Opinion from New York Times

[Stumuz2]

I won't argue with that. People will change or die. Some will die.

Is this not the logical conclusion to limits to growth? We have gone from 1 billion to 9 billion people in short order thanks to the beneficence of fossil fuels. When this magic energy source rolls down the peak, the population will roll down with it.

[Mark]

When we hurtle down the resource depletion slope, benefits will be a thing of the past. People will change. Quickly.

I won't argue with that. People will change or die. Some will die.

Me too, but at the mo, we just have a few empty petrol stations and McDonalds have a shortage of milk shakes - it's not armageddon...
To my mind, the mark of a civilized country is one in which we give a modicum of dignity/resources to the less well off in society - the disabled, the mentally ill, the old, the vulnerable. There has been a reasonable consensus on that since WWII.

We are one of the biggest economies in the world, but as soon as things start to get the smallest bit difficult, the first thing those on the right can think to do is to make life harder for the 'have nots', by reducing benefits, or in Stumuz's world, stopping them all together. Not only is that grossly unfair whilst the wealthy live a life of excess, but it will also hasten the 'fast' collapse of society which we are presumably trying to avoid ??

[Stumuz2]

Me too, but at the mo, we just have a few empty petrol stations and McDonalds have a shortage of milk shakes - it's not armageddon...
To my mind, the mark of a civilized country is one in which we give a modicum of dignity/resources to the less well off in society - the disabled, the mentally ill, the old, the vulnerable. There has been a reasonable consensus on that since WWII.

Who could not agree with that.

We are one of the biggest economies in the world, but as soon as things start to get the smallest bit difficult, the first thing those on the right can think to do is to make life harder for the 'have nots', by reducing benefits, or in Stumuz's world, stopping them all together. Not only is that grossly unfair whilst the wealthy live a life of excess, but it will also hasten the 'fast' collapse of society which we are presumably trying to avoid ??

There you go again making things up. Benefits should be replaced with meaningful work. Not stopped. You made that up.

[Mark]

Stumuz, as you well know, many people on benefits CAN'T work, that's the whole idea of them...., duh !!

So let's talk benefits. Benefits take away human autonomy and dignity, They hollow out communities, they should be cancelled instantly and replaced with employment agencies, and further education facilities, after a 6 month period.

Go on then, enlighten us - how would your little idea work for the disabled, the mentally ill, the old, the vulnerable ?
Lets us know how they will prosper once their benefits are cancelled instantly (and they become homeless) ??
How will these employment agencies and further education camps work ??
How they will suddenly become our next generation HGV drivers ???
The floor is yours.....

[Stumuz2]

Go on then, enlighten us - how would your little idea work for the disabled, the mentally ill, the old, the vulnerable ?

As usual you are having entire conversations with yourself in your head.

Of course the disabled, the mentally ill, the old, the vulnerable should be looked after. It is an axiom of any decent society.

For those who can work, but don't want to, get your hands off my tax pounds.

If there is anything you don't understand about that proposition, please tell us why they should receive my largesse.

[PS_RalphW]

In the UK the economically inactive ( the sick, weak, and their unpaid carers, students, mentally ill etc.),number over 8 million aged between 16 and 64. The unemployed number 1.5 million

Not sure how many are non-working mothers.

[Stumuz2]

In the UK the economically inactive

I have a feeling that when the descent starts, what we term economically active will have to change. Growing your own veg brings joy, great food, resilience, health, sustainability, but is rubbish for GDP.

[Mark]

For those who can work, but don't want to, get your hands off my tax pounds.
If there is anything you don't understand about that proposition, please tell us why they should receive my largesse.

The 1.5million unemployed already need to show that they are available and looking for work, making applications, attending interviews, undertaking training... there are already sanctions for those that don't, including removal of benefits !!!
Given that, how do you propose to determine those who can work, but don't want to ?
& what extra sanctions do you propose ??

As I've already said, many of them are unemployable, rather than unemployed - society will always have this 'rump'
Would you employ somebody who can't read/write or communicate in English....?
Would you employ somebody with a drug/alcohol issue....?
Would you employ an ex-offender ?

Most reasonable people accept that some people will always need the support of benefits to keep them off the streets.

[Mark]

'It feels like everything is getting worse:' The quiet crisis in a tower block as energy bills rise, benefits are cut, and fuel shortages bite:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... g-21694005

Wouldn't say this is a great piece of journalism, but it's a 'vox pop' with some real people who wouldn't normally get interviewed....
And a full spectrum of comments in response....
It's complex....

[Catweazle]

And a full spectrum of comments in response....
It's complex....

Hardly "a full spectrum" of comments, mostly the usual "can afford to go to the pub...." by people who think that unless you sit wrapped in a duvet, starving in your unheated flat then you don't qualify for social support. As things get harder the attitudes will harden too, soon people in a cold flat will be writing that people sleeping in the park "with that nice warm coat and tent....." don't need help. The media already supports this change in attitude, with stories about people on benefits driving Rangerovers and taking exotic holidays.

[BritDownUnder]

Forgive my ignorance but were benefits in the UK actually cut or were they (as in Australia), temporarily increased for a once in a lifetime pandemic, then reduced back to historical levels once the pandemic was over, or at least gone off the boil?

In the end a country cannot keep on spending beyond its means year after year. If there is a group of people that won't work but can work then they cannot be supported forever. This has gone on too long and nearly bankrupted the Western world.

[Stumuz2]

For those who can work, but don't want to, get your hands off my tax pounds.
If there is anything you don't understand about that proposition, please tell us why they should receive my largesse.

The 1.5million unemployed already need to show that they are available and looking for work, making applications, attending interviews, undertaking training... there are already sanctions for those that don't, including removal of benefits !!!
Given that, how do you propose to determine those who can work, but don't want to ?
& what extra sanctions do you propose ??

As I've already said, many of them are unemployable, rather than unemployed - society will always have this 'rump'
Would you employ somebody who can't read/write or communicate in English....?
Would you employ somebody with a drug/alcohol issue....?
Would you employ an ex-offender ?

Most reasonable people accept that some people will always need the support of benefits to keep them off the streets.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. It seems we agree on most of the issues. Those who cannot work need help, part of a decent society. Where i think we disagree is for those who will not work, benefits should be withdrawn after a period of help, support, and suitable job offers have been refused, where you think that there will always be a rump who will never work and should be supported by those who do?

[Stumuz2]

Forgive my ignorance but were benefits in the UK actually cut or were they (as in Australia), temporarily increased for a once in a lifetime pandemic, then reduced back to historical levels once the pandemic was over, or at least gone off the boil?

In the end a country cannot keep on spending beyond its means year after year. If there is a group of people that won't work but can work then they cannot be supported forever. This has gone on too long and nearly bankrupted the Western world.

No when the pandemic struck and people were told to stay at home etc, the gov'gave £20 a week to help with the extra heating etc. That has now ended.

[Mark]

Forgive my ignorance but were benefits in the UK actually cut or were they (as in Australia), temporarily increased for a once in a lifetime pandemic, then reduced back to historical levels once the pandemic was over, or at least gone off the boil?

In the end a country cannot keep on spending beyond its means year after year. If there is a group of people that won't work but can work then they cannot be supported forever. This has gone on too long and nearly bankrupted the Western world.

No when the pandemic struck and people were told to stay at home etc, the gov'gave £20 a week to help with the extra heating etc. That has now ended.

(1) In the meantime, food costs have gone up, fuel costs have gone up, probably to the tune of £20 per week
(2) There are terrible problems with Universal Credit - I could post lots of stuff, but read the (government's own) report I linked to a page back
(3) The furlough scheme was withdrawn on 1st October, resulting in many losing jobs that no longer exist (eg travel industry) - I'm sure that most of these people will want to get back into work as soon as they can, but it will depend on age, skills, retraining etc., so some are also bound to become unemployed
(4) The amount misspent on benefits is tiny in comparison to the amount of tax avoided by the mega rich and the big corporations - in reality, that is what has nearly bankrupted the Western world.

The current UK unemployment rate is not historically unusual, although I'm sure it will rise as furlough ends...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemploym ... ed_Kingdom
Note there is a baseline of approx. 3% pre and post the establishment of the Welfare State.

To repeat, those on the right always want to kick the 'have nots' first and hardest.

[Mark]

And a full spectrum of comments in response....
It's complex....

Hardly "a full spectrum" of comments, mostly the usual "can afford to go to the pub...." by people who think that unless you sit wrapped in a duvet, starving in your unheated flat then you don't qualify for social support. As things get harder the attitudes will harden too, soon people in a cold flat will be writing that people sleeping in the park "with that nice warm coat and tent....." don't need help. The media already supports this change in attitude, with stories about people on benefits driving Rangerovers and taking exotic holidays.

The right wing media have been the same for decades - those type of stories are nothing new.
There will always be a minority that screw the benefits system, but the amount lost is tiny in comparison with the mega wealthy and big corporations that screw the taxation system.....

Pandora Papers: Tory donor Mohamed Amersi involved in telecoms corruption scandal:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58783460