A fair society ...

[SeanMacGabhann]

Again with the characterising one as industrious and the other as not. Why?

[Mick Mac]

Fairness is far from simple. All of the main parties seek to achieve it in their own way.

What one person considers fair is not someone else's view.

Fairness is the most difficult of concepts to achieve.

[mockney piers]

Or all three could be industrious, one makes a fishing rod from wood and fishes, one builds a house from wood for shelter and the other makes a spear...you can see where I'm going with this can't you....

[silverfox]

It was implied by your story

[Brendan]

Because, Sean, if someone doesn?t have the same things you have they are different to you. If they are different to you there is a good chance that they are bad in some way, in this case because of laziness.

[Brendan]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Or all three could be industrious, one makes a

> fishing rod from wood and fishes, ...

But what if they are vegetarian?

[mockney piers]

although why you'd want to make a fishing rod from fishes is anyone's guess.

[*Bob*]

Then, Brendan, they are truly fukced

[mockney piers]

Actually fish is the plural, fishes is the third person present isn't it? I'm having a grammatical nightmare today.

[mockney piers]

Although Lucca Brazzi slept with the fishes, dirty boy!!

[peckhamboy]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What I?m not sure about is why my island example

> was in any way Guardian-ish? 2 people arrive on

> an island, one happens to find wood to build a

> hut.

>

> I gave two possible examples of what might happen

> next - neither of which seem liberal per se. And

> yet it gets called Guardianesque

>

> Interestingly some people assumed the person who

> didn?t find wood was workshy or off sunning

> himself. Without any evidence or fleshing out of

> the story that was the assumption they made. Not ?

> ?the other person went to find food, of which

> there was none? or even ?found some flares and

> tried to alert passing planes? ? nope.. workshy.

> Now if I had said those examples in the original

> story then I could see it was Guardianesqe (and no

> worse for it btw) but I didn?t. People filled in

> their own blanks

True. But since the second person "does in" the first, it is not an unreasonable assumption that he would prefer a life of crime and living off the hard work of others to actually doing any work himself.

And in any case, if the second fellow went looking for food and there was none, why bother doing in the first chap to get the shelter? If there's no food, they're both fcuked anyway.

[Mick Mac]

Even Sean's Ryder Cup link came from the Guardian.

[Brendan]

What a cunt.

[Loz]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually fish is the plural, fishes is the third

> person present isn't it? I'm having a grammatical

> nightmare today.

Fish is the plural. Fishes refers to a number of different types of fish. I think. Two fish, two species of fishes?

But as I wouldn't know a 'third person present' is anyway, what do I know? Is it like a third party policy?

[Mick Mac]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What a @#$%&.

Sorry! :)

[mockney piers]

So in fact making something from fish or fishes is fine but the latter almost certainly implies a number of different species whereas the former leaves it entirely ambiguous or implies that it is unimportant, is that right?

Third person present, I missed singular, as in "you fish (second person singular simple present tense), he fishes", not that present necessary implies it's actually present, it could imply future or past, you'd need the present continuous "he is fishing", but then I digress...or am i digressing. In fact as digression implies some sort of vector then I'm digressing is perhaps a directional description as much as a temporal surely.

Aaaaaaanyweay, so actually instead of being workshy, the lad without the house has sneakily been fencing of the wooded area whilst house boy builds his shelter with his collected wood. WHen time comes for maintenance he loans him the wood at exorbitant interest rates using the shelter as collateral, eventually getting hold of the house when the chap is unable to catch enough fish to satisfy the interest payments.

Now out on his ear he is forced to work himself to the bone, exposed to the elements every night, whilst fence boy is well fed and sheltered and even rich enough to burn wood for mere comfort, yet still able to pay enough of the fish guts and heads into a welfare pot to stop the lad from actually starving to death or being forced into crime (ie eating some of those fish he catches for himself rather than give them to his creditors)!!!

Which one's the bludger again?

But now I'm just being silly...or a damned pinko liberal, it's hard to tell.

[Mick Mac]

My wife's aunt is married to a man who has not worked for years. He receives disability benefit even though wife's aunt has said he has admitted that there is absolutely nothing wrong with him but he been receiving this money for years.

I think all children are a more deserving case than him.

That's my short story. I'd rather children received child benefit in hard working families, instead of denying them in preference to people who take advantage of the state.

[Huguenot]

I think the default position in a two person society such as this illustration would be collaboration - the need for social support would outweigh an idle colleague's desire for indolence.

Likewise in social structures that involve the redistribution of 'wealth' or resources, the mutual association that binds a 'small' society together are vital for preventing unfairness to become prevalent, not ideology.

These small societies also become more efficient, with tasks such as childcare being freely taken up by family or social group members to allow the women more freedom.

The question becomes at what stage the tribe becomes too large for these social links to work effectively. Once the 'blagger' achieves anonymity, his/her indulgence is secured.

So I agree with equality, but see its provision lying in the decentralisation of state control and 'taxation' or benefits in kind to be organised on a local basis.

I completely disagree with 'redistribution of wealth', but I profoundly believe in 'equality of opportunity' and legislation that prevents the domination of super-corporates that eventually damage competition.

I love the internet and the fresh breath of life it's given small business. I can see a situation where small business can create buying cartels to fight giants such as Tesco directly. Far from the global consolidation of the 'Blade Runner' dystopia, I see a future where local small business fragments and flourishes.

Far from 'Big Society' this is 'small society' and decidedly left wing ;-)

[louisiana]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My wife's aunt is married to a man who has not

> worked for years. He receives disability benefit

> even though wife's aunt has said he has admitted

> that there is absolutely nothing wrong with him

> but he been receiving this money for years.

>

> I think all children are a more deserving case

> than him.

>

> That's my short story. I'd rather children

> received child benefit in hard working families,

> instead of denying them in preference to people

> who take advantage of the state.

Your wife's aunt clearly needs her head examined if she stays with such a man.

And how about you, Mick Mac? Why haven't you reported him to the relevant authorities? Are you (your family) not to a degree culpable if you do not?

AFAIK, there is a big crackdown starting on disability benefits. Are you doing your bit to solve that particular issue?

[Mick Mac]

No I have not done my bit. I feel ashamed. There is so much more I can do.

[Ridgley]

I think it is fair, if you are a high earner then you don?t need benefits as much as the less off benefits should go to people that really need it that also means work shy people in society should also be targeted as well.

The welfare state systems need a reviewing from the top to the bottom.

[silverfox]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it is fair, if you are a high earner then

> you don?t need benefits as much as the less off

> benefits should go to people that really need it

> that also means work shy people in society should

> also be targeted as well.

>

> The welfare state systems need a reviewing from

> the top to the bottom.

Couldn't this argument also apply to pensions Ridgley? Eg, if you retire and live in a house worth more than, say, ?750,000 should you get a state pension? You can sell the house, downsize, pay off the mortgage if you still have one and live off the proceeds freeing up money for pensions for the more deserving.

The problem with arguments about cuts and fairness is where do you stop?

[Loz]

It could indeed, Silverfox. Though there is a little difference in that once you draw your pension, your income generally stops. Assets are a slightly different argument.

But why should the government be giving 10K a year (or whatever the state pension is) to the recently retired chairman of Megacorp, whose gold plated pension is bringing him in six figures?

[Huguenot]

The problem with the state pension is that those people receiving it today originally paid into a social fund to pay for it - National Insurance.

However, when they wanted tax cuts but the same level of public service they spent the NI fund on themselves whilst they were still working.

Now to receive the pension they're simply creaming off current day tax payers.

I think present day pensioners should be apologising for what is a grand theft they've committed against their grandchildren's earnings that their own grandparents never committed against them.

So a present day pensioner arguing about 'fairness' is so far out onto thin ice it's hardly worth worrying about.

[DJKillaQueen]

I profoundly believe in 'equality of opportunity' and legislation that prevents the domination of super-corporates that eventually damage competition.

For me that is the start of the solution too.

AFAIK, there is a big crackdown starting on disability benefits. Are you doing your bit to solve that particular issue?

This so called big crack down involves reassessing people with mental health poroblems like depression whilst not measuring any core symptoms of that in the reassessment. Almost veryone reassessed under the new guidelines with depressive illness fails. It has been strongly criticised by health professions and MIND.

Those with support systems then appeal and most are successful at appeal. I saw the assessment structure today for the first time after someone I know who suffered a mental health breakdown in August somehow failed this assessment, in total contradiction to his doctors opinion and support workers opinion.

The assessment structure is woefully innappropriate (shocking given that most claimants are claiming for mental health problems) and vulnerable people are going to be forced onto JSA and then lose their benefits altogether when they fail to seek employment (because they are not well enough to do so). It's a disaster waiting to happen for those individuals, not to mention the cost to the taxpayer in providing increased support services to help people appeal.

On the other hand it still remains easy to fake a physical disability, such as back problems or other non degenerative pain related conditions that some people have been caught faking to get disaibility benefits.

By all means reassess people periodically, but make sure the assessment truly meassures disability. The assessment as it currently stands doesn't.