Quite. Not exactly the same, but this popped up on social media the other day.

"Allow parents to take children out of school at a time convenient with them for up to 2 weeks per year during term time, so that the children can learn other cultures and experience this vital social experience, at the moment the current system discriminates against poorer households."

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106133

I assume they feel they "have the right" to holidays abroad.....

I have no idea if it is going to happen at all - probably not, at a guess - but that's the only way you get higher wages.

Not really sure what you mean. Even the Tories are proposing higher wages and less benefits. I'm all for that but the benefits should fall as a result of higher wages for the low paid rather than by denying benefits to those who need it.

What I am saying is that I am not sure that the economy is capable of producing higher paying jobs, nor I am sure that if it does we have the individuals capable of filling them. You could probably have a debate whether benefits are set at a level where they are paid below, approximately at or above the level at which they are needed, but it would probably lead to a full-on thread meltdown.

I agree on avoiding a discussion on what exact level benefits should be unless there's some experts posting here, I'm just saying they should be based on need rather than used as some policy tool.

I've read Dworkin, I think his views about the development about the law's development in TRS are coherent (but not his views about rights), if incorrect IMO; but then in Law's Empire he decides to go back and turn a lot of what he said that was decent into claptrap.

I think most people do but the State benefits from having more tax payers so isn't it a win-win situation?

And so he should. As usual it's those who are the poorest who are hit the worst, and JC ought to be taking Cameron to task over it.

****ing broken record isn't he. Avoids every question with this answer.


Probably, but then that isn't saying too much. I'm a but of a food nazi and I'd like to see some authoritarian control of the **** we allow people to eat, especially children. It's almost depressing seeing them walking around at lunch time with bags of ****ing chips.

I think it would be good if the vouchers got highly nutritious food into people's diets. The effects of poverty are crippling in many ways, and improving the country's diet could go a long way to helping mitigate the consequences of poverty.

Without doubt we need to overhaul our food systems. There's too much waste and the CAP is an absolute abortion. I think we need to localise it more and reduce the need for importing and exporting. There are more efficient methods of growing food, such as aquaponics, which could be on all the flat roofs across cities, as well as becoming part of existing farms' production, making a contribution of highly nutritious organic produce to local communities.

Also if we could make an effort to use all the fresh stuff that supermarkets would otherwise throw out, as is done in Scandinavia especially, it could make a big difference to what people reliant on food banks put on their plate.

Aye fair enough; there's no restriction as it is. Poor choice of argument from me.

In terms of what welfare parents receive, well again it all comes back to the point that the best way of dealing with welfare is not to need it in the first place. A more equitable income and wealth distribution is required.

As it is, I'm not so sure the State doesn't want people to have more children - more taxpayers to add to the pot that they want to get their hands on.

Does the cost of the extra pension for healthy people outweigh the costs of treating chronic condition sufferers?

Perhaps, in any case, those who do live healthy lifestyles are more likely to be wealthy enough not to rely on the State in their retirement. It's no secret that poverty leads to ill health.

The joys of neoliberalism. All the money funnels up and spunks out over this or that tax haven.

I see the BBC are reporting that income has increased by 2. something % over the last couple of months. No breakdown of course was given, but I'd bet my virgin arsehole most of it went to the top.

It's the healthier people who live for longer with chronic conditions.

Ah right I see what you meant.

I'm similar for slightly different reasons.

My gf grew up literally and I mean literally where a pencil for school was a luxury and not every day they could afford a bowl of rice for everyone. She now lives in a house with three sisters and three children and two bedrooms between them. She also graduated high school two years later because it was more important her sister got the funds for university.

So excuse me if I don't give a single solitary **** if someone with five kids and a 35k household income can't make ends meet. There is no ****ing way that is true, they just don't want to cut some luxuries, and it's not our job to subsidise their irresponsibility.

If the story is they live in a three bedroom house, have no sky TV, have the cheapest Internet and only one TV, own the cheapest three row minivan and live on rice and vegetables I'll care more. There is no ****ing way they have cut luxuries down to the basics. They don't even need to worry about stuff like education costs or healthcare.

Yeah some good points here. I just wonder how the opposition and the electorate would react if the Tories brought in a voucher system to partly replace some benefits, and to replace food banks? And I wonder if there would be a different reaction if a JC led majority Labour party brought the same policy in?

As I understand the Swedish system, the voucher system is the most basic benefit for people such as immigrants, and people tend to be highly motivated to get off it as it's seen as pretty demeaning. The flip side is that at the top end of their welfare system, when you lose your job you get the majority of your salary (something like 80%) paid for up to 6 months while you search for a new job. After that you're on a sliding scale where eventually you end up on vouchers.

I'd see such a system a big improvement on our current welfare.

It may have changed in four years but food bank food from what several ppl I knew using them told me was no worse than you'd get at morrisons or tescos.

Supermarkets are super selective on how stuff looks, food banks pick up the equally good nutritionally but less pretty food they reject.

The government doesn't want taxpayers at any cost. If it did they would build a couple hundred more thousand houses a year and stop talking about limiting migration.

Raising a citizen cradle to grave is a super expensive investment that can't just be examined in a vacuum and has a lot of extra costs like healthcare and pensions which aren't even being discussed.

I'm forever saying the answer to unemployment/low income benefits is to provide a real incentive to work - not to reduce benefits, but to increase the minimum wage. I wonder how much this has to do with people in Sweden being 'highly motivated' to get off benefits.

As for vouchers replacing some benefits, well remember that many use foodbanks because their money doesn't stretch that far. Keeping up with bills and putting food on the table isn't easy for a lot of people. Making them get food with some of their income may not be the best way to deal with it.

Again - broken record - distribute income/wealth more equitably etc etc.

If you give people vouchers instead of money and they don't want food they'll just sell the vouchers at a slight discount and spend the cash on what they want.

Then they'd lose money, and who knows how easy it would be to sell them.

I dunno, I'm kind of indifferent on this, mostly because I see it as trying to polish a turd.

That happens in America but it's not clear how widespread it is. Regardless giving money is way more efficient.

Alex Salmond lying about the national anthem on QT. Hilarious.

John McDonnell was on if people want to watch on iplayer.

Somewhat interesting, somewhat dull - liven it up by playing a game of guess who's going to say "Jesus was a refugee"

The Telegraph journalist was embarrassing. Came over like a student politics person.

hahaa that was pretty funny. He was mashing it till that point, but then again most mongos buy that **** anyway.

Aye the Telegraph guy was an utter prick. His hairdo really pissed me off.

I only saw the second half, but didn't Salmond claim that illustrious title?

I see Lord Watson (the firestarter ) has been appointed to Corbyn's front bench. It's getting more bizarre by the day.

Its just really really weird to vote for one party just on the omfg cant make end meet with 5 kids and 35K, **** those guys.

Reducing the sum of politics to that Archimedean point around which all politics revolves is just perverse.

I mean who cares if elites are gaming the system, some guy on 25K might be getting an extra 2k or so a year, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, must not happen and I will vote accordingly.