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

carolt

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I'm not married, carolt. I have a girlfriend and no kids (and don't plan to have any kids - the world is overpopulated already), yet I still cannot dedicate as much time to MSE as you do with a hubby and THREE kids to look after. I'm sure my GF would feel quite neglected if I was on here as much as yourself, possibly even as much as your hubby and kids feel. tut tut what an appalling mother!

No inconsistences in my back story carolt. I bought a house with my GF in Hays last year. All of it well documented on MSE should you care to check (I was a FTBer and so asked a lot of questions when I first arrived about the procedure of buying a house). Don't you find that it's much easier to remember what you've told people when it's actually true. You should try it some time .

You are Dithering Dad and Topov and I claim my £2.


Dithering Dad was married and had 3 kids. He talked about them a lot. Then he suddenly stopped talking about them. You're him. Ergo you have 3 kids.


It seems blatantly clear to me that you:

(a) are obessessed with me - how many obsessive posts about me have you posted on this thread alone, with no apparent reason?

(b) had a wife and 3 kids but stopped discussing them - I can guess why

(c) have a particular problem with me because I am a woman with 3 kids.

Can I just explain to you gently that I am not your ex-wife, and however much you may hate her pointlessly attacking some random women on the internet who also happens to have 3 kids is a pretty lousy way to get her back/get revenge.


I repeat. I AM NOT YOUR EX-WIFE. I DON'T EVEN LOOK LIKE HER.


Get over it.

JonnyBravo

Hmmmmm...... it's almost as if Harry is trying to get banned. He seems a lot more vociferous than normal.....

Now if only I could spot his latest re-incarnation......

Say, someone who has bought recently? Probably talking a lot about paying down a mortgage? Probably up north so he doesn't have to keep up the pretence of being in Hayes.

Is it really only me that spotted it days ago?

carolt

Quite possibly. I'v not been on much. And seaching for Harry lookalikes is bit unnecessary. They're usually obvious because they're the wan kers who clutter up my threads.

treliac

carolt wrote: »

Quite possibly. I'v not been on much. And seaching for Harry lookalikes is bit unnecessary. They're usually obvious because they're the wan kers who clutter up my threads.

carolt, report him and his crap to Abuse. It's vile. Don't let it grind you down.

treliac

Harry_Powell wrote: »

No inconsistences in my back story carolt. I bought a house with my GF in Hays last year..

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Hmmmmm...... it's almost as if Harry is trying to get banned. He seems a lot more vociferous than normal.....

Say, someone who has bought recently? Probably talking a lot about paying down a mortgage? Probably up north so he doesn't have to keep up the pretence of being in Hayes.

And he doesn't even know how to spell the name of the place he purports to live. :rotfl:

Shakethedisease

Originally Posted by Shakethedisease
No, but there may be quite a few pensioners/wives/families and carers of those in WWII on LHA and benefits that will have experienced and saw much, much worse than you when we were at war last. Some of them were shot for the 'twitching' resulting from shell-shock or just perhaps the complete horror of what they saw as they were fighting,..shot as 'deserters' or 'cowards' by their own. We've moved on... thankfully.
That was First World War, not Second, surely?

I know the thread has 'moved on' ( coughs ).. but just wanted to clarify to NDG that I actually meant both world wars, not just the second one. I didn't make that clear and I apologise for that.

Lemonjelly, I had a read through. I agree, the whole thing won't work as a 'one size fits all' solution. There's a huge difference between those newly jobless, and those who haven't been able to find work for 18 months or so. Those with children those without. Those living in expensive rental areas, those in council housing. Those unable to work because of moderate to severe disabilities ( this taking another member of their family out of the workforce to care for them ).. and those that are temporarily unable to work due to an acute, but curable illness or disease. The list is so endless.

There surely will be no way to take even the simplest things like regional and geographical influences into account. ie :- live somewhere reasonably afflulent where there are jobs going here and there ( even if there are 30 applicants for the same job ).... as opposed to somewhere where the local High St has more 'to let' signs up than you can shake a stick at. Where do you draw the line there ?

The one thing I did find hugely encouraging about the study.. was that the researchers found no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the study was 'workshy'.. and in fact found that most were talking in terms of 'dignity, respect and even 'desperation' to work.

Even more interesting is that they themselves, on benefits, were talking in extremely disparaging terms of those who 'don't WANT to work'.. although the study itself found little evidence of those who actually do feel like this while on benefits. This points to the fact that they too, even while on benefits, are buying into a huge myth about small minorities abusing the system presented as 'the norm' via the media.

Most telling of all, was that most on benefits found the whole system an 'obstruction' to getting back into work, rather than helpful in getting them there.

The above, is where in IMHO the government wants to start getting it right. Wishful thinking I know. Being on benefits should be seen as temporary.. and that help/support/training should be freely and widely available for people to get off it. And once working, it should be an easy and smooth transition.

It's terribly messy atm, and even worse since a lot of jobs that are on offer, are themselves seasonal, 'on commision' or on a variable contract status. Lots are put off by the fact that once the contract ends.. then once again they face paperwork, financial hardships and possible eviction ( the most important factor imho)... until things are sorted again ( until the next contract ? ). Most, understandably don't want to risk that sort of financial uncertainly for their families for the sake of a temporary contract that may or may not be re-newed after 12 weeks ( for example).

Just cutting finances as 'incentives' to get working again ? The jobs aren't there yet to pick up the slack and won't be for quite some time. And it's the people absolutely desperate to work, and are profiled across all demographics in this study, that will suffer. A real shame.

Thanks for posting this up. Real food for thought..

neverdespairgirl

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I know the thread has 'moved on' ( coughs ).. but just wanted to clarify to NDG that I actually meant both world wars, not just the second one. I didn't make that clear and I apologise for that.

There must be almost no widows etc left from the First World War, though.

morag1202

lemonjelly wrote: »

I've said before, there are a number of people posting on this thread who (by the nature of their posts) clearly don't understand the benefits system, how it operates, why it is there, etc.

So, a little education. How many welfare benefits are there? Not including tax credits? 23.

The government is interested in creating one benefit to fit all working age people.

Here is their initial report & evidence http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/report_abstracts/rr_abstracts/rra_659.asp

Please, click on the link, have a read, come back & contribute following that.

In my view, the one size fits all benefit will never happen. Not a chance. Too many variables. The legislation will be too complex, & too lengthy. People won't be able to understand it properly. IMO of course.

Thanks for posting that, interesting insight into how Labour (I assume) were thinking. I like the concept but agree it is probably unworkable and would not make it into law. The possibility of HMRC running it make a lot of sense.

I've wondered for a long time if there is any scope in the setting of tax allowances to incentivize work and make it pay.

mbga9pgf

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

There must be almost no widows etc left from the First World War, though.

They also miss the point that there was, and still is a war widows pension.

To come out with some of the !!!! that benefits are down to war is absolute nonsense. It had far more to do with the great depression than it ever had to do with losses sustained during the war by brave, brave people.

Comparing your average benefits leech of today, who has the additional benefit of minimum wage, health and safety at work etc with those who gave much of their lives so we can be free is a slur on their memory IMO.

Shakethedisease

Originally Posted by neverdespairgirl
There must be almost no widows etc left from the First World War, though.
They also miss the point that there was, and still is a war widows pension.

To come out with some of the !!!! that benefits are down to war is absolute nonsense. It had far more to do with the great depression than it ever had to do with losses sustained during the war by brave, brave people.

Oh for goodness sake ! I'm not going to start spouting out chapter and verse on the many factors, conflicts and social changes that took place and led up to the creation of the welfare state in the UK ( I recommend Andrew Marr's 'The Making of Modern Britain' as a very informative read though )...

What I was saying was the brave people who fought in two world wars.. would probably be absolutely horrified at the notion that someone such as yourself, would be actively advocating starving those who are already living at the lowest levels of existance, and their children... as you were earlier on in the thread. It's bordering on right-wing extremism.. and was the very thing they were fighting against happening in this country.

I hope that makes my point clear enough for you ?

Moving on...