In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) I thibk you're projecting on to the interview the view that you already hold.
>
> From my perspective, the example they chose was absurd
From my perspective, it resonated, and here's why:
- he had chosen to be self employed
..because he had been made redundant, which is a very relevant phenomenon in the UK at the moment
- his business had failed
..but he'd done what the government have been repeatedly saying that they want people to do which is to try to take the entrepreneurial route
- yet he was avoiding the sensible course of action which would be to let it go
..well this seems to me an entirely forgivable common human problem, which is how difficult to know when to say enough is enough. It also requires that you know / feel that you have work alternatives, which if you come from a work culture is the way you think, rather than about further appropriating upon yourself the stigma of benefits
> I can speak with some authority about this, having been in practically an identical position even down to staying close to my son (which, incidentally, I never expected the state to pay for, which meant in my case a lot of hitch hiking.)
> There are real issues about poverty traps, housing inequalities, disincentives to work and all the rest that have to be tackled for everyone's sake, not least many of the benefits' recipients, (even the hideous Frank Field would agree with that); leaping on silly examples doesn't seem a sensible way of discussing them.
Well I wouldn't disagree that it is a highly polarised methodology, but so is the rhetoric of fairness.