Current Affairs The next Tory (strong and stable) leader is Boris Johnson

[JimmyJeffers]

I looked at the full list of benefit changes earlier and the costs associated with each of them, some of the big costing ones had been aimed at high tax earners and mortgage holders etc, which have no effect on food bank requirement. However many of the others were actually what I would regard as low cost (several hundred millions) and I agree that some are just penny pinching. However, if you really wanted to replace Food banks, which tend to be locally managed and assisted with some central expenditure, what would it be. It’s pointless saying undo all the cuts because quite frankly some should have been cut. But what would you put in place to achieve what you want.....

Unfortunately food banks are going to be here to stay for a generation, no matter who’s in power, and that’s a great shame and source of embarrassment in my opinion. Some people have become too reliant on them.
Unlike Rees Moog who finds them ‘uplifting’ I consider them to be symbolic of failed government policy. Or rather, uncaring and cruel government policy.
I agree that the benefits system needed to be (and still needs to be) restructured as there were too many different organisations involved.
Universal Credit needs to change. That’s what’s caused a large amount of problems with people having to wait for first payments and the way the payments are made, with deductions. I regularly speak with clients, who for one reason or another, are left with pennies to last them the month. Often find the hardest hit, are single people, living alone.

 

[peteblue]

Unfortunately food banks are going to be here to stay for a generation, no matter who’s in power, and that’s a great shame and source of embarrassment in my opinion. Some people have become too reliant on them.
Unlike Rees Moog who finds them ‘uplifting’ I consider them to be symbolic of failed government policy. Or rather, uncaring and cruel government policy.
I agree that the benefits system needed to be (and still needs to be) restructured as there were too many different organisations involved.
Universal Credit needs to change. That’s what’s caused a large amount of problems with people having to wait for first payments and the way the payments are made, with deductions. I regularly speak with clients, who for one reason or another, are left with pennies to last them the month. Often find the hardest hit, are single people, living alone.

I too think they will. This is the problem we face continually, benefits get introduced and invariably some that really don’t need the money receive it. While those that really do need the money lose out. When I read that list earlier the first ones I saw on it were child trust funds abolished and child benefit in households where one earns over £60k. One of our staff is a single mum with two kids and while we know she needs the money and want to give her as much work as possible, she gets caught up in the number of hours per week she can work without her benefits being affected. My own view is that the government should just say sod it, work as hard as you want as they get it back in additional tax anyway. In some respects I can understand if Mogg has said it’s uplifting, because it means the rest of the community are doing their bit to help, which is great, but he probably doesn’t understand the potential stigma or embarrassment that goes with it for the individual....

 

[Blues Harp]

I looked at the full list of benefit changes earlier and the costs associated with each of them, some of the big costing ones had been aimed at high tax earners and mortgage holders etc, which have no effect on food bank requirement. However many of the others were actually what I would regard as low cost (several hundred millions) and I agree that some are just penny pinching. However, if you really wanted to replace Food banks, which tend to be locally managed and assisted with some central expenditure, what would it be. It’s pointless saying undo all the cuts because quite frankly some should have been cut. But what would you put in place to achieve what you want.....

"quite frankly, some should have been cut"
Which ones are you talking about?
Also the "big costing ones had been aimed at high tax earners and mortgage holders".... What on earth are you referring to?
You clearly have very little knowledge or experience in real life of what having to exist on benefits means.

 

[peteblue]

"quite frankly, some should have been cut"
Which ones are you talking about?
Also the "big costing ones had been aimed at high tax earners and mortgage holders".... What on earth are you referring to?
You clearly have very little knowledge or experience in real life of what having to exist on benefits means.

I‘ve just listed two above...

 

[roydo]

I‘ve just listed two above...

What was the mortgage one? MIRAS?

And the high tax payer one was child benefit wasnt it?

 

[JimmyJeffers]

What was the mortgage one? MIRAS?

And the high tax payer one was child benefit wasnt it?

They used to be able to get support for mortgage interest (SMI) as a monthly benefit payment. Now it comes in the form of a loan with fairly stringent and limiting conditions attached. Hardly know anyone who claims this and doubt it’s been much use to any homeowners who’ve lost their jobs in this current crisis as you have to have been claiming UC for 9 months.

 

[roydo]

They used to be able to get support for mortgage interest (SMI) as a monthly benefit payment. Now it comes in the form of a loan with fairly stringent and limiting conditions attached. Hardly know anyone who claims this and doubt it’s been much use to any homeowners who’ve lost their jobs in this current crisis as you have to have been claiming UC for 9 months.

lol

On UC for 9 months to qualify?

Laughable "benefit".

 

[Blues Harp]

lol

On UC for 9 months to qualify?

Laughable "benefit".

Indeed. Even under the old Miras scheme, you still had to have been in receipt of Income support/JSA for a period before receiving it.
Straying from the purpose of the thread a little which needs to concentrate on the lying toad supposedly "in charge" of the country.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Indeed. Even under the old Miras scheme, you still had to have been in receipt of Income support/JSA for a period before receiving it.

Never really had much dealings with it to be honest. Anyone trying to maintain a mortgage whilst out of work is going to be struggling. Mortgage providers have been giving payment holidays but this will only act as a sticking plaster for many.

 

[summerisle]

"We will fight them on the, er, whatever."

 

[ste d' indica]

"We will fight them on the, er, whatever."

I've just run that through Google Translate, it came back as - 'this is not as much fun as I thought it'd be, and I've had enough now'

 

[davek]

"We will fight them on the, er, whatever."

Tory scum.

 

[longers]

 

[catcherintherye]

I too think they will. This is the problem we face continually, benefits get introduced and invariably some that really don’t need the money receive it. While those that really do need the money lose out. When I read that list earlier the first ones I saw on it were child trust funds abolished and child benefit in households where one earns over £60k. One of our staff is a single mum with two kids and while we know she needs the money and want to give her as much work as possible, she gets caught up in the number of hours per week she can work without her benefits being affected. My own view is that the government should just say sod it, work as hard as you want as they get it back in additional tax anyway. In some respects I can understand if Mogg has said it’s uplifting, because it means the rest of the community are doing their bit to help, which is great, but he probably doesn’t understand the potential stigma or embarrassment that goes with it for the individual....

We should have a higher minimum wage. Ideologically I support that but also practically it makes sense.

However aside from that, a government has to tackle rent costs. There needs to be far more regulation and controls on that. In a lot of ways, thats the cause of many problems. Wages have risen, but there's a rentier class now who skim off too much money. The state could do all sorts of things to actively undercut them (rent caps, massive house building, taxes for 2nd+ homes etc). They also have to engage in the ideological debate though, that right to buy has been awful, and what Thatcher did was start a process that has been horrendous. Her crowning glory has been to handcuff the country with a culture and a set of bills we can't afford.

If we reduce rent costs by say half (and mortgage costs alongside it would drop) we could probably go a long way to resolving many problems. I don't know why the government moved the responsibility of paying rent from themselves to tenants. You're always in a much better negotiating position as a block, than as weak individuals. They should have kept the negotiating of rent on behalf of those on benefits, and just pointed out to landlords they would only pay rents at the level social housing was priced at + 10%.

 

[peteblue]

We should have a higher minimum wage. Ideologically I support that but also practically it makes sense.

However aside from that, a government has to tackle rent costs. There needs to be far more regulation and controls on that. In a lot of ways, thats the cause of many problems. Wages have risen, but there's a rentier class now who skim off too much money. The state could do all sorts of things to actively undercut them (rent caps, massive house building, taxes for 2nd+ homes etc). They also have to engage in the ideological debate though, that right to buy has been awful, and what Thatcher did was start a process that has been horrendous. Her crowning glory has been to handcuff the country with a culture and a set of bills we can't afford.

If we reduce rent costs by say half (and mortgage costs alongside it would drop) we could probably go a long way to resolving many problems. I don't know why the government moved the responsibility of paying rent from themselves to tenants. You're always in a much better negotiating position as a block, than as weak individuals. They should have kept the negotiating of rent on behalf of those on benefits, and just pointed out to landlords they would only pay rents at the level social housing was priced at + 10%.

I agree about rental costs which look ridiculously high. I see small properties with rents that appear more than a mortgage for the same place. I was also watching a programme tonight where some pub landlord, who has been unable to open because of Covid, now owes £40K to the building owner. When people invest their money they should get a return, but the problem now is that we have landlords taking a mortgage and renting out, thereby passing on the mortgage and an additional landlord profit onto the renter, which I feel is wrong. It would be interesting to hear the views of posters on here who do rent out properties....