Tories are certainly getting stuck into our benefits system...

ryanstarr

Its a sensitive issue with the benefit system as you are right many do abuse it, But at the same time many do genuinly need it. Like myself , I get £49.50 a week Employment support allowance as I am employed but my doctor wont let me work because I work in a building job and I am currently going through many different treatments for blood clots i contracted that cause very bad pain I also got them because of workplace related stress.
On top of that iv always been going through treatment for my Bi-Polar and Tourettes syndrome.
I have tried to find lighter jobs as the doctor will let me do that part time but after 6 months still no joy , employers seem to like everything in interviews until they find out about my conditions.
My Bi-polar can be very severe, My tourettes is average but varies often , i dont shout out expletives but i do have a prominant twitch which is always in a head reflex which causes headaches too , and it can also make my body twitch too.
So for me im stuck and im going through an appeal at the moment as my medical I had with the benefit assesor was ridiculous and my doctor has pretty much gone mad about it as they have disregarded Bi-Polar / Tourettes and Bloodclots as not serious thus meaning I am fully capable to work in a manual job 9 hours a day 5 days a week when I am clearly not.
Waiting for the tribunal hearing now anyway , I am under no doubt they will see in my favour as the way the benefit office handled it is pathetic and massively false.
I just wish employers though would see past my conditions so that I could get back to a job of some sorts so im earning an actual wage instead of £49 a week

Spartacus_Mills

chucky wrote: »

nope................ is it a divided party yet?

Yet ?

Odd choice of words. We have always been a party of divisions. It is just that they have never had the level of focus the other two main parties have had. There is a distinct difference between the left wing sandalista's and the more free market orientated orange bookers. It is just how those divisions are managed.

In effect the two elements are the old rump of the Labour Party Right wing, the SDP faction who are statist and interventionist and the old liberal element who believe in individual liberty.

Being in government may bring any divisions to the fore but they have always been there.

ILW

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You can't just focus on the fact that someone is 'physically' able to take a job though ? There are a few other factors to take into account surely ?
Let's just say I have two kids.. am physically 'able' to take the job. Yet constrained by having to find affordable childcare from 2 till 10 pm daily.

Still possible is it ? I'll be papped on JSA once the kids are 5 and my LHA reduced by 10% after 12 months anyway. But with no affordable accessible childcare to cover the (part-time ?) shifts, or the holidays. Tax credits will be reduced as well. Easy eh ! Oh well, I'm sure 'cold-calling' pays sooo well it'll cover it all and I'll find a cheapo chilminder... one who'll look after my kids for that 'twilight' cleaning job once the shop closes at 5.30pm till 10pm that pays £6 an hour. When she charges £5 an hour per child ( and I've got two ). Right ? Really worth my while.

When I said physically able to do a job I would include such factors as not being able to travel, or get any childcare and maybe these are issues that should be looked at. ( It would ahve been better if I had said physicall and practically able).
My main argument was with another poster who seemed to be saying that as he had a degree he should not be expected to do any "menial" work and should be given the option of just living off the state until such time as work that was good enough for him came along. This in my opinion is a scandalous attitude.

mbga9pgf

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Still possible is it ? I'll be papped on JSA once the kids are 5 and my LHA reduced by 10% after 12 months anyway. But with no affordable accessible childcare to cover the (part-time ?) shifts, or the holidays. Tax credits will be reduced as well. Easy eh ! Oh well, I'm sure 'cold-calling' pays sooo well it'll cover it all and I'll find a cheapo chilminder... one who'll look after my kids for that 'twilight' cleaning job once the shop closes at 5.30pm till 10pm that pays £6 an hour. When she charges £5 an hour per child ( and I've got two ). Right ? Really worth my while.

It's just not possible IMHO.

mbga9pgf you ranted gaily on for two paragraphs about it being 'tough' that I had 5 kids, myself and my husband to support. Despite fact we don't claim any benefits. You assume far too much.

Err, which one is it, do you claim benefits (LHA and Tax credits) or dont you?

But I'll accept your apology if you're willing to tender it. ( *holds breath* ).

I wouldnt bother love. you will be blue in the face.

I assume the fact that you and your wife have put off having kids is because you can't afford to have them while living off just the one wage ? Or the childcare costs involved ? Most single parents have to face those hurdles. Not because most of them ARE single parents by choice. Simply because relationships break up. All the time.

Once this sort of thing is thrust upon you ( however unwillingly, and for all the good intentions at the start of a relationship ).. well the kids are already there by then. So 'being sensible' about having them isn't an option. Yet the realities of one wage, childcare issues and trying to find work round them still exists whatever the circumstances. That's what you're really saying. Kids on one wage aren't an affordable option.

Thats why this fractured society needs to get away from thinking that its perfectly OK to be a single mother. I am NOT saying mothers who do a fantastic job of bringing up a child due to a change in circumstance (death of a partner, partner ran away etc) should suffer as a result, that, after all, is what child support is for (and I fully suppport). But when young little tramps choose to get pregnant at 16 for a bit of a laugh, and noone is able to berate them through societal norms, this is the sort of situation we end up with. Well, its not my problem, its theres.

The same 'unaffordable' financial scenario you paint by 'waiting cos you can't afford them' goes for everyone. But most singlies have no choice by then, when a relationship/marriage breaks up. The kids still need looking after, housed and fed. And it's a tough old world out there job-wise.

Marriage isnt a joke, and people are far too selfish these days. too many divorces for "unreasonable behaviour" and such tosh, when actually, the number due to domestic abuse and death of a partner are few and far between. The benefits sytem needs to be ammended to make it uber difficult to get divorced. Just like it used to be.

Also what do you think would happen if one of you lost your job ? Or one of you got ill ( touches wood ) and the other had to give up work to look after the other permanently ?

In the former situation, if my partner lost her primary job, she would have to go out and do something perhaps she wasnt happy with (she isa treained teacher in the private sector at the mo, its an avenue we have had to plan for). If it happens to me, I see going out to work as a personal responsibility. But then again, from the age of 13, I have always tried to better myself, never d*cked around at school and have always put 100% in to my work. And it shows in my CV. The fact that others dont have the discipline in their lives and chose the easy way of d*cking around and not achieving much with their lives is not my problem. Perhaps cutting their benefits to 0 will give them extra impetus to go out and change their lifestyle you never know.

There would be no whining about it would there ? You wouldn't be able to work full stop. But you'd now be 'scum' according to you. How would you be able to 'dig potatoes' if ( again, touches wood it never happens to you ) but your wife needed 24/7 care ? Or you did ?

If that were to happen, there are schemes for carers of long term sick partners. Hey, life is tough I am afraid. If life deals you a sh*tty set, its up to you to crack on and see how you play them. There are people in this country far worse off than yourself so how about "chin-up" and "crack on"?

Leaving this thread. It's so depressing all the people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, because they've never been there, and never think they ever might be. They'll only be happy when we bring back workhouses for the poor, yet are quite happy ( and make little fuss ) about those in the House of Lords coining in £150 a day just for turning up and £300 a day if the stay there for a wee sleep for a few hours... doesn't make sense to me.

Workhouses -naa, tell you what though,halve the dole and bring back food kitchens serving, cheap, affordable healthy nutritious food to the masses that cant be @rsed to cook their hordes of obese offspring anything other than microwave chips and turkey twizzlers.

The walk to/from the cookhouse will help them in their new life too.

lemonjelly

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Not really. All I ask for is this:



IE, stop their incapacity, as they are capable of work, but choose not to. That may not be picking spuds. But it will probably be menial. :rotfl:

Already happening. I've already posted a number of times here that both the previous & current governments are bringing in a regime of conditionality into the benefits system. In reality, I anticipate this will affect all benefits, except possibly DLA. All benefits claimants are likely to see changes in that there will be requirements from them in order to maintain their entitlement to benefits. The obvious one (which has already started) is Incapacity/ESA. ESA claimants are required to co-operate with the jobcentre to improve employability. If they don't co-operate, their benefits will be reduced, & ultimately removed. People who claim JSA will probably be heavily hit too. Plus they're an easier target for the government.

vaporate wrote: »

you cant put ppl in jobs they wont like, they will simply quit, plus waste employers time/money.

No doubt the tories will play on this act by saying 'look at us were cuttign down unemployed.

What they are really doing is screwing the unemployed by offering crap/wrong jobs to the wrong people.

Bring it on indeed because it will not 'wash' as they say.

Not true. The conditions of entitlement state that you are available "for any job". You cannot put restrictions on the type of job you will or won't consider. If you do, you'll be sanctioned. And rightly so.

Most people have jobs they don't necessarily want, or are unlikely to have chosen. It is the lucky few who get the dream job they want.

A lot of people seem to be missing some of the fundamental side effects of employment which are beneficial - structure to life, personal & proffessional development, social contact, learning, the ability to carry out & understand different roles, a job well done, job satisfaction, making a difference.

I read this thread & see a number of you arguing opposite sides. Unfortunately the main thisng you are highlighting in your posts is a genuine lack of understanding about the benefits system, what it entails, how it operates, how it affects people. I'd encourage you to carry out a bit more research (other than reading the daily mail) on why we actually have a benefits system, how it works, & who it relates to.

loopylou121

I agree with George. My husband was unemployed for the first time in his life last year and claimed benefits and was horrified by the attitude of the majority of other claimants. He as told by the Job Centre about 60% were on drugs, there were fights every week and the staff had got past caring. The system needs a shake-up.

ILW

loopylou121 wrote: »

I agree with George. My husband was unemployed for the first time in his life last year and claimed benefits and was horrified by the attitude of the majority of other claimants. He as told by the Job Centre about 60% were on drugs, there were fights every week and the staff had got past caring. The system needs a shake-up.

Is it true that you get a higher level of benefits if you have a drug or alcohol problem?

mbga9pgf

ILW wrote: »

Is it true that you get a higher level of benefits if you have a drug or alcohol problem?

They should have less !!!!!!!

Anyone with an addiction (drug) should be sent on a 6 month detox courtesy of HMP, via a dry out clinic. 2 months in the clinic to get straightened out, before you hit the cells and experience cold turkey the hard way, in solitary for the remainder of your 6 months.

ILW

mbga9pgf wrote: »

They should have less !!!!!!!

.

But they need more.
Crack and Stella are not cheap you know.

mbga9pgf

Perhaps the government should flood the market with pure heroin and be done with them all?