Benefits to be capped at £26,000 per family

[INTERVIEWER]

maybe it'll stop these baby making machines who demand 10 bedroomed houses and live on endless handouts from the council/government

 

The high take up of Child Tax Credit, and the Working Tax Credit, indicate that it is our low wage/high tax economy that is the main driving factor for families to seek help from the state with raising their offspring.

 

The majority of jobs most people do either do not pay enough, or offer enough hours. This situation has been brought about deliberately by the political class, who have destroyed our manufacturing base and replaced well paid positions with poor quality service sector jobs.

 

We are now in a situation where the majority of people living in the UK are unable to have a family without claiming some form of financial assistance from the state. Would you rather only the rich were permitted to reproduce in the UK?

[truman]

This situation has been brought about deliberately by the political class, who have destroyed our manufacturing base and replaced well paid positions with poor quality service sector jobs.

 

 

Don't you think the low wage economies that actually do manufacture are part of the reason our manufacturing has declined?

[INTERVIEWER]

Don't you think the low wage economies that actually do manufacture are part of the reason our manufacturing has declined?

 

Our political class could have blocked the importation of cheap imports - which were usually inferior in quality to what we ourselves produced. They are, after all, supposed to put British workers first. But instead, under pressure from the forces of global capitalism, they want the UK to 'compete' with economies that pay their workers the equivalent of less than £10 per month - such as China and much of India. The British worker is now almost virtually redundant in the global economy.

 

They knew that this policy would seriously hurt British jobs and incomes, and put increasing pressure upon families trying to give their children a decent start in life. But the profits of the few outweigh all other considerations.

 

So the next time The Daily Mail reports about a large family living on benefits, just remember it is entirely because of the economic policies supported by that paper.

[INTERVIEWER]

Our low income/high tax economy means that most of our jobs do not pay enough to raise a family - but the wages are too high to enable the UK to adequately compete in the global economy. The political class know this - and is the reason why they divert attention onto the 'undeserving' poor.

[truman]

Our political class could have blocked the importation of cheap imports - which were usually inferior in quality to what we ourselves produced. They are, after all, supposed to put British workers first. But instead, under pressure from the forces of global capitalism, they want the UK to 'compete' with economies that pay their workers the equivalent of less than £10 per month - such as China and much of India. The British worker is now almost virtually redundant in the global economy.

 

They knew that this policy would seriously hurt British jobs and incomes, and put increasing pressure upon families trying to give their children a decent start in life. But the profits of the few outweigh all other considerations.

 

So the next time The Daily Mail reports about a large family living on benefits, just remember it is entirely because of the economic policies supported by that paper.

 

Our exports would have had tariffs imposed on them had we done that...or do you think the British economy is large enough to support itself without export..?

[INTERVIEWER]

It should also be remembered that the UK has one of the least generous welfare systems in the modern developed world. A few isolated instances of families living in £100,000 houses - and getting their rent/council tax paid - does not mean that the majority of those on benefit are living the life of Riley.

 

Please lets move away from obsolete Victorian notions of the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor.

[truman]

It should also be remembered that the UK has one of the least generous welfare systems in the modern developed world. A few isolated instances of families living in £100,000 houses - and getting their rent/council tax paid - does not mean that the majority of those on benefit are living the life of Riley.

 

Please lets move away from obsolete Victorian notions of the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor.

 

Where's better all round?

[INTERVIEWER]

Our exports would have had tariffs imposed on them had we done that...or do you think the British economy is large enough to support itself without export..?

 

The UK could have supported itself in the global economy in much the same way Japan has done for the last fifty years.

 

But Japanese politicians understand that the economy must serve the needs of the people, and not the other way round as practiced by British politicians.

[Rupert_Baehr]

...

The majority of jobs most people do either do not pay enough, or offer enough hours. This situation has been brought about deliberately by the political class, who have destroyed our manufacturing base and replaced well paid positions with poor quality service sector jobs.

 

...

 

So it was the political class who went on strike so frequently during the 1970s was it? There were indeed many examples of very poor management, but if the workers don't show up for work (or if the union convenor just 'happens' to have his golf clubs in the boot of his car so that in the really unlikely event a dispute occurs with management that day and he is forced to call a strike he won't have to go home to get them ) then production will be low, profits will fall and eventually the factory will close - or move elsewhere.

 

If that's all the fault of the 'political class' then one must ask "Which party?"

 

Our political class could have blocked the importation of cheap imports - which were usually inferior in quality to what we ourselves produced. They are, after all, supposed to put British workers first. But instead, under pressure from the forces of global capitalism, they want the UK to 'compete' with economies that pay their workers the equivalent of less than £10 per month - such as China and much of India. The British worker is now almost virtually redundant in the global economy.

 

They knew that this policy would seriously hurt British jobs and incomes, and put increasing pressure upon families trying to give their children a decent start in life. But the profits of the few outweigh all other considerations.

 

So the next time The Daily Mail reports about a large family living on benefits, just remember it is entirely because of the economic policies supported by that paper.

 

How would the political class have blocked "the importation of cheap imports"?

 

How many brands of camera have been made in the UK since the 1970s? How many brands of TV sets? How many brands of vacuum cleaner? (Where did Dyson go and why?)

 

Why didn't British consumers buy those British goods which were manufactured in the UK? Did 'poor quality' 'unreliability' and 'high price' have anything to do with it? Why did so many British people buy imported cars if they were so unreliable?

 

The British worker is far from being 'redundant in the global economy' but many countries (Great Britain included) have failed to move with the times.

 

When I was a teenager, people were waxing lyrical about how 'advances in modern technology mean that, in the future, we will have far more leisure time.' True enough, but most of those advances in modern technology meant a reduction in the number of low-skilled and unskilled jobs. They also demanded an increase in the number of highly-skilled and highly-qualified workers.

 

If there aren't enough unskilled or low skilled jobs in the UK, why has the country imported so many unskilled and low skilled workers? If there are so many people out of work in the UK, why are so many companies leaving? Why can't they attract the workers they need? (And the gentleman interviewed at the curry festival in Leeds last week, the gentleman who complained that he couldn't get people to cook in his curry houses wasn't looking for rocket scientists - he wanted people who were prepared and willing to learn to cook.) According to him, he can't get them.

 

Why does the country have to import skilled workers? Why does it not train its own?

 

It should also be remembered that the UK has one of the least generous welfare systems in the modern developed world. A few isolated instances of families living in £100,000 houses - and getting their rent/council tax paid - does not mean that the majority of those on benefit are living the life of Riley.

 

Please lets move away from obsolete Victorian notions of the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor.

 

If the UK's welfare system is so poor, why do so many people travel so many thousands of miles through so many other countries to get to it? There can be little doubt that the welfare system is going to be hit hard by the government's spending cutbacks, but until those who make a career out of living on welfare start to leave to go to those countries which you think have more generous systems, you'll have a job persuading people that the welfare system in the UK is so bad.

 

Migration isn't a one-way street (and most immigrants are ambitious, prepared to work and have the goal of improving their lives) but who is coming into the country and who is leaving? - Not how many, but what do they do for a living?

[Worjackie]

£26,000 a year is still way too high! The maximum amount anyone can claim in benefits should be capped at around £10,000. Many full time jobs in Sheffield pay as little as £15,000 so where's the incentive to work when you get given £26,000 to sit on your backside at home all day?