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

A large proportion of those families reply on the benefits the under 25s bring in to pay bills and put food on the table. Not all young people can rely on the bank of mum and dad.

What costs does a person living with family have that you think the state shouldn’t fund? If the money was paid to the parents that would be ok, but it isn’t.

What? @LuckyHazelFox ? I haven't read "the Jewish thread". What's that got to do with discussing KB's chances of winning the GE?

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.

We do need to do something to reduce the number of people making life choices in the knowledge that the state will step in and pick them up.

The mess we’re in with national debt and a disaffected and low productivity workforce is not going to be easy to unpick but I don’t think this is the answer. Reducing benefits will be a shock to many who feel an entitlement to lifelong support because they are in the UK.

This policy won’t work. Would like to see some better forward thinking based on a proper understanding of human behaviour and factoring in the issues we will face because of AI and too much wealth being siphoned into a small cohort of companies and individuals. That would require some clever long term planning though which doesn’t suit our electoral system so I don’t hold out much hope.
The UK is in a worrying place.

A bit like your suggestion that benefits for under 25s is ‘pocket money’?

Which is why Burnham is merely a caretaker.

well yes, but mumsnet is famously left so...

This idea takes the system in the Netherlands and Germany and then strips out all the bits that make it work. It throws people into poverty straight away, which is where the barriers to finding a new job when you have lost one come in. In the Dutch and German system, your initial benefit payments are up to 70% of your last salary, for a period linked to how long you were in employment. If this was what the Tories were suggesting, I'd support it - but it isn't.

The ban on purchasing alcohol etc. has been tried in Australia and was scrapped after it was shown not to change behaviour. As always - same old Tories, going for the stupid punitive populist approach instead of looking for something effective.

Should her benefits be reduced because she struggles to be confident in interviews even for places like Iceland and Asda??

Of course not, but presumably Iceland & Asda want people who can deal with the public?

So you think parents should be supporting their children once they’ve reached adulthood rather than the state ? Yeah that’ll work and definitely won’t lead to a rise in homelessness among young adults whose parents can’t afford it.

This would mean a single person would recieve £69 per week, £55 if they are under 25. The average utility costs for a one bedroom flat in the UK, including broadband (needed for job search) are between £55 to £70 per week.
Foodbanks are stretched to the limit already. So this really isn't viable unless we want people to starve or accrue utility debt.

I hadn't even heard of this proposal until this thread, so it's not this specific policy, it's the woman herself and the sheer no-nonsense, uncowed common sense that she speaks with regularity.

I was responding to a the notion that this country will never select a black woman as PM and I don't think that's true.

It's especially unsurprising that she would come from the Tories given Labour have still never had a female leader and the Lib Dems only managed one, once, for 6 months! Not to mention the Tories are the only party who have had an ethnic minority leader - twice, now - and have had more than double the number of ethnic minority cabinet members.

Maybe Labour voters and Lib Dems wouldn't vote for a black woman, but there's no reason to think that people who tend to or sometimes vote Conservative wouldn't.

Hers wouldn’t be reduced under the proposal because she had worked for long enough to earn support. I think the policy is really designed to encourage NEETs into employment rather than taking support from people who have worked their entire lives.

Child benefit should be stopped then, and top ups for uc if you have kids you pay for them.

Why? There are plenty of back room roles.

Or steal it. Or trade other goods for them.

So the bank of mum and dad.

On MN everyone earns a 6 figure sum

The real world is different

If you’re sick or disabled it’s probably not compassionate to give you taxpayer-funded alcohol, cigarettes and gambling?

That’s not controversial surely?

We can't elect a prime minister.

Typical Mumsnet. This belief that Under 25s are all living at home in nice middle class families who can afford to feed them, put a roof over their heads, pay the bills, buy them clothes and toiletries, and give them money for transport.

What happens once their £300 a month is cut to £200? Off to the workhouse or starve to death?

What is it for? What do you mean? Food and board as a minimum. How would they stay alive otherwise?

Such an idea will surely increase theft from shops and burglaries.

I don’t know the circumstances in which you grew up, but if l had been unable to contribute to household expenses - at the very least to cover my own costs - I’d have been asked to find somewhere else to live. The notion that parents should fund their kids up to the age of 25 if they live at home is utterly batshit.

You’re welcome to come meet her then - Doyle.