Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:31 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

... Somebody ought to do the maths - cut every gold-plated civil service pension like Bichard's by 50%, and let's see what that produces. THOSE are the sort of benefits that should be in the thieves' sights, but of course there is no fookin chance of that happening at all. If we are so badly off that we really do have to further financially rape some old guy who toiled in a mill or on a bin wagon or a bus for 45 years, and was so poorly paid that he never could save up any reserve let alone a private cosy pension, let's make him the final target - not the bloody first.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:40 am  

DaveO wrote:

... That is not the point though. Your stance is without the welfare state we wouldn't have anyone with such large families. This is absolute b@ll@ocks.

Indeed, it's been shown more than once and in more than one place that access to opportunities, education etc are factors that bring birth rates down.

One could argue that the welfare state was actually a factor that helped to reduce family sizes. Certainly, if we include the NHS within that, then free contraception has made a massive difference – combined with education and many more opportunities for women.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:46 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: ... There are anecdotally now plenty of whole families generations of whom have, officially, never worked and all of whom exist as professional benefit claimants... Just to point out, recent work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation could find no evidence of this great claim by Cameron. More here.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: ... There are anecdotally now plenty of whole families generations of whom have, officially, never worked and all of whom exist as professional benefit claimants... Just to point out, recent work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation could find no evidence of this great claim by Cameron. More here.

[John_D]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:10 am  

Isn't the whole point of technological advancement to make sure we don't have to work (as much) anyway? Where's my robot butler, goddammit?

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:12 am  

John_D wrote:

Isn't the whole point of technological advancement to make sure we don't have to work (as much) anyway? Where's my robot butler, goddammit?

I'm sure that was what we told back in the 1970s, at any rate.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:27 am  

Mintball wrote: Just to point out, recent work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation could find no evidence of this great claim by Cameron. More here. The Rowntree Foundation are hardly unbiased Minty.

Mintball wrote: Just to point out, recent work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation could find no evidence of this great claim by Cameron. More here. The Rowntree Foundation are hardly unbiased Minty.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:52 am  

Standee wrote:

The Rowntree Foundation are hardly unbiased Minty.

Hmmmmm, who to believe?

A tory spin-doctor turned prime minister or a charitable trust set up by a truly philanthropic Quaker.

I can see where someone would get confused

[John_D]

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:53 am  

Standee wrote:

The Rowntree Foundation are hardly unbiased Minty.

Yeah, with their ridiculous bias against poverty. Laughable that they even bother.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:54 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Hmmmmm, who to believe?

A tory spin-doctor turned prime minister or a charitable trust set up by a truly philanthropic Quaker.

I can see where someone would get confused

Have you ever worked directly with them. I have, agenda driven idealists.

Re: Workfare judged illegal : Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:10 pm  

Standee wrote:

Have you ever worked directly with them. I have, agenda driven idealists.

I'd love to see any claims made by the JRF ranked alongside any from the incumbent government.

I already know whose would stand scrutiny best