To think Universal Credit still won't get the long term unemployed into work and targets the wrong people?

(121 Posts)
retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:14:20

UC (and the bedroom tax) is wrong on so many levels that its hard to know where to start.

I think one of the concerns is that it still won't get the long term employed, who have chosen to live on benefits, into work.

It targets and hurts the wrong people, those who have a real need of the welfare state.

Take my neighbours for example. They are a couple. Have 5 children. And have never worked a day in their life. They have 2 daughters who have left home and have children of their own (both were teenage pregnancies). They have 2 teenagers living at home who are at college. The youngest child is in primary school.

They live in a 3 bed council house.

Even with the recent JSA changes (having to prove you are looking for work etc) they still haven't been made to find employment.

AIBU to think UC will not change this? That they will still manage to avoid work?

I think UC will end up hurting a lot of people but not targeting the people it should be aimed at.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Mon 25-Mar-13 20:39:35

People like your neighbours might well exist but why use few as a stick to beat many?

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:41:03

"but why use few as a stick to beat many"

That's kinda my point property.

This will hurt many while not affecting the few who it should.

Darkesteyes Mon 25-Mar-13 20:41:45

OP the Joseph Rowntree foundation tried to find all these generations of workless families the Gov and Daily Mail keeps wanging on about and found that they didnt exist.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:42:04

I got pregnant with octuplets just for the free house! Definitely! I got 3 goats thrown in for having over 5. I told them I wasn't moving in until the council set up a 60-in flatscreen TV with full Sky and the mugs did it!

Darkesteyes Mon 25-Mar-13 20:43:04

grin at expat.

ThePinkOcelot Mon 25-Mar-13 20:44:07

Thanks Retro. Very worrying.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Mon 25-Mar-13 20:46:26

Because as long as you buy into the belief that poor, vulnerable people and their children should be punished then you are supporting a blanket attack on the welfare state. If you don't want to see the 'wrong poor' targeted then you need to accept that the welfare system should not be dismantled at all.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:47:04

I do love the way some of you have all jumped to conclusions about my circumstances. Because I have posted about the feckless I must be a benefits basher.

I am a recent lone parent. After years of paying in, the welfare state has caught me when I needed it most and I am so very grateful for it.

I was reading the UC page on MN tonight to clarify how it would affect me.

And it occurred to me that the people who will be hurt by the UC changes are not the 'shirkers' as DC loves to call them but the people who actually need the welfare state to stop them falling below the poverty line.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:48:58

'And it occurred to me that the people who will be hurt by the UC changes are not the 'shirkers' as DC loves to call them but the people who actually need the welfare state to stop them falling below the poverty line.'

EVERYONE who is part of the 'welfare system', including those in work, will be affected by the changes. Is it that hard to see?

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:53:06

No Expat. I don't see how it will force the people who don't want to work into employment.

If they have young children, then they can't stop their benefits? The government surely cannot leave a family on the streets with no money.

So it has to house them and give them money for food.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 20:54:00

Do any of you know how hard it is to live on benefits?
I worked for nearly 20 years in an organisation with a live in job including the last 11 years in the village I live in now.
One marriage break up meant homelessness, joblessness and single parenthood.
I've picked up bits of work here and there, but there's not a lot if you live in a rural community.

expatinscotland Mon 25-Mar-13 20:55:14

'I don't see how it will force the people who don't want to work into employment.'

Because that is not the point of UC! The point of UC is to dismantle the welfare system under the pretext of simplification, that's why it affects everyone who uses it including those in work.

In order for lower long-term unemployment, you would need a government that invested heavily in job creation. That's not what this government is about. That is why UC will affect everyone who is in the system.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:55:25

Which is right. Children shouldn't be living on the streets, hungry etc because of their parents choices.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 20:58:06

LadyBeagle I currently claim

CTC
CB
SMI mortgage assisstance and
IS

So I know a bit about claiming benefits. Although I wish I didn't.

And yes, Expat, I do understand it will affect those that are in work as well but are earning next to nothing as NMW is so low.

Darkesteyes Mon 25-Mar-13 21:00:53

reto people in part time jobs will be treated like they are unemployed and made to do mandatory workfare.

While we are on the subject workfare is making things worse.
e.g. one pizza company took 100 workfarers thats 100 people working for their JSA in ONE company.
And people who say in one breath that they want people off benefits and then in the next breath approve of workfare just prove the point that they want poor people punished. Because workfare doesnt get people off benefits. It depresses the labour market.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 21:00:54

"marriage break up meant homelessness, joblessness and single parenthood."

My marriage break up meant the same for me as well. Although thanks to SMI I haven't had to face the homeless issue yet.

Soon to change under UC though

CloudsAndTrees Mon 25-Mar-13 21:14:37

UC is intended to stop people being better off on benefits than they are in work. If people choose to be one benefits and be worse off, then they can do so, that's up to them. But once UC is fully implemented, then hopefully work really will pay, even after work related expenses are taken into account. I think that's a good thing.

SneezingwakestheJesus Mon 25-Mar-13 21:17:29

And what about the people who don't choose it? They'll be punished along with the few who view it as a lifestyle choice. Normal honest families who have been a victim of bad circumstances will have their lives ruined.

LadyBeagleEyes Mon 25-Mar-13 21:19:40

What fucking work, CloudsandTrees?

CloudsAndTrees Mon 25-Mar-13 21:20:35

Its not that they will be punished, although I realise they will find things difficult.

How else do you make work pay if things aren't difficult if you don't have work?

SneezingwakestheJesus Mon 25-Mar-13 21:24:09

I would count potential homelessness, being unable to eat etc as punishment for being out of work. You do realise that the majority of people on benefits would love to be working and to earn their own money but the jobs just aren't there?

FasterStronger Mon 25-Mar-13 21:31:45

Well except in the last boom work didn't pay as UK nationals didnt do jobs EU workers were willing to and remained claiming.

There was always going to be a consequence of that.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 21:33:23

Is it safe to leave on overnight as that is just genius? I despise making breakfast.

retrorita Mon 25-Mar-13 21:33:56

Wrong thread blush

mumofweeboys Mon 25-Mar-13 21:40:01

What is worrying is the fact it will be paid monthly and the housing benefit part wont be paid directly to the landlord. Anyone else see private rentals refusing to take benefits if there is no guarentee of getting their money anymore and pay day lenders cashing in.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now