Voting Intentions since the Spending Review

SingleSue

markharding557 wrote: »

Singlesue in the eyes of the tories and many on here you are the lowest of the low in the scheme of things,cameron once referred benefit claimants as 'benefit scroungers' these are the people you support.

Well at least we think the same then......I do see myself as the lowest of the low.

Degenerate

SingleSue wrote: »

Just because I claim benefits, does not mean that I should change my political views, it is hardly the Conservative party fault that my husband decided the arms of my best friend were better than mine or that my children are disabled!

So let's abolish benefits. Why should any of my tax money go to subsidizing you? You and your children can live on the street and eat scraps.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

markharding557 wrote: »

Singlesue in the eyes of the tories and many on here you are the lowest of the low in the scheme of things,cameron once referred benefit claimants as 'benefit scroungers' these are the people you support.

I'm a Tory.

I don't think Sue is the lowest of the low at all.

There is a big difference between benefits claimants and benefits scroungers.

Degenerate

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm a Tory.

I don't think Sue is the lowest of the low at all.

There is a big difference between benefits claimants and benefits scroungers.

Indeed. Could you explain exactly how the Tory reductions in benefits make this distinction?

cashbackproblems

Degenerate wrote: »

So let's abolish benefits. Why should any of my tax money go to subsidizing you? You and your children can live on the street and eat scraps.

LOL!!

Dont completely agree with that, but do think there should be stricter rules around claiming and also those you claim to be disabled can do community service/cleaning streets/things which they are able to. Dont just the disabled but all unemployed

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Degenerate wrote: »

Indeed. Could you explain exactly how the Tory reductions in benefits make this distinction?

They don't make that distinction nearly well enough.

Which is why I think the benefits reforms don't go far enough.

I would like to see much bigger change. Where a limited pool of funding is not being used to subsidise middle class families, and pay shirkers, fraudsters and cheats not to work.

Meaning more money for the genuinely needy, but none at all for the rest.

mbga9pgf

Degenerate wrote: »

Indeed. Could you explain exactly how the Tory reductions in benefits make this distinction?

Quite simple. If you are getting your benefits stopped, you can assume you were a scrounger.

Degenerate

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

They don't make that distinction nearly well enough.

They don't make that distinction at all. They place arbitrary limits regardless of need or claimant track-record. There will be lower-level scroungers unaffected by the changes, whilst some higher-level worthy claimants are getting shafted.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Degenerate wrote: »

They don't make that distinction at all. They place arbitrary limits regardless of need or claimant track-record. There will be lower-level scroungers unaffected by the changes, whilst some higher-level worthy claimants are getting shafted.

And your solution is?

Degenerate

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And your solution is?

I could think of a few ideas. Making long term, non-carer claimant's benefits dependent on participation in some sort of community service work program is definitely in order - we have to do something to remove sitting on your @rse as a lifestyle choice. I'm sure if we got our heads together we could come up with more.

But anyway, I wasn't claiming to have a magic wand. You're the one who brought up the distinction between worthy claimants and scroungers whilst simultaneously declaring your support for the government whose policies are indiscriminately hitting both. They're not even attempting to distinguish between the two. They continue to insinuate that the unemployed are so by choice - witness IDS repeating Tebbit's "On yer bike" line - content to ignore the fact that we've just exited recession and still have an unemployment overhang that may get worse because of their slash-and-burn.

The effects of the recent changes hit those with large families who live in expensive areas. This is just as likely to be those who were self-sufficient until recent misfortune as those who have chosen a lifestyle of state dependence. In fact, they probably won't affect the Daily Mail's apocryphal workshy family of ten, because the mother receives Incapacity Benefit on account of the extreme obesity she developed stuffing her face with cakes at the taxpayer's expense.