My views would probably be much more suited to the American culture where there is a greater emphasis on self-reliance, because I do believe we have a huge culture of dependency, which many sociologists have described as an ‘underclass’, although i’m not sure I would use this term. Charles Murray argued this underclass to be males as the head of the family discarding the role of breadwinner as they are happy to live off benefits and social security money, although again this might be a bit extreme for me, I certainly do feel some of his idea’s are true.

I am not a Daily Mail reader, although sometimes the way in which I communicate my views might give the impression I am, I do however, believe we have a number of cultures running through this nation that are abhorrent and so need to be changed, and rather regrettably through government intervention as there seems no other alternative. If we, as a nation, continue our present tide of reliance, then I fear we may end up in dire straits and with no way of getting out of it, and even worse, far too content and lazy to do anything about it.

However large this culture of dependency you talk about, it is not the fault of the welfare state at all, perhaps only of its mis-management.

Moreover, I’m not entirely sure why you made a generalisation in the knowledge that you were making one. This must mean that on an intellectual level you know you’re discussing the issue in very simplistic terms.

Of course the social security burden rocketed under Thatcher – like it or not, some people can’t compete. Personally I would introduce the Wisconsin Social Benefits model – that you are only allowed to be on benefits if you are able bodied and can work, for five years of your working life. I’m sure this will be considered quite fascist by many of the left, but I believe that this is what our country needs, a good lesson of ‘pull your finger out of we’ll pull your benefits’.

Your comment is an historically crass generalisation. Firstly, a culture of dependency will of course exist wherever there is a welfare state or any form of social security regardless of how primitive. Indeed over-dependency is a theme that’s runs through modern British history, probably since the introduction of the poor laws in the 16th century. However, it is not a valid reason for repealing all these social saftey nets.

If you were more subtle you might suggest a tightening of social provision in order to make it more economically viable for those currently claiming benefits to work. This, however, would be a criticism of specific rules and not the welfare state in general.

This is coming from a girl who’s still not sure where she stands in McCain vs. Obama race.

Labour have created a cluture of dependency and it is being exploited. Cameron is suggesting that those who are poor and wont help themselves will not be subsidised by the state and will have to face up to their actions under the Conservatives, not that all people on lower incomes are all ‘bone idle’ although I can see how it could be interpreted that way.

According to Cameron though, their suffering is all their own fault, despite the fact they were just trying to do their best for their family.

If this is Conservative conviction, insulting people who don’t get everything handed to him on a plate like him and his Eton cronies, I’m moving to an Obama led America.