Benefit Cuts

[Paul Clement]

From BBC news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855

I'm amazed at the lack of thought that's gone in to this. On face value, I can see what they are aiming at. Stay at home until you can support yourself sufficiently, then find your own place. The trouble with that is that there are a lot of people who have little choice but to leave home under 25.
There are Foyers across most towns and cities in the UK whose tenants are exclusively under 24's who have nowhere else to go. A lot of them cannot go back home to their parents and without Housing Benefit, would no longer be able to stay in their accommodation. These plans would only have the effect of making them homeless. Also, you can be an under 25 year old and an orphan, leaving no parent to live with. What happens for people like this? Yes you save billions of taxpayers money, but at what cost?

[Jason Thompson]

Yes, this idea will work nicely in Tory fantasy land where everyone has a nice happy family and all parents are happy to have their kids at home until the age of 25. Unfortunately reality does not resemble this in any way, and to suggest that age alone should determine your benefit payments is absurd.

[Rob McCow]

There's some great stuff about this at: http://labourlist.org/2012/06/why-th...ddy-wallpaper/ and http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/po...g-benefit-myth

These basically point out that Cameron is using data that is substantially wrong to back up his policies.

What it comes down to, in my opinion, is that the Tories believe that the unemployed are lazy. To them, an unemployed person is a needy, selfish waster who comes to the taxpayer with the begging bowl in one hand and their designer I-Phone in the other. They have no desire to work because they believe the state will look after them.

Personally, I don't hold that view.

[Si Hunt]

Some of them are, some of them arn't. You can't generalise.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

Nail on the head there, Si. All the reforms and things harped on about in recent years have all been based on the assumption that unemployed people are basically spongers. Some are, and they need to be kicked up the bum and got in line, but not at the expense of those people who genuinely do need the help of the state.

Which all means essentially that a blanket criterion such as age is utterly invalid as a way of determining eligibility for benefits of any kind.

[Rob McCow]

Some of them are, some of them arn't. You can't generalise.

Why not? The Government and the press certainly do.

[Jon Masters]

So Big Dave thinks that single mothers shouldn't get housing benefit just because they've chosen to live in their own property, and perhaps should start looking for work when their kids have just entered primary school rather than at least 7.

Maybe we could solve all these problems by, oh I don't know, having a big building where the women and children could live and work at the same time, with their kids being whisked away and taught a trade in another part of the building. We could call it a Workhouse.

(But not up north, coz northerners don't need as much money to live anyway so they can just loiter on the streets)

[Rob McCow]

They're not suggesting they bring back the workhouses, Jon!

Otherwise what would they put in their re-election manifesto?!!!

[MinaHarker]

We could call it a Workhouse.

"Call Me Dave" will probably call them "New Opportunity Community Housing".