Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Moomin]

Because I am REALLY struggling with the concept that people in here seem to have that it is perfectly reasonable for people to work 40-50 hour weeks, and for small businesses to be stymied to pay towards a benefit system that could actually see claimants better off than the poor buggers actually contributing.

There's no sneering at all, there is a complete and utter befuddlement that people think that is a perfectly reasonable state of affairs.

I think you need to stop reading the Daily Mail and stop believing that people on benefits are living the life of riley.

Plenty of working households on benefits struggling to get by and seeking help from foodbanks etc....

 

[Moomin]

I wouldn't worry Moomin, I doubt most of its critics here have actually read it.

Probably took the comments off someone like Katie Hopkins and went with that.

 

[zzr45]

I think you need to stop reading the Daily Mail and stop believing that people on benefits are living the life of riley.

Plenty of working households on benefits struggling to get by and seeking help from foodbanks etc....

Please, being to the right of this Labour government doesn't make one a DM reader. That really is taking things to far.

I don't think that benefits is living the life of riley, and perhaps the example used is in the extreme, but I can't see how uncapping benefits and opening the system up to some of the eye watering figures that were being paid before is fair to society as a whole.

 

[tsubaki]

Please, being to the right of this Labour government doesn't make one a DM reader. That really is taking things to far.

I don't think that benefits is living the life of riley, and perhaps the example used is in the extreme, but I can't see how uncapping benefits and opening the system up to some of the eye watering figures that were being paid before is fair to society as a whole.

You do know that welfare spending under New Labour was never as high as it is now, and certainly not as high as it was under the coalition right?

 

[Moomin]

Please, being to the right of this Labour government doesn't make one a DM reader. That really is taking things to far.

I don't think that benefits is living the life of riley, and perhaps the example used is in the extreme, but I can't see how uncapping benefits and opening the system up to some of the eye watering figures that were being paid before is fair to society as a whole.

Who said its going to be uncapped???

Don't you think its wrong that we have millions of people in the UK relying on foodbanks to get by??

 

[ashwuk76]

You do know that welfare spending under New Labour was never as high as it is now, and certainly not as high as it was under the coalition right?

A large bit of this increase is housing benefits because of rents being high. If we had proper social housing instead of private landlords raking money in off the state the housing benefit bill would be cheaper.

 

[flibbyflob]

Probably took the comments off someone like Katie Hopkins and went with that.

Harsh but fair for some on here.

I like aspects of the manifesto just have no clue how they are going to finance it so wait to see that when it comes out properly. Also without seeing the Tory one it is hard to be too critical as theirs might be ridiculous the other way.

Still think it will be a massive win for the tories though.

 

[tsubaki]

A large bit of this increase is housing benefits because of rents being high. If we had proper social housing instead of private landlords raking money in off the state the housing benefit bill would be cheaper.

Indeed.

 

[The binman chronicles]

I think you need to stop reading the Daily Mail and stop believing that people on benefits are living the life of riley.

I think everyone tends to go for the extreme when making points so the life of riley may not be the actual situation, however there are millions that are being spent on what you would call lifestyle choices. The DM stick gets waved at anyone who doesn't simply agree to a never-ending benefit culture.

An example of which is a family that decide to have more kids which forces the council to find a bigger and therefore more expensive home. Now I have two kids and tbh I think i'm done, but even if I wanted to, my house is not big enough, my car is not big enough, I would struggle to pay nursery fees. So I have to make a rational decision that it's out of the question to have a third child.

However some people those decisions do not exist, they do and let the benefits system sweep up after them. Maybe get that house that has a bigger garden than i can even dream of. Of course they may still be classed as poor and not live the most comfortable lives, but that is even more of a reason not to have had more children in the first place.

So is that a fair system? Someone who pays in a fair whack has less choices than someone who may not of worked for 10/20 years?

The safety net should be there for people to live comfortable lives in the event of disability, having to give up work to be a carer, or long term illness. It should help in the short term to cover a job loss, illness and to help make work pay. It should not cover lifestyle choices of someone who is fit and healthy to contribute. In that case they should get the basic level to incentivise work.

I would extend that to people living in expensive areas or have larger houses than they actually need and don't work. Again I or you may want to live in London but there is very little chance of that unless you share with 20 people! I don't agree with the bedroom tax rules but people should be given x amount of years to downsize. (with maybe a +1 room allowance)

This should not only increase the pool of larger houses but cost the public far less so that money can be spent on better social care to the people most deserving and on services that require more funding.

I could easily copy a link to many examples of this but I'm sure you have seen it before. If those examples are readily available then you can bet there will be thousands more out there in the same position who aren't silly enough to get themselves in the news. There are people subletting council properties for profit, it's that waste that winds up the people who have always paid in and never used the services.

Just in case you were wondering, I'm not a far right Tory and I do not read the Daily Mail. I would class myself a third way socialist. It should be a helping hand not hand outs.

 

[edge]

I actually like most of the manifesto , haven't a clue how its going to be paid for not to sure there taxation policy would stand up, and in reality they will never be on a position to implement them, but give them it for aspirations of changing society.

 

[Groucho]

Just pay your tuition fees back......

Why make a big deal of tuition fees?

Yes but it needs money, and this guy owes the state thousands, to pay for the NHS, yet refuses to pay it back because ' he has a contract' to pay it back slowly. For me, if you owe money pay it back. If you owe it to the state, pack it back immediately.......

If he has a contract, he is paying it back.

Leave it.

 

[peteblue]

I actually like most of the manifesto , haven't a clue how its going to be paid for not to sure there taxation policy would stand up, and in reality they will never be on a position to implement them, but give them it for aspirations of changing society.

It's a great wish list that's hard to disagree with many of its proposals, it's just not grounded in reality...

 

[Boss_Blue]

there are millions that are being spent on what you would call lifestyle choices.

...

However some people those decisions do not exist, they do and let the benefits system sweep up after them. Maybe get that house that has a bigger garden than i can even dream of. Of course they may still be classed as poor and not live the most comfortable lives, but that is even more of a reason not to have had more children in the first place.

So is that a fair system? Someone who pays in a fair whack has less choices than someone who may not of worked for 10/20 years?

The system is there to protect and support the children who had no say in being born and not those who decided (or not) to have them.

The 'lifestyle choice' argument is irrelevant in this scenario.

I would extend that to people living in expensive areas or have larger houses than they actually need and don't work. Again I or you may want to live in London but there is very little chance of that unless you share with 20 people! I don't agree with the bedroom tax rules but people should be given x amount of years to downsize. (with maybe a +1 room allowance)

So you would break up families and support networks by moving people around the country because it's cheaper?

Nice.

And yes, go and take care of them all. That's exactly what I'm saying. They are all poor little flowers and this country has been so mean to them.

Righto.

 

[Moomin]

I think everyone tends to go for the extreme when making points so the life of riley may not be the actual situation, however there are millions that are being spent on what you would call lifestyle choices. The DM stick gets waved at anyone who doesn't simply agree to a never-ending benefit culture.

An example of which is a family that decide to have more kids which forces the council to find a bigger and therefore more expensive home. Now I have two kids and tbh I think i'm done, but even if I wanted to, my house is not big enough, my car is not big enough, I would struggle to pay nursery fees. So I have to make a rational decision that it's out of the question to have a third child.

However some people those decisions do not exist, they do and let the benefits system sweep up after them. Maybe get that house that has a bigger garden than i can even dream of. Of course they may still be classed as poor and not live the most comfortable lives, but that is even more of a reason not to have had more children in the first place.

So is that a fair system? Someone who pays in a fair whack has less choices than someone who may not of worked for 10/20 years?

The safety net should be there for people to live comfortable lives in the event of disability, having to give up work to be a carer, or long term illness. It should help in the short term to cover a job loss, illness and to help make work pay. It should not cover lifestyle choices of someone who is fit and healthy to contribute. In that case they should get the basic level to incentivise work.

I would extend that to people living in expensive areas or have larger houses than they actually need and don't work. Again I or you may want to live in London but there is very little chance of that unless you share with 20 people! I don't agree with the bedroom tax rules but people should be given x amount of years to downsize. (with maybe a +1 room allowance)

This should not only increase the pool of larger houses but cost the public far less so that money can be spent on better social care to the people most deserving and on services that require more funding.

I could easily copy a link to many examples of this but I'm sure you have seen it before. If those examples are readily available then you can bet there will be thousands more out there in the same position who aren't silly enough to get themselves in the news. There are people subletting council properties for profit, it's that waste that winds up the people who have always paid in and never used the services.

Just in case you were wondering, I'm not a far right Tory and I do not read the Daily Mail. I would class myself a third way socialist. It should be a helping hand not hand outs.

Some people take advantage of the benefit system, no denying that.

I'm sure you can find examples online, but we all think fraud in the benefit system is a lot higher than it is. In a survey a few years back people thought in every 100 pounds spent on benefits that 24 pounds of it was fraudelent. The actual figure is 70p

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

The reason we think its higher because we read about it on a daily basis, see it on tv on various shows. We have seen and read about it so much we have forget about the real reason we are in this mess.

Greed of the bankers and the investment sector, we somehow dont read about them on a daily basis or see shows about them on telly. The shift of blame by the establishment has shifted.

 

[orly]

Moreover, I think one of the most exciting things about this manifesto is the National Investment Bank.

Through this, I can't see why our nation can't be at the forefront of bioinformatic research - finally providing the sort of technology to make the NHS truly cost-effective and, again, create a universal model that other nations will want to follow.

It's about time we make democracy work for us again, this is our chance.

This is our chance for radical change.

A country fair and fit for all across society, where there's no end to achievement.

You need to do a bit of reading around how clinical bioinformatic courses are funded and implemented in this country before making the massive leap here.