the snap general election thread

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

It happens, but is she representative of the people receiving benefits (disability, PIP, working tax credits, child benefit, jobseekers)? Or is she the outlier that is skewing your perception of them?

I know more people on benefits that live very frugally in very basic houses, spend almost nothing on themselves and still struggle to get by, than I know people on benefits like the above. Of course, they rarely get to be on "Benefits Street" or whatever the reality shows are, because they make really crap TV.

From the way all her mates were agreeing with her she was part of a significant minority.

As you say, it is quite possible to live on the benefits people are given so long as they use the money in the right way.

What really annoys me is when people insist on being given expensive houses in specific towns because they have friends there. If it is so they can get to work, and not a job that is 2 hours a week or whatever, but full time work that might actually turn their lives around, then fair enough. But why should we pay for people to live in a certain town because they want to, when people that pay for their own homes have to cut the cloth according to their means.

I also overheard a discussion between a mother and daughter, the mother was holding a young baby. This was in a caf! so not a private conversation. The mother was having a go at the daughter. That didn't surprise me, what did surprise me, and I remember the exact words even now, the mother said "you are 14, you should have at least two kids by now, that way you could get your own house and I wouldn't have to work any more", the young child was the mother of the baby. She went on to tell her how she could get more points by doing this and that. I suppose I should be grateful that the mother wasn't saying she would throw the child on the streets to get her a house quicker.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

When they couldn't afford the fridge/cereal/milk?
When they work night shifts and can't supervise the kids going to school?
When they just don't care?

Having a family member teach in a school where a lot of that happened, quite often the only decent meals the kids ate were breakfast/lunch at school, and giving them some breakfast helped them learn a lot better throughout the day. Do you really object to helping those kids out with a slice of toast in the morning?

Why should everyone get a free breakfast? Because it costs absolutely sod all to provide and helps them out. It also prevents the struggling kids from being singled out as needing help. And kids learn better when they've eaten.

I'm a big fan of free breakfasts at school. It's a good start to the day, and it helps get kids in on time. It's pretty popular. Plus..it might spread the commuting bottlenecks a bit.

I'm also a fan of quality transport into school which is low cost/cheap.

But....we have to realise these are sometimes sticking plasters.

For example, there was a radio case yesterday, where a mother in Liverpool sent her 7 year old to ask if they could get food from the foodbank.

The issue was that it was half term, and the free breakfast/lunch was not available.

It's a hard listen, but seriously, we should try and understand why this lady can't plan/cope.

There are often more complex issues under the surface.

Herzlos

People with specific demands for housing tend to be very far down the list. Distant family member was offered a house in a town she doesn't know, declined it wanting to stay local and is essentially at the bottom of the list again.

Getting a house just for popping kids out doesn't really happen these days either, though there's still the assumption that it does. Especially when they aren't old enough to live on their own.

I'm not saying that conversation didn't happen, but it really doesn't reflect the reality - that grandmother would have quite a disappointment when her daughter isn't given a house right away.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm a big fan of free breakfasts at school. It's a good start to the day, and it helps get kids in on time. It's pretty popular. Plus..it might spread the commuting bottlenecks a bit.

I'm also a fan of quality transport into school which is low cost/cheap.

But....we have to realise these are sometimes sticking plasters.

For example, there was a radio case yesterday, where a mother in Liverpool sent her 7 year old to ask if they could get food from the foodbank.

The issue was that it was half term, and the free breakfast/lunch was not available.

It's a hard listen, but seriously, we should try and understand why this lady can't plan/cope.

There are often more complex issues under the surface.

Definitely, I omitted the issues with school holidays. We often saw pretty ill looking kids on the Monday morning because they'd barely eaten all weekend. 6 weeks of holidays are significantly worse. The school in question didn't do breakfasts either, the teachers were bringing in bread and a toaster themselves to do it entirely under the radar.

There's plenty of things I'm sure we could stand to give up, but school meals should absolutely not be one of them.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

People with specific demands for housing tend to be very far down the list. Distant family member was offered a house in a town she doesn't know, declined it wanting to stay local and is essentially at the bottom of the list again.

Getting a house just for popping kids out doesn't really happen these days either, though there's still the assumption that it does. Especially when they aren't old enough to live on their own.

I'm not saying that conversation didn't happen, but it really doesn't reflect the reality - that grandmother would have quite a disappointment when her daughter isn't given a house right away.

But labour want to put it back that way.

Housing benefit was withdrawn for 18-21 year olds for a reason, my thinking is that kids that age should still be living with their parents.

Not sure how a kid at that age ever got given housing, only know what I heard, it is not something you forget.

It was a good few years ago, the caf! has been closed a while, must be about 8 years ago. We stopped drinking at that caf! because he got very upset that my friend had the cheek to give her toddler daughter a drink that he did not provide, regardless of the fact that he did not sell any drinks that she could actually drink and that we used to buy drinks from him. His caf! closed down not long after that actually, turned out we were not the only ones he was having a go at.

Herzlos

It wasn't the case under recent Labour either, and I'm not aware of any plans to change how the housing policy works (since it's local council led).

Labour certainly want to make life easier for the people on the bottom, but that doesn't mean they're all going suddenly get this mythical free ride.

kabayiri

ukcarper wrote: »

Education is a good thing it's the aim of getting most people into university that is wrong in my view. The majority of jobs do not need university education so if the majority go to university a large number will be disappointed. We need to get back to the stage where there are good opportunities and training for people who don't go to university and reduce the number of university places to jobs that require a university education then they will be able to be funded properly.

But the Higher Education sector has become an industry in it's own right.

These Universities know that they need volume to create facilities; facilities create selling points to often foreign students, who are the ones who bring in the big money.

It's become a self sustaining entity.

I wonder whether this is a common outcome when we throw out pragmatism and variety, and replace with politically driven dogma?

mayonnaise

Voted.

Safe Tory seat here (Phil Hammond), so my vote for Team Jezza won't count for much.

Happy voting all.

kabayiri

Difficult Q time last night.

Daughter interrupts my music session with an important question. Clearly, first vote is playing on her mind.

"Is there anything I can do to stop the Tory winning our seat?"

The obvious answer was to vote LibDem, against her instinct to vote Labour.

"Well, it depends if you want to vote *for* something, or to *stop* something happening", I added.

Hmm, at least she isn't one of those who thinks windmills are going to save the world.

Idealism in our young, or early adoption of cynicism. What should prevail?

Filo25

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 44% (-1)
LAB: 36% (-4)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 4% (+2)
GRN: 2% (-)

(via @IpsosMORI)
Chgs. with 01 Jun

19% of voters still say they might change their mind.