Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
JosephineCD · 24/06/2012 00:22

I still live in an area where there is plenty of council housing, just not a council estate.

usualsuspect · 24/06/2012 00:22

I can't read anymore of this thread, it's making me feel sick

I will leave to to pull the ladder up

ColouringIn · 24/06/2012 00:22

We"re not all "social problems" on council estates Josephine. My street is full of nice normal families.

AnyoneForTennis · 24/06/2012 00:22

Workshy?

Where are the jobs? Where are the part time jobs lone parents need? Why are the school holidays so long? Where is the childcare?

JosephineCD · 24/06/2012 00:23

No-one is "pulling the ladder up".

Empusa · 24/06/2012 00:23

"And it's basically why nobody wants to live on council estates unless they have no other choice. Because governments and councils use them as dumping grounds for social problems."

I live in a council estate and it is lovely, it is ridiculous to suggest that because some people on benefits are anti-social that it means the majority are!

FWIW the only times I've had a problem with nightmare neighbours making an area undesirable they weren't council estates and they weren't on benefits.

AnyoneForTennis · 24/06/2012 00:24

Josephine are you confusing council housing with housing associations?

KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 24/06/2012 00:24

Explain how paying for kids to leave home on benefits is enabling them to climb any ladder.

BreconBeBuggered · 24/06/2012 00:25

Well, I live on a council estate too. And there's little more disheartening than the prospect of some of the more feckless 20-year-olds being forced to spend another five years leeching off their parents and pissing their money up my fence (before they kick it in) with no prospect of them moving on to their own place and learning something about responsibility. They're not all unemployed, by the way, but their wages are too low to get a flat without HB.

Empusa · 24/06/2012 00:25

When I was 18 one of my friends lost her mum to suicide. If HB didn't exist then she'd have had nowhere to live.

JosephineCD · 24/06/2012 00:25

I live in a council estate and it is lovely, it is ridiculous to suggest that because some people on benefits are anti-social that it means the majority are!
No, but it only takes one tenant on an estate to be anti-social to ruin it for everyone else. Believe me, I know. And a great many of them are under 25. It's unhealthy for kids to grow up with the expectation that they don't have to get a job to be able to get a house.

Empusa · 24/06/2012 00:26

"No, but it only takes one tenant on an estate to be anti-social to ruin it for everyone else. "

And there is just as much chance of them not being on benefits as being on benefits.

Stopping under 25s from accessing HB wont stop you having antisocial neighbours!

Tressy · 24/06/2012 00:27

Anyone who thinks this shower of s--t that are in power now are doing any good might want to put themselves in other peoples shoes. Have you got a DC born in 1994 who wants to go to uni and suddenly found themselves paying 6k a year more than their mates born in 1993? Hate to think what other people are going through too. Sad

scarlettsmummy2 · 24/06/2012 00:28

I didn't get a grant for university- they haven't been around for years! I have paid off my loan again through hard work. My husband borrowed more, but still owes 16k despite graduating in 2004.

JosephineCD · 24/06/2012 00:28

And there is just as much chance of them not being on benefits as being on benefits.
No there isn't. People that work generally have to go to bed at a reasonable hour so they can get up in the morning. And they generally don't want to get in trouble with the law in case they lose their job over it, and because they have some kind of decency, something which more people on benefits seem to lack.

MumOfMillie · 24/06/2012 00:29

with no prospect of them moving on to their own place and learning something about responsibility

How does HB teach anyone about responsibility? It's money for nothing!

usualsuspect · 24/06/2012 00:29

You can actually work and get still get HB

usualsuspect · 24/06/2012 00:30

still get*

JosephineCD · 24/06/2012 00:30

Stopping under 25s from accessing HB wont stop you having antisocial neighbours!
Take all the anti-social people on HB now. Then take away the ones under 25. However many you think may or may not be under that age, it's certainly some, so there will be fewer anti-social neighbours.

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 00:30

So a soldier leaves the army after 4 years and you all agree that he has to go and live with a family member, if, or more like when, he cannot find work?

A teen moves away from home, because there is no work in their area, 6 years later they are made redundant, they have to find a family member to live with?

We are going back to similar policies that we had in the 80's, they didn't work then and they are not going to work now.

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 00:32

"so there will be fewer anti-social neighbours."

How so, they have moved, not been exterminated.

EchoBitch · 24/06/2012 00:32

Is this the same David Cameron who's Father made his money from devising tax avoidance schemes and then advising clients to use them?

usualsuspect · 24/06/2012 00:32

In the mean time if the family live in social housing , Cameron has made them downsize

Its a bloody joke

jellytotsandcolabottles · 24/06/2012 00:32

I was 19 if it bothers you that much,
I didn't have 3 kids to sponge off the state. I had every intention to be with their father for the rest of my life, even after everything he did. I did work, I had 6 months maternity off for the first two and started my business 3 months after my last one was born.
What I mean't was should I worked every single hour god sends, to put my kids in childcare, instead of bringing them up myself? Their fathers already proven he doesn't love them. They need me here for them. I didn't get myself into this situation on purpose. It fell upon me.
I do not intend to work until my youngest is in reception class, so for 3 years. I wouldn't be able to do it. My family work full time, so I don't have them to fall back on for childcare, and ex's parents have also walked out on my kids.
I intend to go back to work as soon as I can, but I am digging myself an early grave, or letting my kids think I am too busy to bring them up. Its not been 7 months since their Father left, and my mental state is not in a postition where adding the stress of a full time job would turn out well for me.

EchoBitch · 24/06/2012 00:32

Please tell me if i'm mistaken.

Swipe left for the next trending thread