Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
quoteunquote · 25/06/2012 19:27

we could spend what we have spent on benefits in the last ten years, every single day for a hundred years,

and still not come close to the amount we have spent on the banks.

worrying about benefits is like worrying about dropping a penny, when the whole town has burnt to the ground.

scotsgirl23 · 25/06/2012 19:31

But Rachelboo, you DO have the security of benefits as a safety net. I don't dispute that we have issues with benefit entitlement - there are people who think they are "entitled". But, here's a surprise, they aren't all young people. And I don't believe removing entitlement for an entire age group is even a remotely legitimate response.

If you want to talk unfair, explain how this would be fair: I have worked non-stop since I was 15 - part time at school, full time from age 17 including the whole way through my uni degree. I am now 25. So I have been "contributing" i.e. paying taxes, for 8ish years solidly. On the flip side, I have an older brother (40) who is, well, feckless. He has bummed around for years, worked very infrequently (and normally cash in hand) and generally done as little as possible for his entire adult life.

Right now, we are both working. Under these proposals, if we both lost our jobs, he would get housing benefit - and I wouldn't. (Well, depends if the cut off is 25 or 26 but......)

Fair? Erm, I think not.

justsofedup · 25/06/2012 19:37

I dont see how anyone can claim benefits are secure anymore.

Everything is getting cut, chopped and goal posts move constantly. Its a horrible thing to be reliant on in reality.

You have nothing to feel jealous about rachelboo.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 25/06/2012 19:39

I agree Rachel. People on here complain about how awful council housing can be, but I think anyone who has a HA or council property is extremely lucky. The sort of security that a lifelong tennancy brings is something that many mortgage payers can only dream of.

Rachaelboo · 25/06/2012 19:42

No but it is annoying isn't it when you have to go to work and then you see someone sat at home having a decent living boasting about what benefits they get and your paying taxes for them to sit there doing that, whilst havin to worry about your future whilst they don't need to have any stress or responsibility.

Empusa · 25/06/2012 19:44

Hahahaha!!

If it's so wonderful then why not do it yourself?

Outraged They don't have lifelong tenancies anymore

Rachaelboo · 25/06/2012 19:44

Yes true @ outraged. People with a mortgage have so many worries, that they haven't but like you said still whinge.

Rachaelboo · 25/06/2012 19:50

Empusa - only if there was no other way at all, I wouldn't be boasting.

LST · 25/06/2012 19:50

Empusa I have an Assured life long tenancy.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 25/06/2012 19:51

Because I believe in taking responsibility for myself and my family.

Rachaelboo · 25/06/2012 19:51

Pride comes before the fall that's how it would feel to me

justsofedup · 25/06/2012 19:51

Some people on benefits have mortgages after falling on bad times. How do you think they feel?

LST · 25/06/2012 19:54

But I never ever whinge about my HA.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 25/06/2012 19:58

quoteunquote you have really fallen for it haven't you! Talk about being distracted from the real issues.

Estimated loss to the UK taxpayer from bailing out the Banks is £14-15bn (this is a very large amount of money but I don't think its number everyone expects)

see p148

Annual Housing Benefit Bill c£20-21bn

Oh look the annual cost of HB is greater than the expected net loss from bailing out the banks.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 25/06/2012 20:29

the bank bailout was mainly loans (& guarentees), half of which has already been repaid. not the same as welfare at all.

SmellsLikeTeenStrop · 25/06/2012 20:37

Estimated loss to the UK taxpayer from bailing out the Banks is £14-15bn (this is a very large amount of money but I don't think its number everyone expects)

Estimated by whom?

Rachaelboo · 25/06/2012 20:39

The point is spending needless amounts of money on whatever ever is not good for the economy is it and we shouldn't have to pay yes banks too

Rachaelboo · 25/06/2012 20:41

If someones not gonna pay for me then why should I pay for you?

LST · 25/06/2012 20:49

But what if I fell on hard times and couldn't afford my rent. Would 'you' not pay for me then?

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 25/06/2012 20:51

LST - assuming you are able bodied/not a carer, how many people rent have you paid?

LST · 25/06/2012 20:52

I was aiming my question at Rachel I pay my taxes which goes into the pot that helps people who need it pay their rent.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 25/06/2012 20:53

Smellslike
See the link - its the Office of Budget Responsibility's March 2012 Economic and Fiscal Outlook - see box4.3 (Fiscal Impact of the Financial Interventions) on p148

I don't disagree that its a very large amount of money and that the UK taxpayer should not have needed to pay it at all. However, I do worry that the misrepresentation of the cost of the bank bailout lets politicians off the hook. The structural deficit was already there before the financial crisis.

Rachaelboo · 25/06/2012 20:57

Benefits were designed for shor term measures not for life

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 25/06/2012 20:57

paying tax means diddly. some people pay less tax than for the services they use every year.

LST · 25/06/2012 21:06

Me and my partner both work full time and pay all the tax we need.

If we fell on hard times you'd begrudge us any help and see us on the streets then?