to think that there are people who choose to live a life on benefits?

[autumnlights12]

the recent threads about George Osbourne made me wonder..
A high number of posters say that people don't choose to live like that, they stumble into it, hate it, what a miserable existence it is, nobody would ever choose it etc..
but if you have two or three children through choice, whilst at the same time having no job to provide for them, or if you turn down the job at the local factory (as I know someone who did) because it pays £7.50 an hour and a full time job there doesn't give you the same unemployment rights and benefits, isn't that choosing to live a life on benefits? Or being trapped on benefits? I'm not talking about people who can't work, disabled people, ill people, women dumped by feckless ex and left to fend for herself etc.. of course they should be protected.
I was watching 999 What's Your Emergency and I know that area. And I know people like that exist. And it's often a second, third generation who have never worked a day in their life, even during times when work was freely available. In the town I live, we have numerous Eastern European immigrants who all seem to be working, but mostly in low paid work the locals wont do
What say you?

because outraged fits in with there agenda perfectly

Hi wannabe I think it's because the target demographic at the moment is the voter with a social conscience who isn't dogmatic about how to exercise it. So for example people who care about underprivileged children but don't think the best way to help them is to give more money to the parents. (I don't want to put any words or any voter intentions into Outraged's mouth: I don't know, I agree with her/him on here about stuff but that's as far as it goes. I'm sorry Outraged if this offends you.) Whereas others are simply not possible to sway from a fixed view.

No usual: because you will never change your mind. That's an assumption I'm making, I apologise if you correct me and I am wrong, and I'll withdraw the assumption.

Pixie: I think the "agenda" is a two-way thing. Labour picked up on the so called squeezed middle because it basically inhaled the zeitgest from the struggling middle class. It didn't pull it out of nowhere. It was a reflection of what voters were telling them.

No, people help form the policies, and people with more flexible and open-minded views are very important, as they could go either way in the booth. (again I am NOT talking about anyone specific here). Or put it this way, that applies to me. I could go either way. I have gone both ways, in fact! All the parties need to target people like me.

Ok well I'm glad I didn't make that mistake but it does mean that one party can count on you (unless you're in Scotland and can go SNP!) and no other party need attend to your views and even the one particular party you may go with (!) doesn't have to attend that much because you're guaranteed in the bag.

Well I have views similar to usual (I think) and although I dont get to vote labour/libdem/cons due to living in Northern Ireland, I would have voted Libdem last time if I could. And at the time even the tories were tolerable.

This time. No way. I have changed my mind.

But then maybe thats just because Im either gullable or not as knowledgable with politics as some.

Brycie what would make you think that certain posters, for example Outraged are more flexible and open-minded than others, for example usual? Perhaps because they agree with you?

There's going to be a HUGE swing vote next time. Before the last election LibDems were the default party of the social conscience slightly right winger who couldn't bear to vote Tory. Last election they became the default party of the Labour voter. This time there is everything to play for. Labour attempted to make as many people as possible dependent or in receipt of state benefits in order to basically buy the vote. Maybe there are enough, who knows, there weren't enough last time but there could be this. Working poor, even those in receipt of benefits, are realising that they are paying tax to many people who don't bother. They know this because they're poor themselves, they live in the same places, their children are at the same schools. This is making people cross and adding to the possibility of swing from a lower income demographic - even when they are getting benefits.

Growlithe: no, it's not that. It's because I would say it's clear when people want to help and believe that suffering should be relieved and that the state has responsibility for doing that. However they are open minded about how that should be done - ie accepting that people abuse the system, believing there are alternate routes to simply doling out cash.

You make good points about floating voters and government by opinion poll, Brycie. Sadly I am amongst the millions who have no fucking idea who to vote for next. None of the few people I'd trust with a chance to run the country are candidates for the job, and they're scattered throughout the three parties.

I seriously do not want another identikit twerp who's never done a real job, never needed to use public transport on a daily basis or had to save up for the deposit on their home.

Hi Wannabe, I feel a bit bad about this, I don't want people to say what they vote, I'm sorry to Outraged, and to Usual, maybe this is inappropriate. I don't think you are gullible at all and certainly wouldn't think that because of the way anybody votes. People vote with the best knowledge available to them and according to their experience. (I do think it's actually a scandal by the way that you can't vote for the main parties. It's almost taxation without representation. )

Brycie, if the LibDems are in such a strong position why are they positioning themselves as the default party of shared government? Clegg seems to be going out of his way to prove he can say Yes, Prime Minister to any prime minister!

Garlicbutty: I wouldn't call it government by opinion poll. Do you want an ideological party, never listening, or a party that takes on board what people want?

This thread sickens me actually. I'm feckless apparantly as I have four children and I'm a single parent on income support.

Hmm lets see. NONE of my four dc were born on income support. Ex partner and I BOTH worked but as he was an abusive twat I kicked him out and over the past year have had to give up a JOB that I quite liked as the hours could not be changed (retail, nature of the business) Twat would not turn up to look after his kids, no other childcare (who is going to look after my four, one with SN until nearly 11 at night??

So now I have no job, am carer for my ds too, really struggling in oh look a council house on a council estate, degree educated, reasonable cook (shock, benefit scrounger who understand the importance of a healthy diet).

Sure, i don't want to spend the rest of my life on benefits but part time jobs 16 plus hours, just dont exist here and its just going to get worse isn't it, I don't spend my benefit money on fags, drink, junk food and the pub. (my mum buys my fags, smoke 2-3 a day)

I would love David Cameron to spend a day with my family, make him open his eyes a bit.

My granddad was working poor. He voted Tory. Not that he constitutes an entire demographic. But the "blue collar" (seventies term) Tory vote is becoming a phenomenon that people are talking about. There's a name for it, I'll try to find it.

Well yes. I agree. We get stuck voting for parties who are merely inbetween men with no real power.

So theres a whole demographic being affected by a government their votes cant change.

Not a big Guardian reader but this was the first google hit

Brycie Am I getting you wrong, or are you suggesting Labour tried to get as many people on benefits so that they would vote for them? The only benefit I have claimed since a brief period in the 80s is Child Benefit (which I will soon lose granted), but I have always voted Labour, simply because I am concerned about those less fortunate than myself.

People who aren't poor do vote Labour you know.

This shows it's a demographic being targeted by the Tories