Looks like he's considering carrying out Thatcher's plan to dismantle the welfare state.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... NTCMP=SRCH

This is one foolish claim. It is blatantly childish to misrepresent dissent from his views in such irritatingly disrespectful terms. Obviously nobody is complaining that expecting those who can work to get jobs is cruel, and the objections are based entirely on other factors that he is ignoring for cheap rhetorical purposes.


But this is no better. If Thatcher was too afraid to carry out such an extreme idea, then the cheesy spineless centrist we currently have is obviously not going to attempt it.

The refusal to acknowledge that others can criticise our ideas honestly, or hold opinions that we don't share, or propose policy that we don't instantly feel in our guts is exactly right, without being stupid/evil/corrupt or all of the above is undermining the value of our democracy. It makes assessing and taking sides on an issue too easy by encouraging infantile emotional reactions to replace sober assessment. My belief is that taking sides on some issues should be hard, and those not inclined to put in the effort should simply not take sides at all.

Democracy is supposed to have two main functions.
1. It allows a society to conduct its political and administrative affairs with a veneer of legitimacy derived from some form of popular consent.
2. This, it is vaguely hoped, will lead to better decision making; policies that benefit the whole of society without inflicting misery on any disadvantaged minority.

The second of those objectives though is unattainable if we continue to conduct our public discourse in the derisive, belittling, and dishonest manner to which we seem increasingly accustomed.

The quality of the decision making is not a consequence of the quantity of votes, the manner of their counting, nor even the freedom of the press that influences the terms of discussion. We as voters have a duty to avoid ideologically inspired mutual incomprehension pacts, because the tastes and fashions of the voters are what drives the politicians and ultimately the policies.

Whichever party you vote for - and this applies universally - they didn't have to work very hard to get your vote. All they did was keep their political messages within a narrowly defined set of narratives that you and others like you find appealing. But you all (equally universally) think that the people who voted for the other side are easily led sheep.

Until the consumers of this process start to show an appetite for well justified policies, this won't change. And until we start taking alternative points of view (and in most cases the set of beliefs and assumptions that underpin them) much more seriously, that won't change either.

Most people on benefits would love a decent job. The fact that some areas are serious job black spots does not help them find work. In some areas the work is so low paid that they would be better off on benefits anyway. Even if they get tax credits, there have been serious problems with the management of them, resulting in destitution in some cases all because the benefits agency messed up. The problem is that when you are in a couple the problems of sorting out the rent if one partner gets work is so complex that I am surprised that more families do not have no one working in them. The problem is that they are trying to get cuts from people who are already at the bottom of the social heap and that is very bad for social cohesion. It was the fear of a communist revolt in america that lead to the new deal. Now with no alternative ideology they seem determined to take the country back to a feudal society where the plebs have no safety nets.

I agree with all of those, but that doesn't mean cuts aren't cruel for those who genuinely rely on them.

Well fixing the deficit will take a lot longer than the coalition expected. As they cut they slash incomes of those that they sack and so slash the GDP figures at the same time so increase the welfare bill at the same time. Businesses will not invest when they already have so much spare capacity and no need to employ any more staff. Fixing schools could be done anytime and may actually need more money but that is unlikely. With league tables there is a huge incentive for schools to kick out kids that will drag their stats down leaving many more out of school with few qualifications and the prospect of life on the dole. If you cut welfare then you also undermine the safety net of all those that work, and increase the impact of any layoffs for them. Yet I suspect that everyone thinks that redundancy will not happen to them.

I'd say it's going to take about as long as they expected but about twice as long as they said it would take when they were trying to get elected.

Yes but why has the OBR also been so very wrong in its calculation of how long before we are out of a deficit? I am not going to accuse them of lying about that. Personally I think that they and their advisors are simply clueless, that is why they keep extending the time before we are back in surplus. It will only be a matter of time before they extend the date yet again.

I'm glad to see my suggestion not to resort to puerile, lazy, stereotypical, hysterical, asinine, and otherwise generally absurd, ideologically inspired, hopelessly, insanely exaggerated, and basically unfair mischaracterization really worked so well for you

Politicians, unlike almost everyone else, thought the Euro-zone crisis would be solved quickly, so exports etc would pick up quickly. Obviously that hasn't happened, so businesses haven't created as many jobs or as much profit as people were hoping. So much of our economy is reliant on European trade, what goes on there will always effect us massively. The worrying thing is that there is still no end in sight for the Euro-zone crisis. They're still just trying to put a sticky plaster on the finances of Greece and Spain. Both countries really need a currency devaluation to make imports more expensive compared to home made products, and to encourage tourists to come and spend more. Of course that can't happen as they're in the Euro.
Greece should never have been allowed in in the first place with it's dodgy accounting, but the politicians were so desperate for it to be a political success, they ignored their own safe guards that would have made it a practical success. Now we're all paying the price.

do you know how difficult it is to get rid of a kid from a school, no matter how bad or disruptive or even dangerous it is to keep them in that school.

Easy for schools not to submit them for examination though. Schools in Cornwall - and probably everywhere else - withdraw pupils from courses if they feel the pupil won't achieve at least a C grade.
Massaging stats. happens everywhere, it makes targets almost completely redundant.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

My local school just tells them not to come in, but doesn't notify the lea so they keep the funding. It stinks.

Not entering them for exams makes it easy for the schools to massage figures and keep league table results higher. What most people want is for their kids to have a decent local school. I would not want the choice of 30 from any number that are within a 30 mile radius.