if you voted for the Tories, you should feel personally responsible when you see homeless people on the streets ...(1000 Posts)
...once their policies start to bite.
They want to removing housing benefit for under 25s, many of whom have children. Just one of their policies which will drive people into homelessness.
I thought this was meant to be a civilised country. If the safety net is removed, many people including children will fall through it, some of them ending up on the streets.
How can anyone support that?
Pumpkin - 4 children later you start wittering about contraception not being reliable. It is in fact very very reliable and we also have the choice to terminate pregnancies. I presume that all the time you were having these children you weren't,t receiving any sort of benefit, is that correct? No one I know thinks that they cold afford 4 kids. It sounds from your posts like you claimed tax credits, if so you couldn't afford th kids you have
ooo brilliant, the "Thatcher started it" surely it is a form of Godwin's Law?
IIRC, under 25s currently can only get HB equivalent to the rent for a room in a shared house in their local area. That's already happened.
I think you may be getting confused with this, Viviennemary.
The new proposals are to get rid of housing benefit entirely for under 25s.
I know it's hard to believe as it's obviously going to be immensely damaging, but those are the plans as reported.
Well, my understanding is that Miliband and Balls are delighted that the Tories are sorting out the fuck up (whoever created it). It spares them having to do it under a Labour flag - and they'll only be out for 5 years.
Lol at Tories saying that the Iraq war was all Labour's idea.
The Tories love a good war; they were right behind it. If America go for Iran or Syria next, they'll go 'shoulder to shoulder' again, I would bet.
Any of you Tory voters go on the march against it? The one Bliar ignored? I voted Labour and I went on it. He didn't launch that ghastly war in my name but if your government had been in no doubt you'd have been all for it. I bet some of you even were; after all Saddam is a nasty foreigner.
I will believe it about children on the streets when it starts happening! I suspect that many people who previously said they couldn't possibly live with family, may actually find that they can put up with it f the alternative is he streets.
I shall continue to hold the parents of this children ultimately responsible rather than the state.
So London, now child tax credit is 'scrounging' is it?
Or is it only scrounging if you have 'too many children'? And do you, I presume, get to decide how many each person should have?
We are all under threat of job loss in this economic situation. Probably none of us should have had ANY children. Expensive little blighters, don't even go out to work and expect the taxpayer to fund EDUCATION. Entitled little feckers.
So go on londonone, tell us how many children we should have had, everyone of us, given that we could all lose our jobs any day.
erm who deregulated the banks then Theo? This country was made a cheap place to make money for billionaires deliberately due to the strange 'trickle down ' theory of La Thatcher. They are still ripping us off.
I wonder if you or your partner would feel 'responsible' if you lost your jobs and needed state support.
Perhaps you would prefer starvation? At least then you could die knowing that you and your loved ones had never claimed a penny from the state. Which is the most important thing after all :D
Yes you are right Aufaniae. The under 25's HB is already restricted. And they are proposing to scrap it. I must say most parents will have to put up with their children at home rather than see them on the streets. But for the few whose parents won't there will have to be some sort of provision.
No I didn't vote conservative.
I don't feel responsible for the homeless.
Voting for labour won't change a thing.. They helped create the problem.
If there's no money, there's no money .. Who you vote for won't change that.
No point blaming the bankers either, without their contribution to the economy, there wouldn't be any welfare, you'd be lucky if you got a cardboard box.
I don't vote but I did march.
As for that ghastly phrase "lol" to try and ridicule The Tories, whoever they are, this is exactly my point. May as well argue for gay marriage with a Sun reader.
tra la la la la la
Domestic- whoever used the word scrounging? I certainly didn't. However tax credits are a financial benefit and if you require these to sustain your lifestyle, hen I do thik it is irresponsible to choose to make your life more expensive.
lol's not a phrase and I was using it ironically btw. But who gives a flying feck. Tories are still lower than vermin.
londonone it's already happening.
Homeless Charities reported earlier this year that there had been a 14% rise in homelessness compared to the previous year.
"The data shows 69,460 children or expected children are in homeless households, with three-quarters of the households accepted containing children.
Homelessness had been going down since 2003, with a small increase in 2010, and the scale of this rise has shocked housing campaigners."
That could be seen to be as a result of the recession. To bring in policies now which will further increase homelessness really is kicking people when they're down.
Yes I suspect that some people will be able to find accommodation with family. But to suggest that all can is wilfully ignorant IMO, and it's that kind of attitude which will lead to children on the streets.
So London any ideas on what the 'responsible' number of children to have had is?
Given that everyone's 'lifestyle' is about to take a massive bashing as we learn to compete with China?
If I lost my job and needed state support I would certainly consider it my responsibility to do all I could to help myself before taking from the state and I certainly wouldn't be honking it was an appropriate time to have a child.
"But for the few whose parents won't there will have to be some sort of provision."
I have heard of no talk of any provisions for this yet.
But I would say we do seem to be heading firmly in the direction of workhouses .
Everyone's 'lifestyle' that is, apart from people who are already millionaires and those lovely generous bankers whom we all rely on to keep us out of the cardboard boxes we clearly deserve :D
Such intelligent irony is obviously lost on me, I am very stupid and I don't even vote Tory!
If you are on tax credits already, you certainly shouldn't be having any more!
Nice non-answer there London.
So once your savings run out you would claim benefits too. Well hey ho that's what most people do, I hate to tell you. Benefits are usually means tested.
Or perhaps you have a rich Dad who would take you all back in before you have to claim a penny of tainted state money?
You know perfectly well that benefit restrictions will not be reserved for the 'feckless' who have children AFTER losing their jobs. It will apply to all those 'stupid' enough to have had 'too many children' even BEFORE they lost work. As you so unpleasantly and rudely suggested to pumpkin, these people have already been 'irresponsible' by having too many children.
Yes aufaniae. 'Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?'
There is no legal way to make one adult responsible for another adult. The only way the goverment will achieve their aims is by stripping benefits from the young without redress.
The young will be dependent on the kindness of their parents' hearts.
And it will not only be the 'feckless' poor who are affected. Increasingly housing is unaffordable even for the children of the middle class.
I don't particularly disagree with anything apart from the Tory hating stuff, it is so juvenile. I don't hate anyone, even Blair although I have lost so many friends in the Iraq war (Iraqi civillians, not soldiers).
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.