OK, so how would YOU change the welfare system?

[MathsMadMummy]

just wondering following on from various threads lately. sorry it's probably been done before.

I guess it's more a question of how you'd change the culture really, where people feel it's their entitlement to never work etc.

I have no idea what the answer is, please tell me your bright ideas

P.S by people in the front line, I meant the posters who have worked with families where this happens. I'm not suggesting anyone who has posted on here does that!

Very good point about the holidays SMA. I would like to see community schools offering holiday clubs throughout the holiday period, on the same hours, but it would cost. Having said that, with childcare being such a huge issue, it does seem a little daft that we've got these purpose built premises sitting doing nothing for umpteen weeks of the year. It's surely got to be cost effective to utilise those facilities to help meet childcare needs?

I'm not sure about the the take up of school meals since the Jamie Oliver initiative. I would imagine those entitled to free school meals are still taking them.

Special dietary requirement would need to be taken into account, that is a very good point. Not sure how we could easily get around that, because it's not something I know a lot about, other than of course, it varies greatly child by child.

I think it's fine that people can choose to HS/privately educate if they wish to do so. As SMA says, making that decision involves weighing up many factors. If the loss of child benefit was a major issue for you, I guess you still have the choice to take advantage of the state system.

Nothing is fair to everyone, someone will always moan. My concern is to see that all children, particularly those from the most deprived backgrounds, get the best possible start in life, without feeling like some sort of lesser being due to their parents circumstances.

The healthy living vouchers in place were a really great idea - particularly for families who couldn't use the old milk tokens for their children (due to allergies) Perhaps increasing the amount of those - being able to use them with your general items but only to cover milk, fruit, veg (like currently the case) and maybe extend to bread, yogurts. If these could be extended and could be used discreetly at the till this would not be a problem. I briefly had these vouchers and was grateful to have my shopping bill reduced at the checkout. School dinners still aren't great but an ideal model would be to give children the healthy meals they deserve in school and continue with free milk and fruit. Then those children get something nutritious.

Divine, I do feel that your last couple of posts sum up why nothing is ever changed - people think of endless reasons why something won't work, they don't think about positives. Therefore it's easier just to stick with the status quo, rather than try and make things better. The "too difficult" light comes on and things stay as they are, no matter how expensive or unecessary.

To the person who said "the money just comes off the shopping anyway" then the answer is simple - cigarettes and alcohol would not be able to be put through in the same transaction as a voucher payment. if you've very little actual cash coming in then maybe fewer people would be able to smoke, which we couldn't argue was a bad thing. It infuriates me that we have to pay tax so that people can smoke. When you think about it, if someone has no other income than benefits then it is State funded smoking which will then undoutably lead to a disease which the State will have to pay to treat. I could go on for hours on this topic and will stop now...

If they are fit to work and are not working, get them out picking up dog poo from the pavements, picking up litter, sweeping the streets, scraping up chewing gum and basically all the jobs that no-one else wants to do. If they dont do it, they dont get any money and have to move into communal housing (like workhouses) where all they get is a roof over their head and food.
Oh, and bring back national service for the 16-21 year olds who dont go into further education or get jobs.
There needs to be a welfare system for people who are unable to work but this should be strictly means tested.

If they are fit to work and are not working, get them out picking up dog poo from the pavements, picking up litter, sweeping the streets, scraping up chewing gum and basically all the jobs that no-one else wants to do. If they dont do it, they dont get any money and have to move into communal housing (like workhouses) where all they get is a roof over their head and food.
Oh, and bring back national service for the 16-21 year olds who dont go into further education or get jobs.
There needs to be a welfare system for people who are unable to work but this should be strictly means tested.

Because we?re not talking about data. We?re talking about peoples? lives. Something as simple as how the free bus pass to replace cash bus fare is going to work in practice is important, when there are going to be real people depending on it. With food vouchers, we all know that fruit and veg = healthy and Jammy Dodgers = not so healthy. But what about shades of grey ? is it going to be left to the checkout operator to decide whether to accept a voucher for Weetabix but not for Coco Pops? Would fish fingers come under healthy and allowed, or unhealthy and forbidden? Who?s going to be policing all this?

I don?t want to stick with the status quo, far from it. This sort of stuff is actually my day job - I?m a social policy bod and my current research focus is the attitudes of people on low incomes to money as a means of status and security. This may give me a bias, but it also means I come across a lot of social policy initiatives. The ones which make sense to me are the ones which address the long-term causes of poverty, deprivation, worklessness, low aspiration, low achievement and social exclusion. The ones which I?ve yet to see having positive long-term results anywhere in the world are the ones which work on the basis of simply cutting welfare to the ?undeserving? or focusing on the symptoms of the above. I'm fascinated by why it is that some of the countries with the most generous welfare systems have the least significant problems with people abusing them. I want the UK to be using evidence-based solutions which work holistically and address wider social issues, not fixes which people think might work and are worth a go and let?s worry about how the finer points are going to fall into place later on.

I actually agree with the principles of a lot of what you?re saying (Fibilou) and a lot of what?s being said generally, but there are too many over-adminned systems already with creases which make life intolerable for the people who rely on them, and welfare reform just seems like another one waiting to happen.

Well that's just great catwhiskers, assuming there are actually jobs available to employ people.

My Dad was made redundant under the Thatcher government, when heavy industry in the North was decimated. There were no alternative jobs available for the skills he'd trained for since leaving school.

He was unemployed for 3 years, soul destroying for us as a family. He did end up picking up paper and dog shit, but he was paid £70 a week to do so and worked every weekend/overtime he could.

Not everyone out of work is in that situation through choice. Why should a responsible family man, who has worked all of his life, be expected to clean up other people's shit for nothing? The Government have a responsibility too and part of that is to ensure employment is available for people who want it.

have only read to page 11 but have to ask.sorry if it has already been asked.

wubblybubbly why should real apprenticeships only be for young men? what about all the young women who don't have funds or inclination to go to university and who's best financial option at the minute is to get pregnant and be placed in social housing at the taxpayers expense? (btw, not saying this is the case for all young women but on this thread seems to be one of the issues that needs addressed) surely apprenticeships for young women would help reduce the amount of teenage pregnancies and young single mothers on benefits?

This report isn?t quite relevant to this precise topic, but it is quite interesting all the same. Homeless people and people on low incomes do in the main have the same aspirations as anybody else and don?t want to be sitting on their bums smoking and doing nothing all day.

lemosandcrane.co.uk/home/index.php?id=205781

booyhoo, that was a typo, I think I said young men and. There was supposed to be the word women in there too, sorry about that

So you would not eat if you had to use vouchers - really!!!!

that is a relief, i know i picked on you but i did see it earlier in the thread and thought, 'hang on, what about the girls?'

One of the issues that seems to comes up is when women say there arent any child friendly roles, no cheap child care, no relatives to help out, no friends to assist, no partner because he has left. They dont want to live on benefits but they have no choice... Yes, you do! They are all negatives, the more honest state that they would only earn another £20 per week if they worked so why should they.

I work for a very large company who has a very flexible approach to working. 95% of women come back after maternity leave. My mother was a school teacher, a friend works at her childrens school. The local Sainsbury's are always on the look out for people who will work flexibly. There are roles around, senior and not so senior and well paid but they are there - I am getting a little weary of people who seem to think that employers need to work around them and their needs

I think the best thing to do is to get the economy moving and have progressive taxation and distribute wealth as broadly as possible, and then welfare becomes less of an issue. One of the reasons our welfare state is so messy at the moment is because wealth has become so polarised. If we address this, we start to solve the problem at its root.

There will always be an intractable 2-5% at the bottom who refuse to help themselves, and nothing we do will ever make a difference IMO. So moving the deckchairs on the Titanic is a waste of time.

No problem booyhoo, quite right to mention it. I did notice the error but then forgot to correct it.

I remember during work experience at school I was told that, as a girl, I couldn't pick mining - that immediately made we want to choose it!

No reason at all why women shouldn't become trained professionals in all walks of life. In fact plumbing, electrical work, joinery etc could work really well around home life and childcare and would hopefully cut down on the number of builder's arses we're frequently subjected to

catwhiskers10 ...What a stupid fucking post yours is

Good post boffinmum.

Sadly, in any free society you have to accept that there will be a very small minority who don't want a stake in society - they want to sit back and let others provide for them. But that's a very small number, and it should be possible (not desirable) but possible for the rest of society to carry them. However, we have reached a situation where it's not the very few intractable people who are the problem - it's the much larger minority who look at the negatives all the time and don't want to be helped when in reality, they do have the capacity to improve their life.

Fibilou do you acknowedge though teh serious point about it could actually work aaginst some people already trying their best by limiting where they shop?

My £50 at the am,rket goes so very much further than a £50 in Asda. if you shop at the right time you get loads extra added for a start, perfect for making and freezing etc.

Can you why if I were on those benefits I would be pissed of to lose the very real efforts to buy good food as cheaply as posible thrtough being limited to venue because others (and it is a minority; I have a professional background working with famillies in tough times- not all poor but many- so can assure ou it's a huge minorit. yes I can think of a few where crisps were the staple diet but very, very few as a %.

Is preventing those who do make a real effort to curce good food cheaply worth doing in order to make a few comply? And wouldn;t those few complying be the same ones flogging their vouchers for a litre of vodka anyway?

It's possible to eat very well on a low income but not by shopping in the big four supermarkets and buying their all- year - round range; seasonal, grover / market adn knwoing how to cook with cheap ingreedients counts for an awful lot IMO.

unfortunatly there are very few jobs as i know, i did my share of voluntery work while i was unemployed and i was so down about not having paid work i became depressed.

i am now on the future jobs fund working for my local council for 6 months, i will be out of work again by christmas. all the time i have been on the future jobs fund i have been looking for perminate employment but there is nothing apart from 16hrs or less a week or no set hours which is no good when you have bills to pay.

if there were the jobs people wouldnt need/want to claim benefits and as someone who has claimed benefits i struggled, i dont know how people can afford fancy tvs etc as i couldnt afford to pay my bills!

Phew, this is a thread & a half. Haven't read it all, so apologies if replicating.

First off, agree with all comments about UK being lucky. There are still countries, even in Europe, where one can literally starve - have a look at rural Central Portugal some time!! So UK is dead fortunate but, sadly, we seem to have forgotten what welfare system(s) were set up to do - help out those who really, genuinely needed the help, because of circumstances outside their control. I see the crux being the shift away from us having a sense of social pride & responsibility - that being part of our society with all its' upsides is a priviledge - to a position where social welfare / handouts are seen as a 'right'. Hate that word!! Way, way too over-used. I'm a socialist but I believe in social responsibilities as much as I do in social 'rights',. Our system's way, way out of whack. I was horrified, for instance, to hear about child benefit for REALLY well paid people. Likewise was gobsmacked to hear that people on welfare were allowed to turn down jobs they were offered..... Yer Wot!!

I agree with much of postings about skills - everyone is capable of doing something. But, with one or two postings, why the 'qualititive' differentiation between the likes of brain & brawn etc. Truism, I thought, that we are all equal but different & about time we start appreciating those differences.

Re. unemployment, I think we should have a 'social wage' for those out of work, for which they perform community service of some sort. But please, we need to be more creative & come up with some more stimulating community projects for peeps to work on. After all, this is a huge potential workforce available. Benefits of this approach - folks don't loose the work ethic, they will feel valued & will see they are contributing something really tangible to society & thus not feel marginalised will retain a sense of personal worth. Plus, of course, all those of us in work, paying taxes etc benefit. Win: Win, seems to me.

People on the social wage could still look for work, so this approach does not limit them, although I've heard that excuse levied several times. I don't understand it - when I left Uni, I worked in a shop for several years (long hours, 5.5 days a week), whilst I decided what I wanted to do, longer term. I then managed to fit interviews around my working hours - it's possible, you just have to knuckle down & do it.

I am so mindful of the genuine issues that many people on benefits face, that I realise there are no easy fixes & much rebalancing has to take place over time. I just want to see us reinject some sense of value / worth into those in need of social support. Don't like this sense of a 'sub class'. The Banking crisis & all fall out should have shown many of us that it's very much a 'there, but for the grace of god' sitch. I count my blessings & take as little as I can from society, so that it's there for those that really need the help.

SMA if you do what you say and make your money go as far as possible I bet you are a tiny tiny minority, anyone remember the AIBU about healthy start vouchers not being accepted in M&S ?

"My concern is to see that all children, particularly those from the most deprived backgrounds, get the best possible start in life, without feeling like some sort of lesser being due to their parents circumstances."

The way to do that is to limit their numbers so that there is more to go around for those in need.

Don't be silly, of course she isn't a tiny tiny minority.

Nobody notices people who are on benefits until someone fucks up and spends too much and blows their money. They are the tiny tiny minority, not the normal people who go to three different supermarkets to get 25p off a bag of pasta or 2 loaves of bread for £1.50

'Yes, you do! They are all negatives, the more honest state that they would only earn another £20 per week if they worked so why should they.

I really do not

My family are sixty miles away and already provide childcare to my other sisters

DH's aprents broke up 5 years ago, FIL has had to start from scratch with a new fiancee so hiuge mortgage and long hours at work; MIL hasn;t spoken to us since (well on one occasion and that was nasty- sadly for her disability = family embarassment)

Childcare. yes. now, I have it sorted for the youngest straight off. He already goes to a Cm twice a week for a few hours(so I can do terrible things like bath / sleep). DS3 could attend but not anyone with a school drop off / pick up, or more than 6 charges (so no nursery)- this is due to the fact he is asd (hence 6 kids) and the pure bad luck that SNU kick out + LEA drop off = exactly teh lcoal school kick out when all teh cm's are out. bad luck, really.

Ds2- wouldn't be an issue ATM; would be easy to palce.

ds1- ah yes, see if you were told that the kid in your child's class who ebats them up most days and has to have an adult funded 24/7 to be with them (either me or a TA) was going to be in the nursery or cm setting how would you react? becuase if it were my boys at risk I wouldn't be happy. And from my perspectibve if I nkow placing ds1 with other kdis palces the others at risk how can I? Seriosuly? Is it OK to sacrrifice other kid's safety for myself?

Social services refuse us help though the Psych is considering launching an attack on them after I broke down there today

The other issue of course is that on very little sleep, and needing appts every week- would you employ me?

Now uyes that's just me but I ehar the same tale every day from other parents of SN kids. OK, I have two and that complicates things but sadly two isn;t rare either: genetics being crap and all.

If I earned less but was working I would do it. Why do I spend so much time on these threads? becuase I am bored rigid. Absolutely. Someone said earliuer I went to an ex POly- not quite but almost. Why? Because of the standard of lcoal living I can offer the boys: in fact I was offerd Theology by an RE Uni and actively opursued to apply for a aplce on social policy degree. had I not ahd the boys to think of I'd have loved it.

I mean, really, really loved it. Life changing for the girl from the sink estate style loved it.

So I am not looking for excuses but as the Psych tells me the thing that makes my life worth something rather than a chore: I might be a good mum in her opinion but i'm a bored and isolated one too.

and that's what benefits do to you. And having disabled kids. They eat up your choices. And I am only a year into this: imagine in tenn, fifteen years if nothing has changed? How badly would your self esteem, confidence and general ability to actually do anything be affected?

There are indeed scrotes who don't care. They are as far from me in terms of psychological rationale as anyone, and the same goes for most of the claimants out there. Think of all working gives a person: apart from my Mum (when she remembers, clearly undiagnosed AS imo) and my nuclear family, maybe a few therapists, I won;t speak to anyone for teh entire holidays. Fun huh? Would you sacrifice your mates for that supposed £10 Rrocky mentioned? nah. but when you can't go out for ten eyars, maytes rarely hang around for ever and the few that do still naturally acquire other lives that you're not part of. I mean, I couldn't even go support one of my oldest friends as her 'D' H was sent down for sex trafficking: frankly, unintentionally I am a shit friend to maintain.

Getting up in the morning, a sense of self esteem, feedback, motivation, ambition- not there outside the kids for me. Andfor lots of people out of work.

Often on these threads people say 'Of course I would give carers more'. Carers don't need more cash (not those with a partner and not on JSA / IB anyway). No what we need is a ladder to climb out, some way of getting back on board.

Every time I meet people they see something in me: setting up ASD services, or fighting a local seat for tehir party. DH thinks I should be PrimeMinister for laughing out loud. but what I see when I look in the mirror (metahorically, I don't even have a bloody mirrorr, ds1 broke it) is a fat frump who looks afeels old and has trhe opinions but not the confidence to do anything with them anymore.

Is paying taxes unplasant? possibly. but a damned site less painful than what the alternative can be. I was the one people paid to get these famillies out of the situation; DH describes me a sexier (doubtful) and more left wing Anne Widdicombe: he's porbably right. bArring the catholicism, anyway. And so I susepct if I cannot find a solution then actually, there isn;t one. Not now anyway. Perhaps in a year, in two years. In the meantime we have a time of political flux where I daren't watch the news any more becuase the next annoucement could be the one that finally loses the house. And if I go on fora like this there's always someone who thinks I probably just didn;t try enough and probably feed my kids shit and drink vodka all day. Not specifically this thread, there are many of tehm, all the time.

So instead of blaiming people (are people looking for reasons why it couldn't happen to them wrt to both disability and poverty I wonder? i'd understand that I think) we need to be building those ladders I emntioned earlier. And you know, maybe evena ccepting that there are less jobs ATM than people looking. Not no jobs, but cewrtainly not enough.

If you read that you need more to do yourself

No, i'm not rare: learned how to do it on the threads about coping on budgets on here.

AIBU's tend to be started by prats who want their targets to look bad so make up crap: not always, but the more exttreme ones.

(And as for if I am who I say- I am, quite a few people on MN know me: gheck one watched me give birth LOL)

ANd the thing about limiting numbers- I don't think it's good to incentivise large famillies via the benefits sytem, though I would want to know what drives people into thinking that's their best resort. The famillies I worked with where this may have happened- they're not lazy, they're always off somewhere and doing something. It's something else.

But the reality is, and this is doubly so in the current financial climtae, like me a lot of famillies hit the uppers a little after theirt last child was born having ahd a good income before. A lot of very responsible, hard working famillies who just hit bad luck. Do tehy deserve to be penalised becuase of the otehrs? Especially when theya re the ones who have paid the NI: certainly we cannot justify risking the security of those that did pay for the sake of those that didn't? that would be truly arse about tit wouldn't it?