Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

UKIP don't want benefit claimants driving. watch

  • View Poll Results: Is it fair that ppl who depend on a car for mobility give it up to appease UKIPvoters
    Yes
    17
    26.98%
    No
    46
    73.02%

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by молодой гений)
    How exactly would you police this? Stop everyone who's driving and ask to see their paypacket / bank balance / etc? Make people wear badges?

    'they can pay for it themselves' - that reminds me - you are aware that most people receiving benefits are, like, pensioners. Or people in work who need tax credits to top up their measly income in order to be able to pay the rent / look after their family
    This is the insanity of what these lot propose. They actually endorse a large intrusive state managing everyone. Workfare is basically slave labor enforced by the state, like what happens in those bogey man communist countries they love to compare the left to at every opportunity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by молодой гений)
    1) What if there is no bus
    2) What if they had the car before they started claiming JSA
    3) Biggest welfare spending = pensioners. Should we take away their cars?
    4) Also: people in work who need benefits to keep their income at a manageable level, so their family doesn't starve and has a roof over their head. What about them?
    5) How would you police this? Make people wear special hats if they claim JSA, or something?

    You're all insane.
    Well said. All viable logical points which no doubt will be rebutted with supersilious judgemental rubbish.

    Also, I'm not sure people on here are so much insane as sheltered and out of touch with reality. Just like UKIP.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    This.

    If we're going to take away cars because some people deem them "unnecessary" for some reason, then where do you stop? Anything other than basic food could be considered a luxury using the same arguments.
    That's kinda the point. They want to make peoples lives hell and impact their mental health, make them feel worthless and scummy, so they find a job. They want to feel superior. That's their whole philosophy, and to hell with the consequences.

    They don't realise unemployment is a positive in the economy, and that it's only going to make less people capable of work...

    The idea of banning something which makes the government a lot of money is just hilarious, but they still go on about it like its a good idea 'to punish people' and try to justify it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This is the insanity of what these lot propose. They actually endorse a large intrusive state managing everyone. Workfare is basically slave labor enforced by the state, like what happens in those bogey man communist countries they love to compare the left to at every opportunity.
    Workfare is very likely illegal. The problem is it's a powerful group of people versus a vulnerable broke set of people. Should have been pushed by the AG to the SC long ago.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This is the insanity of what these lot propose. They actually endorse a large intrusive state managing everyone. Workfare is basically slave labor enforced by the state, like what happens in those bogey man communist countries they love to compare the left to at every opportunity.
    Ah workfare, such a wonderful scheme that it actually halfs your chance of finding paid employment
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by penissucker)
    Good ****ing riddens Benefit scroungers (claimaints) are a disgrace to this once fine country. We should round them up with every other **** that not from here and ship them off to Iraq when they belong
    Lol - not a bad troll attempt, combined with your username. 8/10, sir (madam?).

    Anyway, I've got to go now. The Lord of the Manor has promised me some bones that his dog has chewed on if I clean out his toilet with a toothbrush and my own spittle.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    ... more disturbed by the idea that cyclists would be stuck on the pavements. Massive WTF.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    ... more disturbed by the idea that cyclists would be stuck on the pavements. Massive WTF.
    Yeah I noticed that as well. To think that people are actually taken in by this out of touch party. Perhaps the average intelligence level of the population has dropped or something? Or some mass hypnotic brainwashing is in effect?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    You just dun goofed. They're unemployed. Not criminals, they have as much right as anyone to be socially mobile and choose to drive and also expect to not starve. I could only support your contravention of law if there were supplementary benefits for being more immobile; more financial and professional aid for looking for work. Attendants to see to the benefit of people disallowed total mobility.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    That's kinda the point. They want to make peoples lives hell and impact their mental health, make them feel worthless and scummy, so they find a job. They want to feel superior.
    I've always wondered how that works, though. From my experiences, UKIP supporters tend to be the 'white van man' kind - didn't go to university, work(ed) a manual labour job, etc - read the Daily Mail - I dunno. Don't seem to be the type to be all holier-than-thou.

    Edited to add: yeah, YouGov profiler seems to have it about right. https://yougov.co.uk/profiler#/UKIP/demographics
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Hey, I just realised!

    All those stay-at-home mums who drive sodding great 4x4 Chelsea tractors twice a day on the school run (and at no other time) despite having no discernible understanding of road use or spatial awareness, will have their urban tanks taken off them. Win!
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Simes)
    Hey, I just realised!

    All those stay-at-home mums who drive sodding great 4x4 Chelsea tractors twice a day on the school run (and at no other time) despite having no discernible understanding of road use or spatial awareness, will have their urban tanks taken off them. Win!
    Not sure that those distinguished ladies actually claim benefits though. Otherwise there are lots of questions to be asked re: how the hell they afforded a 4x4 Porsche to park on the double yellows to drop little Timmy off.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    ... more disturbed by the idea that cyclists would be stuck on the pavements. Massive WTF.
    Cyclists on pavements and having to give way to pedestrians.

    Say goodbye to cycling being a viable mode of transport to actually get anywhere. Especially on main roads that don't have pavements.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Actually it kind of is. If someone becomes unemployed and relies on benefits it's not that easy to move out to somewhere else.

    Some people live in rural areas because that's their best chance of work, as someone else has already said. If your qualifications are geared towards work in a rural area, then moving to a city is not going to solve an awful lot.
    It's easy to move out somewhere cheaper! People don't live in rural areas because tiny villages are overflowing with openings; they do it because of inertia or because they like it there.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Where do people get this idea from that most places have got decent public transport?

    There are plenty of places in the country where public transport is just not reliable enough. And budget cuts haven't helped that at all. These places are not a small minority, it is a problem far more widespread than certain people on this thread realise. It may be fine if you live in the middle of a city, but in a rural area a lot of public transport is poor.

    A car is not a luxury, and enforcing a car ban for unemployed people would be far more expensive than simply continuing to let them drive cars. Banning it would save absolutely nothing.
    I'd make exceptions for people in rural places.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Cyclists on pavements and having to give way to pedestrians.

    Say goodbye to cycling being a viable mode of transport to actually get anywhere. Especially on main roads that don't have pavements.
    I'm not sure if the proposal is to ban cycling on roads or what, but I strongly agree with letting bikes onto pavements as a general rule, having lived somewhere it is legal and widely practised.

    Cycling on roads is perceived as, and perhaps really is, dangerous, and is much more viable for a small minority of the fittest people than for most others.

    If you want overweight 50 year old women to chug away at 7mph then the pavement is the only place they're going to do it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    It's easy to move out somewhere cheaper! People don't live in rural areas because tiny villages are overflowing with openings; they do it because of inertia or because they like it there.
    walob.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    I'd make exceptions for people in rural places.
    What is a rural place and who's going to make sure only people in rural places are exempt? How much is that going to cost?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    Not sure that those distinguished ladies actually claim benefits though. Otherwise there are lots of questions to be asked re: how the hell they afforded a 4x4 Porsche to park on the double yellows to drop little Timmy off.
    Hubby's a banker. Just like little Timmy will be, just like little Timmy's children will be, and just like little Timmy's grandchildren will be.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    I'd make exceptions for people in rural places.
    How do you define "rural"? What distance would you have to be from a large city to count as rural? Wouldn't that distance also be different for different places, as the quality of the roads and public transport varies from place to place?

    This whole idea of banning unemployed people from driving was utter drivel from the start.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.