The dangers of state dependency

Trumpeter Lanfried

There have always been gangs of feckless, arrogant youths in the poorer parts of our cities. The problem is, nowadays, we actually pay them to hang about causing trouble.

Verity

This didn't happen by accident. A formerly historically coherent, basically civil, society lasting around a thousand years cannot disintegrate in 11 years - although it can be shredded apart with malice and a heavy, threatening fist. The muslim immigrants were used as a tool of control by the socialists, to shut the indigenes who had built our country and the Anglophone world. A rod to beat our backs; a rod about which no one dared complain. Which brings us to Alastair Campbell, 'the enforcer'. Now we've got Somalis (why? what did we as a country ever have to do with Somalia?) operating shariah courts, or "gars" in their language, in Britain. Pakistanis are also operating freelance courts, according to the superb Dr Sentamu, Archbishop of York. (Whoah! Are they sorry they appointed him now, or what?) And, of course, they stopped educating British children in our vivid and glorious history and the long, complicated and intriguing history of our language. It was all in the cause of disconnecting us with our roots. Which, had we done this to the Somalis (which we didn't, because we didn't have anything to do with Somalia) would have been described as genocide or something equally manipulative. The British voted for Tony Blair three times (although the voter turnout in the last election was only around 20%, which tells you the level of hopelessness felt by the owners of the country. He is the most evil man ever to come to power in Britain and he has done indescribable, deliberate damage. He wanted gambling casinos all over the country. He wanted 24 hour drinking. For control. Even on TV and in his photographs, there is a foul smell surrounding him. Dave, in the Ken Clarke/Chris Patten/Edward Heath mode, is not the answer. I will not vote Conservative, for the first time in my life, if he is still the leader when the election rolls round.

Jonathan

We should recognise that young people need somewhere to go to hang out. Disastrous urban planning, design of council estates, not to mention governments selling off sports fields, are all part of the problem. It would be great to see a government look for a long term solution rather than just blame kids / drugs / immigration and pander to the Daily Mail

William

Are all poor people criminals now? The problem is one of rights and responsibilities. They know their rights but not their responsibilities to society. I fail to see how Fraser can lay this at the door of socialism. It's the absence, not the promotion, of a collective responsibility, a community identity, a pride in your roots and your own people that is partly to blame - and I say that as someone who isn't a socialist.

Nick Kaplan

Jonathan; It is quite true that there is little open space in inner city areas, surprise surprise! This does not mean however that there is nothing to do, I wonder if you have heard of a train, or bus, they are quite common, and for kids not particularly expensive. It is simply not the case that there is nothing for the youth to do, they can get on a train for thirty minutes, find their way out to the suburbs where there is plenty of open space to play golf, go sailing, fish, play football, or rugby etc, the problem is not that there is nothing to do but that people simply don’t want to do it. Try suggesting to a Kid today that they should try fishing and see the reaction you get. The problem is a cultural one, not something that will be solved by a bailout from the taxpayer.

George Warburton

You blame mass joblessness and welfare dependency. These are the "effects" - the cause being the destruction by Williams and Crossland of the education system. The young criminals of today have been deprived of a good education as were, in many cases, their parents and even their grand parents. Crossland didn't survive to see the fruits of his idiocy. Williams still profits from hers.

Realist

Wow, Verity. I'm with you all the way. Well, almost. I think you lose it a bit at the end. Whether or not your assessment is fair to Dave, you have to concede that the alternatives are far worse. If you can't vote for the one you love, then love the only one you can possibly vote for.

EyeSee

Like any animal, people learn to take advantage where they can. If your child is excluded from school, the Pupil Referral Unit s/he is sent to will pay for taxi's to get them there. Pocket money of £70 a month will be provided and if, for entertainment a group of these luvvies should try to drown a weaker classmate, well don't be surprised. Of course, when the teachers learn who did it and report it to the police, these denizens of jutice will tell the accused who informed on them. Or is that just Thames Valley that do that? It seems that you don't bribe thugs out of being thugs. If they had something to aim for and were punished for causing problems, that might work. But then social mobility has been cancelled under Labour too.

Christopher White

It isn't just the poorest quarters of some cities that have a 25% welfare dependency rate - that figures applies to Liverpool and Glasgow as a whole, with Manchester not far behind.

Kevyn Bodman

Verity, (and all other readers), So who to vote for? I really don't know and it's a real and difficult question. If I came to power: An end to the ID card and the database state, including recently newsworthy DNA banks, an end to all and any concessions to Islam (equal rights and no more), a radical overhaul of the benefits system involving substantial reductions and time-limiting of benefits to able-bodied people, simplification of the tax code and a reduction in tax, with associated cuts in spending, a dual referendum on the EU, in/out + Lisbon yes/no. Is Realist a Stepphen Stllis fan and should we really love the only one we can possibly vote for? How about, and I say this in both desperation and seriousness, a few hundred people in a loose alliance standing in a few hundred constituencies based on more or less agreed radical policies like those I've outlined. It's desperate, it's extreme, it's sub-optimal, it's unrealistic. But I'm desperate; more and more I'm coming to the view that our contry is screwed. Further, what can we do if Parliament doesn't give us the referendum? When, if ever, will it be time for ropes and lamp-posts?

William

Could be it be that Liverpool and Glasgow have suffered more than most from the brilliant ideas of politicians? The East End of Glasgow, for example, (a life expectancy equivalent to Gaza, as The Spectator loves to remind us), was victim to some of the more 'experimental' policies of British governments. An area that once housed thousands of manufacturing, engineering and industrial jobs that were lost due to the incompetence of previous regimes - particularly the Thatcher era. So, i) destroy skilled labour, ii) import cheap labour, iii) have them fight it out for low-skilled, minimum wage dead end jobs and then scratch your chin and wonder why social disorder breaks out.

bill

This problem goes very deep. Standards have been declining since the 60s when the Gramsciam Marxists began to take a tighter hold. The police and judiciary have been undermined. And our politicians are self-servingly useless. Don't expect Cameron's Tories to be any help. They gave Blair a standing ovation which said it all.

newmania

That frustrated me .There was no examination of why these communities had started throwing bricks at each other and it was presented as if the people committing crimes were imposed from the outside. The lack of fathers, jobs ,and commonality was skipped past but the lack of "Community “ and collective action " was made much of . In fact "Individualism” was blamed. This was to me an attempt to recast the welfare disaster of the Brown years as a inexplicable moral failure by the people involved attributable to ..nasty selfishness and a lack of public money. You are far too kind to this insidious propaganda I detested it , the old days of the BBC back again when Polly Toynbee was head of social affairs In fact you acquiesce is irritatingly feeble pull your socks up .Not good enough

Steve

When I was growing up I was run ragged by a combination of the army cadet force and a load of sport. I wasn’t very good at any of them – but loved it. It also taught me about respect, teamwork and discipline while keeping me fit. I have never found an example of someone not being bettered by partaking in a sport or team based activity (from playing in an orchestra or band to playing solders in the ACF). The main complaints people have about the ‘youth of today’ is that they have no respect, they lack discipline, can’t work with others, belong to no community and are fat / unfit. The solution seems clear – invest in facilities where children can run around, build communities and understand team work. Invest in sports facilities outside of school – they go to school to be academically educated, not enjoy themselves. Over the last 30 years exactly the opposite has happened – governments no matter which colour have sold the facilities off. Nobody seems pick this up, despite us constantly being told by boxers, soldiers, musicians and even footballers that without the discipline of the activity they excelled at they would have gone off the rails. It doesn’t matter if you dad has lived off the state for the past 30 years, or your mother is half dead from drink and drugs if you have been taught self mastery, discipline, teamwork and respect by playing full back for you local youth club team. Childhood in this country is miserable – you never know children might get a bit of enjoyment out of playing sport. Childhood might become fun again. It seems that because the majority of people at the thinking end of the social spectrum are dead from the neck down this never gets any air time – people just shout stat’s at each other. John Major said that his biggest regret in government was not doing anything about increasing the participation in sport. Nobody seems to have heeded his words. Where did Wellington say the British won the Battle of Waterloo? I look forward to being proved wrong by someone telling me a statistic which all blames it on Maldleson/Pattern/Portillio/Blair.

David Lindsay

Veritayl, gar courts are not Sharia courts; indeed, the couldn't possibly be further removed: they only ever award damages (livestock in Somalia, cash over here) no matter what the offence. And there is something rather attractive about the idea that bringing shame on one's family is deterrent enough to prevent most offending and practically all re-offending. Time was when the white working class operated like that, likewise through the autority of its father-figures. Which brings me to my main point. When do people imagine that massively increased welfare dependency, and the destruction of the economic basis of paternal authority, beagn? Whom do you imagine was Prime Minister at that time? Do you need a clue?

Dame DeVille

William 12.52 p.m.

'Fight it out for jobs' RUBBISH!! The locals fight it out with the multitude of benefit-paying state agencies to stay solvent and idle (they win) the low-paid immigrant workers are the only ones interested in working.

In Glasgow 3 weeks ago I was amazed at the experience - plenty of Middle Class educated professionals and East European's doing everything else.

The poor folk do nothing except drink, smoke and get fat - the state pays.

Welfarism is a policy that has gone badly wrong!

We do not have a 'deprived' underclass we have an over-indulged underclass.

Nick Kaplan

Kevyn; you mention some fantastic policies that I would be very happy to vote for the, best of which are; “An end to the ID card”, “a radical overhaul of the benefits system”, “simplification of the tax code and a reduction in tax”, “referendum on Lisbon yes/no”. I wonder if you are aware that all of these ideas plus a radical new idea for the education system provide a very good reason to vote Conservative at the next election, given that they are all Tory policies.

John Dean

We in Australia have just been told that British immigration to Australia is at an all time high. Canada, it seems, has made a similar claim. Are you guys voting with your feet?

Verity

I sent a comment in around three hours ago. Are they losing comments now? In addition to no paragraph breaks?

Fraser Nelson

William, I have never said Glasgow's East End has the same life expectancy as Gaza. If only that were true. It's the whole city, including the posh parts, have an average life expectancy of 69 less than these countries. In the East End it drops to 54 years - lower than Sudan, Laos, Cambodia, Ghana, Bangladesh and Uzbekistan. Gaza is 71 years. Cameron gets this wrong as well and it drives me nuts.

Nick Kaplan

Kevyn; you mention some fantastic policies that I would be very happy to vote for the, best of which are; “An end to the ID card”, “a radical overhaul of the benefits system”, “simplification of the tax code and a reduction in tax”, “referendum on Lisbon yes/no”. I wonder if you are aware that all of these ideas plus a radical new idea for the education system provide a very good reason to vote Conservative at the next election, given that they are all Tory policies.

The Chocolate Orange Chameleon and others

Fraser - What happened to my post of eight hours ago? If you're banning posts, let us know and we won't bother. You seem to be morphing into socialists who think free speech needs to be censored,controlled and severely looked into. If you can't run my posts, which I am too sophisticated to make objectionable, then I'm off.

Verity

Fraser Nelson - why was my previous post on this thread dumped? I'm not contributing here any more and I've taken a copy of this post and will post it elsewhere, with an explanation, if it doesn't run. Cameron gets everything wrong, by the way, because he is not a conservative. He is a Chris Patten/Ken Clark leftie and with him, the march to the left goes on. There is no conservative (small c) in Britain any more because it has been stamped out by the thought fascists that the British have either willingly voted for, or stayed away from the polls and allowed to slither in. What is more, Britain will not deal with it because they have allowed themselves to betray their ancestors and become passive recepients. A shrug and a "oh well" and thus is flushed the lives of our ancestors down the tubes of our once glorious history. At least, they are not here to see what their heroism and sacrifice bought.

Pete Hoskin

Verity, Chocolate Orange Chameleon et al. Don't worry - no censorship going on. I think some posts are getitng lost in the Web ether. We'll try and track them down. I'll keep you updated.

William

"The locals fight it out with the multitude of benefit-paying state agencies to stay solvent and idle (they win) the low-paid immigrant workers are the only ones interested in working." It's not that simple, in my view. There was a case in The Scotsman a couple of months ago where Scots in Edinburgh highlighted how they were losing jobs to Poles. It wasn't because they didn't want to work but because the Poles were able to undercut them. The Poles were earning £5 a day in Poland and were understandably delighted to accept £5 an hour in Scotland - yet the Scots could remember a time when the same jobs were paying £5.50 an hour five/six years ago. So, the wages have deflated and the Scots at the bottom rung of the ladder are caught up in an impossible fight. How can the Poles undercut them? The living standard in Poland is nowhere that of Scotland and how many of these Poles intend hanging around for the next 10/15 years here paying taxes, NI, pensions, mortgages? The Scots have the financial burden of a First World society but have to compete with Second World citizens for Second World wages. So, Fraser is right to say that it's crazy that it's better for some people not to work and to claim benefits but he omits the part that imported cheap transient labour has played in that. I don't think removing or reforming the welfare State is the entire solution, in other words. It's only part of it. "William, I have never said Glasgow's East End has the same life expectancy as Gaza. If only that were true. It's the whole city, including the posh parts, have an average life expectancy of 69 less than these countries. In the East End it drops to 54 years - lower than Sudan, Laos, Cambodia, Ghana, Bangladesh and Uzbekistan. Gaza is 71 years. Cameron gets this wrong as well and it drives me nuts." My recollection of the life expectancy figure was that it referred specifically to the Calton area of Glasgow (it was mentioned about 3 times in The Spectator in a month!). I just can't believe the figure could be so low - which is not to say that you're making it up. I accept the drugs, poor diet and generally unhealthy lifestyles are going to lower the life expectancy of Glaswegians, just not to that degree. Perhaps we need to calculate the mean, rather than the average. Then again, we'd need to do the same for the other countries, too. It is unacceptable, though, I agree.

Nick Kaplan

William; what you are saying is quite simply nonsense, firstly the Scots cannot be undercut by the Poles at £5, they must be paid minimum wage which is £5.50 an hour. What you must ask is why are there so many Poles coming here to work, this quite clearly shows there are plenty of jobs available, the problem is those on benefits do not want them. We have the disgraceful situation that when you move from benefits to full employment the cost in the lost benefits and the expense of having to pay tax (particularly council tax) you are actually left off worse off than you would be on benefits. The Poles on the other hand want to do something with their lives and come here to work and better themselves. This does not show that the minimum wage is too low either. If you set the minimum wage above the market value of the wage of a worker than unskilled workers (those in council estates particularly) will be the first to lose out. It simply does not make sense to pay a worker more than the value of their labour, thus a high minimum wage means unskilled workers are replaces by machines that would otherwise be too expensive. The problem is, as usual, one of far too much government interference pushed forward by Left-wingers with no understanding of economics and a good deal of PR and rhetoric.

William

Nick, it isn't nonsense. I misjudged the time of the Scotsman article - I possibly read it in their archives a couple of months ago but it was published in October 2006 and the figures would have related to the minimum wage guidelines at that time. In any case, irrespective of the actual amount of the minimum wage, it's difficult to believe that the scenario outlined has miraculously disappeared because it's risen by 50p an hour. I think to deny that a brake on wage inflation is a factor is wrong. Even the Governor of the Bank of England has stated that one of the benefits of the influx of cheap labour has been to hold wages at a low level. To then claim that that's true but that this hasn't impacted on UK citizens preferring to live off benefits, rather than said low wages, is mad, in my view. 'Workers would be replaced by machines' - lay off the science fiction novels, Nick. This is the sort of stuff people came out with when Henry Ford began paying his workers $5 a day or whatever it was. Whatever did happen to the Ford motor company?

Pete Hoskin

Verity, Chocolate Orange Chameleon et al. We've gone back through the system and - apart from those above - we haven't receieved any other comments from you for this thread. Sorry about that - a technical hitch, I guess. I don't know if it's an issue in this case, but we've discovered that certain pop-up blockers can sometimes block comments from getting through. You might want to try re-sending?

Nick Kaplan

William, you seem to have no understanding of economics. The two fundamental inputs of a business are capital and labour. When labour becomes too expensive it is no longer worth investing in, and capital becomes the preferred option of businesses and unemployment among unskilled workers rises. This is not science fiction this is economic fact. This is why unemployment in countries such as France and Germany is so high; they have no wage flexibility to adjust supply and demand when necessary. Countries without minimum wages or with low minimum wages such as the US, Singapore and to an extent the UK have far more flexibility and thus higher levels of employment. The idea that raising the minimum wage will help get people off benefits is quite simply deluded, all it will do is decrease labour demand and push more people into unemployment and onto benefits. The xenophobic argument that the evil Polish workers are undermining all the “British jobs” is nonsense. A general rise in inflation affects the general price level, this means wages will, in the long run, increase with inflation, thus Polish immigrants holding down the wage rate is a good thing, it lowers inflationary pressure, this means goods are relatively cheaper which means if people actually worked they could afford as much stuff. Your argument seems to rely on the idea that the Poles do not live here while they work that “The Poles were earning £5 a day in Poland and were understandably delighted to accept £5 an hour in Scotland” what do you think, that they commute from Poland to Scotland every day before going home to spend their new wages which are worth far more in their own country. Get real! The Poles live here while they work, they pay the same taxes as the Scots, they shop in the same stores, they face the same prices and they manage very well. The point is just that the Poles are apparitional and choose to work to better themselves, those on benefits are paid far too highly to do nothing so, surprise surprise, they choose to do nothing. When will people such as yourself learn that we will not solve poverty until we stop paying people to be poor?

Verity

Pete Hoskin - Thank you for the courtesy of your response. I don't allow pop-ups, so the disappearance will have to remain a mystery. I won't resend it as the thread has veered away now and it wouldn't fit. Thank you, though, for checking. Kind regards.

William

Nick, as I said, your arguments are as old as the hills - it wasn't 'bad for the economy' for Henry Ford to keep all his profits for himself. It was 'bad for the economy' to use those profits to pay higher wages, though. Real wages increase without it destroying the economy all through economic history. It is simply nonsensical to suggest that a business keeping its profits rather than paying higher wages is better for the economy. It is not a xenophobic argument to point out that an influx of foreign labour will curb wages to the detriment of those living here - a fact acknowledged by the Governor of the Bank of England! I take no heed of whatever imaginary inflation figure the Government is peddling this week. I'm surprised you do. The Poles will not commute every day but there is a significant body of statistical and anecdotal evidence that many will reside here temporarily accumulating enough wealth to enjoy a much higher standard of living in their own country for a good chunk of the year and/or send remittance back to their own country whilst here. Many will live in overcrowded accommodation (to lower rent costs) and will be 'below the radar' of public services and taxation. The Government admitted last year that it had miscalculated this immigration to a dreadful degree and even now was unsure of the actual numbers involved. Yet you would assure us that, in actual fact, they are all on the official books for tax and other purposes? Ultimately, tackling the problems of society is going to require some acknowledgement from politicians that many British citizens are being forced into the benefits system because they're being disadvantaged in the labour market thanks to the actions of politicians. Then again, the former First Minister of Scotland, Jack McConnell, stated that Scotland had to learn to compete with 'low wage, low value economies'. I may know nothing about economics but I fancy you can only compete with such economies by offering even lower wages and even lower value. Perhaps that's the 'vision' of Britain offered by our politicians.

Nick Kaplan

William; The age of an argument is no indication of its truth (old or not it is still correct). The effects of a minimum wage can be proved mathematically, it is based on the marginal product of labour, mathematical proofs cannot be disputed, but it would be too complicated to explain here, I suggest you buy yourself an economics textbook. I did not suggest that business should not increase wages as profits increase, this would be ludicrous, and the economics that proves the problems of a minimum wage shows it to be fallacious. As the economy grows, wages naturally increase with increased output in virtue of the fact that workers are paid on the value of their labour. This is the only reason why Labour’s minimum wage law has not been an absolute disaster (because the economy has grown and the market value has roughly kept up with the minimum wage). However the fact is the minimum wage is still set above the market value (or else it would be pointless having one) and this by necessity means some unemployment, that would not otherwise occur. Your claim that “an influx of foreign labour will curb wages to the detriment of those living here” is simply not true. If foreign labourers come here they will hold down the wage rate, I grant you this, but it is not a bad thing for anyone in the long run. This is because it reduces inflation (inflation is caused by rising prices and rising prices are caused by rising costs which occur as a result of having to pay higher wages), if inflation decreases then in real terms nobody is left any worse off despite a nominal decrease in the wage rate. It is a minimum wage combined with too many benefits that keep people out of work and in poverty, not Poles.

Kiffa

It's even worse than this, folks. The welfare state is a source of great evil, I truly think: it rewards bad behaviour (by attaching benefits to destructive consequences, and to babies}, and by threatening to remove benefits for any attempt to become responsbible (getting a job, marriage), traps people in a self-destructive swamp. BUT IT IS CHEAP for the country. I was shocked to read a book by a Stanford University economist praising the 'efficiency' of the European welfare system. Why? Because European governments do not tax capital (see non-dom row), because if they do, capital (the rich) leave; but instead tax habits - petrol, alcohol, tobacco, the lottery. And who consumes these things disproportionately? THE POOR. So the poor, not the rich, pay for the welfare state. The welfare state is a cheap way of parking off not very bright, unskilled, not very productive people, into ghettos - sorry, estates - and forgetting about them. Which is why immigrants - and their initiative and drive that got them here - are welcomed, before anything is done about the underclass. It's a shame, and I think it is cruel. And short term. Bring on Charles Murray's economic solutions, which truly transfer money from the rich to the poor, and which George Osbourne told me he 'didn't agree with'. I am afraid I heard 'I don't have the Thatcher-sized testicles required to implement that'.

Kiffa

Well said Nick Kaplan. Keep going! I also forgot to mention the great difference in Murray's welfare solution is that it takes the state out of presuming to function on behalf of individuals, (vitally, reviving community cohesiveness as people rediscover their humanity). They receive their personal responsibility back and, he states, inevitably (because people will always do what is best for them) will start to make productive choices, like avoiding pregnancy as a teenager (because it would no longer be rewarded), and taking the job that previously threatened their benefits, to supplement their non-prescribed income.

Perry

Yer . . . an' I want all the easy dosh I kin get . . it's me roights init . . or thas wot they tell me darn the benfet playce

Kiffa

Perry, you are wrong to mock the poor. What started my swing from the left was working amongs the unemployable (or 'challenging youth'): I discovered that they were illiterate, uncouth, preganant, barely socialised - but their knowledge of unemployment benefits was acute, and would put an employment lawyer to shame. Stupid, poor people ain't. Don't blame the people, blame the SYSTEM. Which is wicked in the Unintended Consequences of its Good Intentions

Nick Kaplan

Kiffa; what you have said is absolutely 100% true. The welfare state is a breeding ground for bad values and poverty, poor people should not be blamed, the system should. It is a terrible thing that the Welfare system makes it rational to be poor or lazy, but this is precisely what it encourages. The potential MP Shaun Bailey has expressed this point very clearly, he comes from what would formally have been called a working class background and does much work in “underclass communities.” He has emphasised the particularly damaging effects of our welfare system on young people in such communities. He has explained that the system offers them no incentive to make the most of the opportunities they are given, it teaches such people that working hard now just isn’t worth it, why spend time studying and struggling with work and bettering yourself if you can sit back, relax and have a perfectly comfortable life, effort free at the expense of the tax payer. A wasted education is a terrible travesty, and is a by-product of this cruel system. (By the way it's nice to hear some of you lefties can change your ways!)

Roy

To cut out the long essay on the subject . . . the country's gone soft. Pure and simple. You can't act as nurse maid to the whole world, then allow half the population to be on a benefit. The taxpayer is paying for the waste and the unnecessary expense, not the politicians. Whether it's done forcefully or by persuasion the country needs to be brought on to a war footing with everybody pulling their weight, and pulling together.

Perry

Kiffa ... couldn't put it better . . but I don't think 'mock' is quite the right word . . . however, if you say so. In the real world, combine low aspiration and stimulation with 'accessible' reward and the result is? So maybe room to ponder my words again, - and thank you Roy and Nick.

Mark Nash

After over a decade of socialism we've got exactly what could have been predicted at the time that that great thespian and all-round sham, Tony Blair, was voted in to take charge of the train set. Blair wanted power for power's sake, to strut his stuff on camera and the world stage. Brown wanted power to apply his warped sense of altruism, involving ripping hard-earned salaries from the despised middle-classes and tipping them unconditionally into the pockets of the feckless, into public sector administrators, quangos and pensions, into corrupt foreign governments and aid agencies (to "alleviate world poverty") and any other unproductive outfit you care to mention. It's such a shame that the British people (minus a few of us) were so duped by this duo - two politicians who have done more to set back the economic and social fabric of this great country in a decade, than any politicians have done in a century or two before them. Really quite some achievement. God knows who will sort out the mess from here (not "Dave" that's for sure) or how long it will take. Volunteers please?

Typical White Person

Kevyn: The "Rope & Lamppost" would be a TERRIFIC name for a pub!

On our side of the pond, no light-hearted mention can ever be made of lynching, but maybe things are different in the UK.

Steve Shires

If a poor homeowner can be forced into a care home they will not even have to make the effort to look after themselves. Of course they lose their homes to the fees. If they've no homes they don't get the care they may need though.

Steve Shires

widowtwankey

Dame DeVille - March 4th, 4.36pm

"The poor folk do nothing except drink, smoke and get fat..."

Er, isn't there another activity they are quite good at?

Susan Wade Weeks

Steve March 4th is absolutely right and Shaun Bailey agrees with him. A lack of physical activity and team sport is one of the root causes of gang culture. Without organised sport at school, young teenage boys have no outlet for their huge energy and natural aggression. Brought up by single mothers they crave the approval of a male role model. They find this approval and team spirit and bonding in the gangs, where to be accepted you have to commit a crime to get "respect". Add to this the fact that as many as 30% of boys leave school practically illiterate and you have the recipe for crime at all levels. Read Shaun Bailey's excellent 'No Man's Land' if you don't believe me.

Pat

Having a monarchy, it's rather bizarre that the idea of state dependency has no credence; after all, all fairy tales of paternalism are based upon the concept of King (or Queen).

Most Americans don't understand, therefore, how edicts of a Monarch can be coordinated with the concept of democracy in government administration. Who else would the people appeal to but a Monarch for relief from oppression?