Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think pre-paid benefits cards are a stigmatizing, punitive scheme?

464 replies

ArsenicFaceCream · 29/09/2014 16:22

Just announced at the Conservative Party conference.

They will initially be 'voluntary' for claimants with addiction issues, apparently.

But of course the intention is to roll it out.

Universal Credit is going national in February so this could get interesting, given that UC will be paid to working claimants as well as those not working.

OP posts:
Darkesteyes · 29/09/2014 17:14

" The article says it won't apply to pensioners and disabled claimants, but its a bit ambiguous I think;"

They said the same about the bedroom tax!

A lot of people turn to drugs alcohol and in some cases food to cope with previous or current hurt and pain in their lives like abuse and stress.

Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 29/09/2014 17:15

Wardrobe my EXH was an addict and things got nasty in the end. He sold my CD collection, camera, typewriter (showing my age). He also emptied the baby's savings.

Had we been on benefits, and cards were in use, I have no doubt he would have found a pub to flog them in. I don't believe it solves anything. Maybe for the gentlest of addicts who don't steal from their spouses, but how is the govt to judge who they are?

At least with cash, there is some hope of a wife spending some of it on food - it isnt all embodied in one piece of plastic.

OP posts:
Mandatorymongoose · 29/09/2014 17:17

I agree it won't help anyone. If you had an addition to alcohol / drugs you would just sell the card for less than face value if you were desperate for a hit. So addicts still get their substance but are even poorer than currently. I can't see any upside really.

Kendodd · 29/09/2014 17:18

Will they get all their money through the card, or just some? Is the idea that you spend at least some of your income on food and essentials?

PausingFlatly · 29/09/2014 17:19

If you don't spend some of your income on food, you die.

So, that's kind of taken care of already...

ElleMcFearsome · 29/09/2014 17:21

1 in 15 of working age benefits claimants suffers from opiate addiction (crack/heroin)! I'd love to see the source for that particular statement!

Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 29/09/2014 17:22

From the BBC Ken;

The concept of a pre-paid benefit card has been championed by the Conservative backbencher Alec Shelbrooke, who first raised it in the Commons early in 2013.

He has called for claimants to be stopped from spending their weekly income on items that damage their health and increase the financial burden on the NHS.

Spending on cigarettes, alcohol and gambling - what he has described as "non-essential, desirable and damaging" goods - should be banned, he has argued.

The welfare state, he has said, is being abused by a small minority of claimants and it should return to its original philosophy of supporting those unable to work and offering a "safety net" to those not currently earning by paying for basic items such as food and transport.

He has said the cards - which would not apply to pensioners or those with disabilities - will act as a "last-stop deterrent" to those living off the state with no intention of working.

OP posts:
PausingFlatly · 29/09/2014 17:24

DarkestEyes, I think you're bang on there.

"Disabled people" now usually means "people receiving DLA/PIP because their care and mobility needs are great", not "people unable to work due to chronic illness or disability".

I'm expecting to lose my mobility DLA when I'm assessed for PIP, because I can't walk 50 m but can walk 20 m. So I won't be disabled any more.

Roussette · 29/09/2014 17:26

I think it wil be a popular move, especially if the cards are personalised and can't be sold. If your partner was a drug addict and spent all their benefit money on skunk, I would imagine you would be grateful that his or her benefit money could only be spent on nappies, food etc.

I expect to be flamed as everything the tories do with regard to benefits is unpopular.

aermingers · 29/09/2014 17:26

So it won't apply to everybody just a small group? I'm not sure why people are saying they're going to ban baby formula being bought with the cards because they've never indicated that's something they want to do. That's just hysterical 'Tories want to starve babies to death' rubbish. I would be political suicide to do that.

Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 29/09/2014 17:27

I expect to be flamed as everything the tories do with regard to benefits is unpopular.

We're discussing the specific policy *Rousette

OP posts:
Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 29/09/2014 17:28

Just to addicts initially aer.

OP posts:
Roussette · 29/09/2014 17:29

Well, White Dee thinks it's a good idea! She's up at the conference giving her view on it.

PausingFlatly · 29/09/2014 17:33

Rousette, another particularly charming wrinkle with the "personalised" cards bit, is supermarket managers refusing to allow family shopping.

Cos the cards ain't transferrable, see. So you can't use cards for more than one person for a single trolley of food.

This happened to asylum seekers, and the shop benefitted from the additional left over change when items didn't exactly add up to voucher amounts plus I suspect the manager was just doing it for the pleasure of being a dick.

Once the technology allows non-transferable cards with ID... well, that will be fun.

extremepie · 29/09/2014 17:34

It's also just occurred to me that if this gets brought in, like someone upthread stated all a family's income will be in this one bit of plastic, doesn't that open up the potential for abusive partners to be, well, more abusive?

Not to be alarmist or anything but I'm just thinking of a situation where an abusive partner has complete control over the card, thus not allowing the abused partner to have any potential to squirrel away small amounts of money to make an escape? Even if they did have access to the card they still couldn't put any money aside because they would never have any cash, never have the chance to scrape together the money for a bus out etc.

Idontseeanysontarans · 29/09/2014 17:35

Actually I said that it could be used to promote a certain ideology and used baby formula as an example.
Nobody has said that the Tories want to starve babies..: even IDS isn't that bad..

PausingFlatly · 29/09/2014 17:38

Idont, your baby formula analogy is exactly what I would expect to see happening with vouchers.

The product might not be baby formula, but it'll happen. Captive market - bit of political donation or soft support: your product available on the cards.

PausingFlatly · 29/09/2014 17:40

Yes, extremepie. Either they won't be transferrable, so no family shopping efficiency.

Or they will be transferrable and an abuser's charter.

Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 29/09/2014 18:11

Not to be alarmist or anything but I'm just thinking of a situation where an abusive partner has complete control over the card, thus not allowing the abused partner to have any potential to squirrel away small amounts of money to make an escape?

Not alarmist at all, I think that is exactly what will happen.

OP posts:
Darkesteyes · 29/09/2014 18:14

Rousette the answer to that would be stricter laws and more severe penalties for people who are perpetrators of domestic financial abuse.

Because if they were really fucking bothered about what you mentioned in your post at 17.26 THIS is what they would be doing.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 29/09/2014 18:15

www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0001/5899/1011_Azure_card_briefing.pdf

This is a quite interesting bit of info about how the cards work obviously the amounts we are talking about are different but it is pretty much exactly what they have in mind

Darkesteyes · 29/09/2014 18:15

Not to be alarmist or anything but I'm just thinking of a situation where an abusive partner has complete control over the card, thus not allowing the abused partner to have any potential to squirrel away small amounts of money to make an escape?

Sadly i also think this is what will happen.

aermingers · 29/09/2014 18:15

I'm not really sure what sort of ideology you could promote via the means of grocery shopping. I really think it's incredibly far fetched to think that an ideology could be promoted via the purchase of a basket of wagon wheels and oven chips. I think that's being slightly hysterical.

Ditto the people saying how it will give abusers an opportunity. If they could do it with a prepaid card they could do exactly the same with cash. There would be absolutely no additional risks and I can't really see how being given their benefits in cash would make any difference. If someone wants to take your card off you they will take your cash off you too. Ditto debit cards, it would present no addtional risks, if an abuser would take a prepaid card they'd take a debit card too.

I really don't support these cards because I think they're stigmatizing. But some of the responses on here are fanciful and not very well worked out.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 29/09/2014 18:17

Stricter laws to cover financial abuse?

How about any laws at all. Do any of you know what happens if you walk into a police station seeking help for financial and/or emotional abuse?

I do. NOTHING

DaisyFlowerChain · 29/09/2014 18:19

Done properly, it could work well. If people are spending their benefits on the wrong thing which is creating more problems and more reliance on the state (be it longer on benefits or NHS etc) then it could have a positive impact. There's also the factor that some won't like having no control over what they can spend so those that are physically able to work but choose not to may just find the incentive.

However it's a Tory policy so likely to be shot down on here.

Don't the US issue benefits in stamps that can only be spent on certain items so it's just a variance of that.