Taxpayer funds familys £1,600 per week rent - The Times

edgey88

without reading the whole 11 pages - how can he be unemployed living in Central London.

treliac

moggylover wrote: »

Well they need to go to Specsavers then because statistically the disenfranchised are the least likely to vote in the UK:D

But how disenfranchised are you when you have a home provided and are able to live comfortably and with control over how you spend your time - much more comfort and freedom than if you had to fend for yourself?

I think there will be plenty of propaganda in the run-up to the election aimed at scaring 'the disenfranchised' into voting Labour .... lest they risk losing their responsibility-free lifestyle under a new Conservative govt.

edgex

zygurat789 wrote: »

I think the original idea was to ensure that nobody ended up living on the street which is, of course, very laudable and noble, however, if the state is going to do this then it must expect to be taken for a ride some of the time. This doesn't matter to the state because it can always raise additional finance, but uit does matter to the contributors of that finance as witnessed above.
We are back into the usual benefits argument, always more heated the higher the benefit paid.
The last one I say stopped dead when I issued the challenge:-
How do you ensure that those deserving of the benefit all receive it and they are the only ones who do?
This is meant to be constructive whereas most of the above was destructive.

its actually quite easy to design a system to do that:
you make sure that no one gains from receiving benefits
you design a system that is a safety net, & one that people have to fall onto, not one that they can climb onto


eg. child benefits could be limited to the first 2 births, with no more benefit amounts available after that
raise the age at which you can start to claim any benefits, to something like 21/25
pay less benefits in cash - utility bills would be paid by the government, out of an allowance, fixed max per month

edgex

lostinrates wrote: »

I really, really don't think I am terirbly uninformed on this, not so much as you think anyway! when I worked as a solicitors clerk most of my clients were young men with low educational acheivement and IMO trapped into that gutter from inner city/high crime/areas of deprivation in London.. I feel that they were supported to do so actually kept them there often, not provided means to lift them out. Some of these young men, despite their crimes, I liked very, very much.

An example: One broke through my reserve and the resevre of the female barrister representin him. we provided help, looked things up for him, (extra to the case. to his life, to give him answers to his reasons why ''there was no point'' or no route out) and so desperately wanted to help him. All he had to do was make the effort and keep his nose clean..and have a drive.

I saw him in court a few months later and he was embarrased and tried to avoid my eye line. He was not a bad man, he was a man with no special skills, who had no idea of the pride of attainment, acheivment other than financial ..who had no impetus, and no need for impetus, to get out of his rut. I don't thinkunder anysystem he would be a beaon of sucess, but I think he could have lived a nice ordinary life, crime free, with a nice family...he just needed a reason too. He had help, he just had no need.

I also once had a client who worked in a fairly high profile scheme where a small number of young people were given a start in restaurant kitchens. That scheme, the work, the learning, was superb. More of that would be wonderful, I was also very fond of that client, who had, much to his own apparent shock found pride in a low paid job, learning (and he was not what you'd describe as bright) and working as a team to complete something.

I agree, the work, the oppertunity to work, and earn a living wage, is the key......I think oversupport from state is a further padlock.

that is precisely it

there is no longer any downside associated with doing nothing/not being productive/being a criminal etc etc


& because there is no downside, the upside of doing something is not a big enough difference to make it a 'do want' thing

edgex

lostinrates wrote: »

I think the background of NVQs was to give such unformalised experience recognisable quals so that they could move rather than sit in a job for ten years, if it would benefit their career to move. They are not so formal,and can be repeated again and again with no penalty (or could) so a nervous performance was not a career doomed to failure.

But yes, in the main I agree with you bout the relevance of ALL of those factors. I saw a huge drop in standard of my course while at university, and the entry requirements, the way the course was pitched in relevance (in my opinion incorrectly) and the negative impact that has now had on that (related) industry.

the daftness of the NVQ's was that they were introduced into a lot of areas that already had long-standing qualification routes, eg BTEC, City & Guilds, AAT etc etc, but they were at a lower level, with no real backing behind them.
also, colleges were only getting paid if the students passed, so what happens? everyone passes!

lostinrates

treliac wrote: »

But how disenfranchised are you when you have a home provided and are able to live comfortably and with control over how you spend your time - much more comfort and freedom than if you had to fend for yourself?

I think there will be plenty of propaganda in the run-up to the election aimed at scaring 'the disenfranchised' into voting Labour .... lest they risk losing their responsibility-free lifestyle under a new Conservative govt.

I get what you are saying, but I think one needs to look at it differently: you are ''disenfranchised'' (as I believe the word is here being used, which is slightly different from my understanding but I'll run with it for ease) if you have those things but are out, with no aims, to get into the ''other system''.

I've told another story before about a passed client so won't again, but it is clear to me that those who are in the ''system'' of what I shall call (because its late and I should be aslepp and can't be bothered to look through my untidy mind for more appropriate wording!) non achievement...often underestimate how much they receive, and how much those in the ''achieving'' system are bringing home. Across the board we talk about our free eduction and healthcare with pride (as we should) but perhps every child should know just how much our country has invested in each and every one of them.. the system is NOT free, it is a (worthwhile) investment in children, in people. Now, I'm not saying they should feel 'umble about it, that would be ridiculous, but perhaps the idea that we as a country make £x investment in them, that we WANT them to do well, to be happy and safe and fulfilled.

So in a hugely important sense I have accord with moggylover about there being a feeling of ''disenfranchisement'', but I hold it is a feeling, not, in many cases, reality. I also think, fwiw, this feeling of ''disenfrangement'' pervades up....when we say ''we pay our taxes and what does it do for us...'' when people avoid tax....its a failure to relate with the system in the wasy the system is meant to work.

This is the crux for me....and I believe that the key is not just to pull people in from the ''top'' with a stick, or from the bottom, with a carrot or a stick.....but to afford those who can to ''re-engage'' with the system to bring their skill, their civic pride, and indeed their wallets, back to the country...in a way that engages not just wallets but minds, and commitment.

nightwatchman

Many moons ago my teacher told me that in this world are two kinds of animals.
The first kind is the feral animals.
They have to defend themselves, nest in the cold or heat & hunt for their own food.
The second kind is the domesticated animals.
The farmer will feed them, provide settler & safety.
However, one day the farmer will come & take these animals to the slaughter house.
My teacher concluded that the animals have no choice, they born this way.
On the other hand we do, so we better choose wisely.

Are there any projections regarding how long the welfare system will cope before broke down under the current pressure?
Hopefully before the breakdown point the angry electorate will place in charge someone that is not as spineless maggot as our current political party leaders from any side of the spectrum.
Fat chance though.

Shakethedisease

Take away social housing but retain duty of care = councils scrabbling to house people wherever they can privately.

Add to that landlords. accidental or otherwise looking to cover astronomical monthly mortgage payments for houses bought in the boom times =

Potential social housing tenants being placed in privately rented houses that demand astronomical monthly LHA allowances..

It's all cyclical.

Something will have to give sooner or later imho. Either there will be social housing built on a massive scale.

Or there will be an outcry with social housing waiting lists getting bigger and bigger.. yet the tax payer baulking at the thought of subsidising those in need to live in private lets at monthly rates they themselves couldn't even dream of getting a mortgage for !
We've already seen the anger on this thread about (an extreme case) of social housing tenants being placed somewhere privately that the ordinary or even well paid tax payer could never afford to live themselves.

Perhaps there will even be a nationwide cap on lha so that allowances covering private rentals via lha a one bed flat in London, are compatable with renting one in Glasgow. Most other benefits are the same countrywide regardless..why not LHA ?

It's either that or forced sterilisiation/castration of those earning less than x a month or those on benefits for longer than a year..and I ain't opening THAT can of worms !

Hmmm which will it be ? Anyway, just my late night musings 2 glasses of wine in and off to bed.

( disclaimer :- I have 5 kids )...

lostinrates

edgex wrote: »

its actually quite easy to design a system to do that:
you make sure that no one gains from receiving benefits
you design a system that is a safety net, & one that people have to fall onto, not one that they can climb onto


eg. child benefits could be limited to the first 2 births, with no more benefit amounts available after that
raise the age at which you can start to claim any benefits, to something like 21/25
pay less benefits in cash - utility bills would be paid by the government, out of an allowance, fixed max per month

I disagree that is easy. It is not with ease I would see an unplanned child 3/4/5 go hungry. I don't feel unlimited support is helping, but I don;t think thats an easy position to have arrived at.

nightwatchman

If you have to work the soul crushing shifts that I work then you don’t have the mood or the strength to multiply.
My Missus will be lucky if she get it once a week.
After all (with us at list) the best method of contraception is our first child…… a screaming poohing & vomiting machine, which will wake you up 7am sharp every morning.
I am not intending to have more than two children.
(Saying that I love this little bundle of love to bits)

On the other end if you have time on your hands (or other parts of your anatomy) you have to entertain yourself somehow when “Deal or no Deal” is not on.