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:
fridgepants · 25/06/2012 21:59

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the user's request.

MrsVamos · 25/06/2012 22:00

I see as other people said earlier, haven't these new proposals done a fine job of taking our minds off the issues of rich people not paying tax properly.

I am scared. Actually fucking scared.

We, as seen readily on this thread, are all turning against one another, for one reason or another, with the whole "I'm alright Jack so fuck you" mentality as described above.

If 'this' is an example of David Cameron's 'Big Society', I want out.

Empusa · 25/06/2012 22:03

Yoyo Alright, what would your solution be in this situation?
You get a job which doesn't pay much (just enough to cover bills/rent/groceries), but it's a stepping stone to a better paid job. Six months down the line the company runs into financial trouble and have to make staff redundant. Your entire department is made redundant.

As you've been there less than a year you do not qualify for a redundancy payment.

You haven't had a chance to build up savings as you've been living hand to mouth.

You are tied into a rental contract.

What do you do while you are job hunting?

scotsgirl23 · 25/06/2012 22:05

I agree LST - there is a problem, there are some people (some, by NO MEANS all) who are happy to live on benefits, lack ambition or motivation, are happy to not work...(insert any other benefit scrounging stereotype of choice). They do exist, and ways to deal with that need to be considered. But removing a vitally important benefit from a swathe of the population, just because of their age, is abhorent.

How would people like it if it was the other way around - over 80? No housing benefit for you, you must go and live with your children. No children/they don't want you/don't have space/live on the other side of the world? Ah well, tough shit.

There would be outrage. And I am sure someone will reply with "Ah, but they have worked all their lives....." and many have. But some have not.

noddyholder · 25/06/2012 22:05

Even teh word scroungers makes me sick

LST · 25/06/2012 22:08

Noddy it does happen. It really does. But these ridiculous people saying no body should be entitled if they fall on hard times is beyond pathetic.

Socknickingpixie · 25/06/2012 22:11

i recently recived nearly 300 applications for 6 16 hour a week minimum wage jobs and i dont live in a deprived area.

yoyoyo how about if everyone quit there minimum wage jobs and see how quickly it impacts on everyone

sashh · 26/06/2012 05:44

They stay there until they get a job to pay their rent! What if they are in a children's home or fostered? They HAVE to leave.

FrothyOM · 26/06/2012 07:13

Tory spin doctor's tax 'reduction'

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-spin-doctor-craig-940272

Scheherezade · 26/06/2012 07:55

I was in care at 17 living in sheltered accommodation for young people, housing benefit meant I could go to college full time like my peers. I got AAA and went to top uni.

Because I have shit, abusive parents does that mean I didn't deserve the chance to improve my life?

What's next, scrapping social services altogether?!

JosephineCD · 26/06/2012 08:01

I think we need to get to grips with the reasons employers aren't setting on young people. It's not because the employers are "evil". It's because too many people leave education unemployable for whatever reason. Schools (and parents) just aren't teaching children the skills they need, how to behave etc. The minimum wage is lower for under 22s for a reason, but it still isn't enough for most businesses.

Snorbs · 26/06/2012 08:41

It's not that people are leaving education "unemployable". When there are high levels of unemployment then it is inevitable it will hit the young people (and people nearing retirement) harder than the middle-aged.

High unemployment means that there are lots of applicants for each job. That means it's a buyer's market. Most employers will pick someone who's got years of experience in a given role over a school- or university-leaver who doesn't.

Youth unemployment always goes up disproportionately faster whenever there is a prolonged recession.

JosephineCD · 26/06/2012 09:05

In past recessions we never had the youth unemployment we do today.

twofingerstoGideon · 26/06/2012 09:22

I think we need to get to grips with the reasons employers aren't setting on young people. It's not because the employers are "evil". It's because too many people leave education unemployable for whatever reason. Schools (and parents) just aren't teaching children the skills they need, how to behave etc. The minimum wage is lower for under 22s for a reason, but it still isn't enough for most businesses.

Yep. All young people are unskilled and poorly behaved, aren't they? Do you actually mix with any young people? I'm surrounded by them daily in my work and this has not been my experience at all. Neither is it my experience of my own teenager or her friends, who are intelligent, polite, enquiring and ambitious (and products of the much-maligned state school system to boot!). Tarring everyone with the same brush is ridiculous. Your argument - actually less an argument than a narrow-minded, ageist opinion - is so weak it's laughable.

Snorbs · 26/06/2012 09:39

There was massive youth unemployment in the late 70s / early 80s. The early 90s recession was relatively short so it didn't affect young people quite so badly.

Socknickingpixie · 26/06/2012 09:45

I would be careful about unemployment figures they are often not what they appear to be.
Some years ago after a gov drive to change a catorgry of people from unemployment benefit to income support hey presto unemployment figures went down, previously a single parent could be on income support till there youngest child was 11 thus not appearing in unemployment figures in the space of 2 years that has changed a few times it's now 5 so they switch to jsa all of a sudden they are now appearing on unemployment figures,often 16 yo in full time education get lumped into unemployment figures when the figures being shouted about need to be scued to highlight the agendered point as do those with disabilities or illnesses that mean they can't work it very much depends on what issue the gov want to highlight as to what gets included in figures

LittleWhiteMice · 26/06/2012 11:41

no whats going on here is that cameron is targeting the the younger generation who are the least politically involved, they can push this through and no one will say anything ....if they stay this way while its a lost generation of voters it will work in their favour.

They make me sick.

Actually i think community service if you cannot find work is a good idea, provided it would be well set up. which it wouldnt be.
I dont mean community service like cleaning toilets but getting people to work along tree surgeons and other services would get people more involved in day to day civic services and could give them experience.

It wouldnt of course, but it could be an apprenticeship kind of scheme, obv not everyone could do it and shouldnt be punished for it.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 26/06/2012 13:32

of course people leaving care/YP with social workers etc. need to be treated differently under the changes.

but anyone who thinks we can have a system where you can choose to leave home & be funded by the state is unrealistic. if you are able bodied, you pay into the tax system. & thats about it. you obviously benefit from the NHS, the police, fire services, etc

but for the average, well person, to personally be provided for by others, was something that only occured recently, when it was funded by debt, so was and never has been sustainable.

we need to focus resources on those unable to help themselves.

LST · 26/06/2012 13:37

You still haven't answered my question yoyo????

molly3478 · 26/06/2012 13:41

yoyos arguement is flawed.If everyone keeps working up to better paid jobs there wouldnt be enough jobs.Also many areas the vast majority of jobs are for minimum wage or thereabouts what then? How could a person save? Many parents dont have rooms ot space for their children once they are in their 20s and moved out.I agree cut down on people scamming system on the long term but these proposals are too simplistic.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 26/06/2012 13:59

LST - HRT payers fund the welfare system.

molly - suply & demand. i have to go now

LST · 26/06/2012 15:01

How does that answer me ConfusedHmm

TalkinPeace2 · 26/06/2012 15:38

When I was at University, students got housing benefit all year.
Then it was cut down to only in term time.
Half way through my sister's degree it was stopped altogether.

Do not conflate housing benefit with council houses
the VAST majority of HB goes to private rented landlords covering their negative equity.

YoYoYoItsTillyMinto · 26/06/2012 15:45

LST - DP & I pay over £60k per year in tax. we are already, as well as paying for the services we use/have used/hope never to need to use, making a large contribution to the common good.

& you are making a moral judgement on me based on whether i want to support you? if you are disabled, then yes, we should all support you. otherwise, be reposnsible for your own life, work hard for years & start contributing to other peoples welfare.

TalkinPeace2 · 26/06/2012 15:49

If Housing Benefit IS to be controlled, the way to do it is to bring private rents down.
And that involves deflating the housing bubble and restricting speculative offshore ownership of domestic properties for tax breaks.
Once housing becomes affordable, lots of young people will be able to buy the homes they live in (bearing in mind that most are actually in low paid work).

Swipe left for the next trending thread