Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be amazed by the amount of people who think the state shouldnt help people?

333 replies

malificent7 · 14/04/2019 08:08

I mean with job creation, welfare, regulation of private employers etc.
I hear so many times...its not the state's job to do x, y and z.

So what is the point of gaving a state if it cannot produce conditions for people to thrive?

Of course some take the piss but the state shouldctry to peovide more jobs and less zero hour contracts, they should regulate how the private sector treats employees, they should moderate wages anf provide housing.

Of course, some take the piss but most have a genuine need and the state dosnt want to know.

OP posts:
AlaskanOilBaron · 15/04/2019 13:44

Our society has become so unbalanced where a couple working full time may need help from the state to make ends meet. This imbalance is disturbing. I’m not an economist and don’t know how that could be fixed. It does some wrong however that the state has to top up living costs where private employers aren’t paying enough. The state is subsidy private industry.

I agree and suggest that raising interest rates and breaking up a few of the most offensive employment behemoths might be the answer (I'd be laughed out of the Conservative party for suggesting the latter, don't care).

You realise you can be the most careful person ever and stillend up on benefits, don’t you?

It is a hell of a lot less likely. I've always been amazed that, for example, so many people in relatively precarious positions choose to have three children. We're at the point where we could afford it easily (too old), but when we were professionals in our 30s the thought would have kept me awake at night.

There's a lot of people who don't see risk in certain decisions where others would, it's never popular to point them out after the fact.

CanILeavenowplease · 15/04/2019 13:53

No top ups for living in expensive places

How do you anticipate minimum wages jobs will be filled in expensive to live areas? And please don’t tell ‘by commuting’ because that’s simply not viable.

AlaskanOilBaron · 15/04/2019 13:55

How do you anticipate minimum wages jobs will be filled in expensive to live areas? And please don’t tell ‘by commuting’ because that’s simply not viable.

I'm amazed that people even care about this. Why do you care so much about employers in the SE of England who underpay people? Let them deal with it, it's their problem.

CanILeavenowplease · 15/04/2019 13:57

It is a hell of a lot less likely

Please find me stats that show that.

And I won’t bore you with my situation but in my circles, I am not unusual. I did it all ‘right’ - education, long term relationship, children post-marriage, able to afford private schooling.....but shit happened....

AlaskanOilBaron · 15/04/2019 14:02

Please find me stats that show that.

You want me to find statistics that say careful people are less likely to wind up on benefits? Really?

As for your circumstances, please do remember that correlation does not equal causation.

lillymunster · 15/04/2019 14:14

I've been very shocked by comments I have heard by people which suggest they are very dismissive of the state helping people who are disabled and ill long term. I have also been extremely annoyed by sweeping statements about anyone on benefits being too lazy to work. Even my cleaner (who is from another European country) said that British people are all lazy. I was so pissed off with her attitude I got a different cleaner.
I grew up in a different part of the country to where I live now and I have seen that there are many people who could never work under any circumstances due to their state of health and people who are desperate to find a job and can't and it has a horrible effect on their self esteem.

CanILeavenowplease · 15/04/2019 16:02

You want me to find statistics that say careful people are less likely to wind up on benefits? Really?

Yes, really. It would be fascinating to compare ‘careful’ with ‘not so careful’ and ‘downright stupid’ and what long term outcomes are for their children.

please do remember that correlation does not equal causation

I don’t even know what that’s meant to mean. Other than it was meant to be patronising in some way.

HelenaDove · 15/04/2019 16:20

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47898652

Grenfell family 'face removal from home'

A family who survived the Grenfell Tower fire has said they are set to be moved out of their temporary home, as the council will no longer pay for it.

Mahad Egal and Jamie Murray and their two young children want to stay in the property, but Kensington and Chelsea Council has said it is "no longer suitable" and will not renew it.

It has offered the family alternative temporary housing instead.

The council says that it has not threatened anyone with eviction.

The couple has previously been offered a permanent home, but declined it over fears about the use of aluminium, although the council said that all its homes for survivors were safe

The couple and their two children, aged three and five, escaped from the fourth floor of Grenfell Tower during the fire in June 2017, in which 72 people died.

They moved into a permanent home last month, but within three weeks had returned to their temporary accommodation - which they first entered in August 2017.

Ms Murray told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme that the permanent home had been connected to a building with aluminium decorative casing around the windows.

They could see this through the living room window and it made them feel unsafe following their experiences of the fire.

The council said the material was not flammable and was "one of the safest forms of rain-screening building material available in the industry".

But Ms Murray said: "We were given similar reassurances when we lived in Grenfell Tower.

"[The council] are talking about physical safety, [but] you telling me that I am safe does not make me feel safe.

Ms Murray added that the stress of their present situation had caused her to experience vomit-inducing anxiety and made her flashbacks worse.

In the last two weeks she said she has also suffered a miscarriage.

The family added that moving from one property to another with two children would be "stressful and unnecessary" and Mr Egal was reporting symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

They said the next time they move, they want it to be their permanent "forever" home.
'No culture change'

The couple said they were now effectively being evicted from their current temporary accommodation.

In a legal letter seen by the Victoria Derbyshire programme, Kensington and Chelsea Council state that it was "no longer suitable".

The family now say they fear leaving the home in case they are not allowed back in.

Mr Egal told the BBC that "every day from now on is a potential eviction day" and he feared the effect it would have on their children.

He added that the council has paid the rent for last week and the weekend just gone, but that is it.

Local Labour MP Emma Dent Coad said the council saw some Grenfell survivors as "troublesome" and wanted to "clear the decks" before the second anniversary of the tragedy on 14 June.

She said there was "no culture change" at the council, and she could see no justification "at all" for wanting to move the family from their temporary accommodation.

Kensington and Chelsea Council said in a statement: "We have worked with more than 180 households from Grenfell Tower to find them a suitable, permanent home.

"A small number of families find they have trouble settling into their new property and if they wish to move, we will find them suitable temporary housing while they consider what they want for the long term.

"All our homes for Grenfell [survivors] are safe and secure.

"We have not threatened any Grenfell survivor with eviction from their property."

In the week of the fire i remember a survivor telling Alok Sharma that he wasnt prepared to keep moving his young daughter from here to here to here to here. They KNEW that it was going to be like this, And they have been proved right.

AlaskanOilBaron · 15/04/2019 16:32

medium.com/causal-data-science/if-correlation-doesnt-imply-causation-then-what-does-c74f20d26438

In order for me to answer your question, we'd need to agree on a metric for 'careful' (I get the sense you're not really interested).

outpinked · 15/04/2019 16:36

It’s a bit of a Tory mentality imo. They believe they’ve always had to fend for themselves so everyone else should too.

The issue is, most people literally can’t survive on minimum wage as in they would be homeless, freezing and/or starving. The answer to this would of course be something along the lines of ‘get a better paid job then!’ But everyone in society relies on people who do the crap min wage jobs.

Minimum wage needs to rise, I’m a firm believer in a living wage. The government also need to get ahold on con artist landlords.

Iggly · 15/04/2019 16:56

It’s a bit of a Tory mentality imo. They believe they’ve always had to fend for themselves so everyone else should too

Indeed which is ironic given that the Tories appeal to the rich - and the clue is in the name. They’re conservatives, they want things to remain as they were when the party was founded ie the rich and the very poor with no inbetween

TalkinPaece · 15/04/2019 17:04

The single largest area of UK Government expenditure is on Pensions.
Next comes healthcare
Benefits including for the disabled come next
then Education
Decide which of those you do not want
www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_pie_ukgs.php

TalkinPaece · 15/04/2019 17:07

Look what a small contribution businesses make through Corporation tax ....
www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178

disenchantedtoday · 15/04/2019 17:08

Yep. That's the Tory party ethos right there. And it's appalling.

CornishMaid1 · 15/04/2019 17:25

Haven't RTFT, but I think that whilst there should be assistance for those who need it, people need to help themselves as well. There should be a basic level of support as a back up, as well as the needs such as NHS, police etc.

One thing that needs to be looked at is why so many people are struggling. Leaving aside people in the London area (since that has its own issues), I understand that one person living on their own could struggle, but a couple living together should not be struggling even on minimum wage.

If couples are struggling to survive then it needs to be looked at why. Is it just housing costs or is it something else? I am always surprised when they talk of nurses needing food banks as they are on good wages. Rather than giving more, there needs to be more of an assessment of what is going wrong and work on a shift from there.

brizzlemint · 15/04/2019 17:30

@heratnumber7

Move to N Korea and see how you like it when the state provides everything.

Have you been there? The State only provide everything if you are one of the favoured elite who are allowed to live in Pyongyang or are close to that group. The rest don't matter as they are not worthy....oh wait! We have a UK political party in power who favours the elite and is scornful of the morally reprehensible poor.

DippyAvocado · 15/04/2019 17:36

Housing, commuting and childcare are the major costs. I was on a thread recently about childcare costs and was staggered at the number of people who believed that instead of childcare being made more affordable through government subsidies, you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford the massive childcare costs.

Reproduction is a basic human need and it doesn't feel right to say that some people should be denied the right to start a family because of the financial costs. Ok, you shouldn't choose to have six children if you can't afford it but one child should be affordable for everyone. The country would also be in serious trouble if the rate of childbirth dropped off too much.

SnuggyBuggy · 15/04/2019 17:45

What would happen if everyone stopped doing the jobs that don't pay enough to live on? I remember we couldn't find anyone providing home care in my late DGFs area which suggests this is already happening on a small level.

RomanyQueen1 · 15/04/2019 17:48

I think the state has to help more these days to sub employers who don't pay a wage fit to live off.

InspectorClouseauMNdivision · 15/04/2019 18:00

@CornishMaid1 absolutely agreed.
The cause for not managing should be found.

I honestly think lots of people are not managing because they do live somewhat above their means. When I started on minimum wage, I found a nice, but cheap sharehouse. That helped me save up, enjoy myself (a lotBlush) , eat well, yet was on minimum wage. Then I met my partner and we moved shared a flat near our jobs (saved on travel costs) with another person. Then we moved into a flat by ourselves. All this time we were gaining skills nad progressing in jobs.
I am not saying everyone lives above their means, god no, but many just do. Obviously when there are children in equation it's a different story. Though I know few couples who lived in sharehouses with small child, which allowed them to save up and buy really quite quickly. It's different if someone pays £400 on rent and bills or £900.

TalkinPaece · 15/04/2019 18:50

Housing costs are a Ponzi scheme.

When I bought my first house, an average 3 bed family home in the South East was three times the average wage
In today's money that would mean a house inside the M25 for under £90,000
when they are ten times as much

Councils should be allowed to build and buy homes for affordable rent
they are allowed to borrow to buy a Mercedes garage, but not family homes
which would deal with supply and price

but it would really annoy a lot of Tory Party donors

Brilliantidiot · 15/04/2019 19:10

@SnuggyBuggy

What would happen if everyone stopped doing the jobs that don't pay enough to live on? I remember we couldn't find anyone providing home care in my late DGFs area which suggests this is already happening on a small level.

Well, people would be at home looking after their own elderly, sick and frail relatives. They'd not have a mechanic to fix their car, not have an HCA to do bloods and take obs in hospital. There would probably be even less nurses than there are now. There'd be no childcare, or very little, and more expensive. Shops wouldn't have workers, pubs and hotels and restaurants wouldn't have staff, except maybe senior management and chefs - but no one to run food or clean up afterwards. No teaching assistants, no dinner ladies, no cleaners for schools, hospitals and to hire privately.
If 'state support' stopped tomorrow, then many would end up homeless, because most people in that situation have a lot of fixed outgoings, rent, council tax, water - all fixed. Homeless would equal jobless at some point - private LLs with empty properties. Then we have all these people on the streets, their children in care, elderly with no relatives or ones who can't/won't care probably bed blocking in hospitals.
Society would collapse and it would affect everyone - where are you going to get your shopping if all the shop assistants are living under a bridge and there's no one working there?
Society relies on these types of jobs, which many forget when slating them. The answer isn't removing the support there is, it's making sure people can live on what they earn, and not need any top ups.

brizzlemint · 15/04/2019 19:26

I think the state has to help more these days to sub employers who don't pay a wage fit to live off.

Like the State who pay peanuts to many essential workers? Hospital cleaners, teaching assistants etc etc.

Brilliantidiot · 15/04/2019 19:29

Like the State who pay peanuts to many essential workers? Hospital cleaners, teaching assistants etc etc.

I'm wondering about this, surely it'd actually save money on admin and paper shuffling to pay them a wage directly that they can live on, rather than pay less and top up with TC/UC?

Gronky · 15/04/2019 19:37

pay them a wage directly that they can live on, rather than pay less and top up with TC/UC

That would be unfair to those with children/dependents/disabilities.