Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be agreeing with new conservative benefits proposal re alcohol etc

915 replies

Tigerthebreadroll · Today 07:26

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
RubyWooVixen · Today 10:17

PrideanndPurrjudice · Today 10:12

We lived in a part of London that had houses for people who owned or had a mortgage. Then a few of them (or flats therein) were council houses.

We were young professionals working all hours, commuting on the tube, on repeat. We couldn’t afford £80pm on sky tv (or whatever it was), we couldn’t afford more than 2 children when the time came. But I’d see these families in the council houses, most had more than 2 kids, they All had satellites on the side of the council house, and most of them didn’t seem to work. Usually they had a newish car too.

Did they have a free goat too? 🐐 😡

TonyDancer · Today 10:17

Badenoch is spouting populist views for the vote. As if anything like she’s suggesting could ever be enforced. More fool anyone who’s taking it seriously. Jeez. The world is about to implode and you’re all worrying about who’s got what and who’s smoking. Wake up.

OneFastPinkTraybake · Today 10:18

Blinkett · Today 10:15

I do think we need more social clubs. But free community groups for all ages, not giving money to people to go to the pub with.

When people are running a home on 434 pounds a month there's really not much spare to go to the pub with

Anonanonanonagain · Today 10:18

George Orwell called, wants 1984 back...

RafaistheKingofClay · Today 10:18

Supertayto · Today 09:50

I think, generally speaking, enacting small cruelties against those who find themselves out work and reliant on an already cruel and broken system is a bit shitty.

There are absolutely people who generationally don’t work and spend what they are given on things that some people would deem to be inappropriate, but how about we spend our energies fixing the vast and complex underlying issues?

Because that’s difficult. It’s much easier to make knee jerk populist policy than it is to make evidence based policy. And easier to sell too. As this thread shows.

IsaTheIguana · Today 10:18

Hoew can they restrict what you buy? Can only do this my merchant code not items on till unless all supermarkets and small shops update their POS systems. Right wing wankery that will cost the tax payers more to implement than giving people money.

Catza · Today 10:18

HermioneWeasley · Today 09:17

I’ve never understood why it’s more my responsibility as a taxpayer to fund someone’s adult children than the parents.

Because parents are also taxpayers. Because we live in a civilised society and, therefore, shouldn't accept people rotting on the streets in poverty. Because some parents may not have the means to support their adult child, thus perpetuating more poverty. Because all of this is costing "the taxpayer" more money in the long run to compensate for illness, disease, addiction, and homelessness.
If we follow your argument, then we shouldn't be funding children of any age. Can I withdraw the part of my taxes which pay for education and healthcare of children that I did not birth? Can I also withdraw any portion of tax that goes towards the NHS that I did not personally use? Why should I subsidise someone else's adult children? It would save me a lot of cash.

PrideanndPurrjudice · Today 10:19

RubyWooVixen · Today 10:17

Did they have a free goat too? 🐐 😡

There were a few Pygmy goats. I couldn’t tell you if they were free or not though.

OneFastPinkTraybake · Today 10:19

Maybe they could fit unemployed people with an electronic tag that alerts the job centre if they've set foot in Wetherspoons.

Sartre · Today 10:19

CrazyMidget · Today 10:08

Today it'll be drink and cigs, tomorrow it'll be chocolate and anything else vaguely pleasurable, because really all you need to survive is lentils, pulses, legumes, potatoes, bread, cereal, and some fruit and veg, correct? And then you might have some bad luck and be out of a job. And then you won't be able to spend your benefits money on a bar of chocolate to cheer yourself up.

Still, I expect with your attitude, you're well-off enough that that is never going to be you. It's always people who are safely insulated from the problems that poor people face who hate poor people the most.

I always recommend people read Orwell’s Road to Wigan Pier. He offers a fascinating analysis of poverty and in it says something along the lines of “when you’re already poor and suffering are you going to buy cake or carrots and brown bread?”

People who feel like shit generally want to escape and do things to improve their mood, even though it’s obviously temporary.

Pasithean · Today 10:19

LivingTheDreamish · Today 07:41

Sounds amazing. Imagine how cross they’ll be with no money to spend on cigarettes unless they earn it.

Rubbish there will be a black market for selling goods and buying alcohol and tobacco. They will find a way .

Bushmillsbabe · Today 10:20

OneWarmHazelQuail · Today 08:45

Your poor mum.

I'm fully supportive of not allowing cigarette, alcohol or betting with benefit money but I think cutting it based on contributions isn't right. I think anyone should be able claim the full amount but perhaps should have to demonstrate that they are upskilling, actively applying, perhaps doing 5 hours a week of volunteering.

Unemployment is awful and often people need a hand to get not only get work but stay an active member of society. Without having money to go out and participate in things, it's easier to end up reclusive and alone.

I agree with this. Of course contributing to the countries funds as a taxpayer is really important, but there are lots of other ways to be a valuable member of society, and volunteering is one of these. It also often gives the person job hunting a boost in skills and makes them more attractive to employers if its linked to the field they are looking for work in - I recently shortlisted for a role working with children, and the only thing separating 2 good candidates was that one had been volunteering with children with additional needs and had a reference supporting their ability to engage, reliability etc.
I would definitely support a proportion of benefits being linked to commuinity contribution - with a loss for antisocial behaviour for example, and a boost for those actively volunteering.

echt · Today 10:20

dogsaremybusiness · Today 10:08

When they increased the pension age to 67, people had to work for longer, thus less jobs available for the kids fresh out of school. Perhaps if people were encouraged to retire at 60, and paid a decent pension, more jobs would be available for the youngsters? I know quite a few people in their mid 60's who are desperate to retire, but have to keep soldiering on.

Nice idea, but seeing as pensioners are also on the radar, at least in some opinions on MN and the think (sic) tanks associated with Reform, I wouldn't hold out much hope for this.

randomchap · Today 10:21

If the Tories thought it was such a good idea, they could have implemented it in their many years in power.

They know it's just populist bullshit. Much like them

GingerdeadMan · Today 10:22

Differentforgirls · Today 10:06

Surely the onus was on you to find out rather than assume?

Fair point.

But my point remains that the rules seem perverse - because I was a carer for a year Im now not entitled to benefits that I otherwise would have been (maybe i didn't explain very well).

I didn't miss out because I 'assumed' and didn't apply, I missed out because I spent that year being a carer, which has made me ineligible because I wasn't 'paying in' during the last 6 months (no one cares about the previous 25 years). My point was that carers could be penalised under a system like this.

Unless you're suggesting I should have played the system by pretending I was job hunting when I actually wasn't in a position to work due to caring responsibilities?

OneFastPinkTraybake · Today 10:23

Bushmillsbabe · Today 10:20

I agree with this. Of course contributing to the countries funds as a taxpayer is really important, but there are lots of other ways to be a valuable member of society, and volunteering is one of these. It also often gives the person job hunting a boost in skills and makes them more attractive to employers if its linked to the field they are looking for work in - I recently shortlisted for a role working with children, and the only thing separating 2 good candidates was that one had been volunteering with children with additional needs and had a reference supporting their ability to engage, reliability etc.
I would definitely support a proportion of benefits being linked to commuinity contribution - with a loss for antisocial behaviour for example, and a boost for those actively volunteering.

How does the DWP monitor anti social behaviour?
Btw I've been looking for voluntary work recently. It took me over a year to find something that was linked to my previous work experience and my last degree

Dragonscaledaisy · Today 10:23

JasmineMac · Today 10:13

It's a crazy idea. Interesting that it's polling here as a majority reasonable proposal, on a forum that prides itself on being liberally inclusive and without prejudice.
It's illustrative I think of the classist attitudes of many; their charitable consideration doesn't stretch to the 'under classes'.

Policies like this won't benefit these faux middle class types anyway, they'll still be skint and living off aldi own brands in order to fuel their cars and put the heating on.

MN is one of the most prejudiced forums I've come across. It's been particularly interesting observing the mindset shift since Labour came to power and the middle became squeezed more and more.

BlackRowan · Today 10:23

I work in fintech. Cards don’t work like that - you can exclude specific types of merchants like gambling but you can’t exclude specific goods in a cart from a merchant like supermarket who sells both groceries and alcohol and tobacco.
this scheme will do nothing like Australian scheme did nothing. Might create some jobs for me though 😆

inerja · Today 10:23

Só you want people to start making moonshine again?!

3ciLop · Today 10:23

BigButtons · Today 07:29

There is a family at the school where I work- we have to feed their kid breakfast because they say they do not have enough money. Both parents stand at the school gates puffing away. They do not work.

That's disgusting. We all know the type.

OonaStubbs · Today 10:23

Why can't we just ban smoking for everyone under a certain age like in NZ?

TakemedowntoPotatoCity · Today 10:24

MN has been steadily lurching to the right for years, it used to be in hushed tones as something to be ashamed of but not now, they're out and proud and growing every day. Not sure many posters even realise how right wing this site is becoming, tbh.

HipDipToadRoad · Today 10:24

GoodkneeBadKnee · Today 08:40

I look at how popular Farage and his brand are right now, and I just can't see it. I read posts on here every day that drip with racism. The Great British Public are too far gone for her to have a chance of winning a GE. Even if she was a decent politician, which in my opinion, she certainly isn't.

I suppose we'll see!

Honestly, though, unfashionable as it is to day it, I think suggesting that the 'us vs them' sentiment is based on skin colour is incorrect and simplistic.

I think you'll find that given the way she speaks and the things she says, a good many of the people who would consider voting for Farage to keep the 'them' out would consider Kemi as firmly in the 'us' camp.

HidingFromSunshine · Today 10:24

It’s really really tough out there for jobs at the moment and it’s only going to get worse. I’ve friends who have been looking for 6+ months, and no luck. Interview after interview but no luck. I’m not sure how this would support them getting into work. One can’t even afford internet, which means she has to walk to the library to look for jobs every day.

OneFastPinkTraybake · Today 10:24

GingerdeadMan · Today 10:22

Fair point.

But my point remains that the rules seem perverse - because I was a carer for a year Im now not entitled to benefits that I otherwise would have been (maybe i didn't explain very well).

I didn't miss out because I 'assumed' and didn't apply, I missed out because I spent that year being a carer, which has made me ineligible because I wasn't 'paying in' during the last 6 months (no one cares about the previous 25 years). My point was that carers could be penalised under a system like this.

Unless you're suggesting I should have played the system by pretending I was job hunting when I actually wasn't in a position to work due to caring responsibilities?

You could have claimed carers allowance? You should still be able to claim UC.

Swipe left for the next trending thread