I’m not seeing the contradiction between those two statements. 
I don’t think you know much about the UK, or British politics, from what you post about British Asians. We have many prominent politicians of South Asian ethnicity and it rates not a mention in the media or down the pub.
No, it’s mostly one thing, and it’s not a big mystery. The big spike was in the 1980’s, when “tough on crime” legislators instituted mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. This is damn near common knowledge for those of us who lived in the USA in the 1980’s.
Lock more people up, for longer, and you end up with more inmates. Nothing complicated about it.
Had I claimed there were no prominent South Asian politicians in the UK, that would have been a good rebuttal. However, I didn’t so it isn’t.
What I said was that I doubt we’ll be seeing a Pakistani PM any time soon while noting the UK had less issues with racism than France or Germany.
The difficulty with that analysis is that the US has one of the lowest rates of vertical social mobility among western democracies; the “socialist” nations of Norway, Denmark, Finland and Canada have the highest rates of vertical social mobility.
Both the US and the EU have unaffordable social security systems, which is why their economies are going down the gurgler.
In the UK, working 60 year olds get free public transport, free medicine and winter fuel allowance, even if their rent includes central heating. No wonder the UK is in the deep doodoo.
Just to pick up this point. You are right, I can’t see it anytime soon but I don’t think ethnic background would be an electoral problem once a someone of Pakistani - or Afro-Caribbean - background got the leadership of his/her party. My feeling is that, ultimately, in the UK elections are won by parties, not individuals. Of course they would have to be tele-genic and probably bland, but that applies whether they are black or white. I could well see a British Asian working his way up the party ranks and becoming leader and then PM. Probably sooner than we see another woman Prime Minister - Maggie put both main parties off the idea for a long time to come :dubious:
I’m reasonably sure they have to be British d&r
Nope - To be an MP you could also be a citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland so the PM could actually be a Pakistani citizen.
Well, I “like the idea” that everyone who meets me thinks I’m the wittiest, sexiest, smartest person in the world, but that has nothing to do with reality.
Well, everyone gets free medicine whatever their age. And the winter fuel payment is about 100 quid. It does seem strange to give that to anyone claiming a state pension, but with such a small one-off payment it would probably cost the govt more to administer means-testing.
“Free public transport at 60” is wrong, though; people of state pension age can apply for a card to get free off-peak bus travel only. The state pension age is gradually increasing, but it’s never 60 any more. Someone who is now 59, for example, will be eligible for the pension and therefore the bus pass when they are 62 years, 8 months and five days old. Ridiculously complicated but probably better than just having an immediate cut-off point.
One reason, I think, would be religion. Most of America believes in the Christian God and many of those believe we live in a just world.
Someone who thinks that God is good, and He never gives you more than you can handle, isn’t likely to think that poor people are poor because of circumstances beyond their control.
State retirement age is now 66.
Fuel poverty is a serious issue in the UK.
I can give you my two cents worth on disability and you can make your own comparisons to what is provided for in the UK. I worked since I was 14 and became disabled due to a workplace accident at 39. At the time of my injury I was making $70k base pay and on a good year with overtime I would approach $100k. I finally got approved for Social Security Disability five years after I applied. I was rejected when I first applied on my own and had to retain an attorney to navigate the process for me. It eventually required a hearing in front of a Federal Judge who reviewed my work history and medical records and gave approval to my claim.
I mentioned my income because the amount you receive under disability is based in the amount you earned/paid into the system. I receive a gross payment of $1650 per month and a net payment of $1550 with $100 taken out for Medicare (health insurance). Also, my two children receive $800 per month on my behalf. I am very thankful for the benefit, however it is tough to live on and you have to be extremely careful and budget well. It is also important to note that once you are approved you receive back payment in a lump sum from the day you filed for benefits.
There are flaws in the system, however please don’t take any negative comments that I might say and think that I am ungrateful. Without Social Security I would be screwed. But what everyone needs to understand is that Social Security Disability is not welfare. It is a benefit that each and every person who works pays for while working, an insurance policy of sorts. In my experience the benefit is very difficult to get approved for and I am classified as “permanently disabled, no improvement expected”, even so every seven years I undergo an extensive medical review to reevaluate my eligibility.
I will say that it does appear from articles I’ve read that the amount of benefit received is much less than those in the UK. However, I am basing my opinion on a few Daily Mall articles that show some couple that hadn’t worked in ten years living in a government paid for 5 bedroom home. I’m sure that isn’t typical and I get that the Daily Fail isn’t the most reliable source for information.
I will echo some of the earlier comments that have praised the Medicare system. The insurance I have through them is first rate and rivals my gold plated union insurance when I worked.
With that said I do think there are some flaws in the system. These being:
1: The amount received is very difficult to live on. I live in Central Florida where the cost of living isn’t too bad, but I don’t see how anyone could survive on what disability provides if they live in a large city. My attorney told me that my benefit is one of the larger ones he’s seen. It isn’t uncommon for the benefit for some to be as little as $800 per month.
2: There is very little incentive to try to return to work. Even worse there seems to be very little if any programs available for retraining. Perhaps those of us on disability could go back to school to learn another skill that would allow us to return to the workforce. I don’t see how it can be done without assistance as there isn’t enough money to pay for school.
3: We are taxed on the money we receive. How inefficient can our government be? Why not just reduce the benefit and save the cost of having to file every year?
4: The time it takes to get approved for disability is criminal. It took Five Freaking Years for me to get approved. I used almost all of my savings and if it wasn’t for family there was a good chance I would have ended up living on the street. (I was married when I got hurt, but my wonderful wife decided that being married to sometime who couldn’t work any longer wasn’t for her.) Yes, you get retro payment when finally approved, but that’s too late in most cases. Not to mention I had no insurance those five years, I lived in pain and could do little about it)
That’s about it. The only other problem I’ve ever had concerning disability is the occasional scorn of others thinking you’re a “freeloader” that they’re paying for. Of course, they’re too stupid to understand that Disability isn’t welfare, but a benefit that the recipient paid for during their working life. And I’ve always wanted to ask these people what would they do if they got hurt and couldn’t work any longer? Would they forgo disability and instead choose to be homeless? I bet they wouldn’t. Overall I have nothing but praise for the Social Security agency. They lived up to their promise to provide for myself and my family if I ever became too hurt to work and their employees have been nothing but understanding and respectful toward me. I would prefer if I could go back to work, but it’s not to be.
My experience is similar to yours, obbn.
My application for disability living allowance, a benefit payable whether in or out of work, was initially rejected despite it being so bloody obvious to anyone who meets me that I can’t really walk, pick things up, etc. I really don’t know why it was rejected (just one look at my diagnosis and it’s obvious, so what gives? 
), and am not even allowed to see the reasons why until or unless it gets to tribunal stage.
It’ll be six months after application that I’m even allowed to appeal. It will all be backdated then, but I am actually piling up costs in the meantime. The govt will also be spending money on the admin for all this.
Our govt actually cites the US in many of its spending reforms.
Per person, the US spends about the same amount on its social security systems as Italy. Which is a bit more than Portugal, Greece, and Spain.
France, and the UK spend a bit more, while countries such as Germany and Austria spend twice as much per person and the Nordics approach three times as much.
US spending is a bit less than you’d think though, because the health care system is so inefficient, the money does not go very far there. The US spends more on governement healthcare covering 28% of the population than the European countries, bar two, spend on covering 100%.
Did you notice how the countries thats spent the most on social systems for a long time have the strongest economies?
Excuse me, but I got the free travel pass in London ( and it included tube travel ), plus prescriptions and winter fuel allowance if I wanted it at 60, when the pension age was 65.
The law has changed.
Too late to edit: it’s only in London that anything other than buses is included. It’s still off-peak only of course. I doubt it costs very much at all.
I think there is a fundamental philosophical difference between politics in Western Europe and politics in the US. I speak in general terms here and there is some overlap of course, but, in Europe, providing a high standard of living for its citizens is considered to be the most important aim for its politicians. In the US, the position and power of the country and its economy is the most important thing. European politicians will generally believe that the strength of the country comes through its citizenry. In the US, the philosophy is that the strength of the country provides an opportunity for its citizens to flourish.
The difference explains the contrasting approach to social welfare IMO.