Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

So David Cameron (we are in it together) really wants to fuck up our children then!

660 replies

belleMarie · 23/06/2012 23:14

How can anyone be taken in by this muppet? whilst him, Sam (and her £1000 pound frocks) and kiddies eat good, sleep good, shit good - we're basically screwed?

His hate for the poor/have-not is staggering and apart from a a couple of grunts here and there, this man is unstoppable.

Cameron to axe housing benefits for feckless under 25s as he declares war on welfare culture
Prime Minister gives exclusive interview to the MAIL ON SUNDAY
Reveals housing benefit will be scrapped for under 25s, who'll be forced to live with their parents
Dole money will be stopped for those who refuse to find work
Mr Cameron shares his views on Euro2012, Jimmy Carr, and what really happened when he left his daughter in the pub

Radical new welfare cuts targeting feckless couples who have children and expect to live on state handouts will be proposed by David Cameron tomorrow.
His bold reforms could also lead to 380,000 people under 25 being stripped of housing benefits and forced to join the growing number of young adults who still live with their parents.
In a keynote speech likely to inflame tensions with his deputy Nick Clegg, the Prime Minister will call for a debate on the welfare state, focusing on reforms to ?working-age benefits?.

Among the ideas being considered by Mr Cameron are:
Scrapping most of the £1.8 billion in housing benefits paid to 380,000 under-25s, worth an average £90 a week, forcing them to support themselves or live with their parents.
Stopping the £70-a-week dole money for the unemployed who refuse to try hard to find work or produce a CV.
Forcing a hardcore of workshy claimants to do community work after two years on the dole ? or lose all their benefits.
Well-placed sources say Ministers are also taking a fresh look at plans to limit child benefit to a couple?s first three children, although Mr Cameron is not expected to address this issue directly tomorrow.
Speaking exclusively to The Mail on Sunday, Mr Cameron said: ?We are sending out strange signals on working, housing and fa8milies.?

He argued that some young people lived with their parents, worked hard, planned ahead and got nothing from the State, while others left home, made little effort to seek work and got a home paid for by the benefits system.

?A couple will say, ?We are engaged, we are both living with our parents, we are trying to save before we get married and have children and be good parents. But how does it make us feel, Mr Cameron, when we see someone who goes ahead, has the child, gets the council home, gets the help that isn?t available to us???
?One is trapped in a welfare system that discourages them from working, the other is doing the right thing and getting no help.?
Asked if he would take action against large families who were paid large sums in benefits, he replied:
?This is a difficult area but it is right to pose questions about it. At the moment the system encourages people not to work and have children, but we should help people to work AND have children.?
His plan to axe housing benefit for the under-25s will have exemptions for special cases, such as domestic violence, but he said: ?We are spending nearly £2 billion on housing benefit for under-25s ? a fortune. We need a bigger debate about welfare and what we expect of people. The system currently sends the signal you are better off not working, or working less.?
He also favours new curbs on the Jobseeker?s Allowance, demanding the unemployed do more to find work. He said: ?We aren?t even asking them, ?Have you got a CV ready to go?? ? A small minority of hardcore workshy, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000, could be forced to take part in community work if they fail or refuse to find work or training after two years.
The Prime Minister wants to show he is committed to radical policies, but his speech could exacerbate strains with Coalition partner Mr Clegg, whose Lib Dems oppose drastic welfare cuts.
It follows the row over plans to revive O-levels and will fuel rumours the Coalition could end long before the 2015 Election. ?As leader of a political party as well as running a Coalition it?s right sometimes to make a more broad-ranging speech,? said Mr Cameron.
A Government official said: ?Decent folk are fed up with the increasing abuse of the welfare system. Responsible people who work damned hard, often on low incomes, to support themselves, are sick and tired of seeing others do nothing and live off the state.
?Labour threw ever greater sums of money at the problem and made it worse. If we want to encourage responsibility we have be bold enough to tackle these issues. We suspect some of those who refuse point-blank to seek work are working on the black market and claiming fraudulently.?
But a Labour source said: ?It is easy for rich Tories with big houses to have grown-up children at home while they find their feet. It?s different if you live in a tiny council flat and your daughter is a single mum.? Ministers said curbs on housing benefit for the under-25s, had helped slash the welfare bill in Germany and Holland

OP posts:
GoodPhariseeofDerby · 24/06/2012 12:59

This seems to be going backwards, in terms of age discrimination though. I know several years ago when the Student Loan company wouldn't give an adult dependent grant to those under 25, that was questioned and changed (very nicely, after people kept calling and asking about it they realised the age barrier was nonsense). We already have child - adult - pensioner parameters, we can't have "kinda an adult but not", that's just nonsense. Will parents get child benefit until 25 then? I don't think so. It's just nonsense.

The whole thing is full of holes and seems to be just to cause debate rather than an active well-thought out plan for the future. I'm tired of these. Surely this is what focus groups are for rather than sending out soundbites to see what the country thinks about things.

happybubblebrain · 24/06/2012 13:04

DC seems to have it in for young people in the same way that Pol Pot had it in for intellectuals. I'm pretty sure he's jealous because he looks like an old donut and probably never gets sex anymore. I can't imagine how Sam Cam manages it. It must all be a big fake on her part. I'm pretty sure this is at the crux of it all, isn't that how most dicatators leaders behave? Like spoilt children, who want to make the lives of others miserable, just because they are.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 24/06/2012 13:10

athing - i am not complaining i cannot get benefits, i am saying fewer people can/should get them in teh future.

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 13:22

The welfare state system that the UK has adopted accepts that there will be 'winners and losers', there needs to be more honesty about that and exactly how much those that are 'losers' will be entitled to.

Then double the police and the army, because we are going to need them.

Because what is being said is that anyone who doesn't have the ability to earn over a certain amount, isn't entitled to take full part of our society, or even have full human rights.

The wage structure that we have has been created, we can make it different.

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 13:24

i am saying fewer people can/should get them in teh future

Can you tell me what we do with the surplus population?

How do we stop economic immigration? because we if we are in such a crisis, we cannot allow this to continue.

Iggly · 24/06/2012 13:44

I've read the story on this and think WTF.

I'm sure most people on HB do have jobs.

I'm not sure why 25 is picked as an age where people should still be at home.

This really feeds into the idea that people on benefits are scroungers.

All of this to protect pensioners?

When my ballot arrives for the 2015 general election, I would take great pride in writing fuck you next to the Tories. However my vote will not be wasted. Kick them out.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 24/06/2012 13:44

Birds - yes we do need a conversation about the purpose of the benefits system.

you phase the changes in over time and at the correct part of the ecomnoic cycle. there is no surplus population. in this case, you dont take HB away from under 25 yo who have it already. you stop new claims after a certain date.

NormaStanleyFletcher · 24/06/2012 13:46

If the parents of the u 25 are military, and in military accomodation, I don't think they will have a room for them. Only dependents that are in U16 or in education are counted as far as I remember.

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 13:50

"there is no surplus population"

Well there is and will be, there isn't jobs for everyone and will never be, unless immigration is stopped and we have a two child policy.

We cannot provide well paid jobs for all, which means that we have a society with a bigger divide of 'have' and 'have nots' which now include the basics, housing and children under 25 for the working class.

The NMW will have to highered.

Hope DM is ready for the ensuing riots.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 24/06/2012 13:54

i dont think the state should support anyone to have more than 2 children.

fewer people in the future = lower wages rise.

edam · 24/06/2012 13:59

Right, yoyo, so a family with three children, the parent loses his or her job - you'd throw them on the streets and leave them to starve, would you? A family with two children but an aunt or uncle dies or becomes ill and is incapable of caring for their own children, these children are taken in, and you'd throw them all on the streets, would you?

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 14:02

"dont think the state should support anyone to have more than 2 children"

So again, what do we do with the surplus population, there will always be people having more children and once they cannot look after them, foster care will cost 6 times as much than giving the family benefits.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 24/06/2012 14:07

edam - i have answered that already.

birds - you reduce benefits for each successive DC and dont provide HB for a house with more than 3 beds.

you make an exception for multiple births.

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 14:15

Benefits are at subsistance levels now, so how will putting children into poverty help them?

Couple that with under 25's having to live at home, how would that work?

Most of the houses in the UK are small, one living room, one bathroom etc.

edam · 24/06/2012 14:19

It's a ruddy long thread yoyo, just scanned and I can't see any post where you say what should happen to a family with three kids if they fall on hard times. Why don't you explain again?

Iggly · 24/06/2012 14:25

Most people who claim HB don't have child dependants. So targeting those with kids won't do much.

Why do welfare arguments always come down to "we will not pay for people to have kids"? Do you really think the majority of claimants only have kids so they can live it up on the dole? Really?

oiwheresthecoffee · 24/06/2012 14:37

Under 25s can only claim a lower amount of HB now.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 24/06/2012 14:39

birds/edam - i would only support this type of change if it only affected future children.

we have a high standard of living in the west. i doubt very few people can afford to support more than 2 children thought good times and the inevitable bad ones so think that we all need to adjust our exceptions.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 24/06/2012 14:39

exceptions = expectations

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 24/06/2012 14:43

NB: in my social groups its normal for people to discuss only having one or 2 DCs as that all they can afford. so its a levelling of the playing field.

manicinsomniac · 24/06/2012 14:48

I think there is some merit in what DC is proposing but that it needs to be qualified and looked at with more realism.

For example:
if he said people currently graudiating from universities with no jobs to go to had to move back home where possible - fine.
if he said that U25s with no children had to live either with parents or, if that is impossible, at least in shared housing and couldn't have their own - fine.
if he said that all U25s regardless of relationship status and number of children had to move back home - ridiculous!

Mind you, I do think that people need to think more about the future when they make life decisions. Obviously you can't predict the future and awful things happen (like the poster with 3 kids who was abused) but there are things that we do know and can plan.

When I was grduating (age 21) I was a single mother, my Dad was dying and my Mum not in a good place mental health wise. So I made career decisions based on the fact that I was going to have to support and house myself and my child. Therefore I trained as a teacher and applied to independent schools that provided accomodation. Through choice I would have tried to go into acting but I knew that would not provide a stable life situation for children so it wasn't an option. There does have to be a certain level of responsibility.

FrothyOM · 24/06/2012 14:52

Under 35's with no kids already have to live in shared housing. He is proposing removing ALL support.

manicinsomniac · 24/06/2012 14:55

^^
in that case it is bad.

Also, no idea why I have failed to write 'graduating' so impressively, not once but twice! (I swear I have an actual English degree really!) graudiating is particularly confusing - hmmm.

ChickenLickn · 24/06/2012 15:20

Due to food and fuel price rises, benefits levels are now below subsistence levels.

Feels weird living in a place that has to have emergency food banks. A bit third-world.

nkf · 24/06/2012 15:29

I can see that with the Tories in, the benefits system as it has been structured in the last 10 - 15 years or so is over.

What I don't know - and can anyone explain? - is this purely ideological. Or is there actually no money left? Are the cuts politically driven or economically?

Are we actually out of money?

Swipe left for the next trending thread