Thread: Britain: a land of quangocrats & hereditary welfare junkies

Bang on the money!


…but I'm sure the Usual Suspects® will be along to argue he's wrong.


Britain, 2010: a land of quangocrats and hereditary welfare junkies

By Norman Tebbit Politics Last updated: March 15th, 2010

Lord Beveridge, the architect of the postwar welfare state, was no fool. He saw the dangers, as well as the merits of a comprehensive welfare system. Sadly a lot of fools, or worse, did not listen to all of what he said. As he warned us, “The danger of providing benefits, which are both adequate in amount and indefinite in duration� is “that men as creatures who adapt to circumstances may settle down to them.�

He would be horrified at the extent of welfare dependency today. It is not just, as he put it, “men becoming habituated to idleness�. There is a growing army of men and women, whether in or out of work, dependent on the state (that is the taxpayer) for their living. They are not all at the bottom of the stack of society. An increasing number are in the £100,000 a year class, with pensions to match.

It seems to me that, as Beveridge instinctively understood, the most habit-forming, dependency-creating, narcotic substance known to man is the milk which flows from the collective breast of the taxpayers. The number of addicts is rising every year. Many are now hereditary welfare junkies, born of junkie parents into junkie families, trapped by the welfare pushers into the poverty trap. They are offered no way out of the trap. Work leaves them worse off, for that means they would be taxed to feed their own addiction.
The pushers, as in the trade of other narcotics, are mostly reliant on the taxpayers’ milk, too. Many of them are nice hand-wringing Guardianistas.

They would like things to be other than they are, but they could not afford it to be so. These are the upper class of those in dependency upon the taxpayer and they live a good life. Some will be found at Regional Government Conferences in agreeable parts of Europe. There those of high social standing as “executives� in local government (mostly reluctant to let the poor old milch cow know how much of its milk they imbibe).

Then there is the quangocracy. They are all part of the dependency culture, with priority in the queue to nuzzle into the (until now) ample bosom of the taxpayer.
They are not all worthless scroungers. Many work very hard at jobs which need not be done. Others do jobs which need to be done, carrying out the essential functions of the state, and it is those (like soldiers) who are most at risk of being shouldered aside in the great milk rush.

However, that milk is a dangerous substance. The destruction of the House of Commons owes much to its addictive and mind-bending nature. Last week Members of Parliament concluded that at this time of a soaring budget deficit and inevitable cuts in expenditure, the most important, the highest priority expenditure which must go ahead regardless of our straitened circumstances, was about half a million pounds for a Parliamentary creche.

If Members of the House of Commons think that this should have priority over body armour for troops, or care for the sick and vulnerable, then surely it is them themselves who should be in the creche.

Alas, I fear that over recent years so many of the middle classes have been seduced into public sector dependency and found it secure, well paid and comfortable place.
I wonder if enough of those turkeys will vote for an early Christmas on May 6.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/no...lfare-junkies/

So 'Let them eat grass' why are so many people out of work?

Well said. Just one small issue that I would like to raise though - and not in criticism - when I was sick a few years ago, I got bugger all help from anyone. No dole, no sickness benefit, SSAFA weren't interested, neither the RBL etc. So how do these people become lifelong leeches? I wasn't allowed to become even a temporary leech. Oh wait though, maybe it is because I am not an illegal immigrant.

Usuall right wing horseshit, why always pick on the lower end who won't answer back. Wouldn't it be more constructive to make work pay, rather than slagging benefit claimants?
Despite ANECDOTAL myth's, MOST benefit claimants are genuine, or are truly caught in a benefit trap i.e. Minimum Wage wont pay the rent/bills but NO it's far easier to say 'Hey look at those Chav's get a feckin job, I have and I'm better then you!'
Just my two pence worth.

Originally Posted by jarrod248

So 'Let them eat grass' why are so many people out of work?

Because their all Cunts mate. :P

right that was easy now im off to put the rest of the world to rights.

To my mind, one catch which nobody in power ever steps up to solving, is that as soon as someone is on 'benefit' all sorts of other freebies (rent, council tax etc) come their way. If they get a job then all that disappears and instead they have to fund NI, fares, maybe lunches, maybe child care out of their pay. I'd like to see some money sums on this so as to understand what level of pay is necessary for it to be worth the while of various categories of beneficiaries to go to work (single people, single parents, family men etc). Nobody but a fool would work except to get more money than is going to come their way anyway. And the margin needs to be more than twopence.

Originally Posted by llech

Usuall right wing horseshit, why always pick on the lower end who won't answer back. Wouldn't it be more constructive to make work pay, rather than slagging benefit claimants? work does pay, it just doesn't pay as much as benefits. No one person should be allowed to claim more than the maximum they could earn on minimum wage less one hour so that work is always the best option. Benefit is not there to fund a lifestyle but as a stand-bye in times of hardship.
Despite ANECDOTAL myth's, MOST benefit claimants are genuine, or are truly caught in a benefit trap i.e. Minimum Wage wont pay the rent/bills then they should cut their cloth accordingly. Why should anyone be allowed to claim more in benefit than they can earn for themselves? If you're on minimum wage then there will be a lot you will have to go without, just like I had to when I was bringing my children up on a piss poor squaddies wage. 1 TV (rented from SSVC), second hand furniture and rarely went out for a drink, let alone on a bender, second hand washing machine as well, no car, couldn't afford one.but NO it's far easier to say 'Hey look at those Chav's get a feckin job, I have and I'm better then you!'
Just my two pence worth.

It used to be a very simple rule of life, if you couldn't afford something you went without. Today's generation where you must have every last luxury on earth before you're 21 is bollix. Go out, get the best job you can and live off the wages.

Originally Posted by llech

Usuall right wing horseshit, why always pick on the lower end who won't answer back. Wouldn't it be more constructive to make work pay, rather than slagging benefit claimants?
Despite ANECDOTAL myth's, MOST benefit claimants are genuine, or are truly caught in a benefit trap i.e. Minimum Wage wont pay the rent/bills but NO it's far easier to say 'Hey look at those Chav's get a feckin job, I have and I'm better then you!'
Just my two pence worth.

and not even worth that much. the only sh*te here is the drivel your spouting.

how do you know most claimants are genuine, have you done a bloody survey! usual left wing sh*te designed to protect it's dependent base

get a job you work shy gobsh*te!

The usual suspects coming out of the woodwork???? The truth hurts [those that if affects] so expect the timber to sound like it's full of deathwatch beetle!

Yes yes 42" flatscreen, snazzy car fancy clothes blah blah blah. Good grief this is why we'll never progress.
Work does pay yes, not enough on min wage but yes it does pay. Lefty pinko commie blah blah.
Shouting I'm wrong your right can be fun but doesn't solve the problem does it?
Saying to someone they should've done better in life is the easy bit, and admonishes any responsibility to help out said person, who with a leg up could be in the same position as you.

Reward success by all means, but why punish someone for being poor?

Originally Posted by Plastic Yank

Originally Posted by llech

Usuall right wing horseshit, why always pick on the lower end who won't answer back. Wouldn't it be more constructive to make work pay, rather than slagging benefit claimants?
Despite ANECDOTAL myth's, MOST benefit claimants are genuine, or are truly caught in a benefit trap i.e. Minimum Wage wont pay the rent/bills but NO it's far easier to say 'Hey look at those Chav's get a feckin job, I have and I'm better then you!'
Just my two pence worth.

and not even worth that much. the only sh*te here is the drivel your spouting.

how do you know most claimants are genuine, have you done a bloody survey! usual left wing sh*te designed to protect it's dependent base

get a job you work shy gobsh*te!

I'll wager most claimants are malingerers and should be on chain gangs and humiliated into work.

Originally Posted by llech

Usuall right wing horseshit, why always pick on the lower end who won't answer back.

The article is also having a go about the terribly well paid five-a-day-organic-real-nappy-lesbian-ethhnic-minority-outreach-coordinators as well...

Illech, you're just spouting the same old sh!te that Ashie would. You're not him are you?

You didn't read the article properly. Some of these scrounging wasters he's talking about are 'executives' in local councils, the are 'outreach' tards, people employed by the tax-payer to do non-jobs - all sucking on the t!t of the tax machine.

He's also absolutely right about it being easier to be on the dole than it is to work. You forgot one particular point about the hereditory doleys in this country - this being a complete lack of any pride whatsoever. Instead of being proud of the fact that they are in employment, and thus doing there bit by themselves, for themselves and for their community in general, they take pride instead from the fact that they've got council houses, can work in the black economy (that's cash-in-hand to you), they can afford to buy and run a secondhand car, can afford their fags, food, booze, reebock trainers and generally live like those who DO work for a living, but without the inconvenience of clocking on or off, or of worrying about a little thing called self-respect.

For those out there who do have some self-respect, they go out and try and find work, even it's a sh!t, low paid job that only just covers the bills.

It's wnakers like you who will argue until they are blue in the face that the 'dole' doesn't provide doleys with enough money or facilities, readily forgetting that the dole is merely a short-term means to survive until the next job can be got.

This country IS a land of welfare junkies (see just about any of the 30,000 council estates up and down the country for the truth of this) and suits employed for no purpose to their communities for big salaries with gold-plated pensions, without any requirement to perform whatsoever, only to exist and ensure their job continues to exist.

Sh!theads and wasters is what they are, and they give the truly deserving a bad name by behaving the way they do. There many tens of thousands of people out there who DO want to work, who ARE looking for work but can't find any, or are too disabled to work, or are full-time carers, but these people are seriously in the minority.

llech
is perfectly correct.
People should be paid to work not sit at home doing whatever.
Give a couple of months to find work then if still unemployed they must be made to take whatever job is available and the wage made up by State.
No Social Security just simple work.
john
Nice to see llech talking some sense for once.

Yes that's it - we'll conscribe the unemployed and put them to work! Hang on, to do what exactly? Put them on the roads? Well there seem to be quite enough road menders who are all trained and capable of using machinery etc. We are not talking digging corrugated roads in Arizona here. where would you have these feckless ones work? Locally or perhaps we could gather up the millions of unemployed and put thenm to building nuclear power stations in Cape Wrath? The manufacturers of stoves, Corrimecs and mass caterers will all be chuffed to NAAFI break. Though they may find the steady supply from their local job centre has dried up.

It is a pleasing conceit for about fifteen minutes. Mussolini drained the Pontine Marshes, Roosevelt's New Deal built the Hoover Dam. When the job was done they had exactly the same problem as before and had concentrated the unemployed in the areas of the public works. So really putting the idle unmployed to forced labour doesn't address the underlying issues...nor does a "windfall tax" on the "wealthy propertied". I suspect I am not alone in feeling a sense of dread when I hear that expression...do they mean us? They probably do!