The one thing you can guarantee about the removal of benefits is that they are never likely to return. Generation Wars as they are favoured by Blairites and Cleggites and the astonishingly under performing Conservative David "Two Brains" Willetts is only the latest scam in a long historical series of scams which argue for redistribution on something other than financial need. It may seem enticing to those who are in their 20s and 30s now for today's 40s, 50s and 60s to share what has still not been taken away from them a bit via Government. No governments will deliver on that one. In truth, and rather sadly, the Welfare State has been usurped to a considerable degree by today's older generations so that it's families who are in the strongest position to redistribute, ie to their families. That is, those who did work and were lucky to have dropped out of the womb when they did.
No one would deny that the situation is complex. Some older folk will question whether it is right to describe pensions as benefits at all. There is an argument there. I do not wholly agree with it but I know where they are coming from in that respect. It is helpful to Governments to describe them as such when wanting to point out just how much money goes into pensions relative to all "benefits". There is also whether we like it or not some distortion created by immigration which impacts on state support in a way that makes it more difficult to argue for universal benefits. When x was British born and worked for 40 years while y came to Britain in 2007 and has worked for 10 years, then actually it is difficult to be rational in defending y's right to claim equal or greater benefits at working age. That has become so significant in the national psyche it could be called the Corbyn Conundrum.
On the other side of the coin, it really gets my goat, when told how the young are struggling, to hear news too of the current price of an average house. That is a deliberate distortion caused by political bias, news bias and over-expectation in the population. Back in the day, the starting point was a broken down hut that cost tuppence and when a mortgage was provided for it everyone held a party albeit subject to food rations. To my mind, the earlier situation was appropriate and right. That's the maximum entitlement.
Those whose parents are cleaners and have risen to the giddy heights of ice cream salesmen never complain about the price of buying a house. They know that such a thing is beyond them just as in their families that has always been the case. No, the ones who complain are the trainee doctors and trainee lawyers - sorry - whose own parents were similar, albeit that house prices were cheaper and interest rates were indeed higher in their day. They already have more than genuinely poor people of whatever age. It seems they are disgruntled that they can't afford a three-bed detached in the best part of town close to its centre. Convenient for work and nightlife and car parks and public transport to airports. New Labour or Liberal until 44 when they can afford to be Conservative, a position they will maintain for the rest of their lives. I am not buying into it and never will do.
No one would deny that the situation is complex. Some older folk will question whether it is right to describe pensions as benefits at all. There is an argument there. I do not wholly agree with it but I know where they are coming from in that respect. It is helpful to Governments to describe them as such when wanting to point out just how much money goes into pensions relative to all "benefits". There is also whether we like it or not some distortion created by immigration which impacts on state support in a way that makes it more difficult to argue for universal benefits. When x was British born and worked for 40 years while y came to Britain in 2007 and has worked for 10 years, then actually it is difficult to be rational in defending y's right to claim equal or greater benefits at working age. That has become so significant in the national psyche it could be called the Corbyn Conundrum.
On the other side of the coin, it really gets my goat, when told how the young are struggling, to hear news too of the current price of an average house. That is a deliberate distortion caused by political bias, news bias and over-expectation in the population. Back in the day, the starting point was a broken down hut that cost tuppence and when a mortgage was provided for it everyone held a party albeit subject to food rations. To my mind, the earlier situation was appropriate and right. That's the maximum entitlement.
Those whose parents are cleaners and have risen to the giddy heights of ice cream salesmen never complain about the price of buying a house. They know that such a thing is beyond them just as in their families that has always been the case. No, the ones who complain are the trainee doctors and trainee lawyers - sorry - whose own parents were similar, albeit that house prices were cheaper and interest rates were indeed higher in their day. They already have more than genuinely poor people of whatever age. It seems they are disgruntled that they can't afford a three-bed detached in the best part of town close to its centre. Convenient for work and nightlife and car parks and public transport to airports. New Labour or Liberal until 44 when they can afford to be Conservative, a position they will maintain for the rest of their lives. I am not buying into it and never will do.
Comment