Benefit Changes and Local Elections

Boots888

Itismehonest wrote: »

Not sure what any of that has to do with choosing your local Councillors. They have absolutely no control over any of those things & so anyone who voted for those reasons really didn't vote for anything at all - they just had a whinge about the Government.

If Local Elections were run on local matters then more people might vote & more might actually get done locally. While the Local Elections are just sounding boards for the disgruntled then the population deserves what it gets - normally Local Councils blaming Central Government & vice versa & no improvements for the electorate at all.

Yes quite!!

Local elections really are futile. I lived in the Chiltern Hills whose councils were always run by Conservative rich snobs. Still are and always will be. Never in a million years would Labour get in there, what with so many tory toffs having second homes in that beautiful area.

Hence my surprise at HS2 plans to rip through that countryside getting the go ahead, thought I note far from their back yards.

I still say get out and vote!! Maybe it was my Mum's influence, but she'd have loved a revolution and never got one so maybe I'll just "give up" like most of the population and spend those voting days doing the crossword or washing my hair.

Boots888

They say you vote with your feet. But English don't in the elections.

I vote with my feet - I fly Ryanair, I'm happy with the cost, understand the rules and regulations, lower my expectation and standard and am very happy with the service.

Voting for political party's that have wider control over my life and welfare and the state of the country is a different ballgame altogether and more people should realise the importance of it. If they don't vote, locally or nationally, they shouldn't opine on anything and forums should be kept to giving advise on lesser issues - ie anything that doesn't involve the public purse ie - crime, education, health, transport, welfare.

Ooh, well that would shut down most forums overnight!!!

BigAunty

Maybe the apathy is because while there are significant changes and flaws in the new benefits system, the public generally thinks it a revision to the system is well overdue.

When Beveridge drew up the welfare state, I believe he based his policy on the belief that there would be around 3% unemployment, not the 9% of the present day with millions in part time employment.

Also, he envisaged a 'hand up' system of temporary assistance so not the one where nearly 3 million of working age were drawing Incapacity Benefit, meaning some cities had 1 in 5 of their working population on IB, often for many years.

He couldn't envisage the high cost/low wage economy which has produced a benefits trap where quite bizarrely many households with children are actually better off if they work less.

zagfles

Boots888 wrote: »

They say you vote with your feet. But English don't in the elections.

I vote with my feet - I fly Ryanair, I'm happy with the cost, understand the rules and regulations, lower my expectation and standard and am very happy with the service.

Voting for political party's that have wider control over my life and welfare and the state of the country is a different ballgame altogether and more people should realise the importance of it. If they don't vote, locally or nationally, they shouldn't opine on anything and forums should be kept to giving advise on lesser issues - ie anything that doesn't involve the public purse ie - crime, education, health, transport, welfare.

Ooh, well that would shut down most forums overnight!!!

Trouble is most people don't understand these things well enough to have a sensible opinion on them. Particularly benefits, as we see time and time again. People just chose to believe propaganda which reinforces their inbuilt predujices, and reject that which doesn't. Rather than analysing what's actually happening.

Left-wingers will automatically believe headlines like "Tories targetting sick and disabled", and right wingers will believe ones like "benefits are far too generous" without bothering to dig deeper and find out if the headlines are actually true, or under what circumstances they might be true. And whether there's another side to the argument. They confirm their in-built prejudices, so they believe them. And then use that as a basis for their opinion.

The amount of times people have come on here really worried after reading some biased article implying their tax credits will be stopped, or massively cut, and when they post their circumstances we find there won't be any cut, quite often an increase!

Blatent lies are told eg people on £17k losing £4k WTC as a result of the new 24 hour rule, which is utter rubbish. Or no family on more than £26k will get CTC, again utter rubbish. (even HMRC told this lie!).

Boots888

BigAunty wrote: »

Maybe the apathy is because while there are significant changes and flaws in the new benefits system, the public generally thinks it a revision to the system is well overdue.

When Beveridge drew up the welfare state, I believe he based his policy on the belief that there would be around 3% unemployment, not the 9% of the present day with millions in part time employment.

Also, he envisaged a 'hand up' system of temporary assistance so not the one where nearly 3 million of working age were drawing Incapacity Benefit, meaning some cities had 1 in 5 of their working population on IB, often for many years.

He couldn't envisage the high cost/low wage economy which has produced a benefits trap where quite bizarrely many households with children are actually better off if they work less.

Beverage drew up a great system in the welfare state and it's envied throughout the world, fundamentally it did and should still work.

But you are right, even he couldn't envisage the changes that would occur ahead. Mass migration to the UK, immigrants claiming on the system, massive rise in single parenthood and the breakup of the family, the loss of jobs and disgracefull handling of the banks and the economy, the selling off of British institutions to companies abroad, the privatisation of the same, the loss of manufacturing and industry, the change in benefits claiments moved from unemployment benefit to sick benefit to dodge the figures by the Thatcher regime, the stupid money spent on futile foreign aggressive wars and the futility of millions being given in aid, the waste of money spent on quangos and advisors, the corruption in governments along the way, the lack of investing in social housing having sold off housing stock, the poor quality of education and lack of hope for the young who are our future, the higher cost of crime, the rise and inevitable difficulty in tackling internet crime alone.. to name but a few.

Nobody could have envisaged how the country could have deteriorated to such an awful extent and society, ie us are to blame for much of it but -many of the above are supposed to have been managed by the state over the last sixty years and when some are difficult to keep on to off, many have been left, willingly, to get worse to the point of some things will never recover.

I myself grew up in the 90's 2010's - When I relied on the state I had !!!! education, I've been a victim of crime many times (an unacceptable amount of times) My housing has been !!!! time and time again, I've tolerate antisocial behaviour for years that nobody did anything about, I can't afford public transport and certainly not to keep even a cheap car on the road - I can't get a job cause there aren't any. I was lucky in my earlier years when there was hope and opportunities. I'd hate to be young now and I blame it all on the government.

So maybe Beveredge didn't expect 3 million people on the sick but I'm sure if he saw the state of the country now and the lack of support for those who are too ill to work, he'd surprised the figure isn't any higher.

But yes his intentions were good.

Boots888

zagfles wrote: »

Trouble is most people don't understand these things well enough to have a sensible opinion on them. Particularly benefits, as we see time and time again. People just chose to believe propaganda which reinforces their inbuilt predujices, and reject that which doesn't. Rather than analysing what's actually happening.

Left-wingers will automatically believe headlines like "Tories targetting sick and disabled", and right wingers will believe ones like "benefits are far too generous" without bothering to dig deeper and find out if the headlines are actually true, or under whatcircimstances they might be true. And whether there's another side to the argument. They confirm their in-built prejudices, so they believe them. And then use that as a basis for their opinion.



The amount of times people have come on here really worried after reading some biased article implying their tax credits will be stopped, or massively cut, and when they post their circumstances we find there won't be any cut, quite often an increase!

Blatent lies are told eg people on £17k losing £4k WTC as a result of the new 24 hour rule, which is utter rubbish. Or no family on more than £26k will get CTC, again utter rubbish. (even HMRC told this lie!).

Yes people are panicking, some rightly so and others by reading posts and misunderstanding.

Many are losing out though, cuts are being made and made retrospectivley. Cont ESA is one - that's not right.

I don't agree with child benefit, any of it in fact but I wouldn't rip it out from under the feet of those that rely on it now.

OK put a cap on Housing benefit but don't expect half of those reliant on the benefit living in London to up stick and move to hull, tomorrow!!!



Make changes but not like this.

Dunroamin

Anubis wrote: »

Short term...but long term the seats have to be won back in a main election, so every seat taken now is important if people want change.

You sound like you're confusing a general election with the local elections.

krisskross

Anubis wrote: »

Short term...but long term the seats have to be won back in a main election, so every seat taken now is important if people want change.

Local and General elections are totally different. For many years I have voted for one party in a General Election but vote for a different party to look after local issues and spend my council tax wisely.

krisskross

Boots888 wrote: »

I myself grew up in the 90's 2010's - When I relied on the state I had !!!! education, I've been a victim of crime many times (an unacceptable amount of times) My housing has been !!!! time and time again, I've tolerate antisocial behaviour for years that nobody did anything about, I can't afford public transport and certainly not to keep even a cheap car on the road - I can't get a job cause there aren't any. I was lucky in my earlier years when there was hope and opportunities. I'd hate to be young now and I blame it all on the government.

So maybe Beveredge didn't expect 3 million people on the sick but I'm sure if he saw the state of the country now and the lack of support for those who are too ill to work, he'd surprised the figure isn't any higher.

But yes his intentions were good.

You are still very young if you grew up in the '90s. I have been a victim of crime once. State education for my children and grandchildren has been fine.....they have all achieved very good standards of literacy, numeracy etc. As a parent and grandparent I would have accepted nothing less

There are jobs. I have been offered 3 in the last 3 years and I am retired and not even looking for work. However I do have skills and qualifications. Do you?

BTW I don't like to correct other's posts but it is William Beveridge.

Anubis_2

Dunroamin wrote: »

You sound like you're confusing a general election with the local elections.

Yes I am... New medication, head is everywhere! :rotfl:

Either way whoever wins in 2015 - will it make any difference?

I kind of think it should be compulsary to vote, but then you would get tactical and throw away votes I think. Would be interesting though if everyone was made to vote at least in the general election!