[Closed] Benefit cuts

I sometimes really, really, really hate what this country has become. Anyone who tries to defend this isn't worth any form of response and should be ignored as a troll.

Can't decide whether to say that she's worse than Thatcher, Hitler or both. She really is a vile specimen.

this line is really quite chilling:

These cuts will do something Thatcher never managed: they break once and for all the link between the needs of benefits claimants and their entitlements.

🙁

THM will be along in a moment to tell you that there's no such thing as austerity.

Poor people are less likely to vote Tory. And if they've starved or frozen to death before the next general election, they can't vote Labour either.

I have a solution, we need to halve all rents and property values nationwide.

I have a solution, we need to stop vilifying the poor and understand they are human beings

Aerosmith have a solution....

Seriously though if we don't prioritise protecting the wealth creators who will exploit the proles so they can have a hovel to cower in

not a Tory, however I'll dispute the maths in the example given.

A quick search on rightmove shows 4 bed houses (should be big enough for the family), in the area he lives in, at around £600/month. The benefit cap is £1668/month, leaving a grand a month for 'other expenses'.

I'm not going to claim the benefit cap isn't going to leave some people in a pinch, but in Liverpool (given the cheapness of housing), I don't think it does

THM will be along in a moment to tell you that there's no such thing as austerity.

There isn't. Hence NW comes along to mix up different ideas.

Ahh [i] 'Meine Führerin [/i] hath spoken.

All hail [b] 'Meine Führerin [/b]

Like NOW!

Not designed to be inflammatory, but I suspect it's only designed to provide the bare minimum.... And the allowance is sufficient for most of the UK I suspect.

Sure, it might not be exactly what they want, in the area they want... But that's the consequences of choices isn't it?

I like a challenge.

but not too many employers will be able to fit around his school runs and meal preps

Meal preps? Good show! And yet

But they don’t get fresh fruit or veg, subsisting on frozen meals from Iceland.

Pissing his money away at ready meals rather than cooking? Odd.

Or he can ask Wirral council to top up his rent, by filling out a complicated form

It's complicated? Oh well, in that case we should use his kids to feed the animals at Chester Zoo.

There's a good deal of handwringing in that article, yet no sense that he's had months to do something, but didn't quite get round to it. Probably a queue at Icleand.

How's that? Did I fulfill the OP's brief?

5lab - it think you don't understand how the benefit cap works. "cash" benefits (jobseekers/PIP's, whatever else) will make up a small and fixed proportion of that £1668, the rest is for housing and will be what that housing costs in the area, it CAN go upto the full amount but is only likely to down south.

e.g. cash benefits £400 (made up number)
housing benefit £600 - liverpool
total £1000

cash benefits £400
housing benefit £1200 - that london
total £1600

I started to lose sympathy at "try to land 16 hours' work a week", then when we got to "complicated form" I was out.

Remember a few years back when we had a coalition government - lib dems were stopping stuff like this happening. Idiot electorate decided they were doing a terrible job and abandoned the lib dems giving a conservative majority = this is not a particularly unlikely outcome.

On the other hand:

Those outside the capital will be cut to £385 a week.

And the story grabbing the headlines is about people wanting to spend millions to find out who were the bigger bunch of a-holes in a strike 30+ years ago.

"I'm not going to claim the benefit cap isn't going to leave some people in a pinch, but in Liverpool (given the cheapness of housing), I don't think it does"

You're more than welcome to give it a go. You'll need four kids with you as well. Don't forget things like transport costs, food outside, 'phone etc. And all the other costs which aren't mentioned but are part of life. such as clothes (kids grow out of them pretty quick), stuff for school etc. My fag packet calculations give £35.60 per day after your £600 pm rent, for an adult and four kids. I'm sure you could 'survive', but it'd be shit. And your figures are based on a maximum anyone can get, not what they actually get, which could be a lot less, depending on circumstances.

No good asking if any tories 'defend' this; nobody with any experience of real poverty would ever vote tory, and nobody who votes tory has a ****ing clue about the reality of life in poverty for so many people. They'd just 'organise a fun run' for charity or something, to assuage any guilt they [i]might[/i] feel. Job done. Crack open another bottle of Semillon....

I'll get shot down for this but hey-ho 😉

For the record I'm not a Tory. Not Labour either as they bribe the electorate with benefits etc that the country cannot afford. Don't really fit any political group really!

The figures at the bottom of the article relate to a family of 4 with 2 adults. Why aren't they in work? One could get a job while the other one looks after the kids, saving on childcare costs etc. If the breadwinner has been made redundant then this situation is temporary, surely they have a small amount of savings from when they were in work?

Benefits are designed to be a safety net to cushion you when times turn bad, not a way of fully supporting you and your family for life. Yes, living on that amount of money is tough but it is only meant to be for a short time.

I should add that my experience of people on benefits has been coloured by one couple in one part of my family (that I have nothing to do with) being on benefits for life, popping out another sprog when money got low and being all the cliches that Jeremy Kyle envisages so I have very little time for 'career claimants'. I have never had to claim any out-of-work benefits as I've made sure I had a safety net, be that parents or savings. I see this sorry mess as part of the whole culture of everything now, easy credit, misplaced entitlement that pervades society these days. I would love to live in the middle of nowhere just being on my own, riding my bike etc but I can't afford to. So I live in a city and work hard to pay my way with a bit left over every month to spend on bikes and a bit of savings.

Let the shooting commence 😆

new headline "time rich dad feeds kids ready-meals"

to earn the £1668 total monthly benefit cap you'd need a job paying £25K.

Which I'll wager is more than most working people in Birkenhead earn on average.

****ing hell, no wonder the tories keep getting elected if their supporters maths and comprehension skills are on a par with the sample represented here.

statistically they voted brexit and with it accepted a few difficult years in the belief things would be better.

Hmmmmm STW does benefits, and already its going a bit.... you know.... [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ken-loach-i-daniel-blake-toby-young-life-on-benefits-rings-true-mark-steel-a7383461.html ]Toby Young[/url]

Benefits should be for those in need not a lifestyle choice, tbh I dont think any 'benefits' should be cash, it should all be via voucher for necessities,I susprct there would be far fewer benefit 'claimants' this way.

Remember when everyone was getting outraged at the media reporting about families proudly claiming £50k a year and whipping everyone into an outraged frenzy?

Well now it's harder to do that as a result of the BenCap, so they just flip the story on it's head and whip everyone into an outraged frenzy.

Will we never learn? It's the bloody media doing what it does so well and we're biting, again.

Why aren't they in work?

Is that a real question or a rhetorical one? Very important distinction.

In the article, the guy is a single parent. Getting a job in his situation is pretty damn difficult I'd imagine. If that's not victim blaming, I don't know what is.

Rubber_Buccaneer - Member
I have a solution, we need to halve all rents and property values nationwide

"Let the shooting commence"

Well, you kind of did it to yourself, in your opening line:

"For the record I'm not a Tory. Not Labour either as they bribe the electorate with benefits etc that the country cannot afford."

😕

"Hmmmmm STW does benefits, and already its going a bit.... you know...."

I'm reminded of recent threads about 'how much do you spend a week', that kind of thing. Obviously not posted by people the Guardian article highlights...

I have a solution, we need to halve all rents and property values nationwide

That would benefit poor people but disadvantage those well off enough to be landlords. Who do you think needs our help? The poor, to survive - or the well off, to get a bit more well off?

fifeandy - Member
Remember a few years back when we had a coalition government - lib dems were stopping stuff like this happening. Idiot electorate decided they were doing a terrible job and abandoned the lib dems giving a conservative majority = this is not a particularly unlikely outcome.

5lab - it think you don't understand how the benefit cap works. "cash" benefits (jobseekers/PIP's, whatever else) will make up a small and fixed proportion of that £1668, the rest is for housing and will be what that housing costs in the area, it CAN go upto the full amount but is only likely to down south.

True - but if this guy is affected by the 'new cap' - it is the overall figure which is being reduced - a quick google suggests the cut hits primarily housing benefit - so unless I've missed something the impact of the cap is that it will bring the overall figure down till it hits £1668 - so anyone impacted is getting more than that?

You're more than welcome to give it a go. You'll need four kids with you as well. Don't forget things like transport costs, food outside, 'phone etc. And all the other costs which aren't mentioned but are part of life. such as clothes (kids grow out of them pretty quick), stuff for school etc. My fag packet calculations give £35.60 per day after your £600 pm rent, for an adult and four kids. I'm sure you could 'survive', but it'd be shit. And your figures are based on a maximum anyone can get, not what they actually get, which could be a lot less, depending on circumstances.

No thanks. I have a good salary, and yet I wouldn't want to support 4 kids on it, as it would make money tight. So, you know, I've decided not to have 4 kids..

the hustler
Benefits should be for those in need not a lifestyle choice, tbh I dont think any 'benefits' should be cash, it should all be via voucher for necessities,I susprct there would be far fewer benefit 'claimants' this way.

It's popular suggestion - if I was geniunely hard up I wouldn't give a monkey's if I was given cash in the bank, or a voucher to be spent only on food / necessities (ie. no fags / booze / scratchcards) but the government would probably manage to **** that up by putting the voucher scheme out to tender so that they were only redeemable in certain shops - let's face it - probably ones that the government top brass have a shit load of shares in.

So, we'd probably end up with the situation where people struggling with addictions etc. would flog them at below face value for cash to spend on booze / fags / scratchcards / drugs anyway & their kids would be worse off than before.

Except he isn't cos that the ****ING LONDON CAP!!!!!

molgrips - Member
That would benefit poor people but disadvantage those well off enough to be landlords. Who do you think needs our help? The poor, to survive - or the well off, to get a bit more well off?

It wouldn't benefit the poor, housing benefit only passes via them to the landlord. They'd be in the same situation they are now but the benefit bill would have reduced as required. I'm not sure my proposal is going to be popular

No thanks. I have a good salary, and yet I wouldn't want to support 4 kids on it, as it would make money tight. So, you know, I've decided not to have 4 kids..

Not even a braaaaahn one?

[img] [/img]

So, you know, I've decided not to have 4 kids..

As if every kid is the result of a conscious decision to have them.

As if innocent kids should pay the price for their parents' mistakes. You sound like a lovely chap.

I have a good salary, and yet I wouldn't want to support 4 kids on it, as it would make money tight. So, you know, I've decided not to have 4 kids..

You know, there's probably a percentage of folk struggling on benefits that may once have enjoyed a much better salary than you and easily afforded a big house, 4 kids & 5 holidays per year until some terrible chain of events, illness / death in the family / redundancy / mental health issues / all of the above turned everything on it's head - benefits don't just apply to those folk you see on the TV documentaries... although, yes there are some that sadly see a large family as a source of income, they probably should keep it in their pants.

I think I might be another struggling to feel for the guy.

I think too many people have lost their way, and lost the link between work and lifestyle. We cannot, and shouldn't allow able bodied, able minded to live indefinitely off benefits because they can. If you are unable to work because of sickness or disability you should be provided with a 'nice' lifestyle, that's what a decent society does - but we can't because we spend too much supporting people who are lazy. If you lose your job you should be supported until you can find another one, we shouldn't live in a society when people get made redundant and face losing their homes but we can't afford to do it properly because too many people are lazy and 'play the system'.

A total cap of £1540 outside of London, I'm sorry, but that's a decent income these days. It's not going to afford you a great lifestyle, but lots of people work very hard to earn that. It's what someone earning £22500 a year would take home or £8500 more than someone on minimum wage would earn full-time.

If I am right (and I hope I am not) about the scale and impact of the eurozone collapse triggered by the Greek debt crises these cuts will pale into insignificance versus what will be required. The Labour Party created an unsustainable welfare burden which has and will take many years to resolve.

to earn the £1668 total monthly benefit cap you'd need a job paying £25K.

and the average salary in the UK is close, at about £27,500. It means that half the working population are worse off than that

"I think I might be another struggling to feel for the guy."

It's called 'lacking empathy, compassion, understanding and insight'. You're not the only one to suffer thus.

"So, you know, I've decided not to have 4 kids.."

Yet not decided to stop being so judgmental? 🙄

"The Labour Party created an unsustainable welfare burden"

Oh god, here we go...

SO he's going to magically land a job that will provide that PLUS all the childcare he'd need to support that job?

I know a "single" mother in her early 20's who actually secretly still is with the father and living there, and used her housing benefit to buy a really nice Audi A3 Black Edition. (on finance)

What needs to happen, is quicker/more reliable way to weed out those taking advantage of the system.

Hilariously, when they cut the benefit the first time she had the audacity to complain she would struggle to meet her car repayments. Whilst texting on her brand new iPhone.

One of the things I love about this place is the fact that you can read the same reactionary, ill-informed, evidence-free, sociopathic, sanctimonious, self-aggrandising, anecdote-driven, I-read-it-in-the-Daily-Mail claptrap, and yet it never loses its impact.

Good work all. Well... the usual suspects at least 😀

"Whilst texting on her brand new iPhone."

Good thing she didn't use the product of a company who took advantage of illegal help to avoid £11 million in tax then, eh? That would be terrible.

The Labour Party created an unsustainable welfare burden which has and will take many years to resolve.

Not really. But anyway, this is related to benefits - a rel small part of the overall welfare budget that is dominated by pensions - not overall welfare. [The more rabid Tories also link this to benefit abuse which is an even smaller sub-section of a small part of the issue - the blue equivalent of fox hunting!!]

Strip away the headlines and the froth and this comes down to what is the best way to deal with poverty and the social and economic challenges that come with it. For many across the political spectrum, work is the best way out of poverty. So what are the next steps? This is where it becomes more complex especially the question of whether benefits are an incentive or a disincentive to work and therefore an obstacle to alleviating poverty. The Tories and others believe that they are and that they are a blunt and over-used sticking plaster that prevents real progress being made towards tackling the underlying issues. I have some sympathy with that view. To pacify their more rabid members, they also like to link this incorrectly to overall UK finances and the track record of the last Labour government. That is bllx.

Any transition from the current over-reliance on band aid policies that have not addressed long term trends in poverty will involve winners and losers and is far from easy. Hence, politicians prefer not to tackle the issue and to rely instead on the band aids. And we know who are the losers there.....

In an ideal world, we'd all follow the law. If only there was a system where you could appoint people to get a hold of all this stuff.

Shh; Jamba and THM are about to have an argument! 😀

Bugger; all I can find are some stale old Jacob's Cream Crackers...

What needs to happen, is quicker/more reliable way to weed out those taking advantage of the system.

Yes, but that is nowhere near as important as taking care of those in need.

A total cap of £1540 outside of London, I'm sorry, but that's a decent income these days.

Yes but read thestabiliser's post on the other page. They don't just give you £1540. They cover your rent then give you £385/week, up to a max of £1540.

£385/week isn't a lot for five people, is it?

then when we got to "complicated form" I was out.

So anyone who's not bright can rot, their families can be broken up and their kids can go into care? Does that sound fair and reasonable?

Some astonishing levels of ****ing ignorance and callousness on this thread. The funny thing is that if they had friends or people they cared about struggling, they'd jump in to help. But because they don't WANT to care about these people they don't know, they are able to justify washing their hands.

Not good.

No Molgrips the £385 INCLUDES housing benefit.

Clod, the sun is not over the yard arm yet.

So where's the difference in the Guardians tactic to whip up a whirlwind of left wing frothing offence at Steve from Birkinheads situation vs. the Daily Mail's tactic of whipping up a storm of right wing xenophobic abuse at the situation of 'Keith from Bradford who's job has just been taken by a lower paid immigrant'?

It's just newspapers doing their thing trying to outdo eachother in order to sell more papers, and to hell with the truth, and portraying a completely distorted view of the world and drive their own political agenda's. Some might call it propaganda. Steve from Birkinhead's situation probably has nothing to do with the governments benefits policy. It's impossible to tell from that drivel they're passing off as journalism. More information needed about Steve to make an informed decision about his circumstances and the hand government policy might have had. Steve might be a lazy layabout who had 4 kids to bump himself up the council housing waiting list or get more money from benefits (most of us don't get a payrise if we decide to have more kids), or he may be a hard working unlucky person, a victim of life and being held back by government policy. Who knows?

^ what Molgrips said.

Welcome to New Olde England:

Homeless people are actually wealthy scammers

Benefits claimants are really lying scroungers

Disability benefit claimants are bare-faced shirkers brimming with health

Cyclists are actually aggressive and entitled road hogs who don't pay road tax.

Immigrants is a secret word for barely human 40 year-old rapist men pretending to be teenagers because they are too cowardly to fight 'for their own'.

It's a good job that the tabloids couldn't possibly profit from such mean-spirited crock, eh?

"Who knows?"

Not you, obviously.

You think the Guardian's motivation and methodology is the same as the Daily Mails? Hmmmmmm.....

You must be one of these intellectuals I've heard so much about....

Its a good job we've had enough of experts in this country

So anyone who's not bright can rot, their families can be broken up and their kids can go into care? Does that sound fair and reasonable?

From reading the article the changes were announced in July and it is now November. In a situation where you have no commitments on your time other than feeding your kids and taking them to school, I would have imagined that a motivated individual, using their resourcefulness and any available support should be able to conquer a form in the 3-4 months given.

£385/week isn't a lot for five people, is it?

Myself and my wife both work, we live in London, after the mortgage, childcare, savings etc we have nowhere near £385 a week to keep us and our 2 kids alive. It's £55 a day, that's a crazy amount to be spending everyday.

teamhurtmore - Member

There isn't. Hence NW comes along to mix up different ideas.

Pop quiz- when the benefit cap changes were announced, did the government say it was to reduce the deficit?
a) yes
b) obviously
c) all of the above
Doesn't seem to be me that's confusing things.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go and look at the total welfare budget.
Then look at the proportion of that that is for benefits.
Then look at how much of that benefit budget is for people "in work".
Then go and look at how many people in the UK are unemployed.
Then go and look at how many job vacancies there are in the UK.

Those who are so quick to see the unemployed as such a big drain on society either aren't very good at maths or simply haven't bothered to do the maths because it doesn't fit their world view.

The Government is not targeting the poor because they have to, they are targeting them because we allow them to.

Ok my previous post was bollocks - apologies I got confused and £385 per week is indeed plenty - I was thining £385 per month.

But as pointed out that's including rent anyway so point still stands. If you aren't fiddling the system you get very little to live on.

So where's the difference in the Guardians tactic to whip up a whirlwind of left wing frothing offence at Steve from Birkinheads situation vs. the Daily Mail's tactic of whipping up a storm of right wing xenophobic abuse at the situation of 'Keith from Bradford who's job has just been taken by a lower paid immigrant'?

Because the Guardian are trying to make things better through its paper. The Mail is just trying to sell papers.

More information needed about Steve

Is it? If Steve is on the make, then what's the consequence? Some money is wasted. If Steve is telling the truth, what are the consequences? He's on the street, his family is broken up and his kids are in care.

Which is worse?

I would have imagined that a motivated individual, using their resourcefulness and any available support should be able to conquer a form in the 3-4 months given.

Ok, but what if you're depressed, not resourceful and don't know where the support is?

Is it right that this person and his kids should suffer? REALLY? You're seriously saying that depressed people deserve all they get?

Bring back the workhouse. If the poor are confined with each other in crappy conditions, maybe they will stop breeding & get off their arses to better themselves.

clodhopper - Member

"I think I might be another struggling to feel for the guy."

It's called 'lacking empathy, compassion, understanding and insight'. You're not the only one to suffer thus.

I don't think it's that. My Wife was a single Mum before we met, working part-time, studying full time at Uni and claiming a small amount of benefits to make ends meet. We only managed to break from benefits 5 years ago when my Wife qualified and got her first job.

We both work very hard for our modest lifestyle, my Wife earns less than the benefit cap, spends her days caring for the sick and dying then we pay half her take-home out in childcare. We don’t moan, we made the decision to have children, knowing the costs and sacrifices needed.

I've been made redundant twice, with 2 kids to provide for, rent to pay, bills to pay. I've been too broke to pay for food and bills so had to choose, we got through it. A took a job, pretty much any job to keep our heads above water and rebuilt our lives from there.

We're both from 'broken homes' my Wife used to play "hide from the Bailiff" with her sisters when she was little, when I grew up we didn't have a TV for a couple of years, we didn't have a telephone in our house until I was 16.

But we got through it, by working hard, by not giving up – yes I know it’s tough out there, but really, on a global scale, is it? We’re the world’s 7th biggest economy, there are endless opportunities for people to get ahead, find work, improve your lot in life – I know a lot of people who cry “I’d lose money working” “There’s nothing out there” “wah wah wah – it’s not my fault” and sadly, in each real world, people I really know well case, they’re lying. They’re lazy, they’ve allowed themselves to blame others – they abuse the system and have built a lifestyle around benefits – they have no intention of working, no real intension.

The guy in the story can’t be arse to fill out a poxy form, because it’s “really complicated” and it seems would rather lose his home and children because of a COMPLICATED FORM.

The guy in the story can’t be arse to fill out a poxy form, because it’s “really complicated” and it seems would rather lose his home and children because of a COMPLICATED FORM.

You missed the part where the form only covers him for a few months.

And so what if he struggles with forms? If Steve was your brother who had trouble reading and understanding forms, would you ignore him and let him struggle? Of course not, you'd help out. So why is it different because you don't know Steve?

They’re lazy, they’ve allowed themselves to blame others – they abuse the system and have built a lifestyle around benefits – they have no intention of working, no real intension.

That really sounds like Steve doesn't it?

Because the Guardian are trying to make things better through its paper. The Mail is just trying to sell papers.

Mail readers might also say their paper of choice is trying to "make things better"

Or perhaps they're both just trying to make money for their owners?

"I don't think it's that"

I'm pretty sure it is. Nothing you've said would convince me otherwise.

Mail readers might also say their paper of choice is trying to "make things better"

Right. But that's demonstrably false.

Lets see NW?

So the government said, the key aims of the benefit cap are

increase incentives to work;
introduce greater fairness into the welfare system between those on out-of-work benefits and taxpayers in employment; and
make financial savings and incentivise behaviours that reduce long-term dependency on benefits.

Source: UK Government

You are confusing (deliberately or otherwise) the issue with a wider context. As the BBC summarised neatly at the time

The benefits cap is a limit on the amount paid to individuals.
The welfare cap is a limit on benefits spending overall

Different things - but a good illustration of why informed debate on this issue is normally impossible.

[s]Pop quiz[/s] sensible question - when the benefit cap changes were announced, did the government say it was to reduce the deficit?
a) yes
b) obviously
c) none of the above

Right. But that's demonstrably false.

Is it?

And so what if he struggles with forms? If Steve was your brother who had trouble reading and understanding forms, would you ignore him and let him struggle? Of course not, you'd help out. So why is it different because you don't know Steve?

I don't wish to fuel this argument further really but I mean, if a form is really what is holding Steve between life and death then surely there must be someone, anyone he can approach to help him out?

I feel like just walking into a job centre, booking an appointment then explaining you need help filling out a form would get you the help you needed there.

Rent in Birkinhead for a 3 bed council house is approx £433 pcm, or £100 per week.

Edit: The LHA (local housing allowance, the amount a housing benefit claim would usually pay up to) for the area is £125.68 per week, or £544.18 per month.

oldtalent - Member

Bring back the workhouse. If the poor are confined with each other in crappy conditions, maybe they will stop breeding & get off their arses to better themselves.

Brace yourselves folks. Iain Duncan Smith is on his lunch break and up for a spot of liberal-trolling 😀

Mail readers might also say their paper of choice is trying to "make things better"

Some people could probably do with walking a mile in other people's shoes as a form of education. It might make making offhand uneducated comments a little more difficult.

Is he in a council house?

Edt: Yes he is

If Steve was your brother who had trouble reading and understanding forms, would you ignore him and let him struggle? Of course not, you'd help out. So why is it different because you don't know Steve?

Did the opinion piece writer help Steve? Did he give him a lift down the CAB to get some help with the form?

Or did he just want to sell his 500 words?

if a form is really what is holding Steve between life and death then surely there must be someone, anyone he can approach to help him out?

THE FORM DOES NOT SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS! IT ONLY COVERS HIM FOR A FEW MONTHS!

surely there must be someone

Surely? Why surely? You're saying Steve wants to be in this position? Or is depressed and fearful because he's simply lazy and can't be bothered?

Did the opinion piece writer help Steve? Did he give him a lift down the CAB to get some help with the form?

Or did he just want to sell his 500 words?

We don't know, so why are you asking? Are you trying to divert focus from Steve's problems? Are you trying to justify ignoring it?

THE FORM DOES NOT SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS! IT ONLY COVERS HIM FOR A FEW MONTHS!

surely there must be someone

Not had much contact with the reality of our wonderful, inclusive modern society then?

Not had much contact with the reality of modern society then?

THE FORM DOES NOT SOLVE HIS PROBLEMS! IT ONLY COVERS HIM FOR A FEW MONTHS!

So why does everyone keep talking about the form?

Did the form have reason to commit the crime? The form wanted out, but you kept dragging the form back in. The form did what the form had to do. The form put and end to it all. And it would of gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids.