How wicked of you, David Cameron.

[vivizone]

So we're going back to Victorian notions of the 'undeserving poor'. Time to re-open the workhouses.

How this man and his cronies are getting away with so much damage done to the ordinary man and woman, I do not know.

Help us all.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/09/deserving-families-council-housing-priority

Why should drug addicts and alcoholics get benefits indefinitely without obtaining medical help? Again a genuine question. If I had a chronic condition which made me unable to work my work would expect me find a way to resolve it. What's the difference?

also cleansed from previous area due to escalating rents but now faced with increased travel costs for myself and also for my 11 year old dc who has to get train to school - his costs £15 per week for travel!

I also think the govt play heavily on the idea that it's always the undeserving others who will fall foul of their housing policies when in fact it can also be the 'strivers' (hate that term also)

It is pointless when the vast majority of people believe the welfare state should support disabled people and carers before anyone else anyway

That is all very well, the reason it always comes back to people with disabilities and their carers is because the gov doesnt share that view.

The disabled and their carers will be hit hardest

When will people get this?

...say second or third generation unemployed, maybe with low level mental health issues, or low self esteem because you've never worked...

Fucking hell. So everyone's a victim even if they're in the situation they're in by choice.

And someone above asking about ex-forces being one of the groups given priority?

Of course they're a bloody priority. You can be herded around the world with kids in tow, posted to wherever someone sees fit, housed in utterly shit quarters and then moved just as you settle in. You can't buy a home due to the uncertainty and transience. Then, when your time comes to an end, you're out on your ear and without any home at all.

If that doesn't make you a priority for housing then nothing should.

He and his party are a shower of cunts. What do u expect. Take it out on the idiots who voted them in.

Yes euphemia - whilst the lower classes are all fighting amongst themselves it distracts from the super rich who are indeed taking the piss!

It doesn't matter whether people get it Amber. It's a different issue. I would probably agree with you on most disability related issues but that doesn't mean I will automatically agree on welfare or housing related issues.

If we can't even separate the various debates, it becomes one big issue which is too big to sensibly discuss.

Why should drug addicts and alcoholics get benefits indefinitely without obtaining medical help? Again a genuine question. If I had a chronic condition which made me unable to work my work would expect me find a way to resolve it. What's the difference?

I think addicts should take medical help wherever possible. Rehab only works in something ridiculous like, is it 1/10 cases, or 3/10 cases though. What happens if you go through rehab, come out of it still an addict and have your benefits cut because you supposedly didn't try hard enough? I know a few people who have been through rehab, and fuck me they have the most horrendous, awful stories of child abuse, domestic violence and other things. They aren't criminals.

But actually why I mentioned in my other post about people only receiving benefits if they seek medical treatment is because this actually puts some very vulnerable people at risk.

I, for example, have M.E among other things. Now, there are 4000 published studies that show underlying biological abnormalities in people with M.E. Just this week one of my friends was buried after years of being desperately ill with it (she was 31). Another lies seriously ill in hospital (not likely to survive). And yet, there are a large number of doctors in this country who view it as a psychiatric condition and that graded exercise therapy can cure it. So there is the potential there for the state/the DWP to say 'if you only pursued this treatment, you would recover, therefore unless you agree to do so, no benefits for you.' I have no idea if this is going to happen. The point is it could if you start telling ill people that they can only have benefits if they pursue certain treatments. How many other hard to diagnose conditions does this affect? For the record, graded exercise therapy has been known to make many people with M.E much worse. It is dangerous.

Oh and most chronic conditions cannot be resolved. Hence them being chronic. Doesn't matter if an employer expects you to get better. Not that easy sadly (I don't mean to sound facetious, just trying to say it's not that simple. However hard I try, however hard I work, I'm not going to get better)

Fucking hell. So everyone's a victim even if they're in the situation they're in by choice

Where on earth did I write that? Scratches head.

Yy, Phacelia, where "appropriate medical treatment" may be decided by JobCentre clerks.

There's already a separate box on the ESA (formerly incapacity benefit) form where you have to declare if you've ever had drug or alcohol problems. That's in addition to the ordinary detailed questions about your health condition and its impact on capacity.

Why?

If the govt wanted to properly treat drug or alcohol probs it could do so through properly funded NHS programmes. Like, er, any other health condition. Nothing to do with the JobCentre at all.

Or are they saying that people who've, eg, used alcohol to self-medicate after childhood abuse, somehow different from people who crash their fast cars or have skiing accidents?

...say second or third generation unemployed, maybe with low level mental health issues, or low self esteem because you've never worked

The second or third generation unemployed person with low level mental health issues and low self esteem would have to do nothing more than turn up to a 'how to be a good tenant' course, and then they would be considered a priority. It's not exactly a lot to ask is it?

If someone can't even be bothered to do that, then there is no reason why they should be a priority for limited housing.

I had to have surgery for constant sinus infections. Would rather not have had surgery but given that I was at one point hospitalised for complications and my employer was applying pressure over it I felt I didn't have a choice. I actually think in hindsight the problem was due to an allergy caused by living conditions, ie given time it would have resolved.

Agree with Glitterknicaz. There have been long and lengthy threads about higher earners losing their child benefit but the threads on what happens with DLA ESA etc usually dont run for as many pages as the child benefit ones.
Bottom line is people choose to have children. They dont choose to be disabled.
However one thing that does worry me about women losing child benefit is in cases where they have a financially abusive partner. Ive seen threads on these boards where in some cases the CB and the child tax credits are the only money the SAHP is getting while the DP keeps all or most of their wages to themselves.
People want to talk about benefit scroungers??!! Well in my view many middle or high earning financially abusive men would fit into this category as they know that they can keep their wages knowing that the system will pay their partners CB and CTC anyway. THESE are the women i worry about when this comes in.

Freddos, the operative word is might.

"The paper prepared by Gale says these these priority groups might include: Low-income households who are in employment..." yada yada.

This leaves the way clear for LAs to, say, give priority to those volunteering (so presumably not in receipt of JSA for example) and put the disabled homeless at the bottom of their priority list.

There's nothing saying that they would actually include those taking the 'good tenant' course, say, in their priority list.

You've made the mistake of skimming over the article and not thinking about the small print.

Ha, X-post with Phacelia. And M.E. is exactly one of the conditions i'm expecting to bit hit by this.

And oddly, the biggest proponent of "M.E. is psychiatric and can be cured by exercise" is also heavily involved in the private welfare insurance industry - which has advised successive governments on public welfare cuts.

I'm up for thinking about the small print if people want to post things that could be a consequence of a policy like this. Some posters have done just that, and I've found those interesting.

But I can't get worked up about things that might or might not happen. I'm just thinking about the idea of a policy like this as it has been set out in the article.

So behaving like an arse and not contributing when you can will have consequences, Sounds like good policy to me. I'm with Shellyboobs.

I am not comparing sinus problems to M.E but there are situations where an employer would nail you to a desk for not trying so why would people with a comparable treatable illness on benefits not count? The problem your talking about is one of lack of knowledge about health issues in this country, there are many things that would be treatable or find ways to help a person cope with if only health research was not so finance driven.

So my DC's with SN's have to leave the schools they are settled in because I'M disabled and unable to work.

I am the sort of people this will affect. Carers and the Disabled, and their DC's.

Great.

Where does it say that Couthy?

More hysterical bollocks

Just another day in the fuck you world of fuck you politics.

You know what I think next time don't vote conservative and don't waste a vote on Lib dem.

I'm voting green next time. I've read their manifesto and their one MO sounds decent.

It's sad really.

Do you really think they'll make a plan like that totally black and white with no grey areas?