George Osborne considering freeze on benefits to save £4.4bn

dopester

StevieJ wrote: »

Echoes of Ramsay MacDonald.

StevieJ wrote: »

Any bells ringing with this clue just substitute LibDem for Labour.

So Ramsay MacDonald had to deal with the situation. What would you have him do? (OK there was more room for public spending back then) but they mostly allowed the markets, the economy, businesses within it, old and new entrants, to find the way out. Instead of lavishing benefits and maintaining public sector non-jobs at high pay levels.

The effects of the US Great Depression quickly saw UK unemployment double to over 2 million, tax revenues falling - the most sensible position won out. Cuts in unemployment benefits and public sector wage cuts and drastic cuts in public sector spending. Just like will happen this time as deflation wins out. The economy did begin to nicely pick up in the following years before WW2.

Fancy unsustainable positions will be challenged and stopped. Spent up all your money in the boom? You won't be protected and propped up. Been reliant on benefits for a cushy life that is better than what you could get in a job? There are consequences coming to boom time living.

It's a system thing. Unstoppable, despite the whingers, because young people, intelligence and can-do people need a way in; not blocked off to save the people who can't look after themselves, stomach house prices falling, or have crazy ideas that £70K a year is just a fair wage in the public sector.

Clegg and co are being overtaken by necessary events requiring deflation. They might not know it fully but that is where it's going. They are already taking measures towards it, and that counters the way the other direction they are being torn in towards QE and easy money. Clegg might become a hated figure for some (especially as the effects are immediate on those who lose out), but in years to come be a hero to many others coming through wanting a fair balanced chance at succeeding under their own can-do.

I am expecting unrest to start coming from many LibDem MPs soon though, who haven't been briefed into the crisis nor grasp the complexities and measures required, beyond their normal wishful thinking of money and prosperity comes from nowhere, which can only make the situation worse.

Governments can only set the ground for new business and enterprise to flourish, whatever that might be. Including those new businesses acquiring assets/land/materials from those who've failed in business. Government isn't there to rescue every business and debtor and flood every hard-up case with lavish benefits.






Source: The Times "A Century In Photographs" [A Portrait Of Britain, 1900-1999]

dopester

SingleSue wrote: »

On a personal note - I already feel stigmatized but at least I can go to a shop and feel normal by handing over money or my debit card, if I had vouchers, I just would not be able to go shopping...I would be one of those swapping my vouchers for cash just so I could hold my head up whilst doing the food shopping rather than feeling the lowest of the low.

Even with 2 or 3 kids you need to support and to get maximum value from your benefits for, you would trade vouchers for less, so you can use cash and not feel stigmatized?

I don't think so, and if you're for real, then there is still a lot of breaking of boom-time entitlement to be done.

Am I supposed to feel stigmatized because I'm mid 30s living in my parents home - with mother and other family? Some people try and pin it on me, but I'm too focused and determined to care in the slightest. And either should you mind if you ever have to look after yourself and children with food vouchers.*

If it comes to pass with vouchers, you'll have to harden up like I've had to. I'm not paying unjustifiable levels of rent for a flat/house, or taking on atrocious levels of mortgage debt to buy into the bubble. Anyone trying to put me down because I'm not willing to do myself in by not in the bubble can go to hell.

You've got the house and the benefits for you and your kids. Whereas I've got none of that, ticking over on probably only a little more than you are on benefits (without the free house) - but admittedly with savings built up. I'm not copping for a free house on housing benefits and relying on taxpayer to pay for my kids way.

SingleSue wrote: »

Whenever this has been suggested on this site before, it has been shown that this sort of system would actually be much more expensive to run than the current one...any savings made would be spent (plus loads more) on setting up and administering it.

That hasn't been proven to me. Just like it wasn't proven on another claim you made this year. It might have been true in the boom, where there was money for near unlimited spending.

SingleSue wrote: »

No ideas on school dinners but without teaching assistants, my youngest and middle sons would have to have gone to a special school which would have cost way more than the teaching assistants helping them out.

Never got the child trust funds, they were born too late.

Going forwards from here, people in similar positions to yourself can no longer rely on getting free special teacher assistants nor free places at expensive special schools. Labour-thinking has run out of money.

Maybe only if they were exceptionally eligible because of their conditions. The time is coming where new small schools will have to be set up (perhaps charitable / not for profit / parents own schools) for such needs... and certainly not lots of extra teaching assistants in regular schools adding costs.

Prudent

I am very in favour of government cutbacks and saving money, but it is not always practical to cut special school assitants. I am a special needs teacher and have two assistants. They are a neccessity not a luxury. I have children with very complex medical conditions which are life limiting. Most of the children I work with are in wheelchairs and require hoisting for physiotherapy and changes. Some have conditions like severe epilespy and may die in a fit. I have children that have multiple fits. I have children that are at high risk of choking and requiring suctioning. Some of the class are tube fed (which is a lengthy procedure) and I have to spoon feed the rest. All children require one to one support with learning. We have to carry out programmes set by occupational and speech and langauge therapist - again on a one to one basis. Some children have no sense of danger and will place themselves at risk by climbing or chewing cabling.

There are only 4 children in my class and three adults. It is intensive and demanding work. There are not enough hours in the day. I work really long hours. I could not provide even the most basic care and safety for these children on my own.

There has been a real change in special ed over the last decade. Medical advances means we are caring for children that continue to live with hugely complex conditions.

Out of my class two children would not be alive without intense intervention throughout the school day. Do we leave them to die?

Gorgeous_George

Prudent wrote: »

I am very in favour of government cutbacks and saving money, but it is not always practical to cut special school assitants. I am a special needs teacher and have two assistants...QUOTE]

It is easy to be (very) in favour of cuts if your area is an exception.

Let's start by executing the 1,000 worst criminals to ease the pressure on our prisons.

Then, let's farm out our unemployed somewhere cheaper. A family of four can eat for £10 in Somalia. Let's be generous and give them £12.

GG

leveller2911

I know i'm going slightly off thread here but how do we define "special needs"??.... I have seen children who definately do have problems which are obviously not from bad parenting,however I have also seen with my own eyes children with behaviour problems who are the result of bad parenting or even total lack of it.

For instance the family 4 doors down from me haven't got a clue where their 7yr old son is from dawn to dusk and 5 weeks ago he had 13 teeth out because of poor diet and lashings of Coke in his baby bottles from the age of 1yr old.His parents are dole scroungers end off and don't deserve a single penny from the tax paying public, but he gets all the help at school and more......

Prudent

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Prudent wrote: »

I am very in favour of government cutbacks and saving money, but it is not always practical to cut special school assitants. I am a special needs teacher and have two assistants...QUOTE]

It is easy to be (very) in favour of cuts if your area is an exception.

GG

I can see things in education which could easily be cut, even within the high demands of special ed. I just can't see how it would possible to run my class without these two assistants (both of which earn under £10k per year).

B.E.N

leveller2911 wrote: »

I know i'm going slightly off thread here but how do we define "special needs"??.... I have seen children who definately do have problems which are obviously not from bad parenting,however I have also seen with my own eyes children with behaviour problems who are the result of bad parenting or even total lack of it.

For instance the family 4 doors down from me haven't got a clue where there 7yr old son is from dawn to dusk and 5 weeks ago he had 13 teeth out because of poor diet and lashings of Coke in his baby bottles from the age of 1yr old.His parents are dole scroungers end off and don't deserve a single penny from the tax paying public, but he gets all the help at school and more......

True, but in this particular situation, the poor boy has no choice in his upbringing, and without "extra help" at school to enhance the chances of academic achievement, he'd have no hope at all.

Maybe this 'extra help' will help him escape the path chosen by his parents, maybe he will get a degree, become a doctor or do something else productive to society. Removing this "extra help" is short-sighted as it will only ensure that he follows the "example" set by his parents and the situation will perpetuate

Prudent

leveller2911 wrote: »

I know i'm going slightly off thread here but how do we define "special needs"??.... I have seen children who definately do have problems which are obviously not from bad parenting,however I have also seen with my own eyes children with behaviour problems who are the result of bad parenting or even total lack of it.......

Sadly this is all too common. Some of the worst offenders seem to get big financial advantages from the situation by claiming their children have a range of conditions and that their behaviour is compulsive. I was incensed earlier in the year when one such parent received free driving lessons and a big chunk of money towards a car as going by bus was a 'risk' to her son.

I see too many examples where money could genuinley be saved by the govt with no adverse impact.

Elaine_Wilson

Prudent wrote: »

There has been a real change in special ed over the last decade. Medical advances means we are caring for children that continue to live with hugely complex conditions.

Out of my class two children would not be alive without intense intervention throughout the school day. Do we leave them to die?

A hundred years ago that would probably have been the case. And not so long ago we would have made no attempt to educate these children.

I don't see why this area should not be reviewed. We need to provide a decent quality of life at a minimum cost. Though I wouldn't want to be on the committee that has to decide what a decent quality of life is and how to spend the allocation.

leveller2911

B.E.N wrote: »

True, but in this particular situation, the poor boy has no choice in his upbringing, and without "extra help" at school to enhance the chances of academic achievement, he'd have no hope at all.

Maybe this 'extra help' will help him escape the path chosen by his parents, maybe he will get a degree, become a doctor or do something else productive to society. Removing this "extra help" is short-sighted as it will only ensure that he follows the "example" set by his parents and the situation will perpetuate

The only way IMO we can help is to FORCE the parents to work and pay into society and contribute to the system with the hope of them actually changing their lifestyle.Bring back "Tough love".

If they still don't care for their son properly then he should be taken into care, yes I know its expensive but at least he has a chance and personally I don't believe it would cost any more than we are paying them now..Stop ALL of their benefits full stop.

If people make an effort to turn their lives around then im all for helping people better themselves, further education, employment etc but for 1.2 million people not working at all in the past 13 yrs is nothing more than a disgrace.
Ive lived on Council estates all of my life and the worse thing IMO to have held people back in my lifetime was the last government and pretty much the Socialist mindset that is their legacy..