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

I agree with this in theory but I hope there are exceptions for people who are severely disabled long term and have been unable to work because of that (ie people like me, on highest rates of PIP long term / ongoing who haven’t been able to work for many years and would be unable to do so).

But this is horrifying and something the government also need to address - taxpayers cannot be held hostage to petty criminals with addiction issues!

I am fully on baord with there being a state provided safety net for all the basics humans need to survive and society to function. Healthcare, housing, education and food. But luxeries on top of that, and choice to a greater or lesser extent, is dependent on financial decisions and abilities of the individual. I do appeciate it is a really tough market out there for job seekers right now, but really I doubt they will be the ones especially affected by this.

Cigarettes and alcohol and drugs are not basic necessities (and are fully or partially (i.e. age purposes) illegal to buy in any case). They are not beneficial to society either. And as for parents who spend their benefits selfishly on antisocial habits while leaving their kids without enough food, I have no words ...

It’s a slippery slope, first that, then fast food food then anything not healthy

I don't think it's as simple as that.

Parents not feeding their children because they don't care enough - regardless of what else they're spending their money on - yes, absolutely, the children need to be taken somewhere where they are loved and safe.

Parents doing their best to feed and care for their children while managing their own addictions - where the children are loved and looked after but the parent is using tobacco or alcohol as a crutch to get through the days - no, those parents should not lose their children.

You think people who are already extremely poor and are addicted to cigarettes, alcohol or gambling will just magically lose their addictions?

Of course crime will go up. Poverty is a massive driver of crime.

So we could try it here and see if we got the same outcomes. This government cannot sustain taxing its way through the economy.

So realistically what is this policy going to achieve? An even more complex welfare system, which costs money to administer, including advising on, and mainly affects young people who have never worked not because they don’t want to but because there are not enough jobs and who by and large don’t drink or smoke (and it will be illegal for them to soon anyway). Brilliant, well done Kemi.

What most annoys me about this is that Kemi is a smart and ambitious woman, she must know that this is an unworkable and meaningless policy, yet she’s touting it. Embarrassing.

Of course not. But there should support from job centre with coaching and helping find jobs. Something that they used to do but stopped after Tory cuts. So Kemi has quite a nerve with this proposal.
Many European countries limit benefits to 6-12 months BUT they also pour a lot of recourses towards training, allocating placements to help with work experience and general employment support which spans well beyond "show us how many hours you spent looking for jobs this week".

She won with the Conservative votes to be leader, so it could be more your view than anything.

Great idea, let’s try failed policies from around the globe, that sounds really sensible.

Actually they don’t. Income to the Treasury from tobacco tax is about four times the amount the NHS spends on smoking related diseases. And smokers die earlier so there’s a saving on pensions.

Of all the bonkers ideas this one takes the biscuit.

I agree with it wholeheartedly.

I think and hope you're wrong. She's certainly persuading me back into the fold after years in the wilderness!

Are you tarring citizens around the world with the same brush? Do patterns and behaviour not vary across continents?

But an increase in crime wouldn’t need to be because all people on benefits are addicts and just a step away from crime - it would just need a few criminals to see what a rich opportunity for a black market this is.

It’s just not a serious, workable solution. If it was, the Conservatives would’ve implemented it during their 14yrs in power.

😂

I don't think she'll be winning.

Yeah, Starbucks and Amazon are buckling under the pressure aren’t they ? How is restricting how benefits are spent going to reduce the benefits bill. You could argue that it would encourage people to get off benefits and into work so they could spend their money how they liked. But for that there needs to be jobs for them to go to, so once again we’re putting the cart before the horse. And it still doesn’t solve the problem of a living wage. UC tops up low wages. How do you tell someone who’s working that they can’t buy fags or booze because UC tops them up ? How do you police it ?

People get paid to do those things.

@Tigerthebreadroll

It's called a “fast track to increased poverty” by charities.

The lower amount, called the “subsistence allowance”, would mean someone aged under 25 living on £237 a month, or just over £7.50 a day.

Is that what you are happy about too?

Who will do you think?

So the answer is to clamp down on that crime then isn’t it? The state shouldn’t be funding fags and booze for benefit recipients because otherwise they’d go out robbing? What sort of argument id that????

If water boils at 100 degrees in Australia, it is very likely to do the same here. We are not talking about some remote tribe in central Africa with different norms and values. Our population and Australian population can be considered fairly homogenous which would render this "experiment" a waste of already limited resources.
Changes like that cost money. Al lot of money. Likely a lot more than any potential savings on welfare bills. It takes money to change policies, employ and train administrative staff, implement tracking systems, acquire contracts with a financial institution administering pre-payment cards, rolling out systems across stockings limiting what cards can be used for.... We are talking billions wasted on this just to scrap the system months later because it doesn't work.

It’s not tarring anyone with any brush to think we should follow the evidence on what works, rather than replicate policies that haven’t.

Also won’t any pre-paid cards require shops and supermarkets to have systems that reject alcohol or tobacco purchases? And/or depend on staff to know the policy and implement it?

Completely agree. Anyone who prioritises giving themselves cancer over feeding their children is not fit to be a parent.

The vast majority of under 25 benefit claimants live with family and need minimal benefits. We shouldn’t be busting a gut to provide benefits to understand 25s. We shouldn’t be funding their pocket money.