Frank Field


R

robster

Just read an article by Frank Field in today's Sunday Express.

He was basically saying in the article that ALL working age benefits should
be time limited, because that's how they do it in the US.

That man is such a knob!

Has he seen the poverty they have in the US?

Who would he be helping by limiting the time you can be paid a benefit?


--
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

past due

x-no-archive: yes
Who would he be helping by limiting the time you can be paid a benefit?
The neo-con agenda.

Welcome to the brave new world.

It's like the old world but now legally endorsed by the government.
 
R

robster

past said:
The neo-con agenda.
I had to look up 'neo-con' as I wasn't 100% sure what it meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

"Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism,
tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to
libertarians and mainstream conservatives, supported civil equality for
blacks and other minorities, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign
policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of
diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles
even if that meant unilateral action. Indeed, domestic policy does not
define"

Not sure that is New Labour to be honest - sounds more like the New
Conservatives to me.

--
 
M

Mike

robster said:
Just read an article by Frank Field in today's Sunday Express.

He was basically saying in the article that ALL working age benefits should
be time limited, because that's how they do it in the US.

That man is such a knob!

Has he seen the poverty they have in the US?

Who would he be helping by limiting the time you can be paid a benefit?
Clinton introduced this IIRC, ironicly he is credited with doing much to
reduce the number of lone parents in the US. [insert joke here]

The American social security budget has been cut dramatically
(obviously) unlike the UK social security budget is rapidly climbing, at
what most would agree is at an unsustainable rate.

Sooner or later a UK government (certainly not this one) is going to
have to make very hard choices about social security. The sooner it is
the less painful it will be, but it will only happen when it absolutely
has to. Goverments will continue to dodge the issue, tweak benefits,
talk tough and do little for a few more years yet.

Mike
 
P

past due

x-no-archive: yes
I had to look up 'neo-con' as I wasn't 100% sure what it meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

"Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism,
tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to
libertarians and mainstream conservatives, supported civil equality for
blacks and other minorities, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign
policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of
diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles
even if that meant unilateral action. Indeed, domestic policy does not
define"

Not sure that is New Labour to be honest - sounds more like the New
Conservatives to me.
Current neo-con agenda = more like fascism (big business in bed with
the gov.)
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/23/215353/847
 
P

past due

x-no-archive:yes
Sooner or later a UK government (certainly not this one) is going to
have to make very hard choices about social security.
Especially pension payments since our current keynesian economic model
does not function well when the working population is in decline
compared to retired population (only really works the other way round).
The current keynesian economic model will eventally expire when oil
production goes into terminal decline after 2012 and stagflation sets
in globally.

http://www.albany.edu/geosciences/oilngas.html
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

robster

Mike said:
The American social security budget has been cut dramatically
(obviously) unlike the UK social security budget is rapidly climbing, at
what most would agree is at an unsustainable rate.
I always wonder about the reduction of 'welfare' as they call it over there.

How much of the reduction in welfare is offset by the increase in the
spending on the criminal justice system?

In the US they lock up lots of people - I'm not sure of the cost over there.
Here it's 30k per prisoner per year, so not cheap.
Sooner or later a UK government (certainly not this one) is going to
have to make very hard choices about social security.
As long as they commit to,either no benefits, or a full range of social
security. The system we have at the moment is too complicated.

--
 
R

robster

past said:
The current keynesian economic model will eventally expire when oil
production goes into terminal decline after 2012 and stagflation sets
in globally.
Something to look forward too then.

--
 
P

pendragon

robster said:
Just read an article by Frank Field in today's Sunday Express.
Who would he be helping by limiting the time you can be paid a benefit?
Sorry I have not seen the Sunday Express article but Frank Field is a
genuine kind of bloke and does not deserve your rude attack.

AIUA the people who have been helped in the USA are single mothers who have
had to make a decision to either improve their life choices by going back to
school/college/work or have more kids when prospects for themselves and
their kids are already bleak and will become bleaker when the five years are
used up. Other people include those who spend a lifetime on welfare/social
because of the security blanket affect, depriving themselves of a fulfilling
life for an illusionary easy and lazy life.

terryw
 
R

robster

pendragon wrote:

Sorry I have not seen the Sunday Express article but Frank Field is a
genuine kind of bloke and does not deserve your rude attack.
Yeah, maybe you're right - sorry I called you a knob Frank ;)
Other people include those who spend a lifetime on
welfare/social because of the security blanket affect, depriving
themselves of a fulfilling life for an illusionary easy and lazy life.
A fair point - but its all in the implementation.

You must know that this government will come up with some half baked idea
which will cause more harm that good.

Look at the New Deal - incidentally, didn't that come from the US?

--
 
P

pendragon

robster said:
Yeah, maybe you're right - sorry I called you a knob Frank ;)


A fair point - but its all in the implementation.

You must know that this government will come up with some half baked idea
which will cause more harm that good.

I am inclined to agree with you about this government and half-baked ideas.

Welfare/Social Security really needs a full debate. We can not continue at
the present rate.
Mr Field was encouraged to "think the unthinkable" but his ideas were
shelved or ignored. There needs to be an all-party agreement about the
future of Welfare. Tinkering with a system devised sixty years when it was a
different world will only postpone the resolution of the problems.

I am so proud that the poor people of the new EU countries and, indeed, many
people from the rest of the world, want to come to the UK. We must be doing
something right. But I am concerned that if millions of older people come
to take advantage of the MIG (pension credit ) and DLA and the NHS etc then
the whole system will collapse.

Discussion and decision is becoming urgent.

terryw
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mike

robster said:
I always wonder about the reduction of 'welfare' as they call it over there.

How much of the reduction in welfare is offset by the increase in the
spending on the criminal justice system?

In the US they lock up lots of people - I'm not sure of the cost over there.
Here it's 30k per prisoner per year, so not cheap.
Damn sight cheaper than investigating crimes, medical treatment for
victims, lost earnings for victims and witnesses, counselling victims,
insurance claims, compensation/benefits for victims, trials and a myriad
of hidden costs.

Jail is a cheaper solution for habitual crimininals IMHO and it would
serve as a more effective deterent than the slap on the wrist criminal
justice system we have. It seems to encourage the criminal into an
escalation in criminal behaviour until they eventually get a significant
custodial sentence. By the of course the die is cast and they are
locked into ap pattern of behaviour many find difficult to break.

Every town has it scroats who commit dozens of crimes. I can think of a
few that I would like to see locked up permanatenly. £30k pa would be a
net saving for the community/country. No IB/IS, no DLA (they all have
attention deficit!) and no more constant petty criminality and it's
associated costs.

I'm sure the cost could also be driven down, perhaps one of the scottish
islands could be comandeered? No need for high walls ...

Mike
 
R

robster

Mike wrote:

Damn sight cheaper than investigating crimes, medical treatment for
victims, lost earnings for victims and witnesses, counselling victims,
insurance claims, compensation/benefits for victims, trials and a myriad
of hidden costs.
I not sure there is evidence to back that up. Listing the categories as you
do, you'd think it was cost effective to send people to jail - I'm not 100%
convinced. In my view the jury is still out.
Jail is a cheaper solution for habitual crimininals IMHO and it would
serve as a more effective deterent than the slap on the wrist criminal
justice system we have.
Going back to the comparison with the US - the death penalty has had no
deterrent on the murder rate over there.
Every town has it scroats who commit dozens of crimes. I can think of a
few that I would like to see locked up permanatenly.
Yeah I agree - to be honest, now I think about it. Send them all to jail
for life!
I'm sure the cost could also be driven down, perhaps one of the scottish
islands could be comandeered? No need for high walls ...
Yeah, good idea - what about Australia?


--
 
M

Mike

robster said:
Mike wrote:



I not sure there is evidence to back that up. Listing the categories as you
do, you'd think it was cost effective to send people to jail - I'm not 100%
convinced. In my view the jury is still out.
Boom, Boom. It would be difficult to build an accurate financil case a
a habitual criminal is hardly likely to give you the full details of
their criminality. Some kind of average would need to be used for
investigating/processing each type of crime as with the other costs but
I'm sure the gov could do this. With the paperwork these days, I'm sure
even a few days police time and a few hours in court would rapidly pass
the 10k mark. Clearly more serious crimes involving juries take longer
and so cost a hell of a lot more.
Going back to the comparison with the US - the death penalty has had no
deterrent on the murder rate over there.
Possibly but as many murders are spur of the moment, crimes of passion,
robberies gone wrong that's not suprising. Cold bloodied, thought out
murders would be influenced by sentencing. Though I'm sure many other
crimes are ill thought out and on the spur of the moment, surely someone
with such poor impulse control that they commit crimes habitualy should
be locked up for the greater good?
Yeah I agree - to be honest, now I think about it. Send them all to jail
for life!
Not all, some kind of three strikes and a mandatory 10 year sentence.
I'm just a big softie.
Yeah, good idea - what about Australia?
A bit large but I like the way you think. Transport cost's might be
prohibitive. Ironically the aussies are planning to house asylum
seekers on a nearby island.

Mike
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

tony

pendragon said:
I am inclined to agree with you about this government and half-baked ideas.

Welfare/Social Security really needs a full debate. We can not continue at
the present rate.
Mr Field was encouraged to "think the unthinkable" but his ideas were
shelved or ignored. There needs to be an all-party agreement about the
future of Welfare. Tinkering with a system devised sixty years when it was a
different world will only postpone the resolution of the problems.

I am so proud that the poor people of the new EU countries and, indeed, many
people from the rest of the world, want to come to the UK. We must be doing
something right. But I am concerned that if millions of older people come
to take advantage of the MIG (pension credit ) and DLA and the NHS etc then
the whole system will collapse.

Discussion and decision is becoming urgent.

terryw
This debate is unrealistic as we dont have a keynesian demand management
model ANYMORE the government as carried on with the previous governments
neo liberal policies including cutting benefits and making it more
difficult to claim them. Ask me i know about this. i can also say that
New Deal is not cost effective as a lot of people have done it several
times and it makes no difference. The government sees it as a cheap
option and does not work with employers - they are not interested in
New Deal at least not the 25+ element. Not mentioning any names one
local New Deal provider used to be a disaster couldn't manage a piss up
in a brewery.

How can it help our welfare budget if people can take jobs which should
go to the unemployed - if the poles take these lower paid jobs there
will be no work for people doing new deal or the unemployed.

How can the government insist on a rule for us to take low paid jobs and
these are being taken up by well educated poles who are only here
temporarily. it would not be unfair to suggest that if after 12 months
they cannot pass an english language test they should leave - we cannot
do this now. we should have not been so generous and kept them out for
longer like the french. they will not be satisfied with doing low paid
jobs forever once they can speak english.

Looks like the Militant were right about Frank Field all those years ago
in the 1980's. How can he be a Labour MP? Class war is likely to come
back as a serious issue if you abolish welfare it will just add to the
crime figures as there is always a minority in society who are feckless
it goes with the territory. if you pay national insurance when in work
you should be able to claim when you cant work or cant find work.

The Government can find money by not getting involved in stupid foreign
wars! by not replacing trident or building new nuclear power stations
etc. all risky.

Incidentally there are a lot of older people who cant get jobs through
no fault of their own you are not suggesting they should be given a
revolver or clean injection to put themselves out of their misery.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top