Westminster Politics

finneh said:
I'm not suggesting they beg for charity at all, quite the opposite. I'm saying society as a whole if they feel the system is letting some people slip through the net, should step up and lead by example. Disabled people wouldn't need to beg for anything if people took a bit more personal responsibility, rather than expecting a constantly underachieving government to overachieve.

Again though when government inevitably bodges these things society should be there for people as well. It shouldn't be the case that people fall through the net and fall off a cliff. If welfare is a safety net then society should be a parachute if the net fails. It's far too important an issue for society to expect government to be a perfect, faultless silver bullet. Those that help provide this parachute I take my hat off to, but the majority who hold morale superiority by merely blaming government or voters of another party for all of the countries problems, whilst simultaneously doing very little to help society themselves are part of the problem in my view.
Click to expand...

A reliance on charities or others is more or less a form of begging. Welfare gives the disabled secure income and a sense of self-sufficiency. I'm not disabled nor am i actually close to anyone who is but i dont find it hard to emphasise those needs.

I do get where you're coming from i just fundamentally disagree. Goverment is one form of society it isn't seperate and it should strive for the best we as a society wish to provide.

Unfortunately your approach of downplaying the role and responsibility of government whilst pushing big society just ends up as the passing of blame and a reduction in service when there isn't the checks and controls. The goverment is there to serve on our behalf with its collective resources.
 
Smores said:
A reliance on charities or others is more or less a form of begging. Welfare gives the disabled secure income and a sense of self-sufficiency. I'm not disabled nor am i actually close to anyone who is but i dont find it hard to emphasise those needs.

I do get where you're coming from i just fundamentally disagree. Goverment is one form of society it isn't seperate and it should strive for the best we as a society wish to provide.

Unfortunately your approach of downplaying the role and responsibility of government whilst pushing big society just ends up as the passing of blame and a reduction in service when there isn't the checks and controls. The goverment is there to serve on our behalf with its collective resources.
Click to expand...

Shamwow said:
The whole reliance on society thing is just naive.
Click to expand...

So essentially we can't rely on the kindness of society because that's a naive point of view; but instead we're reliant on the kindness and competence of politicians who are a part of society who've shown themselves almost to a man to be the least kind and competent within society over the last few decades?

To me that's a ridiculous point of view and one that is at odds with how society has evolved. It's attitudes and activities within society that almost always bring about a change in governmental policy. A large portion of the altruistic and benevolent policies that we see today started with people and organisations that accepted donations from the many in order to help the few, mainly because this is a completely human process. As a communal species we don't leave the weakest in the herd to perish, the strongest protect the weakest. If we feel society is becoming less kind and altruistic then we need to look in the mirror.

Politicians follow, they don't lead. They never have.
 
finneh said:
So essentially we can't rely on the kindness of society because that's a naive point of view; but instead we're reliant on the kindness and competence of politicians who are a part of society who've shown themselves almost to a man to be the least kind and competent within society over the last few decades?

To me that's a ridiculous point of view and one that is at odds with how society has evolved. It's attitudes and activities within society that almost always bring about a change in governmental policy. A large portion of the altruistic and benevolent policies that we see today started with people and organisations that accepted donations from the many in order to help the few, mainly because this is a completely human process. As a communal species we don't leave the weakest in the herd to perish, the strongest protect the weakest. If we feel society is becoming less kind and altruistic then we need to look in the mirror.

Politicians follow, they don't lead. They never have.
Click to expand...

Society is such a wide/vague thing you're basically just saying "leave it, everything will turn out fine". What if it doesn't? Politicians and government have the ability to drive change that individuals can't always achieve and are at least somewhat accountable if they don't do this.
 
finneh said:
So essentially we can't rely on the kindness of society because that's a naive point of view; but instead we're reliant on the kindness and competence of politicians who are a part of society who've shown themselves almost to a man to be the least kind and competent within society over the last few decades?

To me that's a ridiculous point of view and one that is at odds with how society has evolved. It's attitudes and activities within society that almost always bring about a change in governmental policy. A large portion of the altruistic and benevolent policies that we see today started with people and organisations that accepted donations from the many in order to help the few, mainly because this is a completely human process. As a communal species we don't leave the weakest in the herd to perish, the strongest protect the weakest. If we feel society is becoming less kind and altruistic then we need to look in the mirror.

Politicians follow, they don't lead. They never have.
Click to expand...

I don’t know where you live but everywhere I go is at odds with what you are saying. Imho there’s never been a society more self obsessed with a ‘me first’ attitude. Of course there are some exceptions but today’s society is selfish, want, want, want. It’s up to the governments to step up a bit more and look after the needy. Homeless people for example shouldn’t have to rely on small donations to get by, that is a government problem.
 
finneh said:
I think there's a huge distinction between complaining and actively affecting change. I especially believe that blaming people who vote for a political party or deeming them part of any problem is ridiculous. The two main political parties have both been equally intrinsic in the system we currently enjoy or despise.

In terms of your second paragraph: of course the less well off should get more than they pay for. But in my view it should also be something that is also appreciated, rather than being seen as some divine right. These people have a right to criticise when things are sub-standard, but all to often there is no celebration of the fact that they are in the top few % of civilisation in terms of the services and protections they receive. People look at the 1% we aren't getting, rather than the 99% we are. This probably extends to general expectations as well, not just public services; I have people complain that they're struggling, whilst at the same time brandishing a brand new iPhone weeks after release, along with expensive new cars on finance.

I believe as a society we are seeing more and more services (as well as chattels) as part of our basic human rights, rather than the privileges that they would be seen as a few decades ago.
Click to expand...

I agree that it should be appreciate but in a modern, advanced society I also think it should inherently be the right for citizens of that country to receive free healthcare, a free education, a strong social services etc. If there is something we do have and it starts to lag behind, or looks as if it might get cut substantially, then it's quite right for people to complain and demand that the government fund said service when it's well within their means to do so.
 
Shamwow said:
Society is such a wide/vague thing you're basically just saying "leave it, everything will turn out fine". What if it doesn't? Politicians and government have the ability to drive change that individuals can't always achieve and are at least somewhat accountable if they don't do this.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that in my experience the people who complain most about policies affecting the most vulnerable are often the same people who contribute absolutely nothing to society apart from the legal bear minimum. If we as a society want to see greater protections given to the most vulnerable, we have to be the ones to lead by example. If more people donated and volunteered (as well as lobbying and changing voting patterns) I guarantee that government policy would follow society.

This is common sense of course. If society as a whole feels benefits are too generous and that people are gaming the system at the expense of the most vulnerable; government are going to sing to that choir and introduce tougher measures. If there is a societal outcry because the system is too harsh likewise things will be relaxed.
golden_blunder said:
I don’t know where you live but everywhere I go is at odds with what you are saying. Imho there’s never been a society more self obsessed with a ‘me first’ attitude. Of course there are some exceptions but today’s society is selfish, want, want, want. It’s up to the governments to step up a bit more and look after the needy. Homeless people for example shouldn’t have to rely on small donations to get by, that is a government problem.
Click to expand...

Societal attitude is bound to reflect itself on government policy. So when we complain about government not putting the most vulnerable first, maybe we should ask "why aren't government more generous to the most vulnerable". The answer is obvious: because there are millions of middle class votes to win, compared with only a small minority of the most vulnerable. If we want policy to change, the actions of the middle classes need to change as policy is a reflection of their beliefs and attitudes.

Unfortunately these attitudes are currently "I pay my £5k a year in taxes" so that's my bit for society done.
Cheesy said:
I agree that it should be appreciate but in a modern, advanced society I also think it should inherently be the right for citizens of that country to receive free healthcare, a free education, a strong social services etc. If there is something we do have and it starts to lag behind, or looks as if it might get cut substantially, then it's quite right for people to complain and demand that the government fund said service when it's well within their means to do so.
Click to expand...

With current attitudes these things we take for granted are more likely to be revoked than extended. If people are more bothered about complaining rather than actually leading by example and making a difference then government policy will follow this attitude.

With every single department already under pressure (I've yet to see a department say they're too well funded and that the NHS or Education should have a slice of their cake) and with a huge budget deficit still apparent; combined with the aforementioned attitude it would be a political tap in to keep public sector funding increasing slower than GDP. Depending on your beliefs this could end up being a good thing of course - particularly if it resulted in a societal shift in how we view the most vulnerable - currently they're seen as a burden.
 
Last edited:
finneh said:
I'm saying that in my experience the people who complain most about policies affecting the most vulnerable are often the same people who contribute absolutely nothing to society apart from the legal bear minimum.
Click to expand...

Sorry but how would you know? First of all, no matter who you are, your experience is incredibly limited in terms of the amount of people you know. Second of all, lots of people don't talk about all the things they do for charity so you might not even know about it.
 
Shamwow said:
Sorry but how would you know? First of all, no matter who you are, your experience is incredibly limited in terms of the amount of people you know. Second of all, lots of people don't talk about all the things they do for charity so you might not even know about it.
Click to expand...

This is true. I'd say most people are generous to some extent when it comes to charitable endeavours; it's just that you often won't know about it because most modest people aren't going to rant on and on about how they helped out for a fundraising event the previous weekend, or how they sponsor a Snow Leopard or give to a foodbank or anything like that.
 
finneh said:
So essentially we can't rely on the kindness of society because that's a naive point of view; but instead we're reliant on the kindness and competence of politicians who are a part of society who've shown themselves almost to a man to be the least kind and competent within society over the last few decades?

To me that's a ridiculous point of view and one that is at odds with how society has evolved. It's attitudes and activities within society that almost always bring about a change in governmental policy. A large portion of the altruistic and benevolent policies that we see today started with people and organisations that accepted donations from the many in order to help the few, mainly because this is a completely human process. As a communal species we don't leave the weakest in the herd to perish, the strongest protect the weakest. If we feel society is becoming less kind and altruistic then we need to look in the mirror.

Politicians follow, they don't lead. They never have.
Click to expand...

But no one is saying we should rely on the kindness of politicians, they should be forced via public opinion which was the original point. They're treating the disadvantaged like shit, saying "ah well that's politicians" is such a let off, they have been forced to u-turn because of public reaction.

I'll stop bombarding you with responses though, you get my point hopefully :lol:
 
Shamwow said:
Sorry but how would you know? First of all, no matter who you are, your experience is incredibly limited in terms of the amount of people you know. Second of all, lots of people don't talk about all the things they do for charity so you might not even know about it.
Click to expand...

Cheesy said:
This is true. I'd say most people are generous to some extent when it comes to charitable endeavours; it's just that you often won't know about it because most modest people aren't going to rant on and on about how they helped out for a fundraising event the previous weekend, or how they sponsor a Snow Leopard or give to a foodbank or anything like that.
Click to expand...

Trust me the people I'm talking about who unfortunately I believe are a growing majority would be ramming down your neck their charitable endeavors at every opportunity in order for you to view them on the same pedestal of morale superiority.
 
finneh said:
Trust me the people I'm talking about who unfortunately I believe are a growing majority would be ramming down your neck their charitable endeavors at every opportunity in order for you to view them on the same pedestal of morale superiority.
Click to expand...

You're making vague, generalised claims here with nothing at all to back them up.
 
finneh said:
Trust me the people I'm talking about who unfortunately I believe are a growing majority would be ramming down your neck their charitable endeavors at every opportunity in order for you to view them on the same pedestal of morale superiority.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't trust some random bloke on the internet's alleged and incredibly vague anecdotal experiences.
 
Jacob Rees-Mogg said yesterday that women who become pregnant after being raped are committing a “second wrong” if they seek an abortion. In an interview on BBC Radio Five Live, the Tory MP told Emma Barnett, “A great wrong has been created at the point of rape. The question is – does a second wrong make it any better?”
Click to expand...
 
finneh said:
So essentially we can't rely on the kindness of society because that's a naive point of view; but instead we're reliant on the kindness and competence of politicians who are a part of society who've shown themselves almost to a man to be the least kind and competent within society over the last few decades?

To me that's a ridiculous point of view and one that is at odds with how society has evolved. It's attitudes and activities within society that almost always bring about a change in governmental policy. A large portion of the altruistic and benevolent policies that we see today started with people and organisations that accepted donations from the many in order to help the few, mainly because this is a completely human process. As a communal species we don't leave the weakest in the herd to perish, the strongest protect the weakest. If we feel society is becoming less kind and altruistic then we need to look in the mirror.

Politicians follow, they don't lead. They never have.
Click to expand...

It's not about 'kindness of society' versus 'kindness of politicians'. It's about ensuring the most vulnerable are protected with a safety net due to the kindness of society or allowing the most vulnerable to be not protected with a safety net because society is unkind.

As for society evolving, the great and the good are definitely less socially aware or socially conscious of the plight of the poor than they were a century ago.
 
Last edited:
WackyWengerWorld said:
It's not about 'kindness of society' versus 'kindness of politicians'. It's about ensuring the most vulnerable are protected with a safety net due to the kindness of society or not ensuring the most vulnerable are protected with a safety net because society is unkind.

As for society evolving, the great and the good are definitely less socially aware or socially conscious of the plight of the poor than they were a century ago.
Click to expand...

Society is becoming less socially conscious, which I believe is the problem.

My belief though is that people are generally very generous, however I also believe that the more government try to provide the safety net, the more they will fail. This is the same with all public services as government are inefficient as there is no incentive or personal drive to be better.

A charity will always be better at remedying things that are bespoke to them, rather than a government with a blunderbus approach with the sole incentive of winning votes. The husband of a cancer survivor will always be better at allocating cancer funds than a paper pushing policitican. The mother of a son caught in gun violence likewise. The sister of a PTSD suffering war veteran who's just committed suicide likewise. Do we honestly believe the government would be better at technological innovation than Google? Of course not. So why do we think they're the saviours of helping the vulnerable?

Leaving things to government has become not only a supplement for human kindness, but a total substitute for it - which in my view is a terminal problem unless rectified. A problem I myself have been drawn into - one look at my tax bill combined with the electronic age of everyone seeming to be living a perfect existence and it isn't just easy to forget about the hardships of others, it's almost mandatory. Why would I give to charity when a guy I thought was part of the struggling few is posing on a beach in an exotic country? Naturally though the friend that is really struggling isn't posting a picture of the final warning letter for their heating bill.

As a staunch free market liberal capitalist I blame excess taxation for being a key cause of a society that only points fingers at government rather than themselves. People only have a limited amount of disposable income and if government are squeezing the vast majority of that income they're by definition taking money away from efficient and caring charitable organisations in order to put gold into the treasury. If a charity is performing poorly I'll give to a better one. That shuts down bad charities and increases the size or good ones. If my taxes are being used poorly (which they always are) I can't choose to give to someone else instead. There's a reason we have laws against molopolies - because they rip off customers for their own gain. Government are the biggest Molopolies in existence and also the biggest culprits.

This is part of the reason regions are wanting to succeed more and more, whether it be Scotland, Catalonia or anyone else. Big government is wasteful and uncaring, small government less so, communities less again. The smallest government of all is the most appreciating of the problems in a region, the most in sync with those problems and the most likely to be motivated to solve them. Whether that be a pothole that could potentially injure an 80 year cyclist or something more fundamental.
 
Last edited:
finneh said:
Society is becoming less socially conscious, which I believe is the problem.

My belief though is that people are generally very generous, however I also believe that the more government try to provide the safety net, the more they will fail. This is the same with all public services as government are inefficient as there is no incentive or personal drive to be better.

A charity will always be better at remedying things that are bespoke to them, rather than a government with a blunderbus approach with the sole incentive of winning votes. The husband of a cancer survivor will always be better at allocating cancer funds than a paper pushing policitican. The mother of a son caught in gun violence likewise. The sister of a PTSD suffering war veteran who's just committed suicide likewise. Do we honestly believe the government would be better at technological innovation than Google? Of course not. So why do we think they're the saviours of helping the vulnerable?

Leaving things to government has become not only a supplement for human kindness, but a total substitute for it - which in my view is a terminal problem unless rectified. A problem I myself have been drawn into - one look at my tax bill combined with the electronic age of everyone seeming to be living a perfect existence and it isn't just easy to forget about the hardships of others, it's almost mandatory. Why would I give to charity when a guy I thought was part of the struggling few is posing on a beach in an exotic country? Naturally though the friend that is really struggling isn't posting a picture of the final warning letter for their heating bill.

As a staunch free market liberal capitalist I blame excess taxation for being a key cause of a society that only points fingers at government rather than themselves. People only have a limited amount of disposable income and if government are squeezing the vast majority of that income they're by definition taking money away from efficient and caring charitable organisations in order to put gold into the treasury. If a charity is performing poorly I'll give to a better one. That shuts down bad charities and increases the size or good ones. If my taxes are being used poorly (which they always are) I can't choose to give to someone else instead. There's a reason we have laws against molopolies - because they rip off customers for their own gain. Government are the biggest Molopolies in existence and also the biggest culprits.

This is part of the reason regions are wanting to succeed more and more, whether it be Scotland, Catalonia or anyone else. Big government is wasteful and uncaring, small government less so, communities less again. The smallest government of all is the most appreciating of the problems in a region, the most in sync with those problems and the most likely to be motivated to solve them. Whether that be a pothole that could potentially injure an 80 year cyclist or something more fundamental.
Click to expand...

This completely ignores the fact that taxation pays for key services people need such as healthcare, education, policing and a whole host of others. Reduced taxes may give people more disposable income but it also leads to an increased chance that they're going to have to spend that income on obtaining healthcare because the government can no longer afford to run it.

You point to government's being inefficient and this is often the case, but it's an incredible generalisation to argue that all government is inefficient and incapable of running things. We're living in an incredibly advanced age and a lot of the advancements we've seen post-World War II have come with governments who spend and invest in their people.

Your third paragraph isn't fact at all but instead your own, non-fact based opinion of modern society. You're arguing people have become less socially conscious when it was acceptable to view people of different races and different sexual orientates as inferior beings worthy of discrimination just a generation or two ago. Your decision to feel less willing to give to charities based on some hypothetical guys holiday Facebook posts is just that; your own decision.

Charities do a lot of good, but they can't really be depended upon to provide for people, and if one fails then there's not always a guarantee that another's going to pop up and replace it. When it comes to healthcare, social care etc, it's quite right for government's to provide for their people and for charity to do extra when it can.
 
Cheesy said:
This completely ignores the fact that taxation pays for key services people need such as healthcare, education, policing and a whole host of others. Reduced taxes may give people more disposable income but it also leads to an increased chance that they're going to have to spend that income on obtaining healthcare because the government can no longer afford to run it.

You point to government's being inefficient and this is often the case, but it's an incredible generalisation to argue that all government is inefficient and incapable of running things. We're living in an incredibly advanced age and a lot of the advancements we've seen post-World War II have come with governments who spend and invest in their people.

Your third paragraph isn't fact at all but instead your own, non-fact based opinion of modern society. You're arguing people have become less socially conscious when it was acceptable to view people of different races and different sexual orientates as inferior beings worthy of discrimination just a generation or two ago. Your decision to feel less willing to give to charities based on some hypothetical guys holiday Facebook posts is just that; your own decision.

Charities do a lot of good, but they can't really be depended upon to provide for people, and if one fails then there's not always a guarantee that another's going to pop up and replace it. When it comes to healthcare, social care etc, it's quite right for government's to provide for their people and for charity to do extra when it can.
Click to expand...

No one is saying we abolish taxation. However as much as possible... instead of coercing people into paying for inefficient services they deem asinine we should encourage them to donate their disposable income to things they deem palatable. Choice is king.

I'm not saying it's a choice of paying tax or choosing to spend it on strippers (although I belief the choice in itself would realign society values in a positive way). I'm saying you allow people to be the generous people that created the incredible society we live in, rather than force them to be selfish by allocating their money poorly and then blaming the vunerable for societal problems.

You say all government isn't inefficient... That's false. The only efficient branch of government is a lucky one which will soon succumb to the same problems of general government - ie a lack of incentives.

Any government thats only incentive is to stay in power (ie every government) is a corrupt government that is going to put power above altruism.

The point I previously made is that the benefits we enjoy weren't governmental gifts... They were things that society championed to such a degree that government had no choice.

You are correct in one sense - I'm less willing to give to charities - who I believe are doing far better work than any governmental institution - because I'm having to give to government instead. If I could reallocate my tax bill between general services and institutions that actually make a pound for pound difference then it'dbe a different story.

I get a vote on an EU referendum that as a law graduate I barely understand but I don't get a say on how the bulk of my tax funds are spent? What a joke.

So here I am... Saving every penny i can on the belief that hopefully I'll get to make a difference. Avoiding paying wasted tax at every opportunity to do so.

Realistically though like everyone else in my situation I'll get pissed that far more than half of my earnings are being squandered on vote winning vanity projects and I'll regress into a bubble of self preservation.
 
@finneh Plenty of governments services are well-run. They tend to have their problems and will often be bloated/bureaucratic, but then that's no different to private companies. I've seen (albeit limited) examples of things been run dreadfully in both the public and private sector. The difference with the former is that you can at least hold government accountable, whereas a private company which is run terribly can often get away consequence-free if it's got no direct challenger in the market. The NHS, for example, remains a fantastic service in spite of its many flaws with terrific doctors/nurses etc who are extremely professional and work hard, delivering a service that's completely free-of-charge. A service which has only technically existed for a few generations and yet has become a cornerstone of British culture.

And you do get a say in how your taxes are spent insofar as you're allowed to vote. As a whole people decide that taxation is fair because it funds services. If you drastically cut taxation then the money you earn ends up having to be spent anyway on things like healthcare, education, social care etc. The different, of course, becomes that these services which are pretty fundamental to any society's well-being end up being run for profit instead of by an accountable state whose government can be changed if they run the service poorly.
 
Any chance of an updated thread title that doesn't read like Conservative cheerleading? After all, they've proved themselves to be a heartless shambles.
 
Serving cabinet ministers eh?

I want Boris to be on this list sooooooo badly
 
source: Sun version I think

af-graphic-list1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.