The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[L4Everton]

Not picking on you red1, unfortunately aspects have been raised by yourself that have given ground to be answered in such fashions. Please pardon my raking over painful ground.

 

[edge]

10 million households that get working/child tax credits they said.

Vote winner that then?

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Vote winner that then?

Definitely made my mind up.

 

[L4Everton]

Thanks for that post, I sympathise with the situation you were in and I'll take your point into account.

My concern however, is reserved for those that think that the government should be responsible for taking care of their elderly parents, their disabled son or disabled daughter etc. If children have sick parents then yes, of course the government should step in but that situation is actually rarer than you think, even if you have gone through it. Firstly, how low must somebody think of their parents to throw them to the government honestly? Would you trust strange carers to care for YOUR disabled child? The funny thing is, people KNOW how incompetent the government is in this regard, that's why you have situations like people smuggling in cameras in care homes and finding that their parents/children's carers have been abusing them, well what did they expect? How can somebody put their own vulnerable family member who cannot defend themselves into that position? The government has no right taking care of human beings in this manner, this is a significant overreach of their powers and it's shameful that we as a society have to rely on the government for this.

Science and medicine could be to blame, it is those two that have elongated life expectancy. Very few offspring are prepared to wipe their parents backside daily. I alluded to it earlier, the incapability of some (parkinsons, alzheimers, degrees of dementia) means complete dependancy on another. Care cannot provide for this complete dependancy, what do we decide when relatives are unable or unwilling to do it? Rope grand children in? Neices and nephews? Without considering a 'logans run' type scenario, why is the government so against assisted suicide? Because that system is open to abuse and they fear in some cases the vulnerable again will be pressured into a decision they wont have to live with.
Care is a paradox, young and old alike, the carers are supposed to treat all equally, but differing ailments and personalities make that impossible. Yet, government treats all care the same, no allowances for degrees of speciality, care requirement, drugs training, insurance categories, dependancy, adequate housing, night shifts, local council interferance.

As a populace we rail against the 'one size fits all' solutions politicians conjure up, yet are all too happy to buy into the ones we have no experience or understanding of until its too late. Varying degrees of need, varying degrees personally of being able to fulfill that need. It is not just financial. Seems that talk about the deficit enough along with the economy and every problem, need and requirement can be boiled down to a financial number. It is those doing a job for love that are being shafted worst of all.

 

[edge]

Definitely made my mind up.

Oh at least give Boris a chance before you make your mind up,
Bet he gets a standing ovation the dangerous bell.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Oh at least give Boris a chance before you make your mind up,
Bet he gets a standing ovation the dangerous bell.

It's scary how far they are prepared to go with those that can't afford it, whilst at the same time leaving the ones that can afford it alone.
Happy to let businesses make their profits whilst subsidising them by allowing them to pay low pay low wages that require the top up via tax credits, the thought of putting up the minimum wage to reduce the tax credits paid out won't have even entered their minds.

 

[L4Everton]

Going for the businesses, medium and big is frightening. If they chase them away then the gov are left with 100% of nothing besides a load of jobless to prop up. Business knows this hence why so many have been taking the ricker regards tax, pay and working conditions.

 

[red1]

Children that have been unlucky enough to lose both parents, or worse still abandoned by both ought to then be keelhauled onto aunties, uncles or even better grandparents? Who's paying for the new bigger houses and the moving costs or are these unlucky urchins thankful to be sleeping in the dog kennel or under a tree in the yard? Child allowance is being hit, is the difference coming from the pay packets of the uncles and aunties, or better still the pensions of the grandparents? What do we do about those Matthews kids?
Isn't it awful that somehow care is seen as "God-forsaken" but I suppose if you fill any unit with enough bereaved or abused or scared children, the law of the jungle will set in and "God forsaken" will turn out to be the best way it can be described.
There are some very sick and very twisted adults walking around hidden in society today, although it is not a rule and so not an absolute, how many of the sick and twisted serious criminals could you trace back to childhood torment? It isn't a rule, but consider the life long impact serious mental and physical tortures have on a little life that then grows up carrying such. Social workers like all other workers are not miracle workers, when is the chain broken? how much power is too much power? Breaking up the remains of families must be an awful burden to carry, the non stop self questioning "did I get it right or have I really screwed up". Level at politicians being self fulfilling agents of their replacements, but to condemn one of the most emotionally daunting tasks in society (deciding and putting your career on the line) judging society and the care and safety provided in each case, hell - thats some feat. No wonder the turnover of 'staff' is so massive.

They should be taken care of by their aunts and uncles yes, extended family as much as possible. Kids aren't goods, they are human beings who have connections with their relatives and friends. The government insidiously cuts children off from their childhood connections by forcibly placing them in the hands of the care system. If a child is taken in by an extended relative, they should have the necessary benefits such as child benefit and housing benefits etc. where necessary to look for a bigger space, this isn't too difficult to arrange and it's common sense. In the extreme case where a child simply has to be taken in by the care system, then yes the government should make the necessary arrangements, these things don't cost billions of pounds. They just don't, that's not possible not even close. It's the government overreach of powers that's causing the unnecessary spending. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, keep spending huge amounts of money on social work and you will have to find social "problems" to use the money on even if those problems don't exist.

Oh and other people that social workers apparently help?

- People with learning difficulties (should be the role of teachers)
- Young offenders (basically "rehabilitating" teens who kill, maim, steal etc. total waste of time)
- School non-attenders (yes, you're reading correctly)
- drug and alcohol abusers

This is where the 30 billion pounds is going every year. I'm sorry but all I see for the most part, is money being poured down the drain.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Going for the businesses, medium and big is frightening. If they chase them away then the gov are left with 100% of nothing besides a load of jobless to prop up. Business knows this hence why so many have been taking the ricker regards tax, pay and working conditions.

So do the businesses in Germany, France etc pay low wages like here ?

or did they all shut up and move on cos their min wage was too high there ?

 

[red1]

Not picking on you red1, unfortunately aspects have been raised by yourself that have given ground to be answered in such fashions. Please pardon my raking over painful ground.

It's alright man, I like your passion

 

[L4Everton]

They should be taken care of by their aunts and uncles yes, extended family as much as possible. Kids aren't goods, they are human beings who have connections with their relatives and friends. The government insidiously cuts children off from their childhood connections by forcibly placing them in the hands of the care system. If a child is taken in by an extended relative, they should have the necessary benefits such as child benefit and housing benefits etc. where necessary to look for a bigger space, this isn't too difficult to arrange and it's common sense. In the extreme case where a child simply has to be taken in by the care system, then yes the government should make the necessary arrangements, these things don't cost billions of pounds. They just don't, that's not possible not even close. It's the government overreach of powers that's causing the unnecessary spending. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, keep spending huge amounts of money on social work and you will have to find social "problems" to use the money on even if those problems don't exist.

Oh and other people that social workers apparently help?

- People with learning difficulties (should be the role of teachers)
- Young offenders (basically "rehabilitating" teens who kill, maim, steal etc. total waste of time)
- School non-attenders (yes, you're reading correctly)
- drug and alcohol abusers

This is where the 30 billion pounds is going every year. I'm sorry but all I see for the most part, is money being poured down the drain.

Are you aware of the Rotherham scandal (It is not exclusive to just there!)
Teachers are under the pinch as it is, you want more hired to cover the extended needs of the learning disabled or do you want a class of 30, 40, 50 to be reduced to repeat learnings of abc and 1 to 10?
Young offenders - some of them get in trouble as a cry for help, because they have been neglected or worse.
School non-attenders. Who you sending otherwise? A police force that can't be arsed to investigate rapes???
Drugs and Alcohol, I wonder how many junkies and flunkies end up passing part of that coping mechanism onto the children they could never actually care for?

If suddenly someone appeared on my doorstep and informed me the state required me to take care of my siblings children (if I hve any!) and suddenly I have 1 or even 5 kids to care for, totally unprepared with no paternal bond established, how does that affect me in my 9 to 5 (am I single or is my girlfriend or wife quitting work) from paying tax and contributing more that I receive.

Where is the choice for the people you force the responsibility on? They are vote holding adults, with a few quid and some form of recourse to complain. There is a reason children have been negatively affected by the care burden for some 20 years. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[L4Everton]

So do the businesses in Germany, France etc pay low wages like here ?

or did they all shut up and move on cos their min wage was too high there ?

Both the countries you have mentioned have state protected manufacturing, are bigger in area so can pull in their own food, and they have massive problems with the extreme far rights plotting against the respective governments and the masses they deem not to care.

 

[Donald Twain]

They should be taken care of by their aunts and uncles yes, extended family as much as possible. Kids aren't goods, they are human beings who have connections with their relatives and friends. The government insidiously cuts children off from their childhood connections by forcibly placing them in the hands of the care system. If a child is taken in by an extended relative, they should have the necessary benefits such as child benefit and housing benefits etc. where necessary to look for a bigger space, this isn't too difficult to arrange and it's common sense. In the extreme case where a child simply has to be taken in by the care system, then yes the government should make the necessary arrangements, these things don't cost billions of pounds. They just don't, that's not possible not even close. It's the government overreach of powers that's causing the unnecessary spending. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, keep spending huge amounts of money on social work and you will have to find social "problems" to use the money on even if those problems don't exist.

Oh and other people that social workers apparently help?

- People with learning difficulties (should be the role of teachers)
- Young offenders (basically "rehabilitating" teens who kill, maim, steal etc. total waste of time)
- School non-attenders (yes, you're reading correctly)
- drug and alcohol abusers

This is where the 30 billion pounds is going every year. I'm sorry but all I see for the most part, is money being poured down the drain.

Pouring money down the drain eh?30 billion you say , well try what the banks lost and what the bailout cost! Now that's money down the drain!

 

[scratchnsurf]

They should be taken care of by their aunts and uncles yes, extended family as much as possible. Kids aren't goods, they are human beings who have connections with their relatives and friends. The government insidiously cuts children off from their childhood connections by forcibly placing them in the hands of the care system. If a child is taken in by an extended relative, they should have the necessary benefits such as child benefit and housing benefits etc. where necessary to look for a bigger space, this isn't too difficult to arrange and it's common sense. In the extreme case where a child simply has to be taken in by the care system, then yes the government should make the necessary arrangements, these things don't cost billions of pounds. They just don't, that's not possible not even close. It's the government overreach of powers that's causing the unnecessary spending. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, keep spending huge amounts of money on social work and you will have to find social "problems" to use the money on even if those problems don't exist.

Oh and other people that social workers apparently help?

- People with learning difficulties (should be the role of teachers)
- Young offenders (basically "rehabilitating" teens who kill, maim, steal etc. total waste of time)
- School non-attenders (yes, you're reading correctly)
- drug and alcohol abusers

This is where the 30 billion pounds is going every year. I'm sorry but all I see for the most part, is money being poured down the drain.

So how would you solve the problems caused by and related to those four examples you give? It's easy to point out that money is being spent like there's no tomorrow, but not so easy to provide an alternative that will work better in practice and be acceptable to society. Your ideas about who should care for vulnerable children are fine in theory but I doubt they'd be workable in most cases. There are plenty of reasons why people are not able to care for their relatives and they have nothing to do with selfishness or apathy.

Social workers are an easy target for blame. In my experience, they are working with at least one hand tied behind their back by the legal framework they operate in and that's without even considering their unmanageable workload and the lack of experienced support available as so many have left the profession.

 

[L4Everton]

Nick Leeson gambled just over £800million of Barings banks money and lost the lot. 6 and a half years sentence to prison.
Gordon Brown gambled the UK gold reserves to the Chinese, he effectively lost £16billion. He became prime minister. Then rescued Scotland from themselves.