Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Iain Duncan Smith losing his bottle over cutting benefits Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Iain Duncan Smith give up cutting benefits?
    No- we need more cuts
    26
    56.52%
    Yes- benefits should not be cut anymore
    20
    43.48%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Encourage work? Oh my aching sides. You don't "encourage work" by immiserating people. You encourage work by getting the economy going, making sure there are jobs, making sure those jobs pay enough to live on, by investing in training and education.
    But that requires money

    A reduction in welfare spending could fund that

    After all I'd rather the government paid people to do something-I.e community service or something rather than giving benefits to do virtually nothing
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Complete nonsense. People in significantly adapted accommodation will be covered by discretionary payments. Local authorities have no wish to rehouse these people: that doesn't make economic sense to anyone.
    These payments aren't indefinite. They're given on a case by case basis and not everyone will get them.

    I am sick and tired of politically motivated suggestions that this somehow means people who cannot realistically move due to their disability are somehow going to be shafted by the Government. It is invented, made up, a fabrication - hell, a lie.
    Except they are being shafted by the Government. A friend of mine received a letter this morning saying that she'll now have to pay bedroom and council tax. her house is adapted and she needs a spare room. And then there's benefits being uprated by 1% instead of inflation.

    And then there's the disabled children who are expected to share a room when they can't.

    Many disabled people will be affected by PIP, universal credit, the bedroom tax and council, the removal of the independent living fund (ILF) and the changes to social care. Can you seriously tell me we're not being shafted?

    I can indeed. There are hundreds of thousands of people in overcrowded social housing. This is why social housing providers offering a swapping system have been so successful.
    And your evidence for this is where? There aren't that many 1 bedroom places where I live. And then there's waiting lists of over a year to get somewhere suitable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    But that requires money

    A reduction in welfare spending could fund that

    After all I'd rather the government paid people to do something-I.e community service or something rather than giving benefits to do virtually nothing
    Raising taxes could do it too.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)

    After all I'd rather the government paid people to do something-I.e community service or something rather than giving benefits to do virtually nothing
    After a certain amount of time on benefits, they are expected to do work experience.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...k-8556002.html

    I spend more than this in a week as a student and most of this goes to food etc, also as a student I get discounted travel etc..but how does he expect a single person without a job to survive on this much, it amounts to around £2750 a year. I am not suggesting that the state should pay good money so people can enjoy themselves but even to me this doesnt seem a lot of money. Hes not going to win over to many votes with this kind of policies.

    But then again it may give people a reason to acutally go and get a job.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    After a certain amount of time on benefits, they are expected to do work experience.
    That amount of time should be 2 months at the most- the longer someone doesn't work, the harder it'll be for them to get a job
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naza911)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...k-8556002.html

    I spend more than this in a week as a student and most of this goes to food etc, also as a student I get discounted travel etc..but how does he expect a single person without a job to survive on this much, it amounts to around £2750 a year. I am not suggesting that the state should pay good money so people can enjoy themselves but even to me this doesnt seem a lot of money. Hes not going to win over to many votes with this kind of policies.

    But then again it may give people a reason to acutally go and get a job.
    Hmm but in London students get a 30% discount but unemployed people can get a 50% discount

    Single people on benefits-unless disabled- tend to get a raw deal

    But have a disproportionate number of kids and you could rake up around 40k in child benefit alone!

    After all your last point was spot on , after all if unemployment benefits are too good it could encouraged people to not get a job
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Hmm but in London students get a 30% discount but unemployed people can get a 50% discount
    I have only been to london a few times but even with a 50% on stuff i cant see £53 getting very far, I guess it would be even tougher if your weree living in london.


    But have a disproportionate number of kids and you could rake up around 40k in child benefit alone!
    I think this is something they do need to cut back on. I think labour sepnt a lot of thier time trying to end child poverty by giving people more money for the amount of kids that they have.
    My view on this is simple, If you decide to have kids expect to work to pay to feed them and bring them up. It shouldnt be the state thay pays for you to raise your kids.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Hmm but in London students get a 30% discount but unemployed people can get a 50% discount
    Students sometimes have far more than £71 a week to live on and they don't have to spend money on job hunting things, like sending CVs, etc.

    Single people on benefits-unless disabled- tend to get a raw deal
    Oh please do your research before making stupid comments like this. Many disabled peoples benefits go to social services. They also have extra costs, hence the extra benefits. How many people do you seriously know have to pay for things like communication aids, (these can cost a few thousand) private assessments because NHS won't do them, software to enable them to use a computer, (these can cost anything up to a few thousand) an adapted car, etc?

    Need I go on? We're not all rolling it in as you think we do. In fact, many of us are worse off being disabled. It's not unusual for me to spend £100+ on one time several times a year.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    If that is indeed the priority, and I'm to accept that it's not just more political rhetoric, then why is it that WORKING parents stand to see more of a negative impact from the introduction of Universal Credit than the unemployed? And as for job opportunities, have you actually looked at the employment situation across small to medium sized towns in this country? I suspect most of your political ideology here comes from theory, reading and the claims of politicians (who should he expected to twist the facts by default). It's not a case of retraining / learning new skills to make yourself competitive... the jobs market is barren. Completely barren. The few jobs that there are are being mauled over by HUNDREDS of applicants.

    I am in employment - I'm constantly scouring the job market, mainly because I find my job depressing and immoral, but also because there is currently no opportunity for progression. My search area covers two large towns, and dozens of smaller towns. The cost of commuting to the nearest city makes doing so not feasible.

    Anyway - my point is, I'm not an unemployed "scrounger" - I have no real reason to lie about the availability of jobs - these are just the facts. There is not enough employment to go around. And that's not even considering the fact that the vast majority of jobs that are available are part-time hours ... which the government is also trying to crack down on.

    On top of that, have you actually looked at the abysmal "universal jobmatch" system that claimants are now expected to use? If it wasn't so miserable, it would be hilarious. It suggests jobs that require professional qualifications (as in, degree level, it tries to tell you to apply to be a solicitor :/ ) and the bulk of the rest is "self employment opportunity" pyramid schemes such as Herbalife, which are great if you want to make 4 pounds a week, but otherwise are blatantly outright scams. You're expected to explain why you haven't applied for these "vacancies"... in all seriousness.

    As for training / education to improve employment prospects - how, exactly, are people supposednto fund this? In theory I think it's a great idea. I think the govt. should be identifying intelligent, motivated individuals and ENSURING that they have access to education... I think it makes financial sense to pay a little extra to get these individuals out of long term unemployment / underemployment / onto a better wage and off of benefits long yerm. But, no such scheme exists. This is why it's called a "poverty trap". It takes a cash injection to pull oneself out of poverty... ironically.

    But seriously though - I've read many of your posts now and I genuinely get the impression that you believe that because the "theory is sound", these things actually apply in practice. In reality, the academic rhetoric is pretty far removed from the truth.
    "Please rate some other members before rating this member again." Bugh...

    Bang on though, out of all the vancancies that are advertised on Universal Jobmatch so many are never going to actually pay a living wage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    IDS (and Cameron) have no idea what they're doing. As far as IDS is concerned, we're all scroungers. Where are these flipping jobs then? And why would someone give up their £30k a year job to live on £100 a week?

    Contrary to what the media wants people to believe, those of us on benefits don't live this life of luxury.
    I don't think anyone thinks you 'live a life of luxury'; the issue is that social protection currently costs about £200bn a year. That is unjustifiably high - it is by miles the largest item on the budget.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This government will not be reelected in 2015 they know that so are ramming through their far right ideology of cutting as much as you can as quickly as you can to leave a legacy disgusting if you ask me. I so want to be a fly on the wall come 2015 in david cameron and IDS rooms when they see that they have lost loooooooooooooooooool
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    I don't think anyone thinks you 'live a life of luxury'; the issue is that social protection currently costs about £200bn a year. That is unjustifiably high - it is by miles the largest item on the budget.

    That's the key issue!
    The UK can't keep borrowing indefinitely
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by THECHOOSENONE)
    This government will not be reelected in 2015 they know that so are ramming through their far right ideology of cutting as much as you can as quickly as you can to leave a legacy disgusting if you ask me. I so want to be a fly on the wall come 2015 in david cameron and IDS rooms when they see that they have lost loooooooooooooooooool
    If you think this government is by any means 'far-right' you have no knowledge of politics whatsoever.

    This government is an inch to the right of the political center-ground, yet thought of as if it's Mussolini's Italy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP! UKIP!

    (Apparently that's the cool thing to say now )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    If you think this government is by any means 'far-right' you have no knowledge of politics whatsoever.

    This government is an inch to the right of the political center-ground, yet thought of as if it's Mussolini's Italy.
    Well its ramming through its far right economics package of Trickle down economics. So basically if you cut taxes of the wealthy it will somehow trickle down to the masses loooooooooool. This type of thinking has never worked go ask George W Bush or Regan or Thatcher. TRICKLE DOWN DOES NOT WORK DURING A TIME OF RECESSION. Keynesian economics work during a time of a recession you have to spend on infrastructure etc to get the economy moving not cutting to deep as this disgusting government are who will be gone come 2015 as the boundary changes that DID NOT HAPPEN put a nail in the coffin of David Cameron looooooool
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    These payments aren't indefinite. They're given on a case by case basis and not everyone will get them.
    Not being given to everyone is kinda the point. As for being on a case by case basis - excellent! That's personalisation, rather than being governed by thousands of pages of Departmental regulation going into the minutiae of eligibility.

    Except they are being shafted by the Government. A friend of mine received a letter this morning saying that she'll now have to pay bedroom and council tax. her house is adapted and she needs a spare room.

    And then there's the disabled children who are expected to share a room when they can't.
    Both can apply for discretionary payments. Indeed, both cases - adaptations and disabled children who cannot share - have been prioritised by the Government in decisions of this nature.

    And your evidence for this is where? There aren't that many 1 bedroom places where I live. And then there's waiting lists of over a year to get somewhere suitable.
    The creation of Homeswap Direct, for example, helps tenants do this. A great deal of emphasis has been put on direct swapping schemes by housing associations in the past year or so.

    As for the figures on overcrowding, that's 250,000. A lot of people who are desperate to leave smaller accommodation and upsize.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)

    The creation of Homeswap Direct, for example, helps tenants do this. A great deal of emphasis has been put on direct swapping schemes by housing associations in the past year or so.

    As for the figures on overcrowding, that's 250,000. A lot of people who are desperate to leave smaller accommodation and upsize.
    In Newcastle, there's at least 20 times more people wanting smaller houses than there are smaller houses.
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

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