Are U1of 3million+ #ExcludedUK Getting NO Govt Support? Join us!

lincroft1710

If a campaign exaggerates the number of people who are affected by whatever it is the campaign is about, it begins to lose credibility and consequently support. If it tries to include people who do not need to be included, it loses more credibility and support. If clearly there is no way in its present format, it can hope achieve its aims, not only will it lose credibility and support but also make it easily dismissed by those who have the power to do what the campaign asks for

Jeremy535897

lincroft1710 said:

If a campaign exaggerates the number of people who are affected by whatever it is the campaign is about, it begins to lose credibility and consequently support. If it tries to include people who do not need to be included, it loses more credibility and support. If clearly there is no way in its present format, it can hope achieve its aims, not only will it lose credibility and support but also make it easily dismissed by those who have the power to do what the campaign asks for

Didn't happen with the £350 million on the side of the bus, though.

gary83

Jeremy535897 said:

lincroft1710 said:

If a campaign exaggerates the number of people who are affected by whatever it is the campaign is about, it begins to lose credibility and consequently support. If it tries to include people who do not need to be included, it loses more credibility and support. If clearly there is no way in its present format, it can hope achieve its aims, not only will it lose credibility and support but also make it easily dismissed by those who have the power to do what the campaign asks for

Didn't happen with the £350 million on the side of the bus, though.

That campaign was expensively run by weasely experts like Cummings though, so it’s not really comparing like with like. Much as we might all dislike that man both for his personal and his professional behaviour he and those employed alongside him obviously knows what they’re doing, they’re professionals at running campaigns, spinning statistics and misleading the public. His value to the PM was demonstrated by Boris quite happily putting up with the media storm he created and not demanding a resignation. In contrast I can’t help thinking the excluded campaign is being run by amateurs and not particularly gifted ones at that.

Jeremy535897

gary83 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

lincroft1710 said:

If a campaign exaggerates the number of people who are affected by whatever it is the campaign is about, it begins to lose credibility and consequently support. If it tries to include people who do not need to be included, it loses more credibility and support. If clearly there is no way in its present format, it can hope achieve its aims, not only will it lose credibility and support but also make it easily dismissed by those who have the power to do what the campaign asks for

Didn't happen with the £350 million on the side of the bus, though.

That campaign was run by weasely experts like Cummings though so it’s not really comparing like with like. much as we might all dislike that man both for his personal and his professional behaviour he and those employed alongside him obviously knows what they’re doing, they’re professionals at running campaigns, spinning statistics and misleading the public. His value to the PM was demonstrated by Boris quite happily putting up with the media storm he created and not demanding a resignation. In contrast I can’t help thinking the excluded campaign is being run by amateurs and not particularly gifted ones at that.

3 million excluded sounds very much on a par with it, as it's another example of gross rather than net, but I agree they don't have the same skill behind them.

amykirk1996

Jonesy1977 said:

jimkelly said:

jimkelly said:

I have to say the lack of empathy towards those "excluded" from certain quarters is disappointing.  It smacks of "I'm alright Jack, so sod them".

Whether you agree with the cause or not, whether you agree with the numbers or not, whether you think someone should be included in the numbers, whether you agree with the way they have gone/are going about it, surely let's have some compassion and support for people who are very worried at the present time, have had no income for months and are genuinely struggling.

Not one post has fundamentally disagreed that certain groups have been excluded and that there are systemic issues and there is no suggestion whatsoever that there is a lack of empathy.

@Grumpy_chap for one still refuses to accept a single person has been excluded / forgotten.

Take a look at this lady who was on BBC Breakfast this morning - 

https://twitter.com/salestrainingit/status/1275017935808053248

Jeremy535897

amykirk1996 said:

Jonesy1977 said:

jimkelly said:

jimkelly said:

I have to say the lack of empathy towards those "excluded" from certain quarters is disappointing.  It smacks of "I'm alright Jack, so sod them".

Whether you agree with the cause or not, whether you agree with the numbers or not, whether you think someone should be included in the numbers, whether you agree with the way they have gone/are going about it, surely let's have some compassion and support for people who are very worried at the present time, have had no income for months and are genuinely struggling.

Not one post has fundamentally disagreed that certain groups have been excluded and that there are systemic issues and there is no suggestion whatsoever that there is a lack of empathy.

@Grumpy_chap for one still refuses to accept a single person has been excluded / forgotten.

Take a look at this lady who was on BBC Breakfast this morning - 

https://twitter.com/salestrainingit/status/1275017935808053248

I am very clear in my mind that a lot of people have been excluded from help, some rightfully so (like me), and others who were very unlucky. I have particular sympathy for those who left employment after 5 April 2019 to become self employed too long ago to be rehired. I also sympathise with the annual PAYE scheme exclusion, but the point has been made that if you can afford to pay yourself only once a year, and you did so 3 months ago, what is the problem? That was the situation in the BBC Breakfast item. I suspect dividends were taken, which of course is another of the issues. To my mind CJRS never sat properly with sole director companies, because CJRS was supposed to be about preserving jobs, not supporting employee income (although it does). The trouble is that nobody has come up with a practical solution that can be automated from the information HMRC already had at 19 March 2020, at least for the dividend issue or the newly self employed.

dunstonh

amykirk1996 said:

Jonesy1977 said:

jimkelly said:

jimkelly said:

I have to say the lack of empathy towards those "excluded" from certain quarters is disappointing.  It smacks of "I'm alright Jack, so sod them".

Whether you agree with the cause or not, whether you agree with the numbers or not, whether you think someone should be included in the numbers, whether you agree with the way they have gone/are going about it, surely let's have some compassion and support for people who are very worried at the present time, have had no income for months and are genuinely struggling.

Not one post has fundamentally disagreed that certain groups have been excluded and that there are systemic issues and there is no suggestion whatsoever that there is a lack of empathy.

@Grumpy_chap for one still refuses to accept a single person has been excluded / forgotten.

Take a look at this lady who was on BBC Breakfast this morning - 

https://twitter.com/salestrainingit/status/1275017935808053248

Having read the posts of Grump_chap I feel that you are totally misreading the context to make an incorrect assumption.

That lady on BBC Breakfast is not one of the excluded.   Lets break it down:
She starts by saying she is not eligible for any of the grants.   But that is understandable as she has none of the costs that the grants cover.
She then says she takes an annual salary before the end of the tax year (i.e a single payment rather than monthly).  This means she cannot use the furlough scheme.  However, that is not unfair either.  The furlough scheme was to aid companies in their monthly cashflow to ensure wages were paid.    She does not have a monthly payroll to cover and therefore doesnt need furlough.  Her next salary payment would be March 2021.    What happened to the March 2020 salary that was meant to last for the next year?
She then says she is not able to use the Self-employed schemes. That is correct as she is not self-employed.
She finally says that the last resort was universal credit.   However, she doesnt get that as they have excess funds.    Once those excess funds are gone then UC would be available.  
She fails to mention the bounce back loan which they would be eligible for.

I have no doubt that it is difficult but there is a bit of selective story telling going on in that clip which is not giving the full story.

gary83

I agree with Jeremy, in addition  I don’t think the particular individual chosen to send the message about those missing out on support by the excluded campaign was necessarily the best one to use.

apart from not mentioning the dividend issue or explaining why any of the loan schemes are not acceptable she says she’d never imagined having to resort to UC but now is denied that due to having money in the bank from a car sale. Means tested benefits are not a new issue, or linked to Covid 19. Although it’s been exasperated lately Unfortunately people have been having to use our benefits system as a safety net in hard times for years. Up until A few months ago every time you turned on channel 5 or opened the daily mail you were immediately told all about benefits Britain and how easy it was to live the life of Riley, it seemed only fair at the time that if you had money in the bank that you spent that & the government triaged the UC to those that needed it most. I don’t expect that particular lady or most of the rest of us were campaigning for the means tested limit of benefits to be abolished then? Did anybody actually call for its scrapping before? Why should that be any different now?

Grumpy_chap

boyleminer said:

The people being negative towards the excluded, there are a lot of ex military people in our group. Your saying people who put their lives on the line for your country are not worthy of your support or the countries support. Remember that the next time you’re saying ‘least we forget’ 

Ex-military is not a sector that has been identified by #Excluded.  Indeed, the individuals that have recently ended a military service is a viable group that may be needs a special case.  I think a special case has been made for Reservists (similar to the case for mothers after maternity).  And that is quite right.

The whole #Excluded campaign would be far more successful if they focused on genuine cases (like military) where there is a strong case for the rules to be varied.  Unfortunately, the current #Excluded campaign is driven by focusing on groups who get less support, and extrapolating that to NO support, which is incorrect.  There is clear double-counting to get to the 3million plus some of the claims about not getting support are just absurd "if you don't have business premises, you don't get the business premises grant". These types of claims debase the whole campaign.


Unable to support the campaign as it is currently being run does not mean no empathy or unwilling to support the case of those genuinely in need to support.  This extra support should be directed to the most in need in society and (for this case), the initial criteria is adversely affected by coronavirus and facing hardship as a result.  Many of those campaigning for more support include groups that do not fit this basis.

yellow1231231

i think they would be better served complaining about the actual welfare system universal credit which punishes the prudent with the savings limit and rewards the feckless as every single person in the 3 million can go onto universal credit