Please sign This petition Ian Duncan Smith to live on £53 a week.

mandi

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

IDS didn't have to live on JSA indefinitely, though, did he? He got a job.

I won't be signing the petition.

Well fan bloody dabi doesy for him eh .

:whistle:

I'm sure the petition will be sooo much worse off without your signature

mazza111

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

IDS didn't have to live on JSA indefinitely, though, did he? He got a job.

I won't be signing the petition.

The point isn't whether or not he got a job. It was the fact that he said he could, and the fact that he said he had lived on the breadline after 2 bouts of unemployment..sure he did...

I won't be signing the petition either, as I seen it as just to raise awareness to show how hard some people will be having things.

Pollycat

getzls wrote: »

Of course he could survive on it for a week, even a few weeks or months.

But how soul destroying must it be to survive on it indefinitely?

That's what he needs to try.

And that's why I think this specific petition is a load of rubbish.

If he agreed to do it and managed it for a year, what would it prove?

Nothing - because his basic situation is different to somebody who really, really does have to live on £53 per week.
Because IDS would know that, regardless of how bad it got, there is an end in sight.
People on benefits don't have that luxury.

And that's been my position on this thread all along, I've said earlier that I'm not sure these particular cuts are the right way to reduce the benefits bill (which, imho) needs to be done but I sure as hell don't think signing this petition will do anything positive to change the government's mind - and that's the whole point Isn't it?

Dunroamin

getzls wrote: »

Of course he could survive on it for a week, even a few weeks or months.

But how soul destroying must it be to survive on it indefinitely?

That's what he needs to try.

Seeing that the only people who would have to live on this amount (£57 not £53) are healthy under 25s, do we actually want to be paying an amount that will be comfortable for them to live on indefinitely, particularly as the majority of them will be living in the parental home? The UK has a big enough problem with NEETS already, without making a benefit lifestyle any more desirable.

If this was the amount payable for older people it would be a totally different situation, but it isn't.

Pollycat

euronorris wrote: »

That may well be true, but I am willing to bet that he had significant savings or other income to rely on. A lot of people don't have that luxury. So I doubt his experience

I bet he had either significant savings or other income or family help too.

And I agree his experience of being unemployed was unlikely to have been the same as most people's.
And, even if he does agree to live on £53 per week for a year, his experience will still be different to what real people have to deal with - because it won't be real.

euronorris wrote: »

For anyone to make such a claim, they should be willing to back it up and prove they could do it. If, for no other reason than to have a better understanding of people from all levels of income, not just their own. They are representing the country of course, not just a select few, right?

As I've said above and earlier, I can't see what this crazy suggestion (and petition) would prove.

I would prefer the people who are making policy decisions that affect millions of people do exactly that - with the added component of actually 'understanding all people from all levels of income - instead of spending a year of their time a**sing about trying to prove or disprove somebody's silly misconceived idea.

Teahfc

I am sure anyone who used their free education under 25 and is not happy getting £57 could find something, it's all about what are they prepared to do rather sit on their back sides on the Internet signing worthless petitions ! If you got a job paying twice that a week you would get help. It's a free country get off your sofa and get looking ! Very little sympathy for those that don't make effort.

clemmatis

Teahfc wrote: »

I am sure anyone who used their free education under 25 and is not happy getting £57 could find something, it's all about what are they prepared to do rather sit on their back sides on the Internet signing worthless petitions ! If you got a job paying twice that a week you would get help. It's a free country get off your sofa and get looking ! Very little sympathy for those that don't make effort.

I am sure that if you did just a little bit of work you'd find there are fewer jobs than there are active job seekers You might even manage to find out that many opponents of the cuts are not claiming out of work benefits. But that might be too much like hard work.

clemmatis

Teahfc wrote: »

I am sure anyone who used their free education under 25 and is not happy getting £57 could find something, it's all about what are they prepared to do rather sit on their back sides on the Internet signing worthless petitions ! If you got a job paying twice that a week you would get help. It's a free country get off your sofa and get looking ! Very little sympathy for those that don't make effort.

I am sure that if you did just a little bit of work you'd find there are fewer jobs than there are active job seekers. You might even manage to find out that many opponents of the cuts are not claiming out of work benefits. But that might be too much like hard work.

guilds

Dunroamin wrote: »

Seeing that the only people who would have to live on this amount (£57 not £53) are healthy under 25s, do we actually want to be paying an amount that will be comfortable for them to live on indefinitely, particularly as the majority of them will be living in the parental home? The UK has a big enough problem with NEETS already, without making a benefit lifestyle any more desirable.

If this was the amount payable for older people it would be a totally different situation, but it isn't.

If this about making work pay it should be achieved by raising the minimum wage - not by cutting benefits. If the benefits are higher than what people get paid, then people aren't being paid fairly, simples as a meerkat once said

Pollycat

guilds wrote: »

If this about making work pay it should be achieved by raising the minimum wage - not by cutting benefits. If the benefits are higher than what people get paid, then people aren't being paid fairly, simples as a meerkat once said

Not quite so 'simples' if you look at it another way:
If the benefits are higher than what people get paid, then (some) people are being paid too much in benefits......