Conservatives Forcing People To Work

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Given the type of questions, you ought to explain why such questions are relevant

[Matt Bawden]

Well, fair enough

 

I just wished to know if you had a family if your ideals were imposed on them or influenced gently. if you saw people like Stalin or Tony Benn or Pol Pot as a leading inspiration, if you didn't own your own home was it envy that motivated you, whether if employed you worked for a corporation for profit or a non profit organisation, whether or not you have any qualifications in a specific field and if not do you resent your current employment because it's nowhere near what you wanted to do to earn money...but ultimately to determine whether you are playing Devil's Advocate and arguing for rgument's sake or are genuine in what you say, I'm merely curious and not playing chess.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Better that you don't assumptions, as I can tell from your questioning that you are already eager to make poor assumptions.

But what if it was all of things? Does that invalidate my arguments? Would you write off my comments on the basis I am just jealous, brainwashed by family, or Stalinist (with Stalin being a monster)?

To be honest, it's quite surprising that you think I am not genuine, considering that my look at this issue is pretty common. Maybe not on the Isle of Man where the political is on the whole narrower than in the UK. But it is a view shared by socialist, communists, and anarchists, leftist liberals who comprise a great deal of public opinion.

[pongo]

Moving forward there will be more and not fewer unemployed as the need for workers decreases. There is not enough work left to do. This will also be compounded by the need for existing workers to retire much later because pensions will not be affordable. The US and Europe seem to be banking on the gentrification of the so called *developing* countries to provide new markets into which to ultimately sell financial instruments, insurance, intellectual property etc. There are likely going to be food shortages.

 

Making the unemployed pick up litter is a complete diversion from the chaos.

[manxy]

Erm if people refuse to get themselves into a work routine all they will loose is job seeker's allowance.

 

The government provides various benefits and job seeker's allowance is meant to be only available to those seeking work.

 

If people don't want to undertake the necessary requirements to receive this benefit well that's their choice. They'll still get housing benefit, income support, tax credits etc etc, but they won't get job seeker's allowance. I don't think ex-soldiers or anyone else should get job seekers allowance if they aren't engaged in the world of work. Mental health allowance, income support etc, certainly, but not job seekers allowance.

And we have a winner

I can't argue with that CH and you've probably nailed it on the head. (to me anyway, but I'm sure someone will put a twist on it)

[HeliX]

And you haven't read many of my posts before.

Honestly, it's a rather conservative bunch on MF, I would hardly need to be subtle if I wanted to troll.

 

Why do you think it would be right to allow people to starve if they won't work?

 

Three options: 1) Let people starve 2) Drag them down into the current world of work

3) Assume the responsibility that comes with supporting the current political and economic system.

 

If you don't have money to pay for food you need to get a job, not sponge off other people. That's the way the world works. If you're deliberately sponging off people as a "lifestyle choice" or because you "don't want to be dragged down into the current world of work" then you're anti-social and morally reprehensible. There is no excuse for somebody to make a lifestyle off benefits. None whatsoever. So you don't like the way the world works? I don't like plenty of stuff, deal with it.

 

If you're not contributing to the society you live in, why the hell should it contribute to your life?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The best analogy I can give is a hypothetical situation whereby we were all held as slaves by someone and forced to do work for them.

The work is demeaning and degrading but we do it because we are held captive and it is our only way to survive. There are tiers to the work and those higher up get more benefits but we are ultimately all slaves. The majority are brainwashed into thinking that the effort put into the work and skills (which comprise a small part of our talents) used to complete the jobs afford dignity and pride, we do not nothing to escape or change our situation. We don't think anything can change because we are told that the current predicament is "just the way it going to be".

 

However, some people find means to exploit the system and do no work. They enjoy freedoms that the others do not have. They are supported by those who do produce, but such support amounts to little. The choice is either to force those who do not work to partake in this degrading work and remove their freedoms to satisfy our hatred for those who not enjoy the pride that comes with work or leave things be until we wake up to our shared predicament and make efforts to end that slavery or at least work to reform it.

 

Of course, such an analogy rests on my opinion that there is wage slavery and work is not simply good in itself, but has to be assessed for what it is, why it is done and how it is done.

[RamseyMike]

The best analogy I can give is a hypothetical situation whereby we were all held as slaves by someone and forced to do work for them.

The work is demeaning and degrading but we do it because we are held captive and it is our only way to survive. There are tiers to the work and those higher up get more benefits but we are ultimately all slaves. The majority are brainwashed into thinking that the effort put into the work and skills (which comprise a small part of our talents) used to complete the jobs afford dignity and pride, we do not nothing to escape or change our situation. We don't think anything can change because we are told that the current predicament is "just the way it going to be".

 

However, some people find means to exploit the system and do no work. They enjoy freedoms that the others do not have. They are supported by those who do produce, but such support amounts to little. The choice is either to force those who do not work to partake in this degrading work and remove their freedoms to satisfy our hatred for those who not enjoy the pride that comes with work or leave things be until we wake up to our shared predicament and make efforts to end that slavery or at least work to reform it.

 

Of course, such an analogy rests on my opinion that there is wage slavery and work is not simply good in itself, but has to be assessed for what it is, why it is done and how it is done.

 

 

Or to put it in terms everyone understands, some people are just to lazy to work for a living and are happy to be a parasite taking advantage of others hard work

[spook]

The best analogy I can give is a hypothetical situation whereby we were all held as slaves by someone and forced to do work for them.

The work is demeaning and degrading but we do it because we are held captive and it is our only way to survive. There are tiers to the work and those higher up get more benefits but we are ultimately all slaves. The majority are brainwashed into thinking that the effort put into the work and skills (which comprise a small part of our talents) used to complete the jobs afford dignity and pride, we do not nothing to escape or change our situation. We don't think anything can change because we are told that the current predicament is "just the way it going to be".

 

However, some people find means to exploit the system and do no work. They enjoy freedoms that the others do not have. They are supported by those who do produce, but such support amounts to little. The choice is either to force those who do not work to partake in this degrading work and remove their freedoms to satisfy our hatred for those who not enjoy the pride that comes with work or leave things be until we wake up to our shared predicament and make efforts to end that slavery or at least work to reform it.

 

Of course, such an analogy rests on my opinion that there is wage slavery and work is not simply good in itself, but has to be assessed for what it is, why it is done and how it is done.

 

Are you for real?

[Evil Goblin]

Spook - I believe LDV is for real - he completely rejects the current social and economic order, which Matt B summed up very well indeed.

 

LDV - it would be illuminating if, rather than merely reacting with criticisms to events, you explained to us just how your society would be organised and operate, socially and economically. I suspect that it would prove, like Marxist "solutions", to be a highly idealistic but practically unworkable proposition.

[jimbms]

Better that you don't assumptions, as I can tell from your questioning that you are already eager to make poor assumptions.

But what if it was all of things? Does that invalidate my arguments? Would you write off my comments on the basis I am just jealous, brainwashed by family, or Stalinist (with Stalin being a monster)?

To be honest, it's quite surprising that you think I am not genuine, considering that my look at this issue is pretty common. Maybe not on the Isle of Man where the political is on the whole narrower than in the UK. But it is a view shared by socialist, communists, and anarchists, leftist liberals who comprise a great deal of public opinion.

In other words you refuse to answer the questions because it does not suit you or is the truth, yet you constantly require others to back up everything they say in detail just so you can find some minor detail to attack them with. Just because you have opted for an alternative lifestyle does not give you the right to assume yours is correct nor does it give you the right to attempt to belittle people by trying to constantly twist their statements and words and pick little minor points in everything they say, what is it that drives you, is it the thought that most here will grow old with a family and people who care for them and love them being around them whilst also having some financial security whilst you know you are going to age without family and people who care for you and love you, into a bitter and twisted lonely old man who's only financial security is knowing the state will look after you. From all I see it is this type of envy of normal society that is driving the constant bitterness and hatred of society and it's ideals as it stands, that emits from your poisonous mind, it seems to me you have decided that if you can never have it you will instead attack and hope to undermine it.

[Cambon]

 

LDV - it would be illuminating if, rather than merely reacting with criticisms to events, you explained to us just how your society would be organised and operate, socially and economically. I suspect that it would prove, like Marxist "solutions", to be a highly idealistic but practically unworkable proposition.

 

Marx Brothers more like. I am looking forward to reading this!!!!

 

Come on LDV.....

[Lonan3]

Erm if people refuse to get themselves into a work routine all they will loose is job seeker's allowance.

 

The government provides various benefits and job seeker's allowance is meant to be only available to those seeking work.

 

If people don't want to undertake the necessary requirements to receive this benefit well that's their choice. They'll still get housing benefit, income support, tax credits etc etc, but they won't get job seeker's allowance. I don't think ex-soldiers or anyone else should get job seekers allowance if they aren't engaged in the world of work. Mental health allowance, income support etc, certainly, but not job seekers allowance.

And we have a winner

I can't argue with that CH and you've probably nailed it on the head. (to me anyway, but I'm sure someone will put a twist on it)

 

There is no need to - the twist is already there.

For many years it was called 'Unemployment Benefit' and everyone understood that it was a small subsistence allowance given to those were unemployed. It was never an excessive amount.

Then someone came along who understood the power of words and changed it's title to 'Jobseekers Allowance' which, although apparently the same, actually gave it a whole new meaning.

Remember, it is already the case that, when a claimant attends a new Jobseeker Interview, they form a Jobseeker's Agreement with their advisor and sign it. The agreement lays out certain terms, such as:

 

How many companies they will ring each week

How many companies they will visit in person each week

Whether they will use any magazines/newspapers to find vacancies

That they will not do voluntary/part time work for more than 16 hours a week. Educational courses will sometimes come into this time limit as well. This limit is set as the government believes that doing more than 16 hours affects the Jobseeker's ability to find employment.

 

And there are already potential sanctions. In certain cases, a claimant's Jobseeker's Allowance may be stopped for:

 

Not being available for or actively seeking work, or not signing the Jobseeker's Agreement:

if a claimant doesn't declare on the Jobseeker's Agreement that they're available for and actively seeking work, and sign it, the benefit will be suspended until the date that the claimant completes and signs the agreement. Once the agreement has been signed, a Decision Maker will decide how much of the claim should be backdated, if any.

Missing a Restart interview: the claim will be terminated unpaid, back benefit entitlement will be lost, and the claimant will need to make a new claim.

Voluntarily leaving work, or refusing a notified vacancy: temporary reduction or stoppage of benefit payment, known as a sanction. The sanction may be up to 26 weeks, and the length will be decided by an adjudicator. A notified vacancy is a job vacancy which the claimant has found out about from Job Centre Plus, who keep records of all the jobs their clients request information about.

Refusing to attend compulsory scheme, or failing to comply with Direction: sanction of two weeks for first 'offence', and four weeks for second and subsequent offences.

 

The point is that sufficient sanctions already exist if the authorities are efficient enough to use them. The fact that a small number of people are able to sidestep the rules doesn't mean that adding to the rules is going to produce better results.

 

For the vast majority of people who are out of work, the misery and sense of rejection is appalling - I know because I have been there in the past - and the amount offered for survival is hardly enormous.

 

Single people, aged under 25 £51.85

Single people, aged 25 or over £65.45

Couples and civil partnerships (both aged 18 or over) £102.75

Lone parent (aged under 18) £51.85

Lone parent (aged 18 or over) £65.45

 

To put it simply - they are attacking the wrong benefit and it is the 'housing benefit, income support and tax credits' that they ought to be examining, as well, possibly, as the disability benefits being claimed by those who could be offered training in different jobs.

They are attacking Jobseekers Allowance purely and simply because it is an easy target. They are attacking it because all thge Tory grandees can nod their heads in agreement, sip some fine claret, and mutter about dole scroungers receiving their comeuppance. They are attacking it because it makes for easy headlines in the Tory dominated UK media.

And it is utterly appalling that so many people appear to be falling for what is a typically CONservative idea.

Sometimes, I despair of a society that is unable to read further than a headline.

[pongo]

LDV - it would be illuminating if, rather than merely reacting with criticisms to events, you explained to us just how your society would be organised and operate, socially and economically. I suspect that it would prove, like Marxist "solutions", to be a highly idealistic but practically unworkable proposition.

 

The existing system of order is also unsustainable.

 

--

 

People often talk about the "dignity of labour". The idea seems tangible when we think about people doing essentially crafty work - a furniture maker perhaps or a someone growing produce on a small farm. Or a traditional baker. The idea of there being dignity in labour sits best when the work is pleasant to think about or would look nice in soft focus.

 

And the idea sort of works when the work is dramatic - so we think about men working at the furnace or digging coal or building ships. Although we know in reality that the work was harsh and violent and they died young. They would rather have been living the lives of the rich or administrative classes. The dignity was a grim acceptance. Perhaps the same sort of dignity with which men died in WW1 because they were told to.

 

The idea of there being dignity in labour really only works with the sort of work which could have been idealised in a 19th century painting or Soviet propaganda. The idea of there being dignity in labour utterly fails with respect to most modern work which is disconnected and boring. Most people do it because they have no choice. For example there is no dignity in administration or sales. It's just work. Pretending that there is a greater sense or meaning to it than that is delusional.

[Chinahand]

One way to question whether something is ethical is to ask what if everyone behaved this way.

 

If everyone behaved in the way LDV advocates the welfare state would obviously collapse.

 

LDV's attitude is that he doesn't care if freeloaders brought about the collapse of social democracy because he is contemptuous of it.

 

That brings us right back to the challenge of what is the alternative - Lu Xun, one of the most perceptive writers I know, wrote:

 

Revolution is a bitter thing … not as romantic as the poets think. Of course there is destruction in a revolution, but construction is even more necessary to it; and while destruction is straight forward construction is troublesome.

 

LDV is a romatic poet, just like Mao Zedong - an unrealistic idealist - who only dreams of the destruction of the current system, he has nothing to replace it with other than barter and the abolition of money - hint hint LDV, was this a successful policy when Pol Pot attempted it?