pap

My favourite all-time episode is Queeg, mainly 'cos it's Norman Lovett's final hour.

I cannot. All I can do is point to your general rant on poverty and draw conclusions. For the record though, do you agree with removing housing benefits from the under 25s? Unlike you, I do actually read the Daily Mail from time to time. Bit of balance is always appropriate, I feel. You may not read it yourself, but you probably should. They like banging on about a lot of the same things as you do. In a bit of an upgrade from the standard Lord D position - they actually have the balls to be critical of the party they support when it warrants it. Filthy rag though, all things considered. You didn't read it right. I accused you of not thinking stuff through. We could just as easily go for kids chopping their own limbs off to become better beggars. I note that once again, you failed to answer any of the real questions in my post. Perhaps a career in politics? Besides, you're starting from the idiotic point of truth that "it is the way it is". Numerous posters on here have come up with better solutions than "spend more money". Rent control, land tax, flat tax, investment - none of those ideas a go-er for you then? At the end of all that, your two solutions are increasing wages and/or cutting benefits. And neither is really a solution. I say again, career in politics perhaps?

Lord D - have you thought through the consequences of removing housing benefit from the under 25s? Are you aware that many in receipt of housing benefit are doing full-time jobs? How do you reconcile your pantheon of Daily Mail beliefs with the thought of a working under-25 year old losing a house and job because of these reforms? What do you say to the kids when the procession of men start turning up at the family home so their mum can turn a few tricks for cash? The problem with right-wingers is you just don't think things through. Have a think about whether you're prepared to look the bedraggled kids in the eyes when you're pulling money out of the ATM. Consider whether that's the sort of country you'd like to live in, factor in the massive amount of potential cash the country could trouser if we changed plans, and then tell me whether you think these proposals are a good idea. This is a sickening set of proposals that will lead to universal misery if ever implemented. Thankfully, they've also exposed the Conservatives for the collection of nasty f**kers they are.

Even so, there is something to be said for the "low tax rate, lots paying" approach to taxation. With all the indirect taxation lumped on top of income tax, I reckon the true tax burden is closer to 50%, if not more.

Very amusing piece from the Guardian:- Cameron's welfare speech: he cannot be serious My favourite bit. This common-sense thing. Really eludes some of our politicians, doesn't it?

In theory. In practice, there's a bloody good reason kids fly the nest

Was that the age that you joined the mob? Not trying to say that the Navy isn't a proper job - far from it. However, don't they pretty much 'keep' you once you sign up? As in, all food provided, rent-free accommodation, etc? Respectfully, TDD - I'm not sure you faced the same challenges as a 19 year old working in civilian employment.

Britain. The country where the kids can't afford to leave home. PS. If we're really suggesting that, can we at least go for hobbit holes? They are expandable and could offer some privacy to the 32 year old bachelor who plans on masturbating in his bedroom.

So hermits are the true scroungers? Those cave-dwelling b*stards!

So why not take the next logical step and sterilise anyone who fails their SATs?

Ali G says hello.

In a sense, you're right. We just don't know. He could have become a millionaire (or whatever other definition of success you may choose to use). However, he can immediately point to jobs he is likely to be able to get, do a bit of maths and say "we couldn't afford the house if I worked". I appreciate that some people can take the longer term route; secure a professional qualification and enter the job market at a level where it does pay to work. Is that a universal option? What do we say to people who just don't have the capability to do that? "You're f**ked, mate?" Earnings and cost of living are massively out of whack. You want a position? I think anyone should be able to support a family if they're in full time employment. Really don't think that's too much to ask.

I'd have no problem living on benefits temporarily. As far as I'm concerned, I've paid enough into the system to justify them looking after me if I ever get in the crap. I recognise the attitude you've mentioned and have seen it myself. There is one bloke in particular I'm thinking of. He's almost fifty, got a load of kids and his "job", if you can call it that, is contriving ways to extract free dosh out of the Government. Never paid tax in his life and seems to be passing his "trade" down onto his kids. Personable enough bloke, but at the back of my mind, the fact that he has never even tried is always there. It's difficult not to feel a little resentment at that, and yep, his attitude stinks. He's exactly the sort of person you should be singling out and throwing the book at. Problem is, these reforms aren't really about singling people out. They'll hit a lot of vulnerable people who actually need state assistance ( btf's points on having to go back to destructive parents / not being able to go back completely taken ). He'll attempt to justify his argument with "ah, it's all bolox. we couldn't afford this place if I was working, so why bother". The shame of that is he's right there too. Can't help feeling that we need to attack the problem on multiple fronts. Yes, go after the blatant scroungers - but we also need to work to make this bloke's arguments moot. He shouldn't be able to claim that it doesn't pay to work, yet right now he can - and with considerable evidence. That's a large part of the problem.

Again, Lord D - can't help that you are missing out on some of the social context. I've lived and worked with a load of Eastern Europeans. One of the things that unites them (apart from some massive inter-nation rivalry) is that they all come from countries that until very recently, were under the yoke of authoritative governments. Fair enough, I accept that 20 year old Agnieska is not necessarily going to have any meaningful direct experience of living like that, but her parents certainly did. Is it really a surprise that the children of the Warsaw Pact countries do everything they are asked without complaining? Let's move onto some of your other points, where I think we have more common ground. I'd like to tackle the "I won't do that job" phenomenon first. I know it exists, but we differ on why it exists. I have some sympathy with your view about too many people going to University. I know too many people armed with 'soft' degrees doing entry level work or a second 'worthwhile' degrees to disagree. That conceded, I don't think you can lay the blame on Labour's policy to get more kids into higher education. You are onto something, though. Aspiration lies at the centre of this, but it goes far wider than the decisions of a single government. For too long, we've collectively sneered at lowlier professions, and I can't say I'm blameless on that front. Those performing them not only suffer the indignity of a crap job, but they also get crap wages to boot. I also think that many of us are guilty of hypocrisy and have seen it happen with my own eyes. It's very easy to state that you'd clean toilets if you had to whilst enjoying the benefits of a professional wage. I doubt that many would. If the Lord D empire collapsed tomorrow, would you really be fit for pushing trollies in TESCO? How would you feel if one of your contemporaries saw you doing it? Particularly if they were relatively well off? I mean no disrespect to trolly persons, btw - did that job myself - but I'm not sure how my ego would hold up with having to do it now.

16 signatures? Well you're not on your own, kid - but you need around 99,884 more people to agree for it to be debated in Parliament!

Not really, dune. While I admire your intention to spruce up workhouses so that aesthetically, they're not as Dickensian - I'm not keen on the concept of workhouses. Conceptually, workhouses and welfare are pretty similar. They both represent(ed) the drip tray of capitalism, the place where anything that falls out of the system ends up. The big lie here is that it is even possible to achieve 100% employment. The truth ( and it has been true for centuries ) is that (drum roll) not everyone needs to work. Punishing people for endemic failures in our system seems a little counterproductive. I'd sooner we addressed the systemic issues rather than create more sticking plasters.

You don't have to buy a property. It is, however, one of the most tangible stakes in society an individual can have. The point is not about property ownership per se, more about the opportunities on offer to a Polish employee and English employee earning the same wage. The Polish lad can buy his own house in his own country. His English counterpart cannot. Lord D seemingly cannot understand why Polish people might be better motivated. There's a big reason.

Feck me, dune and I are in some agreement today! dune's right about the problem being in the system. Let's examine WFTC in isolation. Why does it exist? Well, basically because the amount of money families have to live on isn't enough. Still isn't, which is why you have reports about working people being in poverty. Lord D's attempt to make a qualitative comparison between the English and the Poles is interesting, but ultimately a little superficial. Polish workers aren't innately any better than English workers. They just have a more powerful incentive to work ( particularly true in the first years of entry ). They can actually do something with the meagre "just above minimum wage" salary Lord D is offering, especially if they are prepared to make some fairly drastic short-term sacrifices to do so (such as living in overcrowded accommodation). They can send the money home and use the disparities of income to actually achieve something back home. How far does "just above minimum wage" get someone who sticks around in England? How much overtime do you have to do at £6.08 an hour before you can buy an average-priced £160K home?

So are you okay with the slum landlords I referred to in my previous posts?

Sorta. Your mum might not be claiming any housing benefit, but we now pay several times more in housing benefit for properties like hers.

Big lol. All the people I was referring to are actually Sotonians! I commend you for the speed of your quick quip, tho'

Great thing for your mum, TDD. Free money always is. Would she have been able to afford her own house without the free money though?

I'm not saying that. Saying it just won't work. How many people do you know who have been on long-term benefits, Lord D? I know quite a few, and trust me - I wouldn't fancy their lifestyle, paid for the state or not. You have a very limited view of what constitutes a scrounger. It isn't "takes money from the state", as it should be. It's "has no money and takes money from the state".

A big part of the supply conundrum is down to right-to-buy. I've already written about this at length, and have a Freedom of Information request pending with a view to a future article ( y'know, backed up with figures and everything ). Rents were lower when council housing stock was high. Had to be. Private landlords were competing with some very decent rates. They still are, but the number of competitors has dwindled massively, and there seems to be no appetite for massive council house rebuilding. Shame really, as they're kinda the ideal place for a young family to stay while saving for their own house. At least, that's how it used to work. Need to build more council housing, and remember what it's there for. It isn't for people to live in forever, nor should it have been a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for free money. The effective death of council housing put anyone of limited means into the domain of property speculators, who as you say, love to see prices go up.

I might be being a bit thick here, but I'm not sure I see the link between making examples of the worst slum landlords and more people being homeless. Could you explain the chain of events?