Forum menu
Beveridge AND Lorraine Kelly?
You're on fire today
Apologies in advance to clod for bring facts into the debate but here you go RP
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth
@binners one of the strengths of STW is sharing really quite personal things. It's a tough experience but I would wager one lesson is you would avoid such a situation again in terms of debt and letting clients build up unpaid invoices in difficult times. Banks have rocks thrown at them for "calling time" on businesses/debt but they are well versed in the risks of not doing so. There is also the harsh lesson of having some savings and when applying for benefits to understand the system. The French and German systems are contributory you get out based on what you've put in - being self employed is the same - you/employer make NI contributions and you get out a related amount for 2 (?) years then revert to minimum state payments.
No I have not had first hand experience other than Benefits office refusing to allow my daughter to claim post her degree as "officially she is enrolled in Uni until Sep" even though final exams where in May. As I posted I would start with the most needy (disabled children in your example) and making sure they get what they need. You do this until the budget runs out. That will be tough for some but by definition they won't be the most needy. I appreciate his may appear flippant but I believe an open ended expense is a mistake.
Standing ovation binners. Good post. I've down that road but not as far; saved from the Job Centre at the last second a few times. But I spent a lot of money that I should've paid out elsewhere, which I'm dealing with now!
"Apologies in advance to clod for bring facts into the debate but here you go RP"
All you've done is link to some numbers which may or may not explain anything, and may or may not have been compiled using methodology which may or may not be flawed, presented by a government department which may or may not be telling the actual truth.
Facts.
Let's look at what facts actually are, THM.
Facts are in the ever increasing numbers of homeless people and families. Facts are in the ever increasing number of people using food banks (ask your wife, she will explain this to you). Facts are the numbers of suicides of people being declared 'fit to work' by an assessment system which isn't fit for purpose. Facts are the rise in chronic mental illness in young people. Facts are the increased burden of debt of anyone wanting to go to university (to get the same level of education you and I got for free). Facts are the increase in violent crime. Facts are the increase in hate crimes.
Facts are what affect real people.
So you can bandy around your numbers all you like. It doesn't matter; the facts speak for themselves.
Stick that in your abacus and see what you come up with.
Facts are in the ever increasing numbers of homeless people and families
Speaking of Facts, what effect do you reckon 300k+ Annual net immigration (184k from the EU) has on jobs and homelessness?
Standing ovation binners. Good post.
I've carefully read binner's post and it looks like he managed to turn his life around without any help from benefits.
So point proved.
One of them, at least.
"Speaking of Facts, what effect do you reckon 300k+ Annual net immigration (184k from the EU) has on jobs and homelessness?"
Yay, we're on to immigrants now! 😆
Surprised it took you so long, Ninfan.
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jan/25/is-immigration-causing-the-uk-housing-crisis
[i]Overall, the impact of immigration on housing is mixed, and geographically specific. As the LSE report May cited points out, two thirds of housing demand is created not by net migration figures being higher than in previous years, but by a lack of social housing stock, an increase in life expectancy, and more households delaying marriage or forgoing cohabitation resulting in an increased number of smaller households.
There has been one area where immigration has been crucial in attempting to solve the housing crisis: building. The Chartered Institute of Building points out that any caps on immigration will harm housebuilding rates, as not enough British-born nationals are either trained or interested in construction careers, and migrants have been filling the gap.[/i]
[i]The predictions of economic theory regarding the overall labour market impacts of
net migration depend on a number of assumptions. In the long term, it is argued
that there is no negative impact on wages or employment of native workers as, over
time, economies find ways to adjust to a stable equilibrium. Dynamic impacts on
productivity and innovation may imply that in the long term migration could have
positive impacts on the labour market. However, these dynamic effects are
unproven and they are difficult to measure and assess robustly.
In the short term, the predicted impacts of net migration on natives vary depending
on a range of factors, including how the skill mix of migrants compares with that of
the native population, the flexibility of the labour and product markets, general
economic conditions, and the extent to which migrants increase aggregate demand
in the economy. It is likely that while some groups in the economy benefit from
immigration, others will lose out. [/i]
I dunno Ninfan; you tell me. Is immigration causing significant problems regarding housing and employment in the UK?
Speaking of Facts, what effect do you reckon 300k+ Annual net immigration (184k from the EU) has on jobs and homelessness?
Thing is the immigration is needed cos Steve is too 'busy' heating up his iceland ready meals to squeeze a few hours work between.
I've carefully read binner's post and it looks like he managed to turn his life around without any help from benefits.So point proved.
One of them, at least.
Right, so if binners can do it, then the system is fine?
So, if you're not as capable as binners, without such marketable job skills, and you don't have the support of a partner, then what? Screw you? You and your kids can starve on the streets? Seriously?
This is one of the major problems with the Tory idea: "I managed, so can you".
That is NOT TRUE AT ALL. Not everyone is good at life, not everyone is equally employable, not everyone is employable at all, even if they're not disabled.
Equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same, and everyone can do the same things. It means that everyone should have the help they need so that their opportunities are equal.
And whilst we're asking each other questions; what effect do you reckon the right to buy scheme and subsequent failure to invest the money raised in providing more social housing has had on the housing crisis, Ninfan?
So, if you're not as capable as binners, without such marketable job skills, and you don't have the support of a partner, then what? Screw you? You and your kids can starve on the streets? Seriously?
I didn't say that. You are coming over all Walking with Dinosaurs and filling in a lot of gaps with your predudice.
Here's my tale. I do a lot of work with big food producers. Lots. They give my bootfuls of free stuff. Biscuits, pop, confectionery.
I used to give it to the local foodbank. Run by nice people.
One day I was in there and some Sharon was picking up a package. It wasn't ready so she huffed and puffed and went outside for a fag (A fag! Not short of cash then) she talked on her iPhone (how much!) and eventually came in and she was offered some Chocolate Digestives.
She didn't want them as they were plain choc; it was crap there were no Milk Choc.
She had such a sense of entitlement that she thought she should have the choice of free biscuits, as her right.
When did being on benefits mean that a selection of luxury good be the norm?
And why?
"Who then hand it to the banks, who hand it to the pension funds, who then hand it to the pensioners, who then spend it in the economy, which then pays the taxes, which they..."
Oh dear. Let's look at this carefully, shall we?
So; a LA pays full HB of £1000 a month directly to a private landlord. Who pays tax on their earnings from this, which would be £12000 a year.
Please explain how that bit of tax is compares to the £12000 that comes directly out of the public purse?
Now; I'm not a mathematician, indeed, I found maths quite boring really, which is why I concentrated more on subjects that interested me, like art, but I still think that the tax revenue from the £12000 is probably a bit less than the £12000 itself..
Did you go to the same school of economics as THM? 😆
I didn't say that. You are coming over all Walking with Dinosaurs and filling in a lot of gaps with your predudice.
Listen - I'm not prejudiced against any of you, I've been doing this online thing for long enough to not jump to conclusions.
I'm not accusing you with those statements - I'm asking you, and wanting a real answer. And they are loaded of course, because I'm trying to dismantle your point of view so I can either agree, or disagree and counter.
Your story about benefits highlights that yes, there are scroungers. However that doens't need highlighting does it, really? Because we all know that there are scroungers.
Why are people highlighting it over and over again? It looks like you are accusing all people on benefits of being scroungers. Repeating these stories trivialises the plight of those who are really in need. People are going hungry, people's kids are being malnourished. That's what's important, not Sharon's iPhone.
I want the Tories on here to acknowledge that the system is tragically crap, and that benefit cuts are serioulsy damaging the lives of some very vulnerable people. WE KNOW that some people are taking the piss. It does not need repeating. No-one's denying it.
One day I was in there and some Sharon was picking up a package.
So this is indicative of all people forced to use food banks? Simple answer will do, yes or no.
"I want the Tories on here to acknowledge that the system is tragically crap"
They won't. They're tories; they never admit they're wrong. Which is pretty much most of the time. They simply couldn't suffer the abject humiliation of being wrong. So they persist in trying to believe they are right.
If they admitted they were wrong, they'd have to stop being tories.
Good to see Labour also want to keep the benefit cap and also reduce in certain areas
http://www.labour.org.uk/manifesto/social-security
The difference is, that Labour would tackle the areas that create the need for benefits, by providing homes, training and jobs, and addressing the issues that result in such a large welfare burden.
The tories aren't going to do that. They'll simply make things worse. As they are currently.
Good to see Labour also want to keep the benefit cap and also reduce in certain areas
Don't worry, there's enough communists in this thread they will claim labour are a right wing party and don't have any humanity either.
All you've done is link to some numbers which may or may not explain anything, and may or may not have been compiled using methodology which may or may not be flawed, presented by a government department which may or may not be telling the actual truth.
Sorry for answering your question rich, please ignore my link. The independent body is of course a secret centre of flawed analysis and propaganda whose sole objective is to support far right wing idelogies. My bad. Please refer instead to clever-clod, his imagination and the anecdotes of his great Aunt Fanny.
Let's look at what facts actually are, THM.
I though that they were unimportant - please make you mind up.
Facts are in the ever increasing numbers of homeless people and families. Facts are in the ever increasing number of people using food banks (ask your wife, she will explain this to you). Facts are the numbers of suicides of people being declared 'fit to work' by an assessment system which isn't fit for purpose. Facts are the rise in chronic mental illness in young people. Facts are the increased burden of debt of anyone wanting to go to university (to get the same level of education you and I got for free). Facts are the increase in violent crime. Facts are the increase in hate crimes.Facts are what affect real people.
All true, but not related to the question a hand.
Stick that in your abacus and see what you come up with.
Thank you. Regards to Great Aunt Fanny. Looking forward to the next diatribe already...
I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?
I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?
Confirmation bias. They want to be able to justify their existing point of view. Which is, in many cases, that they are better than the others. As in, I've succeeded or managed, and they haven't, therefore I'm better than them.
Some people's lives are ruled by a kind of competitiveness that in most cases they don't even notice. They posture to put themselves above others where they can, even if it's just through passive-aggressive behaviour.
I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?
Closed lazy selfish stupid dogmatic - sociopaths (trending here) - pick any - likely very similar to the objects they stereotype.
Lots of accusations flying about but few solutions
I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?
If such a person imagines themself surrounded by a sea of villains/lesser beings, then it makes the shining hill upon which they imagine themselves to stand that much higher and brighter. This type of generalising can work both ways, but it boils down to the same thing - "I'm not a f***up, but 'they' are. I'll never be like 'them' because I'm better'
Looking down one's nose at others is very simple ego-boost. Negative stereotypes are their fix, so they swallow as many as are offered. This is one reason why tabloids are so addictive. Us vs them.
Is it beyond comprehension that "Foodbank Sharon" had bought that iPhone while in work?
"I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?"
What Malvern Rider said, and:
It stems from a basic human insecurity, which is linked to the survival instinct. Often manifests itself in the behaviour of young children; a child can be happily playing with a whole load of toys, but if they see another child being given a toy, they will suddenly become very jealous, and possibly even attack the other child to get the toy, regardless of the number of toys they already have. It's essentially a fear of not having as much as possible, or what my wife calls a Fear of Missing Out™ (FMO). In adults, it manifests itself in ways such as jealousy towards someone with a more attractive partner, bigger house, nicer car etc. It's really very common. Whilst adults won't generaly attack each other, they often seek to belittle or denigrate their 'rival', by criticising them and/or the thing they are jealous of. I suppose we all have it so some degree, but it's more apparent in some than in others. Tory ideology relies on appealing to such base fears, and feeds into this by creating a mythical narrative that the 'other' has more than you and it's not fair; you deserve it 'more'. The fear nourished, it is then easier to attack that which causes the fear in the first place.
The right wing media will create fictional narratives of 'benefit scroungers' etc, knowing that this will trigger the FMO in insecure people, who will then be more amenable to attacking the mythical 'beast'. They will use extreme examples, often exceptions of he general rule, to whip up a greater frenzy amongst their audience.
It's why the Daily Mail, Jeremy Kyle, Benefits st etc are so popular. From Bullingdon boys burning banknotes in front of homeless folk, to people on internet forums bleating on about a particular example they are knowledgable of, which 'proves' the myth is 'correct'.
And it's why the tories get votes.
Lots of accusations flying about but few solutions
Well - in the short term, forget about the austerity benefit cuts - easy one that. Borrowing against future taxes probably won't work so tax something.
In the longer term - I've asked this before, but what's the problem with job creation for the persistently unemployed? I mean it doesn't have to be trivial - there's a lot that needs doing. Can't we get some people working on HS2? Instead of hiring civil engineering companies who won't employ the long term unemployed.
That gives money directly to the workers, rather than filtering it through a big company. But then - I'm in favour of certain industries being state run, and Tories are not.
"Is it beyond comprehension"
Apparently so.
Is it beyond comprehension that "Foodbank Sharon" had bought that iPhone while in work?
To some. But they choose the most negative interpretation, as above.
Same for homeless people smoking. Assuming they are spending their money on cigs when if you pay attention you often see passers by sharing a smoke with them as a gesture of kindness.
Not to mention nicotine is an addiction, so not much of a choice, more a necessity, especially when the individual is already in a state of agitation
Fear of Missing Out™ (FMO).
It's FOMO™
I'm glad you've all agreed that all Tories are ****s. When do we start stereotyping the middle class Labour voters?
Not to mention nicotine is an addiction, so not much of a choice, more a necessity, especially when the individual is already in a state of agitation
https://www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and-advice/local-support-services-helplines#gu5jAFJsVoYecJI5.97
"I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?"
You mean like how all Tories are heartless bastards?
My worse side just snorted with derision at my better side's awful grammar.
Fear of Missing Out™ (FMO).
Agreed. In addition if we automatically assume a homeless/disabled/benefit-claiming person to be villainous it makes it so easy not to give a flying fark. Worse still, it makes it that much easier/more satisfying to punish/sanction them. Which is most often unspeakably cruel considering the situation they are already in.
You mean like how all Tories are heartless bastards
Like I said, it can work both ways.
Define "Middle Class"
If you need a job to keep the roof over your head and feed your kids, delude yourself with whatever job title your position warrants, you're working class
As per molgrips - job creation - benefit probation officers - - investment in future - it will take time - more tax on booze.
Its harder than just cutting - but cheaper in the long run.
Easy to argue against the investment and work required - especially if you are far removed from any of the real issues involved.
The last prime minister wanted to help "problem" families unfortunately nothing came of that..
If you need a job to keep the roof over your head and feed your kids, delude yourself with whatever job title your position warrants, you're working class
Not a common definition though is it.
Ninfin, when people are under extreme stress, rational thoughts and actions that look clear cut to an outside observer, often fly out the window...
"It's FOMO™"
Its not; the 'of' is silent.
" When do we start stereotyping the middle class Labour voters?"
You can start with me if you like. I've got a Jeremy Corbyn badge and everything.
Not a common definition though is it
But it's a realistic one
Its not; the 'of' is silent.
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fomo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_missing_out
Obviously, the references we should all be looking at 😛
But it's a realistic one
Only if you have two classes without the one in the middle.
My wife uses the medical abreviation. 😀
This is just another heart breaking story which doesn't quite give us enough information upon which to base a judgement.
How did he end up single with four children? Are they all his? Why is he the sole carer? What happened to their mother/father if they aren't all his? What is his background? Has he ever worked? What is his educational background? Can he perhaps work from home? Does he need help filling in the complicated form? Perhaps a journalist could help!! etc.
On the other hand... why is the rent where he lives so expensive? Is he tied to that house/location? How many people are claiming for houses they don't need in areas's they don't need to be in? Are the children really going to be made homeless or are they simply having to downgrade accommodation to fit within the cap?
So the Guardian has given us half a story is clearly the only conclusion I can draw.
Whilst I don't particularly agree with a lot of the comments on here, the posters are entitled to make them.
What I find much more offensive is how certain posters on here belittle and demonise others who hold a differing opinion to them. Its prevailent throughout this thread (and Singletrack and general), and really needs cutting out.
Just because you are sitting behind the anonymity of your keyboard doesn't make this kind of thing ok