Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
angelicstar · 24/06/2012 08:55

That should be write a CV!

ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough · 24/06/2012 08:57

25 is too old, I hope they change to 21.

OddBoots · 24/06/2012 08:58

I'm trying to work out the logistics of this before working out how I feel (beyond my first reaction of thinking they really need to look at how our national income is being crippled by those with plenty before clawing back from the poor).

So no HB but still getting the other benefits to which an under 25 would be due depending on their situation?

If they are living with parents do they count as just one household for the new cap? Even if they have children?

If there is a couple under 25 then whose parents are responsible?

If someone under 25 comes from another EU, works then loses their job will they be deported?

AThingInYourLife · 24/06/2012 09:03

"I do think we need to get rid of this "I'm entitled" culture."

I think we need to reclaim our sense of entitlement to our welfare stare and the benefits it creates for the vast majority of us.

Allowing the very wealthy to dismantle it in their own interests because we are jealous of what other people can get is the height of short-sighted idiocy.

youngmummy17 · 24/06/2012 09:06

i'm 18 and live with my parents in a 3 bedroom house, with 2 sisters me and ds in one room parents and baby sister in one and older sister in the other there is hardly enough room as it is! So if i have to live at home till i'm 25 i'll be sharing a room with ds when his 8 years old!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cameron is an arse, i haven't got the money to afford a deposit for a house and believe me am saving, It seems he really is trying to make life of children and parents harder.

DanyTargaryen · 24/06/2012 09:08

I'm under 25 as is my DP, and we have an almost 1 year old dd. DP is unemployed at the moment but when I got pregnant he was working but got made redunant when I was heavily pregnant which we obviously were not expecting.

There is no way I would be able to live with my parents, they are toxic hateful people and I currently consider myself to be estranged from them, so that means we would have to all squeeze into DP's small three bedroom house, his sister is already there with her baby.

It's a stupid stupid idea, how dare they come up with such an idea, FORCING under 25's to live with their parents is the most ridiculous, there is a reason I have been living by myself pretty much since I was 16!

angelicstar · 24/06/2012 09:21

athinginyourlife

But surely the welfare state of today has moved dramatically from what was originally intended. Yes free education and free healthcare for all is wonderful but surely they should be the foundation of a welfare state that enables people to be able to stand on their own two feet.

Aside from those two things I feel that any extra monetary benefits should only be for those in dire need in the short term - not a long term lifestyle choice with people bleating on about how they have to move house because HB has been cut etc or they want a larger council house for their 4 kids.

We need to take responsibility for our lifestyle choices. If we choose to have children we should be able to support them, if we choose to live in a certain location we are not any more entitled to live their than someone not on benefits. If I couldn't afford to live in my home anymore I would just have to move and get on with it!

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 09:22

I cannot link, so here is a section. This will target under 25's who are in work.

"The number of people in work but forced to claim housing benefit has doubled in three years due to the spiralling cost of renting a home in England.
Research carried out by the housing charity BSHF analysed figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It revealed that the number of housing benefit claimants has reached a new high of 4.95 million, with households in employment accounting for almost all of the increase (93%) in the last two years"

So only 7% of new claims were from unwaged households. This punishes people for not being able to earn enough money to cover ever increasing living costs. The solution across some EU countries is to lower living costs, especially rents.

porcamiseria · 24/06/2012 09:23

again

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY

i am so glad i am not a politco as frankly......you will never please anyone if you make cuts

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 09:24

Can those that agree wih this, read the data for those on HB, THEY ARE NOT UNEMPLOYED, THEY ARE LOW WAGED.

scotsgirl23 · 24/06/2012 09:26

Most people who agree with this seem to be targeting a specific 'section' of young people - I'm paraphrasing various people, but essentially the feckless workshy who leave home at a very young age, move in to a council house, never make an effort to work, and may or may not have had a child (probably in order to get said council house) as they feel entitled to do so.

Yes, there are people like this. I know/am related to some of them! But, trying to tackle those specific examples by removing housing benefit from all under 25's is absolutely crazy. There are so many other situations where people would be affected by this rule who aren't any of the description above.

I've mentioned my situation above, and Jellytots is another example, but there are plenty more:

Uni friend whose family were from a very remote Scottish island with zero job opportunities - travel costs to nearest big city were around £300. It took her a couple of months after graduation to find a job, and that was staying in the city. If she'd had to go home, she would almost certainly still be unemployed - by the time she turned 25 she;d have been unemployed by about 3 years, and who wants someone who has been out of work for 3 years?

Another - parents downsized when kids left home, went from a family home to a 1 bed flat so they could buy a second (also small) home abroad. Kids were all working, but what if one was made redundant, or got sick.became injured somehow?

Friend has just left an abusive husband. She has two children, born in marriage, and had been with her husband for years. OK, she was actually 26 but could just as easily have been under the 25 mark. She'd never called the police, so couldn't "prove" abuse...

AThingInYourLife · 24/06/2012 09:27

Sorry, as soon as someone uses the term "lifestyle choice" I have to stop reading.

What is a "lifestyle choice"?

It sounds like something you pick out of the magazine that comes with your Sunday paper.

sereneswan · 24/06/2012 09:28

I half-heard this on the radio this morning and thought I must have missed half the story as it seemed to implausibly absurd...apparently not.

How the fuck is this going to work??? What about people whose parents retire abroad? What about people whose parents need/want to downsize to a small flat? Are all parents of under 25s going to be legally obliged to remain in the UK with a spare bedroom ready at all times?

What about young people whose parents live in some remote place with no employment prospects (or from where the young person can't travel to a job as they can't afford a car and there's no public transport)? Is it better to force them to move back there and commit them to years (if not a lifetime) of unemployment rather than pay them housing benefit for a year or so in a place where they stand a chance of getting back on their feet?

What about the simple horrific unfairness of treating young people as tax-paying adults but then treating them like children when it suits you?

I was brought up to think I was a Tory. It's an odd sensation to find that the first time they are in power since I have been a voting adult I hate them as much as the others. Possibly more because I voted for them so take it more personally.

Threelittleducks · 24/06/2012 09:29

Cameron won't be happy until the poor are in workhouses.

Is he trying to save benefits all round by keeping the younger generations at home to look after the ageing population?

Horrified. I keep opening the papers and thinking, 'whats can they do next?' and getting crazy answers. I should really stop asking.

How long until we can vote him out?
Pretty sure I'm going to wake up one day to a knock on the door by a cameronite who wants to round up us 'low earners' into some kind of ghetto for daring to be poor and young.

cory · 24/06/2012 09:30

Oh all those feckless young people who have the audacity to do the low-paid jobs without which our infrastructure could not function! Makes you despair, doesn't it? The entitled bastards! Good job Cameron is on their case! Hmm

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 09:30

Every analyst has said that this will create even more unemployment blackspots.

ErikNorseman · 24/06/2012 09:31

Most under 25s who claim LHA are working. When minimum wage gets you around £150 a week net and your rent is £90 of course you need help! As always the bigger picture is missing- private rent needs controlling but apparently this isn't necessary Hmm
I claimed LHA for 3 months when I was 22. I was working 2 jobs but both part time and I got £20 a week towards my rent. I was actively looking for full time work (which I found quickly enough in 2002) and I was forced to leave my previous full time job due to awful working conditions.

If I hadn't had that £20 a week I couldn't have eaten. For those 3 months I literally budgeted to the penny, with nothing extra. Should I have given up and moved back in with my parents (120 miles away, rural, me with no driving licence?) ignoring the fact that I had a tenancy agreement that I couldn't get out of?

Wages are too low, cost of living is too high, that's the ultimate point. Work is scarce and life is hard. Working doesn't even guarantee you a quality of life and top up benefits are vital. Why should being under 25 exclude you from this?

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 09:32

"Cameron won't be happy until the poor are in workhouses."

He is creating Workhouses without walls.

CherryBlossom27 · 24/06/2012 09:35

Ugh! IMO David Cameron is a smarmy pig. I'm sick of politicians pointing the finger at normal people, why haven't they sorted out their expenses, they're still merrily claiming left right and centre aren't they? Can't even be bothered to comment further.

QuickLookBusy · 24/06/2012 10:09

If all these under 25s do have to move back with their parents, this would leave thousands upon thousands of empty properties. Landlords will not want this so they will HAVE to reduce the rents so that someone on minimum wage can afford them. Hence the working under 25s WILL be able to afford to rent.

it is ludicrous to expect tax payers to subsidise Landlords. If HB had never been invented, rents would not be as high.

When I got married at 23 HB wasn't available. We both worked and found somewhere to rent, which we could afford. As did all our friends. This was only
23 years ago. HB did not exist, we could afford rent because LLs didn't add on an amount that they knew would be covered by HB.

edam · 24/06/2012 10:19

If the issue is high rents, tackle the cause of high rents - landlords (and the distorted housing market). The government's not interested in doing that, they'd rather bash the poor - including the working poor.

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 10:21

Hb did exsist 23 years ago. What was the difference is that housing costs were less, in proportion to take home pay, when compared to today.

What happened in the 90's when HB was capped was that people had to top up their rent, this meant that people lived on less than subsistance levels.

Rents did not decrease, people got into debt and went deaper into poverty.

That is what will happen now.

QuickLookBusy · 24/06/2012 10:26

But some of the cause of high rents is HB. So they are starting to tackle it. They are also trying to make planning laws easier and are trying to encourage more council house/social housing. Councils can join a scheme which means all money from council house sales can be kept and spent on more housing.

Labour did fuck all to help the housing crisis, they made it far worse by spending billions on HB thus pushing up rents. How many houses could they have built with those billions they gave to landlords?

Birdsgottafly · 24/06/2012 10:28

Anyway, the details are supposed to be discussed today. I want to know how this will effect,

The disabled (another reason for them to be vilified in the DM).

Asylum seekers, EU citizens, will they have to go home, i don't think that it is legal what DM is proposing, but never minds.

Care Leavers.

Young carers, who have saved the country a fortune, but, whose family home is no longer suitable.

Army etc leavers, are they now on the 'feckless' list?

People without family.

This won't affect long term unemployed with children (the feckless),whose children are having children, these will be catered for under the child protection system, DM needs to admit that

I want him to answer why we are not capping rents.

FrothyOM · 24/06/2012 10:32

Yes, the tories are tackling the housing crisis so well that homelessness has risen 16% this year. Hmm

england.shelter.org.uk/news/june_2012/homelessness_figures_continue_to_rise