Kwarsi Kwarteng - is this what's coming next?

[wotjusthappend]

This old BBC article from 2015 gives an interesting insight into Kwarsi Kwarteng's right-wing views on the welfare state:

BBC News - Turn benefits into repayable loan, says Tory group
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33092329

Can you quantify these ‘masses’ of people in terms of a percentage of the working age population?

It’s a small percentage of families that do this

It’s not just small, it’s minuscule. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation did a study on it and there’s approximately 15,000 households in the entire UK where two generations have never worked. Three generations is basically rarer than hens teeth.

For perspective, there are about 27 million households in the UK.

Oh, and it’s interesting how there are no studies to prove the opposite assertion.

It is tiny

i remember reading about If when Tory govt were targeting them in the media

😂😂😂 if that’s the bar you set then of course it won’t be many but that bar is so low it’s through the floor!

I didn’t set the bar, @MumCanIDoThat did. I refuted it.

where’s your bar then @Eastangular2000?

My bar would be anyone (disabilities aside) who has been unemployed and seeking benefits for more than 20% of their working life - if I had to come up with some kind of level above which I think it starts taking the piss.

Well you’re in luck then @Eastangular2000 because that’s already NOT happening.

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/outofworkbenefits

What’s already not happening? Anyone being unemployed for not more than 20% of their working life? I am not sure that that is what those stats are measuring, but it’s reassuring to hear that no one is unemployed for more than 20% of their working life. That assertion does however contradict what you posted about intra generational worklessness.

Wow, I can't imagine making a blanket judgement like this. I just haven't the self-satisfaction necessary to judge others agaisnt arbitrary criteria.

The person I know who has spent the most time on benefits has understandable reasons for it. There is no point going into what the reasons are because those who think they would simply do better or try harder will never consider that maybe they wouldn't.

I'm no Christian but I always think they who are without sin should cast the first stone.

I'm a Rawlsian I guess. I think we need a proper welfare safety net and clearly there are always exceptional/extreme cases who get more support than the average.

Someone asked me for a ‘bar’ so I gave them one. All the rules around welfare are arbitrary. You can’t run a population wide system
on a case by case basis. You speak yourself about a safety net, so what would your criteria be for your safety net?

The current rules are not arbitrary, that is my point.

Of course they are! They are made up by politicians! So depending on the leanings of whoever is in power they will seek to reward or punish certain behaviours. Mainly in pursuit of popularity. You didn’t think the benefits system was designed as a result on robust evidence based research did you?

I'm not sure what you mean. Arbitrary means 'determined by chance' so for example a time limit on how long you can claim a benefit for before your 'allowance' runs out would be arbitrary.

If the rules are seeking to reard or punish certain behaviours they are not arbitrary, they are deliberate, however wrong I may consider them to be.

*reward

My point is that 'seeking benefits for 20% of your life' is no way to measure whether someone is 'taking the piss'. Some people need to claim benefits and some people don't.

I used the average working life of a woman (at around 28 years), 20% of that is just over five years and the statistics just don’t show people claiming unemployment for that long. So good news for you that something you would like is already happening.

I’m not sure how that contradicts the figures on intragenerational worklessness? Those people are highly unlikely to be claiming any kind of work related benefit and will, if they are claiming benefits which they probably are, have to meet other criteria that falls under medical, disability or caring responsibilities.

I mean as in the rules are arbitrarily decided by politicians. It seems to be a totally arbitrary choice which politician ends up in the DWP, hence my view that the system is fundamentally quite arbitrary, you may disagree and believe that the systems are based on research but I will stick with arbitrary and based on the whims of whoever has the DWP brief at that point!

Sorry I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I am not sure why you are telling me this. It's not something I am particularly concerned about. You randomly asked me where I would set the bar so I answered! It's not something that keeps me awake at night and it appears from what you are saying that's because it's not an issue! So to turn it back to you, where would you set the bar? Is there no type of behaviour that you would consider to be taking the piss?

The biggest benefit scrounges, by a country mile are individuals and company shareholders who avoid and/or evade paying tax. The benefits paid to 15,000 piss-takers are a drop in the ocean compared to their vast sums hidden in offshore tax-havens and properties.

It makes no sense to be desperate to avoid letting people have 'something for nothing' aka benefits when the benefit deniers themselves have benefited from their fortunate circumstances. As a pp has said, so many people can't cope with the recognition that their success is due to not only their hard work and good choices but their luck at having supportive parents, good health, being clever, knowing people who gave them a leg up etc etc.

You'd think if you listened to only the government that the only worthwhile values are ambition and drive. Why celebrate and reward people for busting a gut to improve their own circumstances, to the exclusion, and frequently to the disadvantage of other people? It's not as is most hard working people work hard out of altruism for the rest of society.

So to turn it back to you, where would you set the bar? Is there no type of behaviour that you would consider to be taking the piss?

I would support a universal basic income so probably not.

At what level would that be set, enough to house a family in a flat or a house? Enough to support 2 children or 6?

We do have a shortage of labour right now, but that won’t last as net immigration is running at the same levels as pre-Brexit

Nope because the immigrant coming here now isn't young and educated as per EU migrant e.g HK Chinese, mainly older, not interested in the work we are short off or able to do it, other migrants have poor english or non transferable skills, yesterday went to an NHS conf on challenges of employing non EU staff.

The welfare state will become smaller, mostly because it got uncontrollably big by the mid 2000s. The NHS has to change because the current model is unsustainable

State grew under the Tories from the Blair years, not least taking power from councils.

The main thing we are still missing is opening up of the economy to big investment and infrastructure projects. Private sector being incentivised to build big. The government has to realize that cutting tax has to be backed up by kick starting activity in the economy

Infrastructure has be profitable for private investment so what are you suggesting?
German industry is often funded from the state in the first instance, i.e BionTec.

So long has we have irrational hysterical people coming out with hyperbolic nonsense on this thread, there can be no sensible debate

Your guilty of this more than most.

Little evidence generational poverty is even a thing, its something the right wing media like to portray as common place.

What we want other people to do or not is out of our control, even with no welfare state, Victorian England was packed full of the poor and destitute, despite a very wealthy elite and some very draconian measures to ensure folk worked til they died BUT what changed that? making them even poorer, sicker etc etc or intervening with help, education, skills, healthcare... these are the things that lift people out of poverty.