Benefits v Defence Lord Robertson

[Wednesdayschild87]

Lord Robertson’s Speech… seriously does anyone care?? He’s laid out the fact that as a nation we can’t carry on like this… he said we can’t afford to keep throwing money at benefits whilst leaving our country defences I’m actually shocked no one has come out and spoken on this matter before. I’m incredulous.

A scandal no one is talking about?!!

It’s literally all that’s ever talked about. And it’s rarely true in practice.

When I was young, I went fruit picking in the summer holidays. Lots of young people, and many families (often without dad, he had a regular job) would pick fruit in the summer. I lived in a large town in Scotland, and caught a special bus, laid on by the farmers, every day to the fruit fields. There were no in work benefits to my knowledge, so the money was a bit extra, to add to the pot. That was in the 60s/70s/80s. Seasonal work.

Twenty plus years ago, DN worked in the same area for a large veg growing and packing company, They had to recruit from Eastern Europe.

and there will be just as many people on here with their own personal anecdotes in the opposite direction.

I have a disabled child and my workplace couldn't get rid of me quick enough and weren't interested in any kind of flexibility when they could simply hire someone else who wouldn't need as much flexibility. I'm far from alone.

The 1950s is a weird blip in history.

A whole generation of young men had just returned from the war. The government recognised they needed to get them into work.
But there just wasn't enough jobs for everyone so Women were encouraged / forced to stop work. Nurseries which had been set up in the war years were closed. And of course there was a massive boom in babies.
It wasn't unusual right up until the 1975 equal rights act for women to be forced out of jobs when they married.

In the case of a former client of mine, it led to a total breakdown, a suicide attempt and a long stay in an acute psych unit.

I guess the worst would be a "successful" suicide.

Anxiety isn't just feeling a bit anxious. When it becomes severe, it can be absolutely debilitating.

Women, generally speaking didn't work pre 1939 either, esp once married.

As real wages fell, being able to stay at home, become something only the M/C's could do as we hit the 1970s and 80s, now, only the very wealthiest can or want too.

Lots bang on about all these "so called" economically inactive people not working but it was ever thus.

We need to stop demanding the state step in all the time...

All of this is irrelevant. We can’t ruin the country and slide into 2nd world status because people are anxious. The more people that drop out of the workplace, the fewer people paying taxes to fund those benefits anyway, so the problem will sort itself out.

You clearly don't work in mental health or a related field.

All the conditions you have mentioned are on a spectrum, and at the more severe end of the scale are absolutely disabling.

Depression and anxiety can be very resistant to medication and therapy is often ineffective. ADHD can make it near impossible for someone to sustain employment, because their inability to focus causes them to make frequent errors and it is very difficult for them to learn new processes and procedures. Autistic burnout can lead to sickness absence at a level that few employers will tolerate.

Maybe go and volunteer with a charity that runs projects that support one or other of these groups of people and educate yourself a bit.

I can vouch for this one hundred per cent.

The number of able bodied criminals with enough mental capacity to commit sometimes fairly sophisticated crimes but ‘not enough to work due to my autism and ADHD’ would actually horrify anybody who is currently unaware of it.

Amazing how they manage prison work without issue but hop straight back onto benefits the moment they get released.

We need a total ban on benefits unless for the most extreme circumstances (eg very disabled not just ‘anxiety’) for under 25s, and thereafter a tapered system where you’re supported to look for work for 6 months and then that’s it, no more handouts.

I don’t believe jobs are as difficult to come by as the benefits lot make out they are, I think people simply won’t work where they can claim benefits unless that job is exactly what they want.

It doesn’t matter if that poster is right or wrong, we can’t afford it. It’s a financial question, not a moral one. These people are going to have to go back to work and fight for their own existence a bit. That’s life.

You completely ignored the post you quoted! It's not about trying harder, in some cases it is not possible for them to work, and no amount of 'fighting' is going to change that.

I had a cousin with severe schizophrenia, she was in a residential psychiatric hospital. She was comfortable and safe, society was safe. Then we moved to (don't) Care in the Community, which for many who are ill, and some victims, has been a disaster.

The true workshy are the ones who have profited from the housing market, taking rent and letting it be inflated beyond the grasp of any actual worker. We have allowed this to happen because it meant a few of us got really really rich with very little effort. This is why we allow millions of vulnerable people to flood into the country, because it keeps it super inflated with their government backed rent.
At what point do the working homeowners in their 40s and 50s now wake up and see their children can't afford even a fraction of the life they've had, no matter how much they try? Do we care or do we just watch it happen and call it another 'crisis'?

People who have been off work for years are never going to get employed again. I see loads of them in my job, usually middle aged men who've not worked for years on end. Low level mh issues, then drift into being carers for parents. There are loads of them. My colleague has a friend who is 50, not worked for years, has anxiety and gets her husband to speak for her at PIP assessments etc. Doesn't stop her doing most things though, riding her bike, looking after grandkids, weekends away, fairground rides. It's just a way of life for many, they have no intention of ever trying to get back to work.

I'm sure you'll be glad to know that you can't get LCWRA if you're under 22 unless you meet the severe conditions criteria

Yes you can, this is only a proposal.

I think there have been a lot of answers like this and I suppose what this raises for me is that if we don't want asylum seekers in the armed forces because they can't be trusted, do you think they should be in the UK at all? Because if you don't want them in the army, you probably don't want them living next to your nan.

So what's the solution for those people?

And there have been a few points made about wanting the best of the best, knowing you can rely on those next to you, not wanting NEETS etc, yet there is targeted recruitment from the armed forces in deprived areas and results in many of these entrants going into low ranking roles (compared to privately educated children who are more likely to go onto a fast track senior progression route).

69% of 25 year olds claiming disability benefits are claiming it for mental health conditions. Does anyone think that these claims are valid?

Why would they not be? They have been assessed and found to be valid I assume.

Fundamentally yes there's the whole issue of who the heck some asylum seekers are and (as one P P pointed out) can some of them be trusted with live weapons on a range....and weapons handling is something probably almost everyone in the armed Forces does early on in training.

" yet there is targeted recruitment from the armed forces in deprived areas and results in many of these entrants going into low ranking roles (compared to privately educated children who are more likely to go onto a fast track senior progression route)."...

Look at the detail and you'll see quite a few of those joining in these "low ranking roles" go on to have highly succesful careers, maybe take a commission and sometimes then progress to end up at very elevated rank.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "fast track seniot progression route"...I guess you mean joining as a officer and hoping to get through somewhere like Sandhurst...

If you do I think you might want to look at the educational background of a lot of the officer cohort these days, including a few of the current very senior officers. Many of those (certainly RAF and Navy) are products of the state education system...

What?? Why the under 25's? Its not that group thats costing the country the most in benefits. Its the elderly. Pensions and NHS. Why are you picking on the young?

There needs to be professionsl evidence to support a PIP claim,and i dont just mean a qiick visit to the GP
The PIP assesors will want to see evidence ftom CPN ,s OT,s ,physios etc involved in the persons care.

Having a disabillity
Doesnt entitle anyone to disabillity benefits its how that disabillity impacts a person that does/ doesnt entitle them
My oldest son would be considered to have a disabillity
Because three yeaes ago he had acute necrotiizing pancreaititus ,which totally destroyed his pancreas he now has type 3c Diabetes ( treated as type 1)
He hss to inject himself with insulin up to 5 times a day and pay constant atrention to his blood sugars
This doesnt entitle him to PIP because he is independent in his self care etc and csn travel independently

Sure. It's not that difficult. Just say you're anxious/depressed for a few years then start raking in the benefits.

Oh really? Why are so many people going to tribunal? I know people who are blind who've had to take their claim to tribunal