<div>Just saw this article, on the topic of benefits. While I don't agree with its tenor at all, aside from the brutal headline two paras jumped out at me as interesting, the first in that it supports the contention that the mess we are in can only be sorted out at the neighbourhood, face-to-face commonsense level, and the second for the very bleakness of this (usually cheery) establishment figure's view on the future of our society, and the sense that this is so because it is democratic. Whereas some of us are positing the idea that it is only when we become democratic, that these (and other) social/enviro problems will be resolved. Curiouser and curiouser. The two paras were:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"It might have been possible for the state to fine-tune benefits in that way in the days when parishes organised relief and every claimant was known to the local poor law guardians. It is much more difficult today in systems that are nationalised and standardised."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>and</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Whenever I asked [Conservative US Polemist and expert on US Welfare] Murray what to do, he was pessimistic that a democratic society could take measures tough enough to halt our moral degeneration. He is probably right."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Establishment are taking their gloves off now, aren't they - two leading articles in two days denouncing Lord Turner's promotion of the Tobin Tax, with the last line today "Tax is not only the wrong answer. It would also be an admission of defeat." Plus the "new Thatcherism" coming through from Barnet Council's approach to cost cutting. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>Whole article is at: </div>
<div><strong>Idle young should be entitled to nothing</strong></div>
<div><strong><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6814986.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6814986.ece</a></strong></div>
</div>
<div> </div>