Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think she's probably not in a minority with her views?

207 replies

LauraMoon · 02/06/2017 14:32

Foolishly talked politics after many proseccos with my True Blue sister.

Now, she wouldn't air these views in public but she knows she can say it to me because I know and love her for the cunt she is.

She thinks that the only reason food bank usage has rocketed is because poor people are lazy and just want free food.

That poor people need to learn to manage their money better and not smoke, drink or have sky telly.

That everyone can afford to buy a house if they really want to, but people waste money.

That anyone can get a decent job if they really put their minds to it.

Unemployment benefits are unnecessary because people should just have insurance.

(My 'favourite') that natural selection would breed out poor and stupid people and that by having a welfare system we are fucking with the natural order of things...

The background to this is that she left school with zero GCSEs and has then worked her way up from an office junior to finance director for an international (massive, household name) company. She bought a house in her early twenties with a loan from our parents and has always been well off. She says this is because she has a good work ethic, and doesn't see anyway that it could all go wrong for her.

Conversely, I am on ESA and have never really had a career, I've been a LP on benefits and lived in a HA house. I'm married now and dh earns £££ and we own our home, but I know how tenuous that all is in reality. She left her dh a few years ago and has her dc 50/50 and doesn't understand why other lone parents would struggle.

Anyway, I feel like I've had an insight into how some other people think and I'm pretty sure her views aren't even all that uncommon.

Does anyone here want to admit to thinking like this? Or maybe you know someone who does?

It's all a bit depressing really.

OP posts:
AgnesNitt1976 · 02/06/2017 19:22

Why not reintroduce workhouses for the poor because of course they deserve it now don't they Rainbow?

Ricekrispiecakes · 02/06/2017 19:24

I'd love to know what would happen if a single parent lost their job, was taken ill, had their working hours cut, had to take a less well paid job.

Lower end wages wouldn't cover living costs for a household and free childcare wouldn't help to make ends meet, childcare is only one bit of household expenses.

ExplodedCloud · 02/06/2017 19:24

Well that'll be a nightmare to administer particularly on zero hour contracts.
Whoops only 3 hours work this week so childcare. Sorry childcare provider no funding for you.

Ricekrispiecakes · 02/06/2017 19:34

The truth is that there is no simple way to be fair to everyone. Because every individual person and family has a different set of circumstances.

We moved on from workhouses and forced adoption because it wasn't working.

If it was as simple as just giving free childcare and all would be well with the world, then it would have been done by now.

How many hours would this free childcare be available for? What about those working night shifts and unsociable hours? Would it be available 24/7? How many children would it be available for?

Does that mean a single parent of one can't work 16 hours while her child is small, but a couple can have unlimited childcare for multiple children?

Ricekrispiecakes · 02/06/2017 19:42

What would happen if someone had their hours cut, or was made redundant and couldn't find work for a few months?

What would the children eat? Don't say they should have insurance/savings because not everyone can afford to.

Most of us are only a few bits of bad luck away from being in need of help.

MargaretCabbage · 02/06/2017 20:04

I had a friend that suddenly started spouting things like this. Apparently anyone who is on minimum wage should study for qualifications and get a better job, instead of claiming top up benefits.

She was in her late 20's, living with her parents, studying for another degree after she'd dropped out of her first one. She'd never even had to pay rent or hold down a full time job, so clearly knew all about how hard life could be. Hmm

RainbowsAndUnicorn · 02/06/2017 20:05

You could still have a welfare system that was based on contributions to give people chance to find new work.

Childcare could be linked easily by tax code, the system enables joint tax claims currently as the marriage allowance links two people.

BabychamSocialist · 02/06/2017 21:06

RainbowsAndUnicorns

I'm done with you, you're beyond help. Please don't talk out loud like this, I'd be ashamed.

user1485166754 · 02/06/2017 21:37

I actually agree with a lot of what she says.

HornyTortoise · 03/06/2017 00:55

RainbowsAndUnicorn

So, where are all of the jobs going to come from? Given there are next to no (real. ie. fulltime hours, paid rather than comission only etc) jobs around as it is? With likely a drop in jobs because of Brexit soon enough...

ExplodedCloud · 03/06/2017 01:16

People need to understand that unemployment has gone down. That's unemployment measures as people claiming unemployment benefits.
It doesn't include people on zero hours contracts who want a full time job.
It doesn't include people who can't meet the strict rules on meeting criteria about job seeking
It doesn't include people who have been sanctioned.
It doesn't include the under employed.
The benefits system is an under reactive system. It has no facility to take account of those things. People are left with no income and no benefits. UC was touted as reactive in 2010 but it hasn't happened.

AwaywiththePixies27 · 03/06/2017 07:50

When I was on JSA I found a work placement on my own, I was told I couldn't sign off like you can if they find you a placement, because basically they don't get paid for it. I had to sign on in my lunch hour and I still had a dozy cow try and give me a bollocking for being over two hours late for my signing and threatening me with a sanction, I stood my ground and told her politely but assertively to check my notes, there was a big fat yellow post it note from my usual advisor stuck to the front explaining my sign on date had been changed because of my work placement.

All the workfare places you see, the contractor gets £ for it, £ per claimant, so the contractor gets paid, and you still have to pay the person doing the workfare their benefits too. That's not saving money, that's pissing it up the wall. I've done one of these too, there was one day there was ten of us in the shop, the manager couldn't send us home because they wouldn't get paid but they had nothing for any of us to do anyway. So all ten of us stood around like prats just trying to find anything, something, to do, there was very little to do because the shop already had their own volunteers who'd already done everything!

Now re the shop one, i was allowed to sign off, that's because it takes you off the unemployment count. Look up NEET = Not in Employment, Education or Training. That's the bar for the Employment figures.

The workfare jobs are seen as mandatory work placements, the people being sent on two week courses on how to get a job, its seen as mandatory training. So whilst all these people aren't signing on, of course the unemployment figure is going to fall. It's not rocket science.
Then of course there's all these people being found fit for work. Not being able to claim ANYTHING until their mandatory reconsideration has been completed and the tribunals have received their appeal. They can rarely claim JSA as their advisor takes one look at them and tells them they're not fir enough for work, so these people dont fo on their statistics either. again = instantly more numbers off the unemployment count.

When somebody shows me a direct correlation between the unemployment figures and the people now in employment (what jobs they got and for how long etc etc). Then I'll stop being so sceptical. Funnily enough David Cameron never answered this question when it was put to him in PMQs one day. I wouldn't expect any less of Theresa if someone reminded her either.

AwaywiththePixies27 · 03/06/2017 07:50

*sign on time sorry. Not date.

mygorgeousmilo · 03/06/2017 08:05

I feel like this is what I've heard from most of the Tory voters on my FB timeline. Just IME, not saying everyone Hmm the gist of it that -Anyone not made of money is a feckless twat, and they shouldn't be given handouts and healthcare to allow them to carry on in this way with reckless abandon. When I've tried to make various points as to why this is not the case, they just rip you to shreds. Even, as one example that I like to make, of how years ago when there were slums and workhouses where I now live - how even THAT didn't 'encourage' people to become well educated millionaires, people say things like "that was then, this is now, people have no excuses these days".... errrrr it's essentially the same reasons behind the poverty, I don't know how people don't understand the cycle. Poverty is unlikely to end anytime soon, the only solution surely is to alleviate the suffering that men, women, and children go through during the worst times of their lives. If people really want to wipe out poverty, then we need to deal with education, health and the economy - not just cutting people adrift - it just simply does not work! Most of the people that come to my foodbank have some form of health problem, even if it's as part of additional factors. All have a referral, and none use it as a supermarket. Many are homeless, and many of the service users bloody work!

Graphista · 03/06/2017 11:31

Rainbowsandunicorn do u have any idea how hard it is to get benefits? Serious go on some of the Facebook pages of people getting turned down daily when they are extremely ill/disabled or caring for someone who is. The hoops you have to jump through are crazy. The decision makers have targets of turning down 80% of all applicants (ESA example) - that many of the decisions are overturned on appeal matters not to them as not everyone is up to going to appeal so it suits their agenda.

And God forbid it's a mental illness you're claimin for or another invisible illness like ME. They seems to be of the mind that only illnesses that can be seen are acceptable and even then it's not certain.

I have 2 people in my family one is bedridden, one isn't quite bedridden yet but largely housebound due to physical illness/disability BOTH were initially rejected in their claims for pip! That meme doing the rounds on fb of the gravediggers exhuming someone declared 'fit for work' is scarily close to the truth. Hundreds of people declared fit for work have died less than 6 months after the decision was made (and that's not including those committing suicide because of the stress this is all causing. One coroner has this week demanded that the increased suicide rate relating to all this be investigated in a public enquiry).

"plenty of work opportunities for those willing to work."

NO THERE IS NOT!

Even those fit for work are stuffed because THERE AREN'T ENOUGH JOBS! It's all very well telling people to get off their backsides and get a job but I repeat there are FOUR TIMES more people unemployed on jsa (so not inc those disabled or under 22 who could work if their needs were met) than there are jobs advertised and AGAIN those jobs are not all full time living wage.

You're living in cloud cuckoo land. Where I live every time a job is advertised they get hundreds of applicants. Most of the youngsters do or plan to emigrate.

It goes back further than job openings too, the cuts to education both school and post 16 mean the youngsters can't get the qualifications or training they need to be qualified for the jobs and as there are so many applicants it's an employers market so they're not needing to invest in training employees.

As I asked the op of her relative, have you NEVER claimed or been helped by family allowance/child benefit, ssp, smp, tax credits, free healthcare, free education to age 18, subsidised education post 18? I highly doubt it!

As babycham rightly points out the nmw is NOT enough to live on however the tories like to spin it. Not even 1 adult can live on that alone with current housing and fuel prices. Jesus I earned slightly less as a full time waitress in 1990!! That's 27 years ago! Nurses and other public workers haven't had a pay rise in almost 10 years! But mp's never go without they're spending £40 a day on breakfast ffs!

"DH also thinks poor people don't budget properly." I honestly couldn't be with someone like that. The poor ALWAYS knew how to budget, make food go further etc. They've no choice you see it on here the mners who give the best advice on credit crunch threads are the ones who've genuinely struggled at some point. I have a few friends who've never struggled not rich but never worried about where next meal coming from. They are genuinely shocked at what 'the government say is how much you need to live on'. They are lovely people who regularly give their time as well as donations to various charities.

"Plenty of people like zero hour contracts as they suit. Students, second earners, those that want a second job etc."

No people rarely work second jobs out of choice. They do it because they need the money to live on. Students are struggling to find part time jobs that fit round contact hours. Rolling shifts are a particular bug bear of mine. Parents can't change their paid childcare arrangements weekly at 2 days notice! Rolling shifts tend to apply to shops there's absolutely NO reason why employees shouldn't be able to work the shifts that suit their circumstances and NO reason why employers need to be changing which hours people work WEEKLY it's ridiculous. My mum worked in retail for decades and I've worked retail at various points, they are really among the worst treated employees and union membership is heavily discouraged with employees finding they're suddenly dismissed if their union affiliation is discovered (yes illegal but employer just blames employee for several minor infractions or whatever and dismisses them based on that) - sorry digression there.

What tax credits actually allowed is not people having children indiscriminately but employers NOT paying proper wages and instead billionaire owners getting their businesses subsidised by us! Do you really think Asda, Tesco, Argos, even primark can't afford to pay decent wage? Come off it!

"the fact is that housing costs are too high, wages are too low and childcare is expensive."

This with a million bells on! ^

"Ditch all chid related benefits and WTC, put the money into education, social services and free childcare for households where all adults work over thirty hours. Force people to make responsible choices and to ensure any they make they can afford." Oh really? So how would my daughter have been fed, clothed, housed, heated for the last 9 years while I've been too ill to work (I'm sure I would have been better earlier if I wasn't getting a new cpn roughly every 3 months and my Cmht could replace the psychologist that Retired a year ago!! And my medication that worked hadn't become too expensive for nhs to give me so I had to be switched to something else!) and what about the taxis we both need to occasionally take to get to hospital appointments because we both have disabilities that can seriously affect our mobility?!

Jesus - go read Jonathan swifts 'a modern proposal' I'll bet it's right up your street!

"Why not reintroduce workhouses for the poor because of course they deserve it now don't they Rainbow" yes - make poverty a crime eh? Reintroduce debtors prisons too??

Shelters study has shown 37% of families in England are ONE payday away from homelessness. There are people dying of starvation, lack of medication, there are children not going to school because they can't afford basic equipment or transport, there are people committing suicide because they genuinely believe they are a burden to the country and nobody cares. That is NOT the country I want to live in!

StillDrivingMeBonkers · 03/06/2017 11:36

From the OP

my True Blue sister.

I'd love to take some of you to the local pub, real working class, who all espouse opinions you attribute to 'true blue' . They cant stand immigrants (taking our jobs), cant stand benefits (spunking our taxes), Would cap many services in the NHS such as cosmetic surgery and IVF (vanity), I wont even touch on LGBT marriage!

ssd · 03/06/2017 11:40

a lot of people who say there are loads of jobs out there...well, they're right, there are loads of jobs, I should know I've been looking for ages...but the jobs I see are all 8 hours flexible a week...12 hours a week....16 hours is the most I've seen

so immediately these people would say "well just do 2 jobs then"...but these jobs advertised are wanting flexibility so one week they want you in Sat Sun Tue, next week all day Fri and Sat then next week Wed Thurs Fri......so how they hell do you work 2 jobs if that's how these jobs work?

if you go for an interview and you aren't flexible you get passed over.

Graphista · 03/06/2017 11:51

Ssd absolutely yet I bet there's no good reason they couldn't have all their staff working the same hours every week. Students generally want evenings and weekends, parents with a partner who work 9-5 mon-fri do too, but lone parents or who are partnered with a parent who already works eve/weekends want school hours or 9-5 mon-fri. Youngsters in first job generally don't mind as long as they get at least one of Friday sat or Sunday off so they can socialise night before. Older people tend to prefer mornings (biorhythms tend to make us larks as we get older).

Time the employers were more flexible AND paid proper wages.

ssd · 03/06/2017 11:55

that baffles me too

15 years ago the jobs I'm looking at now were advertised as 12-5 Mon-Fri, or 9-6 Sat and Sun......now its 8 hrs a week with complete flexibility, so if its quite you get 8 hours somewhere and if its busy or holiday cover needed you are expected to do 35 hours at the drop of a hat....then when its back to normal you drop to 8 hours again

ssd · 03/06/2017 11:56

quiet sorry

zeezeek · 03/06/2017 12:40

I have a friend. She is single and childless, owns her own home and has an income just above the average.

However, she is also,responsible for an elderly father - he lives with her and only has his state pension to live on, and a brother in a NMW job who can't afford local rent.

Most people would say she is in an enviable position but the reality is that she is financially responsible for keeping a roof over the heads of 3 adults and is feeling immense pressure from having that sole responsibility. She was left with a pile of debts that her husband ran up before they divorced and has spent years paying those off as well as solicitors fees. As a consequence she only has a few hundred pounds in savings.

She has a PhD and works insanely hard and yet is only a month away from losing everything.

Graphista · 03/06/2017 13:26

Ssd sounds like we both have experience of living in places with seasonal employment too. The 2 main places I've lived (army brat) are seaside towns where there's lots of work from Easter to September and bugger all the rest of the time which means as well as ridiculous constantly changing hours the contracts are temporary too.

One of the things UC is SUPPOSED to work with is temp contracts as previously if you took a temp job your benefits stopped immediately (fair enough) BUT if you couldn't get taken on perm (not enough perm jobs for everyone) or find another job and had to go back on benefits you could easily be getting nothing for MONTHS.

UC is meant to be more flexible but I'm on a UC fb page (which also has advisors on it) and its NOT working. People are finding there's still long delays and sometimes people's wages are being counted TWICE bloody mess!

A citizens salary that you maybe repay a proportion at end of year would work better maybe?

Writermom22 · 03/06/2017 18:39

I've been on both sides, employed and unemployed.

But I do agree in part with your sister's views.

I'm in my forties but there are a few girls I went to school with who chose babies and benefits as their career. They managed to get council housing and have carpets throughout and have a holiday every year, sometimes more than one. The benefits there are on go into the thousands and are for many different things. Whereas I started at the bottom and worked my way up, married a man who had always had a job and then we adopted two children. I changed my job so that I could work in term time so wouldn't need childcare. 7 years ago, the company hubs worked for was taken over and a lot of people lost out. We went through two years of hell where we couldn't get anything but the basic £76 a week. We couldn't even get free school meals for our kids and we ended up a month away from losing the house. We were constantly worried about losing the £76 under threat of hubs not applying for jobs, he was applying for 10 every day.

He did eventually find a job but it's taken us years to get back on track and only now, are we able to take a holiday, the first foreign one in 20 years. So how do these people on benefits do it? Why does the system allow them to get away with it? How come all these people on benefits get to have 50 inch TVs, takeaways every night, holidays every year, designer clothes and full package sky tv while hubs and I are working full time, paying for the small virgin TV package and foregoing holidays in favour of paying a mortgage and saving for a carpet to replace the one so knackered, that it looks like someone died on it.

Maireadplastic · 03/06/2017 18:48

How much is Sky per month? It's got to be the world's cheapest babysitter and provide cheapest £ per min entertainment-wise.

AwaywiththePixies27 · 03/06/2017 19:03

How much is Sky per month? It's got to be the world's cheapest babysitter and provide cheapest £ per min entertainment-wise.

A lot to someone on benefits! that's why I don't have it!

Swipe left for the next trending thread