Jump to content

2015 Election

MatthewL

By MatthewL
in General Chat

 Share

Who are you going to vote for?  

306 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you going to vote for?

    • Conservatives
      71
    • Labour
      89
    • Lib Dems
      19
    • UKIP
      40
    • BNP
      0
    • Greens
      41
    • SNP
      2
    • Plaid Cymru
      1
    • DUP
      0
    • Sinn Fein
      0
    • SDLP
      0
    • Other
      6
    • Will not vote
      26
    • Spoiled ballot paper
      11

Recommended Posts

Gatt

Gatt

Posted
Posted

*sigh*

 

Ok - I didn't say everyone was - Those areas DO have a high reputation for it though..

Same as there are areas like this all over the UK - and again, not everyone there is claiming benefits, and not everyone who claims benefits is a scrounger..

 

This only highlights one of the (many) problems with the current system - people are getting (wrongly) tarred with the same brush based on they circumstances, and where they live.

LeMarchand

LeMarchand

Posted
Posted
Not paying bills and buying fags tvs and stuff is not fraud.

 

If they can live the Life of Riley whilst on benefits, then somewhere along the line they have lied about their circumstances. Ergo, fraud

tmcd35

tmcd35

Posted
Posted
If they can live the Life of Riley whilst on benefits, then somewhere along the line they have lied about their circumstances. Ergo, fraud

 

Or they haven't lied and as an outside observer you don't understand the nuances of their particular situation. How many people with dementia can you spot from 10ft away?

featured_spectre

featured_spectre

Posted
Posted
Many people that have the latest of everything whilst on benefits tend to get things on credit and pay back minimal payments to make it affordable. I've done it myself when I've been unemployed. Do not lump people as the same because you DON'T know their ins and outs.
pcstru

pcstru

Posted
Posted

I think we would all have to agree that fraud happens, there is a question of how much. There is also some level of benefits 'dependency' - people who do "see it as an easy life". In essence the difference in politics is that the more liberal, progressive view is that the welfare system should be defined and driven primarily by the needs of it's genuine users. The more Conservative view seems to be entirely focused on fraud and 'dependency' and carving out a system which is heavily focused on denial of service, to eliminate a reasonably low level of misuse. The latter view IMO, at best allows the tail to wag the dog.

 

[*1] I have to put big quotes round that because it is hugely problematic idea. If someone sees something as an easy life does it actually make it an easy life? People tend to normalise their situations - when poverty is the norm, perhaps it is natural to see it as an easy life. Is there some iso metric of an "easy life" - a yardstick we can all use to measure?

localzuk

localzuk

Posted
Posted

For those arguing for the bedroom tax, let me put a realistic situation to you.

 

1. You become unemployed and your family are evicted as you can't afford your home

2. You get put in temporary accommodation (a hotel room, or a b&b room), and on the waiting list for a house

3. When a house comes up, you are offered it but it is a 3 bed and there's only the 3 of you, so you only are allowed 2 rooms.

 

You now have 2 options:

 

1. Accept it, and have to pay the extra money for it or

2. You turn it down. You are placed back on the waiting list, at the bottom.

 

So, your choice is get a house and lose a chunk of your income, making it difficult to feed your children or live in inappropriate accommodation in perpetuity as there aren't any appropriate houses.

 

Is that fair, right or moral?

Gatt

Gatt

Posted
Posted
For those arguing for the bedroom tax, let me put a realistic situation to you.

 

1. You become unemployed and your family are evicted as you can't afford your home

2. You get put in temporary accommodation (a hotel room, or a b&b room), and on the waiting list for a house

3. When a house comes up, you are offered it but it is a 3 bed and there's only the 3 of you, so you only are allowed 2 rooms.

 

You now have 2 options:

 

1. Accept it, and have to pay the extra money for it or

2. You turn it down. You are placed back on the waiting list, at the bottom.

 

So, your choice is get a house and lose a chunk of your income, making it difficult to feed your children or live in inappropriate accommodation in perpetuity as there aren't any appropriate houses.

 

Is that fair, right or moral?

 

As has been put before us before...

Has this happened?

If so, Can you present hard evidence that this is happening?

localzuk

localzuk

Posted
Posted

Its a situation that has been described in at least 1 national paper. Shelter have a good page on council house allocation. How councils allocate housing - Shelter England

 

If your council makes direct offers, you must wait until the council says a home is available. Ask the council ask how many offers you are likely to get. You may only get one offer.You may be suspended from the council housing waiting list if you turn down housing that is suitable.

 

In many areas council housing is in short supply, so there is no guarantee you'll be offered something better.
localzuk

localzuk

Posted
Posted
Ah

 

so its conjecture?

A theory?

 

Therefore, has not happened anywhere?

 

You really do have a bee in your bonnet about this. Its a real situation, as reported in the Guardian - however, I am unable to find the exact article, as there are so many!

 

Let's throw a different point in.

 

The bedroom tax raises between £320m and £465m a year in revenues. Most of the cost of the new "universal credit" system being put in place was written off - aka most of £425m. Add that to the fact that of 200 major projects analysed by the Major Projects Authority, only 17 were given the "lowest risk to success" standard. £89.4bn worth of projects were classed as "in doubt" or "unachievable".

 

So, whilst we're arguing over, what is effectively national pocket change that allows some people a quality of life above poverty, the government has wasted tens of billions on unachievable major schemes. The NHS national programme for IT was £12bn written off alone. The Ministry of Justice scrapped a £57m scheme because they found out that the Cabionet Office already had something that did the same thing. E-Borders scheme - £224m. BBC digital archive £100m. The list goes on and on.

LosOjos

LosOjos

Posted
Posted
Not at all. I believe the talk of food banks when brought up in a political context in the UK by Labour MP's, is simply an easy way to score a political point. I've travelled to countries all over the world and seen real food poverty in places like China, North Africa, India and even some western countries with less generous welfare policies, and for them I have huge compassion.

 

In this debate, everyone seems to forget the fact that benefits in the UK are linked to inflation and have gone up. That's not the same in all countries. Some don't even have a safety net and thats when you get increased food poverty.

 

Of course I feel compassion for countries worse off than we are, but that doesn't mean I consider our country a success.

 

I don't want to live in "not the worst" country, I want to live in "one of the best".

LosOjos

LosOjos

Posted
Posted

Oh and to those so obviously jealous of the "benefits gravy train" - why not become one of the "scroungers" yourself and lap up the perks?

 

Be sure to come back and tell us how great life is in 12 months won't you? ;)

tmcd35

tmcd35

Posted
Posted
Ah

 

so its conjecture?

A theory?

 

Therefore, has not happened anywhere?

 

Hard evidence that will stand up to your scrutiny - no.

 

Anecdotal evidence based on an accurate 1st hand account - yes.

 

My dear mother is 59 and single. Dad passed away 3 years ago. She has been left with a 2 bedroom council house, only needs 1. There are no 1 bed properties available. She is currently working. When she was last between jobs she was hit very hard by this policy. Only income JSA, council tax and rent benefit. She had to cover the missing rent from the meager JSA payments. Thankfully she had some savings to full back on, they were decimated by this policy. Had she not had that I can't see how she couldn't have survived without food banks or other charity/hand outs. She's had work for nearly a year, temporary contract about to come to an end. She's rebuilt her savings (a couple of grand). She is obviously panicking about not finding a more permanent job to take her to retirement quick enough.

 

Now explain the justice behind the spare bedroom subsidy.

 

Should my mum have to choose between the threat of eviction and refuse to pay the spare bedroom subsidy? or pay the subsidy and be forced in to visiting food banks to survive? If she is unfortunate to be unemployed for too long after this job ends in August.

Gatt

Gatt

Posted
Posted
Hard evidence that will stand up to your scrutiny - no.

 

Anecdotal evidence based on an accurate 1st hand account - yes.

 

My dear mother is 59 and single. Dad passed away 3 years ago. She has been left with a 2 bedroom council house, only needs 1. There are no 1 bed properties available. She is currently working. When she was last between jobs she was hit very hard by this policy. Only income JSA, council tax and rent benefit. She had to cover the missing rent from the meager JSA payments. Thankfully she had some savings to full back on, they were decimated by this policy. Had she not had that I can't see how she couldn't have survived without food banks or other charity/hand outs. She's had work for nearly a year, temporary contract about to come to an end. She's rebuilt her savings (a couple of grand). She is obviously panicking about not finding a more permanent job to take her to retirement quick enough.

 

Now explain the justice behind the spare bedroom subsidy.

 

Should my mum have to choose between the threat of eviction and refuse to pay the spare bedroom subsidy? or pay the subsidy and be forced in to visiting food banks to survive? If she is unfortunate to be unemployed for too long after this job ends in August.

 

No disrespect here (I do sympathise with the situation above), but what help do people who own their home and have a mortgage get if they are in the same situation?

 

I don't wish to see anyone evicted through a situation like this - Council House or Private House owners - this is where the system is seriously failing people by not supporting those people, like your mum, who genuinely fall on hard times, often through no fault of their own

 

But it doesn't.. and all this smoke and mirrors over the "SRS/Bedroom tax" is detracting from the real issues at the heart of the system in that it is failing those who need it the most.

rich_tech

rich_tech

Posted
Posted

I found it refreshing today to hear our pupils talking about politics and doing research on parties and their manifestos when I was minding the library as part of my lunchtime duties, found out later that they had an event where all the major parties were invited to talk to 6th formers and work for their votes :)

 

Still alarming outside of work though, how people don't see their supposed protest votes for parties like UKIP are possible conservative votes :/

tmcd35

tmcd35

Posted
Posted
No disrespect here (I do sympathise with the situation above), but what help do people who own their home and have a mortgage get if they are in the same situation?

 

As someone who has never been unemployed (well 2 weeks in 1998 hardly count) and owns their own home (well mortgage), my response would be...

 

We're in a different position that isn't directly comparable. I'm not aware of a bank that will approve a mortgage without a certain level of job security. The only acceptable ways into unemployment from that position are all insurable. If you can afford a mortgage, maybe affording those insurances are sensible. With the subsidy we are talking about people who are not in such a blessed financial position.

 

But it doesn't.. and all this smoke and mirrors over the "SRS/Bedroom tax" is detracting from the real issues at the heart of the system in that it is failing those who need it the most.

 

No argument from me there. But you might understand why I'm so vehemently against that particular policy. It is a particularly bad policy and it does, whatever its justifiable intentions, victimise a certain section of our society that we should be showing a level of compassion to.

 

It'd probably come as no surprise that I feel the same way about VAT and other sales/consumption taxes since it's the poorer in society that are effected most by them.

MkII

MkII

Posted
Posted

Did anyone see the C4 program Benefits Britain 1949?

 

The point it ended up making, was that current systems are impotent in comparison. The actual time and effort that the 1940s benefits staff put into their clients were actually effective in helping people, unlike the current system. I blame privatisation for that... the companies getting paid to assist claimants are doing nothing. It's a political point scoring game where everyone loses out.

LeMarchand

LeMarchand

Posted
Posted
Many people that have the latest of everything whilst on benefits tend to get things on credit and pay back minimal payments to make it affordable. I've done it myself when I've been unemployed. Do not lump people as the same because you DON'T know their ins and outs.

 

So you're saying that my contention was that people who seem to be doing “too well” for the area they are living in (because they are in successful employment but for whatever reason choose to live there) is incorrect and that those people I assumed weren’t playing the system are actually people whose sense of self-entitlement means that they choose to live beyond their means? Is it too late change my vote to Conservative?

 

No disrespect here (I do sympathise with the situation above), but what help do people who own their home and have a mortgage get if they are in the same situation?

 

I think that the difference is that when your kids move out (or whatever) your mortgage doesn't go up! Plus there are more options available if you want to downsize.

 

Oh and to those so obviously jealous of the "benefits gravy train" - why not become one of the "scroungers" yourself and lap up the perks?

 

Be sure to come back and tell us how great life is in 12 months won't you? ;)

 

Exactly! I've been lucky in that my one spell of unemployment was cushioned by a largeish "Dammit! He's not going to make it easy for us to con him into leaving without a fight!" payment. Mme LeMarchand had to bring her two girls up (divorce) and it wasn't easy for her at all! Fags/booze/50" TVs etc. etc. whether financed or not were out of the question, as food/rent and essentials were hard enough to budget for.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...