Ian Duncan Smith can live on £53 a week...

Oh, you think Labour are socialist? You don't do you? :eek:

Reply 102

gateshipone

10

Original post by n00

Don't flatter yourself, i'm not. I despise Iain Duncan Smith, he has absolutely no redeeming features, he's failed miserably in everything he's ever done and his only use seems to be as a patsy. I just can't understand why anyone would defend him in anyway, makes me very suspicious, so if you want to throw around the mentally ill personal attack in an attempt to discredit me you'd probably be better off labelling me as a paranoid conspiraloon. :wink:

A) Didn't say anything close to you being mentally ill.

B) Wasn't defending him, was just questioning what he actually said and what he meant by it.

Reply 103

Oswy

15

Welfare under capitalism isn't meant to be 'fair', it's meant to be the throwing of crumbs at that group which has failed to be among the 'winners' in capitalism's competition in order to inhibit more costly criminality and/or social unrest. I have no doubt that people like Ian Duncan Smith would happily see the poor simply exterminated were it politically acceptable to take such an action.

Reply 104

username677182

18

I live off less than that a week already, not including rent.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 105

Original post by truffle_girl

Apart from the fact that ONE person doesn't need a TWO-bedroomed place, yes, £6.91 is enough. Food can be bought for £3 a day. The extra £3.91 a day would be enough for utilities and even a mobile phone contract/pay-as-you-go. My phone contract is around 50p a day. That leaves £3.41. That's enough for utilities, at £23.87-a-week. Easily. And this is for someone who is living above the standard they need.

And, please, people, STOP mentioning "children and rent". This figure is for SINGLE people, with those with children getting child benefit and child tax credit, on top of this. Housing benefit is also on top of this, and council tax benefit has been REPLACED, not totally absolished as a concept.

If you are not working, it is perfectly feasible to live in a room in a shared house (the utilities being often covered in the rent, in such cases), eat for £20-a-week and spend a limited amount on 'luxuries' such as a phone.

This is more than MILLIONS live on, worldwide. If you want more, then get a job; therein lies the perfect incentive. Iain Duncan Smith WORKS. Of course he wouldn't WANT to live on this amount.

That's why he works.............

Perhaps some of the ever-sanctimonious types could provide evidence as to how this amount ISN'T fit to live on? Some figures, maybe?

Sorry but where are all the empty one bedroomed flats? The policy can only work if there are one bed flats to move into. The Bedroom Tax has to be one of the most short-sighted policies ever introduced. And it only has the potential to save £400 million - and that is to assume that there are enough one bedroomed flats.

Of course an ordinary single person 18-24 doesn't need a two bed but if there is nothing else then they may be forced to take it.

It is enough to survive on but only in abject poverty. You fail to factor in such costs as utilities breaking down? How do you propose to pay for that on such a paltry income? Hire purchase? The poor getting shafted again, as you pay so much more for hire purchase than if you were to buy outright.

Again, metered electricity is cheaper than PAYG. The poor are forced to pay their electricity weekly, so again are punished.

And where did I mention children in my post?

I'm all for reducing the welfare budget, but it has to be fair. Fair enough, create an incentive for people living in houses which are bigger than what they need to downsize. But sure as hell make sure that there are smaller houses for them to move into.

And don't force disabled people to pay it who need the room for their overnight carers or to store their equipment. That is pure malice. It isn't right that they should have to make their DLA stretch more just to pay it. (And don't get your hopes up with the discretionary housing payment either, the budget for that is tiny)

Please don't mistake me for the typical uppity sanctimonious type. If you want to cut welfare then do it where it makes a difference - PENSIONS.

But we all know why this won't happen...

Reply 106

One of the best ways to reduce the welfare budget would be to build more council housing. That and private rent controls. But no, lets just aim anger at the most powerless people in society. :rolleyes:

Reply 107

Original post by Kibalchich

One of the best ways to reduce the welfare budget would be to build more council housing. That and private rent controls. But no, lets just aim anger at the most powerless people in society. :rolleyes:

That would only bring down HB - the biggie is still pensions, and they are a timebomb waiting to go off.

Would help cut the profits of those nasty buy-to-lets though, which would be nice.

But would more council houses have been necessary if Labour hadn't opened the door in 2004...

Reply 108

meenu89

19

Original post by Vikki1805

I love off less than that a week already, not including rent.

Haha, and rep for making me laugh.

Reply 109

Original post by Scots King

That would only bring down HB - the biggie is still pensions, and they are a timebomb waiting to go off.

Would help cut the profits of those nasty buy-to-lets though, which would be nice.

But would more council houses have been necessary if Labour hadn't opened the door in 2004...

No door was opened in 2004. There was free movement within the EU. Whichever party had been in power, this would have happened.

And yes, more council houses would have been necessary. It was the tory extension of the right to buy and restrictions on building new council housing that was the problem.

Reply 110

DavidQuinn

3

I can't get over this whole episode. Is it such a surprise to everyone that a rich politician is trying this kind of stunt? I can't believe how this current government are operating, it's bizarre as they're ruining any chance of getting in at the next election. It makes their intelligence questionable - maybe they are genuine and actually think they're doing the right thing and setting society on the right path with these incredibly short-sighted policies

Reply 111

Original post by Kibalchich

No door was opened in 2004. There was free movement within the EU. Whichever party had been in power, this would have happened.

And yes, more council houses would have been necessary. It was the tory extension of the right to buy and restrictions on building new council housing that was the problem.

And ten new countries joined the Union... with free movement rights to live in the UK for three months (whether in work or not), and longer than three months if in work, or seeking work with a reasonable chance of securing employment, thereby falling within the Union definition of 'worker.' But thanks to the Citizenship Directive, they can also bring along their family and dependents. This inevitably puts a strain on our housing policy. Local authorities are not allowed to discriminate between families on grounds of nationality. Rather they allocate on the basis of need. So you tell me why the Polish family of four really deserves a council house over a British family of three.

It wouldn't have happened if we had left the EU.

Right to buy was on the one hand a fantastic policy (giving the working class the ability to buy their own home for the first time, rather than be renting all of their lives) but again I can appreciate the downsides - the stress on council stocks etc.

Reply 112

username677182

18

Original post by meenu89

Haha, and rep for making me laugh.

Woops, thank you for the rep and pointing out my silly mistake. :teehee:

Reply 113

Original post by Scots King

And ten new countries joined the Union... with free movement rights to live in the UK for three months (whether in work or not), and longer than three months if in work, or seeking work with a reasonable chance of securing employment, thereby falling within the Union definition of 'worker.' But thanks to the Citizenship Directive, they can also bring along their family and dependents. This inevitably puts a strain on our housing policy. Local authorities are not allowed to discriminate between families on grounds of nationality. Rather they allocate on the basis of need. So you tell me why the Polish family of four really deserves a council house over a British family of three.

It wouldn't have happened if we had left the EU.

Right to buy was on the one hand a fantastic policy (giving the working class the ability to buy their own home for the first time, rather than be renting all of their lives) but again I can appreciate the downsides - the stress on council stocks etc.

Council housing is also allocated on local connections to the area. Someone with local connections will get more points. People from the A8 accession states did not have access to benefits until 2011 and don't have any right to council housing unless they have worked in this country for a year.

No party will leave the EU as they are all basically representing the interests of international capital, which is pro EU. Yes, even UKIP. If by some miracle, UKIP ever gain power, they will not leave the EU.

As for right to buy - yes, good for some people. The problem was the way that the rules were set for proceeds from it. Councils were not allowed to spend any money from the proceeds on building new homes until they had paid off existing debts. They had also been capped in terms of money they could raise, both of these meant that building new council homes was impossible. This was a deliberate policy of the tories, an attempt to socially engineer the economic interests of the working class away from collective solidarity to individual self interest. It worked very well too. Except now we're reaping what was sowed...

Reply 114