I dont have a lot of experience or knowledge of the current benefits system, but i fully support and respect it. However, there is something bothering me about how cmaimants are treated.
I have a scenario, two adults claiming full benefits (housing and ctax too) live in a council place or such, no kids (for simplicity).
She is needing to leave as the relationship has become volatile and she is very unhappy, her quality of life is poor and they are very unhealthy for each other. There is also some emotional or physical abuse, but not enough to raise alarm with evidence. She needs to leave to avoid her mental and physical health becoming worse.
But what are her choices really? Honestly?
If she is claiming and living with a partner or husband, she will not be able to get a job or it would end his benefits and make her support him. She doesnt want this as she would prefer to just leave the bastard.
How can she do it?
If she leaves before getting a job (if she is lucky enough not to be ill or disabled) she would not immediately qualify for housing or be able to go private (so again, how the fuck would she be able to get a job with no address?)
Those initial steps are not open to her are they? She seems pretty much trapped, to me.
Why does the system encourage dependency like that? Surely it would be better for everyone if getting off benefits was easier. This way lends people no autonomy and probably keeps many women subject to dependency and abuse.
It is almost like to claim benefits makes one irrelevant, or simply looks like a deliberate set of obstacles to hobble someone from moving forward in life.
So she can't do either thing, can she? She is trapped.
I am aware that in the UK the largest benefits claimants are pensioners and then in-work families, but what about this forgotten group? Dont these bizarre rules simply exacerbate abuse and a woman's inability to have autonomy? Are claimants only relevant if the have children?