Is this likely to happen? Benefit related.

[littlemisssarcastic]

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

It's not discrimination at all! That's a ridiculous thing to say.

I may as well say that it's discrimination that I don't get benefits when the government give them to other people. Clearly, by your reasoning, the fact that I don't need them is completely irrelevant.

Also, you say it wouldn't work, but that depends on what you are trying to achieve, doesn't it.

If your aim is to make taxpayers who struggle to pay their bills and working costs feel less shat on by government who continues to give people who do nothing the same as they get for working their arses off, then it would probably work very well.

Riots review.....don't get me started on that. That is a really clever piece of rewriting history to fit with a political agenda.

People have always rioted.....& guess what for? Bread, commodities. The French went out for bread, the Russian women went out for bread, they ended up with a revolution. Of course people will riot and they will loot and they will take what the need or desire. Don't make out that some rotten underclass of ilbred and unschooled criminals went on the rampage because they didn't study enough GCSEs.

"If your aim is to make taxpayers who struggle to pay their bills and working costs feel less shat on by government who continues to give people who do nothing the same as they get for working their arses off, then it would probably work very well."

Well that is all to do with perceptions, rather than reality.

I'm sorry you feel shat on. But I think making hundreds of thousands of people's lives worse (including the majority who want to work) is a pretty high price to pay!

I suggest the real problem is your assessment of the situation, and reading too much bad journalism!

I just don't get it.

If someone, benefit claiming or working, is putting themselves before their kids, to the extent that they are not feeding their kids, surely this is a matter for SS? Why would anyone think that punishing everyone would make this better? It doesnt fix the problem?

Trying to think of an analogy...
Lets say a parent is watching inappropriate TV in front of their child, knowing and not caring that it is bad for their child. This isnt fixed by taking the TV off them, they still have issues with their parenting that will not have gone away.

So, all the people who say it wont work, its discrimination etc. What would you do to reduce the welfare bill.

Its just unacceptable that some people who have messed around at school (and spolit it for others in their class) and who choose to have their kids young often with no thought about a permament relationship with the father are given every support time and time again.

Is it any wonder they choose never to work, to have another child with no thought to how they are going to support it - it doesnt matter, do what you like - someone else will pay for it.

Exactly BeyondStuffedWithXmassyGoodies I tried to say this yesterday eve. It seems though that it's cheaper to sack social workers and the DWP can issue cards to mop up social problems.

No, the educated and uneducated alike went out on the rampage because of greed. They saw an opportunity to get something for nothing and they took it, because they are greedy and selfish and don't care about the harm they do to other people.

I cant believe that if we are talking specifically about people who had rioted that anyone would actually defend their 'right' to be given free cash for doing nothing without any restrictions at all.

Crazy.

....'people who have obvious social problems'

but not

'disability related or unemployed for a short time'.

It's not ridiculous, you are discriminating. Like it or not.

Hear what you want to hear, see ?

I feel sorry for the people and children of families who have never worked. I do. But demonising them won't force them to change, or make them go to work. There should be ideas/plans to help people. Help them to see that there is another way. Using such anger and directing such ill-feeling towards these people in our society won't change them. Educating and offering advice will, hopefully.

But, again as so many others have mentioned, where will they recieve that advice and edcuation from ? So many services being cut, there will be nowhere for people to go soon. So even if they did want to help themselves, they won't be able to.

"But we aren't talking about all benefit claimants if we are discussing the article linked to in the OP, we are talking about problem families"

I suggest you reread the article.

The story is that Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke suggested this for all claimants.

Accepted, the article goes on to say that IDS is also considering this for "problem families".

The identification of the supposed 120,000 problem families has got nothing to do with wasting money on drugs or drink, choosing not to work, or having several generations out of work.

The Cabinet Office?s Task Force for Social Exclusion identifies "problem families" as having five or more problems from the following seven:

? No parent in the family is in work
? Family lives in poor quality or overcrowded housing
? No parent has any qualifications
? Mother has mental health problems
? At least one parent has a longstanding limiting illness, disability or infirmity
? Family has low income (below 60% of the median)
? Family cannot afford a number of food and clothing items.

Please tell me, how a card is going to help with these problems?

aufaniae Why would it make people's lives that much worse?

They would still be given what they need to survive, they would just pay for it with a different method and have less freedom to buy non essentials.

So we would take people's luxuries away? So what? Luxuries aren't a God given right, that's why they're called luxuries!

I was caught up in the riots as I was leaving work last year. There was a mob of kids grabbing everything - no one is suggesting that they were looking for food are they? In front of me was a group of young people smashing a window and literally coming out with armfuls of shoes. The Car Phone Warehouse was under siege due to what they had in there! I have never seen anything like it and hope I never do again.

I cannot see how issuing families with a food card is demonising them. If it helps their children to get food then it can only be a good thing. Most people whether they are on benefits or not on benefits prioritise what money they have to make sure their children are fed. So what is wrong that the state is thinking of ways in which to make sure these so called problem families at least have the money for adequate food.

I did read the article. It was suggested for 'claimants', not all claimants.

I think alot of working class women really have given up on long term relationships and marriage. Not that the working/non working poor women in victorian britain did any better. They have always been "immoral" in the eyes of the rich white male. You see, the rich white male has power over his own women, and his workers, his male inferiors and their women. Working class women have less respect for men because "her man" can't keep the wolf from the door. This leaves her at the bottom of the pile vulnerable & inferior to everyone.

I would argue that marriage is less socially advantageous to working class women that middle class women.

*than middle class women.

Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

So how do you set up a system that means that disabled people don't have a restricted access to alcohol if one of the reasons they get benefits in the first place is precisely because of their disability?
How do you ensure that its not disproportionately not certain groups such as women or ethnic minorities who have restricted access to alcohol?
And it explicitly actually states that you can't discriminate on the basis of property.
And other status could simply mean on the basis that you are unemployed.

Given how rules on sexism in the workplace work, you'll have a hard time getting this past the rules, if you are limiting freedom and access to certain things.

Also enshrined into the EUCHR is the right to a private life without state interference - which very easily could be used as another sticking point.

For this reason alone, its a stupid, costly idea that won't work as it'll be deemed unlawful.

It's not discriminating any more than giving benefits only to people that need them is. Sorry, but it's just not.

I don't agree with giving these cards to everyone, but I do agree to giving them to people that are prioritising luxuries over necessities. If people are doing that, then they need to be given what they need. They probably need food, fuel and clothing more than they need anything else, so all this is doing is giving it to them.

Exactly the same as giving income support only to those that need it?

Or are income support recipients being discriminated against too?

My DM is an ex infant school teacher but still goes in once a week to help out.

Having had 60 years in the teaching profession (she is 80!) she tells me she has never seen so many children coming to school without breakfast. When she asks them why they say that Mum is still in bed or there wasnt anything in the house! I think it breaks people's hearts that there are such crap parents who treat their children like this. Mum takes in a loaf of bread and makes them some toast. Its those parents who never turn up to parents evenings and who only attend when their child is in trouble to kick off at the school.

"So, all the people who say it wont work, its discrimination etc. What would you do to reduce the welfare bill."

There's lots that can be done.

Personally, I would set about job creation, to get people off benefits.

As I suggested earlier, a program of building social housing would be a great step in the right direction. It would:

• create jobs (cutting the welfare bill, and creating taxes)
• be an investment for the tax payer (through money raised in rents)
• save a huge amount of money in housing benefit which currently goes to private landlords
• bring down rents for everyone (simple supply and demand here)
• improve living standards for many thousands of people, including families, helping the next generation have better physical and mental health, better success at school and career prospects (this is all evidence based - children in poor housing suffer poor health, and do worse at school)
• Cut the number of homeless (this would save on our NHS bill, as homelessness brings with it a range of health problems)

The only people this wouldn't benefit are the private landlords.

There are lots of things you can do like this, which are positive steps for society.

Punishing the poor for being on benefits while doing nothing about job creation is harmful to all of us.

Test

Sorry, it wouldn't let me post !

Wasn't rude or anything.

Outraged.

We'll have to agree to disagree, we obviously have different feelings and views on the matter.

I saw a thing someone wrote (garlicbaubles I think) the other night.

The govt spent a lot of time and money looking for these 'problem families'.

They found 5.

I could cry.

Building S/H would be a wonderful step in the right direction. For all the reasons given.

Job Creation. What exactly does that mean? It's a pie in the sky theory. It has no useful meaning.

So if you're a 50-something whose lost his/her job and/or business and are claiming JSA after decades of paying in you're just a low-life scrounger.