To be agreeing with new conservative benefits proposal re alcohol etc

[Tigerthebreadroll]

They will cut benefits for people that haven't paid into the system and been unemployed for over 6 months (don't quote me on that number ) by 30 % and it will be given on a prepaid type card. Meaning it won't be accepted by betting shops, for alcohol or cigarettes. I feel that's right . Why should tax payers money be spent on funding cigarettes etc but I have no problem with funding the basics like food etc.
Thoughts?
Basically you will claim full benefits if you've worked and paid into the system. Should reduce generational unemployment hopefully

The fiddled ones.

What? That there aren’t enough jobs?

Exactly. I think it’s wild. Do you sign a contract post-Labour saying ‘oh I’ll look after them until 18 then hand that responsibility on to the state’? No.

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread..
Clothing
Food
Transport
Phone
Contribute towards utilities

Are you suggesting they should have nothing?

As long as someone has worked over 20 years they will be eligible for the full rate. Of course money shouldn't be spent on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.

And the abusive parents? Those on the bread line? What are you going to do with them?
What about those with no oarehts to speak of?

These sort of comments come from a very privilege position where parents have some spare money and are decent Enpugh. A lot are not.

This will be easy enough to get round won’t it. Just swap the card for cash and buy what you want.

That or obtain what you need illegally.

So the unemployed under 25 year old should move out, which will ultimately cost the state more to house them? Neither of these are ‘morally right’ it’s just how it is, circumstances differ and change. Not every 25 year old has parents to live with.

Don't carers need qualifications?

Given the fragile state of our economy and our public services and the global challenges we are facing, I had hoped the conservatives might be a serious, pragmatic opposition. But this is performative, ideological nonsense. There is very little evidence it will achieve its stated aims, and even less evidence that it won’t cost the tax payer money.

I find it genuinely disappointing to see Kemi Bandenoch behaving like she’s in a sixth form debating society - I had higher hopes for her.

Fiddling expenses is illegitimate and should be stopped, but there are so many people that object to paying for an MP in the far flung north to rent a flat in London for them to live in. Like they expect an MP to live in a premier inn 3 days a week and eat nothing but pot noodles.

I didn’t necessarily agree with her but I was impressed with the way Helen Whateley held her ground on Today this morning and got her points across. It’s feels disappointingly rare nowadays to hear a politician on either side who can put their arguments effectively without mumbling or repeating themselves

Some of them have a nasty coke habit. Why should we be funding that? Although maybe it is not such a problem now there are fewer Tories.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59539589

I hadn't thought of it like that but your exactly right. They are handing 80% back to the government with every packet purchased. The average price of a pack of 20 smokes is around £15. So for every packet bought they hand £12 to the coffers !

However - many are getting hold of black market ciggies where no tax at all is recieved. They need to double down on stopping the black market in death sticks - it has become a huge industry in poor areas.

No, they should live with their parents, obviously. If they’re unemployed any benefits should be paid to those parents as they’re the ones with expenses.

Given the under 28’s make up the largest unemployed demographic (and growing rapidly due to AI) be prepared to be bankrolling your kids for most of their lives.

And are putting in expenses claims for Coke? I think we both know that’s not happening.

Let's hope so because the current proposal would be unlivable.

People would need to find a work around for necessity, though obviously some will use it to buy fags etc.

Imagine someone being in the position of having to find an illegal work around just so they can give their child 50p for non-school uniform day. Because that's what this policy actually means.

I agree with this proposal but I also think they should stop giving Mps expenses and subsided bar/food.... after all we are "all in it together".

I expect to. Doesn’t everyone?

No. But they are spending some of their salary on it. Which is our money

You seem a big fan of a nanny state?

No independence for u25's

Sounds like my family growing up.

drug addict parents in my case. I remember my mother being given vouchers for shopping (this was the 70/80’s) I don’t remember why. But guess what she did with those vouchers, she sold them for drugs money.

vouchers or a card system won’t work for families like that.

The six-month thing isn't fair though.

The back to work card should be accompanied by compulsory training or community service requirements: you don't show up, you don't get paid.

If you have been a jobless scrounger your whole life, you won't morph into a useful well-disposed human overnight, you will probably find other ways of playing the system.

But there's no mention of protecting jobs against AI, either. These jobs won't magically appear. Many sectors are in crisis.

Also how long before it's extended to limits on the food they can buy.

Bread and milk and basics are fine, but biscuits would be illegal. Only allowed the wonky veg at supermarkets. Allowed Tesco value ice cream but not a lollipop.