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.
wow god help you if you are poor and disabled, no doubt you would end up in the back of beyond.
Dear fucking god. So homelessness is no longer considered a priority?!
I've been saying for quite some time that we can expect to see workhouses in this country in the not too distant future. Said it on here. Said it in rl. People have laughed at me.
Well, they won't be laughing when the first 'complexes' for the needy are built...
If we don't have them within 10 years - I will streak across the racetrack at Royal Ascot on ladies day with I LOVE MUMSNET written across my arse.
It's a perfectly reasonable policy.
Typical left-wing bollocks from the Guardian (so no doubt it will go down well on MN).
I disagree with most of what this government is doing.
However, nothing causes more controversy and conflicting opinions than the whole issue of families who make a lifestyle choice of not working but getting social housing and claiming benefits. Some say they are entitled, others say they are undeserving and should try to make their own living.
It seems to me however, that people who work, whether voluntary/unpaid work or not, will take priority over those who does not want to work.
But can the government create some jobs first rather than going bottom first down a one way chute?
I think you will find that many people will agree with this. Perhaps as many as those who disagree.
Prepare for a bunfight.
<Puts bottom on fence and puts hard hat on>
It's quite scary really.
You think it's 'wicked' that people who work or who make the effort to contribute to society deserve more back from society than those who do nothing? Those who may be criminals, or who make attempt to work or get training?
Honestly, measures like this is are just common sense! You make effort, you get rewarded, you do nothing but take from society, you go to the bottom of the list. Obviously people who can't do anything shouldn't be included, but the article makes no mention of disabled people. And many disabled people who can't work are able to do voluntary work anyway.
What I don't understand is why this sort of common sense has taken so long to come about.
I think it's wicked that homeless people exist at all.
But Dave and his supporters obviously don't.
This policy is sadly totally unsurprising to me. Completely and utterly disgusting of course, but no shock at all.
It's why it's so fucking important the ConDems are ousted from power as soon as possible. Call Me Dave has no business whatsoever leading a country. Neither do his upper class chums, with no experience or knowledge (or any intent to get either) of what it's like to be normal. Not even poor, just normal.
The only good thing about the disgraceful policies of this government is that it's helping me wheedle out those people who are not fit to be my friends. If you support this kind of policy, you are not good enough to be in my life.
Fancy a running mate, Hecate?
Nothing wrong with there being rewards for contributing through work or volunteering.
This is absolutely not something that should be regarded as a reward, hermione.
What about women escaping domestic violence, where are they on this "list"? It's hard enough ALREADY for single parents to work, and if you're looking after children who've just had a massive upheaval of their lives, then working shouldn't NEED to be a priority for a while.
And that's not to mention people with disabilities or parents of children with disabilities or special needs who might also find it difficult and/or counterproductive to work
Sadly, my arse is big enough to handle the slogan by itself, but you could have the logo on yours
I can see it.
demonisation of the poor and vulnerable.
Creating and feeding an attitude of the undeserving poor to minimise public sympathy and take us back to the old days where being poor was seen as a disgusting thing for you to be, of your own making and making you a second class citizen
changes to social housing policy
moving people away to different parts of the country
deciding that being homeless doesn't mean you need a home more than someone who volunteers with meals on wheels
next will come a sudden attack of social conscience and a need to house our poor and vulnerable cos we're just that lovely, and the building will start...
My area has been giving priority to "positively contributing applicants" for a while.
Because obviously, if you don't work or volunteer you are not contributing anything good to the community are you?
This is not about families making a lifestyle choice.
What about carers? Or disabled people?
It's surprising that they get to sneak so much of this crap through. Yesterday it became legal for a council to offer a homeless person a private rented place and if they refused the council will discharge their duty to house you. Regardless of your status or needs.
If the council say it is suitable and you turn it down they will not help. But they are saying it doesn't matter where it is. They could offer you a private house 30 miles away. It's madness.
From the article.
The paper prepared by Gale says these these priority groups might include:
Low-income households who are in employment.
People who are in training or who volunteer in the local community.
Potential tenants who are "prepared to undertake a training course on how to be a good tenant".
People with no history of rental arrears and who can demonstrate "good behaviour".
Ex-armed forces personnel.
If all someone has to do to get into the priority group is to demonstrate good behaviour, I really can't see the problem here.
So do they assume poor people don't know how to be good tenants then?
well I don't tick any of those boxes, nor does my dh(health troubles) nor does my dd (disabled)
so we would be fucked.
I so should stick her in residential care so that I can be a volunteer.
Yes. Another message given out that poor=problem.
It's all very well planned, imo.
If you don't pay your rent on time and you can't say that you demonstrate good behaviour, then what on earth makes you think you have a right to live in someone else's property?
Where does it say that they are assuming poor people don't know how to be good tenants?
If they are good tenants, then they will fit into the last suggested category.
"Potential tenants who are "prepared to undertake a training course on how to be a good tenant"."
So it is assumed that potential tenants will be problem tenants?
I think if they are suggesting that you need to take a training course, they're suggesting this is a skill you don't already possess.
why does everyone assume ex forces = good tenant?
But it might not be a skill you already possess Hectate. If it isn't, then you will be rewarded for making the effort to learn. If you do know how to be a good tenant, then you will fall into the last catergory.
You can volunteer in the local charity shop but still not pay your rent on time.
Very well planned Hecate. Just like they always fail to mention that most people claiming housing benefit are working. Or that those claiming the huge amounts of money they always troll out in Housing benefit each year actually amount to less then 1%.
But that doesn't fit with the benefit bashing angle does it?
What annoys me beyond belief whenever the homeless issues are discussed is the people saying "why should they be housed in an expensive area that I can't afford to live in?"
Honestly, go and check out the homelessness application process in your Local Authority. Then come back and explain to me how a person can just "go somewhere cheaper and be homeless there" when you have to have a local connection to apply for homelessness in the first place?
How can they tell though?
Just because you work it doesn't automatically follow that you won't blast your music out at all hours does it.
Yes, and you can be a millionaire who is a nasty bastard. But if you are in a position where you need other people to give you stuff to fund your life, then you have to do what is required of you.
If you are working but blast your music out at all hours, then there are other things in place to deal with that.
Chopping through respite care services for disabled children in these ere parts......a half decent respite care package has kept my dniece out of care which would cost around 500k per year, people have already been round our centre to establish whether it's good value for money and a well used facility ( It's the only one in our area and only the most severe cases get in ) sometimes it closes for weeks at a time because it has to take in emergency cases, disabled children who are too violent to be around other kids.
What will happen if we lose it ?? Doesn't bare thinking about.
Well maybe you wouldn't have been quite so deserving of your council house in the first place.
I don't think ex forces is supposed to = good tenant. Ex forces is supposed to = deserving. Which of course they are, but that doesn't mean others are less so.
why are they more deserving? they chose to be in the foces.
people don't chose to be disabled.
Most people don't choose to be homeless or poor either.
But don't let that get in the way of the feckless undeserving poor bollocks spouted by Dave and his supporters.
It doesn't say anything about disabled people in the article. Why are you assuming that someone who is disabled will be seen as less deserving than someone who is in the services?
You are making it up, not going from the article in the OP.
People who choose to work make a positive contribution to a community, as do those who have children and fill up schools, consume etc. Their needs should be balanced with the needs of those who are not able to contribute as much (old, sick, disabled etc). I think any policy on housing should seek to mix up housing stock so that there is no ghettoisation - no "projects" but simply houses, for everyone to buy / rent / apply for. Sadly, there are areas that are desirable and popular and those that are much less so. Any policy that seeks to end divisions caused by having huge areas of poverty will start to bring about genuine social mobility.
I live somewhere remote and our housing is very mixed. The school, therefore, has no obvious class or social divisions and the community is very cohesive. There are the disabled and the poor (although almost everyone works) but no one is stigmatised because we are all equal. Unfortunately, in bigger places, this is not the case.
However, I do feel some note should be taken of someone's contribution / potential to contribute to society and their willingness to do so. A family who wants to stay in a particular area might just break the cycle of dependence on the state if they are told that otherwise they will have to move. This is not the answer but there IS only so much money to go round and we do all have to play our part in society.
Also, many housing associations have already had tightened up criteria for housing, much like those being proposed for a while now.
I just think it's a slippery slope towards even more hatred between those 'more deserving' and those who apparently are not.
Freddo - I think the fact that disabled people who don't work aren't going to tick any of the boxes is what makes people say that. It may not be in the article but the absence of an exclusion list says it all really.
I think it's an ill designed policy. And yet again it assumes that ALL homeless people are pulling a fast one to get a home.
But the question is, why keep implementing all these policies to lower the numbers on the list when the obvious answer is to invest in more housing stock - only the Tories have taken out the rule that new build developments MUST contain a % of social homes. Because it clearly isn't a priority. And add these policies to that fact and you get the truth of how this government view those in Social Housing. It's not pretty.
And as a quick aside with regards to the social housing/bad tenant stuff - if you live in a council house and are an inconsiderate neighbour you lose your tenancy. What happens if your bad neighbour owns their house? I've been following a blog recently where a women in a social house is living through hell but has no choice because her neighbours are home owners. They are getting away with so much. It's very unbalanced in housing. With a clear divide between homeowners and social housing tenants.
Yes. It is a slippery slope down a path were people have to actually learn to be responsible for themselves, be valuable members of society/community and away from the entitlement culture that is crippling Britain socially and economically.
"Pregnant women and families with children, or vulnerable individuals such as care leavers or people with severe health problems who are accepted as homeless currently go to the top of the local queue for social housing. But local authorities now have powers to redraw allocation priorities in order to give priority to "groups who make a special contribution".
So, where are those with severe health problems etc likely to go?
The only answer is workhouses.
Please come and discuss 'entitlement' culture with my dh. He was a philosophy lecturer before he had a minor infection and was given the wrong drugs. He can't walk now. Perhaps those of you who think that those of us who have an entitled attitude (and trust me, I do) would care to explain why you think we should be marginalised.
Well I won't be voting Con for a number of reasons but I don't agree with Labour or Lib Dems - they've all lied and run the country into the ground and each party finds someone to discriminate against in some form or another. So who do you vote for instead??????
"So, where are those with severe health problems etc likely to go?
The only answer is workhouses."
I dont think this is suggested at all.
Classic hysteria about workhouses.
To suggest that we will have workhouses is frankly offensive to all those people who suffered in the Victorian workhouses.
What do you think will happen to the disabled then.
It isn't hysteria.
This is social cleansing.
Why does every debate about anything vaguely connected with the welfare state always get taken back to disability on MN.
It would be really refreshing to be able to discuss social housing and benefits available for people who are not disabled without every thread being brought back to the same thing. It is pointless when the vast majority of people believe the welfare state should support disabled people and carers before anyone else anyway.
Sorry if someone else has already made this comment (commenting before reading whole thread).
When high rises were built just on the outskirts of most of our cities some decades ago, didn't the fullfill the role of a modern day workhouse? Lump all the poor unfortunates together? What is so different about this? Ok they're talking about moving them further away, but for people in the 60's etc the distance they were moved was substantial to them. They got past it they had to. People have been moving for jobs since the dawn of time and not necessarily because they want to my family is a victim of that one, why should anyone else benifit claimant or otherwise be less of a victim of economics than me? If the government can no longer afford to keep them where they live so be it, we're all making sacrifices.
What do you think will happen to the disabled then
With regards to a policy about allocating social housing, I would expect disabled people to have exactly the same high priority that they already have. The issue here is everyone else.
Presumably disabled people will be able to pay their rent on time and not indulge in anti-social behaviour?
Yes? So nothing will change then.
Talking about workhouses is hysterical nonsense.
And yes to clearly anyone who has a really need of social housing (vulnerable, disabled) needs to stay where they are near family and established support.
Read a bit about Victorian workhouses before you go screaming left right and centre.
It is hysteria.
but that's just it, where does it say that the disabled will have the same high priority please? Are there any sources reassuring us of this?
It doesn't say that disabled people will have the same high priority, but it doesn't say they won't either. So there is absolutely no need to bring disabled people into it when we are just at the state of reading one Guardian article on the subject. Making assumptions is pointless and turns the thread into a ridiculous discussion, which is a shame.
let's see if we can find any more information then, shall we, in any of the other broadsheets?
The bit that really irritates me is the bit about people no longer thinking that becoming homeless is an option. I mean FFS. So now anyone who finds themselves homeless is tarred with the "benefit cheat" brush too.
Let me get this straight, enough people are just pretending to be disabled/homeless that this makes sense? Bollocks are they.
As for getting housing being in any way easy if you are homeless, like fuck it is. Try it for yourself if you think it's so fucking easy. I bet you'll get offered all the nicest properties.
Outraged Given the track record wrt disabled people, I think it is perfectly understandable to bring them into it.
Go for your life Wigan. I was happy trying to just discuss what was in the article posted by the OP, as I assume that was the intention of the thread.
But then posters who can't answer simple questions and respond to valid points choose to leave the thread or start screeching about workhouses that don't exist, rather than coming up with reasonable points. It's pathetic.
An unemployed lone parent with young children may not have the time to do voluntary work, but she still needs a roof. She may have worked in the past and will work again, but now deserves to be homeless?
What about women fleeing domestic violence?
Wicked, divisive policy.
An unemployed lone parent or a women escaping domestic violence would fit into the category of paying rent on time and displaying good behaviour. So where's the problem for them?
nothing in the Telegraph or the Independent. Searching gov.uk for the source of article....
If those of us able have moved to secure a job (hundreds of miles) and avoid being homeless, why should someone not working (other than those in genuine need who we're trying to exempt from this discussion in the hope the goverment haven't totally lost touch with reality) have different choices? Genuine question.
but we can't discuss the article at all if you reason like this outraged, because as you rightly state, it's incomplete. Are we discussing the article itself or the issue of who deserves housing? God knows I'd hate to make an inference about who the Government might consider "deserving"...
I have seen a 2 of my customers go homeless in the last week due to
unreasonable benefit sanctioning.
My heart breaks that the govt are planning on making it worse.
I try and console myself that I am in the minority and most people want this. But then logic kicks in, and I know most people really do not understand the shit these people are in and faced with the reality of what these policies do, they would backtrack very quickly.
The tories have never considered single mothers deserving...
People who have their housing benefit cut will have rent arrears... see where this is going?
I don't think most people would backtrack, mcmooncup. I think a rather significant percentage of the country is happier demonising single mothers, the disabled and the long term unemployed. It makes it easier to deal with ignoring the fact that successive governments have put no money into affordable housing and there is a large proportion of the country whose wage really won't cover buying their own house. And when we're busy slagging each other off we aren't busy lobbying our MPs to build more state owned housing.
Are we discussing the article itself or the issue of who deserves housing?
I thought we were discussing who deserves housing. As I think that we can pretty much all agree that disabled people who are in need of housing deserve it more than anyone else. There isn't much discussion to be had there. We all agree, apart from the odd complete tosser.
So why not talk about everyone else that wants/needs social housing?
If those of us able have moved to secure a job (hundreds of miles) and avoid being homeless, why should someone not working (other than those in genuine need who we're trying to exempt from this discussion in the hope the goverment haven't totally lost touch with reality) have different choices?
Because if you're moving because of a job, you're moving to something. A new start, employment (which will bring you in touch with some sort of community), it's hopefully a positive step in some way.
If you're someone vulnerable, say second or third generation unemployed, maybe with low level mental health issues, or low self esteem because you've never worked, and you're moved miles from where you grew up, what do you have? No support network, no friends, a feeling perhaps of having been banished or socially cleansed because you're worth nothing, no prospects.
I feel socially cleansed from my home town due to not being able to attain experiance to get a decent job. I miss my family I miss my old life but that's how it goes, am I not deserving of the same support for my family? What about all the unsupported working mums who've had to move for work? Who gives a crap about them when it all goes tits up miles from home.
I think what people have to bear in mind is that this govenment is a fan of the biopsychosocial medical model.
So it's not enough to say 'let's assume disabled people will have priority in housing lists.' We have people in power who are pushing the line that if you work; if you try harder, you won't be ill. Therefore potentially you'll have someone with a serious health condition being told that they as they aren't in work or volunteering, they can't be seen as a priority. I'm not saying that will happen, I just don't think people realise just how sinister this way of thinking is and how it's going to affect the lives of disabled people. There was an article recently about people potentially losing their benefits if they didn't pursue the appropriate medical treatment (I'm sorry, can't remember which paper it was) - which if I recall correctly was aimed at drug addicts/alchoholics and rehab but which could also affect others.
If you haven't heard about the biopsychosocial model, google it. It's awful.
I dont see anything wrong with that article at all.
Incidentally I wouldn't have been able to afford private rented or mortgage and would never have got on a social housing list.
Hmm. Now why does it keep going back to disability. Ahh... let me see.
Probably because the welfare reform bill as it stands is impacting the MOST upon people with disabilities and their carers. Not Vicky Pollard.
The govt really don't care about that. So there is absolutely no reassurance at all that they won't be equally as unfairly impacted by this policy.
Nobody actually gives a shit. That's why we shout. But all the time we're considered 'other' and somehow 'different' and 'undesirable' the govt will be allowed to do what the fuck it pleases to us. Nobody will so much as whisper about it. No, they'll bitch about losing child benefit instead.
Jelly that's really and it sounds very difficult. I'm speaking generally in my post. Hopefully most people moving elsewhere for a job do experience some of the positives I mentioned. But it is of course an issue if you don't, and you of course deserve the same support.
I still don't think it's ok to make people move miles from their support network when they have nothing, and no prospects.
I was playing devil's advocate GhostShip. I see nothing especially wrong with it, other than it has not stated who is NOT deserving, presumably because the papers the Graun obtained don't state it.*Phacelia*'s comments seem to shed light on this to my mind. If the govt does not explicitly state who 'deserves' a home, we are left guessing, and thinking that if only people tried harder, they too would be 'deserving'.
You know outraged, I'm sure the Daily Mail has message boards where you could chat with like-minded people if you find the general consensus on MN 'refreshing' enough
We're all alot closer to being homeless than you think - it only takes a few bad breaks for it to happen - redundancy, bereavement or marriage breakdown.
I have been in private rental since my divorce in 2007 - I am a professional in relatively well paid job but also run the risk of becoming homeless should my ll decide to sell up or want me to leave.
I moved in the summer and found it hard to find the deposit for next rental which is required before you get the deposit back from the previous ll.
There is a housing crisis in this country and policies like this do nothing to help it.
Can't stand DC and his chums. Actually when I saw the title of this thread thought it was going to be about the comments he made on This Morning - which were also wicked, misguided and revealed rather alot about his views!
Why should drug addicts and alcoholics get benefits indefinitely without obtaining medical help? Again a genuine question. If I had a chronic condition which made me unable to work my work would expect me find a way to resolve it. What's the difference?
also cleansed from previous area due to escalating rents but now faced with increased travel costs for myself and also for my 11 year old dc who has to get train to school - his costs £15 per week for travel!
I also think the govt play heavily on the idea that it's always the undeserving others who will fall foul of their housing policies when in fact it can also be the 'strivers' (hate that term also)
As usual, the greedy self-serving Tories are going after the easy targets, the people with no power, who are not their cronies or party funders.
I read recently: "At £30 billion per year, fraud in the UK is more than twice as high as thought, with tax evasion costing the public purse over £15 billion per year and benefit fraud just over £1 billion."
We need to stop the mega-rich taking the piss and causing the ever-widening of the gap between rich and poor.
It is pointless when the vast majority of people believe the welfare state should support disabled people and carers before anyone else anyway
That is all very well, the reason it always comes back to people with disabilities and their carers is because the gov doesnt share that view.
The disabled and their carers will be hit hardest
When will people get this?
...say second or third generation unemployed, maybe with low level mental health issues, or low self esteem because you've never worked...
Fucking hell. So everyone's a victim even if they're in the situation they're in by choice.
And someone above asking about ex-forces being one of the groups given priority?
Of course they're a bloody priority. You can be herded around the world with kids in tow, posted to wherever someone sees fit, housed in utterly shit quarters and then moved just as you settle in. You can't buy a home due to the uncertainty and transience. Then, when your time comes to an end, you're out on your ear and without any home at all.
If that doesn't make you a priority for housing then nothing should.
He and his party are a shower of cunts. What do u expect. Take it out on the idiots who voted them in.
Yes euphemia - whilst the lower classes are all fighting amongst themselves it distracts from the super rich who are indeed taking the piss!
It doesn't matter whether people get it Amber. It's a different issue. I would probably agree with you on most disability related issues but that doesn't mean I will automatically agree on welfare or housing related issues.
If we can't even separate the various debates, it becomes one big issue which is too big to sensibly discuss.
Why should drug addicts and alcoholics get benefits indefinitely without obtaining medical help? Again a genuine question. If I had a chronic condition which made me unable to work my work would expect me find a way to resolve it. What's the difference?
I think addicts should take medical help wherever possible. Rehab only works in something ridiculous like, is it 1/10 cases, or 3/10 cases though. What happens if you go through rehab, come out of it still an addict and have your benefits cut because you supposedly didn't try hard enough? I know a few people who have been through rehab, and fuck me they have the most horrendous, awful stories of child abuse, domestic violence and other things. They aren't criminals.
But actually why I mentioned in my other post about people only receiving benefits if they seek medical treatment is because this actually puts some very vulnerable people at risk.
I, for example, have M.E among other things. Now, there are 4000 published studies that show underlying biological abnormalities in people with M.E. Just this week one of my friends was buried after years of being desperately ill with it (she was 31). Another lies seriously ill in hospital (not likely to survive). And yet, there are a large number of doctors in this country who view it as a psychiatric condition and that graded exercise therapy can cure it. So there is the potential there for the state/the DWP to say 'if you only pursued this treatment, you would recover, therefore unless you agree to do so, no benefits for you.' I have no idea if this is going to happen. The point is it could if you start telling ill people that they can only have benefits if they pursue certain treatments. How many other hard to diagnose conditions does this affect? For the record, graded exercise therapy has been known to make many people with M.E much worse. It is dangerous.
Oh and most chronic conditions cannot be resolved. Hence them being chronic. Doesn't matter if an employer expects you to get better. Not that easy sadly (I don't mean to sound facetious, just trying to say it's not that simple. However hard I try, however hard I work, I'm not going to get better)
Fucking hell. So everyone's a victim even if they're in the situation they're in by choice
Where on earth did I write that? Scratches head.
Yy, Phacelia, where "appropriate medical treatment" may be decided by JobCentre clerks.
There's already a separate box on the ESA (formerly incapacity benefit) form where you have to declare if you've ever had drug or alcohol problems. That's in addition to the ordinary detailed questions about your health condition and its impact on capacity.
If the govt wanted to properly treat drug or alcohol probs it could do so through properly funded NHS programmes. Like, er, any other health condition. Nothing to do with the JobCentre at all.
Or are they saying that people who've, eg, used alcohol to self-medicate after childhood abuse, somehow different from people who crash their fast cars or have skiing accidents?
...say second or third generation unemployed, maybe with low level mental health issues, or low self esteem because you've never worked
The second or third generation unemployed person with low level mental health issues and low self esteem would have to do nothing more than turn up to a 'how to be a good tenant' course, and then they would be considered a priority. It's not exactly a lot to ask is it?
If someone can't even be bothered to do that, then there is no reason why they should be a priority for limited housing.
I had to have surgery for constant sinus infections. Would rather not have had surgery but given that I was at one point hospitalised for complications and my employer was applying pressure over it I felt I didn't have a choice. I actually think in hindsight the problem was due to an allergy caused by living conditions, ie given time it would have resolved.
Agree with Glitterknicaz. There have been long and lengthy threads about higher earners losing their child benefit but the threads on what happens with DLA ESA etc usually dont run for as many pages as the child benefit ones.
Bottom line is people choose to have children. They dont choose to be disabled.
However one thing that does worry me about women losing child benefit is in cases where they have a financially abusive partner. Ive seen threads on these boards where in some cases the CB and the child tax credits are the only money the SAHP is getting while the DP keeps all or most of their wages to themselves.
People want to talk about benefit scroungers??!! Well in my view many middle or high earning financially abusive men would fit into this category as they know that they can keep their wages knowing that the system will pay their partners CB and CTC anyway. THESE are the women i worry about when this comes in.
Freddos, the operative word is might.
"The paper prepared by Gale says these these priority groups might include: Low-income households who are in employment..." yada yada.
This leaves the way clear for LAs to, say, give priority to those volunteering (so presumably not in receipt of JSA for example) and put the disabled homeless at the bottom of their priority list.
There's nothing saying that they would actually include those taking the 'good tenant' course, say, in their priority list.
You've made the mistake of skimming over the article and not thinking about the small print.
Ha, X-post with Phacelia. And M.E. is exactly one of the conditions i'm expecting to bit hit by this.
And oddly, the biggest proponent of "M.E. is psychiatric and can be cured by exercise" is also heavily involved in the private welfare insurance industry - which has advised successive governments on public welfare cuts.
I'm up for thinking about the small print if people want to post things that could be a consequence of a policy like this. Some posters have done just that, and I've found those interesting.
But I can't get worked up about things that might or might not happen. I'm just thinking about the idea of a policy like this as it has been set out in the article.
So behaving like an arse and not contributing when you can will have consequences, Sounds like good policy to me. I'm with Shellyboobs.
I am not comparing sinus problems to M.E but there are situations where an employer would nail you to a desk for not trying so why would people with a comparable treatable illness on benefits not count? The problem your talking about is one of lack of knowledge about health issues in this country, there are many things that would be treatable or find ways to help a person cope with if only health research was not so finance driven.
So my DC's with SN's have to leave the schools they are settled in because I'M disabled and unable to work.
I am the sort of people this will affect. Carers and the Disabled, and their DC's.
Where does it say that Couthy?
More hysterical bollocks
Just another day in the fuck you world of fuck you politics.
You know what I think next time don't vote conservative and don't waste a vote on Lib dem.
I'm voting green next time. I've read their manifesto and their one MO sounds decent.
It's sad really.
Do you really think they'll make a plan like that totally black and white with no grey areas?
I've done a variety of voluntary work since I've been too ill to work full-time.
By chance, some of it's been directly for the local council. And some of it's been directly opposed to government policy.
Do we think volunteering at Citizen's Advice helping people fight benefits decisions will count as contributing to the community?
What about helping with appeals against school decisions? Employment tribunals against the council? Working with refugees? Campaigning against local hospital closures? Or Tescos?
Or will "contributing to the community" only be things on Dave's list of freebie libraries and parks and school volunteers?
There's too much scope for this to be used for political ends.
Voting Labour is the only way to keep the nasties out.
I'm on the fence what with being disabled and a Forces dependant.
It is high time something is done to address the amount of ex-Service Personell who are homeless in my opinion. When you are in the Forces you are moved around, a lot, it is difficult to put down roots, your DC change school, your spouse has to keep changing jobs etc. it is not always possible to buy a house, unfortunately, and up until now, we haven't been priority on Social Housing Lists. Infact when DH and I asked our SSAFFA rep about it, we were told that we were expected to either buy a house or go into private rent.
There shouldn't be one size fits all policy for things like housing. Every case should be looked at individually and assessed on it's own merits, IMVHO.
Yeah, I'm hysterical. I'm arguing this one like I usually do, and not just sitting here feeling resigned to my life becoming even shittier because I haven't worked hard enough to cure my epilepsy, or my fibromyalgia, or my RA. Because I haven't worked hard enough to cure my DC 's multiple and varied disabilities.
I'm beginning to give up the fight. What's the point, I'm screwed anyway.
I've got rent arrears that I'm paying off at £3 a week forever, because my ex wasn't paying the rent for a bit (without telling me) when he lived here. So I'm obviously not deserving.
Those of you that are unwilling to open your eyes to the very real fact that the disabled and Carer's will lose out over this are fucking lucky. Lucky not to be in the position where you need to worry about this.
Don't you think that if the disabled and Carers were classed as deserving, it would say so somewhere? It doesn't.
Whatever, just remember to count your blessings that it's not something you NEED to worry about.
Or will "contributing to the community" only be things on Dave's list of freebie libraries and parks and school volunteers?
That's an interesting point Parsing. Polices that mean people are forced to become limited in the charity work that they do could have a horrible impact on the charity sector, which is already picking up far too much of the slack from government.
Voting Labour is the only way to keep the nasties out
That is why we only every have two parties jostling for position. We have more choices. I've decided I'm not doing the whole labour vs Tories with a nod to the lib dems and will vote depending on who I believe in the most.
I hate the way Tories live in lala land and don't see those who are negatively impacted as real people. Just see them as scroungers or undeserving in some way. It's like they can't quite believe these kind of people exist. It is several kinds of fucked up. As for labour, well yes they want to help the less well off but love the idea of making money too much. And the lib dems? What do they stand for?!
I'm disabled. Don't have enough conts to get ESA, do get med care, high mobility DLA. Who knows for how long?
I work 2-3 days a week voluntarily for a charity. It costs me (travel costs to get there as I'm too disabled for buses) but I'd not ever give it up.
I hate this. I unexpectedly developed a very rare (30-50 diagnoses a year in uk) neurological condition this year. Before was a sahm. Before a secondary teacher. Was able to go back to my volunteer post that might actually become paid in Feb.
But I hate dc taking this off the disabled. Hey Dave, I'm part of your so called "big society" but I sense you just expect it, cos I'm sdisabled!
I also feel saddened that i voted for these mUppets!
I'll voTe for whoever gives me my child benefit back. ( if your reading labour)
I also feel that anyone could end up homeless, they are often victims of society. I'm so sad that we can treat people so badly.
And while we're at it, Outraged, who made you Queen of MN? You seem to have decided that nobody is allowed to talk about how benefit changes will affect Carers and the disabled, even if that particular benefit change will.
And calling someone who points out that it's just another way they feel shafted for something utterly beyond their control 'hysterical' is out of order, too.
I have just as much right to come on this thread and state how I feel, and my opinions, as you do, WITHOUT being called 'hysterical'.
Really Violet77? So if the BNP said it would you vote for them? Voters like you are a dream for parties like the Tories because it's easy to sell themselves!
I'm far too wary of the Tories after growing up in a single mum household under Thatcher. I'm now just as wary of labour after the wasted 13 years they had.
Fuck no, don't really consider them a party!
I'm thinking main party.
You seem to have decided that nobody is allowed to talk about how benefit changes will affect Carers and the disabled
No, I've been saying that personally I would prefer a chat about the issues raised in the article in the OP, because I thought that was the point of putting a link to an article in an OP.
To me, it sounds hysterical to hear someone say that their children will have to leave their schools because of a paper suggested to councils about priority housing for homeless people when they aren't homeless and are therefore not affected.
Didn't vote conservative either.....
So basically people who have direct experience of how this government is affecting the lives of individuals who are unable to help themselves even mentioning it with regard to further government policy are hysterical?
So we should be shafted by the government on current and future policy and roll over and be quiet about it because people don't want to think about it? Don't want to know?
Sorry but when I'm being fucked over I'll shout about it. Long and loud.
The reason it's pertinent is this government has made it clear in all its policy that the vulnerable are not their priority. This policy won't be any different.
It's not just the vulnerable, no one is their priority. Unless you are wealthy enough to benifit from the system your stuffed. That's how it works, and it would appear you actually have to be fairly well off.
Sorry, but as an historian, I've read and written plenty on workhouses. It is neither an insult to anyone that had been in a workhouse to mention them, they're dead anyway. Nor is it hysterical.
The article does not at any point state clearly who it prioritises and/or how. It implies, ergo it is reasonable to imply possible solutions.
More hysterical ranting here about why disabled people are worried.
I've got rent arrears that I'm paying off at £3 a week forever, because my ex wasn't paying the rent for a bit (without telling me)
What Couthy has written here is a good example of financial abuse.
My record would look shit too with all the HB fuckups.
I'm not sure what things have come to where homes have become something that are rationed with people deciding who is most worthy of not having to be homeless.
Apologies if im wrong and confusing you with someone else, but dont you have a child with autism?
I do too and that is why im terrified for his future under this government, he will grow into a disabled adult and his future under condem doesn't look rosey, he will outlive me, who will stand up for him when im gone?
Im far from rich, at the moment I can't work due to lack of childcare for him. I fear desperately for his future.
Are you rich? or just burying your head in the sand?
I have a child with Aspergers, and while it comes with some issues, we are lucky that he is very likely to be able to work and support himself if he is well supported by his school and parents until he is a fully grown adult.
I'm by no means rich, but my ex and I can provide what our children need.
Oh how lucky for you then.
We're not so lucky.
Spare a thought.
Nah, that wasn't financial abuse. It was him just being a twatbag and neglecting to let me know to pay the rent from the TC's. he bought nicer food and told me he'd had a bonus.
After we split up, he admitted he just missed lamb chops and steak too much after 3 years of not being able to afford it. And he bought for all of us, not just himself.
So not financially abusive, just financially fucking incompetent!
(He was abusive in other ways, but not financially. He is just a twat with money.)
Which was why we didn't have joint accounts. Because at least then, I could cover the majority of things from my account, he only had to pay the rent and give me the money for the bills. He was still giving me the money for the other bills, but our rent had to be paid by DD, and I can't do DD's from my account.
He was missing nice food, and spent the rent money on steak for us all, and lb roasts and beef roasts. Because I didn't do roasts as they were out of budget.
And he was working.
You're lucky that your Ex and you can provide what your DS needs, Outraged. Not all of us can. My Ex earns less than £17k. I used to be the main provider. I should have been the one able to provide for my DC's.
Shame I got dxd disabled too...
If you DIDN'T have a higher earning Ex than me, WTF would you do if YOU were dxd with a disability?
Life isn't as black and white, as cut and dried as you try to make it out to be, Outraged.
I can't tell you what I'd do if I were diagnosed with a disability, it would depend on the nature of the disability, obviously.
But going on the list of suggestions in the article in the OP, I'd feel that I wasn't likely to lose my house because I know how to be a good tenant, I contribute to society (and believe I would if I were to become disabled).
I would claim whatever I was able to from the government the same as anyone else, but I'd feel lucky to receive any assistance from society and I don't think I'd feel like I was entitled to more if I could feed, clothe and house my children.
good for you make it sound like being disabled is some kind of choice. and of course you would choose to have a disability that means you can work.
they are few and far between.
or one that does not affect your behaviour.
hey guess what being disabled is not something you can choose. you can't say that.....
if I was disabled....
as you have no clue
Take a couple. Hard workers, both worked since leaving school. They have a couple of DC's. One is dxd with a life long disability. So one of them becomes a carer.
The other is still working just as hard as before. Then his wife is dxd with a disability that stops her from working, and means that she ALSO has care needs. On top of their NT DC, AND the care needs of their DC with a disability.
He is pulled in too many directions, and decides he can't do it any more, and walks out. He pays the minimum amount of maintenance. He doesn't have the DC's that much - maybe where he has moved to is unsuitable for their DC with SN, but he can't afford a more suitable place on his NMW job, on top of maintenance.
Soooo, you are then left with a disabled Lone parent with two DC's, one of whom also has disabilities.
Who the fuck provides for them? Because £47 a week maintenance sure as hell doesn't cut it.
And that situation isn't as bizarre as you seem to think, Outraged. It's a lot less to imagine happening than has happened to me, and I know that it is therefore eminently possible.
You only need to look at the stats on relationship breakdown when a DC has disabilities (about 70% don't last in this situation), and the stats on relationship breakdowns when one partner has disabilities (about 65% don't last in this situation), to know that if you have a relationship where one partner is disabled AND a DC is also disabled, that barely any relationship can survive that kind of shit storm.
* This was from a Relate survey, and another one done by a disability Charity too, that both came up with similar statistics.
You would feel lucky that you were unable to work or support yourself, through no fault of your own?
You would feel lucky that you were living in chronic pain every day, gradually losing your mobility and becoming more and more housebound?
You would feel lucky that you have seizures, in public, where you lose control of your bladder and sometimes your bowel?
You would feel lucky that because of your fibromyalgia, doing the school run by bus leaves you as exhausted as if you had run the London Marathon?
You would feel lucky to only have the doctors admit that you might have a disability that is genetic AFTER you have your fourth DC and they become the third out of 4 to have Autism?
If that's your idea of luck, I'll go and buy a Lotto ticket, because I must have the greatest luck in the world.
So you become housebound due to a disability, you have seizures that cause you to lose bladder and sometimes bowel control, you suffer from extreme exhaustion after an hour's exertion, yet you would contribute to society HOW?
I'm not even allowed to volunteer. Because I am a H&S risk. If I'm too ill to volunteer, how the hell can I 'contribute'?
Of course I wouldn't feel lucky for any of those things
I have a fair amount of contact with people from other countries who suffer some of the things you describe, and they get less than anyone ever would in this country. Maybe my opinion is clouded by that, but yes, I think I would feel lucky that if I and my family were to suffer because of ill health and financial hardship that I live in a country where I am unlikely to find myself on the streets or living with ten people in a home barely big enough for two, and where I will be given money to feed my children.
Threesocksmorgan, I know I can't say what I would do, which is why I started my post with the words 'I can't tell you what I would do'.
If Thatcher hadn't sold off all the social housing in the Eighties there'd be more than enough for everyone that needed them. The problem is there are not enough houses any more.
I do think something has to be done about those who deliberately set out to make themselves "homeless" so that they can get a local authority place, but I'm sure that's a very small percentage of the overall total. The rest are genuinely in need and will suffer (more) because of this.
Tories are uncaring wankers.
If you 'make yourself' homeless you won't be housed.
That can include leaving a physically abusive spouse/partner.
Tories are uncaring wankers
If Thatcher hadn't sold off all the social housing in the Eighties...
And in the decades since then no one has bothered to build some more.
What was stopping Labour building some? They could have spent some of the
pittance money Brown got for the nation's gold on building.
Well labour definitely built some where I live.
Loads built in the S.E where I live too but recent Tory reforms will mean a big change for many. Particularly the most vulnerable.
Of course there are families who make benefit claiming a lifestyle. There are however a great deal more 'deserving' people on benefits who have no viable alternative. Distinguishing between the claimants is not easy and Dave's clumsy attempts will see hell released on those trapped by circumstance and most in need. Yanbu. Surely there is no way the knobs will get in next election <<hope springs eternal>>
A huge number of people who are homeless suffer from disabling mental illness. Disabling enough that they can't work or volunteer. Ill enough that families struggle to cope with them. Under this system where the hell do they fit in?
Who knows OhYou. And of course, now they are cracking down on squatting too .
It's such a mess.
It's frustrating that people think it's so easy just to be homeless and suddenly get a social house. It really doesn't work like that any more.
We are homeless. None of this situation has been easy. It's been a constant nightmare. But we didn't have a choice. I chose to private rent - unfortunately the Landlords here have chosen to refuse all housing benefit applicants. Largely due to the recent changes with the benefit cap. And Universal credit.
What is scary is that they are pushing all this little changes through now knowing that the homeless numbers will explode next year. They KNOW they will. Every single homeless charity and department have the figures.
My Housing Officer told me from the start that his main goal was to persuade me to source my own housing and withdraw my application. That is why they make it so hard.
And yes, that may make some people who were expecting to get a nice cheap social house go elsewhere. But what about those that can't?
We are talking of disabled people because it will effect them.
It's a shame that some people can't discuss that as well as the other issues. But the problem with bringing disabled people into it is that people can't bang on about a lifestyle choice can they? They can't dismiss them as some kind of benefit scrounger who should go to work.
But if you're looking at a policy change and how it will effect people surely you have to look at all of the people who will be effected. Not just the ones you feel will deserve it.
And there in lies the problem with most of these tory benefit reforms. They are designed to weed out the few playing the system but seriously harm the majority who need it. So, tar everyone with the same brush then? Seems a bit of a theme for Davie Boy doesn't it?
Good post Charlie
I remember reading your posts previously, How are you getting on?
OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos of course you can't tell me what you would do.
because you are not disabled "yet"
my dd is, she will never be able to volunteer. work
pay rent herself. join the forces(thank god) or go on a be a good tenant course.
what will she do?
Not too bad Thanks Amber - In emergency housing. Been here 4 weeks and am being moved next week by the looks of it. Onto the next temporary place.
In a mild panic today over furniture! Had to leave or sell most of our stuff. This place has beds and kitchen stuff but the next place won't. Since I won't know when we move until 24 hours before I'm a bit worried what we'll sleep on in short notice!
Air beds will be my friends I think
The kids are doing ok. Just hoping the next place is closer to DD's school. She's doing an hour long, two bus school run just now and it's not been much fun for her poor thing.
sorry not got past page 3 of this, so sorry if this has already been pointed out/raised, the bit about people not chosing to be homeless. I've seen so many threads on here where people are stuck not able to pay their private landlords or have been given notice to leave their rented property and are advised until they are made homeless by the landlord evicting them the council wo'nt house them. That they are advised to stay put until they are at the last moment then present themselves at the council offices as now homeless and a priority.
For people in that situation, wouldn't this be a much better move? If you could prove you've paid your rent on time but your landlord wants the house back, or if you are working, have done charity work in teh community, are prepared to go on a good tenant course etc, you could not have to go to the extream of waiting for the baliffs to get housed, people like that will be a priority earlier.
I see what you are saying don't mind - but notice from your landlord is not a legal document. So it doesn't actually mean you have to leave. So the council require the next stage which is court intervention.
I can prove my rent was paid on time. I have never had a complaint against me. It doesn't matter.
I could go on a good tenant course. It doesn't change the fact that the amount of social housing is not big enough to support a two tiered approach like that. They need to build more. They needed to do this a long time ago under labour too.
How would it work? People are being made homeless at an alarming rate. Why should they go to the bottom of the list under 'more deserving' people.
I just don't understand how they can get away with making such changes (Cap and Uni Credit) which are proven to be upping the homeless numbers and slyly be making it harder for people to be housed once they are homeless. What do they think will happen?
The choosing to be homeless thing is a myth these days. If you make yourself homeless by leaving a suitable property they can refuse to help you. If you stop paying your rent so that your Landlord starts eviction procedures then they can refuse to help you. They have made it very very hard to be housed down the homeless route. And yes, they needed to cover themselves from people who played the system.
There's a lot of bollocks on this thread. From reading the article it seems that the real change is that the government is going to prioritise those who serve their country/volunteer or work. At first glance that sounds fair to me.
So what about the homeless? Well even the rather biased article points out that the families will be housed in the private sector. There's no suggestion that people will be forcibly flung out into the streets like the usual lefties are suggesting. What we're really talking about is should we be prioritising council houses for homeless or soldiers/workers and volunteers over those who have done none of the above.
We have too few social housing for too many claimants. It seems fair to me that we prioritise those who contribute over those who do not. For too long our benefits system encouraged people not to work. A change has been long overdue.
You're in a flat/house then not a hostel? if so, thats good, as horrible as it all is, at least you have avoided being in a hostel! [I have been through this, thankfully when I was pregnant so the kids were spared the hostel experience!]
Are you in London? or elsewhere?
There are a few places that do very cheap furniture if you have a referal from a SW/HV/or housing officer. Also if you haven't already, join your local
Glad to hear the kids are ok.
Chin up sweetie
But how do you decide who contributes niceguy?
Does a disabled person not shop/eat/travel in a community then?
Yes a house - they managed to get this private rented place as the only other option was 20 miles away.
Not in London - but SE.
I'm gonna hit the big charity shops here - and hope they can deliver in a couple of days. We'll be fine. It's just an expense and worry I can ill afford right now.
Of all the people Ive known who were involved in work within their community and volunteering etc, doing really useful, helpful stuff for those around them that no one else would bother with, all of them were on benefits.
Right rough and common most of them were too, lots would probably not want anything to do with them, but they were the ones 'doing'
So where would they fit in this?
They were right old benefit scrounging scum by those definitions, but they were giving back and amazing amount.
Hmmm what would you say niceguy?
"So what about the homeless? Well even the rather biased article points out that the families will be housed in the private sector."
Oh of course, silly us, the private sector!
The govt is going to force private landlords to take HB tenants is it? Bearing in mind the reasons given (higher insurance/insurance companies not insuring if tenants are HB/harder to evict/etc) How exactly are the govt going to achieve that?
Are they going to incentivise(sp?) that? Paying the LL's extra? That'll get the deficit down wont it?
Good luck with it all Charlie.
I come froma poor country with no welfare state, so I understand outraged's comment about feeling fortunate.
I think it is brilliant that there is a safety net for those who are too ill to work, but my everyday experience suggests that we just haven't made hard work worthwhile any more. I think it is really important that if you can work you do. I know unemployment is high, but the number of immigrants doing service jobs is astonishing. If you live in London, can you remember the last time ou were served by someone who spoke English as a first language? I assume that employers would prefer to give the jobs to people who speak English first if they are hard working and competent, and this suggests to me a real lack of decent candidates. Equally where I work we regularly get people refusing overtime, pay rises etc as it will affect their benefits - something has gone wrong when this is happening. I appreciate this is anecdotes rather than statistics.
These things always make me laugh, there are NO council houses, haven't been for years, whats the debate exactly ?
Mosman Do you mean no empty council houses? Or none at all?
Mosman, at the risk of getting into a silly argument, yes there are, there are lots. They don't become vacant very often, and so there's a waiting list, the argument is about how they proritise the empty ones. ( some council houses were sold off previously, but not the bulk of them)
Amber, my experience of volunteers is very different to yours, and I do have a large amount of experience in the charity sector and of volunteers.
In my experience, over 8 national and local charities, volunteers tend to be working people who don't have young children (often people in services such as nursing, teaching or policing) working people whose children are old enough to have left home, retired people, people who have a personal reason to work with a particular charity, such as having a family member who is one of the charities intended beneficiaries, and people who are disabled and unable to work regular hours.
Not even one of the many people I regularly have contact with through volunteering lives on non disability related benefits.
Sorry I meant available council houses, a friend of mine has been on the list for a god forsaken area, 2 beds would be lovely, for 12 years.
You've more chance of being hit by a bus no doubt.
Yes I have experience of that kind of volunteer too outraged, my post though was talking about the sort of work that no one else wants to do as outlined in my first paragraph.
Your friend must be adequately housed then?
I guess you could say that, but she's also up to her eyes in debt because the numbers don't work, rent is more than HB by a long chalk, food goes on the credit card etc, what she'll do if the TC's are reduced further I don't know.
Horrible position to be in.
One of the worst thing Thatcher ever did was bringing in right to buy.
Mosman - that's the point, the list isn't one where you keep the same point and eventually rise to the top, it's a list where new people who are added adn viewed as a greater priority will go to the top. Your friend is obviously well housed so she will never get to the top of the list. This argument is about which groups should get to jump to the top. this could be good for your friend if she does voluntary work and prove she's a good tenant, it might mean she one day gets to the top.
My friend is a TA on her own with three kids,
shove a broom up her arse and she'll sweep at the same time where and when would she be able to volunteer ?
Without wanting to change the course of the thread completely, what type of voluntary work are you referring to Amber?
I'm not trying to be picky or argumentative by the way, I'm genuinely interested in what you think the sort of voluntary work is that no one else wants to do.
No problem outraged.
The sort that is generally within the community in which people like that live, the kind that others may be scared to do due to their own misconceptions about certain groups of people and because it goes on the whole unrecognised.
Let me just say I'm not knocking those that volunteer in the more recognised areas as my Mum does exactly that and fits your experience to a tee!
Ive known people that set up club type things for teens, most of which don't get any gov help [for the clubs] fund raise off their own backs, put in long hours and hard work.
One lovely woman who started off running erands for her aged father and ended up caring for about 15 other elderly people who had no one, good few of them were cantankerous old gits that were probably on their own of their own doing! but she did it all the same.
Lots of that sort of thing.
Our ultimate goal is to ensure they support people when they need it, but also allow and encourage people to move off benefits and into full-time work when they can. With that in mind, we will, for the first time, place conditions on people who are working part-time and claiming benefit on top. If someone can't work full-time because of an illness or caring responsibilities or simply because a full-time job isn't available, then we will not place additional expectations on them. But if there is no reason why someone can't work full-time, we will ask them to take steps to find that full-time work. This is a reasonable move.
So let us be crystal clear shall we: Working people, those that have jobs part time, self employed or even full time but under 25 hours will be considered just the very same, no diffrence at all from those recieving benefits. If your not working hard enough, it will be the same as your not working at all. A civil servant or more likely someone from a private company can and will tell you that you are not doing all you can to get a full time job, or another part time job. And so you will be sanctioned in the same way as those who are unemployed. Before the slavering masses start pounding away at their keyboards, I draw your attention to the huge number of those who have been found falsely found fit for work, and the massive cost and disruption caused. If anyone is left thinking the effects of this will be minimal I suggest they start looking at how the housing policy change and Universial credit will work together. Then add the growing numbers of disabled people being made homeless as a result of the new bedroom tax, add those who will fall in to rent arrears leading to eviction as a result of moving to monthly benefits, and finally the loss of even more jobs due to families being forced to move, take on careing roles, being sanctioned for choosing not to work every hour that they can stay awake. We do not need the workhouses, they are here and we are paying to live in them.
You make a good point about people who make a valuable contribution to society in a way that can't be recognised because its not affiliated to a particular charity. There are also lots of very worthy causes that can't be a registered charity because they are simply too small (you have to have a bank account turnover of £5000 before the charities Commission will consider giving you a number) and not being registered severely limits avenues of fundraising and the ability to recruit new volunteers.
It's a wonder anyone actually contributes anything to society these days because you get more if you don't.
That article by Lord David Fraud (sic) is full of lies and half truths. What he doesn't say is approx. 80% of housing benefit is paid to those in work, and hard working people have to get their wages topped up with tax credits. All his policies are going to do is force more already poor people into destitution.
I contribute absolutely nothing to society, of course.
Other than savings on an approximately £150k care bill per annum, of course.
Glitter, I slave my fingers to the bone every day being as little help to the community and society as I can. Apart from all my bills are paid, I pay VAT on my shopping where it's due. My NI and income tax were paid when I had a job, and I am often to be found organising community activities that are in the main educational. Still I do nothing me!
Nobody will be made homeless, just different groups being given higher priorities. Agree with niceguy, change is long overdue and anything that rewards work can only be good for future generations.
Glitter, thats simply a daft argument re saving £150k. Parents are meant to care for their children they choose to have or adults care for family. The government ensures disabled people can eat, heat and have a roof over thei heads if they cannot work.
"Nobody will be made homeless, just different groups being given higher priorities"
Really? You think there's enough properties available that someone who isn't top of the list wont be homeless??
Happymommy, would you like to tell me why then if no one is being made homeless why the number of homeless on our streets is rising? Or if you read this from Shelter http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2012/11/a-return-to-revolving-door-homelessness/ tell me how if things are unfair, then how things will be fairer?
hermione weasley. This old post of mine from a previous thread may answer some of your questions in your post.
DarkesteyesSun 21-Oct-12 21:30:55
HappyMummyof One tax credits are a business subsidy so that employers can get away with paying low wages.
How the hell are people on part time hours in places like supermarkets suppossed to get extra hours when those extra hours are being filled by people on workfare.
Even if by some miracle you got the extra hours one week you may not get them the next or you could only get the extra hours very intermittently.
That means you have to keep ringing up HMRC every 5 mins with the changes. Their system just cant keep up.
Also a lot of part time jobs say that they need some one for 18 hrs a week but MUST keep themselves AVAILABLE for the rest of the time JUST IN CASE.
Happy you just havent thought it through.
Add message | Report | Message poster
DarkesteyesSun 21-Oct-12 21:32:23
And if you have to keep yourself available just in case how the fuck are you suppossed to get a second part time job.
Glitter, thats simply a daft argument re saving £150k. Parents are meant to care for their children they choose to have or adults care for family. The government ensures disabled people can eat, heat and have a roof over thei heads if they cannot work
The government is pulling the plug on disabled and sick people now though.
Glitters point is that she cares for her disabled children and that is what saves 150k per annum.
Should I choose to put my children or dh in care, it would cost the country a fortune. So, for the princely sum of fifty quid a week, I work an eighteen hour day, every day of the year. Was just discussing that the last time I went out socially was for two hours on ds1s birthday in January.
I save the country a fucking fortune by not putting my family in care. Yep, I chose to have the kids, I didn't choose for them to be autistic. Neither did I choose for my dh to be disabled, it just happened. I do have choices, I can put them in care and that would involve paying staff, heating costs, feeding costs, health care costs 24 hours a day. So yes, we carers do save the government a fortune.
"Glitter, thats simply a daft argument re saving £150k. Parents are meant to care for their children they choose to have or adults care for family. The government ensures disabled people can eat, heat and have a roof over thei heads if they cannot work."
no parents do not have to care for disabled children. they can make the state look after them by having them placed in residential care. that would cost a lot more than a paltry carers allowance.
why should a parent care for a child for the rest of the parents life?
parents save the government a fortune.
I agree with Amber Dawn Threesocks and Glitter.
By the same token the state I presume could do what they like with these children the parents don't "have" to care for then ?
have you not seen the news lately
you are missing the point though,
people do not chose to me carers
they don't dream of being a carer when at school
getting pennys per hour.
living on benefits because there is no job that allows them to work round it.
the government have relied on this for years.
now they are taking the safety net carers rely on away. so the sad fact is a lot of families will not be able to cope, and more disabled children and adults will end up in institutions.
In the same way that I don't think the states provision for education is good enough for my children and therefore I pay for alternatives no doubt you don't think the states care is adequate and therefore sacrifices are made to ensure your family receives better.
I didn't dream of working for nothing but school fees for twenty years but that's what life has come to.
I don't feel I'm doing anyone a favor though.
With the greatest of respect, your children are not the governments responsibility at all. They are your children. This government, any government, didn't choose or cause your children any of their disabilities.
That we live in a country where the state endeavors to help by providing a raft of benefits for a family who struggles to work in the conventional sense, because they need to look after their own children, is something to be applauded.
I absolutely agree with Outraged. It is impossible to discuss anything related to benefits on this forum without it being hijacked into a debate about disability.
Mosman WTF was your last post about?
so despite reading thhis thread, you still dont understand why disabilities always comes into it?
Benefits are being taken away from the disabled RIGHT NOW
What do you need to see before this will sink in?
Hey Dave and fans. Why you go the whole hog and just build shower blocks for all those people who are undeserving. You know, those special shower blocks.
That's where demonisation ends, after all.
Oh and disabled children grow into disabled adults.
How many parents do everything for their children even when that child is 41 and older?
How many parents still change their 30yo DS's nappy?
THIS is the reality for Carers.
It's the reality for carers in other countries too, but carers in the UK are still lucky to get the limited support they do from their government in comparison to carers in the majority of the world.
I'm not trying to say that the cuts to disability and carers benefits and services are something I agree with. They are very much not. As a developed and relatively rich country, supporting disabled people is of course something the government should do.
But I do get frustrated when the line 'I save the government a fortune' is trotted out. Caring only 'saves' the government money in countries that offer support in the first place. In other countries where there are parents who love and care for their disabled children and families every bit as much as those in this country do, except they have nothing except themselves to rely on. By saying that you are saving the government money, you are effectively saying that you are entitled to support, rather than fortunate to have support. That's the difference.
In any civilised society carers should be ENTITLED to support.
There is nothing wrong with having a sense of entitlement to something you are entitled to.
There's something wrong with a sense of entitlement if it leaves you feeling let down all the time, rather than appreciative of what you do have. Being able to appreciate even small mercies makes for a much happier, less resentful person.
I live in a country that provides support, ergo I am entitled to said support.
But the "I say the Govt a fortune" SHOULD be trotted out....especially when others are bemoaning their taxes going towards such benefits.
This Govt offers support, in this country we are fortunate but I resent the idea I should be grovelling and grateful for something which ALL countries should do.
I don't feel let down by the support, only by the cuts to the support....some of which are practical help.
I agree with you, but that's not the same as saying 'you are saving the government a fortune'. What if the government will only give support to disabled children if they live with their parents? You are still entitled to that support and you are getting it, but because the government gives some support, that doesn't automatically mean you are entitled to more. Therefore you are not saving anyone money, you are just rightly receiving what the government has told you you are entitled to.
A child who is abandoned by its parents is entitled to be cared for, but that is not the same as a parent being entitled to have someone else take over their responsibility.
You don't have to be grovelling to be appreciative.
freddo, I don't live in another country I live in england.
I do not see the point of that comparison.
you obviously have no idea what it is like to know that you are going to have to care for someone for the rest of your life.
and when I say care, I mean to do everything for them, even though you yourself are falling to bits, have no money and going by this government should also be volunteering to help others!!
yes people like me do save the government a fortune. and all we want is not to be called scroungers. to have support, to not have our hard fought for respite cut once they reach 18.
I do think people who are not carers just do not get how hard it is, yes we love our child, the same as you love yours, but ffs no one expects to be caring for their child fo ever.
That's total bollocks, Freddoes.
I am grateful every day that I live in a country with limitless safe-to-drink running water.
That I live in a country where women can walk down the street wearing what they want, in the presence of whom they want.
Where if I am assaulted or robbed, a police force will investigate these things and the Crown prosecute.
Where every child is entitled to a free education 5-18.
And where I can pay tax and National Insurance so that the most vulnerable in society will be supported.
I have lived in countries where none of these pertain. And I am grateful for them.
But if the water's cut off, I complain to the water company.
If I'm abused for being female in public, I'm outraged that anyone thinks that's acceptable.
If the police refused to investigate a crime because I wasn't a VIP, I would question what they think they're for and why I'm paying for them.
If a child was refused a secondary education, I wouldn't say, "Oh never mind, at least they had primary."
And if I've paid tax and National Insurance, and find the country doesn't after all fulfil it's promise to look after its sick and vulnerable, I don't sit here saying, "Oh that's OK, because they'd die faster in Somalia."
You seem to be confusing "gratitude" with "disempowerment".
The council cannot afford to house the homeless in private housing already because of the LHA caps. And again, the policy of shifting to private landlords does nothing but enrich landlords at taxpayer expense.
I do object when the little money we have coming in is going to be cut yet further, of course I do.
Because we don't get anywhere close to £150k for being carers. Not that I'd want to, but we need a certain amount for roof, heat and eat.
They're eroding that.
So yes, relatively I do save THE TAXPAYER a fortune. Because according to the system in this country if I'm unable to do it then resi it is, at that cost.
Actually people who equate work with deserving are confused: it's the people who could never work no matter how they tried- disabled, sick, etc- who are most deserving.
But I come under most people's deserving category from another angle and frankly it's my dignity (outside MN, the only place ANYONE knows much at all) that keeps my head going: I'd rather reserve that and keep going thank you, I don;t want anyone to know they should- ahem- pity me (isn;t that what deserving is about). I DO NOT wish to be pitied, not do I deserve that.
I am grateful I was born into a country where I could pay NI for a great many years knowing I was contributing towards a safety net.
Pay carers a better income and you would not lose much (the majority of Carers live in poverty so it would just balance against the HB, IS etc they claim) but would actually send the message that we DO contribute and are worthy of that recognition.
Even the poorest countries have funded (if by charity) facllities for disabled people of some sort- no saying what quality, but they exist: I follow a group on FB that provides such care in Malawi. Care for my two boys would cost around £3.5k a week in a residential setting. I care because they are my boys and I want to and think I should, but simple economics state that enabling more people to carry out that role in an ageing population without fear of financial penury adds up to savings in the long term.
that is the thing Glitter, people do not seem to get that by cutting support to carers they will have no choice but to give up and put the person in care.
even the cheapest options will cost the government way more than the support they should give carers. but they and some people on here seem to be blind to this.
It is so easy just to pass the buck and tell carers to get on with it.
but they won't be able too.
Well no, because the person with the disability shouldn't get the support, apparently. They should be destined for the gutter, you know... begging in the street. Because that's what happens in other countries.
Not civilised ones, mind.
Or maybe those lovely 'special showers'. Read an article at the weekend about how on earth did Hitler get away with his gas chambers, comparing it to what is happening today. I can see the link to be honest.
When we try to shout about what is happening to us we're considered 'scaremongering' or 'hysterical'. When we know exactly what is happening and try to tell people we're not believed.
That's how it all happened in the thirties.
As a developed and relatively rich country, supporting disabled people is of course something the government should do
Yes that's right.
I was pathetically appreciative my carers benefits, but now they are under threat I feel different.
I really don't understand your mindset outraged when you yourself have a child with a disability.
My sons care needs are nothing compared to some peoples, but they are still lifelong so I understand how others feel, I don't get why you do not?
So many people keep saying 'oh but I agree that people with disabilities and their carers should be looked after' yet we keep being shouted down when we point out that that support is being wrenched away! that is why these discussions always come round to this.
As for what other countries do, well I have seen what happens to people with disabilities in some other countries and TBH its inhumane, should I be bowing and scraping with gratitude that I am not being treated like that? well the thing is, that is where we are heading.
When we try to shout about what is happening to us we're considered 'scaremongering' or 'hysterical'. When we know exactly what is happening and try to tell people we're not believed
Gos yes, this is sooo frustrating!
Outraged et al: What is it you want gratitude for? The answer is your money. Which is not yours any way, it is collected from your wage at source, to pe paid in to a communal pot. Out of which the government decides on how this pot is divided. So do you want us to feel grateful for the government deciding that your money should be spent on things other than careing for the citizens of our country.
Your distortion of what happens in other countries is truly staggering as in THIS country the country where we live, elections have been held, for the last 60 years which have given the mandate to primarily the labour party to put in place the kind of social care including welfare that is being cut now. So you are in fact saying that all those people over the years who voted, worked, and died to create OUR society should not have bothered because their vision of a fair and just society leads to "entitled) views on what a government spends some of your pay on?
And those of you who think we should just get on for caring for our kids as you do - will you still be wiping their arses at 30?
What are we supposed to survive on? Virtue alone?
Oh and all those of you who do not believe that people with disability are not entitled to care through the state, by the same token great let's cut pensioner benefits and healthcare too.
They are by far the biggest burden.
No? Then why is it ok to do it to people with disabilities?
(not my beliefs by the way)
As Godwin's Law has already been invoked I'll quote the last few lines of a recent blog post from Sue Marsh (Diary Of A Benefit Scrounger):-
Josef Goebbels: "If you're going to lie, lie big and stick to it."
David Cameron: "We will always protect the most vulnerable."
Oh and if we did not get CA then we would not afford the rent: which would mean in turn that we would take FAR more from the state in terms of social housing and the like as my income was factored in when we had the boys- a not unsubstantial income, I am well educated and skilled in my sector.
When I became a carer, things had become unsustainable: DH worked nights on a contract with no day work (think getting newspapers between print and sale): he was on good money but trying to sleep in a house in the day with waking autistic children stimming at top volume had made him ill, the GP was begging him to pack it in and take time off but he did not feel he could- he ended up being made redundant when the company was bought out and relocated somewhere we could not follow (a year waiting list alone for the SN schools we would need for the boys, let alone anything else), they had just merged with other local firms and took them with them too, sucking a lot of jobs out of the 2009 economy. I had worked in the chairty sector: firstly in a job where I would be sent anywhere in the UK at a day's notice for events or training (bloody loved that job), then in one where I worked hands on with people who were not coping with parenting- mentally I just could not cope with abusive parents, supporting people through terminations for disability, the uselessness of SSD alongside what we were going through during diagnosis. As it happened, had I not given given up (pre DH's redundancy) I'd have lost the job anyway as the charity could not make up my wage during the early part of the credit crunch.
Sitting with a calculator, my CA has been split between two things: rent, and paying for me to go back to college and retrain. DH is also retraining (alongside working SE), and hopefully within the year we will be able to be both back at work again in careers that are sustainable with the extra demands upon us. So0 in reality from where we were, a step back up towards independence whereas I believe we'd have been permanently dependent otherwise: indeed, what with DH's failing MH and lack of sleep we'd not still be married, not a hope. And therefore would get respite and all manner of help we are denied now.
As for people who argue it's just parenting- frankly if your almost 13 yera old needs 24/7 supervision to keep the family safe and you regard that as normal then you need to seek help and FAST. If you fully expect to still be responsible for your son's needs when he is 46, see a GP. If you need 2 adults to leave the home in any significant manner as a family, chat to a parenting teacher.
Because it is NOT the same, at all.
Amber, I do understand how others feel. I really do, and not just because of my own son, but because of many people I have in my life. I can understand how carers and disabled people in this country feel at the same time as understanding how others I come across in other countries feel, and it's understanding of more than one issue that shapes my opinion.
I don't think every poster who tries to talk about what is being done to their lives and that of their families is scaremongering or hysterical, but some are. When you get posters, as above, comparing the cuts to disability benefits and services to the gas chambers used in the holocaust, what do you expect? People who voice opinions like that do far more harm to your valid cause than people who voice opinions like mine could ever do, because it gives the whole debate a complete lack of credibility, which is sad.
'. They should be destined for the gutter, you know... begging in the street. Because that's what happens in other countries.
Put ds1 on the streets and he will be in prison having injured someone or worse within the month.
This is acknowledged fact. Violence is how he reacts to fear.
He won;t disappear into some quiet gutter. DS3 would simply die very quickly.
It's not about Godwins though. It's something in recent history that people have sucked their teeth about for years, shaken their heads and muttered "ooh never again, that could never happen in our civilised society".
Yet it can, and it is. And those at the sharp end are being ignored.
@Amber & Charlie
I understood that one of the provisions IS volunteering. So your friends who you gave as an example Amber, they should qualify shouldn't they?
From what the article says, there's no suggestion of not providing support. It's just that there will be priority given to certain groups. To try and imply that therefore people are flung out onto the streets is just scaremongering.
Already there are rules in place as to who gets priority for council houses. This just changes the criteria and favours those who contribute in some way over those who have not.
Personally I can see the logic but there is detail which needs to be hammered out to ensure it's fair and not abused. If someone is willing to take a bullet for his country in some god forsaken hell hole then the least the country can do is prioritise his family if they are struggling.
it's the people who could never work no matter how they tried- disabled, sick, etc- who are most deserving.
This I agree with, and maybe naively, I assume most people do.
Gas chambers are being spoken about as many consider the extra costs of disability to be an inconvenience. "We just can't afford it" hand wringing.
Doesn't make the costs go away though, in many cases they escalate. So hey let's 'get rid' of the problem, yeah?
So here we go again.
NOBODY has ever even hinted, never mind actually suggested, that carers and/or their disabled children should be losing benefits or care provision. NOBODY!
But still you are erupting into flames of self righteous anger, throwing disgusting accusations at people, insisting they want to set up gas chambers and workhouses etc... And then you wonder why the words scaremongering and hysterical start getting bandied about.
You keep saying "What don't you understand?" You completely overlook the point that everyone agrees with you whatever their politics. And if there were a magical bottomless pot of money no one would begrudge you a single penny of whatever you need. But there isn't.
AND THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP, WHO NEVER GET A LOOK IN, BECAUSE ANY DISCUSSIONS REMOTELY INVOLVING BENEFITS ALWAYS GET HIJACKED.
What can't you understand about that?
Glitter, you come across (to me) as if you believe that everyone who doesn't agree entirely with your views considers the extra costs associated with disability to be an inconvenience and that the problem should just be 'got rid of'. I don't know if that's what you mean, but it would be wholly inaccurate.
Yes freddos I'm sure most people do.
Shame the current government are not amongst them.
"NOBODY has ever even hinted, never mind actually suggested, that carers and/or their disabled children should be losing benefits or care provision. NOBODY!"
Except the govt.
To back Glitter, I have had euthanasia suggested to me in front of my boys by a relation, one of the boys fully understood what he was saying.
So it IS out there, and the justification was 'we simply can't afford disability'.
Funnily enough I could rant a lot about how I would not descend to the levels he does but am going to sit on my hands, if it's not been said for 18 years it can stay unsaid now.
There are solutions to council housing: I was staying in a very cleverly designed apartment that was the size of the ground floor of my parent's council house (I could explain why they have one but it's not actually my job to justify them as adults) and slept six of us. It was not wonderful but adequate for a comfortable fulfilling life and certainly if we were homeless would be enough. both enough to accommodate us for ever if needed, and equally enough to motivate us to move on if possible.
So you could change say 50% of existing stock to this model as it became available and house far more people (retaining some housing for people who need more space, you could not for example use a wheelchair in that apartment).
It's not even theoretical, it's policy.
See... apart from saying they don't agree people here do not provide a solution. The costs aren't going away yet all they say is we can't afford it.
So what's supposed to happen?
Right must go- got enough on for 20 people today!
Just as a note we as a family would get priority under that system. So by arguing against it I am stabbing myself in the foot, as private tenants we could end up in the homelessness system any time. But I still don't think we should get priority over a single parent whose dh chucked her out just because dh works, or if I volunteered (something i'd like to do but can;t find a placement as the university pays charities to secure placements for students and it's only a small town: also charities get fed up with me rapidly when I need time off for appts and the like and there's nowt iI can do about that).
I wonder what would happen to Mum under this system: she cares for Grandad but does not claim CA as she shares his FT care with her sister and a carer who goes in 30 minutes a day. She cannot volunteer as she is on call for Grandad, who is 93, and disabled.
perhaps that is because disabled people are big hardest hit by the cuts.
carers are being expected ot live on fresh air.
oh by the way I don't even think of people in other countries when I am doing all the care for my nearly adult dd. I am to busy tying to keep sane and pay the bills.
' I can understand how carers and disabled people in this country feel at the same time as understanding how others I come across in other countries feel, and it's understanding of more than one issue that shapes my opinion.'
This is the UK. It is not other countries. It's our country. I'm from another country myself. My grandparents were from still a different country. I don't live in that country, I live here. There is no point comparing this country to that one because, well, it's not the same.
I'm not comparing countries. I'm comparing personal attitudes to the same situation.
Why, Outraged? What purpose does it serve? To introduced thresholds of bowing and scraping in order to qualify for benefits? Want people in receipt of them to wear tshirts reading, 'I'm an entitled scrounger'?
How terrible, uppity Carers of disabled children defending themselves because no other bugger will. The cheek of it!
I didn't read the entire thread and so have no idea when it became disability based. I suspect though it will have been in response to some or other post which offended. Most Carers are facing enough difficulties to become a tad irritated by anything which denigrates then. It's not about derailing the thread or taking it over ....it's about telling how it is.
it isn't the same situation though.
we have a system that is supposed to support the most vulnerable. it is being cut.
why should I be grateful that my dd is disabled.
Giving my thoughts on a subject on an Internet forum doesn't serve any purpose, I didn't know it was supposed to. It's just a way to put off doing the hoovering before I go to work.
The rest of your post is exactly what contributes to others thinking that certain opinions held by certain posters are 'hysterical'.
Nobody has said you should be grateful that your daughter has a disability. You are making that up.
Making what up, Outraged? My daughter doesn't have a disability and my other daughter is dead.
Outraged: The thing that makes these threads turn out like this is simple, people say what they think and others do the same. If that is a problem and always supposing you are not just a troll, either do not talk to people who hold different views as you seem to resent some of those views. Or go and look at independent sources, plenty of them. And then either change your view or form a more developed view that does not revolve around what you THINK people should feel.
How am I coming across as if I resent people's views? Genuine question. People are free to think what they like, including me, and I get the feeling my views are very much resented despite the fact that I haven't said anything offensive. I talk to people who have different views to mine in exactly the same way as those people talk to me, that's what people do on forums.
Expat, making it up in that no one has told threesocks that she should be grateful that her daughter has a disability, while she is implying that they have.
but I have been told I should be grateful for the pittance we get.
for the small amount of support we get.
so if I have to be grateful for that then I would have to be grateful for my dd's disability.which I am not. that is why I cannot be grateful for something that she should get and is entitled too.
I see those two things as different threesocks. I think it is possible to be grateful that you can feed and clothe and house yourself and your disabled child while at the same time being resentful of the disability.
I'm not happy that my child has to live with Aspergers, but I'm grateful that his teachers are understanding and supportive. The fact that they should be, and the fact that my son is entitled and deserving of that support doesn't come into it.
I'm really not trying to tell people how they should feel here. Everyone's own feelings are valid and I respect that. It just so happens that some of the happiest people I know are the ones in some of the most difficult circumstances, yet they have a healthy attitude towards their hardships. On the flip side, some of the most unhappy people I know are those suffering with illness or disability, but I don't think a medical condition comes with a pre determined level of happiness. That is down to lots of factors.
"NOBODY has ever even hinted, never mind actually suggested, that carers and/or their disabled children should be losing benefits or care provision. NOBODY!"
The govt has said it will cut the number of people receiving DLA by at least 20%.
That 20% will lose more than just money: they will cease to be designated disabled. So they will be subject to, for example, benefit caps (even if they're receiving ESA/Incapacity Benefit). They may lose their place on housing priority lists. Because they're now "not disabled."
What you're missing in your, er, hysterical shrieking, Sunflower, is that yes, lots of people could do with help. But there's a difference between people for whom help would be "nice", and those who without it will deteriorate and die.
If people from the proposed new priority groups, like armed forces leavers or library volunteers, are in similar need, they are already entitled to priority housing. (But like everyone else may not get it because of the council housing sell off.)
Anyone wondering what life will look like if we keep going down this road, should watch 'Cathy come home'
"Where does it say that they are assuming poor people don't know how to be good tenants?
If they are good tenants, then they will fit into the last suggested category."
Homeless people will not fit into this category if they've never been a tenant.
This could be because they have never lived in a rented property (previously been homeless / lived at parents / been a home owner).
It could be because although they've lived in rented accommodation for years, their name wasn't actually on the tenancy - their partner's / flatmate's was.
None of the people I've mentioned would have proof that they were a good tenant. It's a catch 22, you have to have had the opportunity to be a tenant, officially, to prove you are a good tenant.
NOBODY has ever even hinted, never mind actually suggested, that carers and/or their disabled children should be losing benefits or care provision. NOBODY
Yeah NOBODY except the government!
Have you actually read our posts on this thread?
Oh, yes. I've read the entire thread.
That's how I know that nobody on this forum which is what I was obviously referring to has suggested gas chambers, workhouses, gutters, enforced eviction etc. etc. other than posters such as yourself Amberleaf
The thread was started to discuss a briefing regarding prioritizing homeless people. (actually, it was started to paste David Cameron again but hey-ho). It didn't mention disabled people/ carers in any shape or form and yet, before we'd even reached page 2, all discussion was quashed unless it was related to disabled peoples issues.
Don't you think the parents of hopelessly dependent drug addicts despair and fear for their children's lives just as much as you fear for your children? Don't you think very young teenage girls need support and guidance if they fall pregnant? Don't you think servicemen, damaged by their experiences in the defence of us all (whether you agree with the fact that they are there in the first place or not) need to be given a hand up too? Note I said too, not instead of.
Yes, all of these things are self inflicted, but they are still human beings in desperate need of help, and people fear for them just as you fear for your vulnerable.
This is not Top Trumps. Please let people discuss other issues too. It does not relegate you down any kind of "league table" to acknowledge that other catagories of people deserve help too.
Oh please, don't start talking about 'trumps' because that is just insulting.
You and outraged steered the discussion towards why it always ends up about people with disabilities and their carers and people responded, that's how the conversation digressed so much.
It is people on this forum that made that comment and we answered it, if you don't want to hear it dont ask and dont think you can shout people down.
Outraged - not everyone can be a priority for housing. And even when you are it is still difficult to get.
This government clearly have plans to change the rules so that instead of the most vulnerable people being at the top of the housing list, that will instead be comprised of people who the government prefer because they consider them morally superior. It is disgusting. There are very few people who don't work because they can't be bothered to.
Tories only see what they want to see. So they ignore the problem of what will happen to disabled people and instead concentrate on spreading propaganda about lazy people who cannot be bothered to work, whose 'curtains are closed' when their working neighbours are going out to work in the morning.
"...and dont think you can shout people down. "
Oh- the irony!
A complete misrepresentation of how the thread has evolved Amber
Outraged protested mildly at the end of page 2 that yet again, the discussion was being hijacked and commented that it would be nice to discuss benefits and social housing without this happening. I didn't comment until page 8. Hardly "steering".
The government are basically saying that some people don't deserve a decent, secure and affordable home. Every human being has the right to a roof over their head. It's a basic need, like food or water.
There should be enough homes for ex-service personell AND whoever happens to be homeless. There isn't. Time to get building some homes.
So you want to have a discussion which ignores the reality that disabled people will no longer have priority for a home provided by the state and that the government doesn't seem to care what will happen to them as a result?
No irony sunflowers.
We are being told we shouldn't speak about something that is highly relevant.
That is shouting down in my book.
Given that the article cited in the OP didn't mention that the disabled were going to be affected in any shape or form Yes, actually, I would like to be able to have a discussion about those who were mentioned, without having to reiterate, yet again, that disabled people need safeguarding.
And there are many others who would like to talk about something equally relevant to them without having to justify themselves to you first, Amber
Go right ahead sunflowers.
Ive not said anyone shouldn't talk about anything.
And Iain Duncan Smith who is fixing the disabled describes himself as a practising Christian. (Give over Duncan))
No you just say "but you chose to join the armed forces", or "well nobody forced you to become addicted" or " it's your own fault you got pregnant", thereby implying that nobody elses misfortunes are as deserving as your own.
Going back to work now. Will catch up later.
sunflower - disabled people are not mentioned specifically. But that is the point really isn't it? That the impact on people who are the most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves is simply ignored.
Further down the article it says that currently certain groups of the most vulnerable people, eg people with illness, disability or pregnant get priority. Then someone interviewed expresses concern that these people will no longer have priority.
How can you assume that disabled people will not be affected by this? The implication is that they will be.
I've just read an old book about workhouses and it really shocked me that many of the ideas behind the workhouses are being stated by this government. There were some eerie similarities.
No you just say "but you chose to join the armed forces", or "well nobody forced you to become addicted" or " it's your own fault you got pregnant", thereby implying that nobody elses misfortunes are as deserving as your own
Please point me to where I said any of that.
sunflowers, most of us are able to think through consequences.
If a limited (and shrinking) resource like social housing is to be split between a larger number of people, this unavoidably impacts the people currently receiving the resource.
It's therefore not possible to have a meaningful discussion about increasing the priority list without discussing the impact on the people already on it.
Unless, of course, you build/buy in more houses. As Frothy said.
this shows how some people really don't see disabled people. of course this will affect them.
and as for the hijack accusation. why shouldn't people post about how badly disabled people will be affected by this. they will be. it is relevant.
I personally couldn't care less if that annoys people. any debate or thread about benefit/housing cuts will end up about disabled people, because they are they vulnerable and are the ones being hardest hit.
Amber, hoping that the thread can discuss the Op and the link that was posted in the OP is not shouting anyone down. It's just trying to stick to the point.
I appreciate that threads evolve, but it does seem than any thread that mentions welfare, benefits, social housing, or even tax, gets quickly turned into a thread about disabled people. And while I do think disabled people have valid reason to want to shout about the government policies that are affecting them, I don't think it should be don't to the excursion of any other type of welfare that is not disability related.
If you want to shout about disability issues, then there is no reason to do so on a thread abut something else.
Agree with Outraged I'm afraid. Have seen it happen to sooo many threads it becomes predictable and I for lose interest.
but this is a thread about an issue that will affect disabled people.
why is that so hard to comprehend.
do you really not get that?
also you cannot decide who posts what on a thread.
Of course I can 'get' that disabled people may be affected by this. Although some disabled people might be better off if they can and do make a contribution to society, as many do.
But I also think there are other groups of people who are worthy of discussion too. What don't you get about that?
laughtergoodmedicine Mon 12-Nov-12 14:11:13
And Iain Duncan Smith who is fixing the disabled describes himself as a practising Christian. (Give over Duncan))
Yet his actions have fuck all to do with the teachings of Christ. There are many on the right who claim to be Christians, just like Iain and Duncan Smith. They're hypocrites too.
Tony Blairs a tons didn't seem particularly Christian either, when he decided to condem thousands of Iraqis to their death, but who am I to question the relationship he believes he has with God.
I can't believe you are bringing religion into this. The phrase 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' comes to mind.
Er, I can and do make a contribution to society. I'm not better off because of it. In fact it often costs me money.
BTW I love the way you pose being affected by housing cuts in contrast to making a contribution to society. Like the two are mutually exclusive.
(Perhaps I should declare I've never had social housing, so have no self-interest here. Oddly, that doesn't stop me seeing the issues.)
I'm always surprised by the number of conservatives who claim to be christian. Isn't Ian DS also a Mitt Romney supporter?? Say no more...
Amber, hoping that the thread can discuss the Op and the link that was posted in the OP is not shouting anyone down. It's just trying to stick to the point
But the point includes the issue of disabilities, it really does.
And while I do think disabled people have valid reason to want to shout about the government policies that are affecting them, I don't think it should be don't to the exclusion of any other type of welfare that is not disability related
Yet no one is saying other things shouldn't be discussed...except those who don't want to hear about disability related issues.
Agree with Outraged I'm afraid. Have seen it happen to sooo many threads it becomes predictable and I for lose interest
Ah well, sorry if it bores you.
Yep. I'm pretty sure that in days gone by feminists and those speaking out against racism were considered pretty boring too.
So tedious hearing about those horrid others isn't it? After all they're not like you.
Those of you saying it's tedious obviously suffer from a lack of empathy.
if you all had to worry about one of your children being the victim of this governments policy maybe you wouldn't find it tedious.
Sadly, my daughter isn't likely to be able to make a contribution to society. She's nearly 11, she looks 'normal' but she can't dress herself, eat by herself, sleep by herself and she runs in front of cars outside. I regularly lie awake worrying about what her future will hold for her, as this government don't seem to be doing anything progressive that will help her. She can't help having autism, and certainly shouldn't be punished for it.
I imagine the people affected by it would love to be distanced enough from it to be bored!
If you actually read the thread, it's about homeless people, not disabled people. The discussion would have stayed linked to the OP if homeless people were discussed more than anything else.
Of course it will affect some disabled people and parents of disabled children (if it happens), but it will also affect pregnant people, able bodied people, ex services people, care leavers, parents of able bodied children, out of work people, people working for a low income, people who volunteer, people who don't volunteer, and the list goes on. There is absolutely no need for it to all be about people who are disabled or who have disabled children. I find it sad that people are turned off potentially interesting threads because of certain posts.
Going back to an earlier post of yours outraged;
It doesn't say anything about disabled people in the article. Why are you assuming that someone who is disabled will be seen as less deserving than someone who is in the services
Because it doesn't say anything about them in the article!
So can you see why that article made some of us a little concerned?
Does that explain why we mentioned disability?
Every bit of security people with disabilities and their families have had is under threat at the moment, so it tends to make you notice these things you see.
Having re-read the article, it doesnt mention disabled people unless I am missing something. Carers have and always will be catered for to a decent level.
Not giving priority to familes for declare a relative "homeless" or pregnant people is not the end of the world. If you are adult enough to get pregnant you are adult enough to find a home privately. If you want to leave the family home, thats fine but dont play the system to get a house handed to you.
The system has needed an overhaul for years as its lost its welfare state credentials and become an entitlement to many.
Of course I can see that. I understand why you talk about the disability aspect of the thing perfectly.
What I don't understand is why disability is talked about to the exclusion of every other group of people that could be affected. You want me to step out of my world and understand how people affected by disability will be affected by this paper. And I'm happy to. That's why I read these threads and stay on them. But I'm interested in the other groups of people that will be affected too.
" I find it sad that people are turned off potentially interesting threads because of certain posts."
well i find it sad that you are trying to shut carers up.
do you really think that disabled people are never homeless?
MurderOfGoths Mon 12-Nov-12 18:25:07
I imagine the people affected by it would love to be distanced enough from it to be bored!
Carers have and always will be catered for to a decent level
Says who? read up a bit on the subject and you will find that is not so.]
What I don't understand is why disability is talked about to the exclusion of every other group of people that could be affected
By talking about the disability/carers issue, I am not excluding anyone from discussing all aspects of the issue.
My issue is not about the needs of the other groups, it is that in focusing on them, other groups are being glossed over..this is no accident.
FFS threesocks, you really do only see what you choose to don't you?
I've already explained I'm not trying to 'shut carers up'. Like I said, being hopeful that a thread can stay on topic is not trying shut anyone up. Of course I don't think that disabled people can never be homeless, but you come across as though you think all disabled people will be made homeless.
Happy, I agree. Simply being pregnant should not give you priority for social housing. If there is one suitable property being offered and two pregnant people of the same age and in similar circumstances to choose from to give it to, I see nothing wrong with giving it to the one who has made a contribution to society over the one who hasn't.
Amberleaf, i ran a dummy quote through the benefit calculator. A couple where neither works with two children where one child qualifies for mid dla and a low rent of £80 can claim £20k in benefits and that didnt seem to include the dla payment. A working person would have to earn a gross salary of £26.5k to bring that sort of income in. Yes i think the system provides to a decent level.
Go and read up a bit about how the welfare reforms will affect people like your hypothetical couple then eh?
Is this another of these faux calculations where you neglect to add in that the couple earning £26.5 K would also be receiving child benefit, tax credits, yadda yadda?
Or are you saying that £26.5 K is the same level of provision to a family of three with disability-related costs, as to a fit single person with no dependents and no costs for care, special adaptations or mobility?
The point is, discussing the disabled on a thread like this IS relevant, at least to those of us who don't see each individual Government policy in isolation, but rather as a group of policies that combine to screw over the disabled and Carers more than any other section of Society.
A Lone parent who has a disability, like me (yes, I'm 'personalising' this again, because I know my own situation well enough, though there are others in the same situation) and is claiming ESA, will be subject to the benefit cap.
I live in the SE, in a HA house where I am already having to pay £100 top up on my rent as HB doesn't cover the so-called 'affordable rent' on my home. I can't relocate, for 101 reasons, some connected to my disabilities, some connected to my DC's continued contact with their father, and some connected to my DC's disabilities and schooling issues.
I also have multiple DC's with disabilities. So my income will probably be over the cap.
What this means is that I will lose any support I get over the cap. In practice, I can't stop ANY of the extra expenses caused by my disability, or my DC's disabilities. I can't cover my bills for heat, light and water AND cover my rent on what will be left, as I have lost roughly £2,500 a year.
So, as I have to cover all the expenses of our disabilities, feed my DC's and myself, keep the house warm enough that none of us freeze to death, and cover the costs of their exclusion diets and huge bus fares to school, the rent doesn't get fully paid.
I get evicted. I am no longer a 'priority' on the housing list, despite being homeless, as I don't 'contribute' to Society. If I am no longer a priority, then the Council does not even have to find a one room B&B to accommodate us. I don't have any money to pay for a Private rented deposit, and my council has no deposit scheme. I am unemployed so cannot get a loan to cover the cost of a deposit.
Are you HONESTLY trying to tell me that disabled people AREN'T going to be affected by these policies?!
And note in the bottom of the Article, it states SOME disabled people MAY be given priority. In other words, NOT ALL.
Let's see, now. Would your acceptance as a priority on the housing list be connected to your receipt of disability related benefits, as assessed by the deeply flawed WCA that has the published aim of getting 20% of people off disability benefits despite there being a combined fraud and DWP error rate of just 0.5%? Would this be decided on the findings of the same, deeply flawed WCA that has its findings overturned in 40% of self-represented cases, and 80% of cases represented by the CAB? Would this be decided on the basis of the same, deeply flawed WCA that is being decried by the Lib Dems? And Lord Harrington?
And you wonder WHY people with disabilities and their Carers come onto these threads to explain, yet again, how this policy or that policy will hurt the disabled the hardest?
WHY should access to Social Housing be based on ANYTHING other than who is in the greatest NEED? 'Deserving' shouldn't come into it. NEED should be the ONLY thing considered.
If you want MORE people to have access to Social Housing, such as the soldiers, then the solution is obvious to anyone. BUILD MORE HOUSES.
This would also have the added effect of stimulating the economy, more jobs, more money paid in taxes, AND homes for the 'deserving but not in as great NEED' as well as the truly in NEED.
<<Bangs head on brick wall.>>
Who pays rent of £80 a week? Where's the other £100 odd?
I'd say let's try to keep the subject about housing rather than disabilities and how much the govt does/doesn't give to disabled people. But then I'd be just told I'm unsympathetic and won't someone please think of the children!
OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos no I don't actually.
It won't most likely affect me as we already have a HA house. are good tenants and are not in arrears.
but that doesn't stop me from being concerned to see the changes that are being mad that will affect others.
oh and I do think it is now the time to remind people. disability is not a choice and it can happen to anyone at anytime, and it will affect everyone at some time how ever boring you find the subject
niceguy why? why do you think the 2 are seperate?
And as an aside, how many adapted private rented properties are there...
If people with disabilities aren't a priority, that means that if they are in need of an adapted property, they will basically have no way of getting it.
Because the Government isn't going to pay out for an expensive adaptation to a Private Rented house. Even if the LL agrees. Because that LL could then ask you to leave, and rent it out to another person who needs that adaptation, for WAY above market rent, without having had to pay ANY of the costs for that adaptation.
Meanwhile, the original tenant still needs that adaptation in their NEW private rented property...
Yeah, THAT'S going to happen.
And actually, the article DOESN'T mention disabilities at all. I've reread it. Which is what drew me in to posting in the first place!
It's the omission of mention that concerns the disabled and Carers. If we were going to be looked on as 'deserving' under these new rules, do you not think the Government would be crowing that from the rooftops as a way to say "Look, see, we DO care about the disabled and Carers."
So it's the omission that scares the fucking crap out of us, yeah? Surely it would have been the best way to put a spin on caring for the disabled and Carers (while minimising the effects of the useless WCA). But that ISN'T what they're doing.
So by omission, it tells the disabled and their Carers that nope, we don't class you as deserving enough any more.
So there you go. It's the omission that speaks volumes. Because if the disabled WERE to be included in this priority, do you really not think that the spin doctors could have used it to their advantage? If I was a spin doctor and this DID include the disabled and Carers as 'deserving', then I would have used it to try to claw back some support for my Government from the disabled, their Carers, and just about any major Charity that works with these people. But they haven't...
£80 rent? That barely gets a bedsit with a sofa bed as there isn't a separate bedroom in this town. Don't make me laugh! £80 a week rent. I bloody wish.
The disabled still need housing...
Why are people with disabilities not pertinent then?
Because after welfare reform, after being kicked off DLA, after having HB docked because they're overhoused (even though house side medically approved), after being told they're fit to work but too ill for JSA they're going to get evicted. In droves.
They are not separate issues. This is what we are trying to say.
As for us, good tenants yes but due to the LA stuffing up HB we had rental arrears for a time. So wouldn't be priority would we? We can't exactly work caring for three children with disabilities.
I chose a rent of £80 a week to not be accused of inflating rents to bump up the benefits total, doubling the rent will give an even higher benefit rate.
Parsingfanct, a couple on a salary of £26k would get child benefit but tax credits are capped to £26k so they would get very little if any. So bar the child benefit, they would get nothing. Up the rent to the amounts suggested above and add on the dla and the couple not working but caring are much better off. That means carers are given enough to cover living costs.
Hmm. The DLA is to be spent on the needs of the person with the disability. So it's unfair to include as income. Hence why up til now govt calcs do not include it.
DLA is not included in a house hold income.
I think some people don't realise what DLA is for!
Again HappyMummy go and look at how the changes will affect familys in reciept of DLA/carers etc. IT IS CHANGING.
<beats HappyMummy's head against desk, because I don't see why it should be my head yet again>
DLA is to contribute to the EXTRA COSTS incurred through disability.
Being disabled costs more than not being disabled! It's not fucking rocket science! DLA is only awarded to people with sufficient loss of function that they need assistance to get around or stay clean and fed and safe.
Therefore people getting DLA are not usually "better off" than if they weren't disabled! Because a non-disabled person doesn't have those costs in the first place.
for the hard of thinking :
If I had a low income, I would get a contribution towards my glasses. But I wouldn't be better off than if I didn't need glasses. Because contribution or not, I incur the cost of buying glasses.
I think you're struggling mentally, HappyMummy because DLA is handled in money form.
If it were given in the form of half a mobility scooter; or someone to prepare meals on Mon, Weds, Fri; or to help bathe only at weekends, it would dawn on you that not only is the person getting DLA not "better off", they're having to fund the other half of the scooter, etc, out of their income - which may itself be restricted if they can't work.
oh yay so I am "much better off"
blimey how stupid
Hmm yes. Rolling it on Carers and IS.
All other money is earmarked for the children.
have you seen the prices? I got dd a bib(adult sized) over 10 quid.
VOCA 8 grand!!!
I give up.
Same thread, different title.
Bring on the goats.
I'm pretty sure someone decked them out in Moulin Rouge style dancer outfits last week.
Hopefully they haven't eaten them...
I haven't got a goat can't afford to feed it
Over 300 posts and Outraged is the first to mention goats!
did yours get the sequin upgrade, Amber?
<<Beats self round head with a 2 by 4 to knock some sense into myself.>>
Well, of course I'm rolling in it. Currently I get just £34 a week IS, because I had no choice but to accept the only terms offered to me of a repayment plan of almost 50% of my benefits each week when I HAD to get a social loan to cover the costs of my disabilities (that ATOS claim aren't disabling enough) and costs of my DC's disabilities, as THEY keep getting turned down for DLA.
I went and wasted that money on crack or something. I must be entirely mistaken in thinking that the vast portion of it went on replacing my DS2's broken nebuliser. The NHS had put me on a waiting list, that is 3 years long. The only thing keeping him from being permanently hospitalised for those 3 years wait is that nebuliser that I bought, and an paying back for at £33 a week out of the £71 income that I am meant to have.
The rest of the loan? A new kettle tipper to prevent me from scalding myself if
when more like I have a seizure while mid pour. Also on new Anti-suffocation pillows at a cost of £60 a pair, that have to be replaced every 6 months or they are not effective.
Yeah, I'm fucking ROLLING in it. Every other penny that comes into this house is meant to be to cover the children's needs. Yet I am having to pay bills out of the money that is meant to feed and clothe them because I had to fork out £350 to replace something the NHS are meant to provide for my DS2 that makes the difference in his quality of life between being stuck in a hospital bed for 3 years to access the medicine he needs to bloody BREATHE (kind of essential, yeah?!) or being at home and attending school, and seeing his friends.
But, yeah, I guess I'll have to hit myself a few more times with that 2 by 4 before I actually believe I'm rolling in it.
Even the manager at my electricity company drew a SIOB when I explained my repayment schedule and what I had spent the money on, whilst I was rearranging payments given my distinct lack of, erm, well-offness...
They took my goat away. I wasn't disabled enough for a goat.
It gets embarrassing when the manager of your electric company starts asking you if you have been to this Charity or that Charity, and that you repayment schedule is the worst she's ever seen on a Social Fund loan.
She was that shocked that she has put a stop on any action on my account until next April, no matter HOW much arrears I get into.
That just tells me that I should have a goat hanging around somewhere. But nope, the goat's fucked off.
Glitter my goat is a trendsetter
CouthyMowEatingBraiiiiinz I do hope the "bored people" read your posts. they might learn something.
I agree with the caps on housing benefit. I agree with child benefit being reduced for people earning over £50,000 a year. I hope low paid workers pay less tax in future. The personal allowance should be set around £15,000. This would help a lot of people in poverty.
How the holy hell did they get a picture of me and my goat on the internet?
Pre Christina upgrade, by the way.
My goat has its own flat screen TV
I'm from Scotland we do not do goats:http://www.minihighlandcattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Button-33in-at-20-mo-web.jpg
And actually, the article DOESN'T mention disabilities at all. I've reread it. Which is what drew me in to posting in the first place!
Based on that logic then practically every news article is scaring the shit out of you then yes?
I mean the govt are under pressure not to put the 3p rise on fuel duty. Using your logic the fact they haven't mentioned carers and disabled people means that they must be uncaring bastards who hate the disabled yes? Otherwise they'd waive the duty rise for those receiving DLA right?
My point is that if you are minded to, you can drag practically any news article back to disabilities. And sooner or later you start to sound like a one trick pony and people switch off which does your cause no good at all.
Thank you niceguy2 for putting into words so well what I tried to say earlier when I said why I turn away from these threads as they all turn into the same 'poor me one upman ship' eventually.
It's not about getting bored or being unsympathetic,it's about the conversation descending into the same material by the same people being rehashed all the time regardless of the content of the original post and with that coming to a grinding halt.
I am minded of the story of Chicken Little, who cried that 'the sky is falling' so often that folk stopped listening.
I think your objectives would be better served if you picked your fights.
You have virtual universal good will, but risk alienating people with your consistently aggressive stance.
do you know, this thread started with people complaining that it was going back to the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor, then have filled this thread with talk of disabled people needing to have priority - the clear view is that if you are disabled you are deserving poor.
I'm not saying that's wrong, but perhaps people would look again at this view - if you are accepting that certain groups are more deserving of help than others, then you are making a value judgement not just based on 'first come, first served' with housing provision for those who meet the criteria.
All this new proposal does is put other groups in the 'deserving' pile - if you think that anyone (from within those who meet the criteria to get housing) should be prioritised, then you do feel that some people are more deserving than others.
And don't say it's about levels of need, everyone who meets the criteria for council housing needs a roof over their head and can't afford to pay for it themselves, they all are in need. Everyone on the housing lists has a reason why then need help and 'deserve' it.
You've answered your own question, Dontmind. It is about levels of need.
Those levels of need cut across the other groupings they're trying to create.
armed forces leaver with children and disability = higher level of need
armed forces leaver single, no medical probs (inc mental health) with well-earned pension = lower level of need
The "deserving" concept is about judging the "moral worth" of a person, rather than their level of need. This is fine for sweeties as an end of term prize; it's highly problematic for basic survival needs.
Apart from anything else, you immediately get into the Q of what constitutes deserving. In previous eras, women who had sex out of marriage were considered less deserving - in the Jeremy Paxman Who Do You Think You Are, his widowed ancestor and her children had iirc their poor relief stopped because she had had sex with the man down stairs.
The question about need can be seen in terms of "what will happen if someone doesn't get X". So a person who can no longer get up the stairs to their bathroom have problems staying clean, causing more health problems. Adapting private rental isn't likely to happen, so the most likely way out of the bind is social housing rental.
And by the way I'm at MoD breaking the military covenant about looking after serving and former forces members.
Someone above said it can be hard moving on from army housing after years of relocating. And I couldn't agree more that you should have plenty of help with that - from the army. Advice, references to get you started, decent timescales, whatever would be helpful. If all those fail, you will then anyway develop a need which puts you on the levels-of-need scale.
There seem to be a lot of attempts to shuffle responsibility off onto other people - "Ooh, businesses should offer soldiers discounts" - WTF? Just fucking pay them through taxing the businesses in the first place. You can't run a country on optional taxes, which is what charity is.
wow so sorry to bring disability in to it and and offend
I do hope when it affects you and it will, you remember your posts.
you cannot tell people they cannot post on a thread, you cannot tell them what they can post or talk about.
and this will affect disabled people anyone who thinks other wise is just plain naive
Don't quite understand sunflowers' post.
Are you saying that you have goodwill towards disabled people, but if someone tells you disabled people aren't in fact getting the support you imagine, once the cuts come in, you'll get angry with them and stop listening?
And in fact go off disabled people as a entire group?
You're sounding an awful lot like a man who likes women, but only when they don't demand equal pay or maternity rights. That just harms women's cause, after all...
Yeah it is just like chicken licken
sigh, That is so far removed from what I'm saying that I could start to wonder whether you are being contrary on purpose.
What I, and several others, are trying to say is that sometimes it's not only about disabled people. Sometimes we would like to discuss how matters related to benefits, or social housing, or low income, affects groups other than the disabled. But whenever anyone sticks their head above the parapet and says well yes, but look how its affecting someone made redundant at 51 (i.e. anyone other than the disabled) they are immediately shouted down, even when the OP is like this one, concerning a specific subject i.e. prioritizing the homeless, where there is no suggestion that the disabled will be affected at all.
Apparently, the fact that they weren't mentioned is sinister in itself, but as Outraged pointed out, if you allow yourselves to be that paranoid, then you will spend your entire lives waiting for the fall. Hence my analogy to Chicken Little (or Licken, depending on where you hail from)
It isn't that people will turn against disabled people, the problem as I see it is that they will stop taking notice of anything they're are saying, on the assumption that it's more of the same.
That's what I meant by picking your fights. I really was trying to be helpful.
And, incidentally, thinly veiled threats such as when it affects you, and it will, apart from being statistical nonsense (10million disabled people in the UK, that's 16% of the population, therefore the vast majority of people in the UK will not become disabled) are hardly likely to endear you to posters who have time and again already voiced support for disabled people.
I really don't feel I have worded this post as well as I want to, but I have to go and pick DS up from college and take him to the dentist. No doubt I shall return to a barrage of objections to my own opinion.
Parsing knows exactly what you mean but she's just being obtuse on purpose.
Of course these changes may affect some disabled people. But just in the same way that raising fuel prices will mean it's harder for the disabled to get around. Ditto with child benefit. It will make it harder for the disabled with children to make ends meet. etc. etc. But hey....it will make it harder for everyone else too.
Let me ask you this parsing. Do you want equality? Or do you want preferential treatment? Because it certainly sounds like the latter.
Happymumy those gov calc do not take into account the effect of each benefit on each other whilst they do inc pass ported benefits they won't calc the actually end result hence why they have disclaimers attached.
It would be very very hard to have a reasonable discussion regarding the homeless or vulnerably housed with out also talking about things like disabilities or domestic violence
As the two largest groups experancing homelessness or threatened homelessness are those experiencing domestic violence and/ or those with a disability/ caring responsabilities for someone with one.
They classic stereotypes of a BMW driving beggar, those who blah there mum up for a eviction letter,etc are so far down the list of groups it's laughable
Someone up there got it spot on. It is about need, not moral values.
So yes people with disabilities, their carers, care leavers, single parents fleeing DV... not people considered 'naice'.
I shout about the disability cuts because it's my area of experience. Doesn't mean I don't and can't empathise with others facing difficulty.
OK, let's talk about 'needs'.
Let's say you are in a vulnerable position. Let's firstly use the example of a lady fleeing DV. What's her immediate need? A safe home no doubt. Does that HAVE to be a council house? I would argue not.
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.
What we are discussing here is how to allocate council houses and who should be given priority. Having a disability or fleeing DV does not in my view automatically prove a need.
My post was completely straight and I'm genuinely trying to find out what you mean, because you're trying so very hard to ignore anything that challenges your views - like above when you said no one was suggesting cuts affecting disabled people and several posters promptly detailed cuts.
And you're at it again with:
"prioritizing the homeless, where there is no suggestion that the disabled will be affected at all"
Are you suggesting increasing the quantity of social housing? Because if not, and you are talking about reallocating a limited resource to a new set of people, this can only be achieved by taking it from someone else.
That doesn't mean you can't discuss housing priorities. Or discuss being made redundant at 51. Or whatever you like. But you're not going to get away with saying, "and this doesn't affect disabled people so please stop talking about it". Because it does.
Ditto families escaping DV and anyone else currently meeting the criteria for social housing. That's the nature of slicing a fixed pie.
To choose who gets a smaller slice of pie, we have to talk about who currently gets what.
No but having a disability or experancing DV at the same time as being homeless or vulnerably housed does and always should.
If a private landlord suitably adapted a house for a disabled tenant, iiuc the tenant wouldn't get priority for a council house!
Because they wouldn't have an unmet need.
Btw, I know that niceguy already knows fine well the difference between "equality" and "special treatment", because it's been spelled out to him before.
But for anyone else.
If you open a bank in a building with steps, you are not giving your customers equality. You are giving wheelchair users special negative treatment.
It may cost you a fortune to put in a lift or ramp. That's not special treatment for wheelchair users, it's creating equality of access.
On this thread, it's housing that some disabled people may not be able to access without intervention. This is due to the need of adaptations, low availability in the private sector and - for people whose disability impacts their work - low income.
Sorry, that should have said,
^it's housing to which some disabled people may not have equality of access without intervention"
For goodness sake, if you're going to take a pop at someone, at least do them the courtesy of reading what they've said. My posts in this thread have been made exclusively in connection to the OP and the article it linked to. That article does not mention the disabled at all
Did you even read it?
Here's the link again to save you the trouble of looking for it.
It talks about a briefing suggesting ways of prioritizing homeless people, which has somehow been extrapolated into disabled people are going to be evicted from their homes and thrown into the gutter, or the workhouse, or the gas chambers, to make way for library volunteers.
They are not talking about reallocating anything, they are talking about finding homes for already homeless people, disabled or otherwise.
I have made no comments whatsoever regarding any other benefit cuts that may or may not affect disabled people.
The drama queen hystrionics about silencing the voice of the disabled is just laughable. You cannot mention anything on here without being swamped by posts insisting how much worse it is for the disabled, and in many instances, I'm sure it is, but that doesn't mean that no other struggling group is worthy of forum space.
Disabled person in private rental, cost of adaptations then gets served a section 21 a few months' later = increased cost when adaptations have to be done again.
Plus HB would be higher on a private rental. Which statistically people with disabilities and their carers are more likely to need.
Security of tenure lowers cost.
terrible isn't it that a lot of people actually know how badly disabled people are being affected by the cuts and how they will be affected by things like this.
you might not like people posting about it, tough,
But we weren't talking about the cuts, threesocks, we were talking about prioritizing homeless people.
Glitterknickaz we best point out who the adaptions are paid for,
by a grant(funded by the council) the grant is in the disabled persons name.
so if they are then kicked out by a private landlord, the landlord will be the only one to benefit.
in social housing this won't happen as the likely hood of the person being kicked out is much lower.
(sorry saying kicked out as in a rush and can't think of the proper term)
people will become homeless due to the cuts!!!
That'll be the article that reads:
'people with severe health problems who are accepted as homeless currently go to the top of the local queue for social housing. But local authorities now have powers to redraw allocation priorities in order to give priority to "groups who make a special contribution".
Btw, "homeless" in govt parlance doesn't just mean people sleeping on the streets. Families are given temporary shelter in B&Bs like this.
And "disabled" means "have a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities." (Equality Act 2010)
So these people with severe health problems impacting their long-term need for housing will all count as disabled. But not all disabled people will have severe health problems impacting their housing need.
None of us were saying that this issue ONLY affects the disabled or Carers. We were talking about how it WILL affect the disabled and Carers.
If somebody else posted about another situation, then I'm sure we would also discuss that too.
But it doesn't take away the fact that this issue WILL affect the disabled and Carers, so why can't we point that out?
It's not ignoring the OP, it's pointing out one group of people that will be badly affected by this.
And NiceGuy. While you may not see any reason why a Woman fleeing DV, or a disabled person, or a Carer should be housed in Council (or HA) housing, I can give you three very good reasons why. 1) a deposit. 2) Rent in advance. Sometimes as much as 6 months rent up front is needed for an unemployed person to be given a private rented tenancy. 3) The lack of Private Rented housing *that is available to those in receipt of HB, even if only part of the rent is paid by HB a lot of LL's can't accept the tenant due to their mortgage company or their LL's insurance company refusing to allow it.
Lots of areas have no rent or deposit guarantee scheme, my area doesn't for starters.
If you are disabled and have no savings left, or you have fled DV, where exactly are you going to get the money for a deposit or anything up to 6 months rent in advance?
The Social Fund does not give loans for rent or housing deposits. Most of these people have no access to loans, and even if they do, the interest rates are anything between 200% and 4,356%.
That's hardly manageable for somebody too disabled to work, or somebody fleeing DV, who is having to wait 6-12 weeks for the first payment of benefits as it is, is it.
How can you argue that because they aren't currently 'contributing' that they are less IN NEED than, say, a 51yo that has been made redundant and has redundancy pay with which to pay a Private Rental deposit?
I can't see how the level of NEED is equal there?
Sorry, my point at 16:50:59 being there are vastly more people designated homeless than are visible to the casual observer.
And there isn't enough social housing readily available even for these homeless people. Hence priority lists.
Don't get riled by the posters on here telling you to shut up about your boooooring disability.
They are exactly the same loons who turn up on EVERY benefits thread shrieking about Personal Responsibility and how, for instance, children conceived while the parents were in receipt of tax credits don't apparently justify feeding any more because their parents were 'feckless' and the little wasters now deserve all they get, or should somehow all cease to exist in a big puff of Responsibility Magic.
Then they turn up and shriek about how awful it is that people quite sensibly mention the relatively recent 20th century history of eugenics and workhouses- the historical solutions to disappearing the undeserving poor and their unwanted children. Oh, and to rave at posters who dare to mention the fact they have disabilities and would like not to be treated as the undeserving poor.
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!
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.
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.
A secure home is different to a home in a particular area.
'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.
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 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.
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?
Glitter - were they asking you to downsize?
Can you apply for discretionary payments if you get charged for the extra room?
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
Also, plenty of peoples' mortgage and insurance companies have provisos written in that forbid them from taking tenants on HB/LHA.
I was homeless due to not being able to find a landlord that would take HB.
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.
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.
(also I hope that challenges the assumption I'm rolling in it)
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.
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!
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.
domesticgodless is right
(must hide this thread)
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.
Domestic that post makes me think your a bit wonderful
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.
No, stuff that's actually happening...
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.
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...)
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.