ITV, now, 9pm - 7 Days on the Breadline

kabayiri

Here's a curved ball on all of this.

Why do we aim to build a fair society, where fair means an equality of treatment/support ?

They were never able to create this in Soviet Russia, and I don't think we can here.

We have to create a new aspirational working class, where aspiration doesn't mean becoming one of the middle classes.

To do this, we need a blatantly unfair social payment system. One which rewards people who are clearly driven to do the right thing. That covers people on here who are victims of circumstance, and those who have inspired their children to achieve against the odds.

There will ALWAYS be chavs/scallys/neds in society.

But if 'Mr ned' or 'Ms scally' sees other people from a similar background, getting rewarded for adopting a better moral framework, they have something to work towards, dont they?

I definitely think we need to rob Peter to pay Paul.

fc123

Broken_hearted wrote: »

We are not scum thanks. We were a hard working household with a job each ad one day an idiot no watching what they were doing wiped out our lives. We are now a disabled household on benefits with kids, we would love to still be that hard working family life just fails to work the way it should.

But this is the crux of the problem as 'The telly people' are making up a docu -soap with a clear aim in mind. It's like a brief. It makes me mad actually as I know business people who got caned on Docu soaps and regretted it afterwards. It's a set up, same as films, they want to make a story for entertainment.

There is a well respected poster on this board who has 3 kids and is raising them on benefits (and with no cash job on the side), they all have issues and her OH has just left them to it. She is unlikely to be featured in one of CH 4 ''sending up the masses' documentaries....far too savvy.


The problem is that they all get mulched into one job lot. Being on benefits + single mum=waster..but most people accept that this is not true and there is a difference between types of claimants.


I have lived in area where I saw all types and would say that it's about 50;50 of Genuine and Playing the system.
OH's niece had a babe @ 16 in order to leave home and create a life for herself. The fact that she did that wasn't the issue.....it was the fact that she thought she had no other way of leaving home @ 16 and being able to pay her own way. Learnt from mum and school.

This was from the school my kids were destined to attend..but didn't.

The problem with her wasn't her choice in doing what she did (and cute and well brought up her toddler he is, mainly due to family help...she has struggled to cope not realising until after that she had bitten off more than she could chew) but not seeing alternatives @ age 14/15.
A bit due to the parenting (lax and absent dad) and a bit school (busy busy) and peers (many doing it because they can).

I am Aunty and perhaps, I should take some of the blame..I didn't really bother to interract with her a few years back as she was rude, chavvy and unpleasant to everyone..so we stopped visiting...but the unpleasant behaviour was coming from her as her home set up was a nightmare at the time...and we only found out afterwards....abusive step boyfriend etc.

OH feels bad but it was his sisters responsibility...but was it? Shouldn't we all have muscled in on the situation...his brother and himself have had to sort out a few dodgy boy friends over the years on their sisters behalf.

It's a hard one...

Is it parenting or society around us that make us what we are? Both?

Cleaver alluded to it in another thread about school catchments.


Funny really, as dd is ignored in her new school as she is seen as 'Not One Of Us''...and heartbreaking too. Segregation creates ill feeling. I even have to attend a seperate parents evening...do I smell or speak funny?

Shakethedisease

But if 'Mr ned' or 'Ms scally' sees other people from a similar background, getting rewarded for adopting a better moral framework, they have something to work towards, dont they?

I agree, however the same 'model' has been tried before more or less in the shape of the workhouse. Below quoted from Jennifer Worths 'Shadows of the Workhouse'

the Poor Law Amendment Act was passed in 1834, and unions of parishes had to provide large houses designed to accommodate several hundred. Their aim: "The poor shall be set to work, and they shall dwell in working houses."

The original policy was that a workhouse should be a place of 'last resort', therefore conditions inside a workhouse should be less comfortable that a state of homeless destituion outside.Strict rules for admission were introduced and enforced nationwide, and those rules were intended to deter the idle and shiftless from seeking admission. But the result, in a mixed workhouse was that all classes of paupers suffered. Nobody could come up with an answer to the question of how to deter the idle without penalising the defenceless.

It's an age old problem, nothing new.

Then there's is the job issue, there is a bit of a scarcity of jobs around at the moment. Lots of shouting about people 'working for benefits' etc etc.. when in reality all that would happen would be that the state-run 'work parties' would undercut, or be given priority for 'projects' that private contractors would otherwise have pitched for, thus making the problem worse in a self-fufilling cycle.

Those 'working for benefits' ( or a similar initiative ) in order to be rewarded with a better moral framework, would ultimately, put MORE out of work

worried_jim

Just seen it on catch up and as hard as I try I have very little sympathy for some of them. These children have been let down by moron parent(s) in most cases and will just go on to inflict the same on there own children when they start breeding like ally cats- which you can guarantee they will. Although I criticise them I cant offer an answer, except maybe "stop breeding" until you have the ability to pay your way.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Those 'working for benefits' ( or a similar initiative ) in order to be rewarded with a better moral framework, would ultimately, put MORE out of work

I understand what you say.

I deliberately avoided the term 'work', either through workfare or a similar initiative.

This is about almost biased selection to reward some people on benefits more than others. Some would feel poorer afterwards, and others better off.

The work problem you mention is probably outside the scope of this thread. My view on that is that we can not afford to continue with the old models of part time and full time. We have to encourage a much more liberal system, where people will derive income from multiple streams. This relies on raising the threshold at which people pay tax significantly.

kabayiri

Apologies Shake, reading back I did use the phrase 'work towards', but it wasnt the conventional use of the word work.

fc123

kabayiri wrote: »

I understand what you say.

. This relies on raising the threshold at which people pay tax significantly.

Raise the tax threshold to something like 15k pa pp with zero tax + NI could work but now there are Tax Credits so, probably, the only thing that would work would be the ''welfare for all '' type of scheme paying every citizen an allowance of £100 pw pp to cover all housing/living costs. Add £30 pw per child to age 16.
Would keep a whole Govt dept in work but then anyone who wanted to 'up' it could. Those that chose to just live on the subsistence benefit could choose to do so also.
Don't know if it's workable or not?

Just to add 6 kids is hard work..for 2 parents, let alone one. The prog never said where the dad went to in Mel B's 'adopted family' either.

Pobby

Yes agree with that or similar fc123. Not sure how it would be funded. Lots of " scum " being bandied around here. Imho, if you have system that allows certain life style choices, as I described earlier with a personal account, people will take it. Don`t think that i am unusual here but I do know a one or two that fiddle the system, our local pub gets all sorts in there. The way the system is set up it is no wonder.

I am disabled and have been since my early teens. In the end a long stay in hospital was required that didn`t really work so many decades ago i was offered what I believe then was a green card. I would never have to work again from the age of 20. Me, no way would i have accepted that and at times it has been a struggle but always have worked or run a business. Don`t think I could day time TV.

It`s possible that the little business I run will be difficult to do in a few years. perhaps too much driving. Got pensions so not too bad so here I am studying in a new field to get a qualification that will let me run a part time business from home and little travel.

Sitting on me `arris, not for me.

saver_sam

I couldn't believe the state of one of the houses. The number of black sacks thrown down the stairs with dirty clothes in them by Mel B. How on earth can a family let it get like that and probably afford to buy so many clothes if most of them are just lying around?!

And like others lack of sheets! OMG what are they thinking. Not very expensive even from somewhere like Asda. Just one a week would do from the money coming in or is that daft.

And Mel B I think was wrong disappearing off to the gym. I'm a single mum (like another poster not thru choice oh had affair), rarely get anytime to myself away from the home - she was not really living like a single parent in a way by being able to naff off out at a whim and leave them in the care of the chaparone.

And yes journalists are only interested in those that can't/won't cope. I was approached after completing a survey that the CSA had 'forgotten' my case for nearly a year and because it got sorted eventually and quite quickly once they 'unforgot' the case and I was doing ok, done a college course, keeping my head above water, I felt I wasn't good material. Not down trotten enough maybe but I have pride in myself, my home, my children - one wants to be a vet so I am already encouraging her even though she is only 7. I'm also trying to look for a part-time job - I could just sit on benefits for the next five years until my youngest is 7 but I dunno it doesn't feel right, I know I will receive more than I currently do on benefits and will teach (imo) my children its OK to not bother because I don't have to which is wrong. Infact in some way the state don't really help themselves as when you go for the IS sign on they do say you can just stay that way (on IS) until your youngest is 7 - no encouragement to better yourself or your situation by working or even studying in the meantime.

fc123

Pobby wrote: »

It`s possible that the little business I run will be difficult to do in a few years. perhaps too much driving. Got pensions so not too bad so here I am studying in a new field to get a qualification that will let me run a part time business from home and little travel.

Sitting on me `arris, not for me.

Oooh what you studying Pobby? Just being nosey


From personal experience, I would say it is impossible to live the high life longterm (10 years + ) solely on benefits....you need a little something on the side to top it up. Have met quite a few, esp in my line of work a decade back (second hand clothing).

I do have a heavy anecdotal though........I don't think I have written it before.

SIL managed to get herself a HA New Build as part of a new development.

Her mate, single mum of 4 also got one except dad (who lived with her and worked F/T but didn't officially exist) bought one of the private houses off plan with his brother at the same time. I think this was back in 2001. Anyway, the blokes got to sell the house after it was finished and netted 36k in hand due to HPI. Honest, you couldn't make it up.

I remember the gossip at school about it.

Best way to see it is £££ going back into the economy....and all the ducking and diving can be very stressful too. And yes, I have heard that said too a long time ago but in a different situation.