to wonder what benefits will get the chop from the £12 billion of cuts?

[steiner8]

Just that really. I'm wondering which benefits are going to go or be significantly cut. Anyone have any idea?

right im going to rehome my dog. hes 11 year old staff so probably cant get him rehomed. because hes a staff will get put to sleep.

You actually think benefits should be paid in sufficient quantity for you to keep a staffy! People really believe the welfare state shouldn't be a safety net for people when things go wrong, but should actually be to keep them in the same lifestyle that they were in before disaster struck. With all the same trappings, pets, holidays, etc.

Wow...just wow!

She didn't mention holidays, and she has a job.

Round my way TTWK, people are using benefits to fund their keeping horses... Seriously.

I would withdraw any benefits for the keeping of a staffie. Twice over.

'I think the problem is that benefits haven't allowed people to feel, " poor" so there is absolutely no incentive to change their circumstances and get work.

Until now. And suddenly we have the lowest unemployment in decades - and no, that isnt because everyone is on 0 hours contracts'

What absolute crap! on so many levels!! Benefits don't allow people to feel poor???? Really?? Because I deal with people who definitely know they are poor every bloody day! I made a referal to the food bank today for a poor soul who had spent her last bit of money to allow her primary school aged child go on a school trip. I support families who go for weeks without hot water because they have no money for the meter. I have never been so angry as I have been reading the crap being sprouted on here.

And also- unemployment hasn't went down- the stats don't count the 800000 people who are sanctioned or those on the totally ineffective work programme, which costs in excess of £10k per person on it (and paid to private companies ran by Daves pals).

thankyou sooty

i think the staffie thing is a new thread. i was just saying because of what was said about rehoming animals if owners on benefits.

And also- emplyment figures hasn't gone down ....

Jeez, another one.

Back up your stats without linking to some opinion piece.

From the ONS website regarding unemployment

The level of unemployment is not calculated from the number of people on out-of-work benefits so sanctions or the actions of job centres will not affect it

All that needs is the requirement to not NEED to be popular. You dont have to be miss I am perfect with 40 friends and a member of a gang because 20 years later - no one of that gang will remember you.

Complete bollocks! I went to my school reunion 4 years ago (left school in 1989) and the so called "cool gang" who used to ridicule us quieter kids are still hanging around together and socialising together.

I run an employability programme for lone parents and the regional manager for the DWP sits on my board. I think I know what I am talking about....

Also [citation needed] for the 800000 please..

This is the tricky bit of proving stats while ignoring others....

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/08/900000-claiming-job-seekers-allowance-subjected-benefit-sanctions

I also attended quarterly 'briefing' sessions from the DWP filling me in on a whole number of cheery proposals they are working on. So again, I have a good idea of what I am talking about. Whereas many on here are basing their knowledge base on what they have read in the Daily Mail or witnessed on Jeremy Kyle. But hey, if anyone wants to come and spend a week with me to get a proper understanding of the life of the long term unemployed please let me know....

Ah, so anecdotes on an anonymous forum hold more weight than official government stats, gotcha....

if your fighting the the system, with your stats you would have many papers/blogs etc crawling all over you if you could prove it.

After all, those that see 'benefit scrounges' don't have stats to back up their claims, neither do you, so it's just Internet chatter.

Oh and on another cheery note- my local job centre was caught running a competition to see how many claimants they individually could sanction in a week.

Unemployment stats also don't include the increasing number of people who are not even signing on because they can not cope with the new claimant conditionality. I have had at least three cases of this in the last couple of months, and all were women who had very poor mental health, and had been in abusive relationships. Welcome to Conservative Britain 2015.

Stats I just provided on the 900000 sanctions are absolutely correct.

lurker i agree.

end of the day its people chatting having a moan or a debate sharing worrys ect....govenment will still do what they want to do

All anecdotal, the same as when someone mentions their neibourgh having a large flat screen TV and multiple holidays a year, your on an anonymous, if you have the data leak it, we have all read guardian columns around terrible sanction decisions, we don't hear the legitimate ones.

Out of those 900,000 sanctioned what number is not legitimate? It doesn't say, it's also irrelevant as the ONS doesn't compile them in the statistics.

Lol. Absolutely not anecdotal and there is a huge amount of work being done on the impact of welfare reform. There is another big call for evidence going out next month from the Scottish Government, on top of the scathing reports that have already been produced, including in one commissioned from the DWP themselves.

TTWK. Again. Who is going to pick up the cost of rehoming these pets? So far your best guess is charity. Which is funded by the public.As is tax.
Stop banging on about benefits supporting pets.

www.cpag.org.uk/content/sanctions

Lurker- knock yourself out!

I didn't vote Tory. I'm sad to say that I think no matter who I voted for it wasn't going to make a sods bit of difference because I am apparently in a safe Tory seat. My salary is an absolute pittance and I'm not eligible to claim anything because I am single with no children. I work hard and yet never seem any better off. I think single female childless voters are largely ignored by politicians.
It would be nice to think that this government would encourage employers to pay a living wage instead of the absolute bare legal minimum but I know that won't ever happen because the Tories won't do anything to offend big business and see me as disposable and replaceable. I choose never to have any children because I am genuinely scared of what world I would be bringing them into.

Thankyou ghostspirit

I agree with people having a moan, I may not be articulate but sweeping generalisations and anecdotes are picked upon and ridiculed if they do not conform to the general hive mind, however the same sweeping generalisations and dismissal of anecdotes or controversial stats are ignored from the outside perspective.

I really have no horse in this race as I voted LD, I do believe we need some kind of austerity yet I don't want to punish tge genuinely poor, yet I don't think slinging more money at the problem is the solution.

I expected a better discussion around the potential problems other than DAE EVIL TORIES and expect mumsnet to consider the long term implications of our globalised economy other than anecdotes.

/sorry for the rant

Your purposely trying to muddy the waters scarlet

Some sanctions are bad, it doesn't matter within the parameters that you brought them to the table, the ONS doesn't include them in the stats for unemployment...

Lol, at this stage what you say is purely anecdotal, I also can't wait for your extrapolation around Scottish findings to be relevant to the UK, I guess I have to wait for the DWP report before I can make a decision to blame the evil tories.

I hope for your sake that there is no reference to the ONS stats in there.....

What is purely anecdotal exactly??? The Oakley Report was highly critical of the DWP over its treatment of benefit claimants and that was a high profile report commission by the DWP themselves!

We clearly are not going to agree on this, but the fact is, more children are undoubtedly now suffering as a direct result of Conservative policy. Someone who is long term unemployed does not suddenly become employable if you keep beating them with a big stick. But to be so arrogant as to think that real stories (however anecdotal), don't matter is repulsive. These are real people, people who have been let down their whole lives and who are then deemed to be the masters of their own misfortune by people who think they know what is going on, when actually they have no clue whatsoever.

The reality of this country's economics is this: we have to destroy the deficit. To save the money to pay down the deficit, we will incur £7 billion in losses from the sale of RBS shares. We will destroy the lives of voiceless vulnerable voter by cutting their lifelines to a dignified existence. Oh, and it is not enough that 3 in 10 people in a first world country rely on food banks to feed themselves and their family. Even if the figure doubles, the official line is that a food bank does not exist - ostensibly because a food bank makes no profit.

I say "we"because a helluva lot of people voted for this heartless government and put all voters on the scrap heap. Now all voters reap what was sowed.

Wait till the NHS gp surgeries start closing under the weight of cuts and are replaced by private doctor conglomerates. Then we will all see how ruthless those we put in power are. The lack of investment in the NHS is what will make the welfare cuts cataclysmic. And we will be no better in real terms than the third world countries we give aid to.