How wicked of you, David Cameron.(378 Posts)
So we're going back to Victorian notions of the 'undeserving poor'. Time to re-open the workhouses.
How this man and his cronies are getting away with so much damage done to the ordinary man and woman, I do not know.
Help us all.
and btw austerity has been the Coalition excuse for a new and particularly nasty type of social engineering based on conservative moralising about the good and useful citizen. That's why it's relevant here.
I notice no carers are on their list of the deserving. It's the usual cliched 'strivers' and those 'willing' (forced?) to attend some course on 'how to be a good tenant' (yeah, that will really sort out problems like addiction and antisocial behaviour in weeks, won't it?) Btw that last is very much the sort of stupid waste of public money NuLab were so frequently and rightly derided for. But I guess personal responsibility courses (and defence, hence the obligatory conservative-pleasing nod to army veterans) is one of the few things right wingers like to see their taxes spent on. Other than paying private companies to carve up the state. (Seen the Atos bill to the State recently niceguy? Now there's an example of paying yourself more than you earn, if ever I saw one...)
Exactly glitterknickaz. Entirely sensible analysis dismissed as 'hysterical', 'apocalyptic', 'overemotional' (that's one 'nice'guy tried on me on another thread), etc. Patronising comments about the 'magic money tree' (a traditional right wing sneer at the 'spendthrift' left, that one).
I'll tell you where the magic money should be coming from, niceguy: corporate taxation. You on the right are so keen to bash the poor, yet the idiot gamblers in the financial sector who got us into the mess we are all currently bailing them out of through our PAYE tax, attract no opprobrium at all from the likes of yourself.
And don't come to me with the BS about 'if we tax them they will leave'. Let the ones who will pay tax stay. The ones who already don't pay for the infrastructure they use, and prefer to exploit their (taxpaying) underpaid workers instead, we won't miss too much. I frankly doubt that we would see Starbucks, Amazon and Google withdraw their generous services from the UK if we made them pay even half the tax they owe, rather than an insulting 0.1%.
Let's just try making corporations actually pay tax for a few months eh, and see how many leave. If the Gods of global industry really decide to abandon us for China and India (and let's face it, they're outsourcing already anyway, since we're not yet prepared to offer them an open free-for-all slave-labour source), then we can all start panicking about the lack of 'trickledown' (another load of BS, for another post).
They're convincing no one but themselves. Anyone with half a brain realises that the magic money vacuum which is sending all our funds into offshore voids is the true problem here. If 'global competition' is a race to the bottom, the UK needs to start protecting itself from it, not selling out its population to corporate slavery.
No, stuff that's actually happening...
There's no sneering or superiority coming from me domestic. All I'm consistently doing is pointing out that we need to change our attitudes towards government spending. That there is no magic money tree and that we must live within our means. Tax evasion/avoidance is already being massively clamped down upon but there are limits to what our government can do in the face of global competition. This doesn't change whether it is Labour/Conservative or monster raving looney party. I think sometimes people fail to realise that just because you are prime minister or chancellor, it doesn't make you omnipotent.
On this topic it's not even about austerity. It's about changing the way we prioritise social housing. Yet the usual suspects dive in and drag the subject off at a tangent with the usual apocalyptic predictions.
Domestic that post makes me think your a bit wonderful
you noticed too, perception?
I am adopting the habit of hiding threads too when the likes of niceguy, londonone and sunflowers turn up with their sneering superiority and moralising (always about the poor... never about the tax avoiders and offshore hoarders who have really put us in the shit and meant we will indeed be 'living beyond our means' for the next century... while the minority get richer and richer.)
Well I suppose there might be the odd servant job going in their luxury basements, so we need to bow and scrape and be grateful. And of course make damn sure we stay childless, unless we are rich.
It's the sheer stupidity of the last bit which always makes me boggle. As if the act of wishing the children of the 'feckless' out of existence will somehow prevent the development of a very, very pissed off 'underclass'- maltreated more than ever by a country that couldn't stop them being born (free contraceptive provision will be gone in a decade or two... if you can't afford to have sex, don't have it, will be the message from the right wing idiots) but couldn't be bothered to spend money on them unless it was to get them incarcerated by the likes of G4S for profit.
domesticgodless is right
(must hide this thread)
I can't believe that some people actually think that unless you work or volunteer then you aren't making any kind of contribution to society.
I volunteered until I was made homeless. Unfortunately - it wasn't enough hours to class me as a valuable citizen. I could have done more but the stuff I did allowed me to have my son with me. There was no way I could afford to pay for childcare and do more hours.
I'm keen to see what they class as volunteering and how many hours etc.
And where do student parents fit into this scheme? I'm due to start University next year. To train to do a thankless important social role. But it seems I won't be a worthy member of my community until I'm done training.
But I really resent the notion that I am a worthless member of society going by this stupid list.
God it's so sad to see how people really feel sometimes.
And Frothy - same here. According to most Landlords I'm just benefit scum.
I volunteered until I became too great a H&S risk to do so. I'm practically housebound, how the hell can I make a 'contribution'?
If I could manage that, I'd be bloody working!
niceguy I have served my country by volunteering and my family have served it by being shot at.
I am still deeply uncomfortable with these proposals.
(also I hope that challenges the assumption I'm rolling in it)
It was recommended that I downsize due to the fact it's not exactly affordable making up the difference on the benefits I'm on.
As it happens there has been a legal challenge to the policy in cases like mine where children need a room of their own due to disability, the appeal court actually found that the policy is discriminatory to families like mine, so I could have used that ruling to challenge the local authority. However unfortunately the government have appealed that ruling and it's going to the supreme court.
Whilst everything is up in the air I'm not giving up a medically necessary home.
Should the government win then I will apply for discretionary payment. There's a lot to be done before this is over. If all fails then yes I'll have to find the money as the house is necessary, not a luxury.
Leith. In general I do support austerity measures. Not because I want to but I think if we don't live within our means (something we've not done for 40 years) then we leave our kids with a terrible legacy. To be honest I think we've already fucked their futures up and they will be the first generation since the war who will have a lower standard of living than the last.
But there are certain policies which make no sense such as the child benefit changes. Personally I'd support a limit to CB for any family earning over the HRT bracket for example but not a stupid system where one family lose it but another family whose income is much higher don't. Not one which is so complicated to implement and maintain.
I don't think this reordering of priorities is about allocating resources based on 'need'. It seems to me that this proposal is about rewarding those who have put into society rather than who have not. I'm sure this will feel very unfair to those who haven't served their country, volunteered etc but by the same token I think those ex-soldiers who have been shot at and risked having their legs blown off may feel differently.
I was homeless due to not being able to find a landlord that would take HB.
Also, plenty of peoples' mortgage and insurance companies have provisos written in that forbid them from taking tenants on HB/LHA.
We have to rent out our house in the uk due to circumstances and there's no way we could allow renovations to accommodate disabilities. In the nicest possible way it would limit our future market so if we were considering it we would charge a premium tbh
Glitter - were they asking you to downsize?
Can you apply for discretionary payments if you get charged for the extra room?
I have red several times on many different threads nice guy say that he does not support these austerity measures per se. So my q is this:
This re ordering of priorities is about allocating too few resources to a much higher level of need. What then is the purpose of the readjustment to the allocation policy?
I had a timely phonecall tonight.
My housing association.
Asking me whether I thought it was wise to give up my home (which we only got in April) due to the new hb regulations.
Considering we were given this size home on medical grounds I declined.
Security is not just a roof over your head - it's continuity of school, friends, familiarity with local streets and where's safe/dangerous.
Also we moved (voluntarily) from London to a much cheaper area which is an hour or so away. It cost £1000 to move our stuff. Who's going to pay for that?
'I'm sure many landlords would be happy to accomodate in exchange for a long term tenant and a promise to make good any repairs if the family later move out.'
No, they aren't, not at rents the council can pay via HB with the new caps in place.
A secure home is different to a home in a particular area.
And dumping families, who have already had to go through considerable disruption, back into the private rented sector is awful. Landlords can ask them to leave with only two months notice for no reason. So, after they have had to change schools, move areas etc this could happen all over again - and frequently does. What kind of stability does that provide a child?. Families need secure tenancies IMO.
75,000 children will be homeless this Christmas -but hey, lets just find a secure home for the ones whose parents are deemed deserving enough
More than 75,000 children in Britain will wake up on Christmas Day without a home, Shelter has warned today.
Thats the equivalent to two children in every primary school in Britain, or enough children to fill 333 primary schools.
Shelter is highlighting the figures to raise awareness of the increasing numbers of homeless families in Britain this Christmas.
Shelter is particularly concerned about families forced to live in B&Bs, which have grown by 57% in the last 12 months.
This can mean parents and children living together in one room, with limited cooking or laundry facilities in conditions that are often appalling. This year, more than 3,000 children will spend Christmas Day living in this way.
Michelle, who recently approached Shelter for help, was left with two young children and a mortgage when her relationship with her partner ended. She said:
After three years, I was made redundant from my part-time job. I struggled to find another job that allowed me to look after the kids.
Debts started building up. Depression hit me like a ton of bricks. My home was repossessed and the council refused to help. After intervention from Shelter, I was offered an emergency bedsit. We spent Christmas in a B&B.
Michelle was finally re-housed by her local council last year.
In December 2011, Shelter helped more than 1,000 people facing homelessness during the festive period. This Christmas, the number of people with nowhere else to turn is expected to be even higher.
Shelter is calling on the public to support our work at this difficult time of year, helping worried families when the worst happens.
Campbell Robb, Shelters Chief Executive, said:
Its easy to think of homelessness as single people sleeping rough. The rising numbers of families who lose their home through no fault of their own often arent considered. For people with children, sofa surfing with friends just isnt a realistic option.
The main triggers for homelessness include relationship breakdowns, job losses and landlords ending their rental tenancies.
Mr Robb continued:
No child should be homeless at Christmas. Every December, Shelters helpline and advice centres deal with thousands of people at risk of losing their home. We need everyones support in the coming months to prevent families becoming homeless; and to help them find a new home if they do.
Could you help Shelter this Christmas? Make a donation online or text HOMES to 87085 to give £3 to Shelters Emergency Christmas appeal.
Again I will say, that no one here who is posting about how this affects people with disabilities has said others afected shouldn't be discussed!
So now lets apply the same logic to a disabled person and/or carer. What's their immediate need? Well this time there's a good argument to say that they have special needs which may mean their home must be adapted. Does that HAVE to be a council house? I would argue not always. Certainly it would be easier for the council to adapt a house they own. But it's by no means the only way I'm sure many landlords would be happy to accomodate in exchange for a long term tenant and a promise to make good any repairs if the family later move out
You're sure are you? well that just proves you know very little about how it actually works!
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.