Blogs
 


  Oddworld Forums > Blogs > Ed Talks Bollocks
Welfare rant


Rate this Entry

Welfare rant

Posted 01-31-2013 at 02:23 AM by DarkHoodness
I'll post this here. It may generate conversation. Or not.

I've been coming across articles and discussions about welfare cuts here in the UK for the past couple of years, and there are a lot of things which don't add up.

Why is our government taking away benefits when there aren't many jobs around to start with? When a full time minimum wage job doesn't cover the cost of living, and fuel, food, transport, housing and rent prices are through the roof and steadily rising every year?

Many people here who are in full-time work have to take benefits in order to pay their bills. How does that make sense? They're affected by cuts, too.

I can understand trying to wean people off of benefits, and get out of the so called "welfare state", but how are poor and disabled people meant to get themselves out of their situation if there isn't the means to do so? What about those who are unable work through illness and are dying 'cause they're being forced to work anyway?

The government say they need money, and that we're in a recession, then they go waste it on shit we don't need like the Trident nuclear missile system, the Olympics, and that stupid "High Speed 2" rail network that will only benefit those who can afford to travel on it, while not doing a damned thing to bridge the North-South divide - And that's just to name a few things.

While the poorest of the poor get shafted and get condemned to a poverty trap, the rich get away with not being penalised for the recession, and are allowed to continue their tax evasion 'cause the government is afraid that they'll run away to other countries instead of investing in our economy.

UK's society is one big fallacy and full of contradictions, while the coalition government are making a pigs ear of everything. Yeah, it could be a lot worse here, we could be like Syria or something, but we're supposed to be a bloody first world country. We have the money and power to fix it, yet we're fucking it up even more. And that's incredibly disheartening.
Comments 34 Email Blog Entry
Total Comments 34

Comments
Josh's Avatar
Hopefully, i'll be getting some money from the government soon and this worries me a little bit. I need the money for basic shit like food, which is actually really fucking expensive when you add it all up (especially orange juice jfc).

I can understand cutting things to save money, but people NEED the money they get from welfare. bleh politics is gay
Posted 01-31-2013 at 02:38 AM by Josh

JayDee's Avatar
I completely agree with this.

I've grown up on a council estate for all of my life and for the most part with just my mother after my dad fucked off. She looked after not only me but two other children, both of whom were disabled, and in these last few years she's lost a child and that coupled with this declining welfare system has just crushed her. She isn't able to work cause she has to stay at home to look after my brother, so how is it fair that she should need to crawl and beg and crawl in a system that forces those unable to work to beg?
Posted 01-31-2013 at 02:54 AM by JayDee

STM's Avatar
:
Why is our government taking away benefits when there aren't many jobs around to start with? When a full time minimum wage job doesn't cover the cost of living, and fuel, food, transport, housing and rent prices are through the roof and steadily rising every year?
To force people to join government work schemes and seek out training so they can apply for the multitude of jobs that are out there but most people are under qualified to do.

:
Many people here who are in full-time work have to take benefits in order to pay their bills. How does that make sense? They're affected by cuts, too.
It doesn't have to make sense, see: Conservative Policy for more information.

-

On a serious and non-inflammatory note, I'm of the opinion that benefits should exist for people who can't work, be it if you're in the case Josh Sr. mentioned above me, or if you yourself suffer from disability or if you have been proven to be looking for work. Voluntary unemployment needs to be stomped out unless you can afford to support yourself.

The thing is, the government needs to correct its deficit somehow, these cuts are one of only two fundamentally solid ways of doing this, if we're to get back into a period of recovery then we have to look to correcting our budget problems somehow. I won't go into any detail on that, at least just yet, because the discussion doesn't seem to call for it and I've already done an hour of economics today. I support the government cuts to a degree, and trust me they negatively impact my families life and my own life as well, however there's a fine line between austerity and forcing people into poverty.
Posted 01-31-2013 at 08:45 AM by STM

DarkHoodness's Avatar
:
To force people to join government work schemes and seek out training so they can apply for the multitude of jobs that are out there but most people are under qualified to do.
That doesn't appear to be working, though.

:
The thing is, the government needs to correct its deficit somehow, these cuts are one of only two fundamentally solid ways of doing this, if we're to get back into a period of recovery then we have to look to correcting our budget problems somehow.
I agree that they have to make cuts, but there are better ways of cutting the deficit (which is a farce anyway, economics is something we've made up, money isn't an accurate representation of actual wealth or labour, but I won't go into it) than what they're doing now.

If they spent less on crap we didn't need, then they wouldn't have to make as many cuts. In discussions, politicians get asked by the public about this (like about how much is being spent on Trident, for example, and why they aren't reducing the wages of civil servants) and they always deflect the questions or give nonsensical answers!

There are also other solutions to the benefits for low-wages paradox which would benefit people while saving the government money, and although employers would have to pay more, it would help promote economic growth. The current system for low-earners is counter intuitive: Taking money from people's earnings through taxation, then handing it back to them in benefits.
Posted 02-01-2013 at 01:35 AM by DarkHoodness

AlexFili's Avatar
From what I hear unemployment is going down, but I agree it is still a problem. I'm on jobseekers allowance right now, it's actually very good in terms of helping those that want to return to work, but I know that not everyone is in a situation like mine. The Olympics was great and we will remember it for generations, it's likely we won't have another one in England for quite some time. Anyway, our country will sort itself out, have no fear
Posted 02-03-2013 at 01:04 AM by AlexFili

STM's Avatar
Exactly, unemployment is down, BoP is on a downward trend and is inflation. Although growth is down, the trend is beginning to plateau which means growth might potentially return consistently for the following quarters.
Posted 02-03-2013 at 07:25 AM by STM

Wings of Fire's Avatar
Unemployment is not going down. Figures are being fiddled with.
Posted 02-03-2013 at 11:49 AM by Wings of Fire

MeechMunchie's Avatar
You're being fiddled with.
Posted 02-03-2013 at 12:13 PM by MeechMunchie

MA's Avatar
giz a job.
Posted 02-03-2013 at 02:26 PM by MA

STM's Avatar
:
Unemployment is not going down. Figures are being fiddled with.
I'm sorry but what? Can you provide some proof of this that doesn't come from the middle pages of The Sun?
Posted 02-03-2013 at 02:35 PM by STM

Wings of Fire's Avatar
Why on earth would the Sun complain about how shit the Tories are doing?

I caught it on my BBC news feed, but that was weeks ago. It was an article about how the government released figures on job growth are misleading.

I may be confusing national for local though. My region (The West Midlands) is the worst off in the country at the moment and it's not getting better.
Posted 02-04-2013 at 06:07 AM by Wings of Fire

Wings of Fire's Avatar
Now what I really hate is that the government is capping Jobseekers under the pretence that it is 'unfair' to people who work.

Yes, you read that right. Unfair.

Our glorious department of work and pensions, who between them have probably never worked five years outside of Whitehall in their lives, saw that jobseekers and other benefits were rising faster than the national minimum wage and, not stopping to question the REALLY OBVIOUS REASON WHY, instead said 'Hang on, all these underclass layabouts getting more money. This is unfair on people who work!'.

Just in case it's not obvious, the reason they are rising faster than the national minimum wage is that people on benefits are already well below the poverty line. Benefits have to sprint to keep up with the poverty line while the national minimum wage needs to walk at a steady pace.

But no, thousands of people are going to be made homeless because it wasn't fair on working people that they couldn't get jobs and afford to live.
Posted 02-04-2013 at 06:12 AM by Wings of Fire

Wings of Fire's Avatar
Also when I said fiddled with, I don't literally mean fiddled with. I mean how the results are gathered and shown is extremely biased towards what the government wants to show. This happens with statistics all the fucking time. Especially when a government is involved.
Posted 02-04-2013 at 06:14 AM by Wings of Fire

STM's Avatar
Well it depends what method you use to work out the level of unemployment, there are two accepted methods and one - the less accepted method might I add - is the one more prone to being 'fiddled with' as you put it.

Let's just agree that the government will forever be a shit smear.

Now...back to fiddling....
Posted 02-04-2013 at 07:57 AM by STM

Wings of Fire's Avatar
A guy I volunteer with, who is actually an old friend's brother, is unemployed and not on jobseekers. Reason being he's actually homeless and goes between his mother's and his girlfriend's house every two days to avoid getting either one into trouble. He can't claim jobseekers because he doesn't have a permenant place of residence.

Our population is getting older. Even with the rising retirement age, a larger percent of the population who are not working are also not on jobseekers or other benefits because they're pensioners.

I'm not saying either of these two cases is large enough to mislead statistics, but there are at least two exceptions to the rule that you need to take into account when judging.

Also I personally have applied to no less than sixty jobs in the last nine months, most of which are well below my education level. I'm not picky.

I've never been invited to a single interview, even though my advisors and suchlike say my CV is great. The myth that 'There are thousands of jobs available if only people were trained for them' is just that. If ten people apply for a job, I can guarentee you that two of them have more of what the employer is looking for (Experience) than me.
Posted 02-04-2013 at 08:04 AM by Wings of Fire

STM's Avatar
You should totally set up your own psychologist practice then (I'm going on a thread in my mind that says you have a degree in psychology here).

I do agree with what you're saying, I think the current system is abysmal, wrong and unfair. Unfortunately, we have a government in power which has been blown apart by no less than gay marriage - something you think would be a quick, simple and obvious procedure to change. There's not much hope for restructuring welfare when they can't even fix a basic social inequality.
Posted 02-04-2013 at 08:47 AM by STM

Phylum's Avatar
Because setting up a psychologist's practice is something in the budget of a volunteer, right?
Posted 02-04-2013 at 09:12 PM by Phylum

Nate's Avatar
Also, if the rules in the UK are similar to the ones in Australia, you need a masters or doctorate in clinical psychology before opening a practice.
Posted 02-04-2013 at 09:17 PM by Nate

DarkHoodness's Avatar
:
Unfortunately, we have a government in power which has been blown apart by no less than gay marriage - something you think would be a quick, simple and obvious procedure to change. There's not much hope for restructuring welfare when they can't even fix a basic social inequality.
You're damned right with this, it crossed my mind too. They even think approving gay marriage and fixing this inequality will harm their reputation, and are trying to delay it until after the next election in 2015. That alone says a lot. Useless bastards.
Posted 02-05-2013 at 07:08 AM by DarkHoodness

STM's Avatar
:
Because setting up a psychologist's practice is something in the budget of a volunteer, right?
In future I'll just put /sarcasm at the end of sarcastic posts for you.
Posted 02-05-2013 at 10:10 AM by STM

Wings of Fire's Avatar
Hang on a second

I'm not one to praise Tories, but that's wrong. Conservative MPs are against the bill, but Cameron and the cabinet are all for it.

Give credit where it's due.
Posted 02-05-2013 at 10:20 AM by Wings of Fire

STM's Avatar
I never said that Cameron and the cabinet went pro-gay marriage, but it has torn the entire Conservative party in two. Even more so than the EU referendum.
Posted 02-05-2013 at 11:24 AM by STM

Wings of Fire's Avatar
I was replying to Darkhoodness.

If Cameron can sneak in equal marriage before his party destroys itself, then I'll have gained quite a bit of respect for him.
Posted 02-05-2013 at 11:37 AM by Wings of Fire

STM's Avatar
Oh, beg pardon then.
Posted 02-05-2013 at 12:09 PM by STM

DarkHoodness's Avatar
As of yesterday, Cameron has done just that (and I suspect his reasons are ulterior and it's not because he actually cares about it at all, but that's just my opinion).

Regardless, why was gay marriage even discussed? And why is the government so split up about this? Why wasn't it as simple as "Oh, this minority group can't get married because of backwards, discriminating laws. Such laws don't belong in a first world country in the 21st century, so let's change them quick."?

The discussion still rages and some MPs are still angry about it, when it shouldn't even have been a thing which required much thought in the first damned place. They were concentrating on this while people were (and still are) being hit hard by more important issues.

Gay marriage ought to have been something that they should have approved without a second thought on the basis of anti-discrimination. It shouldn't split up a bloody government. And that still doesn't fill me with much faith for their capabilities.
Posted 02-06-2013 at 09:56 AM by DarkHoodness
Updated 02-06-2013 at 10:01 AM by DarkHoodness

STM's Avatar
What would be great would be if all the Conservatives who quit because of the new bill formed their own party, then everyone would have a slightly better visibility as to who the fuckwits no one should ever vote for are.
Posted 02-06-2013 at 10:22 AM by STM

Wings of Fire's Avatar
:
Regardless, why was gay marriage even discussed? And why is the government so split up about this? Why wasn't it as simple as "Oh, this minority group can't get married because of backwards, discriminating laws. Such laws don't belong in a first world country in the 21st century, so let's change them quick."?
Because democracy.

No really.

Plenty of people don't want gay marriage for whatever reason, so it needed to be discussed.
Posted 02-06-2013 at 10:42 AM by Wings of Fire

Varrok's Avatar
We don't have gay marriage in Poland.
Posted 02-07-2013 at 12:54 AM by Varrok

STM's Avatar
You don't have any builders either.

They're all here.
Posted 02-07-2013 at 07:35 AM by STM

Varrok's Avatar
Would you kindly stop stealing our builders and gay marriages, STM?
Posted 02-07-2013 at 09:08 AM by Varrok

 
1 2

Recent Blog Entries by DarkHoodness





 
 
- Oddworld Forums - -