Nobody said anything about families
you did (possibly from your own experience.)

The point is that a state can only provide so many carrots before it has to resort to the stick. The welfare state is there for the genuinely needy, not for those who just don't want to work. If you can't work, whats the reason? If it's genuinely medical or personal, you'll be exempt from this policy. If not, then please justify to us all why you can't maintain one of the many jobs you would have been offered before you faced eviction.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:16, archived)

I don't have an actual opinion on the subject.
But I'd like to argue with you all anyway.
( baldmonkey a frothy foul-smelling vaginal discharge, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:17, archived)

This
Like I've said before, there's so many places that have jobs going, but if they're not 'good enough' then people won't do it. The shitty jobs, like rubbish collection and being on a checkout in Aldi, are good money! McDonalds is shit pay but at least you'd be REDUCING the benefit you're getting, as opposed to relying on the government for ALL of your bills.
( Methylene Blue - electrohead, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:20, archived)

Give up your benefit.
Go on. Get one of those jobs, and give up your benefit.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:22, archived)

I've DONE IT
For fuck's sake. I know it's hard, but like I said I don't want to dissolve the whole benefits system!
( Methylene Blue - electrohead, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:24, archived)

Isn't she in full-time education as well, to try and get a better-paid job
in order to give up the benefit? So she's conforming to the ideas proposed by the minister in this story.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:24, archived)

But why evict them at all?
If a few people think dodging officials and living on benefits is a good way to live, let 'em. If you want the self-satisfaction of seeing them (and, at the risk of appealing to emotion, their kids) on the streets or in a shitty hostel at the risk of terrorising legitimate, unfortunate people, fuck off.
( Newington, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:27, archived)

If it were a cheeky few abusing the system, then fine
as you'll always have a minor percentage pushing the boundaries. The start of this story, however, was due to the increasing number of people in this category, and how to tackle that increase.

Or do you think we should give anyone who asks for it state accomodation, whatever the cost?
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:35, archived)

Yes.
I don't mind paying tax so people have a roof over their heads if they need it.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:39, archived)

That's how it worked over here
the ultimate cost was a level of taxation akin to 76% of your income, the complete collapse of privatised industry due to the lack of money flow, massive crime from lack of domestic goods and a crippled ineffective bureaucratic state trying to manage it.

It's nice in theory, but it just doesn't work.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:45, archived)

Thankyou!
Somebody can see the fucking sense in it all.
( Methylene Blue - electrohead, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:51, archived)

And all because of not evicting people from council houses!

( Newington, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:52, archived)

Newington, as much as I admire you, you've provided nothing to this argument other than
"eviction is wrong." However, it still happens every single day right now in councils up and down the country, and will continue for as long as people abuse the system.

Looking after the needy is necessary, but it doesn't take too long before every single person is classified as "in need." You therefore have to prioritise, and that's all this minister has suggested; a new method to make the housing situation more fluid, to get the more needy people in as quick as possible and the less needy out.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 14:56, archived)

Do you think "eviction happens" is an argument against "eviction is wrong"?

( Newington, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 15:01, archived)

very much so
if you are from the viewpoint that "eviction is right" in some circumstances.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Tue 5 Feb 2008, 15:03, archived)