A second Budget: 8th July

backdoorwarrior

billywilly wrote: »

You don't have to achieve 51% or more for it to be a majority - you seem not to know very much about the political arena.

Neither do you. He's making reference to the problems with the two party, first past the post system that we are currently stuck with.

billywilly

Scarla wrote: »

*snorts with laughter*

Is there no end to your talents?

No not really. You would be very surprised if you got to know the 'me' behind this keyboard.

Scarla

billywilly wrote: »

No not really. You would be very surprised if you got to know the 'me' behind this keyboard.

I don't think I would be suprised at all Billy.

billywilly

tazwhoever wrote: »

Is this benefit cuts?

https://welfaretales.wordpress.com/category/death-after-fit-to-work-decision/

If you believe everything that you read then you are a lost soul.

Taken from that article is this statement:

"The 62-year-old amputee’s story drew huge support when he told The News he had been told to find a job despite being terminally ill with lung cancer."

Are we so stupid as to believe that this is what actually happened? Anybody who has a terminal illness with 6 months to live, is AUTOMATICALLY placed in the Support Group of ESA. Additionally when the DWP are presented with a form DS1500 signed by the mediacl authority they are AUTOMATICALLY awarded PIP/DLA.

Both of these benefits have a 'fast track' system in place for such claimants.

I would suggest that the person in question was responsible for the problems he suffered owing to lack of communication with the DWP and not submitting the correct forms

Scarla

billywilly wrote: »

If you believe everything that you read then you are a lost soul.

Taken from that article is this statement:

"The 62-year-old amputee’s story drew huge support when he told The News he had been told to find a job despite being terminally ill with lung cancer."

Are we so stupid as to believe that this is what actually happened? Anybody who has a terminal illness with 6 months to live, is AUTOMATICALLY placed in the Support Group of ESA. Additionally when the DWP are presented with a form DS1500 signed by the mediacl authority they are AUTOMATICALLY awarded PIP/DLA.

Both of these benefits have a 'fast track' system in place for such claimants.

I would suggest that the person in question was responsible for the problems he suffered owing to lack of communication with the DWP and not submitting the correct forms

Wow, just wow.

billywilly

TELLIT01 wrote: »

I have no problem with the so-called bedroom tax in principle. The problem, as with so many Government plans, is with the implementation. It's all very well telling somebody who lives in a 2 bedroom flat that they only qualify for one bedroom, but are there 1 bedroom flats available for them to move to? In many instances no.
It is therefore totally unreasonable for the 'bedroom tax' to be applied to people in that situation. If a one bed has been offered and declined it's a different situation completely.
I would stress that I'm not commenting specifically on davefrombristol's situation as I don't know the detail.

The problem that I have with this is that if you rent in the private sector, you are only paid HB based on the number of bedrooms you need. If you want more then you pay for them out of your income.
If renting in the public sector, you pay a reduced rent (by comparison to the private sector) for no matter how many bedrooms you qualify for. So why should someone paying a lower comparative rent be allowed to live in a property with more bedrooms than they are allowed and get away with it? Let's have a level playing field - you should only get HB for the number of bedrooms you qualify for, and you pay extra for any other bedroom you have.

If there aren't any 1 bed properties in the public sector what is wrong with renting one in the private sector? Alternatively, there are plenty of 1/2 bed properties in the public sector to which you should move to even if it is miles away.

Either pay up or shut up.

billywilly

tea-bag wrote: »

They should cut SMI! Why should people get their mortgage paid? There should be compulsory insurance just like a car.

Simple maths - can't pay the mortgage - no help from the government = repossession = rental property = claim housing benefit!

As for insurance I agree, but it should also be compulsory for those in rental properties also!

No SMI & No Housing Benefit - what a fantastic way in cutting the Welfare bill.

Much like no Contents Insurance - no claim paid.
As I have said before it should also be complulsory to have a level of savings to cope with the unexpected thereby avoiding having to claim ESA or JSA. Maybe £10,000 as a minimum.

billywilly

backdoorwarrior wrote: »

Neither do you. He's making reference to the problems with the two party, first past the post system that we are currently stuck with.

It's a good system - PR would always result in a coalition - and who would want that?

backdoorwarrior

billywilly wrote: »

It's a good system - PR would always result in a coalition - and who would want that?

Like the previous parliment? Or the current parliament where the dominant party has only a 12 MP lead so a small revolt could lose them power?

Also doubtful you are an independent otherwise you're be pro-PR because it would benefit such people.

merlin68

How are minimum wage workers supposed to save 10k. Also SMI is time limited and doesn't pay the whole mortgage just part of the interest.

https://www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest/what-youll-get.