MSE News: George Osborne to make £10bn welfare cuts

clemmatis

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

British welfare was invented as a safety net and that is all it should ever be. Now the lazy and over breeders are using the welfare system as a hammock, to lounge on.

The quicker welfare gets backs to that safety net and the ropes on that hammock are cut, the better for Britain.

Well, really, the origins of the welfare state lie in governments'/elites' recognition that many men needed for war were medically unfit to serve (willing; these were volunteers) and that of those taken on, many were medically unable to fight. And then, there was a perceived need to combat Germany's economic dominance; the Liberal reforms of the early twentieth century were modelled on Bismarck's.

Anyway. The later measures were safety net at a time when full employment was an aim (for Beveridge, this meant under 3% unemployment) and, from 1950-1973, almost a reality. Full employment was a policy aim. The unemployed were not encouraged to register as disabled instead, to hide the true unemployment figures.

That was also a time when council housing had not been sold off and when though of course there was snobbery about living in council housing, it was massively less than it is now.

And the nation was far less unequal, materially, than it is now.

As for the "over-breeders", nations become pro-natalist when they need to -- if they have any sense. I really dislike pro-natalist policies; I believe women should work outside the home. But I suspect the number of women "breeding" simply for the sake of benefits is low.

Dunroamin

clemmatis wrote: »

now what were the unemployment figures again?!

My post was in answer to someone talking about a benefit fraud needing money to eat. I don't believe that there's anyone in the UK (apart from some sick/disabled) who couldn't earn £20 a week if it were that or starve.

no_debt

i f all the people claiming benifits say they want to work. why on this site is there more post on, benifits and tax credits, yet two line up ,employment job seeking and training , has nearly half the amount of post surely the employment should have more post

clemmatis

Dunroamin wrote: »

My post was in answer to someone talking about a benefit fraud needing money to eat. I don't believe that there's anyone in the UK (apart from some sick/disabled) who couldn't earn £20 a week if it were that or starve.

I didn't realise you meant extra money of that kind (because I wouldn't on the whole call that "a job"). Also, more generally, I realise that you probably wouldn't opt for a total stripping of benefits, but I do think some people here really do think that would be fine.

paddedjohn

exarmydreamer wrote: »

Should we all get together for a country supper, followed by a ride out on the loaned police horses. Wouldn't it be great, we could borrow a couple of bottles from the cellars at the commons.

We could then send the left overs to the food bank, then set the dogs on them.

Picture this scene:

Butler: My lady, the poor are starving in the hedgerows, they have no bread.

Lady: Let them eat cake.

The french revolution, the rest is history.:rotfl:

The quote you refer to was never actually said at all apart from a line in a book.

krisskross

Dunroamin wrote: »

My post was in answer to someone talking about a benefit fraud needing money to eat. I don't believe that there's anyone in the UK (apart from some sick/disabled) who couldn't earn £20 a week if it were that or starve.

My newsagent pays £20 a week to his paper boys. Most of the rounds are 20-25 papers a day and local to the newsagent shop.

Cerisa

Anything to back that up Topaziem?

Dunroamin - you can't pay rent, bills or buy food on £20 a week. If someone loses all benefits, that includes housing benefit and council tax.

There were 48,510 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in 2011. This tallies with the fact that in 2011 there was £8m in DHP funds left unspent by councils.

While families with children will often be allocated emergency accommodation, single people - particularly single men - are lowest priority.

I think benefit fraud is reprehensible and it makes me furious, but you can't just abandon other human beings because they're unpleasant.

In terms of getting a job - 500,000 jobs to be had, 2.6 million people seeking them. It's not that simple.

sunnyone

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

I don't get DLA......

As I said you are getting confused between DLA & ESA/IB

You applied for DLA and were turned down last week or the week before :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

So you dont get DLA, you want it though and are appealing the decsion.

exarmydreamer

paddedjohn wrote: »

The quote you refer to was never actually said at all apart from a line in a book.

Wasn't meant as a quote, just to lighten the thread, just a piece of fun, not an error of knowledge.

Cerisa

Staff numbers at HMRC have fallen, from nearly 100,000 in 2004-5 to 68,000 in June 2010, with numbers likely to fall further to 55,000 by 2015. While the government has promised to reinvest £917m of savings back into HMRC, that hasn't happened yet.

Educating 1400 staff won't make up for the loss of 30,000 team members.