How have your politics changed?

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

If it's not even a little bit like this I'll be greatly disappointed

 

[Red]

Depends if it follows the word 'white' or not.

 

[Red]

My view on politics is that I don't care as much about it. There's too many ridiculous viewpoints on both the right and left so I've just given up. As long as myself, my family, loved ones, friends and my cat Frank are okay then I'm happy.

It's this kind of fuck you, I'm alright Jack attitude that is part of the problem. Not for you Mustard, but for us who find benefit sanctions, food banks, zero hours contracts and so on deplorable and unacceptable.

 

[johnnytodd]

It's this kind of fuck you, I'm alright Jack attitude that is part of the problem. Not for you Mustard, but for us who find benefit sanctions, food banks, zero hours contracts and so on deplorable and unacceptable.

Well your the one supporting these immigrants who are taking your money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-benefits-fraud-claimstax-credits-fictitious/

 

[Alty]

It's this kind of fuck you, I'm alright Jack attitude that is part of the problem. Not for you Mustard, but for us who find benefit sanctions, food banks, zero hours contracts and so on deplorable and unacceptable.

I think you may have just unwittingly proved Mustard's point here. He talks about finding views of extremists on the left and right tiresome, all of a sudden he's an uncaring bastard indifferent to the struggles of those less fortunate. Not hard to see why people think "why bother?", is it?

All of the issues you mention are complex. People slag off zero hour contracts, but they're actually very convenient for many people: students; the semi-retired; those with caring responsbilities; and many others. Of course I sympathise with those who want to work 40 hours per week every week but can't get a permanent job, but abolishing zero hours contract isn't a magic bullet.

Likewise, as someone who's had to sign on in the past and knows people who've worked in job centres in the past, I know there are people on benefits who take the piss. They need to be sanctioned in order to try to instil the idea that they can't come and go as they please and expect to pick up taxpayer money for doing nothing. Of course this doesn't apply to all or even most jobseekers, but like most things in life you need to use a mixture of carrot and stick to encourage good behaviour.

The food banks issue I find genuinely confusing because I know the levels of benefit payments and I struggle to understand how people can't feed themselves (albeit they wouldn't be dining on top notch fare) on that level of income. Apparently many people using food banks do actually work. Again, this confuses me (though I accept people are often only marginally better off working than claiming benefits). Often such people end up revealing they have x number of kids, or they smoke, or they have pets etc etc. While this might infuriate Norman Tebbit, I kind of just accept that most people are flawed and sometimes get themselves into difficult situations. If they need assistance via a foodbank, then I'm glad they exist for that purpose. But the fact I can't summon up outrage about the existence of foodbanks doesn't mean my outlook on life boils down to "fuck you, I'm alright Jack" as you so eloquently put it.

Wafting one's social conscience around might get a few likes, but it's not really that constructive.

 

[smat]

Side note, but I've noticed like three people in the last week use the expression "magic bullet" when surely the expression is "silver bullet"??? Let's kick "magic bullet" out of discourse.

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

Often such people end up revealing they have x number of kids, or they smoke, or they have pets etc etc. While this might infuriate Norman Tebbit, I kind of just accept that most people are flawed and sometimes get themselves into difficult situations.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

The food banks issue I find genuinely confusing because I know the levels of benefit payments and I struggle to understand how people can't feed themselves (albeit they wouldn't be dining on top notch fare) on that level of income.

There’s a number of possible reasons for reliance on food banks, some more sympathetic than others. At the more sympathetic end of the scale there are cases where some kind of administrative or IT cock-up had led to delayed payment of welfare. At the less sympathetic end there are cases of people having no money for food because of welfare sanctions or because they’re hopeless at budgeting. And of course there’s a load of other scenarios/causes somewhere between those extremes.

There’s definitely a need for them. Even in the worst imaginable cases of self-inflicted food poverty (e.g. someone having no money for food because they spent all their welfare on scratch cards or magic beans) there's still the basic problem that someone can't afford to eat, which is especially hard to ignore when blameless children are involved. I certainly don't think less of a social worker or health visitor for writing a food bank referral in those cases. The more contentious point, I think, is whether their increased usage is (as often claimed) a reliable indicator of increased poverty, insufficient welfare provision, etc.

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

There’s a number of possible reasons for reliance on food banks, some more sympathetic than others. At the more sympathetic end of the scale there are cases where some kind of administrative or IT cock-up had led to delayed payment of welfare. At the less sympathetic end there are cases of people having no money for food because of welfare sanctions or because they’re hopeless at budgeting. And of course there’s a load of other scenarios/causes somewhere between those extremes.

There’s definitely a need for them. Even in the worst imaginable cases of self-inflicted food poverty (e.g. someone having no money for food because they spent all their welfare on scratch cards or magic beans) there's still the basic problem that someone can't afford to eat, which is especially hard to ignore when blameless children are involved. I certainly don't think less of a social worker or health visitor for writing a food bank referral in those cases. The more contentious point, I think, is whether their increased usage is (as often claimed) a reliable indicator of increased poverty, insufficient welfare provision, etc.

To add to the food banks where kids are concerned. Social will refer them to food banks temporarily. If parents don't make an effort to rectify it or show that they can effectively budget they will take kids away for failure to provide or neglect. I've seen them do it.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I think you may have just unwittingly proved Mustard's point here. He talks about finding views of extremists on the left and right tiresome, all of a sudden he's an uncaring bastard indifferent to the struggles of those less fortunate. Not hard to see why people think "why bother?", is it?

All of the issues you mention are complex. People slag off zero hour contracts, but they're actually very convenient for many people: students; the semi-retired; those with caring responsbilities; and many others. Of course I sympathise with those who want to work 40 hours per week every week but can't get a permanent job, but abolishing zero hours contract isn't a magic bullet.

Likewise, as someone who's had to sign on in the past and knows people who've worked in job centres in the past, I know there are people on benefits who take the piss. They need to be sanctioned in order to try to instil the idea that they can't come and go as they please and expect to pick up taxpayer money for doing nothing. Of course this doesn't apply to all or even most jobseekers, but like most things in life you need to use a mixture of carrot and stick to encourage good behaviour.

The food banks issue I find genuinely confusing because I know the levels of benefit payments and I struggle to understand how people can't feed themselves (albeit they wouldn't be dining on top notch fare) on that level of income. Apparently many people using food banks do actually work. Again, this confuses me (though I accept people are often only marginally better off working than claiming benefits). Often such people end up revealing they have x number of kids, or they smoke, or they have pets etc etc. While this might infuriate Norman Tebbit, I kind of just accept that most people are flawed and sometimes get themselves into difficult situations. If they need assistance via a foodbank, then I'm glad they exist for that purpose. But the fact I can't summon up outrage about the existence of foodbanks doesn't mean my outlook on life boils down to "fuck you, I'm alright Jack" as you so eloquently put it.

Wafting one's social conscience around might get a few likes, but it's not really that constructive.

Don't even know where to start with this level of ignorance. On benefits sanctions, you could maybe start with the devastating NAO report about how punitive sanctions are used.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...sanctions-a-policy-based-on-zeal-not-evidence

Or this research that finds that sanctions are ineffective at encouraging people to find work:
https://blog.esrc.ac.uk/2016/10/20/welfare-conditionality-sanctions-support-and-behaviour-change/

Or the UN, the reported "grave" violations of the convention of rights of disabled persons linked to welfare reforms and sanctions.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/InquiryProcedure.aspx

There are a very small minority of people who find zero hours contracts somewhat useful. On the other hand, there are loads of people who find it useful to be able to plan what their weekly and monthly income is likely to be. I don't know anyone on zero-hours contracts who wouldn't prefer to be on fixed hours. Research has found zero-hours contract workers earn £1,000 less per year for the same role as people on fixed hours - they are used as a way of damping down wages.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-other-staff-doing-the-same-job-a7501071.html

And food bank use? You "struggle to understand" how people can't feed themselves? Maybe people who have their benefits sanctioned, or who don't get hours from their employer (sometimes used as a punitive strategy for people who complain about conditions). Or indeed people left without money because of welfare cock-ups. Benefit sanctions are the single biggest reason why people are referred to foodbanks.

I really find it difficult to understand how you can live in East London and be so ignorant of all this sort of stuff, because it's these policies that affecting your neighbours. Mabye it's cos living in London and seeing how shit people are treated by local government and the DWP has had a massively radicalising influence on me, I'm not really sure how people can just ignore it or pretend it's in some way justifiable.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

There’s a number of possible reasons for reliance on food banks, some more sympathetic than others. At the more sympathetic end of the scale there are cases where some kind of administrative or IT cock-up had led to delayed payment of welfare. At the less sympathetic end there are cases of people having no money for food because of welfare sanctions or because they’re hopeless at budgeting. And of course there’s a load of other scenarios/causes somewhere between those extremes.

There’s definitely a need for them. Even in the worst imaginable cases of self-inflicted food poverty (e.g. someone having no money for food because they spent all their welfare on scratch cards or magic beans) there's still the basic problem that someone can't afford to eat, which is especially hard to ignore when blameless children are involved. I certainly don't think less of a social worker or health visitor for writing a food bank referral in those cases. The more contentious point, I think, is whether their increased usage is (as often claimed) a reliable indicator of increased poverty, insufficient welfare provision, etc.

Increased foodbank use is evidence of their institutionalisation as part of the Welfare State. That's a really bad thing - because welfare sanctions would be impossible if they led to kids starving to death. But because foodbanks exist (and because, unlike the government, the majority of people in the country are appalled by the thought of people starving to death and donate to foodbanks), a regime of sanctions where JC staff are incentivised for taking benefits away for capricious or cynical reasons can flourish.

It's a deliberate move on the part of the government to make foodbanks into an unofficial arm of the welfare state. David Cameron called it "The Big Society" - idk, the effort to move social security into the charitable sector is kind of neo-Victorian.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

You say that like it's a bad thing...

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

You say that like it's a bad thing...

I guess we'll miss neo-Victorianism and it's moralistic ideas about deserving rich and undeserving poor when neofeudalism comes along with its "divine mandate of silicon valley tech bros".

 

[Techno Natch]

All of the issues you mention are complex. People slag off zero hour contracts, but they're actually very convenient for many people: students; the semi-retired; those with caring responsbilities; and many others. Of course I sympathise with those who want to work 40 hours per week every week but can't get a permanent job, but abolishing zero hours contract isn't a magic bullet.

Likewise, as someone who's had to sign on in the past and knows people who've worked in job centres in the past, I know there are people on benefits who take the piss. They need to be sanctioned in order to try to instil the idea that they can't come and go as they please and expect to pick up taxpayer money for doing nothing. Of course this doesn't apply to all or even most jobseekers, but like most things in life you need to use a mixture of carrot and stick to encourage good behaviour.

Zero hour contracts work for the minority. They mainly work for the companies that use them as it means they can cut off hours as and when they please. The domiciliary care sector in particular takes advantage of this and knowing people that work in that sector it's pretty terrible with people having hours withdrawn constantly and as Ian pointed out if your face doesn't fit or you step out of line then the hours just evaporate into thin air. If people truly wanted zero hour contracts then they would simply go on bank or work for an agency but it's now become the industry standard in the domiciliary sector. Those employers also seem to some of the most untrustworthy too constantly flouting employment laws and their workers lack of knowledge over their rights.

Of course there are people on benefits that take the piss but I would argue that they are the minority rather than the majority. The fact that one of your sources are employees at the Job centre does little to back up your claim as I've found them to be largely unhelpful and lacking any kind of empathy.

While the "Carrot and stick" approach might seem right to you what actual benefit does it have other than to make the destitute even more destitute? As Ian rightly points out it doesn't make people anymore likely to get into work and the general impact upon the local community is also probably much more higher.

On top of that sanctioning someone with depression as happened to my girlfriends Dad didn't suddenly make him jump out of bed. After the threat of eviction from unpaid rent arrears and him voicing his plan to go and live in a cave which was a genuine plan my girlfriend went down there to sort it out as there was no support available in deepest Somerset. Luckily he had a daughter who knows what she's doing but many don't have anyone. It's those people that end up killing themselves because the stick was effectively beating them to death and the Carrot seemed unattainable.

The food banks issue I find genuinely confusing because I know the levels of benefit payments and I struggle to understand how people can't feed themselves (albeit they wouldn't be dining on top notch fare) on that level of income. Apparently many people using food banks do actually work. Again, this confuses me (though I accept people are often only marginally better off working than claiming benefits). Often such people end up revealing they have x number of kids, or they smoke, or they have pets etc etc. While this might infuriate Norman Tebbit, I kind of just accept that most people are flawed and sometimes get themselves into difficult situations. If they need assistance via a foodbank, then I'm glad they exist for that purpose. But the fact I can't summon up outrage about the existence of foodbanks doesn't mean my outlook on life boils down to "fuck you, I'm alright Jack" as you so eloquently put it.

Wafting one's social conscience around might get a few likes, but it's not really that constructive.

You find it confusing because you simply don't understand the lives where these people are coming from. The comment "Often such people revel they smoke and have kids" suggests that you've already made a judgement upon how you see these people. I'm surprised you didn't throw in that they all have sky and go on at least one holiday a year in there too.

Scumbag says that People who need to use food banks because of sanctions or because they are not able to budget are at the less deserving end. I'd argue that someone who is not able to budget clearly needs help rather than disdain. It's not a talent we are naturally born with and some people have never developed these skills for multiple reasons.

On top of all of that the benefit system is deeply flawed. Currently Universal credit payments are taking up to 6 weeks to process and don't even get me started on the state of P. I. P and ESA claims. It's hard enough for me to understand it with training let alone people that often have multiple problems and no support.

We've seen a very steady media and press campaign against people that are on benefits which has sadly allowed these misconceptions to reign free and turn them into some sort of enemy of the "working people." This has also put people off of claiming what they are entitled to because they see it as scrounging. It's wrong but it suits the government.

Wafting ones ignorance may get a few likes but it doesn't mean you're right.

 

[sl1k]

 

[Abertawe]

Stop being Asian.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Scumbag says that people who need to use food banks because of sanctions or because they are not able to budget are at the less deserving end. I'd argue that someone who is not able to budget clearly needs help rather than disdain. It's not a talent we are naturally born with and some people have never developed these skills for multiple reasons.

I wrote nothing about “deserving”. I tried to explain to Alty (eschewing the needlessly supercilious tone others have chosen) that there’s various possible reasons for food bank dependence, some of which I sympathise with more than others. I make no apologies for that because no mentally competent person feels sympathy on an all or nothing basis. Some people find virtue in being disingenuously non-judgemental about other people. I don’t. Takes all sorts, I guess.

Look, I know this doesn’t fit with the heartless, castle-dwelling Tory bastard shtick I aim for, but I actually spent nearly a decade working in social services, mostly with families who were heavily dependent on state welfare and third sector support. Among other things, I used to provide exactly the sort of support (e.g. with regard to financial planning, budgeting, etc.) you have in mind. I’ve seen families have no money for food because an admin cock-up at the DWP delayed their welfare payments for 2-3 days. I’ve also seen a family plead poverty (no money for food, heating, etc.) a day after the parents spent £150 on a second-hand X-box. Sure, some people are terrible with money because there’s a (fillable) knowledge gap. These problems are often intergenerational (young parents following the piss poor example set by their own parents) and the state education system is less than great at picking up the slack. Social services can do some genuinely useful work in this area. Sometimes.

I take no pleasure in writing this, but some people just are morally degenerate scheming c***. The X-box couple were perfectly capable of budgeting. There was no knowledge gap there; if anything, they understood their situation all too well. They chose to be self-indulgent because they knew others (social work, charities, neighbours, family friends, etc.) would be too decent to let the kids suffer the negative consequences. “I knew you soft-as-shite twats wouldn’t let the bairns go cold,” the charming matriarch told me, smirking. I wish I was making this up.

I don’t have any solutions. It’s a maddenly complex and multifaceted issue. I just think folk like you and Ian are as guilty of over-simplifying it as Alty is.

 

[Techno Natch]

I wrote nothing about “deserving”. I tried to explain to Alty (eschewing the needlessly supercilious tone others have chosen) that there’s various possible reasons for food bank dependence, some of which I sympathise with more than others. I make no apologies for that because no mentally competent person feels sympathy on an all or nothing basis. Some people find virtue in being disingenuously non-judgemental about other people. I don’t. Takes all sorts, I guess.

Look, I know this doesn’t fit with the heartless, castle-dwelling Tory bastard shtick I aim for, but I actually spent nearly a decade working in social services, mostly with families who were heavily dependent on state welfare and third sector support. Among other things, I used to provide exactly the sort of support (e.g. with regard to financial planning, budgeting, etc.) you have in mind. I’ve seen families have no money for food because an admin cock-up at the DWP delayed their welfare payments for 2-3 days. I’ve also seen a family plead poverty (no money for food, heating, etc.) a day after the parents spent £150 on a second-hand X-box. Sure, some people are terrible with money because there’s a (fillable) knowledge gap. These problems are often intergenerational (young parents following the piss poor example set by their own parents) and the state education system is less than great at picking up the slack. Social services can do some genuinely useful work in this area. Sometimes.

I take no pleasure in writing this, but some people just are morally degenerate scheming c***. The X-box couple were perfectly capable of budgeting. There was no knowledge gap there; if anything, they understood their situation all too well. They chose to be self-indulgent because they knew others (social work, charities, neighbours, family friends, etc.) would be too decent to let the kids suffer the negative consequences. “I knew you soft-as-shite twats wouldn’t let the bairns go cold,” the charming matriarch told me, smirking. I wish I was making this up.

I don’t have any solutions. It’s a maddenly complex and multifaceted issue. I just think folk like you and Ian are as guilty of over-simplifying it as Alty is.

I've acknowledged that those people exist but I still feel they are in the minority overall and that's after seven years of working in the same field as you. Sure I sometimes get people who are trying to get whatever they can, who think they are untouchable and I have limited sympathy for them. I've had some people think they are pulling the wool over my eyes when I know full well what they are doing.

I'm non-judgemental because I have to be but how can you judge unless you know the full path that has lead people to behave in that way?

I've just had someone refused any PIP payment whatsoever and found the whole assessment to be inaccurate. In fact it was downright lies as I was there. I have no doubt we will appeal and it will get turned over but in the meantime they have to go without. So yeah fuck the Tories as they've implemented this system.

I actually like some of the reform but unfortunately it's being done on a tory watch which means its going to deep and to hard with no sign of relenting.

 

[Alty]

Out and about at the minute so no time for a considered reply, but for those stressing that the piss takers are a minority...yeah, I agree. I said as much in my post. That's why the majority of those who claim are never sanctioned. My point really was that unfair sanctions alone cannot explain the prevalence of food banks. There must be an element of people making poor choices or, in extreme cases, just being c*** (as Scumbag confirms).

 

[Abertawe]

Man's off his fackin head.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I wrote nothing about “deserving”. I tried to explain to Alty (eschewing the needlessly supercilious tone others have chosen) that there’s various possible reasons for food bank dependence, some of which I sympathise with more than others. I make no apologies for that because no mentally competent person feels sympathy on an all or nothing basis. Some people find virtue in being disingenuously non-judgemental about other people. I don’t. Takes all sorts, I guess.

Look, I know this doesn’t fit with the heartless, castle-dwelling Tory bastard shtick I aim for, but I actually spent nearly a decade working in social services, mostly with families who were heavily dependent on state welfare and third sector support. Among other things, I used to provide exactly the sort of support (e.g. with regard to financial planning, budgeting, etc.) you have in mind. I’ve seen families have no money for food because an admin cock-up at the DWP delayed their welfare payments for 2-3 days. I’ve also seen a family plead poverty (no money for food, heating, etc.) a day after the parents spent £150 on a second-hand X-box. Sure, some people are terrible with money because there’s a (fillable) knowledge gap. These problems are often intergenerational (young parents following the piss poor example set by their own parents) and the state education system is less than great at picking up the slack. Social services can do some genuinely useful work in this area. Sometimes.

I take no pleasure in writing this, but some people just are morally degenerate scheming c***. The X-box couple were perfectly capable of budgeting. There was no knowledge gap there; if anything, they understood their situation all too well. They chose to be self-indulgent because they knew others (social work, charities, neighbours, family friends, etc.) would be too decent to let the kids suffer the negative consequences. “I knew you soft-as-shite twats wouldn’t let the bairns go cold,” the charming matriarch told me, smirking. I wish I was making this up.

I don’t have any solutions. It’s a maddenly complex and multifaceted issue. I just think folk like you and Ian are as guilty of over-simplifying it as Alty is.

Worth having a read of the links I posted - in particular the UN report and the NAO one. Neither are partisan organisations, yet both are damning in how sanctions are (ab)used.

Experience of pals and comrades (together with wide-ranging evidential backing) is that the DWP and local government scheme and lie to avoid giving people stuff they're legally entitled to. Maybe there's a change in culture since you were working there - dunno.

The cynical calculus that played out with your client is exactly the same as the calculus that the government uses wrt foodbanks. Us soft-as-shite twats don't let kids starve - and our charity has largely allowed for a capricious and sadistic regime of sanctions.

Of course, any society faces a dilemma: potentially open yourself up to that sort of pisstaking or let people starve; get evicted; contract preventable diseases due to awful living conditions and resort to crime or begging. Many of the consequences of these are worse than low-levels of benefit fraud.

Happily, that dilemma has a happy solution: communisation of essential services and utilities - if housing, utilities and essential food were free, we wouldn't have to worry that sanctions might lead to severe hardship.

Out and about at the minute so no time for a considered reply, but for those stressing that the piss takers are a minority...yeah, I agree. I said as much in my post. That's why the majority of those who claim are never sanctioned. My point really was that unfair sanctions alone cannot explain the prevalence of food banks. There must be an element of people making poor choices or, in extreme cases, just being c*** (as Scumbag confirms).

Well, no, but they are the single biggest reason for foodbank referrals.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Happily, that dilemma has a happy solution: communisation of essential services and utilities - if housing, utilities and essential food were free, we wouldn't have to worry that sanctions might lead to severe hardship.

If only someone had thought of this before!

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

If only someone had thought of this before!

Hey, it's you that wants to stamp out benefit fraud; I'm just offering solutions.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Hey, it's you that wants to stamp out benefit fraud; I'm just offering solutions.

I actually care very little about that. No doubt the government wastes considerably larger sums of money on other things.

How did we even get here, anyway? Mowgli wrote something about only caring about his cat; Red then blamed him for the existence of food banks and the general collapse of the post-war consensus; Alty committed the cardinal sin of expressing something other than unthinking support for the nation's poor; you proposed the simple solution of a full-blown communist revolution; and now I'm spending halftime of a dreadful Aberdeen vs. Hamilton game reading some turgid report by the National Audit Office.

I hate this fucking forum sometimes.

 

[.V.]

To take the thread even further off topic, and because I don't hear from an Aberdeen fan all that often, how is Derek McInnes getting on there scummy?

 

[Captain Scumbag]

^
He's the best manager we've had since Alex Ferguson. Some might read that as a "damning with faint praise" sort of complement (a bit like declaring someone the prettiest girl in Dundee) as most of our post-Fergie managers have been abject shit, but I genuinely do rate him and hope he stays.

Don't think he will, though. He's probably taken the club as far as he can given the current resources. It's getting to that point where he needs a new challenge. Hate to say it, but he'd be a very good appointment for Rangers.

 

[Stevencc]

SALTIRE

 

[Dirk]

SALTIRE

It's about this "a bit like declaring someone the prettiest girl in Dundee", isn't it? Is he a contender?

 

[Stevencc]

It's about this "a bit like declaring someone the prettiest girl in Dundee", isn't it? Is he a contender?

Saltire would probably rate quite highly in that contest which gives you an idea of the sort of quality on offer.

 

[Red]

I think you may have just unwittingly proved Mustard's point here. He talks about finding views of extremists on the left and right tiresome, all of a sudden he's an uncaring bastard indifferent to the struggles of those less fortunate. Not hard to see why people think "why bother?", is it?

All of the issues you mention are complex. People slag off zero hour contracts, but they're actually very convenient for many people: students; the semi-retired; those with caring responsbilities; and many others. Of course I sympathise with those who want to work 40 hours per week every week but can't get a permanent job, but abolishing zero hours contract isn't a magic bullet.

Likewise, as someone who's had to sign on in the past and knows people who've worked in job centres in the past, I know there are people on benefits who take the piss. They need to be sanctioned in order to try to instil the idea that they can't come and go as they please and expect to pick up taxpayer money for doing nothing. Of course this doesn't apply to all or even most jobseekers, but like most things in life you need to use a mixture of carrot and stick to encourage good behaviour.

The food banks issue I find genuinely confusing because I know the levels of benefit payments and I struggle to understand how people can't feed themselves (albeit they wouldn't be dining on top notch fare) on that level of income. Apparently many people using food banks do actually work. Again, this confuses me (though I accept people are often only marginally better off working than claiming benefits). Often such people end up revealing they have x number of kids, or they smoke, or they have pets etc etc. While this might infuriate Norman Tebbit, I kind of just accept that most people are flawed and sometimes get themselves into difficult situations. If they need assistance via a foodbank, then I'm glad they exist for that purpose. But the fact I can't summon up outrage about the existence of foodbanks doesn't mean my outlook on life boils down to "fuck you, I'm alright Jack" as you so eloquently put it.

Wafting one's social conscience around might get a few likes, but it's not really that constructive.

I think you may have just unwittingly proved Mustard's point here. He talks about finding views of extremists on the left and right tiresome, all of a sudden he's an uncaring bastard indifferent to the struggles of those less fortunate. Not hard to see why people think "why bother?", is it?

All of the issues you mention are complex. People slag off zero hour contracts, but they're actually very convenient for many people: students; the semi-retired; those with caring responsbilities; and many others. Of course I sympathise with those who want to work 40 hours per week every week but can't get a permanent job, but abolishing zero hours contract isn't a magic bullet.

Likewise, as someone who's had to sign on in the past and knows people who've worked in job centres in the past, I know there are people on benefits who take the piss. They need to be sanctioned in order to try to instil the idea that they can't come and go as they please and expect to pick up taxpayer money for doing nothing. Of course this doesn't apply to all or even most jobseekers, but like most things in life you need to use a mixture of carrot and stick to encourage good behaviour.

The food banks issue I find genuinely confusing because I know the levels of benefit payments and I struggle to understand how people can't feed themselves (albeit they wouldn't be dining on top notch fare) on that level of income. Apparently many people using food banks do actually work. Again, this confuses me (though I accept people are often only marginally better off working than claiming benefits). Often such people end up revealing they have x number of kids, or they smoke, or they have pets etc etc. While this might infuriate Norman Tebbit, I kind of just accept that most people are flawed and sometimes get themselves into difficult situations. If they need assistance via a foodbank, then I'm glad they exist for that purpose. But the fact I can't summon up outrage about the existence of foodbanks doesn't mean my outlook on life boils down to "fuck you, I'm alright Jack" as you so eloquently put it.

Wafting one's social conscience around might get a few likes, but it's not really that constructive.

No, 'he's an uncaring bastard' (your hyperbole, not mine), because he says so long as he, his family and friends are ok he's happy, With all due respect Alty, if I remember correctly you work for the Home Office in a land far, far away from the daily reality of the lives of people suffering on zero hours contracts, those who are sanctioned and those forced to use food banks. I'm also fortunate enough not to have been in such circumstances too, but every day I work with people who are.

Zero hours contracts - Let's stop pretending that because a small minority of people benefit from them, they're acceptable, they're not which is why more countries are coming to their senses and abolishing them. The students, people with caring responsibilities and semi-retired would still be able to find jobs without zero hours contracts because there are more and more part time jobs nowadays. As you put it yourself these contracts are a convenience for those people. Contrast that with the vast majority of people for whom zero hours contracts force them to get into and endless cycle of signing off and on again, their benefit entitlement getting muddled and forcing them into financial melt down and unwanted trips to the food bank. We can also drop the facade that these contracts are for the benefit of everyone. Come, let's get in the real world, we all know who they benefit.most.

I know you're an intelligent chap Alty, so I'm struggling to understand whilst you're seemingly in denial that many genuine job seekers are being sanctioned for petty, trivial reasons, and you find that acceptable when by your own admission the glass backs are in the minority. In my experience as an employment support worker who works on the frontline with job seekers every day I can tell you that nearly everyone who comes to see me is genuinely seeking work. It's interesting that you make reference to the opinions of people who work in JCPs. I've worked in JCPs (on outreach, not for the DWP) and some of the advisers are genuinely nice people who want to help,. Conversely, some are despicable people, real low lifes who get a hard on for referring people to decision makers. I've seen this and I've seen it a lot. Finally, I think we're getting pretty close to uncovering the existence of monthly sanctioning targets. You may find that acceptable, I don't. In my view something does need to be done about people who are taking the piss, but taking away their income only serves to exacerbate the problem because they become ever more dis-engaged and entrenched. I agree something should be done, but not taking people's money away.

I'm also not quite sure why you're confused about why you think working people should need to use foodbanks. Again this typifies your lack of knowledge of people's lived experiences. I do outreach in a foodbank once a week and the two most frequent causes of people having to use them is benefit sanctions and delays in benefit payments Is it inconceivable to you that somebody can be starting and stopping work on a zero hours contract, their benefits being constantly processed and re processed thus them having to rely on foodbanks? How about someone who works part time, or even full time, but is drowning in significant personal debt. It's not rocket science., you just have to try and use a bit of understanding to figure out how these things happen. People have to use foodbanks for all sorts of reasons.

I think your opening words about food banks encapsulates your lack of real understanding of all these issues Alty. You say you know all the levels of benefit payments and that's commendable, but you don't live the experience of having no money, using a food bank or being on a zero hours contract on a daily basis and therein lies your problem. You're one of those people who are safely cossetted away from the grim reality of people's daily experiences, yet like to pontificate about them because you have some knowledge that in reality amounts to the square root of fuck all on the ground.

Yes, you're definitely blossoming into a real good Tory and waving about one's knowledge of what benefit payment levels are is all well and good, but until you start trying to gain a real understanding about these issues and how they affect people's lives your knowledge is worthless.