james purnell hate thread

[Awesome Wells]

There needs to be a total rethink of the UK Benefit system. We need a system that doesn't penalise the thrifty and the responsible but which is there to give a hand up to those who have fallen on hard times through circumstances or illness.

At the moment the benefit system does none of this. It punishes those who are honest or who want to improve or who are sick and desparate but appears to give a free pass to the professionally idle, the antisocial and the crafty who play the system.

All blame for this cock up must rest with this and previous governments who haven't carried out root and branch reform but have just indulged in poltiically motivated tinkering round the edges.

the problem with your thinking is that, like the government, your thinking is polluted by the notions of deserving and undeserving. We can't have a benefit system for all, you believe, becuase there are people who exploit it; fraudsters, idlers and, ta da...'scroungers;!

Such people exist in all arenas of life, including paid employment and government (like those who claim vast expenses bills, Mr Purnell). Do we generalise to the detriment of all or take a compassionate view and create a safety net that helps everyone, regardless, without judgment? I say the latter.

And if johnny doley wants to claim his money and sit on his arse living a life of unconstructed idleness then, frankly, why should it bother you? Do you think such people 'ruin' it for everyone else? That's scarcity thinking - that these people are 'stealing' from the pot or some such bollocks. Why not foster an attitude of abundance and not this current embittered psyche we have that's been mediawashed into believing that it's under siege from every element the government deems undesirable and that such elements are taking directly frm their money.

Divide and conquer. They have won because people who think like you let them win. All for the sake of £60 a week.

 

[treelover]

Spooky Frank, good post, again send it on to the welfare campaign, such contributions will be welcome.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Zachor, do you think it is dangerous to conflate 'using your time constructively' with 'getting paid for your time'? In my view any overlaps between the two are largely coincidental, and lets not forget that whilst idleness has little effect on others, there are plenty out there who have a negative effect on the lives of others and they often get paid for their time as well. James Purnell MP is an excellent example; wouldn't the world be a nicer place right now if that particular gentleman dedicated rather more time to watching Trisha and rather less to sabotaging the welfare state?

 

[treelover]

One of the reasons people have 'turned' against the welfare system(and many have) is the constant 'benefit fraud' campaigns on tv , on posters and on the net, and the constant harping in the mass media and indeed from ministers who rant about 'scroungers' not paying your way, work is best, etc. It has all the hallmarks of the official campaigns carried out during the Eastern Bloc times, and indeed in some ways, the Nazi period, against 'wasters' loafers' the intinerant, etc. Many people think IB fraud is massive, yet even the DWP note it is 'neglible' Sadly, until now the Left has let it all happen, not challenged it, etc, recently I noticed a massive SWP poster campaign, posters everywhere, but strangely they hadn't covered the 'fraud' ones.


for the genesis of the welfare reforms , read here

http://www.ukwatch.net/article/new_labour,_the_market_state,_and_the_end_of_welfare

 

[Awesome Wells]

Even prisoners know they'll get three meals a day, but a sanctioned benefits claimant has no such certainty in their life. This is not an acceptable way to treat people, no matter how idle you consider them to be.

Well said. Entire post = win.

 

[Awesome Wells]

I dont' have any problem with people having enough to live on I just think that basic benefits for the fit unemployed should be less than for those who put something back into their community. I would propose a basic benefit package of dole money and space in a communal housing facility for those who are single and dont' contribute and increased benefits and access to better housing for those who work for the community in addition to benefits.


There are many people who in the current job market wouldn't be able to get a job. Therefore its the duty of a caring society to provide work for these people. This payment for this community work should be benefits + minimum wage for all hours worked + other benefits.

This would incentivise people to take part in community work and get the extra money.

Unconstructive idleness is quite frankly being trisha trash and not using your time constructively. Idleness causes crime and that applies whether the idle ones are doleys or the offspring of the aristocracy.

I'm not an arbiter of all society I just feel that there must be another better way to support people without damaging them with enforced idleness. The biggest victims of mass unemployment are the unemployed themselves.

A workhouse then. Do you not think that somewhat degrading? in the 21st century?

And you still haven't explained what unconstrcutive idleness is; what do you mean by 'trisha trash' and what do you define as a constructive use of your time, tax avoidance? Being a filthy rich footballer? TV presenter? Someone who works for a pointless firm that doesn't help society, etc etc?

 

[Zachor]

the problem with your thinking is that, like the government, your thinking is polluted by the notions of deserving and undeserving. We can't have a benefit system for all, you believe, becuase there are people who exploit it; fraudsters, idlers and, ta da...'scroungers;!

Such people exist in all arenas of life, including paid employment and government (like those who claim vast expenses bills, Mr Purnell). Do we generalise to the detriment of all or take a compassionate view and create a safety net that helps everyone, regardless, without judgment? I say the latter.

And if johnny doley wants to claim his money and sit on his arse living a life of unconstructed idleness then, frankly, why should it bother you? Do you think such people 'ruin' it for everyone else? That's scarcity thinking - that these people are 'stealing' from the pot or some such bollocks. Why not foster an attitude of abundance and not this current embittered psyche we have that's been mediawashed into believing that it's under siege from every element the government deems undesirable and that such elements are taking directly frm their money.

Divide and conquer. They have won because people who think like you let them win. All for the sake of £60 a week.

Whether you like it or not some people are deserving and some are undeserving. That doesn't mean that the undeserving shouldn't be supported its just that they shouldn't be supported at the same level.

As a society we've created a benefit system that treats everyone equally but equally in the wrong way where the criminally irresponsible have the same benefits as those who are responsible. This lack of discrimination has to a great extent removed peoples sense of personal responsibility. People think 'why should I bother working/studying/saving etc' if the 'social' is going to pick up the tab for living expenses.

I think this has damaged our society in ways that the original framers of the benefit system couldn't have forseen.

The question is how do you reform the system without forcing the sick and the carers etc into penury.

 

[treelover]

Bentham's former secretary, Edwin Chadwick, helped design the Poor Law of 1834, which deliberately made workhouse life as uncomfortable as possible. In the novel, this is conveyed in Bitzer's response to Gradgrind's appeal for compassion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Times

Zachor, the Edwin Chadwick/Bitzer of the 00's

 

[Awesome Wells]

Whether you like it or not some people are deserving and some are undeserving. That doesn't mean that the undeserving shouldn't be supported its just that they shouldn't be supported at the same level.

As a society we've created a benefit system that treats everyone equally but equally in the wrong way where the criminally irresponsible have the same benefits as those who are responsible. This lack of discrimination has to a great extent removed peoples sense of personal responsibility. People think 'why should I bother working/studying/saving etc' if the 'social' is going to pick up the tab for living expenses.

I think this has damaged our society in ways that the original framers of the benefit system couldn't have forseen.

The question is how do you reform the system without forcing the sick and the carers etc into penury.

But what does that mean? Again this thinking is flawed - you seem to suggest that by reducing their already low income you are going to encourage them to stop being whatever it is that makes them undeserving. That's a rather dangerous gamble. It also seems to suggest that they are using their income inapprropriately (ie buying 'luxuries' like booze or fags or worse still drugs, etc etc). But who are you to decide what's right or worng in all of this. Who are the government?

 

[Zachor]

A workhouse then. Do you not think that somewhat degrading? in the 21st century?

I didn't say 'workhouse' did I. I just think that those who CHOOSE not to take part in community rebuilding schemes even though they could be offered extra money and who are not 'mad' have therefore made their bed ans should lie in it. Community Housing facility isn't the same as workhouse.

And you still haven't explained what unconstrcutive idleness is; what do you mean by 'trisha trash' and what do you define as a constructive use of your time, tax avoidance? Being a filthy rich footballer? TV presenter? Someone who works for a pointless firm that doesn't help society, etc etc?

Unconstructive idleness is just that. Whether you are dole bludging Trisha Trash or a recipient of inherited wealth such idleness can quite easily and quickly turn into anti social behaviour, abuse and crime.

 

[Zachor]

But what does that mean? Again this thinking is flawed - you seem to suggest that by reducing their already low income you are going to encourage them to stop being whatever it is that makes them undeserving. That's a rather dangerous gamble. It also seems to suggest that they are using their income inapprropriately (ie buying 'luxuries' like booze or fags or worse still drugs, etc etc). But who are you to decide what's right or worng in all of this. Who are the government?

No you mistake the intention. You have two streams of benefit payment one for those who choose not to take part in working for their community which will be very very basic and include basic accomodation for single people. For those who choose to involve themselves in their communituy either by volunteering for a certain number of hours per week or working for the state should get provided with better accomodation and much more money.

Its rewarding good and constructive behaviour and punishing or showing disaproval of bad behaviour.

 

[Blagsta]

Up to a point. When I saw the house that the Council had put the murderous fuckers in I thought 'but there are loads of more deserving families who need that house' I also thought of the people whose families break up becuase of housing problems who get bugger all because the councils etc are prioritising those who are underserving.

People with big social problems are "undeserving".

you really are scum zachor

 

[treelover]

Zachor, the Giddens of Urban

 

[Jonti]

It's displaying a willfully blindness to the reality that economic reward and socially useful activities are only very tenuously related.

In other words, the nuLabor filth are now promoting the blind idolatry of money above human values.

 

[Blagsta]

what is unconstructive idleness?

or is that shorthand for the assumption that all people out of work are watching trisha all day long before going to the bookies by way of the pub?

It's shorthand for "I (zachor) spent some time a while ago depressed and not working and I'm shit scared of going back there so I'll direct my anger at everyone else"

 

[Blagsta]

Whether you like it or not some people are deserving and some are undeserving.

Who makes this decision? You?

 

[treelover]

Looks like it is going to be much worse, s/parents back to work when the child is one, Brown is clearly determined, in his view, to 'grasp the nettle' of welfare reform, we are going to have US stle system before long, with all that entails, thousands more in prison, etc.


I also think it is basically because in other areas, NL have run out of steam, and want to look pro-active.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/02/benefit-cuts-single-parents

 

[Zachor]

People with big social problems are "undeserving".

you really are scum zachor

I didnt say that. I said those who chose to do fuck all or fuck around shouldn't gt the same money as others who don't make such negative choices.

I didn't say that those with big social social problems are undeserving. Those with such problems do need to be looked after.

 

[treelover]

'The Gregg review stemmed from concerns in the DWP that the current path to benefit entitlement was not clear. Ministers favoured the example of Scandinavia, especially Denmark, where almost everyone is expected to do something in return for receiving unemployment benefit.'


ER, no mention that in Sweden benefits are much more generous, childcare is basically superb, they really are the lowest of the low.

 

[Zachor]

It's shorthand for "I (zachor) spent some time a while ago depressed and not working and I'm shit scared of going back there so I'll direct my anger at everyone else"

Not quite. I spent time as a bludger (not by any fault of my own) and found that being unemployed itself was damaging and nearly led me down paths that make me think looking back on it that I had a lucky escape.

I gained value and self esteem via work for my community and wish I had been pushed towards this route earlier.
I want other people to benefit from this increase inself esteem and saw with my own eyes how easy it is for a period of unemployment to turn in to a life governed by oblivion by Tennants Super.

 

[treelover]

One for Butchers, the academic who did the report advocating even tougher sanctions is at Bristol University

 

[treelover]

It also suggests attaching conditions to welfare can draw on the latest British interest in nudge economics, and the hidden art of persuasion.

It suggests the welfare review should look at aversion to loss, including loss of high regard in the community; respect for legitimate authority; reciprocity - including a sense of obligation to give something back; and finally social proof, responding to the behaviour of others, such as their successful search for work.

reading this i think Purnell is the NL Sir Keith Joseph, the mad monk , he is all about theory with no understanding of how ordianry people live their lives.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

One for Butchers, the academic who did the report advocating even tougher sanctions is at Bristol University

Have you actually read this report? It isn't half as bad in many ways as is being reported you know.

With sanctions, Gregg recommends that sanctions aren't imposed for a first "offence" which is less harsh than the current system for example. He also proposes a series of escalating sanctions thereafter, as is currently the case anyway, with time-based sanctions for four or more breaches of conditions.

And with ESA claimants, he recommends no mandatory work related activity at the outset, which is less than the recent Green Paper proposes. If you want to get people onside with these issues, it is important imo to be properly representative of what is on the table, otherwise you will dilute support.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The cunt's been on the radio all fucking day. My shouting "fuck off! fucking cunt! shut up you evil bastard!" rather than getting on with work really is not improving the productivity of the UK. Given that it's clearly Purnell's fault, I reckon he should have his benefits revoked and be given a bit of community service.

 

[Zachor]

Who makes this decision? You?

No it should be made by committee, with a strong local component of a voluntary nature working to guidelines that prevented people being penalised on grounds of race, illness etc.

A decision like this shouldn't be left with one person.

 

[treelover]

Have you actually read this report? It isn't half as bad in many ways as is being reported you know.

I suspect Purnell will use it as a justification and use the bits he wants, just as he 'cherrypick' other countries welfare systems totally out of context, in terms of support, its now there, look at the Compass site, the anger is building PT, but also the despair, some people on boards are talikng about suicide.

btw, does anyone know how the BBC are reporting it all, their coverage of the WR has been appalling.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I suspect Purnell will use it as a justification and use the bits he wants, just as he 'cherrypick' other countries welfare systems totally out of context, in terms of support, its now there, look at the Compass site, the anger is building PT, but also the despair, some people on boards are talikng about suicide.

btw, does anyone know how the BBC are reporting it all, their coverage of the WR has been appalling.

But this is my point really - we need to use the more positive aspects of the report and push for their implementation. I don't think Purnell has any intention of deviation from his intended course of action, no matter how much noise the Compass campaign makes unfortunately - thus, in identifying the key areas where this report does provide ammunition to at least say "if you're going to increase conditionality on ESA claimants, make sure you follow Gregg's recommendations", then we might have a chance to ameliorate the worst aspects of the reforms?

I know what you mean about cherry picking bits and pieces, though, most annoying. Haven't heard any BBC coverage tbh, saw a front page Grauniad piece and a mild polemic from Tonybee inside and i understand Purnell was on the World at One but at work so don't know what's been reported.

 

[trevhagl]

Whether you like it or not some people are deserving and some are undeserving. That doesn't mean that the undeserving shouldn't be supported its just that they shouldn't be supported at the same level.

As a society we've created a benefit system that treats everyone equally but equally in the wrong way where the criminally irresponsible have the same benefits as those who are responsible. This lack of discrimination has to a great extent removed peoples sense of personal responsibility. People think 'why should I bother working/studying/saving etc' if the 'social' is going to pick up the tab for living expenses.

I think this has damaged our society in ways that the original framers of the benefit system couldn't have forseen.

The question is how do you reform the system without forcing the sick and the carers etc into penury.

How much of someone's £60.50 a week would you take away then?

 

[trevhagl]

I suspect Purnell will use it as a justification and use the bits he wants, just as he 'cherrypick' other countries welfare systems totally out of context, in terms of support, its now there, look at the Compass site, the anger is building PT, but also the despair, some people on boards are talikng about suicide.

btw, does anyone know how the BBC are reporting it all, their coverage of the WR has been appalling.

They AREN'T which is exactly the tactics of the tabloid filth

 

[Zachor]

How much of someone's £60.50 a week would you take away then?

I'd probably let them keep the 60 a week. I'd also provide them with basic single sex single person accomodation.

However, I'd reward those who worked for their communiuties or who undertook education or did other positive stuff. That way it puts personal responsibility back into peoples hands. I'd give them 120 pw minimum + access to proper housing etc.