communities again. It shouldn't be a government's role to support, but the people should be directly involved. We have separated the people from supporting others and it doesn't work.

People are not so good at working together in communities in large populations, when in a large city with numbers of strangers in the thousands on a daily basis our ability to connect locally is greatly diminished.

This may be something that could change - but it would require a long term plan to achieve & study to see if it's even possible.

I didn't say I agreed with them, but if they are going to refuse to vote for an openly gay candidate because of their "beliefs", why is he moaning that people are telling the bigots he's openly gay? he's losing the votes of people who hate him and who he probably doesn't like, why does he really care /shrug.

Because it's wrong to play on another's bigotry for personal advantage. If anything they should challenge them & speak about the issues. This election has shown how low all parties have gone for 'negative politics'.

If an MP did that in my area (I'm not sure who was involved or had the time to validate the story) I wouldn't vote for them, regardless of the party.