Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
guitarman001

Coalition Take On Housing Benefit?

Recommended Posts

Anybody here heard anything about the coalition's take on housing benefit? Is it to be maintained? As hinted earlier on this forum it sets the lowest level for rents, which are pretty high - so in effect we're pricing ourselves out. Would be interested to hear of any developments in what I find a grossly unfair benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody here heard anything about the coalition's take on housing benefit? Is it to be maintained? As hinted earlier on this forum it sets the lowest level for rents, which are pretty high - so in effect we're pricing ourselves out. Would be interested to hear of any developments in what I find a grossly unfair benefit.

Just been reading a summary of their manifesto / agreement, housing benefit doesn't appear to be mentioned, this is the part on benefits ...

End all existing welfare-to-work schemes, creating single new programme. Ensure Job Seeker's Allowance claimants aged under 25 referred to new programme within six months. Re-assess all claimants of Incapacity Benefit for readiness to work - those deemed capable of work to be moved on to Jobseeker's Allowance. Work for Yourself scheme, to help start-up businesses with loans and advice from mentors.

This may be interesting too, under the tile, "COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT"

Freeze council tax in England for at least one year, and seek to freeze it for a further year. Create directly elected mayors in 12 largest English cities. Give councils powers to stop "garden grabbing". Give neighbourhoods more powers over planning. Abolish the Government Office for London and consider case for abolishing remaining government offices. Ensure courts have power to insist home repossession is always a last resort. Stop restructuring of councils in Norfolk, Suffolk and Devon and stop plans to force regionalisation of fire service. Review effectiveness of raising stamp duty threshold for first-time buyers.

Full details (BBC Summary) here Time of posting there are 3 headers yet to be updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been reading a summary of their manifesto / agreement, housing benefit doesn't appear to be mentioned, this is the part on benefits ...

This may be interesting too, under the tile, "COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT"

Full details (BBC Summary) here Time of posting there are 3 headers yet to be updated.

I get the feeling that Clegg has taken over as PM. All the policies I see coming out of the new government are the left of labour pinky stuff that caused the liberals vote to collapse after the last debate when they realised that the liberals still had lots of looney policies.

But Clegg gets a coalition, and the Tories dont appear to have any policies of their own. Before the election we all thought that they had a hidden agenda that might get us out of the mess, but it appears that they didnt. Instead, we have Clegg with his spade, and Cameron is urging him to get on and dig us in deeper.

Housing Benefit is particularly rancid. It is a benefit that increases with inflation in housing, and the two are locked together in an upwards spiral. House prices go up, housing benefits go up. Then more people decide to quit work as housing only becomes affordable on benefits, which in turn pushes up housing costs and benefits even more. The strain on the pocket of the taxpayer grows bigger by the day.

What should be happening, is that working people should be getting first dibs on the housing, and everyone else gets whats left. That way we all have an incentive to work and be useful. But the cart is well and truly before the horse, and unless you command a large salary, benefits are now the only way to obtain housing in our crowded nation.

To sort this out, housing benefit needs to be cut or axed entirely. Cruel as it may seem, people need to be turfed out onto the street, reducing taxpayer sponsored demand for housing. Then our working people, now carrying a reduced burden of taxation, will be able to move into the vacated space. This is how it should be.

It seems though, that we dont have anyone with vision in Downing Street. Instead we have more of the same lefty get someone else to pay for it all rubbish, and housing benefit will continue to spiral out of control. I wont call the people who use this benefit 'feckless', as for many it is the best they can do in the situation they face, nothing wrong from their point of view in claiming it, I am sure I would do the same.

But as a nation we cant afford it. Sooner or later the bond market is going to spot housing inflation out of control again, and taxes being raised (lots of talk about cuts rather than taxes being used to cut the deficit, but all I heard were things that involve more spending and taxation) rather than cut. We will reach a point where the bond market causes interest rates to rise, making the interest on the national debt unpayable. At that point, we either default, or print more money. The latter would bring the demise of the pound in short order.

And just to ram home how our new PM Clegg is out of touch with reality, I heard him say that Pension rises are going to be linked to wage rises. I would like to know if that is post or pre-tax wages, and the wages of the private or public sector. When wages fall, will pensions fall, or will the amount we spend as a proportion of our nations income be ratcheted up in that event with a freezing of pensions? State Pensions too, have to be cut. This is an unpleasant truth, but we cant afford them.

If we get a meltdown as a result of the Clegg largesse, pensioners wont be getting a pension that can buy them spit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that Clegg has taken over as PM. All the policies I see coming out of the new government are the left of labour pinky stuff that caused the liberals vote to collapse after the last debate when they realised that the liberals still had lots of looney policies.

But Clegg gets a coalition, and the Tories dont appear to have any policies of their own. Before the election we all thought that they had a hidden agenda that might get us out of the mess, but it appears that they didnt. Instead, we have Clegg with his spade, and Cameron is urging him to get on and dig us in deeper.

Housing Benefit is particularly rancid. It is a benefit that increases with inflation in housing, and the two are locked together in an upwards spiral. House prices go up, housing benefits go up. Then more people decide to quit work as housing only becomes affordable on benefits, which in turn pushes up housing costs and benefits even more. The strain on the pocket of the taxpayer grows bigger by the day.

What should be happening, is that working people should be getting first dibs on the housing, and everyone else gets whats left. That way we all have an incentive to work and be useful. But the cart is well and truly before the horse, and unless you command a large salary, benefits are now the only way to obtain housing in our crowded nation.

To sort this out, housing benefit needs to be cut or axed entirely. Cruel as it may seem, people need to be turfed out onto the street, reducing taxpayer sponsored demand for housing. Then our working people, now carrying a reduced burden of taxation, will be able to move into the vacated space. This is how it should be.

It seems though, that we dont have anyone with vision in Downing Street. Instead we have more of the same lefty get someone else to pay for it all rubbish, and housing benefit will continue to spiral out of control. I wont call the people who use this benefit 'feckless', as for many it is the best they can do in the situation they face, nothing wrong from their point of view in claiming it, I am sure I would do the same.

But as a nation we cant afford it. Sooner or later the bond market is going to spot housing inflation out of control again, and taxes being raised (lots of talk about cuts rather than taxes being used to cut the deficit, but all I heard were things that involve more spending and taxation) rather than cut. We will reach a point where the bond market causes interest rates to rise, making the interest on the national debt unpayable. At that point, we either default, or print more money. The latter would bring the demise of the pound in short order.

And just to ram home how our new PM Clegg is out of touch with reality, I heard him say that Pension rises are going to be linked to wage rises. I would like to know if that is post or pre-tax wages, and the wages of the private or public sector. When wages fall, will pensions fall, or will the amount we spend as a proportion of our nations income be ratcheted up in that event with a freezing of pensions? State Pensions too, have to be cut. This is an unpleasant truth, but we cant afford them.

If we get a meltdown as a result of the Clegg largesse, pensioners wont be getting a pension that can buy them spit.

Let me explain. Housing benefit makes landlords rich. Expansion of council housing would destroy those riches and save "us" money. I can hear your brain juddering.

Edited by Laughing Gnome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that Clegg has taken over as PM. All the policies I see coming out of the new government are the left of labour pinky stuff that caused the liberals vote to collapse after the last debate when they realised that the liberals still had lots of looney policies.

But Clegg gets a coalition, and the Tories dont appear to have any policies of their own. Before the election we all thought that they had a hidden agenda that might get us out of the mess, but it appears that they didnt. Instead, we have Clegg with his spade, and Cameron is urging him to get on and dig us in deeper.

Housing Benefit is particularly rancid. It is a benefit that increases with inflation in housing, and the two are locked together in an upwards spiral. House prices go up, housing benefits go up. Then more people decide to quit work as housing only becomes affordable on benefits, which in turn pushes up housing costs and benefits even more. The strain on the pocket of the taxpayer grows bigger by the day.

What should be happening, is that working people should be getting first dibs on the housing, and everyone else gets whats left. That way we all have an incentive to work and be useful. But the cart is well and truly before the horse, and unless you command a large salary, benefits are now the only way to obtain housing in our crowded nation.

To sort this out, housing benefit needs to be cut or axed entirely. Cruel as it may seem, people need to be turfed out onto the street, reducing taxpayer sponsored demand for housing. Then our working people, now carrying a reduced burden of taxation, will be able to move into the vacated space. This is how it should be.

It seems though, that we dont have anyone with vision in Downing Street. Instead we have more of the same lefty get someone else to pay for it all rubbish, and housing benefit will continue to spiral out of control. I wont call the people who use this benefit 'feckless', as for many it is the best they can do in the situation they face, nothing wrong from their point of view in claiming it, I am sure I would do the same.

But as a nation we cant afford it. Sooner or later the bond market is going to spot housing inflation out of control again, and taxes being raised (lots of talk about cuts rather than taxes being used to cut the deficit, but all I heard were things that involve more spending and taxation) rather than cut. We will reach a point where the bond market causes interest rates to rise, making the interest on the national debt unpayable. At that point, we either default, or print more money. The latter would bring the demise of the pound in short order.

And just to ram home how our new PM Clegg is out of touch with reality, I heard him say that Pension rises are going to be linked to wage rises. I would like to know if that is post or pre-tax wages, and the wages of the private or public sector. When wages fall, will pensions fall, or will the amount we spend as a proportion of our nations income be ratcheted up in that event with a freezing of pensions? State Pensions too, have to be cut. This is an unpleasant truth, but we cant afford them.

If we get a meltdown as a result of the Clegg largesse, pensioners wont be getting a pension that can buy them spit.

Nice rant.

I don't agree with turfing people out but by cutting the benefit by 50% would be a good start. This would mean, in many cases, rents across the board drop and life is again meaningful for those on low wages. It would be painful for a while for those BTLers who are over extended but hey ho.

Your comment on pensions, from the link I provided .... deep breath!

Phase out default retirement age and look at when it should start to rise to 66 - will not happen sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women. "Triple guarantee" that basic state pension to rise by whichever higher of average earnings increase, price inflation or 2.5%, from next year. Review of long-term affordability of public pensions, but protecting accrued rights. End rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at age 75. Protect winter fuel allowance, free TV licences, free bus travel, free eye tests and free prescriptions for elderly.

I keep trying to get the full paper to see if it mentions HB but the Gov servers are shit.

Edited by REP013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that Clegg has taken over as PM. All the policies I see coming out of the new government are the left of labour pinky stuff that caused the liberals vote to collapse after the last debate when they realised that the liberals still had lots of looney policies.

But Clegg gets a coalition, and the Tories dont appear to have any policies of their own. Before the election we all thought that they had a hidden agenda that might get us out of the mess, but it appears that they didnt. Instead, we have Clegg with his spade, and Cameron is urging him to get on and dig us in deeper.

Housing Benefit is particularly rancid. It is a benefit that increases with inflation in housing, and the two are locked together in an upwards spiral. House prices go up, housing benefits go up. Then more people decide to quit work as housing only becomes affordable on benefits, which in turn pushes up housing costs and benefits even more. The strain on the pocket of the taxpayer grows bigger by the day.

What should be happening, is that working people should be getting first dibs on the housing, and everyone else gets whats left. That way we all have an incentive to work and be useful. But the cart is well and truly before the horse, and unless you command a large salary, benefits are now the only way to obtain housing in our crowded nation.

To sort this out, housing benefit needs to be cut or axed entirely. Cruel as it may seem, people need to be turfed out onto the street, reducing taxpayer sponsored demand for housing. Then our working people, now carrying a reduced burden of taxation, will be able to move into the vacated space. This is how it should be.

It seems though, that we dont have anyone with vision in Downing Street. Instead we have more of the same lefty get someone else to pay for it all rubbish, and housing benefit will continue to spiral out of control. I wont call the people who use this benefit 'feckless', as for many it is the best they can do in the situation they face, nothing wrong from their point of view in claiming it, I am sure I would do the same.

But as a nation we cant afford it. Sooner or later the bond market is going to spot housing inflation out of control again, and taxes being raised (lots of talk about cuts rather than taxes being used to cut the deficit, but all I heard were things that involve more spending and taxation) rather than cut. We will reach a point where the bond market causes interest rates to rise, making the interest on the national debt unpayable. At that point, we either default, or print more money. The latter would bring the demise of the pound in short order.

And just to ram home how our new PM Clegg is out of touch with reality, I heard him say that Pension rises are going to be linked to wage rises. I would like to know if that is post or pre-tax wages, and the wages of the private or public sector. When wages fall, will pensions fall, or will the amount we spend as a proportion of our nations income be ratcheted up in that event with a freezing of pensions? State Pensions too, have to be cut. This is an unpleasant truth, but we cant afford them.

If we get a meltdown as a result of the Clegg largesse, pensioners wont be getting a pension that can buy them spit.

Where has Clegg said he will maintain HB as it stands?

Clegg appears to have various benefits in his sights.

Most of what you posted was utter horseshit imo.

Edited by shindigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice rant.

I don't agree with turfing people out but by cutting the benefit by 50% would be a good start. This would mean, in many cases, rents across the board drop and life is again meaningful for those on low wages. It would be painful for a while for those BTLers who are over extended but hey ho.

Your comment on pensions, from the link I provided .... deep breath!

I keep trying to get the full paper to see if it mentions HB but the Gov servers are shit.

If you cut housing benefit by 50%, then a lot of landlords would no longer receive the highest bids for their flats/houses from those out of work. Instead it would be more profitable either to sell to first time buyers, or rent out to those in work. This is what you need, moving benefit claimaints out of housing, and those working, particularly the lower paid, into housing. Presumably those moving out of housing would move in with family and friends or something, and those in work would move the other way. With the amount of housing fixed in the short term, it is a game of musical chairs. What is important is who gets the chair.

Interesting link on pensions. It seems to mean that pensions will eventually grow, over time, to consume more than 100% of the national wealth. You couldnt make this stuff up, dont the people who make these policies do maths?

If the axe doesnt fall on pensioners as well, then that isnt fair. We all have to take the pain of this together. I am sure that most pensioners will agree. If they dont, they can try doing the maths and work out just how these promises can be kept. I would like to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that Clegg has taken over as PM. All the policies I see coming out of the new government are the left of labour pinky stuff that caused the liberals vote to collapse after the last debate when they realised that the liberals still had lots of looney policies.

But Clegg gets a coalition, and the Tories dont appear to have any policies of their own. Before the election we all thought that they had a hidden agenda that might get us out of the mess, but it appears that they didnt. Instead, we have Clegg with his spade, and Cameron is urging him to get on and dig us in deeper.

Housing Benefit is particularly rancid. It is a benefit that increases with inflation in housing, and the two are locked together in an upwards spiral. House prices go up, housing benefits go up. Then more people decide to quit work as housing only becomes affordable on benefits, which in turn pushes up housing costs and benefits even more. The strain on the pocket of the taxpayer grows bigger by the day.

What should be happening, is that working people should be getting first dibs on the housing, and everyone else gets whats left. That way we all have an incentive to work and be useful. But the cart is well and truly before the horse, and unless you command a large salary, benefits are now the only way to obtain housing in our crowded nation.

To sort this out, housing benefit needs to be cut or axed entirely. Cruel as it may seem, people need to be turfed out onto the street, reducing taxpayer sponsored demand for housing. Then our working people, now carrying a reduced burden of taxation, will be able to move into the vacated space. This is how it should be.

It seems though, that we dont have anyone with vision in Downing Street. Instead we have more of the same lefty get someone else to pay for it all rubbish, and housing benefit will continue to spiral out of control. I wont call the people who use this benefit 'feckless', as for many it is the best they can do in the situation they face, nothing wrong from their point of view in claiming it, I am sure I would do the same.

But as a nation we cant afford it. Sooner or later the bond market is going to spot housing inflation out of control again, and taxes being raised (lots of talk about cuts rather than taxes being used to cut the deficit, but all I heard were things that involve more spending and taxation) rather than cut. We will reach a point where the bond market causes interest rates to rise, making the interest on the national debt unpayable. At that point, we either default, or print more money. The latter would bring the demise of the pound in short order.

And just to ram home how our new PM Clegg is out of touch with reality, I heard him say that Pension rises are going to be linked to wage rises. I would like to know if that is post or pre-tax wages, and the wages of the private or public sector. When wages fall, will pensions fall, or will the amount we spend as a proportion of our nations income be ratcheted up in that event with a freezing of pensions? State Pensions too, have to be cut. This is an unpleasant truth, but we cant afford them.

If we get a meltdown as a result of the Clegg largesse, pensioners wont be getting a pension that can buy them spit.

I often agree with your comments and this one more than ever. Foolish dreamers like Clegg simply cannot see how their largesse has distorted markets to an absurd precipice of functional failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff on jobs and welfare from the Coalition doc.

19. JOBS AND WELFARE

The Government believes that we need to encourage responsibility and fairness in the welfare system. That means providing help for those who cannot work, training and targeted support for those looking for work, but sanctions for those who turn down reasonable offers of work or training.

We will end all existing welfare to work programmes and create a single welfare to work programme to help all unemployed people get back into work.

We will ensure that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants facing the most significant barriers to work are referred to the new welfare to work programme immediately, not after 12 months as is currently the case. We will ensure that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants aged under 25 are referred to the programme after a maximum of six months.

We will realign contracts with welfare to work service providers to reflect more closely the results they achieve in getting people back into work.

We will reform the funding mechanism used by government to finance welfare to work programmes to reflect the fact that initial investment delivers later savings through lower benefit expenditure, including creating an integrated work programme with outcome funding based upon the DEL/AME switch.

We will ensure that receipt of benefits for those able to work is conditional on their willingness to work.

We support the National Minimum Wage because of the protection it gives low income workers and the incentives to work it provides.

We will re-assess all current claimants of Incapacity Benefit for their readiness to work. Those assessed as fully capable for work will be moved onto Jobseeker’s Allowance.

We will support would-be entrepreneurs through a new programme – Work for Yourself – which will give the unemployed access to business mentors and start-up loans.

We will draw on a range of Service Academies to offer pre-employment training and work placements for unemployed people.

We will develop local Work Clubs – places where unemployed people can gather to exchange skills, find opportunities, make contacts and provide mutual support.

We will investigate how to simplify the benefit system in order to improve incentives to work

Remember that Pickles has asked Grant Shapps to review help for homeowners, also. That's help with mortgages, of course, not Housing Benefit to pay rent.

"Figures published today by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Ministry of Justice show that the threat of repossession remains very real for homeowners across the country.

"That's why the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, will be asking the new Housing Minister to take a fresh look at existing Government schemes which help homeowners struggling to pay their mortgage and make sure that they offer the best deal for homeowners, as well as value for money for the taxpayer."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff on jobs and welfare from the Coalition doc.

Remember that Pickles has asked Grant Shapps to review help for homeowners, also. That's help with mortgages, of course, not Housing Benefit to pay rent.

"Figures published today by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Ministry of Justice show that the threat of repossession remains very real for homeowners across the country.

"That's why the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, will be asking the new Housing Minister to take a fresh look at existing Government schemes which help homeowners struggling to pay their mortgage and make sure that they offer the best deal for homeowners, as well as value for money for the taxpayer."

I told one of my mates the other night that the gubmint was paying mortgage interest at 6.08% for the unemployed.

I think his jaw is still on the deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..... make sure that they offer the best deal for homeowners, as well as value for money for the taxpayer."

Promising, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cut housing benefit by 50%, then a lot of landlords would no longer receive the highest bids for their flats/houses from those out of work.

Indeed - Mrs Tomandlu is finally getting it. We went into an estate agent's the other day due to what looked like a nice (larger than current) rental nearby. It had gone, but they asked us what we were after and for how much. Queue some sucking of teeth, and "well, there's a nice place that would suit, but the owner is asking too much - she's holding out for a housing benefit let".

The Mrs did a double-take as the penny dropped... Personally, I don't care whether they're workshy scroungers or the deserving poor, but being priced out of decent places to rent by housing benefit is effing ridiculous...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuff on jobs and welfare from the Coalition doc.

Remember that Pickles has asked Grant Shapps to review help for homeowners, also. That's help with mortgages, of course, not Housing Benefit to pay rent.

"Figures published today by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Ministry of Justice show that the threat of repossession remains very real for homeowners across the country.

"That's why the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, will be asking the new Housing Minister to take a fresh look at existing Government schemes which help homeowners struggling to pay their mortgage and make sure that they offer the best deal for homeowners, as well as value for money for the taxpayer."

The quotes above are validation of my view that this Nick Clegg premiership is a case of 'same old, same old', but a little bit more to the left.

Where is the moral hazard? If you buy a house, you should be careful over the risk you are taking. If you arent careful, repossession should be swift and sure, and the house moved to someone who can pay the cost.

Keeping people in homes who cant pay means shifting a cost onto someone else. A lot of this policy appears to be shifting the cost onto the banks and hence the shareholders of the banks (and in a lot of cases that means the taxpayer), because the banks cant repossess as quickly as they should. This keeps someone who cant pay in a home, paid for by others, whilst someone who can pay and is more deserving of that home, is kept out of property ownership. Add in the useless adminstration costs of sorting all this out, and you have a set of policies that have made us all poorer, given us perverse incentives, and created an unfairness.

The threat of repossession, should remain 'REAL' at all times in a functioning housing market. If you dont pay, you should lose whatever it is you havent paid for. You dont get this sort of daft policy with cars on hire purchase, after all, there would be little incentive to pay if you put these buyer protections in place.

Unless we get a few Tories who understand this sort of stuff, stand up and try to sort it out, Nick Clegg is going to lead us onwards to disaster. Makes me laugh when he quotes fairness whilst implementing such a huge unfairness. This is tragic stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless we get a few Tories who understand this sort of stuff, stand up and try to sort it out, Nick Clegg is going to lead us onwards to disaster. Makes me laugh when he quotes fairness whilst implementing such a huge unfairness. This is tragic stuff.

TBH you don't need to be a tory - you just have to accept that having your house repossessed is not the worst thing in the world. You lose your house, you rent. If renting is that bad, then how do you justify propping up house prices by preventing repossessions, and thus keeping renters from buying? It's not rocket science ffs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take it easy - IDS and Frank Field have barely started their assesment of benefits, and it is I'm afraid preferable (from a demand perspective) to gradually push plebs back into work than suddenly cut off their benefits and leave them in the streets

slowly slowly catchy monkey

house prices are very very toast...in 5 to 10 years

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take it easy - IDS and Frank Field have barely started their assesment of benefits, and it is I'm afraid preferable (from a demand perspective) to gradually push plebs back into work than suddenly cut off their benefits and leave them in the streets

slowly slowly catchy monkey

house prices are very very toast...in 5 to 10 years

Slowly but surely. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take it easy - IDS and Frank Field have barely started their assesment of benefits, and it is I'm afraid preferable (from a demand perspective) to gradually push plebs back into work than suddenly cut off their benefits and leave them in the streets

slowly slowly catchy monkey

house prices are very very toast...in 5 to 10 years

From what I remember, Frank Field and IDS have been working on this thing for years. If they dont know what to do yet, then we arent going to get an answer anytime soon.

As for gradually pushing the plebs back into work, wasnt that what Labour tried to do? It doesnt work. You have to remember that the whole benefits system has a vested interest in paying benefits to people. It has little incentive to cut back. It isnt worth the hassle you get from someone, if you are on the front line and dealing with the unemployed. It is all a game.

What happens is someone gets a letter saying they have to do some work to prove they are willing to work. The worried non-worker speaks to someone about it, and they say not to worry, just grit you teeth and do it. So they go off to Lidl's or wherever and do a couple of weeks work. They have proved that they are willing to work, and then its all back to normal for them.

That sort of system isnt going to change in any meaningful way as a result of a bit of lah de dah 'gradual pushing'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We will re-assess all current claimants of Incapacity Benefit for their readiness to work. Those assessed as fully capable for work will be moved onto Jobseeker’s Allowance.

A torched and burnt out GP surgery coming to a place near you! dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens is someone gets a letter saying they have to do some work to prove they are willing to work. The worried non-worker speaks to someone about it, and they say not to worry, just grit you teeth and do it. So they go off to Lidl's or wherever and do a couple of weeks work. They have proved that they are willing to work, and then its all back to normal for them.

That sort of system isnt going to change in any meaningful way as a result of a bit of lah de dah 'gradual pushing'.

I don't understand how this could possibly work? From my understanding, if pleb works at Lidl and leaves after two weeks he has voluntarily left and is therefore no longer entitled to beneift. I thought this was the system that was in place at the moment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed - Mrs Tomandlu is finally getting it. We went into an estate agent's the other day due to what looked like a nice (larger than current) rental nearby. It had gone, but they asked us what we were after and for how much. Queue some sucking of teeth, and "well, there's a nice place that would suit, but the owner is asking too much - she's holding out for a housing benefit let".

The Mrs did a double-take as the penny dropped... Personally, I don't care whether they're workshy scroungers or the deserving poor, but being priced out of decent places to rent by housing benefit is effing ridiculous...

Quote that to your MP.

Even better, quote it to the Mail - they'd love it. (The Mail does have its uses.)

It was only after a lot of Mail-ish outrage over vast HB recently that whoever it was (Mrs Balls?) announced a cap on it - though it's still far too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I remember, Frank Field and IDS have been working on this thing for years. If they dont know what to do yet, then we arent going to get an answer anytime soon.

As for gradually pushing the plebs back into work, wasnt that what Labour tried to do? It doesnt work. You have to remember that the whole benefits system has a vested interest in paying benefits to people. It has little incentive to cut back. It isnt worth the hassle you get from someone, if you are on the front line and dealing with the unemployed. It is all a game.

What happens is someone gets a letter saying they have to do some work to prove they are willing to work. The worried non-worker speaks to someone about it, and they say not to worry, just grit you teeth and do it. So they go off to Lidl's or wherever and do a couple of weeks work. They have proved that they are willing to work, and then its all back to normal for them.

That sort of system isnt going to change in any meaningful way as a result of a bit of lah de dah 'gradual pushing'.

sorry but your arrogance is quite astonishing

IDS and FF have only just taken their positions, they don't even know the state of the nation's finances, never mind the parliamentary timetable over the coming year, or for that matter the state of the private sector or level of commitment for existing benefits claimants

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I remember, Frank Field and IDS have been working on this thing for years. If they dont know what to do yet, then we arent going to get an answer anytime soon.

As for gradually pushing the plebs back into work, wasnt that what Labour tried to do? It doesnt work. You have to remember that the whole benefits system has a vested interest in paying benefits to people. It has little incentive to cut back. It isnt worth the hassle you get from someone, if you are on the front line and dealing with the unemployed. It is all a game.

What happens is someone gets a letter saying they have to do some work to prove they are willing to work. The worried non-worker speaks to someone about it, and they say not to worry, just grit you teeth and do it. So they go off to Lidl's or wherever and do a couple of weeks work. They have proved that they are willing to work, and then its all back to normal for them.

That sort of system isnt going to change in any meaningful way as a result of a bit of lah de dah 'gradual pushing'.

It is a game, you are right....anyway why would an employer want to employ anyone who didn't want to work... I would say it would be more trouble than it is worth...having said that there are many that do want to work but the work they want to do at a price they can afford to do it is not out there.....where next? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how this could possibly work? From my understanding, if pleb works at Lidl and leaves after two weeks he has voluntarily left and is therefore no longer entitled to beneift. I thought this was the system that was in place at the moment?

This isnt the claimant doing a job. This is the claimant doing an organised 'prove you can work' session. Lidl's or whoever dont offer a job at the end of it, not normally anyway.

I havent heard of anyone getting zero benefits as a result of not accepting or looking for work. You gotta remember, the benefits system has morphed into a system that is looking to pay people benefits, not protect taxpayers money. We have heard these words about cutting benefits if you dont take work before. The reason we hear them again and again is that no one is willing to take the decision to actually cut people off entirely. You are talking about leaving people to starve to death here, and lets face it, there will be some willing to go that far rather than look or accept work.

That same dilemma is one thousand times worse if you have a mother with children who has the same attitude. Would you be prepared to cut off their benefits? Think about this, if you really were in that situation, on the front line, it was your decision. Could you do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry but your arrogance is quite astonishing

IDS and FF have only just taken their positions, they don't even know the state of the nation's finances, never mind the parliamentary timetable over the coming year, or for that matter the state of the private sector or level of commitment for existing benefits claimants

"IDS and FF have only just taken their positions" - True, but so has everyone else in Nick Clegg's government, and yet they have managed to say what the thrust of their policies are going to be. It will of course take time to implement. But so far nothing from these two.

"they don't even know the state of the nation's finances". - They know that the finances are really bad, and the cuts need to be huge. They also know that they need a system that encourages people to work. A few commitments by way of policy intention cant be that difficult, everyone else has managed it.

"never mind the parliamentary timetable over the coming year, or for that matter the state of the private sector or level of commitment for existing benefits claimants" - These two are experts, they would already have had a pretty good idea of the state of things. They wont learn much more by looking at the figures in detail for another 6 months. Best to state the thrust of what you are going to do as early as possible, so everyone knows what is coming and can react accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.