(no subject)

[chess]

I've been finding out lately that a disturbing number of you are conservatives/Tory supporters of some stripe or another. Being somewhat of a flaming red socialist myself, I'm interested in how you guys justify the belief that the rich ought to get richer and the poor ought to fend for themselves that seems to be the Tory standpoint to me...

Comments

[atreic.livejournal.com]

I'm further left of centre than Labour (not that that's hard nowadays). But looking towards my future, it would be easier to get a house by doing no work, getting a council house, and using the right to buy in two years time, then it would by trying to slog my way through an academic career and actually trying to earn anything. I think that the idea of helping those who are unlucky sits quite easilly, but the idea of spending your money helping those that are lazy smarts a bit. And does it really help them, if we leave them with no incentive to better themselves because their life is fine as it is?

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

but the idea of spending your money helping those that are lazy smarts a bit.

I know that you know this (but not everyone reading this will) but benefits are available to a much wider range of people than those who are too lazy to work. Whether this is better or worse, I wouldn't like to comment.

I agree that the current system is deeply flawed, though. I spent a summer on Income support* once, and I learnt first hand that if you aren't prepared to play the system, you get almost nothing. Which encourages people to play the system, so they end up dependent on it etc etc.

*For those who don't know, you get IS if you are too ill/injured to work, rather than job seekers.