Is this likely to happen? Benefit related.

[littlemisssarcastic]

And where would it end?? Is this just the start of a slippery slope ?

Linky Brown on Thatcher dated 2007

DC wants to be warned then, doesn't he ? Look what happened to Brown. Shafted by all.

I wonder if there is a sex tape with DC getting shafted by all? I think it would be fitting.

Remember when it was called, "Social Security"? I think the term has meaning beyond being a safety net / security for those in need but for wider society, and law and order.

We will be seeing an huge increase in crime, especially burglaries and muggings, and we will all be in that together except for the multi-millionaires in government with their state-subsidised protection (the scroungers)

Oh no, I'm not blinkered by colours at all. But some people seem to be, and thought DC was a 'very naice man' who sounded like he cared about the NHS etc....

I think there's little difference between blue, yellow and red. In recent history, all they have proven is that whoever is in power is out for what they can get and no matter who they tread on/screw over to get it.

I've said this before though, on a similar thread. People do want to challenge policies etc, and it all sounds very nice, but we are all so busy trying not to drown, we have no enthusiasm for it.

I must admit though, if I get any more wild-eyed and desperate, I won't be a very good mugging victim - I will want to take out all my rage on anyone who tries..

Apathy will kill us all.

That article is a self confessed non story! - "His bill has no relaistic prospect of becoming law" Don't really get why they bothered writing it then!!

Surely they wouldn't do it with all the benefit money - just a percentage of it? Not that I think even that is ok but to do it with the whole amount would be insanity. People wouldn't even be able to pay 30p for the loo at a train station, go to a school fair or grab a drink on the way somewhere. It could never ever work.

I actually only know 2 people on benefits but, in my very limited experience, they're both extremely capable of managing their own finances.

One is a single person on fuck all jobseekers (without even hb because she bought a house before getting made redundant so isn't eligible for help there) and she drinks reasonably often. To do that she sometimes has to go without food but hell, so what, it's her money, her choice, who is she hurting?

The other is a single mum with 2 kids and she buys everything from carboots, markets and charity shops. She would be way worse off if she had to use a card to buy everything. Her children are wonderful and have everything they need. It would be insulting and demeaning to impose a system on their mum that implies that she wouldn't put their needs first unless forced to.

I know I have have those two examples to draw on but I see no luxury in a life on benefits as it is - why make it even worse?

Aren't we all supposed to be dead about now anyway ?

I agree Vamos
And
"Not waving, but drowning" pretty much sums it up.

Na, its not doomsday in South America yet.

Yup, LadyB.

Red Oh, good. Not here in UK either. Do you think it's safe to go to bed ?!

Crap. Just realised in my tired state I have read that entirely wrong.

Red is not in SA. She's making reference to.

Do people honestly think that the only thing this card would affect would be consumption of alcohol and cigarettes?? Are people really that blinkered??

Off the top of my head if we had to rely on this stupid idea (which I assume wouldn't allow you to withdraw cash) I would be unable to -

• pay for car parking at the hospital
• pay for car parking if I had to go into town (whether it was to buy cheaper items or go job hunting)
• pay a bus fare (no oyster card around here)
• put a pound into some supermarket trolleys
• buy from market stalls
• buy from stores where there is a minimum transaction amount for card
• buy from some charity shops
• buy from car boot sales
• pay for activities at the local children's centre

Which would mean I'd be struggling for many things, and spending more unnecessarily. How is that at all helpful?! Yes, some people on benefits will squander their money on alcohol/cigarettes/drugs, will a card stop them? Very much doubt it. The only people it will hurt are the ones who are trying their very best to cope in shitty situations. :(

Very Very cheap, one pound fish.

Would HE get a government payment card.. huh? Would he? huh?

How do you tell the difference between someone who is a genuine claimant and those that aren't.
When hounded out of the village we lived in a few years ago, no fucker checked before they put letters through the door and ignored my children in the village shop.

Someone a few pages ago talked about how the card system was in California I think. That sounded like a good idea.

People got cards that they could spend on food and essentials but they could also draw out a smaller amount of cash from. So they were given what they needed to buy food, and they were given what they needed to be able to access cash for the things that cash is needed for. As long as people are being provided for and are not being left to starve or freeze, I don't see why there is such a big problem with the concept, I really don't.

Benefits aren't there to give you what you need in exactly the way you want it, they are there to give you what you need, that's all. And if they do that, then the government is fulfilling its obligation.

It would be one way to incentivise working, which is something that is severely lacking at the moment, and was even more so under Labour.

And again, this suggestion is aimed at troubled families, not every single benefits claimant there is. There is no reason why it has to affect pensioners (the biggest benefit claimants) or the disabled, or carers.

Thing is though Freddos as it stands it probably will though, via IS top ups that many get.

I can see why you would jump to that conclusion, it's not as if the governments have done what they should have done to protect disabled people and their carers in the past.

But income support is going anyway when UC is introduced, and as this is a suggestion of a policy that is never going to happen anyway, I don't see the need to assume that it could only be brought about in the worst way possible. Implementing good ideas badly isn't the only option that government has.

"Is this likely to happen?".

Lets hope so! Benefit money should only be spent on essentials not cigarettes and alcohol, so I don't see the problem.

The problem has been described above. You don't see the problem because you think all people on benefits are work shy scroungers.

God, I'm so bored with it now. As I said, bit of Christmas spirit, folks?

Thing is, who defines "troubled" where families are concerned? I have met very troubled families where a card prioritising food would have been a boon as the adults just could not prioritise this. On first glance though it would have been hard to tell though.

I have met other families more visibly troubled where food IS prioritised and provided....sometimes the adults are smokers and sometimes not. Some have had the most horrendously abusive childhoods and a cigarette is a little bit of an escape for them. A stress reliever which as a nurse I'd rather they didn't use but no way could I tell an over stressed mother (and lets be honest here....we are talking largely about women left holding the baby/children) not to smoke when it's her only escape as she perceives it. Often they want to stop but all the research shows this takes time for many people.

I feel the idea could be good in some cases but not in most.

Orwellian, I am currently on benefits and can assure you it does not go on cigarettes or alcohol. Then again I have had a lifetime in nursing so know the damage these things can do in excess.

...and YES to what Dawndonna just posted...not everyone claiming benefits is a work shy scrounger Orwellian. Don't believe all you read.