camerons latest missive

[sadone]

If you had the right type and level of qualifications AND have experience gained either through previous paid employment or voluntary work, you would find a job quite easilly.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa* *pants* *Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

 

Oh god love you hon, you're a great comedian. The DWP should pay you more ya know.

[Guest amianne]

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa* *pants* *Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

 

Oh god love you hon, you're a great comedian. The DWP should pay you more ya know.

 

 

Why? Isn't it a fact that if you are qualified and have enough experience you are more likely to get a job over someone that has drifted around on benefits for a few years?

[Nystagmite]

Cameron is such a hypocrite. He moans about how many claim benefits. He claimed DLA for his son. Apparently, the 38 page form is easy to fill in, no medical evidence is required and you just fill in a piece of paper.

 

Am I missing something here? I've just spent the last 6 weeks filling in a 38 page booklet and am waiting on medical evidence to send in.

 

Quite frankly, it's the most depressing thing ever.

[rachmac83]

Sorry all but that is another of my gripes!

 

We can't afford to have children yet, and there is no way that want to go back to work after having them. So what do we do? We use contraception until my hubby is earning enough that will enable me to stay at home and bring the children up. And as for the number of children, if we can't afford to have them and support them then we stick at the number we can afford.

 

I don't think it fair on society that women produce their offspring with no thought on the costs involved, but see the Welfare State as being there to support them instead.

 

ERM i think i should tell you this cos you clearly don't know no form of contraception is 100% try as you might you may fall pregnant then what will YOU do. Just think about what your saying it's insensitive are disabled people who are not capable of full time work not allowed to have children, do you think you have the right to make this claim.

 

oh and another point have you considered religious and cultural implications for example in Catholicism contraception is forbidden, god makes the choice in their eyes, but of course only money matters in your eyes.

[sadone]

Why? Isn't it a fact that if you are qualified and have enough experience you are more likely to get a job over someone that has drifted around on benefits for a few years?

 

You don't get out much do you?

[sadone]

Cameron is such a hypocrite. He moans about how many claim benefits. He claimed DLA for his son. Apparently, the 38 page form is easy to fill in, no medical evidence is required and you just fill in a piece of paper.

 

Am I missing something here? I've just spent the last 6 weeks filling in a 38 page booklet and am waiting on medical evidence to send in.

 

Quite frankly, it's the most depressing thing ever.

 

Yes, Cameron a millionaire claimed DLA for his son, even though he obviously didn't need to. Now this b*stard is trying to take this very benefit off those who really need it and aren't ya know, rich b*stards.

[RaeUK]

amianne, I hope you have the best of intentions because you just come across as a WUM and a troll. Which is a shame as you could be adding to the debate rather than constantly detracting from it.

A degree - in a good subject or otherwise - is no longer a passport to a job let alone a better one. The example you give of your 'friend' being offered a new position and a huge increase highlights the iniquities of the 'old boys network' or the 'it's who you know not what you know' mindset.

As for why the law you used as an example from, iirc, 1948 was drafted as it was is simply because, draconian as it appears today, it was a huge improvement on what was available at the time.

And, yes, I have a good degree. Yippity doo! Shame I haven't got the good body I need to go with it ...

[Nystagmite]

A degree doesn't automatically get you a job. Most jobs want experience.

[rainbo]

Sorry all but that is another of my gripes!

 

We can't afford to have children yet, and there is no way that want to go back to work after having them. So what do we do? We use contraception until my hubby is earning enough that will enable me to stay at home and bring the children up. And as for the number of children, if we can't afford to have them and support them then we stick at the number we can afford.

 

And what about the people who had decent jobs, and had a few children that they could more than afford, who now find themselves jobless because of the recession? Fair to punish them too?

[Darfyddi]

It is amazing how many people become so righteous on these threads.

 

May I ask what would have happened to my wife if these suggested changes were brought in 10 years ago? At the age of 16 care homes kick there clients out onto the street - sure they or the local council bodies help getting them into social housing but under the new idea that could not happen so from the age of 16 to 25 my wife would have had to live off the street with millions of other young adults from care with no parents.

 

In terms of the number of children what happens if you are in a well paid job in construction and you can happily afford to raise 4 children - think of the numbers of redunancies in that field over the last 5 years. It's alright saying that it is starting to pick up in areas now but in those 5 years should the parents have the 4th child put down at the vets and then try again when the economy is improved?

 

I had a major accident at work (construction 70+hrs/wk) in 2006 and was only able to return to work in 2008, shortly afterwards I was made reduntant - this is quite lucky as my wifes disability took a turn for the worse and she needed 24hr care that I was then able to provide for her without loosing the many hours at work that I was. During the period I was off work disabled I tried my hardest to get another job in a different field as I new I would be unlikely to reurn to construction in any serious way yet no one would even talk to me - office staff think that a pc on a building site is far infirior to that in their office - this is the sort of barrier qualified people like me face when trying to earn a living and pay our tax.

 

My wife and I have a child and hopefully my wife will be well enough to be able to either stay at home with him while I work or go to work herself or maybe we will both work part time or if her condition doens't improve enough then maybe I can work self employed part time so I can be there whenever she needs me - it doesn't matter what either of us do though, we will always be classed as lazy benefit scroungers. Never forgetting a comment on the BBC pages about people claiming DLA or IB, it is a lifestyle choice that apparently we chose - you can imagine just how suicidal my wife was after reading that.

 

I think that governments forget about everyone when coming up with these schemes and only think about the worst cases then tar the rest of us with the same brush.

[MIKEY DABODEE]

 

Why do we now have this massive benefit system that probably 65% of the population take money out of?

 

The answer to the last part of your question - no, I have never claimed Housing Benefit. I always cut my cloth when I needed to and see Housing Benefit only for those in great need. Being out of work does not create great need. Without the benefit in place, people would soon find a way round their problems.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?353508-Action-to-be-carried-out-before-suspending-a-benefit

Make your mind up you claimed it in this thread,

 

take everything with a pinch of salt eh......

 

exact words

 

I would add the my local council deny, after a lengthy search, ever being notified of the termination and consequently I continued to be given Council Tax benefit which I should not have had - but that is another story!

 

hmmmm

Edited June 25, 2012 by MIKEY DABODEE

[estellyn]

Wages are geared to market forces. The more that you can offer an employer, the greater the wage. Not everybody is on NMW. I read day in day out about how low is NMW. It is low because the employer has plenty of choice as to whom to employ. get a qualification and some work experience under your belly and the wage will go up.

 

I'll give you an example. A friend of mine (29) qualified as a solicitor and had a salary of £35,000 a year. He decided to specialise, taking 2 years to complete the course and was offered three weeks ago on the strength of word of mouth, with no formal interview (just coffee and a chat at lunch time) a new job with a salary of £65,000 a year!

 

 

What planet do you live on? Training as a solicitor plus postgraduate courses is very expensive, and the fact that you bring this up as an example shows you have little understanding of the realities for the poor.

 

When designing a welfare state, it is important to understand that not everyone is born with the same genetics, intelligence, abilities, opportunities or family support. The way one person deals with a poor upbringing therefore is different to another, to say nothing of those that win big in the family they are born into and the abilities they have.

 

Imagine you had a poor education and struggle with the basics - maths, english etc. You're 18 years old and limited to manual jobs because of this. You're a good person, eager to work - but there are 50-100 people going for every job you apply for, and no funding for practical training. If you're living at home then at least you have a roof over your head, but what if you have to leave home - either due to abuse, bad family circumstances, or because there is no work where you live? With no state support what options are open to you? Sometimes giving some support early on , can make all the difference later. This person given housing benefit and JSA when they move south gets a job after about 6 months in logistics. Despite their problems with basic skills, they work hard, and show a talent for organising and supervising. 40 years on and they have been working ever since and paying taxes, productive and with a family that now has better opportunities than she had. This same person, given no support, forced to leave home due to abuse, finds living on the street preferable to the torment at home. She can't get a job and turns to crime or prostitution to make ends meet, possibly with drug or alcohol issues. Ends up dead, in prison, or living a very poor existence due to an awful welfare system and charities that have had their funding cut.

 

I was lucky. At 17 I had to leave home due to abuse. I got help with housing benefit and income support while I finished my A-levels - it wasn't much £25 a week for a bedsit with mould up the walls, and £30 a week income support for living and travel expenses. I went to university and became a productive member of society. If I hadn't had this help, who knows what would have happened to me. Even with this help, I suspect others would have had more difficulties - it was emotionally and psychologically hard.

 

I hate this current sink or swim culture that seems to assume that everyone is equal in abilities, drive, and has the capacity to do well in all circumstances. Some people need help - they didn't have a secure upbinging in good schools and weren't taught 'good values'. Some don't have the innate abilities to get themselves out of a poor upbringing or bad education. Capitalism seems to mean 'everyone for themselves' and 'the poor should be grateful for the scraps we throw them'. Anyone tried to live as a young single person in a manky bedsit on JSA? - it is not a 'lifestyle choice', I assure you.

 

Unfortunately it appears we're devolving as a species - money and greed is king, and those with most want to impose a 'morality requirement' before they'll help the least well off. My point being that you have no idea how that individual has come to be the way they are, you have no idea even whether they are 'trying' or 'not trying', or what personal circumstances led to a situation. Did the young single mother used to be in relationship, and was abandoned? Does that make a difference to how you think or her? What if she has a child because she was raped and didn't have an abortion, are we going to be asking this question on the applications? What if she was using contraception but it failed? Of course she can't offer proof can she. What if the guy with 6 children had a fantastic job and then looses it or becomes sick or disabled - is our judgement different then? What about if the person has mild learning dificulties, or high functioning autism - just not quite bad enough to be considered disabled.

 

Unless the government is prepared to interview each individual applicant, do a detailed history and background check, how do they know if that person is deserving or not. And who the hell has the right to decide and judge anyway.

 

I'm an optimist. I believe that in reality there is only a small percentage of people wantonly playing the system as a lifestyle choice, and that its a small price to pay to ensure that everyone is able to eat and have a roof over their heads.

 

Some may have plenty of money, but they're short on compassion and an understanding of how others live.

Edited June 25, 2012 by estellyn

[MIKEY DABODEE]

amianne, I hope you have the best of intentions because you just come across as a WUM and a troll. Which is a shame as you could be adding to the debate rather than constantly detracting from it.available at the ...

 

What a WUM,

[Nystagmite]

What a WUM,

 

I think it's a wind up merchant.

[osdset]

What a WUM,

 

What's a WUM?

[antone]

OK ladies and gentlemen. This topic is obviously relevant to Benefit issues, given that it involves the PM making a speech about benefit policy. So by all means discuss it, but the rules of this forum require that we treat each other with respect and don't call each other names.

[RaeUK]

The definitions are correct. It was a simile ... ...

[count orlok]

But the point is, the kids wouldn't have moved out in the first place if they couldn't get Housing Benefit would they?

 

People under 25 do sometimes work and pay for their own homes, I did, as did my children and grandchildren. Trouble is people sometimes lose their jobs.

 

Some people in work even have large families (in the olden days most did). Lots of people lose their jobs get sick and even become disabled, and the same can happen to your children.

 

First it was the disabled. Now its the under 25s (both groups including people who work). You might be next; think on it.

 

VAT on food, lets face it the poor spend too much of their income on it and its making tham all fat.

[Nystagmite]

I wonder how long it'll be before people under 25 can't access any benefits at all? They're not entitled to WTC unless disabled or have a child, they receive a lower amount in benefits, etc.

[assisted blonde]

One thing that really annoys me is when people start going on about the working class, regardless of what we earn I would say anyone who goes out to work could be called working class, if you work you work, and its not right to have a go at people just because they have been born into a more affluent family than you, to my mind it always sounds a bit like jealousy.

I also think that the minimum wage was one of the worst ideas ever, it has allowed too many employers to only offer minimum wage and has stopped many people negociating their own salary.

I have always worked some jobs have been bad some good but if i knew I needed to earn for example £100.00 to pay my bills then if i could earn that in 5 hours great but if I had to work 55 hours so be it (slight exageration there) but at the end of the day I got the money I needed, and if my full time job wasnt paying enough then I did a part time job as well or did car boot sales, basically whatever it took to earn what I needed.

Yes I am lucky now i have a well paid job but I have known what its like to hunt round the back of the sofa to find enough to buy a pint of milk, but there are a number of people today who assume that their wants as well as their needs will be met by the state and that IMO isnt right.

There will always be people who are unemployed/sick etc and mainly through no fault of their own, they should be helped but if a person is capeable of working then they should do somthing in return for benefits.

As for having children, yes the pill has been known to fail, occasionally, not with the regularity that some people claim, and yes there are religious reasons why contraception is frowned upon, but there is a choice, abstinance, or get the church to support the children as it is them who encouraging procreation.

[joeblogs]

One thing that really annoys me is when people start going on about the working class, regardless of what we earn I would say anyone who goes out to work could be called working class, if you work you work, and its not right to have a go at people just because they have been born into a more affluent family than you, to my mind it always sounds a bit like jealousy.

 

We dont know if the person you are referring to is from an affluent family as this particilar poster has a father who is in receipt of DLA, a mother who refuses to see a doctor but would like to receive Attendance Allowance and the poster who is in receipt of benefits.

 

I dont think it matters what class someone comes from, if they are entitled to benefits they are entitled and should therefore claim them.

 

With regards to David Cameron, he will be kicked out of office long before this nonsense he is suggesting gets anywhere.

 

JB

[Nystagmite]

I dont think it matters what class someone comes from, if they are entitled to benefits they are entitled and should therefore claim them.

 

Benefits should be for people who need them.

[Bang!]

Today the Labour "stick in the UK" campaign for Scotland was launched.

 

I can't help thinking camoron pre-emptively has shot it out of the water!

[Slatted]

Sorry all but that is another of my gripes!

 

We use contraception until my hubby is earning enough that will enable me to stay at home and bring the children up. And as for the number of children, if we can't afford to have them and support them then we stick at the number we can afford.

 

I don't think it fair on society that women produce their offspring with no thought on the costs involved, but see the Welfare State as being there to support them instead.

 

So what do people do if they planned and had the family whilst being good honest hard-working people who could afford to and are then thrust into a situation where they have to claim benefits to survive (like they are made redundant or one of them falls very ill and the other has to look after them?). Are they supposed to try and stick the kids back up?

 

And the housing benefits issue could be where the children (i.e those under 25) HAVE found jobs away from home...too far to commute but they can only afford to move if get help.....it is NEVER as simple as you would like to have it!!!...

 

I think that horse you are on may be getting a bit too high .. hope you never fall off as you may end up disabled and learn the realities with a real bump (excuse the pun).

[wobbly]

First they came for !! who,s next