Prime Minister unveils changes to benefits system

Daily Echo: Prime  Minister David Cameron Prime Minister David Cameron

BENEFIT claimants could be paid different amounts depending on where they live under controversial plans being considered by the Government.

Scrapping national rates would be controversial and lead to people in poorer areas receiving smaller handouts.

Ministers already want to set up varying rates of public sector pay, saying it should reflect living costs and not threaten private sector recovery.

Today Prime Minister David Cameron's spokesman told journalists: "We are looking at whether public sector pay should be more responsive to local pay rates and that is something we should look at for benefits too."

However, the idea was then dropped from a major speech on welfare given by Mr Cameron later.

Nonetheless, it is believed to be under consideration as part of the Government's plans to slash the welfare bill. It is thought that any local rates would apply only to benefits for people who are of working age.

Other radical reforms were floated by the PM in a speech setting out his determination to end the "culture of entitlement," which sees some people living long-term on welfare with higher incomes than neighbours who work.

Mr Cameron suggested withdrawing housing benefit from under-25s, removing the right for high-earners to keep their council homes, a reduction in the £20,000-a-year cap on housing support and limits on the additional benefit received by families with three or more children.

Comments (61)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:45pm Mon 25 Jun 12

ohec says...

Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.
Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by. ohec
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Old Slippery Dave certainly has some great ideas that will either fall by the wayside or do the usual U-Turn.
.
Evidently these are his proposals for when the Tory led coalition comes to end. ............... Somehow, he laughingly seems to think that the Tories will be able to stand on their own two feet at the next election.
Old Slippery Dave certainly has some great ideas that will either fall by the wayside or do the usual U-Turn. . Evidently these are his proposals for when the Tory led coalition comes to end. ............... Somehow, he laughingly seems to think that the Tories will be able to stand on their own two feet at the next election. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Solomon's Boot says...

I think they'll stand on their own two feet a lot easier than Labour would.

...Labour have NO policies!
I think they'll stand on their own two feet a lot easier than Labour would. ...Labour have NO policies! Solomon's Boot
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Mon 25 Jun 12

eurogordi says...

Although I imagine there will be a u-turn (has Dave told Nick and have the two of them told the cabinet etc.etc.), I do agree that there should be more restraints on benefit payments.

If you can't afford a home, then live with your parents and save up first to get on the housing ladder. If you can't afford to have children, then don't! If you can't afford the latest technology, make do with secondhand equipment.

The taxpayer is not there to give people a life of luxury when those same people are not prepared to improve their own situation?

The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.?

Apart from that one issue, I would like to say that the proposed welfare reforms are long overdue. Now all we need is for the Prime Minister to get tough with corporate tax evaders!
Although I imagine there will be a u-turn (has Dave told Nick and have the two of them told the cabinet etc.etc.), I do agree that there should be more restraints on benefit payments. If you can't afford a home, then live with your parents and save up first to get on the housing ladder. If you can't afford to have children, then don't! If you can't afford the latest technology, make do with secondhand equipment. The taxpayer is not there to give people a life of luxury when those same people are not prepared to improve their own situation? The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.? Apart from that one issue, I would like to say that the proposed welfare reforms are long overdue. Now all we need is for the Prime Minister to get tough with corporate tax evaders! eurogordi
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Mon 25 Jun 12

wossit says...

The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.?
I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled.
These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!!
The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.? I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled. These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!! wossit
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Mon 25 Jun 12

eurogordi says...

wossit wrote:
The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.?
I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled.
These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!!
I'm assuming you are not attached to the building in which you live?

Yes, some people will choose to purchase their own house in preference to continuing life in a council property, but a home is much more than bricks and mortar.

It is a place of memories. It is a place where people make their own mark.

If you have lived in a council house for 10 or 20 years and have received promotion etc. why does that mean you have to leave your home? Of course not!

The other benefit reforms I fully support, but not forcing people out of their homes. If anything, that will hold people back from bettering themselves at work.
[quote][p][bold]wossit[/bold] wrote: The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.? I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled. These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!![/p][/quote]I'm assuming you are not attached to the building in which you live? Yes, some people will choose to purchase their own house in preference to continuing life in a council property, but a home is much more than bricks and mortar. It is a place of memories. It is a place where people make their own mark. If you have lived in a council house for 10 or 20 years and have received promotion etc. why does that mean you have to leave your home? Of course not! The other benefit reforms I fully support, but not forcing people out of their homes. If anything, that will hold people back from bettering themselves at work. eurogordi
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Mon 25 Jun 12

wossit says...

eurogordi wrote:
wossit wrote:
The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.?
I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled.
These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!!
I'm assuming you are not attached to the building in which you live?

Yes, some people will choose to purchase their own house in preference to continuing life in a council property, but a home is much more than bricks and mortar.

It is a place of memories. It is a place where people make their own mark.

If you have lived in a council house for 10 or 20 years and have received promotion etc. why does that mean you have to leave your home? Of course not!

The other benefit reforms I fully support, but not forcing people out of their homes. If anything, that will hold people back from bettering themselves at work.
Because we have to build new homes for the next generation of lazy ba$tards
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wossit[/bold] wrote: The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.? I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled. These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!![/p][/quote]I'm assuming you are not attached to the building in which you live? Yes, some people will choose to purchase their own house in preference to continuing life in a council property, but a home is much more than bricks and mortar. It is a place of memories. It is a place where people make their own mark. If you have lived in a council house for 10 or 20 years and have received promotion etc. why does that mean you have to leave your home? Of course not! The other benefit reforms I fully support, but not forcing people out of their homes. If anything, that will hold people back from bettering themselves at work.[/p][/quote]Because we have to build new homes for the next generation of lazy ba$tards wossit
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Mr Price says...

Wossit what a very large brush you must have.
Wossit what a very large brush you must have. Mr Price
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Condor Man says...

The way things are going I could see people on benefits forced into living in the cheapest parts of the country, just to save cash. It's right to stop kids getting flats 'on the social' but it needs to be thought through properly.
The way things are going I could see people on benefits forced into living in the cheapest parts of the country, just to save cash. It's right to stop kids getting flats 'on the social' but it needs to be thought through properly. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Mon 25 Jun 12

solomum says...

ohec wrote:
Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.
You say stopping housing benefits for under 25's is a dangerous road to go down and then you go on to say that full benefit payments should be payable after 10 yrs contributions. That would automatically exclude under 25's from receiving full housing benefit then. I am divided in my feelings re the under 25's housing benefits as I feel that will lead to more homelessness, which in this day and age should not be in existence. Removing child benefit is a reasonable option though as anyone contemplating having children should be in a position to self finance them. If their circumstances change then they would be in receipt of normal family benefits so would not be compromised.
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.[/p][/quote]You say stopping housing benefits for under 25's is a dangerous road to go down and then you go on to say that full benefit payments should be payable after 10 yrs contributions. That would automatically exclude under 25's from receiving full housing benefit then. I am divided in my feelings re the under 25's housing benefits as I feel that will lead to more homelessness, which in this day and age should not be in existence. Removing child benefit is a reasonable option though as anyone contemplating having children should be in a position to self finance them. If their circumstances change then they would be in receipt of normal family benefits so would not be compromised. solomum
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Mon 25 Jun 12

wossit says...

Mr Price wrote:
Wossit what a very large brush you must have.
I must apologize for doing it the hard way and not being a burden on the tax payer.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Price[/bold] wrote: Wossit what a very large brush you must have.[/p][/quote]I must apologize for doing it the hard way and not being a burden on the tax payer. wossit
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Mon 25 Jun 12

wossit says...

Condor Man wrote:
The way things are going I could see people on benefits forced into living in the cheapest parts of the country, just to save cash. It's right to stop kids getting flats 'on the social' but it needs to be thought through properly.
And whats your point, if you want to better yourself then work for it !!!
[quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: The way things are going I could see people on benefits forced into living in the cheapest parts of the country, just to save cash. It's right to stop kids getting flats 'on the social' but it needs to be thought through properly.[/p][/quote]And whats your point, if you want to better yourself then work for it !!! wossit
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Mon 25 Jun 12

georgetheseventh says...

Some good points..BUT..does this mean the BUMS in and around London get more than the BUMS around Manchester and Newcastle ??
Some good points..BUT..does this mean the BUMS in and around London get more than the BUMS around Manchester and Newcastle ?? georgetheseventh
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Costa Baz says...

Is their a cap on expenses (or to give it a truer word benefits) that an MP can claim?
And will the MP for some godforesaken back of the woods town in the extreme far north be happy to earn less than an MP based in London?

Just interested.
Is their a cap on expenses (or to give it a truer word benefits) that an MP can claim? And will the MP for some godforesaken back of the woods town in the extreme far north be happy to earn less than an MP based in London? Just interested. Costa Baz
  • Score: 0

7:48pm Mon 25 Jun 12

rightway says...

I agree that welfare reforms are long overdue, but once again slippery Dave is down in the polls so what does he do simple, pick on those least able to defend themselves.
Of course he’ll do a U turn when he finds out that some of his tory pals are claiming council properties on their expenses or as second homes.
Much the same way he attacked Jimmy Carr before finding out his boy band buddy and tory supporter Gary Barlow was in the same tax-dodging scheme.
Barack Obama referred to slippery Dave as a “light weight” how true he was.
I agree that welfare reforms are long overdue, but once again slippery Dave is down in the polls so what does he do simple, pick on those least able to defend themselves. Of course he’ll do a U turn when he finds out that some of his tory pals are claiming council properties on their expenses or as second homes. Much the same way he attacked Jimmy Carr before finding out his boy band buddy and tory supporter Gary Barlow was in the same tax-dodging scheme. Barack Obama referred to slippery Dave as a “light weight” how true he was. rightway
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Linesman says...

Solomon's Boot wrote:
I think they'll stand on their own two feet a lot easier than Labour would.

...Labour have NO policies!
Difficult to see what Cameron's policies are because he has done so many U-Turns that even he is not sure what his policies are.
[quote][p][bold]Solomon's Boot[/bold] wrote: I think they'll stand on their own two feet a lot easier than Labour would. ...Labour have NO policies![/p][/quote]Difficult to see what Cameron's policies are because he has done so many U-Turns that even he is not sure what his policies are. Linesman
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Mon 25 Jun 12

saintmark1977 says...

Here we go again.

Ten points behind in the opinion polls, higher unemployment than when he came to power more than two years ago,over a million under 25s out of work, a double dip recession,no sign of any growth in the economy, a fairy tale budget about meat pies and static holiday caravans written and then changed whilst on the hoof,lowest number of new house builds since the 1920s,an N H S top down restruture (which he promised pre election not to do) already starting to result in increased waiting times and the lowest level of patient satisfaction in recent record.

Unelected "Call me Daves'" answer? Another ill thought out unworkable attack on benefits. Attracting the headlines away from his total failure during the last two years not to mention greedy banks, their bonus payments for complete failure to lend to business and the alledged tax avoidance of "Pop Star chums".

How exactly is he going to draft a bill enforcing parents to take their children (who it appears must be under 25 years old,why not any age?) back when they lose their benefits? What happens when the parents say "no"? Will the parents be fined or sent to prison or will their chidren simply become homeless?

Reduced benefits for poorer areas? Hello, unemployment benefit is only £70 a week now and it is taxable when you return to work.What exactly does he have in mind, a return of the work house?

He truely is "a posh boy who does not know the price of a pint of milk" or in my opinion a typical advertising executive (his only previous proper job?) being all presentation and no substance. In America I think the expression is a "Flip Flopper".
Here we go again. Ten points behind in the opinion polls, higher unemployment than when he came to power more than two years ago,over a million under 25s out of work, a double dip recession,no sign of any growth in the economy, a fairy tale budget about meat pies and static holiday caravans written and then changed whilst on the hoof,lowest number of new house builds since the 1920s,an N H S top down restruture (which he promised pre election not to do) already starting to result in increased waiting times and the lowest level of patient satisfaction in recent record. Unelected "Call me Daves'" answer? Another ill thought out unworkable attack on benefits. Attracting the headlines away from his total failure during the last two years not to mention greedy banks, their bonus payments for complete failure to lend to business and the alledged tax avoidance of "Pop Star chums". How exactly is he going to draft a bill enforcing parents to take their children (who it appears must be under 25 years old,why not any age?) back when they lose their benefits? What happens when the parents say "no"? Will the parents be fined or sent to prison or will their chidren simply become homeless? Reduced benefits for poorer areas? Hello, unemployment benefit is only £70 a week now and it is taxable when you return to work.What exactly does he have in mind, a return of the work house? He truely is "a posh boy who does not know the price of a pint of milk" or in my opinion a typical advertising executive (his only previous proper job?) being all presentation and no substance. In America I think the expression is a "Flip Flopper". saintmark1977
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Mon 25 Jun 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

income taxes go straight to the vatican/ rothchilds / queen , check it out , you are being lied to .
income taxes go straight to the vatican/ rothchilds / queen , check it out , you are being lied to . arthur dalyrimple
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Mon 25 Jun 12

bigfella777 says...

Is it any wonder people think its ok to survive on benefits when the royal family set the ultimate example in scrounging.It said in the papers today that Kate Middletons wardrobe has cost 35k this year already and William just inherited 10 mill for turning 30,now thats what I call money for nothing.
Is it any wonder people think its ok to survive on benefits when the royal family set the ultimate example in scrounging.It said in the papers today that Kate Middletons wardrobe has cost 35k this year already and William just inherited 10 mill for turning 30,now thats what I call money for nothing. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Linesman says...

eurogordi wrote:
Although I imagine there will be a u-turn (has Dave told Nick and have the two of them told the cabinet etc.etc.), I do agree that there should be more restraints on benefit payments.

If you can't afford a home, then live with your parents and save up first to get on the housing ladder. If you can't afford to have children, then don't! If you can't afford the latest technology, make do with secondhand equipment.

The taxpayer is not there to give people a life of luxury when those same people are not prepared to improve their own situation?

The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.?

Apart from that one issue, I would like to say that the proposed welfare reforms are long overdue. Now all we need is for the Prime Minister to get tough with corporate tax evaders!
OK in theory, but what about people with no parents? Barnardo's do not look after people until they are 25.

What about servicemen who join up in their teens, and are prepared to put their lives on the line for their country, but are now being made redundant as part of the government's cost-cutting. Many of them are under 25 and have a wife and children.

If every couple waited until they could afford children, there would be no need for state schools, because only the people with money would be having them, and sending them to private schools.

I find it strange that you should be against people being forced to move out of council housing if they earn too much. Council housing is subsidised, so could be classed as a form of housing benefit, which you are against. Why should a couple, whose family have grown up and have their own home, have a three bedroomed council house when there are young families on the waiting list? Surely they should be moved to more appropriate accommodation, or buy.
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: Although I imagine there will be a u-turn (has Dave told Nick and have the two of them told the cabinet etc.etc.), I do agree that there should be more restraints on benefit payments. If you can't afford a home, then live with your parents and save up first to get on the housing ladder. If you can't afford to have children, then don't! If you can't afford the latest technology, make do with secondhand equipment. The taxpayer is not there to give people a life of luxury when those same people are not prepared to improve their own situation? The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.? Apart from that one issue, I would like to say that the proposed welfare reforms are long overdue. Now all we need is for the Prime Minister to get tough with corporate tax evaders![/p][/quote]OK in theory, but what about people with no parents? Barnardo's do not look after people until they are 25. What about servicemen who join up in their teens, and are prepared to put their lives on the line for their country, but are now being made redundant as part of the government's cost-cutting. Many of them are under 25 and have a wife and children. If every couple waited until they could afford children, there would be no need for state schools, because only the people with money would be having them, and sending them to private schools. I find it strange that you should be against people being forced to move out of council housing if they earn too much. Council housing is subsidised, so could be classed as a form of housing benefit, which you are against. Why should a couple, whose family have grown up and have their own home, have a three bedroomed council house when there are young families on the waiting list? Surely they should be moved to more appropriate accommodation, or buy. Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Linesman says...

wossit wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
The way things are going I could see people on benefits forced into living in the cheapest parts of the country, just to save cash. It's right to stop kids getting flats 'on the social' but it needs to be thought through properly.
And whats your point, if you want to better yourself then work for it !!!
Easier said than done when so many people are being put out of work.
[quote][p][bold]wossit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: The way things are going I could see people on benefits forced into living in the cheapest parts of the country, just to save cash. It's right to stop kids getting flats 'on the social' but it needs to be thought through properly.[/p][/quote]And whats your point, if you want to better yourself then work for it !!![/p][/quote]Easier said than done when so many people are being put out of work. Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

When is that man taking a wage cut!
When is that man taking a wage cut! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Mon 25 Jun 12

wossit says...

Linesman wrote:
wossit wrote:
Condor Man wrote:
The way things are going I could see people on benefits forced into living in the cheapest parts of the country, just to save cash. It's right to stop kids getting flats 'on the social' but it needs to be thought through properly.
And whats your point, if you want to better yourself then work for it !!!
Easier said than done when so many people are being put out of work.
Give it a rest if you want to work its out there. it maybe not you want but its there. i have been made redundant twice and had to take some rubbish jobs until something came along more suited to my profession
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wossit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: The way things are going I could see people on benefits forced into living in the cheapest parts of the country, just to save cash. It's right to stop kids getting flats 'on the social' but it needs to be thought through properly.[/p][/quote]And whats your point, if you want to better yourself then work for it !!![/p][/quote]Easier said than done when so many people are being put out of work.[/p][/quote]Give it a rest if you want to work its out there. it maybe not you want but its there. i have been made redundant twice and had to take some rubbish jobs until something came along more suited to my profession wossit
  • Score: 0

8:27pm Mon 25 Jun 12

wossit says...

Linesman wrote:
eurogordi wrote:
Although I imagine there will be a u-turn (has Dave told Nick and have the two of them told the cabinet etc.etc.), I do agree that there should be more restraints on benefit payments.

If you can't afford a home, then live with your parents and save up first to get on the housing ladder. If you can't afford to have children, then don't! If you can't afford the latest technology, make do with secondhand equipment.

The taxpayer is not there to give people a life of luxury when those same people are not prepared to improve their own situation?

The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.?

Apart from that one issue, I would like to say that the proposed welfare reforms are long overdue. Now all we need is for the Prime Minister to get tough with corporate tax evaders!
OK in theory, but what about people with no parents? Barnardo's do not look after people until they are 25.

What about servicemen who join up in their teens, and are prepared to put their lives on the line for their country, but are now being made redundant as part of the government's cost-cutting. Many of them are under 25 and have a wife and children.

If every couple waited until they could afford children, there would be no need for state schools, because only the people with money would be having them, and sending them to private schools.

I find it strange that you should be against people being forced to move out of council housing if they earn too much. Council housing is subsidised, so could be classed as a form of housing benefit, which you are against. Why should a couple, whose family have grown up and have their own home, have a three bedroomed council house when there are young families on the waiting list? Surely they should be moved to more appropriate accommodation, or buy.
I agree except the bit about buying the property
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: Although I imagine there will be a u-turn (has Dave told Nick and have the two of them told the cabinet etc.etc.), I do agree that there should be more restraints on benefit payments. If you can't afford a home, then live with your parents and save up first to get on the housing ladder. If you can't afford to have children, then don't! If you can't afford the latest technology, make do with secondhand equipment. The taxpayer is not there to give people a life of luxury when those same people are not prepared to improve their own situation? The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.? Apart from that one issue, I would like to say that the proposed welfare reforms are long overdue. Now all we need is for the Prime Minister to get tough with corporate tax evaders![/p][/quote]OK in theory, but what about people with no parents? Barnardo's do not look after people until they are 25. What about servicemen who join up in their teens, and are prepared to put their lives on the line for their country, but are now being made redundant as part of the government's cost-cutting. Many of them are under 25 and have a wife and children. If every couple waited until they could afford children, there would be no need for state schools, because only the people with money would be having them, and sending them to private schools. I find it strange that you should be against people being forced to move out of council housing if they earn too much. Council housing is subsidised, so could be classed as a form of housing benefit, which you are against. Why should a couple, whose family have grown up and have their own home, have a three bedroomed council house when there are young families on the waiting list? Surely they should be moved to more appropriate accommodation, or buy.[/p][/quote]I agree except the bit about buying the property wossit
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

IS HE RAISING THE PENSION AGE AGAIN AND SCAPPING FREE BUS PASSES FOR THE OLDER GENERATION!
IS HE RAISING THE PENSION AGE AGAIN AND SCAPPING FREE BUS PASSES FOR THE OLDER GENERATION! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Nod says...

Linesman wrote:
eurogordi wrote:
Although I imagine there will be a u-turn (has Dave told Nick and have the two of them told the cabinet etc.etc.), I do agree that there should be more restraints on benefit payments.

If you can't afford a home, then live with your parents and save up first to get on the housing ladder. If you can't afford to have children, then don't! If you can't afford the latest technology, make do with secondhand equipment.

The taxpayer is not there to give people a life of luxury when those same people are not prepared to improve their own situation?

The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.?

Apart from that one issue, I would like to say that the proposed welfare reforms are long overdue. Now all we need is for the Prime Minister to get tough with corporate tax evaders!
OK in theory, but what about people with no parents? Barnardo's do not look after people until they are 25.

What about servicemen who join up in their teens, and are prepared to put their lives on the line for their country, but are now being made redundant as part of the government's cost-cutting. Many of them are under 25 and have a wife and children.

If every couple waited until they could afford children, there would be no need for state schools, because only the people with money would be having them, and sending them to private schools.

I find it strange that you should be against people being forced to move out of council housing if they earn too much. Council housing is subsidised, so could be classed as a form of housing benefit, which you are against. Why should a couple, whose family have grown up and have their own home, have a three bedroomed council house when there are young families on the waiting list? Surely they should be moved to more appropriate accommodation, or buy.
I must quote verbatim from David Camerons Speech:-

http://www.conservat
ives.com/News/Speech
es/2012/06/David_Cam
eron_Welfare_Speech.
aspx

"I want to stress that a lot of these young people will genuinely need a roof over their head. Like those leaving foster care, or those with a terrible, destructive home life and we must always be there for them."
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: Although I imagine there will be a u-turn (has Dave told Nick and have the two of them told the cabinet etc.etc.), I do agree that there should be more restraints on benefit payments. If you can't afford a home, then live with your parents and save up first to get on the housing ladder. If you can't afford to have children, then don't! If you can't afford the latest technology, make do with secondhand equipment. The taxpayer is not there to give people a life of luxury when those same people are not prepared to improve their own situation? The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.? Apart from that one issue, I would like to say that the proposed welfare reforms are long overdue. Now all we need is for the Prime Minister to get tough with corporate tax evaders![/p][/quote]OK in theory, but what about people with no parents? Barnardo's do not look after people until they are 25. What about servicemen who join up in their teens, and are prepared to put their lives on the line for their country, but are now being made redundant as part of the government's cost-cutting. Many of them are under 25 and have a wife and children. If every couple waited until they could afford children, there would be no need for state schools, because only the people with money would be having them, and sending them to private schools. I find it strange that you should be against people being forced to move out of council housing if they earn too much. Council housing is subsidised, so could be classed as a form of housing benefit, which you are against. Why should a couple, whose family have grown up and have their own home, have a three bedroomed council house when there are young families on the waiting list? Surely they should be moved to more appropriate accommodation, or buy.[/p][/quote]I must quote verbatim from David Camerons Speech:- http://www.conservat ives.com/News/Speech es/2012/06/David_Cam eron_Welfare_Speech. aspx "I want to stress that a lot of these young people will genuinely need a roof over their head. Like those leaving foster care, or those with a terrible, destructive home life and we must always be there for them." Nod
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Mon 25 Jun 12

jazzi says...

ohec wrote:
Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.
Well said x My eldest being 24 and living in London assures me he will never need to claim or come home `phewwwww but guess i brought him up to earn and enjoy life. I was only able to be an at home mom for half his home life but I guess i installed good values as he laughs at benefit babies, HE CAN as he pays for them x
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.[/p][/quote]Well said x My eldest being 24 and living in London assures me he will never need to claim or come home `phewwwww but guess i brought him up to earn and enjoy life. I was only able to be an at home mom for half his home life but I guess i installed good values as he laughs at benefit babies, HE CAN as he pays for them x jazzi
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Mon 25 Jun 12

loosehead says...

This was a Leader of the Conservative Party putting forward ideas to his own party & the voters of this country.
He was saying that if we had a Conservative Government after the next election these are possibly the subjects we would look into.
Even a Labour councillor on the politics show said this was just putting ideas forward to the Tory back benchers.
Yet to read the Echo article it's something that's happening in this Parliaments life time it's not
This was a Leader of the Conservative Party putting forward ideas to his own party & the voters of this country. He was saying that if we had a Conservative Government after the next election these are possibly the subjects we would look into. Even a Labour councillor on the politics show said this was just putting ideas forward to the Tory back benchers. Yet to read the Echo article it's something that's happening in this Parliaments life time it's not loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Mon 25 Jun 12

loosehead says...

wossit wrote:
The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.?
I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled.
These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!!
A council home & the idea behind council homes was for the very Low paid in our society who couldn't afford private rentals or to buy their own homes.
this Government now has a scheme if the councils want to sign up to it.
where you the tenant can buy your property with a £75,000 discount on the value of it.
the council's get some of the money back which they can put to house building.
our Labour Council has said they will not be selling council homes?
But how can you believe if people can afford to buy they don't but take up a council home?
What about a young couple both working for a Supermarket both on low wages shouldn't they get that council home?
[quote][p][bold]wossit[/bold] wrote: The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.? I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled. These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!![/p][/quote]A council home & the idea behind council homes was for the very Low paid in our society who couldn't afford private rentals or to buy their own homes. this Government now has a scheme if the councils want to sign up to it. where you the tenant can buy your property with a £75,000 discount on the value of it. the council's get some of the money back which they can put to house building. our Labour Council has said they will not be selling council homes? But how can you believe if people can afford to buy they don't but take up a council home? What about a young couple both working for a Supermarket both on low wages shouldn't they get that council home? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Mon 25 Jun 12

loosehead says...

Costa Baz wrote:
Is their a cap on expenses (or to give it a truer word benefits) that an MP can claim?
And will the MP for some godforesaken back of the woods town in the extreme far north be happy to earn less than an MP based in London?

Just interested.
YES is the answer. if they live near to London they have to travel into work or pay out of their wages for accommodation in London. if they live further afield say Bristol,Manchester they get allowed accommodation expenses
They get their rent paid for them okay?
[quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: Is their a cap on expenses (or to give it a truer word benefits) that an MP can claim? And will the MP for some godforesaken back of the woods town in the extreme far north be happy to earn less than an MP based in London? Just interested.[/p][/quote]YES is the answer. if they live near to London they have to travel into work or pay out of their wages for accommodation in London. if they live further afield say Bristol,Manchester they get allowed accommodation expenses They get their rent paid for them okay? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Listen give us young Brits work instead of giving the welcombe to UK carpet and slippers treatmet to our european visitors!
Listen give us young Brits work instead of giving the welcombe to UK carpet and slippers treatmet to our european visitors! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

9:23pm Mon 25 Jun 12

loosehead says...

solomum wrote:
ohec wrote:
Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.
You say stopping housing benefits for under 25's is a dangerous road to go down and then you go on to say that full benefit payments should be payable after 10 yrs contributions. That would automatically exclude under 25's from receiving full housing benefit then. I am divided in my feelings re the under 25's housing benefits as I feel that will lead to more homelessness, which in this day and age should not be in existence. Removing child benefit is a reasonable option though as anyone contemplating having children should be in a position to self finance them. If their circumstances change then they would be in receipt of normal family benefits so would not be compromised.
Maybe we should go Germanies way?
unemployed when you leave school? Conscription?
Did you see the guy on TV?
Can't find a job? yet he had a new looking computer sat on his desk a decent telly.
What would Landlords do if the Government said this is the maximum rent you'll receive from the Social?
Chuck them all out?
Landlords would go bust if they didn't house them.
Why are there so many not living at home?
Come on Solo mum we all know what happens,No social as you live with your parents ( for rent money) so if you want more money & freedom you get your parents to evict you giving you a letter for the social.
you stay unemployed so you can afford the rent( the social pays).
you get a hell of a lot more money than being unemployed at home don't you?
[quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.[/p][/quote]You say stopping housing benefits for under 25's is a dangerous road to go down and then you go on to say that full benefit payments should be payable after 10 yrs contributions. That would automatically exclude under 25's from receiving full housing benefit then. I am divided in my feelings re the under 25's housing benefits as I feel that will lead to more homelessness, which in this day and age should not be in existence. Removing child benefit is a reasonable option though as anyone contemplating having children should be in a position to self finance them. If their circumstances change then they would be in receipt of normal family benefits so would not be compromised.[/p][/quote]Maybe we should go Germanies way? unemployed when you leave school? Conscription? Did you see the guy on TV? Can't find a job? yet he had a new looking computer sat on his desk a decent telly. What would Landlords do if the Government said this is the maximum rent you'll receive from the Social? Chuck them all out? Landlords would go bust if they didn't house them. Why are there so many not living at home? Come on Solo mum we all know what happens,No social as you live with your parents ( for rent money) so if you want more money & freedom you get your parents to evict you giving you a letter for the social. you stay unemployed so you can afford the rent( the social pays). you get a hell of a lot more money than being unemployed at home don't you? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:31pm Mon 25 Jun 12

loosehead says...

The last Government had a welfare reform program but backed out of it.
They had a reform on public pensions & wages ready to be acted on but were voted out.
yet this Government have done what Labour were going to do on Pensions & wages & get's verbally attacked by Unions & left wingers but hardly a word from Labour?
Let's get this right Labour will whimper about this but the truth is they know they would have to do something very similar but this way it's the Tories & Liberals who get the back lash not the Labour Party
The last Government had a welfare reform program but backed out of it. They had a reform on public pensions & wages ready to be acted on but were voted out. yet this Government have done what Labour were going to do on Pensions & wages & get's verbally attacked by Unions & left wingers but hardly a word from Labour? Let's get this right Labour will whimper about this but the truth is they know they would have to do something very similar but this way it's the Tories & Liberals who get the back lash not the Labour Party loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:57pm Mon 25 Jun 12

SotonGreen says...

A tory once told tale of his old man getting on a bike and looking for work. In the modern world the equivalent is moving from parts of the country where there is no work into parts of the country where there is. A differential benefits system actively prevent this happening and therefore is "STUPID" as well as "MEAN".
A tory once told tale of his old man getting on a bike and looking for work. In the modern world the equivalent is moving from parts of the country where there is no work into parts of the country where there is. A differential benefits system actively prevent this happening and therefore is "STUPID" as well as "MEAN". SotonGreen
  • Score: 0

10:25pm Mon 25 Jun 12

forest tony says...

Really think that we need normal everyday people running the country, does a millionaire know anything about real people,real young people, destined to do shop work part time, no hope of getting a mortgage, or to rent privately, sorry but if you can't get a mortgage cause you don't earn enough, how the hell can you rent a place that costs more then a mortgage! My kids want real fulltime jobs, a real wage, a roof above their heads and a real government that cares for people not the dictators in big business that feather their nests, its the youth that will rebel big time, afterall they are the future and its those that try, work hard that take the brunt of all this selfishness spawned by successive governments of all political persuasions! Enough is enough!
Really think that we need normal everyday people running the country, does a millionaire know anything about real people,real young people, destined to do shop work part time, no hope of getting a mortgage, or to rent privately, sorry but if you can't get a mortgage cause you don't earn enough, how the hell can you rent a place that costs more then a mortgage! My kids want real fulltime jobs, a real wage, a roof above their heads and a real government that cares for people not the dictators in big business that feather their nests, its the youth that will rebel big time, afterall they are the future and its those that try, work hard that take the brunt of all this selfishness spawned by successive governments of all political persuasions! Enough is enough! forest tony
  • Score: 0

10:37pm Mon 25 Jun 12

Linesman says...

saintmark1977 wrote:
Here we go again.

Ten points behind in the opinion polls, higher unemployment than when he came to power more than two years ago,over a million under 25s out of work, a double dip recession,no sign of any growth in the economy, a fairy tale budget about meat pies and static holiday caravans written and then changed whilst on the hoof,lowest number of new house builds since the 1920s,an N H S top down restruture (which he promised pre election not to do) already starting to result in increased waiting times and the lowest level of patient satisfaction in recent record.

Unelected "Call me Daves'" answer? Another ill thought out unworkable attack on benefits. Attracting the headlines away from his total failure during the last two years not to mention greedy banks, their bonus payments for complete failure to lend to business and the alledged tax avoidance of "Pop Star chums".

How exactly is he going to draft a bill enforcing parents to take their children (who it appears must be under 25 years old,why not any age?) back when they lose their benefits? What happens when the parents say "no"? Will the parents be fined or sent to prison or will their chidren simply become homeless?

Reduced benefits for poorer areas? Hello, unemployment benefit is only £70 a week now and it is taxable when you return to work.What exactly does he have in mind, a return of the work house?

He truely is "a posh boy who does not know the price of a pint of milk" or in my opinion a typical advertising executive (his only previous proper job?) being all presentation and no substance. In America I think the expression is a "Flip Flopper".
Other than that, are you a Cameron fan?
[quote][p][bold]saintmark1977[/bold] wrote: Here we go again. Ten points behind in the opinion polls, higher unemployment than when he came to power more than two years ago,over a million under 25s out of work, a double dip recession,no sign of any growth in the economy, a fairy tale budget about meat pies and static holiday caravans written and then changed whilst on the hoof,lowest number of new house builds since the 1920s,an N H S top down restruture (which he promised pre election not to do) already starting to result in increased waiting times and the lowest level of patient satisfaction in recent record. Unelected "Call me Daves'" answer? Another ill thought out unworkable attack on benefits. Attracting the headlines away from his total failure during the last two years not to mention greedy banks, their bonus payments for complete failure to lend to business and the alledged tax avoidance of "Pop Star chums". How exactly is he going to draft a bill enforcing parents to take their children (who it appears must be under 25 years old,why not any age?) back when they lose their benefits? What happens when the parents say "no"? Will the parents be fined or sent to prison or will their chidren simply become homeless? Reduced benefits for poorer areas? Hello, unemployment benefit is only £70 a week now and it is taxable when you return to work.What exactly does he have in mind, a return of the work house? He truely is "a posh boy who does not know the price of a pint of milk" or in my opinion a typical advertising executive (his only previous proper job?) being all presentation and no substance. In America I think the expression is a "Flip Flopper".[/p][/quote]Other than that, are you a Cameron fan? Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Mon 25 Jun 12

solomum says...

loosehead wrote:
solomum wrote:
ohec wrote:
Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.
You say stopping housing benefits for under 25's is a dangerous road to go down and then you go on to say that full benefit payments should be payable after 10 yrs contributions. That would automatically exclude under 25's from receiving full housing benefit then. I am divided in my feelings re the under 25's housing benefits as I feel that will lead to more homelessness, which in this day and age should not be in existence. Removing child benefit is a reasonable option though as anyone contemplating having children should be in a position to self finance them. If their circumstances change then they would be in receipt of normal family benefits so would not be compromised.
Maybe we should go Germanies way?
unemployed when you leave school? Conscription?
Did you see the guy on TV?
Can't find a job? yet he had a new looking computer sat on his desk a decent telly.
What would Landlords do if the Government said this is the maximum rent you'll receive from the Social?
Chuck them all out?
Landlords would go bust if they didn't house them.
Why are there so many not living at home?
Come on Solo mum we all know what happens,No social as you live with your parents ( for rent money) so if you want more money & freedom you get your parents to evict you giving you a letter for the social.
you stay unemployed so you can afford the rent( the social pays).
you get a hell of a lot more money than being unemployed at home don't you?
Unemployed under 25's claiming housing benefit would receive the same amount of jobseekers allowance whether they they lived at home or not. The cost to the government is more because of housing costs, but that element of the money goes to the landlord, not the claimant. Surely they are better off living at home as they will not have the additional expenditure of bills etc. Yes, they get freedom living on their own, but I cannot see how they are better off financially.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.[/p][/quote]You say stopping housing benefits for under 25's is a dangerous road to go down and then you go on to say that full benefit payments should be payable after 10 yrs contributions. That would automatically exclude under 25's from receiving full housing benefit then. I am divided in my feelings re the under 25's housing benefits as I feel that will lead to more homelessness, which in this day and age should not be in existence. Removing child benefit is a reasonable option though as anyone contemplating having children should be in a position to self finance them. If their circumstances change then they would be in receipt of normal family benefits so would not be compromised.[/p][/quote]Maybe we should go Germanies way? unemployed when you leave school? Conscription? Did you see the guy on TV? Can't find a job? yet he had a new looking computer sat on his desk a decent telly. What would Landlords do if the Government said this is the maximum rent you'll receive from the Social? Chuck them all out? Landlords would go bust if they didn't house them. Why are there so many not living at home? Come on Solo mum we all know what happens,No social as you live with your parents ( for rent money) so if you want more money & freedom you get your parents to evict you giving you a letter for the social. you stay unemployed so you can afford the rent( the social pays). you get a hell of a lot more money than being unemployed at home don't you?[/p][/quote]Unemployed under 25's claiming housing benefit would receive the same amount of jobseekers allowance whether they they lived at home or not. The cost to the government is more because of housing costs, but that element of the money goes to the landlord, not the claimant. Surely they are better off living at home as they will not have the additional expenditure of bills etc. Yes, they get freedom living on their own, but I cannot see how they are better off financially. solomum
  • Score: 0

6:44am Tue 26 Jun 12

saintmark1977 says...

Linesman

Nice reply.

It is being so happy that keeps me going!
Linesman Nice reply. It is being so happy that keeps me going! saintmark1977
  • Score: 0

6:48am Tue 26 Jun 12

loosehead says...

solomum wrote:
loosehead wrote:
solomum wrote:
ohec wrote:
Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.
You say stopping housing benefits for under 25's is a dangerous road to go down and then you go on to say that full benefit payments should be payable after 10 yrs contributions. That would automatically exclude under 25's from receiving full housing benefit then. I am divided in my feelings re the under 25's housing benefits as I feel that will lead to more homelessness, which in this day and age should not be in existence. Removing child benefit is a reasonable option though as anyone contemplating having children should be in a position to self finance them. If their circumstances change then they would be in receipt of normal family benefits so would not be compromised.
Maybe we should go Germanies way?
unemployed when you leave school? Conscription?
Did you see the guy on TV?
Can't find a job? yet he had a new looking computer sat on his desk a decent telly.
What would Landlords do if the Government said this is the maximum rent you'll receive from the Social?
Chuck them all out?
Landlords would go bust if they didn't house them.
Why are there so many not living at home?
Come on Solo mum we all know what happens,No social as you live with your parents ( for rent money) so if you want more money & freedom you get your parents to evict you giving you a letter for the social.
you stay unemployed so you can afford the rent( the social pays).
you get a hell of a lot more money than being unemployed at home don't you?
Unemployed under 25's claiming housing benefit would receive the same amount of jobseekers allowance whether they they lived at home or not. The cost to the government is more because of housing costs, but that element of the money goes to the landlord, not the claimant. Surely they are better off living at home as they will not have the additional expenditure of bills etc. Yes, they get freedom living on their own, but I cannot see how they are better off financially.
They don't just get job seekers allowance.
at home that's what they get & all depends how well off the parents are if they have to pay rent out of it.
In a flat/studio apartment they get rent (Landlord) plus enough money for food & power payments etc;
would you move if you were no better off financially?
[quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.[/p][/quote]You say stopping housing benefits for under 25's is a dangerous road to go down and then you go on to say that full benefit payments should be payable after 10 yrs contributions. That would automatically exclude under 25's from receiving full housing benefit then. I am divided in my feelings re the under 25's housing benefits as I feel that will lead to more homelessness, which in this day and age should not be in existence. Removing child benefit is a reasonable option though as anyone contemplating having children should be in a position to self finance them. If their circumstances change then they would be in receipt of normal family benefits so would not be compromised.[/p][/quote]Maybe we should go Germanies way? unemployed when you leave school? Conscription? Did you see the guy on TV? Can't find a job? yet he had a new looking computer sat on his desk a decent telly. What would Landlords do if the Government said this is the maximum rent you'll receive from the Social? Chuck them all out? Landlords would go bust if they didn't house them. Why are there so many not living at home? Come on Solo mum we all know what happens,No social as you live with your parents ( for rent money) so if you want more money & freedom you get your parents to evict you giving you a letter for the social. you stay unemployed so you can afford the rent( the social pays). you get a hell of a lot more money than being unemployed at home don't you?[/p][/quote]Unemployed under 25's claiming housing benefit would receive the same amount of jobseekers allowance whether they they lived at home or not. The cost to the government is more because of housing costs, but that element of the money goes to the landlord, not the claimant. Surely they are better off living at home as they will not have the additional expenditure of bills etc. Yes, they get freedom living on their own, but I cannot see how they are better off financially.[/p][/quote]They don't just get job seekers allowance. at home that's what they get & all depends how well off the parents are if they have to pay rent out of it. In a flat/studio apartment they get rent (Landlord) plus enough money for food & power payments etc; would you move if you were no better off financially? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:31am Tue 26 Jun 12

Shoong says...

Yup, it's a tricky one and when you make changes to anything you just can't cater for everyone.

The Welfare system needs complete reform.

The biggest problem we have and is hitting us now and will do in the future is children being conceived purely for the purpose of obtaining accommodation. We should do all we can to stop this phenomenon. We have a generation of people just expecting handouts, having no idea where the actual dosh comes from.

For me, it's like this: the safety net should catch you just before you hit the ground - it shouldn't be just under the rope.
Yup, it's a tricky one and when you make changes to anything you just can't cater for everyone. The Welfare system needs complete reform. The biggest problem we have and is hitting us now and will do in the future is children being conceived purely for the purpose of obtaining accommodation. We should do all we can to stop this phenomenon. We have a generation of people just expecting handouts, having no idea where the actual dosh comes from. For me, it's like this: the safety net should catch you just before you hit the ground - it shouldn't be just under the rope. Shoong
  • Score: 0

9:41am Tue 26 Jun 12

ohec says...

solomum wrote:
ohec wrote:
Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.
You say stopping housing benefits for under 25's is a dangerous road to go down and then you go on to say that full benefit payments should be payable after 10 yrs contributions. That would automatically exclude under 25's from receiving full housing benefit then. I am divided in my feelings re the under 25's housing benefits as I feel that will lead to more homelessness, which in this day and age should not be in existence. Removing child benefit is a reasonable option though as anyone contemplating having children should be in a position to self finance them. If their circumstances change then they would be in receipt of normal family benefits so would not be compromised.
Unfortunately the benefits system is one of those cases where one cap doesn't fit all, so to just say no housing benefit for under 25s is too much of a generalisation, i can see where Cameron is coming from but you could have a 22/23year old that has worked and paid their dues and i believe is entitled to some help, on the other hand you could have the same 22/23 year old thats never worked and never paid into the system and i believe entitled to nothing. What i was proposing is a sliding scale possibly for all benefits so that you would need to have made 10 years contributions before qualifying for max benefits this would apply to immigrants as well,The whole system needs a complete overhaul the whole idea of people being better off on benefits than people that are working is obscene as is people such as drug addicts or alcoholics or obese people claiming benefits these are self inflicted complaints not medical, we have to get back to a fair and just system that acts as a safety net not a lifestyle.
[quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Talk talk talk then water it down a bit before doing a U turn, yes there are vast differences in living costs from one end of the country to the other but you can't have a multiple benefit rate according to where you live. I agree with a much lower cap on housing benefit 12,000 pa maybe, as for the better off living in council houses where do you draw the line between the poor and the better off. As for stopping housing benefit for under 25s that is a dangerous road to go down, it would be better to base payments on contributions i.e. nothing paid in nothing paid out with full benefits payable after 10 years contributions. But instead of all these nibbles at benefits just scrap family allowance for any child born after 01/01/2014 that way the saving would increase as the years go by.[/p][/quote]You say stopping housing benefits for under 25's is a dangerous road to go down and then you go on to say that full benefit payments should be payable after 10 yrs contributions. That would automatically exclude under 25's from receiving full housing benefit then. I am divided in my feelings re the under 25's housing benefits as I feel that will lead to more homelessness, which in this day and age should not be in existence. Removing child benefit is a reasonable option though as anyone contemplating having children should be in a position to self finance them. If their circumstances change then they would be in receipt of normal family benefits so would not be compromised.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately the benefits system is one of those cases where one cap doesn't fit all, so to just say no housing benefit for under 25s is too much of a generalisation, i can see where Cameron is coming from but you could have a 22/23year old that has worked and paid their dues and i believe is entitled to some help, on the other hand you could have the same 22/23 year old thats never worked and never paid into the system and i believe entitled to nothing. What i was proposing is a sliding scale possibly for all benefits so that you would need to have made 10 years contributions before qualifying for max benefits this would apply to immigrants as well,The whole system needs a complete overhaul the whole idea of people being better off on benefits than people that are working is obscene as is people such as drug addicts or alcoholics or obese people claiming benefits these are self inflicted complaints not medical, we have to get back to a fair and just system that acts as a safety net not a lifestyle. ohec
  • Score: 0

10:02am Tue 26 Jun 12

southy says...

wossit wrote:
eurogordi wrote:
wossit wrote:
The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.?
I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled.
These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!!
I'm assuming you are not attached to the building in which you live?

Yes, some people will choose to purchase their own house in preference to continuing life in a council property, but a home is much more than bricks and mortar.

It is a place of memories. It is a place where people make their own mark.

If you have lived in a council house for 10 or 20 years and have received promotion etc. why does that mean you have to leave your home? Of course not!

The other benefit reforms I fully support, but not forcing people out of their homes. If anything, that will hold people back from bettering themselves at work.
Because we have to build new homes for the next generation of lazy ba$tards
And who made them lazy, your right winger did, destorying jobs in the millions in the 80's and if that was not enough they are at it again just not so many this time.
[quote][p][bold]wossit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wossit[/bold] wrote: The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.? I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled. These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!![/p][/quote]I'm assuming you are not attached to the building in which you live? Yes, some people will choose to purchase their own house in preference to continuing life in a council property, but a home is much more than bricks and mortar. It is a place of memories. It is a place where people make their own mark. If you have lived in a council house for 10 or 20 years and have received promotion etc. why does that mean you have to leave your home? Of course not! The other benefit reforms I fully support, but not forcing people out of their homes. If anything, that will hold people back from bettering themselves at work.[/p][/quote]Because we have to build new homes for the next generation of lazy ba$tards[/p][/quote]And who made them lazy, your right winger did, destorying jobs in the millions in the 80's and if that was not enough they are at it again just not so many this time. southy
  • Score: 0

10:06am Tue 26 Jun 12

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Old Slippery Dave certainly has some great ideas that will either fall by the wayside or do the usual U-Turn.
.
Evidently these are his proposals for when the Tory led coalition comes to end. ............... Somehow, he laughingly seems to think that the Tories will be able to stand on their own two feet at the next election.
Yes well Labour is the lesser of the two evils, but not by much they are right wingers also and will be looking after the elite just a in a different way.
Labour as turned its backs on the working class, it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Old Slippery Dave certainly has some great ideas that will either fall by the wayside or do the usual U-Turn. . Evidently these are his proposals for when the Tory led coalition comes to end. ............... Somehow, he laughingly seems to think that the Tories will be able to stand on their own two feet at the next election.[/p][/quote]Yes well Labour is the lesser of the two evils, but not by much they are right wingers also and will be looking after the elite just a in a different way. Labour as turned its backs on the working class, it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them. southy
  • Score: 0

10:29am Tue 26 Jun 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
wossit wrote:
eurogordi wrote:
wossit wrote:
The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.?
I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled.
These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!!
I'm assuming you are not attached to the building in which you live?

Yes, some people will choose to purchase their own house in preference to continuing life in a council property, but a home is much more than bricks and mortar.

It is a place of memories. It is a place where people make their own mark.

If you have lived in a council house for 10 or 20 years and have received promotion etc. why does that mean you have to leave your home? Of course not!

The other benefit reforms I fully support, but not forcing people out of their homes. If anything, that will hold people back from bettering themselves at work.
Because we have to build new homes for the next generation of lazy ba$tards
And who made them lazy, your right winger did, destorying jobs in the millions in the 80's and if that was not enough they are at it again just not so many this time.
How on earth can you quantify how 'right wingers' (everyone except you then) made people lazy?

Whether you regard Labour right wing or not, I seem to remember a stronger work ethic in the 80's, when you left a job the dole was there to keep you afloat until you got a new job - the fact that it was only enough to keep you just going made you go for jobs.

But then it's no surprise your more than 20 years behind the rest of us - when are you going to address the situation we find ourselves in now rather than just go all nostalgic and bleary eyed when the Unions actually had some power?

When you dish out too much money to those in need then they no longer become needy - they become comfortable and the incentive to actually help yourself and your family vanishes and it's human nature then, especially from those who come from families who have just resorted to funding their lives from the state, to just sit back and be a drain on the rest of us.

The Left Wingers are part of the problem - we know that New Labour and previous Labour governments essentially bought votes with promises of increased handouts which the country could not afford.

Your extremist Left Wing attitude is part of the problem - you want everyone to be as miserable as you and I'm afraid as long as you live 20+ years in the past you are of no help to anyone.

So if your going to just spooge on about the 80's and dishing out Left Wing rhetoric, save your pinkies and try to think of something constructive maybe.

You're ok though aren't you though? Somehow you managed to gather enough wealth to retire early.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wossit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wossit[/bold] wrote: The only thing I disagree with is forcing council house residents to leave their home if they earn too much. Why should someone have to leave there home for having a pay rise, promotion etc.? I disagree its not your home move on and free it up ! Then it saves building more homes for people who cannot not be bothered to work. I've had enough of paying for free loaders who cannot be bothered to work or the group of people that manage a active life yet class them self as disabled. These buggers have a better life style thans me and i have worked since i have left school and what help do we get !!!!![/p][/quote]I'm assuming you are not attached to the building in which you live? Yes, some people will choose to purchase their own house in preference to continuing life in a council property, but a home is much more than bricks and mortar. It is a place of memories. It is a place where people make their own mark. If you have lived in a council house for 10 or 20 years and have received promotion etc. why does that mean you have to leave your home? Of course not! The other benefit reforms I fully support, but not forcing people out of their homes. If anything, that will hold people back from bettering themselves at work.[/p][/quote]Because we have to build new homes for the next generation of lazy ba$tards[/p][/quote]And who made them lazy, your right winger did, destorying jobs in the millions in the 80's and if that was not enough they are at it again just not so many this time.[/p][/quote]How on earth can you quantify how 'right wingers' (everyone except you then) made people lazy? Whether you regard Labour right wing or not, I seem to remember a stronger work ethic in the 80's, when you left a job the dole was there to keep you afloat until you got a new job - the fact that it was only enough to keep you just going made you go for jobs. But then it's no surprise your more than 20 years behind the rest of us - when are you going to address the situation we find ourselves in now rather than just go all nostalgic and bleary eyed when the Unions actually had some power? When you dish out too much money to those in need then they no longer become needy - they become comfortable and the incentive to actually help yourself and your family vanishes and it's human nature then, especially from those who come from families who have just resorted to funding their lives from the state, to just sit back and be a drain on the rest of us. The Left Wingers are part of the problem - we know that New Labour and previous Labour governments essentially bought votes with promises of increased handouts which the country could not afford. Your extremist Left Wing attitude is part of the problem - you want everyone to be as miserable as you and I'm afraid as long as you live 20+ years in the past you are of no help to anyone. So if your going to just spooge on about the 80's and dishing out Left Wing rhetoric, save your pinkies and try to think of something constructive maybe. You're ok though aren't you though? Somehow you managed to gather enough wealth to retire early. Shoong
  • Score: 0

11:02am Tue 26 Jun 12

Lone Ranger. says...

southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Old Slippery Dave certainly has some great ideas that will either fall by the wayside or do the usual U-Turn.
.
Evidently these are his proposals for when the Tory led coalition comes to end. ............... Somehow, he laughingly seems to think that the Tories will be able to stand on their own two feet at the next election.
Yes well Labour is the lesser of the two evils, but not by much they are right wingers also and will be looking after the elite just a in a different way.
Labour as turned its backs on the working class, it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them.
I dont think that Labour has turned their backs on the working class .......... and in my opinion .......... Offer far more to that area of society than either of the other two parties put together.
.
In the main they support the majority of the valued principles of the workling class.
.
And you say ...... quote:- "it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them ........
.
Who is that then ......... TUSC .. I dont think so ........
.
If the local elections were anything to go by i am not sure if the local candidates could be bothered to get out of bed on the day ....... Not one piece of literature not one knock on the door ...... Nothing. ....... Conspicious by their absence in person and by the number of votes
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Old Slippery Dave certainly has some great ideas that will either fall by the wayside or do the usual U-Turn. . Evidently these are his proposals for when the Tory led coalition comes to end. ............... Somehow, he laughingly seems to think that the Tories will be able to stand on their own two feet at the next election.[/p][/quote]Yes well Labour is the lesser of the two evils, but not by much they are right wingers also and will be looking after the elite just a in a different way. Labour as turned its backs on the working class, it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them.[/p][/quote]I dont think that Labour has turned their backs on the working class .......... and in my opinion .......... Offer far more to that area of society than either of the other two parties put together. . In the main they support the majority of the valued principles of the workling class. . And you say ...... quote:- "it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them ........ . Who is that then ......... TUSC .. I dont think so ........ . If the local elections were anything to go by i am not sure if the local candidates could be bothered to get out of bed on the day ....... Not one piece of literature not one knock on the door ...... Nothing. ....... Conspicious by their absence in person and by the number of votes Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

11:10am Tue 26 Jun 12

southy says...

Shoong "stronger work ethic in the 80's"
Thats why there was 6 million unemployed and still going up in the 80's, and that was after the Torys fix the figures to make it look lower than it really was.
One of the only good things Labour did do in there last term of office was to get the unempoyed numbers down below 3 million using the same counting methods that Thatcher interduced, but since the Torys got back in its all ready gone back up again.
And calling it rhotoric just means you don't like people being reminded what it really was like, you like to forget and say it never happened.
Shoong "stronger work ethic in the 80's" Thats why there was 6 million unemployed and still going up in the 80's, and that was after the Torys fix the figures to make it look lower than it really was. One of the only good things Labour did do in there last term of office was to get the unempoyed numbers down below 3 million using the same counting methods that Thatcher interduced, but since the Torys got back in its all ready gone back up again. And calling it rhotoric just means you don't like people being reminded what it really was like, you like to forget and say it never happened. southy
  • Score: 0

11:13am Tue 26 Jun 12

loosehead says...

I watched a morning TV show where a young man was complaining that if he worked overtime ( one day) he would only be £50 better off after they stopped his tax credits.he said they should pay him more tax credits so he didn't have to work overtime?
the presenter looked flabbergasted at that statement as was I.
When I first left school you took any job rather than be on the dole now many not all won't take any job if they can get more on the dole.
A young woman/girl of 16 gets pregnant surely that's the families responsibility?
a young couple both working (on low wages)wanting to start a family should have priority on housing over a single 16 year old mum.
If many new they weren't getting a flat or house & their family were expected to look after her & the child would they get pregnant?
I'm not trying to beat up on single mums but how many hand over details of the father?
how many fathers are in work?
We need to get back to where any job will do until you can find better & the dole is a no no unless you have absolutely no choice
I watched a morning TV show where a young man was complaining that if he worked overtime ( one day) he would only be £50 better off after they stopped his tax credits.he said they should pay him more tax credits so he didn't have to work overtime? the presenter looked flabbergasted at that statement as was I. When I first left school you took any job rather than be on the dole now many not all won't take any job if they can get more on the dole. A young woman/girl of 16 gets pregnant surely that's the families responsibility? a young couple both working (on low wages)wanting to start a family should have priority on housing over a single 16 year old mum. If many new they weren't getting a flat or house & their family were expected to look after her & the child would they get pregnant? I'm not trying to beat up on single mums but how many hand over details of the father? how many fathers are in work? We need to get back to where any job will do until you can find better & the dole is a no no unless you have absolutely no choice loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:18am Tue 26 Jun 12

Lone Ranger. says...

The most comical and disturbing thing about Slippery Daves speech was not about the Benefit proposals ................ But for him to think that the Tories could stand and govern on their own two feet ...... Well they havent done it for the last fifteen years and nothing appears to have changed in the their make up to suggest it could.
The most comical and disturbing thing about Slippery Daves speech was not about the Benefit proposals ................ But for him to think that the Tories could stand and govern on their own two feet ...... Well they havent done it for the last fifteen years and nothing appears to have changed in the their make up to suggest it could. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

11:21am Tue 26 Jun 12

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Old Slippery Dave certainly has some great ideas that will either fall by the wayside or do the usual U-Turn.
.
Evidently these are his proposals for when the Tory led coalition comes to end. ............... Somehow, he laughingly seems to think that the Tories will be able to stand on their own two feet at the next election.
Yes well Labour is the lesser of the two evils, but not by much they are right wingers also and will be looking after the elite just a in a different way.
Labour as turned its backs on the working class, it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them.
I dont think that Labour has turned their backs on the working class .......... and in my opinion .......... Offer far more to that area of society than either of the other two parties put together.
.
In the main they support the majority of the valued principles of the workling class.
.
And you say ...... quote:- "it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them ........
.
Who is that then ......... TUSC .. I dont think so ........
.
If the local elections were anything to go by i am not sure if the local candidates could be bothered to get out of bed on the day ....... Not one piece of literature not one knock on the door ...... Nothing. ....... Conspicious by their absence in person and by the number of votes
Labour are more for the shirkers than the low paid or Working class.
Go to work get taxed to high heaven.
On the dole get your rent paid prescriptions,dental treatment for free plus enough to live on for nothing?
As my father said ( die hard socialist) 'why is it every budget they put up taxes on my earnings & then on the two things I enjoy they tax me more.up go my fags & up goes my beer with less money in my pay packet'
If Labour had done what they'd promised & hit the welfare system to get people off the dole & into work maybe these cuts wouldn't have had to be so severe?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Old Slippery Dave certainly has some great ideas that will either fall by the wayside or do the usual U-Turn. . Evidently these are his proposals for when the Tory led coalition comes to end. ............... Somehow, he laughingly seems to think that the Tories will be able to stand on their own two feet at the next election.[/p][/quote]Yes well Labour is the lesser of the two evils, but not by much they are right wingers also and will be looking after the elite just a in a different way. Labour as turned its backs on the working class, it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them.[/p][/quote]I dont think that Labour has turned their backs on the working class .......... and in my opinion .......... Offer far more to that area of society than either of the other two parties put together. . In the main they support the majority of the valued principles of the workling class. . And you say ...... quote:- "it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them ........ . Who is that then ......... TUSC .. I dont think so ........ . If the local elections were anything to go by i am not sure if the local candidates could be bothered to get out of bed on the day ....... Not one piece of literature not one knock on the door ...... Nothing. ....... Conspicious by their absence in person and by the number of votes[/p][/quote]Labour are more for the shirkers than the low paid or Working class. Go to work get taxed to high heaven. On the dole get your rent paid prescriptions,dental treatment for free plus enough to live on for nothing? As my father said ( die hard socialist) 'why is it every budget they put up taxes on my earnings & then on the two things I enjoy they tax me more.up go my fags & up goes my beer with less money in my pay packet' If Labour had done what they'd promised & hit the welfare system to get people off the dole & into work maybe these cuts wouldn't have had to be so severe? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:23am Tue 26 Jun 12

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
The most comical and disturbing thing about Slippery Daves speech was not about the Benefit proposals ................ But for him to think that the Tories could stand and govern on their own two feet ...... Well they havent done it for the last fifteen years and nothing appears to have changed in the their make up to suggest it could.
Wait & see how many people actually agree with him on this.
many won't put it in posts like this or say it publicly but more of society agree with this than you could believe!
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: The most comical and disturbing thing about Slippery Daves speech was not about the Benefit proposals ................ But for him to think that the Tories could stand and govern on their own two feet ...... Well they havent done it for the last fifteen years and nothing appears to have changed in the their make up to suggest it could.[/p][/quote]Wait & see how many people actually agree with him on this. many won't put it in posts like this or say it publicly but more of society agree with this than you could believe! loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:30am Tue 26 Jun 12

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Old Slippery Dave certainly has some great ideas that will either fall by the wayside or do the usual U-Turn.
.
Evidently these are his proposals for when the Tory led coalition comes to end. ............... Somehow, he laughingly seems to think that the Tories will be able to stand on their own two feet at the next election.
Yes well Labour is the lesser of the two evils, but not by much they are right wingers also and will be looking after the elite just a in a different way.
Labour as turned its backs on the working class, it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them.
I dont think that Labour has turned their backs on the working class .......... and in my opinion .......... Offer far more to that area of society than either of the other two parties put together.
.
In the main they support the majority of the valued principles of the workling class.
.
And you say ...... quote:- "it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them ........
.
Who is that then ......... TUSC .. I dont think so ........
.
If the local elections were anything to go by i am not sure if the local candidates could be bothered to get out of bed on the day ....... Not one piece of literature not one knock on the door ...... Nothing. ....... Conspicious by their absence in person and by the number of votes
Its only the TUSC that is Lone Ranger, I not forget that Labour also sold parts of the NHS to the private sector, And I not forget that they are just as willing to rib this country for there own benefits.
The Tusc don't have the man power like the Labour do at the moment but that is slowly changing, at the moment the Labour Party as the largest membership numbers, and its these members that go round and put leafletts though the door, but even Labour going to be hit hard because the majority of there members are getting on in years a high number of them have retired, Memebership to the Labour Party is falling nationally they never did make that 1 million members that Blair aimed for.
Look at what your so-called two left wingers done in the last week Letts and Morrel thats not actions of left wing that belongs to right wing lot, then what else new boy Whitbread declaring him self as a capitalist after being elected in office.
Yes Labour as turn its backs on the working class, its just that the majority of the working class have not realise that yet and not realise how that they are moving more and more to the right with each election, and they do not know yet what the TUSC is all about but they will, and what was that false propaganda about the TUSC that is coming out from the main Labour office, one policy party was it.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Old Slippery Dave certainly has some great ideas that will either fall by the wayside or do the usual U-Turn. . Evidently these are his proposals for when the Tory led coalition comes to end. ............... Somehow, he laughingly seems to think that the Tories will be able to stand on their own two feet at the next election.[/p][/quote]Yes well Labour is the lesser of the two evils, but not by much they are right wingers also and will be looking after the elite just a in a different way. Labour as turned its backs on the working class, it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them.[/p][/quote]I dont think that Labour has turned their backs on the working class .......... and in my opinion .......... Offer far more to that area of society than either of the other two parties put together. . In the main they support the majority of the valued principles of the workling class. . And you say ...... quote:- "it is time for the working class to turn there backs on Labour and start supporting the only ones that will support them ........ . Who is that then ......... TUSC .. I dont think so ........ . If the local elections were anything to go by i am not sure if the local candidates could be bothered to get out of bed on the day ....... Not one piece of literature not one knock on the door ...... Nothing. ....... Conspicious by their absence in person and by the number of votes[/p][/quote]Its only the TUSC that is Lone Ranger, I not forget that Labour also sold parts of the NHS to the private sector, And I not forget that they are just as willing to rib this country for there own benefits. The Tusc don't have the man power like the Labour do at the moment but that is slowly changing, at the moment the Labour Party as the largest membership numbers, and its these members that go round and put leafletts though the door, but even Labour going to be hit hard because the majority of there members are getting on in years a high number of them have retired, Memebership to the Labour Party is falling nationally they never did make that 1 million members that Blair aimed for. Look at what your so-called two left wingers done in the last week Letts and Morrel thats not actions of left wing that belongs to right wing lot, then what else new boy Whitbread declaring him self as a capitalist after being elected in office. Yes Labour as turn its backs on the working class, its just that the majority of the working class have not realise that yet and not realise how that they are moving more and more to the right with each election, and they do not know yet what the TUSC is all about but they will, and what was that false propaganda about the TUSC that is coming out from the main Labour office, one policy party was it. southy
  • Score: 0

11:38am Tue 26 Jun 12

southy says...

loosehead I will agree with you on this "When I first left school you took any job rather than be on the dole"
I done the same even low I had a job to go to at the end of Sept, I left school on the last day of school (could not leave earlier I was in the School and Southern England Athletics teams) but on the Tues I was in work at the Red Funnels as a Deck boy
loosehead I will agree with you on this "When I first left school you took any job rather than be on the dole" I done the same even low I had a job to go to at the end of Sept, I left school on the last day of school (could not leave earlier I was in the School and Southern England Athletics teams) but on the Tues I was in work at the Red Funnels as a Deck boy southy
  • Score: 0

11:43am Tue 26 Jun 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong "stronger work ethic in the 80's"
Thats why there was 6 million unemployed and still going up in the 80's, and that was after the Torys fix the figures to make it look lower than it really was.
One of the only good things Labour did do in there last term of office was to get the unempoyed numbers down below 3 million using the same counting methods that Thatcher interduced, but since the Torys got back in its all ready gone back up again.
And calling it rhotoric just means you don't like people being reminded what it really was like, you like to forget and say it never happened.
There may have been 6 million unemployed, there's no denying that. So are you saying they were all lazy in the first place then?

Or are you perhaps saying they somehow became lazy after losing their jobs? Aren't these your so called friends? Your 'brothers'..?

So just so we are clear - lose your public sector job and you are perfectly entitled to scrounge off the state for the rest of your life? Is that what your saying?

I call it 'rhetoric' because that's what I regard it as. As for 'just means you don't like people being reminded what it really was like', well, that for me is a bit rich coming from yourself as you post comments with a scatter gun approach with really no intention of backing up what you say - don't post comments if you don't want others to reply and take you on. As a man with ambitions of being a Councillor, listening skills and taking in others points of view would be an advantage, rather than just selective hearing for those under the Limousine Liberal banner. I for one also remember the 3 day week and the country brought to it's knees by the Unions.

It's the extreme Left Wing attitude that would let this situation continue as long as it procures votes. Now you can say that about any political party and the policies and changes they make but we all know there are more working class people out there than there is the Conservative demographic, therefore more votes to be bought by promising more than can be afforded. People like you don't give a **** how they get into power, they'll promise the earth until it's bankrupt. Just like those you criticise in your posts everyday.

Also, when it comes to 'counting' people who are unemployed, no-one is naive enough to think that unemployment figures are not manipulated. Stop assuming that people are and you know better. Isn't that one of the traits you despise about the current government?

'Since the Torys got back in it's already gone back up again'. This was going to happen *whoever* won the last election so to simply blame on the Conservatives because you don't like them is childish or you just haven't thought about it.

Trotsky isn't going to get us out of this - the incentive of working might at least help, after all, that's what keeps the nation going.

People sat around believing the state owes them a living will do the exact opposite.

I've never really been taken in by the 'in this together' mantra. But I do know that things need to change and we need to make it so the incentive should be there to work and not sit around expecting everyone else to fund other people's lifestyles. It's simply not sustainable, a word without meaning to the Left perhaps.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Shoong "stronger work ethic in the 80's" Thats why there was 6 million unemployed and still going up in the 80's, and that was after the Torys fix the figures to make it look lower than it really was. One of the only good things Labour did do in there last term of office was to get the unempoyed numbers down below 3 million using the same counting methods that Thatcher interduced, but since the Torys got back in its all ready gone back up again. And calling it rhotoric just means you don't like people being reminded what it really was like, you like to forget and say it never happened.[/p][/quote]There may have been 6 million unemployed, there's no denying that. So are you saying they were all lazy in the first place then? Or are you perhaps saying they somehow became lazy after losing their jobs? Aren't these your so called friends? Your 'brothers'..? So just so we are clear - lose your public sector job and you are perfectly entitled to scrounge off the state for the rest of your life? Is that what your saying? I call it 'rhetoric' because that's what I regard it as. As for 'just means you don't like people being reminded what it really was like', well, that for me is a bit rich coming from yourself as you post comments with a scatter gun approach with really no intention of backing up what you say - don't post comments if you don't want others to reply and take you on. As a man with ambitions of being a Councillor, listening skills and taking in others points of view would be an advantage, rather than just selective hearing for those under the Limousine Liberal banner. I for one also remember the 3 day week and the country brought to it's knees by the Unions. It's the extreme Left Wing attitude that would let this situation continue as long as it procures votes. Now you can say that about any political party and the policies and changes they make but we all know there are more working class people out there than there is the Conservative demographic, therefore more votes to be bought by promising more than can be afforded. People like you don't give a **** how they get into power, they'll promise the earth until it's bankrupt. Just like those you criticise in your posts everyday. Also, when it comes to 'counting' people who are unemployed, no-one is naive enough to think that unemployment figures are not manipulated. Stop assuming that people are and you know better. Isn't that one of the traits you despise about the current government? 'Since the Torys got back in it's already gone back up again'. This was going to happen *whoever* won the last election so to simply blame on the Conservatives because you don't like them is childish or you just haven't thought about it. Trotsky isn't going to get us out of this - the incentive of working might at least help, after all, that's what keeps the nation going. People sat around believing the state owes them a living will do the exact opposite. I've never really been taken in by the 'in this together' mantra. But I do know that things need to change and we need to make it so the incentive should be there to work and not sit around expecting everyone else to fund other people's lifestyles. It's simply not sustainable, a word without meaning to the Left perhaps. Shoong
  • Score: 0

11:51am Tue 26 Jun 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
The most comical and disturbing thing about Slippery Daves speech was not about the Benefit proposals ................ But for him to think that the Tories could stand and govern on their own two feet ...... Well they havent done it for the last fifteen years and nothing appears to have changed in the their make up to suggest it could.
Wait & see how many people actually agree with him on this.
many won't put it in posts like this or say it publicly but more of society agree with this than you could believe!
I do agree with him on the Slippery Dave bit, We all ready know that Labour will be the next Government but what will you get more right wing policys there be no real change, they will not make the super rich pay the right amount of taxes, they will not over turn and any thing that the Torys have done to hurt the majority.
We all ready know this to, you had Kinnock start the left wing witch hunt off and every leader of the Labour have carried it on (apart from Smith, but they soon push him out of this job, because they realise he will not support any thing right wing), then you get Blair saying going into number 10 after he won the election and people expecting real change that never happened, what was it he said "There will be no change in Thatcher Policy" meaning we will get the same old Right Wing Rhetoric Policy that belongs back in the 1920's. Then you get Miliband coming out with this "We want good Capitalism" and "We need relyable Capitalism" as no one told him theres no such thing.
People may knock Socialism but Socialism is the Working Class Economics and Political Policy, it is for the majority and never for the few.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: The most comical and disturbing thing about Slippery Daves speech was not about the Benefit proposals ................ But for him to think that the Tories could stand and govern on their own two feet ...... Well they havent done it for the last fifteen years and nothing appears to have changed in the their make up to suggest it could.[/p][/quote]Wait & see how many people actually agree with him on this. many won't put it in posts like this or say it publicly but more of society agree with this than you could believe![/p][/quote]I do agree with him on the Slippery Dave bit, We all ready know that Labour will be the next Government but what will you get more right wing policys there be no real change, they will not make the super rich pay the right amount of taxes, they will not over turn and any thing that the Torys have done to hurt the majority. We all ready know this to, you had Kinnock start the left wing witch hunt off and every leader of the Labour have carried it on (apart from Smith, but they soon push him out of this job, because they realise he will not support any thing right wing), then you get Blair saying going into number 10 after he won the election and people expecting real change that never happened, what was it he said "There will be no change in Thatcher Policy" meaning we will get the same old Right Wing Rhetoric Policy that belongs back in the 1920's. Then you get Miliband coming out with this "We want good Capitalism" and "We need relyable Capitalism" as no one told him theres no such thing. People may knock Socialism but Socialism is the Working Class Economics and Political Policy, it is for the majority and never for the few. southy
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Tue 26 Jun 12

southy says...

Shoong twisting words again I see, No I am not saying that they where all lasy maybe only 1 in every million might of been, That 6 million that was made unemployed did not have a choice in the matter, The Torys took the jobs away and that cause the Recession in the 80's, that we are still in today. The Torys like high unemployment they are known as the Party of high Unemployment its in there nature to make as many as they can unemployed so they can stop people getting paid the money that they are worth, High Unemployment allows the bosses to have control over wages, working hours and working conditions, look though out history say in the last 300 years it as all ways been the Torys that have created high unemployment even when they was known as the Country Party.
Shoong twisting words again I see, No I am not saying that they where all lasy maybe only 1 in every million might of been, That 6 million that was made unemployed did not have a choice in the matter, The Torys took the jobs away and that cause the Recession in the 80's, that we are still in today. The Torys like high unemployment they are known as the Party of high Unemployment its in there nature to make as many as they can unemployed so they can stop people getting paid the money that they are worth, High Unemployment allows the bosses to have control over wages, working hours and working conditions, look though out history say in the last 300 years it as all ways been the Torys that have created high unemployment even when they was known as the Country Party. southy
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Tue 26 Jun 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Shoong twisting words again I see, No I am not saying that they where all lasy maybe only 1 in every million might of been, That 6 million that was made unemployed did not have a choice in the matter, The Torys took the jobs away and that cause the Recession in the 80's, that we are still in today. The Torys like high unemployment they are known as the Party of high Unemployment its in there nature to make as many as they can unemployed so they can stop people getting paid the money that they are worth, High Unemployment allows the bosses to have control over wages, working hours and working conditions, look though out history say in the last 300 years it as all ways been the Torys that have created high unemployment even when they was known as the Country Party.
If you feel I am twisting your words somehow then perhaps you need to communicate better. I quoted you directly.

Although I could see that as a retraction.

This could go on for hours - but I've got a job to get on with, funnily enough. We know that you don't work so you have all day to live in the past.

It's easier to dwell on the past and dish out fantasy Trotsky ideals rather than deal with the present, the here and now.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Shoong twisting words again I see, No I am not saying that they where all lasy maybe only 1 in every million might of been, That 6 million that was made unemployed did not have a choice in the matter, The Torys took the jobs away and that cause the Recession in the 80's, that we are still in today. The Torys like high unemployment they are known as the Party of high Unemployment its in there nature to make as many as they can unemployed so they can stop people getting paid the money that they are worth, High Unemployment allows the bosses to have control over wages, working hours and working conditions, look though out history say in the last 300 years it as all ways been the Torys that have created high unemployment even when they was known as the Country Party.[/p][/quote]If you feel I am twisting your words somehow then perhaps you need to communicate better. I quoted you directly. Although I could see that as a retraction. This could go on for hours - but I've got a job to get on with, funnily enough. We know that you don't work so you have all day to live in the past. It's easier to dwell on the past and dish out fantasy Trotsky ideals rather than deal with the present, the here and now. Shoong
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Tue 26 Jun 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong twisting words again I see, No I am not saying that they where all lasy maybe only 1 in every million might of been, That 6 million that was made unemployed did not have a choice in the matter, The Torys took the jobs away and that cause the Recession in the 80's, that we are still in today. The Torys like high unemployment they are known as the Party of high Unemployment its in there nature to make as many as they can unemployed so they can stop people getting paid the money that they are worth, High Unemployment allows the bosses to have control over wages, working hours and working conditions, look though out history say in the last 300 years it as all ways been the Torys that have created high unemployment even when they was known as the Country Party.
If you feel I am twisting your words somehow then perhaps you need to communicate better. I quoted you directly.

Although I could see that as a retraction.

This could go on for hours - but I've got a job to get on with, funnily enough. We know that you don't work so you have all day to live in the past.

It's easier to dwell on the past and dish out fantasy Trotsky ideals rather than deal with the present, the here and now.
your not quoting correctly and you know it your twisting which your very good at, is slippery cameron your brother by any chance.

Shoong said "So are you saying they were all lazy in the first place then?"
Its not me saying that, its you that is saying that Shoong and you know it.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Shoong twisting words again I see, No I am not saying that they where all lasy maybe only 1 in every million might of been, That 6 million that was made unemployed did not have a choice in the matter, The Torys took the jobs away and that cause the Recession in the 80's, that we are still in today. The Torys like high unemployment they are known as the Party of high Unemployment its in there nature to make as many as they can unemployed so they can stop people getting paid the money that they are worth, High Unemployment allows the bosses to have control over wages, working hours and working conditions, look though out history say in the last 300 years it as all ways been the Torys that have created high unemployment even when they was known as the Country Party.[/p][/quote]If you feel I am twisting your words somehow then perhaps you need to communicate better. I quoted you directly. Although I could see that as a retraction. This could go on for hours - but I've got a job to get on with, funnily enough. We know that you don't work so you have all day to live in the past. It's easier to dwell on the past and dish out fantasy Trotsky ideals rather than deal with the present, the here and now.[/p][/quote]your not quoting correctly and you know it your twisting which your very good at, is slippery cameron your brother by any chance. Shoong said "So are you saying they were all lazy in the first place then?" Its not me saying that, its you that is saying that Shoong and you know it. southy
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Tue 26 Jun 12

Shoong says...

"So are you saying they were all lazy in the first place then?"

That's a question, not a statement.

There is no choice in being made redundant, I should know, I've been made redundant from 2 jobs in the private sector during my career. It was a different time and there were many more jobs about, I even cleaned kitchens at an Army barracks for 3 months just to have a job after working in the IT industry for 8 years. Can I a Unite member doing that? I'm not sure you know.

You didn't answer my question: How did someone losing a job from the public sector in the 80's make them lazy?

So they didn't apply for other jobs then? They just gave up?
You are implying then that it's ok to mooch of the state just because they lost a job in the public sector? The Unions didn't help them find another employer?

I for one would be offended as an ex-miner of similar that losing my job made me lazy.
"So are you saying they were all lazy in the first place then?" That's a question, not a statement. There is no choice in being made redundant, I should know, I've been made redundant from 2 jobs in the private sector during my career. It was a different time and there were many more jobs about, I even cleaned kitchens at an Army barracks for 3 months just to have a job after working in the IT industry for 8 years. Can I a Unite member doing that? I'm not sure you know. You didn't answer my question: How did someone losing a job from the public sector in the 80's make them lazy? So they didn't apply for other jobs then? They just gave up? You are implying then that it's ok to mooch of the state just because they lost a job in the public sector? The Unions didn't help them find another employer? I for one would be offended as an ex-miner of similar that losing my job made me lazy. Shoong
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Tue 26 Jun 12

bigal007 says...

THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING I CAN THINGS GOING BACK IN TIME TO THE WORK HOUSE
THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING I CAN THINGS GOING BACK IN TIME TO THE WORK HOUSE bigal007
  • Score: 0

7:14am Wed 27 Jun 12

Dr Martin says...

wossit wrote:
Condor Man wrote: The way things are going I could see people on benefits forced into living in the cheapest parts of the country, just to save cash. It's right to stop kids getting flats 'on the social' but it needs to be thought through properly.
And whats your point, if you want to better yourself then work for it !!!
Quite agree!
[quote][p][bold]wossit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Condor Man[/bold] wrote: The way things are going I could see people on benefits forced into living in the cheapest parts of the country, just to save cash. It's right to stop kids getting flats 'on the social' but it needs to be thought through properly.[/p][/quote]And whats your point, if you want to better yourself then work for it !!![/p][/quote]Quite agree! Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

4:36am Sat 30 Jun 12

Solent Lass says...

Stop housing benefit for those who have Sky tv, upgrade their cars, go abroad on holiday, get extra pets after being on benefit, and those fit for work can cut grass, clean streets, help the disabled etc etc. Stop this something for nothing culture. Money should be spent on council homes not going to private landlords who could have a personal connection. Stop giving houses to people who have never worked or contributed (exception people from childrens homes, severely disabled etc) - give priority to those who genuinely work and have been in this country the longest.
Stop housing benefit for those who have Sky tv, upgrade their cars, go abroad on holiday, get extra pets after being on benefit, and those fit for work can cut grass, clean streets, help the disabled etc etc. Stop this something for nothing culture. Money should be spent on council homes not going to private landlords who could have a personal connection. Stop giving houses to people who have never worked or contributed (exception people from childrens homes, severely disabled etc) - give priority to those who genuinely work and have been in this country the longest. Solent Lass
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree