UKIP don't want benefit claimants driving.

Poll

Is it fair that ppl who depend on a car for mobility give it up to appease UKIPvoters

Do you live in a rural location?
Is there rolling hills between you and your workplace?
Are you disabled and have a mobility car to help you?
Are there no bus routes where you live?
Are you unemployed but learning to drive?
Do you claim tax credits but need you car to get to work?

Well tough! Your have to do without because UKIP have shown their nasty face and want to play class war against people who are in the hardest situations.

UKIP want to take away the ability to drive from benefit claimants.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/21/benefit-claimants-cars-buses-ukip-leaflet

That is right. Long gone are the days of equality. They don't want vulnerable people to show their faces in society. And to act as a deterrent they want them to go on the Bus or the Tram so people like Emma West can bully them on a daily basis.

Can you imagine it? Can imagine a Emma West rant directed against some of the most vulnerable people of our society.

Well here you are:

A load of disabled and a load of job seekers. Your all scroungers. You know what I mean. You ain't part of our society. Your just a scrounger. Go back to your filthy council estate. My Britain is nothing now! Britain is f-word all!

And this is the kind of voter which UKIP go after. The voter that wants to blame everything and anything against people who don't even have a stake in the economy.

[video="youtube;pONVYjAd1wc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pONVYjAd1wc[/video]

/discuss

(edited 9 years ago)

10924779_1113447145338978_5375681071749234074_n.jpg82.8KB

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

tengentoppa

Is that actually a UKIP document? The English is atrocious:

"as a form of exercise and past-time"

"Cycles should go back to the pavements"

And some of the things look live they've been written by an angry teen on Facebook:

"These people could really catch a bus!"

Reply 2

DaveSmith99

Amazing the tripe that gets spouted as 'common sense' nowadays.

Reply 3

Gnomes&Knights

Good, It's better for the environment.

Reply 4

illegaltobepoor

Original post by MatureStudent36

Illegal to be poor is a sock puppet and quite frankly a bore.

Did you know he's a student who works as a day trader earning £160k a year? If you believe that, then you're susceptible to his generally poor posts.

I said I would have projected income of 160k IF I became a successful High Frequency Quant Trader. At the moment I am just a stock broker with a computer.

Now considering I need a modification of my current BA, a Masters Degree & PHD to even get a foot in the door it is going to take a long time until I earn that full amount.

But no matter how many times I try and explain this to yourself you always seem to revert to personal attacks.

..............................

I understand that you do not like me and I understand that you want me banned off this forum.

But due to democracy and the terms of conditions on this forum I promised the admins I would behave myself. So I will do so.

I appologise if these comments offend anyone but my hand was forced by the poster above.

Reply 5

Rakas21

With regards to the unemployed disabled they should keep getting motability.

With regards to the employed disabled, they can pay for it themselves.

With regards to the unemployed, they should be provided with a travel pass and be banned from car driving until they have a job. The state should not have to listen to them say they can't afford food when they are blowing money on fuel.

Reply 6

samba

Original post by Rakas21

What even....

Reply 7

SophieSmall

Original post by Rakas21

What of those who live in areas with little/no public transport? Not to mention many jobs ask for the applicant to have their own form of transport, so they could be missing out on jobs.

Reply 8

illegaltobepoor

What about people who live in rural areas and have to travel to the job centre everyday?

Firstly there are no bus routes.
Second to mention the cost of getting to the job centre 5 days a week takes a huge chunk of money out their benefits.
And third if their driving licences are taken off them they will be left stranded in the countryside where they will have to walk or cycle miles upon miles to the nearest job centre.

So how does this work for this minority?

They should move?
What if the parents don't want to move. Maybe they are working in the local area yet the young people are sanctioned because they can't get to the job centre or college.

Majority of young people who live in the countryside have Mopeds. And UKIP will take away their driving licence?

Really encouraging people into jobs.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 9

Rakas21

Original post by SophieSmall

What of those who live in areas with little/no public transport? Not to mention many jobs ask for the applicant to have their own form of transport, so they could be missing out on jobs.

Those are a small minority although i accept there may be cases and proof can be provided.

I'm not suggesting they sell the car, once they are off JSA they can drive as they like.

Reply 10

SophieSmall

Original post by Rakas21

Those are a small minority although i accept there may be cases and proof can be provided.

I'm not suggesting they sell the car, once they are off JSA they can drive as they like.

Seems a bit stupid of a rule to put in place, very little money would be saved whilst a tonne of money would be spent implementing it. Idiotic idea at best.

Reply 11

samba

Original post by SophieSmall

Seems a bit stupid of a rule to put in place, very little money would be saved whilst a tonne of money would be spent implementing it. Idiotic idea at best.

'At best' is being generous. He's supposedly an economist too...

Reply 12

Rakas21

Original post by illegaltobepoor

What about people who live in rural areas and have to travel to the job centre everyday?

Firstly there are no bus routes.
Second to mention the cost of getting to the job centre 5 days a week takes a huge chunk of money out their benefits.
And third if their driving licences are taken off them they will be left stranded in the countryside where they will have to walk or cycle miles upon miles to the nearest job centre.

So how does this work for this minority?

They should move?
What if the parents don't want to move. Maybe they are working in the local area yet the young people are sanctioned because they can't get to the job centre.

Majority of young people who live in the countryside have Mopeds. And UKIP will take away their driving licence?

Really encouraging people into jobs.

I'm not Ukip so to address some of these.

If i had my way that would not be a problem. You'd get a cash payment, a food voucher and a travel pass. Now here in West Yorkshire you can get a bus and train pass for a bit over £20 so i'm sure the state could get them for a similar price away from the south where it would obviously cost the state a bit more. But at any rate, i imagine most people do spend a similar amount on fuel (£80 per month) so it's a saving.

One would need the license for identification presumably so it could be a thing like insurance where the police check the number plate on their database.

Personally speaking i wouldn't live in rurality if i was unemployed.

Reply 13

Rakas21

Original post by SophieSmall

Seems a bit stupid of a rule to put in place, very little money would be saved whilst a tonne of money would be spent implementing it. Idiotic idea at best.

There would be longer term savings in the overall welfare budget. Once inflation begins to increase again future governments are going to be under increased pressure to raise welfare amounts. Now if the state can use economies of scale (likely since operators would be getting more passengers - a revenue stream) to procure passes generally cheaply while keeping the cost below what the claimant would have spent on fuel then it reduces future pressures to raise welfare spending while only inconveniencing the claimant on time.

In the long term i imagine you could get a net benefit, not to mention reduced congestion and tax revenues from the passes (assuming taxation is charged on them now).

Original post by samba

'At best' is being generous. He's supposedly an economist too...

Consider yourself going on my ignore list. Personal jibes are not something i have time for on the internet.

Convince me my argument is wrong.

Reply 14

illegaltobepoor

Original post by samba

'At best' is being generous. He's supposedly an economist too...

I think its backwards. You need a driving licence for the majority of jobs these days. A driving licence allows you to drive a Motorcycle as well as a Car.

A 125cc Moped or Motorcycle is often the best choice for a entry level worker. They have excellent MPG and can be ran on a extremely low wage packet.

Now UKIP threaten to push their cultural fascism of using a Bus because the congestion of the roads is to high. Not that there are many people on benefits who have a Car. Most of these people are those who live in rural areas and have no choice.

I see this as a form of pitching people against other people to generate a scapegoat. Its like saying "look over there!" "Those people can afford to pay for transportation and you can't, they caused the recession!"

Even benefit claimants who have mobility don't have it out of luxury or choice. They have mobility to meet work or government requirements which is often the cost of a healthy diet or heating for the home.

If UKIP get there way your going to see a lot of people get sanctioned & fired.

Reply 15

illegaltobepoor

Original post by Rakas21

....

What about Cornwall, Devon, Suffolk, Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Cumbria and the whole of Wales?

Reply 16

Rakas21

Original post by illegaltobepoor

What about Cornwall, Devon, Suffolk, Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Cumbria and the whole of Wales?

Contrary to popular belief, these places do have towns and cities and buses (well most of them).

Reply 17

illegaltobepoor

Original post by Rakas21

Contrary to popular belief, these places do have towns and cities and buses (well most of them).

Yes but wouldn't you rather talk to rural people as I have and listened to their issues instead of using the same old 1 idealogical view covers them all trick?

The truth is there is hardly any transport links.

Lets say your 20-30 miles away from a town or city. Then what?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 18

Rakas21

Original post by illegaltobepoor

Which i dealt with an earlier reply to somebody else.

Those are a small minority although i accept there may be cases and proof can be provided.

Reply 19

samba

Original post by Rakas21

Fuel duty is currently 58p/litre or around 60%. The government doesn't currently pay for transport at all. It's simply a net loss, whichever way you attempt to cut it. The pressure to raise welfare does not come from people on benefits driving, which is likely a very low percentage anyway. If more were driving, benefits would actually cost less. If claimants were forced to spend 25% of their weekly benefits on fuel, you could raise welfare by 10% easily and net a good profit.

So economically it makes no sense, even using the crappy neoclassical model you people are almost exclusively taught. Though you should think of it as straight lines anyway really with your models; it probably is given the likely ratio of people on benefits who drive.

Morally it's reprehensible too. Why should you lose the right to drive if you're made redundant? Why shouldn't you be allowed to spend your welfare (which you likely earned through taxes if you drive and had cash for a vehicle) on whatever the hell you choose?

The idea of 'pressure to raise welfare because people spend money on fuel instead of food' is exactly as the above poster put, 'beyond idiotic,' especially considering how benefits raises are calculated.

If you don't want called out, don't post retarded ****. You're intelligent enough to know better.