Just been on a course about new benefit system

Tilly, the percentage unemployed means nothing without looking at job availability. Vacancies are plummeting.

There were 457,000 job vacancies in the three months to April 2012, down 7,000 on the three months to January 2012 and down 12,000 on a year earlier. (ONS)

Lower unemployment during a 'boom' simply meant there more jobs available.

Unemployment will continue to rise. Not because of "feckless scroungers" but because there aren't enough jobs.

There are already more than 10 jobseekers for each vacancy. Cutting off their money won't make 10 times as many jobs appear out of nowhere. If anything, it will make jobs disappear due to reduced economic activity.

Where is the economic stimulus?

Dahlen

No happy, healthy person reaches the age of 16 with the sole aspiration of joining the dole queue. That particular aspiration (or lack of) is created.

Agree with this. The problem is poverty of aspiration, not financial poverty.

Quite often 'feckless spongers' have become feckless spongers because of poor parenting, postcode lottery schooling, poverty, disenfranchised communities, etc. If you want to eradicate this sort of mentality, you need to plough money into social services, education and community - all areas that are being cut back on.

You see you then go right back on what you said above and claim that it's lack of money that creates 'spongers'? OK, exactly how much money makes the spongers stop? The reason I ask is Labour doubled welfare spending, and the number of spongers went up.

Cutting benefits will simply disenfranchise these people more and result in increased poverty, greater demands on the NHS and increased crime, not to mention the very real risk of civil unrest as we've already seen and which is predicted to happen again.

We've already seen, in the Tottenham riots, what a colossal sense of entitlement to other people's earnings does. Although IIRC those Tottenham rioters weren't stealing food and clothes but trainers and electronics.

The problem is social. That means that central government intervention can't help. Money isn't the problem, it's the mentality of the people that do it that's the problem, and the cure has to come from the people themselves.

Labour spent thirteen years throwing money we didn't have at free this and extra that and help yourself to some of this.

We've got more " feckless spongers" after their policies than ever before...

dahlen you need to plough money into social services, education and community - all areas that are being cut back on. i agree.

Think about it. If being a feckless sponger is so easy and comfortable an existence, how come none of us want it for our children?

It's because we recognise that a happy, well-rounded life comes from having hope that things will get better, having goals and dreams and the ability and opportunities to pursue them - all things denied to people brought up in homes where the parents lack the skills to work, where the drug dealers are the only ones with no money worries, and where the people working hard on NMW regularly have the bailiffs at the door. Oh and where the bankers and politicians commit offences that are 1000x worse than your average benefit fraudster yet don't even lose their jobs in many cases (or if they do it's with a big payout). Yeah, it's a dream life at the tax payers expense.

when there were jobs, they were not taken by people who could claim instead

Surely the question is why? Why aren't people taking jobs?

Ruling out disability, circumstances etc and choosing just to concentrate on the lazy, feckless spongers that everyone loves to point the finger at, the question is still why?

No happy, healthy person reaches the age of 16 with the sole aspiration of joining the dole queue. That particular aspiration (or lack of) is created.

Quite often 'feckless spongers' have become feckless spongers because of poor parenting, postcode lottery schooling, poverty, disenfranchised communities, etc. If you want to eradicate this sort of mentality, you need to plough money into social services, education and community - all areas that are being cut back on.

Cutting benefits will simply disenfranchise these people more and result in increased poverty, greater demands on the NHS and increased crime, not to mention the very real risk of civil unrest as we've already seen and which is predicted to happen again.

Garlic there is no point arguing with those who align themselves on the right, they spout their spurious shite with nothing resembling a fact to back up their poorly thought out excuse for an argument. Indeed, when you prove them wrong with the simple application of facts they tell you you're wrong, and why. When pressed for proof of their 'argument' they go strangely quiet.

Iain and Duncan Smith (I refuse to believe that much hate for the poor exists in one person) know the consequences for the poor and disabled. They just don't care.

GB - They don't want to be charged a couple of hundred quid a year for the privilege of living in a safe & healthy society

if paying a few hundred pounds a year fixed the problem, it would have been fixed long ago.

www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:uk&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk+unemployment

unemployment is 8% now. it did not go below 4.5% in the any of the booms since the 1980s. and of course in the booms, may people came to the UK to work and successful entered employment here, while others remained claiming. this is not a problem that raising taxes can solve, because when there were jobs, they were not taken by people who could claim instead.

How do you propose to cut £190 billion from our budget without somehow affecting the poor?

Niceguy, why do you keep banging on about cuts without looking at ways to increase income?

Why do you ignore posts like Couthy's which ask whether other, reasonable-looking alternatives have been considered?

And where was this money "spent"? You were quick to ridicule my insurance/embezzlement analogy but have done fuck all about my replies.

As we 'speak' on lots of other threads, I don't perceive you as thick or even particularly elitist. Could you please explain why you've bought the coalition's half-baked ideas so completely?

I know quite a few people with cleaners. None of them earn anywhere near £100,000 a year.

Well, that's the rub isn't it, Dahlen. They don't want to be charged a couple of hundred quid a year for the privilege of living in a safe & healthy society. I bet these are the same people who say they'll never go back to India or Egypt for their holidays because of all the beggars. Bloody inconvenient, all those destitute folks getting in the way, and don't touch them darling! They haven't washed their hands!
It will happen here.

? 69,460 children (or expected children) are living in homeless households ? three quarters of the total 'accepted' (registered with local authority).
? An increase of 44% in households who are homeless after repossession to 1,520. But this is still a relatively small part of the whole. The biggest proportion, 20%, are those who can no longer stay with a friend or a relative.
? In the last three months of 2011, 12,830 households were 'accepted' as homeless, up 18% on the same period the previous year
? Increasingly, people are being put up in bed and breakfast accommodation ? which is up 37% on the previous year after years of declines
? Decrease in the use of accommodation leased by the private sector to local authorities, by 6% from 27,730 to 26,080 households. In fact, 8,540 households are homeless because their short lease came to an end, up 39% on 2010
? Birmingham has the highest numbers of homeless people, with 925 households - but the highest rate in England is in Waltham Forest, north-east London, where 2.55 households per 1,000 are accepted as homeless, compared to an England figure of 0.59. Across London, homelessness is up by 27.4% (2011/2010)

There are an estimated 12,000 living in squalid London sheds.

At the moment, incompassionate posters, these numbers are mostly made of the people you praise for working at NMW or less, without benefits. Many of their children live with them in a single, uninsulated room without proper sanitation. This is what you admire, apparently, as long as you get your services cheaply and promptly. Do you really feel proud that you won't pay enough for workers to be able to house their children properly?

When people begin falling through the welfare net in hundreds of thousands, our homeless will be joined by the sick, the mentally disabled, the shell-shocked, the depressed, the crippled and the elderly. Plus their children. Just to save you a bit of tax, and save international corporations a lot of tax.

I thought this thread was still about the changes to child benefit so that it only covers the first three children

Read the OP it wasn't about child benefit at all!

See this is what makes it all so tedious on these threads-people that don't know what they are talking about and who don't have the first clue come on with so much to say.

I also think it's worth accepting that we are never going to have 100% employment. We never have. There are always going to be people who do not work. Some through illness/disability, some through circumstance, some through poor education/intelligence, and yes, some through choice.

It's impossible to distinguish between 'deserving' and 'undeserving'. Successive governments throughout history have tried and failed, succeeding only in hurting as many innocents as feckless. Those who fail to examine history are condemned to repeat its mistakes.

The question then becomes 'how does a humane, civilised society treat its most vulnerable citizens?' Are principles and ethics to be reserved only for times of plenty? Or, in times of need, do we all accept greater pain in order to ensure our most vulnerable do not sink (i.e. more taxation instead of budget cuts).

Also most of those jobs are done by single people with no dependents (well, no dependents in this country - although they are often sending money back home of course).

Therein lies the reason. Single people can live in a hostel/bedsit/houseshare to reduce overheads and make a low-paid job worthwhile. It's less easy to do that when you have a partner and/or children in tow.

Orwellian, there are over 2.5 million people claiming JSA chasing 450000 jobs.

If there are no jobs, then how come so many Eastern Europeans seem to be able to find them - all the babysitters, nannies and au pairs I know are Eastern European, all the repair men in our flats are Eastern European, all the staff in our local cafe are Eastern European. Some of them are doing two jobs.

One of my best friends is Hungarian and she has been here for 4 years and has been out of work for 2 weeks that whole time, never claimed any benefits. She came here speaking virtually no English. She just put a lot of effort into finding work.

Unlike the richer, decent, hardworking fellows in the news lately,

I am proud to pay tax and would like to continue doing so if allowed

I like that my taxes go to help others.

I don't read the Gaurdian. I can't afford a daily paper.

What utter bollocks you talk. Like wishing to have a welfare state that oes not punish the poor is the reserve of middle class hand wringers.

I get sick of people talking theoretically about what people should do when they are pretty sure they will never have to do it.

Having a grandfather who worked dwn a mine doesn't mean you know about poverty btw. Going on about how your nanna Mary had three jobs means fuck all.
It wasn't you and you not know what she suffered.

Not so subtle side steps from niceguy and flatpack, My post long as it was was about the thinking behind the ideology not the practical framework.

So you both agree and condone people dying being killed, a financial reduction of the state by deliberately and with much malice forcing people to die. That is the choice that has been made, I see we have passed from arguing that it was the only choice so now we get to the bones. This is the choice they made, it is not one they had a gun held to their head and were forced to make they (the condems) made it freely and knowingly based on an understanding of the world and finance as well as what they perceive as the best way to hold on to elected office. in other words IDEOLOGY. At least have the guts to say what you are supporting niceguy and flatpack. Don't you dare hide behind blaming others, or your own illogical prejudices. Lets here you defend the result of what your saying. Families broken up, people dead, starving and homeless wandering the streets in larger numbers, those that have jobs working far more hours forcing families in to crises and raising more dysfunctional children. Get a pair both of you!

Actually they should. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean they shouldn't.
You see, much as it may surprise you, we live in a free society. That means we have choices, we can limit the number of children we have, or we can choose not to. That is a fact.
Okay, there are people like you who consider it morally wrong to do so, but most do not seem to have looked at causes or alternatives, other than stop money. A somewhat simplistic view.
The thing that makes me laugh the most about this is, those that think we should stop paying these 'baby factory' women, are those that don't sign their kids up to sex ed classes, or who think it's morally wrong to allow contraception to minors. Until we educate properly, this cycle will continue.
Problem is, there's no money is there, not for welfare, or education. Only for the rich, and for defence.

Dawndonna

^Grow up Flat.
I get so bored when people just come on to these threads to either patronise, or demonstrate their intellectual credentials, usually failing in both.^

You don't seem to have a problem with people coming on here spouting crap when they agree with you though.

I pay tax and yes, I'm quite happy for my tax to go toward paying DLA for anyone who needs it, including my dh.

I thought this thread was still about the changes to child benefit so that it only covers the first three children?

It seems it has moved on. Of course it has. DLA is something about which people can blame The Evil Tories, whereas it's harder to say that people should have child benefit for as many children as they choose.

Grow up Flat.
I get so bored when people just come on to these threads to either patronise, or demonstrate their intellectual credentials, usually failing in both.
I pay tax and yes, I'm quite happy for my tax to go toward paying DLA for anyone who needs it, including my dh.

Leithlurker

Wow so this thread has moved on a bit since the last time I looked...or possibly not.

Let me say this loud and clear, THIS IS AN IDEALOGICAL ATTACK ON THE POOR BY THE RICH!

Say it as often as you like, it still isn't true, and if you believe that the best thing for 'the poor' is to be handed other people's money by smiling Guardianistas in order to salve their consciences, then more fool you.

Leithlurker, it's no such thing. If we had a balanced budget and the government introduced such sweeping changes then yes you could argue that.

But our budget is nowhere near balanced. The figures don't lie. How do you propose to cut £190 billion from our budget without somehow affecting the poor? You can't.

And don't forget 'each time' the Conservatives come to power they have to cut services because of the fact the previous Labour government has spent all the money. Then eventually we tire of the cuts and we vote Labour back in who then spend lots of money 'fixing' all the cuts the Tories made. It's just a vicious circle and I hope one day we break out of it.

Gosh Tilly what if they are like me? Disabled child who needs security and routine, single parent who easily afforded private rents until my child's needs got to great and I needed to give up work. If I was in private rented accommodation it would be someone like me moving "where rents are more affordable". Uprooting a child who already finds the world a bewildering place just so people like you can smugly say "serves them right".

As it happens I am fortunately in social housing now but if I were not I would be mightily pissed off with your "sod off elsewhere" attitude.

Let's to God hope you do not ever find yourself in my position. Sadly it's only when people DO find themselves in this position that they realise how hard it already is without other people resenting them. And it IS resentment because otherwise it would not matter to you.

Wanna swap lives? No?

Funny that.

Loads of resentment but nobody ever wants to change places.

In fact it's people like you who make me feel worthless. No matter what we do as benefit claimants we will never be in the right no matter what we might have contributed in the past. No - it's a case of "if you cannot afford the rent anymore then just sod off elsewhere and take your disabled child with you" because that is the reality or will be.

And this thread neatly shows that I am bringing my disabled son up into a world which only values those who can contribute financially. What is the fucking point, might as well prepare him now for a life where people think he is worthless? Or shall we both jump off a bridge now? We'd save you poor beleaguered tax payers ...except we wouldn't because there will always be disabled people. And before anyone says "oh we don't mean disabled people" let me tell you they WILL lose money under these changes. And they will have to move potentially away from friends, family and local support. I rely on my relatives because I get sod all from any agencies. This "sod off elsewhere" plan which Tilly is so in favour of will lead to further social isolation for people like me who can least cope with it. Nice!

So forgive me for thinking what a crappy world this is sometimes and what a lot of shitty horrible people are in it. Those of you who dislike benefit claimants like me - what shitty bloody lives you must lead to envy me mine.

Scarred l get carers allowance for looking after my mum - l had to give up work to do so and l need every penny of it and l am still way out of pocket but hey - she's my mum,not the governments.
But recently my dad has also deteriorated very much and now l have to care for him also plus more for my mum cos he used to do some basic stuff in the house etc and for mum when he was wel, which l now do iyswim.

I applied for carers allowance for looking after my dad and was told l cant have it as you can only have it for looking after one person.

But if two of us (me and the woman down the road or another relative for example) go in and do the work l do for them between us then the woman down the road or relative could claim full carers allowance for one of my parents and l would still get it for the other.

So there is £68 going begging for my dad every week to pay someone to look after him. But wait a minute - someone is caring for him - me. But it stays in the pot and could only be paid out if l 'contracted out' all my dads care and just looked after my mum.

I used to be a fan of 'two for one' offers, not any more!