The Merits of A Smaller Population and Welfare Reform
Advocates of never ending mass immigration often smear their political opponents as unclean. Just as people who voted for Britain to leave the European Union in 2016 were said to be narrow minded, uneducated, thick idiots who betray their bigotry by the sound of their knuckles dragging along the floor, critics of a forever expanding labour market are similarly dismissed.
It is commonplace for the type who engages in such behaviour to sarcastically snigger before or after uttering, “they're taking our jobs” with predictable hauteur. This refrain reinforces a sense of superiority over citizens whose “concerns” can only arise from fecklessness. Such smugness sidesteps rather than addresses reasonable arguments. It lazily absolves these types from having to think about the interests and quality of life of others. The ready recourse to derision prevents a confrontation with the rank hypocrisy it fails to obscure. People who partake in this conduct are generally liberal-left and claim to care about the plight of the lower echelons. If such care were genuine, the likes of The Guardian would rail against the unfettered movement of labour for lowering the wages of the poorest. Instead, such entities align with huge corporations that gorge on a bottomless supply of scab labour.
An honest assessment of the impact of population growth on almost every service imaginable could engender a host of left-wing justifications for reducing the number of people presently in Britain. Should the size of the population fall, wages would rise, and rents and house prices would drop.
With a smaller population and the reform of a welfare system that can currently present normal problems of life like stress and anxiety as grave illnesses, many would rush back to work in the knowledge that their pay would provide a reasonable standard of living. The present situation induces indolence. A choice often exists between slogging away all week to pay exorbitant rent to live inside a box and obtaining the same or more by doing nothing.
Given the largess bestowed on client groups favoured by the regime, it is not hard to understand why some shun a life of small reward and walk into the welfare snare. Considering the shocking state of things, one can empathise with and to a large extent support a get what you can mindset. But if there is a national renewal, higher moral standards must apply.
The claim that people will not work certain jobs is made to keep things going as they are. In homogeneous parts of the country, the baristas and the retail assistants are native. Things can get done without an endless stream of cheap labour. One might think that the left would make this point and express indignation at any policy that lowers the wages of the proletariat or forces foreign competition onto them. The commitment of the mainstream left to the status quo attests to an inhumane attitude towards the British masses.
Today, welfare payments compete with employment. Personal Independence Payment (PIP) can be paid in addition to universal credit (UC). For situational problems such as stress, anxiety and depression, sums are awarded on a points based system. PIP has ‘daily living’ and ‘mobility’ components. It is open to egregious abuse. And there is talk of the Labour Party stopping this and outdoing the ‘‘Conservative Party’’ on this front. The award of PIP is based on how conditions impact life. It is not hard to imagine a luxuriant range of mental health diagnoses enhancing the violin effect made when one proclaims woe is me. You can be awarded points for the daily living component even without a physical illness if you have problems with the following: preparing food, eating and drinking, managing your treatments, washing and bathing, managing toilet needs or incontinence, dressing and undressing, communicating verbally, reading and understanding written information, mixing with others, and making decisions about money. It can be harder to score highly for the mobility component that assesses the ability to follow a journey or move around, but physical illness is still not a prerequisite for points. In theory, if someone sees a doctor, notes their depression, sits down all day while waist deep in their excrement, does not wash and dress, does not make food, does not go out, and has a reluctance to talk to people, they can receive a maximum of £187.45 a week if they score sufficient points across both parts of the PIP test. PIP should exist for those in need and not without a genuine diagnosis pertaining to the brain and or body.
Being an alcoholic or a drug addict is no barrier to receiving PIP. In many cases, the state is effectively employing people to abuse substances. A compassionate society should help people with these issues but not by paying for their crack and super strength lager. Rehabilitation, food stamps and not cash, guidance, and emotional support should be on offer. The idea of handing out money to people with these problems is irresponsible and supportive of incremental suicide.
Although awards of PIP could deter someone from finding a job, the benefit can still be paid to someone working full time, and earnings do not impact payments; this is an incredible abuse. The system operates on the basis that more money mitigates the ailments an applicant says they have. But more money is not always what is needed to help somebody. Obviously, someone in need of a wheelchair or hampered in their movement might need more funds for cab fares depending on their level of disability. But if said person is receiving a full time wage, they should have to pay their cab fares. The state of PIP is appalling.
In cases where someone experiences significant trauma and during periods of involuntary unemployment, it is right for a benevolent state to mitigate financial hardship; this assistance should not be indefinite and unconditional. The welfare state should not readily facilitate a life of zoological up and down involving alcohol and drugs, constant rounds of Uber Eats, irresponsible reproduction and days passed by watching TV programs featuring the pronouncements of those who would be unknown were it not for a vapid culture of celebrity. Nor should the state lavishly supplement those receiving a full time salary.
The course suggested here would reduce or remove grievances and prevent physically healthy people from leaving or never entering the workforce. The left would have harder trouble condemning native indolence as a rationale for their cult like support of unceasing demographic change. The workplace would be healthy. Employees would have higher morale and a genuine sense of being in it together. More people would have a better chance of a meaningful and fulfilling life.
References
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/sick-or-disabled-people-and-carers/pip/help-with-your-claim/how-decisions-are-made/
https://www.gov.uk/pip/how-much-youll-get
https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independence-payment-pip/glossary/will-work-affect-personal-independence-payment-pip
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/cost-of-living/dwp-introduces-more-rigorous-checks-9999125
All subscriptions, likes and restacks (shares) are very much appreciated.
If you would like to make a one off donation and buy me a coffee click here.
You've killed it Adam well argued !
A smaller more self-reliant population is not a weakness its the foundation for national renewal.
Let's stop managing decline and start building a country that works for those that contribute.