Question Time

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

yes but he is just one example of why the current way of doing things is wrong. this is why people are silly to defend it.

But you seem to be saying nothing should be done which is just as bad. Even if the people milking the system are a minority which I think they are something has to be done.

lemonjelly

ukcarper wrote: »

Those cases are very bad as is the way the re-assessments have been done, I think the number of successful appeals shows that. But I still think the benefit system needs to be overhauled I'm not saying the government are going about it the right way just that something needs to be done.

I agree that the system needs an upgarde, but what is being done will create a bigger & more expensive mess, at the cost of many of the most needy.

donnajunkie wrote: »

foreigners get the jobs because they can be exploited easily. benefits have been around for a long time. mass immigration hasnt.

In the grand scheme, mass immigration has been around far longer than benefits. Look at the influx of jews in the 1800's following the pogroms. The influx around the world wars. Both pre-date the benefits system.

GeorgeHowell

donnajunkie wrote: »

you dont think the majority are innocent. so you think the majority are workshy then? you dont believe that they dont distinguish when a cut is applied. any cut that is applied applies to everyone.

I don't know whether it's a majority that are not deserving to live on benefits for ever. But I do know that there's a lot of them. And as people keep saying, something must be done to weed out the scroungers. It won't be perfect because nothing ever is, but it will be better then doing nothing until the country is completely bankrupted. All this tosh about it hitting just the most deserving and those at the bottom of the pile is just leftist propaganda. It's put about by those whose agenda is political, and bought into by the gullible and by those who have a vested interest in allowing f e c k less wasters to live free off the rest of us.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

I realise that jobs are hard to get and in some cases people on benefits might struggle but a couple with 2 kids will have £258 a week after paying rent and council tax I don’t think that puts them on the poverty line.

i agree but the problem is they arent the only people who will be targeted. the person under 25 who has been responsible enough to not have loads of kids will be targeted with the removal of housing benefit for under 25's.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

Those cases are very bad as is the way the re-assessments have been done, I think the number of successful appeals shows that. But I still think the benefit system needs to be overhauled I'm not saying the government are going about it the right way just that something needs to be done.

what they are doing shows their intention isnt to help. people need to keep that in mind when they are sending disabled people onto back to work schemes.

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

foreigners get the jobs because they can be exploited easily. benefits have been around for a long time. mass immigration hasnt.

I am not sure why immigrants get the jobs and indigenous people don’t . I’m not that far from Aldershot and there has been a big influx of Nepalese and many of them are now working for large companies in the are and I don’t think they are being exploited.

lemonjelly

ukcarper wrote: »

But you seem to be saying nothing should be done which is just as bad. Even if the people milking the system are a minority which I think they are something has to be done.

Errors by benefits staff costs twice as much as estimated fraud.
How about we recruit, train & pay a decent quality of staff to ensure benefits are appropriately & proportionately paid?

Second, around 50% od DLA appeals are successful. This means that around half the original decisions are wrong. Again, get in high quality well trained staff who are better at the decision making process, & you'll make savings at commissioner appeals levels, as well as reducing numbers of appeals.

However, as I've said before following the tax avoidance palava, where davey boy criticised jimmy carr, but then didn't want to comment on specific cases like lord ashton & his non-dom belize situation, or supporters like gary barlow:

lemonjelly wrote: »

A week of headlines baying against the rich and their tax avoidance schemes is suddenly turned on it's head and the dogs are let loose on those who don't have any money.

Cut housing benefit for those under 25 - force more people to live with their parents into adulthood with potential for more overcrowding situations. Those who, for whatever reason, can't stay at home are faced with the greatest level of youth unemployment in generations without the means or the back up of welfare state to support themselves so homelessness will increase.

This is policy on the hoof designed to play to the hard core Tory voters who want an "honest and open debate" - spin for cut the welfare bill and let them rot.

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

i agree but the problem is they arent the only people who will be targeted. the person under 25 who has been responsible enough to not have loads of kids will be targeted with the removal of housing benefit for under 25's.

I've already said I don't agree with removing lha from under 25s but you can't use that as an argument to do nothing.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

But you seem to be saying nothing should be done which is just as bad. Even if the people milking the system are a minority which I think they are something has to be done.

the time to target the workshy is when there are plenty of jobs. if everyone who wants a job has got one you can then put those left on a work scheme that is permanent.

donnajunkie

lemonjelly wrote: »

In the grand scheme, mass immigration has been around far longer than benefits. Look at the influx of jews in the 1800's following the pogroms. The influx around the world wars. Both pre-date the benefits system.

yes but it has only been recently that immigration has been connected with keeping british people out of work. people say it is because they like being on benefits. so i pointed out how benefits have been in existence alot longer.