The post you are reporting:
"In the context of his comments, what he actually said he is 100% correct."
What is he saying that is so spot-on?
I can readily see that he uses much the same cloudy and cryptic rhetoric that we often get from you Barry. Much as a box of chocolates has a picture of a cute puppy on the lid; are we to get chocolates or bits of puppy when we undo the ribbon?
So, poor people have the least to lose, this leaves much to the imagination. Not least the calls for reductions to H&S rules...the sooner we get the children of the poor up them chimneys the better?
So, we have to make the system predictable, an assertion left hanging in a way that sets the cogs of cogitation a-spinning and a-whirring: Does he mean that benefits should be readily available to kick-in between the claimants occasional bouts of temporary/casual employment - with the claimant having about 80% of his earnings discounted from any benefit calculation?
Thus creating a flexible pool of easy-hire-easy-fire labour?
Maybe there is not that much risk, not yet sufficient risk, in what I have laid out.
So, what might be the turn of the screw? 100% of earnings offset against benefit, benefit denied to any and all who fall from the ladder or crawl from the well before the job is done to the satisfaction of the 'employer' - or perhaps only delayed for a set period of so many set meals?
On reflection, he is correct in one way. Come the next election the poor shall have a wide selection of overseers to chose from and little to lose in not choosing the way you wish, but alas, until there is meat on the bones of this risk without reward notion the risk remains with the Politicians. Who may well be told at the next election to, "Go risk yourself!"
