The tent occupiers are not disrupting people. Indeed, when I walked past them recently I got the impression that the majority of people going about their lawful business where not unhappy about them being there.

in your opinion, which is worth two fifths of sod all to me, but maybe worth a whole lot to someone else.

it's how opinions work, or maybe you're not capabale of having a difference of opinion without it becoming personal

Edited for accuracy.

Where has it become personal (apart from your wholly unwarranted comments to AS)? I said your opinion was repugnant and, to me, it is.

Now, those figures...

If he's not, he'll be in the majority on The Sin Bin!

Various posted have touched on the issue of the long-term unemployed and work experience etc – but we've moved on from that.

So let's change the discussion a little – if the world we now live in is this dog-eat-dog situation, where the majority struggle to keep their heads above water, with no security in life of job or home etc, then a number of questions arise:

1) how did this become the case;

2) is it inevitable;

3) if it is, what sort of society do we expect from that;

4) if it isn't, how do we change it – and what to?

the thing is Mintbal, the majority don't struggle, or at least didn't until they went out and got interest only mortgages for houses they couldn't afford, the banks were irresponsible for offering it, the government (of both colours) were irresponsible for allowing it to happen, but ultimately, the individuals concerned went out and took those offers up.

1. The failure of the political classes to move on and think afresh. Especially Labour so far as the UK is concerned.

2. Not in the short-term but probably in the long-run.

3. A more authoritarian one. As we've already seen, as soon as the economy takes a dip the governments in the so called democracies crack down on their citizens. Even the illusion of democracy is dimming in the EU.

4. Standing up and being counted.

Personal?

Your a fooking pro at it.
From 'Fubars' hair, to his clothes, to his speech.

Your just a horrible little ncut.
Were you born like it or was it taught?

Erm not all of us did we could have borrowed 80k we borrowed 40k with 10% down (See I didnt just have kids on a whim).
That wide brush biting you on the anus again I see.
I see you are still avoiding Rock Gods numbers like the clap.
I wonder why?

this isn't about you, it's a conversation/discussion about the wider issues.

and as for Rock God's numbers, it's a clarification of the situation, SOME people would rather sit at home and do nothing than end up with a net £50 gain.

is that because wages are too low, or benefits are too high?

So the majority of people who are struggling are those who took out interest only mortgages on houses they couldn't afford? More than 50 percent of people in financial difficulties in this country fall into that category?

Still, I suppose it's nowt that can't be rectified by them taking a job miles away from home and at a loss.

not just interest only mortgages, credit in general, people are, on the whole, in way too much debt.

I like the way you simplify things to try and build and argument, you'd do really well on The Cube.

Funny you didn't say that when your insults were flying around eh!

It is more an indication that you are removed from reality.

It is neither.
It is that folks live in the real world unlike you.

That's a £50 net income, not a net gain. It's actually less than being on JSA. So, I ask again, do you think it reasonable that a man should have to work for 40 hours and not see his family all week, for an income lower than he would get on JSA?

And what about if he needed full time child care and it ended up costing him money to go to work? Should he have to do that too?

Like the [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.htmlGoldman Sachs model for Europe[/url?

I haven't simplified anything, merely repeated your simplistic arguments back to you. They sound a bit daft, don't they?

Taking on credit has proven entirely rational for those people. We have governmemts hell bent on propping the banks up by propping up the indebted home owners. The irrational ones are those who are not in debt as we are the only ones who can pay for the debtors. That means people who "have done the right thing" come away with poverty in retirement and a smaller house than they could have had; and those who borrowed come away with more capital than then should have had - by having a bigger house than they could rightfully have afforded. Effectively, those hard-working families stretching to fund their mortgages and lifestyles are all effectively on welfare.

but why does anyone "need" full time child care, we never used to, one parent working was enough. This is what I mean, we've built ourselves a society where two wages is a minimum to live, that's not right, and it wasn't Labour or the Conservatives that pushed us own this route, it is us as a society, where we have a "want" as opposed to "need" culture.

look around when you get home (unless you're already at home), how much of the stuff that surrounds you do you genuinely NEED and how much was bought because you simply wanted it?

and I am not saying I am not guilty of the same, far from it, but to try and blame politicians for our own behaviour is simply wrong. You say there aren't enough jobs, why is that, is it because the population of the UK Has been allowed to increase unabated, with little regard for how we might cope with that population increase, or is it because David Cameron went to Eaton and his parents are wealthy?

Not going to read that link. Mintball has already opined - and that newspaper is -poor.

One parent in this house does work, that's me. I'm one of those nasty, evil single parents. So what do I do? Sit at home claiming benefits or work full time?

an entirely different dimension to the conversation, you may be the only parent present, but I doubt you conceived alone.

society is too lenient on absentee parents as well, both male and female. (again, in my opinion)

That's an entirely different topic, and a transparent attempt to dodge the issue.

What you 'need' is to be able to pay rent/mortgage, council tax, gas, electricity and water bills, then be able to feed and clothe your family and travel to work. Those are the bare essentials, without taking into account stuff that we could reasonably say it was ok for a person to have (like a phone and a TV licence, for example). It is perfectly conceivable that one person's wage won't cover all these expenses given the ridiculously high cost of housing, and the ever increasing cost of energy, food and fuel. So, it's not just a case of 'want' driving the fact that some families have both parents working.

I noticed you didn't answer my question, either.

I'll quote it, so you can see the one I mean:

I find it disgusting that JSA discourages people from seeking work.

So you think that £53 (for under 25s) or £67 (for over 25s) is too much? You'd rather see the unemployed get, what? Nothing?

I think you're using JSA to try and cloud the issue, so I'll rephrase:

Do you think it's reasonable that a man should have to work 40 hours a week and live away from his family for 5 days out of 7, for a net income of £50? And do you think those that would need full time childcare should go to work to make a loss?