How miserable are you that the Tories are in power?

[sundayrose10]

I feel tense and twitchy. I used to enjoy reading the politic section/ other political forums, but I fear if I keep on going there and reading more and more about Tory plans, I will give myself a heart attack.

I loath them but worst I fear them. I am anxious for this country and the ordinary man and woman.

Dave makes me feel insane with hatred.

I have a colleague who is in love with the Tories. I don't share biscuits with him any more.

Dave makes me itch. All over.

[Fifis25StottieCakes]

They a knocking a 60's estate down where i live. Most of the immigrants have been housed there over the years. No one wants to live there as its a no go area. They are now getting £3000 and have been awarded the top priority for being rehoused.

[alemci]

okay fair enough Chen. My dad used to live in Hackney as a boy and we used to visit our grandparents there.

[Chen23]

"You probably think I am heartless but living in Greater London and working in education you get an insight on the situation."

Until recently I lived in Hackney for over a decade but don't think that gives me any more insight into the situation than anyone else.

Repeated studies have proved that immigrants are not given priority over UK residents. Several local authorities have come close to taking the BNP to court for claiming otherwise.

[alemci]

Chen it does. Why not. you hear things from so many sources all saying the same thing. My mum was talking to someone who worked in housing in a London Borough and she told my mother that immigrants/asylum seekers were given priority. Why would they lie.

Why can't the families go into a hostel. I think people already here should be given priority. Sometimes the family will have lived in Holland for example but have been moved on because they are not working and they come here and are housed. Another friend works in a school and the students of the family tell her about their situations. Even the kids of the family think it isn't right.

You probably think I am heartless but living in Greater London and working in education you get an insight on the situation.

[Chen23]

"Think that some will have children and surely they will be put in front of a singleton or a couple who have perhaps been waiting for years."

They aren't put in front of UK residents with the same status.

[Chen23]

The vast majority of asylum seekers are unaccompanied adult males, who do live in hostels.

[Rocky12]

Think that some will have children and surely they will be put in front of a singleton or a couple who have perhaps been waiting for years.

[Rocky12]

I'm saying that we should have hostels where they can stay.

[Chen23]

yes but they are not put in front of UK residents who have nowhere to live

Are you saying they should be forced to live on the street, behind people who already have a home?

[Rocky12]

But my default they must be 'jumping the queue'. They have no where to live so consequently they must be put at the top of the queue.

[Rocky12]

Niceguy - I have said on a couple of threads that children funded by the taxpayer should be set at 2 and have been flamed but surely this makes sense.

Of course the Afghan family is rare (thank goodness) but I also think setting HB at £20k is far far too high. For not working? If no one in the house is working and havent been for over 12 months then they need to move to a less expensive area. How can that be deemed unreasonable.


I think we all agree that cuts need to be made but many dont want them to affect them. There was a thread a while ago about health tourists and someone was claiming there was no problem and wanted proof that people were coming into the country to use our health service. I offered the example of my Uncle who was an Immgration Officer at Heathrow. I was told that was no real proof. What would be know?? Someone on the front line who sees the good, bad and the ugly not having a view about health tourism. Its about as close as we are going to get.

[Chen23]

"Also it seemed like the asylum seekers were being treated better than some of the people already in council accommodation who were told that it was too bad if mixed sex teenagers were sharing and the kitchen counted as a bedroom. I remember one client who was in this situation telling me this."

That kind of anecdotal "friend of a friend told me" evidence doesn't stand up to the overall reality though.

The myth that asylum seekers jump the queue has been debunked so many times now that it's a shame to see it being repeated tbh. The vast, vast majority of asylum seekers live well below the poverty line and aren't living the highlife in chelsea homes with flat screen tellies etc etc etc.

Cases like the Afghan family above are doubly damaging in so much as they cost the taxpayer unnecessary money we haven't got and also provide a false narrative and reinforce the untrue perception that our problems can all be sourced back to immigrants, benefit cheats and asylum seekers.

[niceguy2]

Ive said this before and I still think that it's a fairer solution than present.

The moment you enter the benefits system for income support/JSA & housing benefit. Ie. the criteria you get marked against is set in stone. So say you have two kids, you get the house & benefits due for two kids.

If you then go on to have two more kids, that is your right to do so. BUT the govt carry on paying you as though you have two kids. If you want a bigger house. If you want the nicer things in life then you go and earn it just like everyone else has to. The fact you've chosen to have more kids should not mean you are now entitled to a larger house as that is blatantly unfair to the rest of society/taxpayers who are having to foot the bill. This is one of those situations where our laws are too much skewed to the rights of the individual and not society as a whole.

As for the Afghan family example, the common sense solution would be for the council to find them a suitable house in a cheaper area, even if its way outside their patch. They can then either move at the taxpayers cost......or stay and figure their own costs out. Spending 12k a month is an example of our stupid rules being too rigid and people being either forced to follow stupid rules or not being allowed the latitude to use their common sense. Neither are good things.

[Rocky12]

Certainly the view that the more children you have (with no visble means of suppport) the more you get has got to stop! And why people who have the completely opposite view to you blame the Daily Mail etc is beyond me.

We have got to stop this reliance on the state to pay you more and more the less and less you contribute.

And my point about the Afghan family - and it is true btw is that there monthly rent equated to 10 years of my mum paying her council tax. It came down in the end to the woman having lots of children of different ages who were 'entiled' to a seperate bedroom. None of the family worked or contributed a damm thing.

[alemci]

my children did share but fortunately we managed to extend our house so that my dd could have separate rooms. they went back to sharing as we had a guest last week and result was awful with alot of mess.

Yes, I agree Retro no one has paid for the extension apart from us (as it should be) so my dd can have her own room so why do people not earning and being irresponsible with birth control have a right to a bigger house? Perhaps I am being a bit harsh but it should be questioned. The values system in this country are topsy turvey.

Also it seemed like the asylum seekers were being treated better than some of the people already in council accommodation who were told that it was too bad if mixed sex teenagers were sharing and the kitchen counted as a bedroom. I remember one client who was in this situation telling me this.

How come the Afghan family were given such a large house. Also in my experience some people on benefits are very snobby about what they wear and charity shop clothes would be good enough. Labels are important to them.

[Chen23]

"I mean, seriously, who in gods name came up with a system whereby you got MORE money and a BIGGER house if you bred MORE children you couldn't afford?"

Isn't it interesting how middle class people "have children" or "give birth" but the poor "breed"?

[unclefest]

though I agree that there are of course ALWAYS those who abuse a benefits system. I do agree. I don't despise Tory voters, and I have a lot of time for the Tories policy of reducing state intervention into, for example, personal liberty. I just don't get the feeling that many of you voting Tory know what it's like to be up shit creek without a paddle.

[unclefest]

well they aren't free. Last time I shopped at Oxfam they cost about as much as George at Asda. It's a lazy assumption to think that ALL on benefits don't take these measures. When we were on benefits after leaving a violent marriage with nothing but the clothes we stood up in we did nothing but wear secondhand stuff, had secondhand furniture, lived in a near condemnable state house where we all caught pneumonia. Oh, the good old days on benefits

[RetroHousewife]

I assume Xenia meant that the taxpayer purchased the clothes that were given to those who needed then rather than up the benefits ?

[unclefest]

free charity shop clothes? so the charities are meant to give them away rather than erm, collect for charity? Yet more Daily Fail posturing twaddle.

[RetroHousewife]

Again we agree Xenia ( two of my kids share too).

[Xenia]

We have the system because of the safety net. However if we had a system based on 2 chidlren in a family on benefits and if you need more money then you get free charity shop clothes and a soup kitchen and an extra mattrress for the floor (I earn quite a bit and even my children share rooms - it doesn't kill you) it would work. Nor do I think children suffer. Most of all they need love and food and shelter.

[RetroHousewife]

Nor to pay a higher mortgage so you can live in a bigger house if you have more children.

In fact, I also suspect your employer doesn't up your salary every time Mrs Niceguy gets up the duff, either.

Why we treat benefit claimants in this way, god only knows.
Why we don't have a simple system of a set annual benefits " salary" I don't know.

I mean, seriously, who in gods name came up with a system whereby you got MORE money and a BIGGER house if you bred MORE children you couldn't afford? Did no one actually work out what would happen?

[niceguy2]

Yep, I also agree. I don't see why it's wrong to suggest that those who otherwise cannot afford to live in central London without huge state subsidies should not live there.

After all, if as a working person I cannot afford to live there then I certainly don't expect the taxpayer to fund me.

[RetroHousewife]

I agree entirely, Xenia.

Essentially, those who rely on the state for most or all of their financial support should no be living a better lifestyle than those that work.