[Closed] Benefit cuts

"I want the Tories on here to acknowledge that the system is tragically crap"

They won't. They're tories; they never admit they're wrong. Which is pretty much most of the time. They simply couldn't suffer the abject humiliation of being wrong. So they persist in trying to believe they are right.

If they admitted they were wrong, they'd have to stop being tories.

Good to see Labour also want to keep the benefit cap and also reduce in certain areas

http://www.labour.org.uk/manifesto/social-security

The difference is, that Labour would tackle the areas that create the need for benefits, by providing homes, training and jobs, and addressing the issues that result in such a large welfare burden.

The tories aren't going to do that. They'll simply make things worse. As they are currently.

Good to see Labour also want to keep the benefit cap and also reduce in certain areas

http://www.labour.org.uk/manifesto/social-security

Don't worry, there's enough communists in this thread they will claim labour are a right wing party and don't have any humanity either.

All you've done is link to some numbers which may or may not explain anything, and may or may not have been compiled using methodology which may or may not be flawed, presented by a government department which may or may not be telling the actual truth.

Sorry for answering your question rich, please ignore my link. The independent body is of course a secret centre of flawed analysis and propaganda whose sole objective is to support far right wing idelogies. My bad. Please refer instead to clever-clod, his imagination and the anecdotes of his great Aunt Fanny.

Let's look at what facts actually are, THM.

I though that they were unimportant - please make you mind up.

Facts are in the ever increasing numbers of homeless people and families. Facts are in the ever increasing number of people using food banks (ask your wife, she will explain this to you). Facts are the numbers of suicides of people being declared 'fit to work' by an assessment system which isn't fit for purpose. Facts are the rise in chronic mental illness in young people. Facts are the increased burden of debt of anyone wanting to go to university (to get the same level of education you and I got for free). Facts are the increase in violent crime. Facts are the increase in hate crimes.Facts are what affect real people.

All true, but not related to the question a hand.

Stick that in your abacus and see what you come up with.

Thank you. Regards to Great Aunt Fanny. Looking forward to the next diatribe already...

I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?

I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?

Confirmation bias. They want to be able to justify their existing point of view. Which is, in many cases, that they are better than the others. As in, I've succeeded or managed, and they haven't, therefore I'm better than them.

Some people's lives are ruled by a kind of competitiveness that in most cases they don't even notice. They posture to put themselves above others where they can, even if it's just through passive-aggressive behaviour.

I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?

Closed lazy selfish stupid dogmatic - sociopaths (trending here) - pick any - likely very similar to the objects they stereotype.

Lots of accusations flying about but few solutions

I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?

If such a person imagines themself surrounded by a sea of villains/lesser beings, then it makes the shining hill upon which they imagine themselves to stand that much higher and brighter. This type of generalising can work both ways, but it boils down to the same thing - "I'm not a f***up, but 'they' are. I'll never be like 'them' because I'm better'

Looking down one's nose at others is very simple ego-boost. Negative stereotypes are their fix, so they swallow as many as are offered. This is one reason why tabloids are so addictive. Us vs them.

Is it beyond comprehension that "Foodbank Sharon" had bought that iPhone while in work?

"I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?"

What Malvern Rider said, and:

It stems from a basic human insecurity, which is linked to the survival instinct. Often manifests itself in the behaviour of young children; a child can be happily playing with a whole load of toys, but if they see another child being given a toy, they will suddenly become very jealous, and possibly even attack the other child to get the toy, regardless of the number of toys they already have. It's essentially a fear of not having as much as possible, or what my wife calls a Fear of Missing Out™ (FMO). In adults, it manifests itself in ways such as jealousy towards someone with a more attractive partner, bigger house, nicer car etc. It's really very common. Whilst adults won't generaly attack each other, they often seek to belittle or denigrate their 'rival', by criticising them and/or the thing they are jealous of. I suppose we all have it so some degree, but it's more apparent in some than in others. Tory ideology relies on appealing to such base fears, and feeds into this by creating a mythical narrative that the 'other' has more than you and it's not fair; you deserve it 'more'. The fear nourished, it is then easier to attack that which causes the fear in the first place.

The right wing media will create fictional narratives of 'benefit scroungers' etc, knowing that this will trigger the FMO in insecure people, who will then be more amenable to attacking the mythical 'beast'. They will use extreme examples, often exceptions of he general rule, to whip up a greater frenzy amongst their audience.

It's why the Daily Mail, Jeremy Kyle, Benefits st etc are so popular. From Bullingdon boys burning banknotes in front of homeless folk, to people on internet forums bleating on about a particular example they are knowledgable of, which 'proves' the myth is 'correct'.

And it's why the tories get votes.

Lots of accusations flying about but few solutions

Well - in the short term, forget about the austerity benefit cuts - easy one that. Borrowing against future taxes probably won't work so tax something.

In the longer term - I've asked this before, but what's the problem with job creation for the persistently unemployed? I mean it doesn't have to be trivial - there's a lot that needs doing. Can't we get some people working on HS2? Instead of hiring civil engineering companies who won't employ the long term unemployed.

That gives money directly to the workers, rather than filtering it through a big company. But then - I'm in favour of certain industries being state run, and Tories are not.

"Is it beyond comprehension"

Apparently so.

Is it beyond comprehension that "Foodbank Sharon" had bought that iPhone while in work?

To some. But they choose the most negative interpretation, as above.

Same for homeless people smoking. Assuming they are spending their money on cigs when if you pay attention you often see passers by sharing a smoke with them as a gesture of kindness.

Not to mention nicotine is an addiction, so not much of a choice, more a necessity, especially when the individual is already in a state of agitation

Fear of Missing Out™ (FMO).

It's FOMO™

I'm glad you've all agreed that all Tories are ****s. When do we start stereotyping the middle class Labour voters?

Not to mention nicotine is an addiction, so not much of a choice, more a necessity, especially when the individual is already in a state of agitation

https://www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and-advice/local-support-services-helplines#gu5jAFJsVoYecJI5.97

"I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?"

You mean like how all Tories are heartless bastards?

My worse side just snorted with derision at my better side's awful grammar.

Fear of Missing Out™ (FMO).

Agreed. In addition if we automatically assume a homeless/disabled/benefit-claiming person to be villainous it makes it so easy not to give a flying fark. Worse still, it makes it that much easier/more satisfying to punish/sanction them. Which is most often unspeakably cruel considering the situation they are already in.

You mean like how all Tories are heartless bastards

Like I said, it can work both ways.

Define "Middle Class"

If you need a job to keep the roof over your head and feed your kids, delude yourself with whatever job title your position warrants, you're working class

As per molgrips - job creation - benefit probation officers - - investment in future - it will take time - more tax on booze.
Its harder than just cutting - but cheaper in the long run.

Easy to argue against the investment and work required - especially if you are far removed from any of the real issues involved.

The last prime minister wanted to help "problem" families unfortunately nothing came of that..

If you need a job to keep the roof over your head and feed your kids, delude yourself with whatever job title your position warrants, you're working class

Not a common definition though is it.

Ninfin, when people are under extreme stress, rational thoughts and actions that look clear cut to an outside observer, often fly out the window...

"It's FOMO™"

Its not; the 'of' is silent.

" When do we start stereotyping the middle class Labour voters?"

You can start with me if you like. I've got a Jeremy Corbyn badge and everything.

Not a common definition though is it

Its not; the 'of' is silent.

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fomo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_missing_out

Obviously, the references we should all be looking at 😛

But it's a realistic one

My wife uses the medical abreviation. 😀

This is just another heart breaking story which doesn't quite give us enough information upon which to base a judgement.

How did he end up single with four children? Are they all his? Why is he the sole carer? What happened to their mother/father if they aren't all his? What is his background? Has he ever worked? What is his educational background? Can he perhaps work from home? Does he need help filling in the complicated form? Perhaps a journalist could help!! etc.

On the other hand... why is the rent where he lives so expensive? Is he tied to that house/location? How many people are claiming for houses they don't need in areas's they don't need to be in? Are the children really going to be made homeless or are they simply having to downgrade accommodation to fit within the cap?

So the Guardian has given us half a story is clearly the only conclusion I can draw.

Whilst I don't particularly agree with a lot of the comments on here, the posters are entitled to make them.

What I find much more offensive is how certain posters on here belittle and demonise others who hold a differing opinion to them. Its prevailent throughout this thread (and Singletrack and general), and really needs cutting out.

Just because you are sitting behind the anonymity of your keyboard doesn't make this kind of thing ok

why is the rent where he lives so expensive? Is he tied to that house/location? How many people are claiming for houses they don't need in

I haven't read the whole thread but the real issue is not benefits are too high - its that private renting is too expensive. HUge numbers of council houses have ended up in the hands of private landlords who rent them for twice council rents. Rent controls were abolished.

Deliberate tory policy has led to this huge increase in rents with the profits going to those who are already rich and has meant the supply of fair cost rented property is far less than it used to be.

this is the root of the problem.

In the longer term - I've asked this before, but what's the problem with job creation for the persistently unemployed? I mean it doesn't have to be trivial - there's a lot that needs doing. Can't we get some people working on HS2? Instead of hiring civil engineering companies who won't employ the long term unemployed.

DWP are already on with this.

There were/are three programmes currently underway to help the long term unemployed back to work.
Work Programme, Mandatory Work Activity and Community Work Placements. There's also a lot of extra money from the European Development Fund to help with training. (Used to work in the industry and with DWP)

There's also a lot of private companies (M&S, Timsons, ASDA, McD, etc....) that run programmes to help people. Don't be under the assumption that help isn't out there already.

Helping people gain employment gets them out of poverty, creates self esteem and reduces other issues. Handing out more benefits just traps people in poverty.

"Just because you are sitting behind the anonymity of your keyboard doesn't make this kind of thing ok"

I'm more than happy to discuss anything with anyone, any time or place, face to face. I've very rarely ever found a tory supporter with sufficient balls to be able to do so though. I think the fact that they will inevitably be proven wrong is sufficient for most to not want to suffer public humiliation.

It's an emotive subject. I think it's perfectly understandable for folk to want to vent at what they perceive to be unjust and socially destructive. Why conform to some repressed notion of 'politeness', when that's not how you really feel? I applaud Binners for his composure, in particular.

Is it beyond comprehension that "Foodbank Sharon" had bought that iPhone while in work?

And now she's claiming she can't feed her kids?

Sell it.

It's not rocket surgery.

[i] "I wonder why it is that for the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others, they choose to use the negative example instead of the positive one that they all know about?"[/i]

[i]You mean like how all Tories are heartless bastards? [/i]

@nifan, I wondered why only one example was needed. I guess some people might call Tories 'heartless bastards' (your accusation) after numerous examples of nasty attempts at policy changes (not just one)e.g scrapping the Human Rights act, the 'snoopers charter', reduce union and employment rights, slash subsidies for clean energy, re-draw electoral boundaries, recent scrapping of a public inquiry re the Battle of Orgreave, our current Prime Minister (in previous role)was responsible for the bus driving around London telling immigrants to go home.....I could go on and on and on ......

The work program? You mean Slave labour, which in turn encourages wage repression?

Pre-taxes and benefits the income of the top 20% is 14x larger than the bottom 5%. Post taxes and benefits, this gap is reduced to 4x. So we have a progressive system that works albeit far from perfectly.

Cheers for the link THM, wasn't me that started ranting after it. You meant bottom 20% 😉 So I guess then what is the impact of the cap on these figures, presumably gap would increase to around 5x? And disposable income from 6x to 8x. Would be better to see that in 10% splits IMO.

the people who only need one example to stereotype thousands of others

I have many of examples. That was just one.

How does she arrange job interviews? Maybe a data plan on that smartphone is her only online access to universal job match?

Of course it is. Stop making excuses.

Or hows about you quit being such a judgemental t*at?

Bravo. That's how thin your argument is that you have to resort to namecalling? Hopeless.

You mean Slave labour

#facepalm

Right to Buy. Should have been stopped years ago. Not a party political issue as Labour sold off record amounts 1997-2010. Govt should use a council house building programme to boost construction and train British citizens. Govt should also means test council housing including size needs (in central London we had many council house developments filled with mainly retired people with security of tenancy - in a family sized flat ?). We need more 1 & 2 bedroomed places for refired and single people.

"Austerity" what we are seeing now is a dry run for what's coming when (if) eurozone hits real crises

Welfare Cap. Given the level it's set at and given it's an after tax amount I don't really see what the fuss is about.

Eden your list

e.g scrapping the Human Rights act
the 'snoopers charter'
reduce union and employment rights
slash subsidies for clean energy
re-draw electoral boundaries
recent scrapping of a public inquiry re the Battle of Orgreave
our current Prime Minister (in previous role)was responsible for the bus driving around London telling immigrants to go home.

To be replaced by a UK Human Rights Bill
Updates historical "search warrant" for the 21st century
All EU rights to be transfered to UK law (French reducing rights to address 10% unemployment)
Clean energy subsidies excessive in light of reduced costs, many fortunes made from prior subsidies
Making constituencies fairer and reducing current Labour bias
Orgreave nothing scrapped
Lorry poster wasn't great, it was however just telling illegal immigrants to go home. Would have been better to find amd deport them

Cheers for the link THM, wasn't me that started ranting after it. You meant bottom 20% So I guess then what is the impact of the cap on these figures, presumably gap would increase to around 5x? And disposable income from 6x to 8x. Would be better to see that in 10% splits IMO.

Pleasure - yes I know. Thanks for spotting the typo!

Different sources split it differently 10%, 20%, quartiles. The results are broadly the same and oddly inconvenient for the rising income inequality narrative. The facts are totally opposite to what people say - odd that!! Income inequality has been on a downtrend since the GFC but that doesnt stop anyone!! The exception to the rule, however, is the 1% where the trend has been very different but this is highly skewed by numbers and profession(s) involves

The cap affects about 100,000 people (source IFS, sorry clod more facts there) so the effect at the macro level is small. The negative effects at the individual level for the 100,000 involved are very significant however, which is where this thread started.

I'm more than happy to discuss anything with anyone, any time or place, face to face. I've very rarely ever found a tory supporter with sufficient balls to be able to do so though. I think the fact that they will inevitably be proven wrong is sufficient for most to not want to suffer public humiliation.

It's an emotive subject. I think it's perfectly understandable for folk to want to vent at what they perceive to be unjust and socially destructive. Why conform to some repressed notion of 'politeness', when that's not how you really feel? I applaud Binners for his composure, in particular.

Theres a difference between a debate and questioning someones charater for their views IMO.

By all means vent, but just because someone agrees with hte benefits cap doesn't necessarily make them a loathsome individual without a social conscience, as some folks are making out.

Not particularly aimed at you chodhopper btw..I'm just talking about STW in general

[img] [/img]

I don't have much recent experience of the benefits system so not able to comment on it in much detail, although I was brought up in a very deprived west of Scotland town so have seen some of the effects, which has led me over the years to vote for centre and right of centre parties.

However having just been made unemployed I will very soon be getting first hand experience of at least a part of our welfare state. Time will tell if the experience turns out to be a good or bad one.

"By all means vent, but just because someone agrees with hte benefits cap doesn't necessarily make them a loathsome individual without a social conscience, as some folks are making out."

I think defending/supporting tory policy which dehumanises people and causes needless suffering, as has been proven, kind of does mark out someone's character. I see no problem with people being honest in their opinions of others.

And I'm pretty sure there are some loathsome individuals without a social conscience on here.

Binners; my wife went to see the film last night, and her view was 'so tell me something new'. I think it will serve only as confirmation of the failure of tory policy, to those opposed to it. But maybe it will help open they eyes of those who are yet to see.

So clod, how does Labour policy differ, if at all?

I think defending/supporting tory policy which dehumanises people and causes needless suffering, as has been proven, kind of does mark out someone's character.

Actually, I don't think so in most cases. It suggests they lack sufficient empathy or awareness of their own thought process.

As I said, I think very few people would act this way if it were someone they knew and cared for. IMO the reason Tories act like this is that they just don't get it. not that they are actually heartless bastards. Well - most of them anyway.

So clod, how does Labour policy differ, if at all?

Not sure he's claiming Labour are the saviours, is he?

You know all those jibes about Red Tories? That's because for decades Labour hasn't been that different to Tories. New Labour didn't offer a huge change. That's why Corbyn is such a significant figure in principle, even if not (yet, maybe) in practice.

as has been proven,

The problem is that it hasn't been proven. And to be fair it hasn't been disproven either. It all comes down to personal opinions about what particular statistics to choose to either use or believe to support your own personal point of view.

There are lots of people whose political opinions I disagree with from all political spectrums. Very few I would describe as loathsome though.

And to be fair it hasn't been disproven either. It all comes down to personal opinions about what particular statistics to choose to either use or believe to support your own personal point of view.

Well perhaps from a quantitate perspective, but there's no doubt that significant numbers of people are being failed when they need help and want to get themselves out of their predicament. Even if were only a few hundred*, it'd still be too many.

* which it's not

Good luck Kenny

Mol, approaches towards overall welfare spending and whether caps on benefit are a good or bad thing transcend party politics. Hence attempts to frame the debate around the ideology of any particular party are flawed - despite clods worst attempts - and why your early point about the impossibility of sensible debate was so pertinent. This thread has proved you correct.

"The problem is that it hasn't been proven."

It has. The effects are out there for all to see. Go and have a look around, talk to people.

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/one-in-five-benefit-related-deaths-involved-sanctions-admits-dwp/

"It all comes down to personal opinions about what particular statistics to choose to either use or believe to support your own personal point of view."

The problem with only using/relying on 'statistics' to tell a story, is that you often miss out other vital information that mere numbers cannot give. Also, the methodology used to create the numbers can be very flawed. Which is why you have to look at all the information available. The government obviously has a vested interest in not doing so, as the truth will inevitably make them look bad, and their policies a failure.

[i]Lots of accusations flying about [b]but few solutions[/b][/i]

@thm - your words above and you often comment on what people write. You must have an opinion. [b]So what do you suggest are the solutions then? [/b]

but there's no doubt that significant numbers of people are being failed when they need help and want to get themselves out of their predicament.

I 100% agree. The difficult question is how do you do it, both in the short and longer terms.

It has. The effects are out there for all to see. Go and have a look around, talk to people.

As I said earlier, I grew up in a town with some of the worst deprivation stats in the country. I've seen it at first hand, and I've seen it bring out both good and bad in people.

Also, as I said, I've just been made unemployed so will be getting first hand experience of the local job centre next week. Will be quite happy to report back my experiences, though obviously they will be personal to me, whether they be good or bad.

Not sure he's claiming Labour are the saviours, is he?

no, but he is saying that "defending/supporting tory policy... marks out someone's character". But if Labour policy is broadly the same, (which it has been for many years) then presumably defending Labour also marks out someone's character in the same way? But they often seem to get a free pass on this.

(I say this as a big hand-wringing lefty btw)

Anyone know what Labour's policy on the benefits cap currently is? The most recent stuff I can find about it is from about Sept 2015, when they appeared pretty ambivalent. Ed Miliband was in favour as we know.

The difficult question is how do you do it, both in the short and longer terms.

I don't think that would be at all difficult if we put our minds to it. If we decided that looking after the vulnerable was actually a priority for society. Doing it on the cheap though, that's another issue.

Due to this neo-liberal cancer that's affected the UK no-one has any money to do anything worthwhile. Imagine if there were enough people to go out and help benefit claimants directly? Or even check up on scroungers?

@kennyp..here's a suggestion.

If the overall aim is to create wealth for the country, make sure everyone pays their dues and we look after the vulnerable..why is it more time is spent on benefit fraud versus tax evasion?

[i]In any case, at £1.3bn to £1.6bn, it appears outright benefit fraud accounts for less of a burden on the taxpayer than the £4.4bn officially assumed to be lost by evaders. So why, the government was asked this week, does it devote more resources to the former?[/i]

I won't generalise and say I hate all Tory voters. Its a democracy and people base their voting on all manner of considerations. Thats theirs, and my, right

But....

I despise the Tories in that I despise the architects of these willfully cruel policies. Ie: the likes of Iain Duncan Smith, who I just consider utterly inhumane. He's an lying, devious, unfeeling, cold-hearted, dead-eyed sociopath, utterly devoid of empathy compassion, or even the slightest hint of humanity IMHO

Because a policy like the bedroom tax, which he instigated, is driven purely by ideology, and political posturing. It hasn't actually saved any money - in fact its probably cost more to administer than any nominal savings made. But has caused genuine extreme hardship and suffering for the poorest, weakest and neediest in society, like disabled people and full time carers

Its when you read things like that, and that the DWP (under his stewardship) have collated figures showing the link between people having benefits docked and suicides, but they refuse to release them. They've even gone to the extent of using 'National Security' and anti-terrorism legislation to block Freedom of Information requests

What does that tell you about, firstly, what those figures are bound to show, and the type of people we're dealing with here?

why is it more time is spent on benefit fraud versus tax evasion?

Is there any proof that more actual time is though? I know HMRC spend a lot of time chasing tax evasion. However I have no actual proof that more, or less, time is spent doing that than chasing benefit fraud. I suspect it would be almost impossible to prove either way.

Personally I reckon tax evasion costs the country a lot more than benefit fraud and if someone is illegally avoiding tax then that's a criminal offence and they should be prosecuted.

Benefit fraud doesn't actually bother me that much (unless it is really taking the pi$$). The amounts involved are generally pretty small. I'm more interested in how we get people off benefits and into (useful) work (assuming they are able to work of course). That's a far harder question. Personally I quite like the idea of the citizens' wage, though that would be quite a radical step.

But if Labour policy is broadly the same, (which it has been for many years) then presumably defending Labour also marks out someone's character in the same way?

Difference is that small government is fundamental Tory policy and always has been. Even New Labour weren't that far right. But Labour can certainly be castigated too.

But then when you consider how one party has to represent such a wide range of views, you get into the discussion of whether or not the UK political system is fit for purpose. Which it isn't, IMO, but that's another thread.

why is it more time is spent on benefit fraud versus tax evasion?

It [i]ought[/i] to be easier to catch the benefit fraudsters because they don't tend to hire teams of professionals to obscure the facts.

I stated some of them earlier. At the core is a particular bug bear of mine - education. It all starts here. The next step is work - the best route out of poverty. This requires a range of policies including supply side reforms to generate a healthy, balanced economy that is capable of sustainable growth. We are a long way from that.

I am sympathetic to both sides of the debate on benefits. IMO benefits are a very blunt instrument that address symptoms not causes. I am also on the side of the debate that suggests that they represent a disincentive to work - always a bad thing IMO - and that at current levels that they are not necessarily fair. So I agree with both the idea of a cap and of reform along the lines of the aims that were stated by the government and supported by other parties. At the same time. I recognise that the current proposals will create genuine hardship for those affected. The fact that the numbers involved are relatively small does not take away from the fact that there are genuine losers from any reform of the system and therefore additional measures need to be considered here. But without reform I believe that many people will be condemned to never escaping the appalling consequences of poverty. To achieve positive LT results, ST sacrifices need to be made. The fact that they are ST is little comfort to those affected. Hence there are no easy solitions. That's why politics is a tough business. Hard choices have to made.

History tells us that politicians prefer not to make hard choices which is why band aid solutions have proliferated over time and the problems have not gone away. They won't.

It ought to be easier to catch the benefit fraudsters because they don't tend to hire teams of professionals to obscure the facts.

Both our tax and benefits systems are far more complicated than they should be, but that's also another thread.

"Labour policy is broadly the same"

It isn't. Whilst Labour may support the idea of a benefit cap, they also pledge to create jobs, address causes of poverty and offer greater support to those who need it. A world away from the tories' plan to create a demonised underclass, that others can look down on and feel better about their own situation, and to serve as a warning; 'do what you're told or you'll end up like that!'.

At the core is a particular bug bear of mine - education. It all starts here

THM I have been saying the same thing for many years. And yet, that's the thing they try and squeeze. Bastards, to be frank.

Whilst Labour may support the idea of a benefit cap, they also pledge to create jobs, address causes of poverty and offer greater support to those who need it.

Ah, the magic money tree makes another appearance I see.

"Ah, the magic money tree makes another appearance I see."

Would that be the same one the government keeps finding billions to spend on war on then?

Feel sorry for the guy in the article but then how much a week does he get?!

I'm taking a shoddy labouring job and long hours to pay my way. Job centre wouldn't pay a thing to me lol.

I'm still applying to analyst roles though.

Benefits are there to help you if you are sick or desperate then to get you back up on the road to work, not pay your way for life.

He is trying to get work.

He might be crap at it, but there you go. Some people are. They need help, not sanctions.

He is trying to get work

But only when he can fit it into his busy microwave schedule

"Labour policy is broadly the same"

It isn't. Whilst Labour may support the idea of a benefit cap, they also pledge to create jobs, address causes of poverty and offer greater support to those who need it. A world away from the tories' plan to create a demonised underclass, that others can look down on and feel better about their own situation, and to serve as a warning; 'do what you're told or you'll end up like that!'.

I don't think everybody in the Tory party actually set out to create an underclass. It might be the entirely foreseeable effect of their policies, but I can't see anybody having that much malice.

Perhaps I see the good in people too much.

It isn't. Whilst Labour may support the idea of a benefit cap, they also pledge to create jobs, address causes of poverty and offer greater support to those who need it.

Does their pledge have any more substance than their actual performance in the ten years to 2010 when they added 1.76m jobs but nearly half of these were public sector - meaning that Labour actually created less than 100K private sector jobs a year?

When almost none of the current shadow cabinet have any significant experience in starting or running a substantive business where exactly would their insight on job creation come from?

"When almost none of the current shadow cabinet have any significant experience in starting or running a substantive business where exactly would their insight on job creation come from?"

Well, none of the current government have any decent credentials regarding running a country (Jeremy Hunt is one particular example), and they really don't seem to have a ****ing clue about how to actually address the issues faced by this nation. Whereas many in the Labour party do at least have experience of working to try and address these issues. I don't see tories coming up with effective, workable solutions to address our declining economy, do you? Quite the opposite; tory cuts have led to countless job losses, and the degradation of many essential services.

"Perhaps I see the good in people too much."

Perhaps you do.

Quite the opposite; tory cuts have led to countless job losses, and the degradation of many essential services.

With all those job losses you are on about you'd think maybe unemployment wouldn't be in continual decline?
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36844302 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36844302[/url]

Ah, trotting out 'officiual statistics' to try and prove a point.

You are aware that many are removed from 'unemployment' figures through either sanctions or changing the name of their benefit, aren't you?

Whilst Home Secretary, Theresa May's Home Office illegally deported 48,000 overseas students. This showed up as a nice reduction in net migration figures, so that the tories could look good on their election promises. I wonder if our now Prime Minister will tell us just how much this winn cost the UK in legal fees, when many of those deported successfully challenge these decisions (and sue for compensation)?

As I keep saying; don't rely entirely on numbers, because they don't tell the whole story.

[i] At the core is a particular bug bear of mine - education. It all starts here. The next step is work - the best route out of poverty.[/i]

@thm..thanks for replying to my question. However, what do you mean? You say education is an answer but that word could and does mean anything? Care to expand on this?

As I keep saying; don't rely entirely on numbers, because they don't tell the whole story.

Much better to rely on the story made up in some blokes head on a bike forum, bound to be much more accurate.

Ah, trotting out 'officiual statistics' to try and prove a point.

Ah yes, how easily we forget that National Statistics is a high credence organisation staffed by the best statisticians in the world when Labour are in office but that same organisation and people completely change their spots and make stuff up when the Conservatives are in power.

"Much better to rely on the story made up in some blokes head on a bike forum, bound to be much more accurate."

Yeah, don't bother ever listening to anyone who might actually have some insight and knowledge of something, beyond simple numbers, eh? 🙄

"Ah yes, how easily we forget that National Statistics is a high credence organisation staffed by the best statisticians in the world when Labour are in office but that same organisation and people completely change their spots and make stuff up when the Conservatives are in power."

Well, the reality is that it's a government department staffed mainly by people on relatively low wages, who are under constant pressure to produce statistics demanded of them by the government. Given the depth of cuts n such services, I'd err on the side of caution when it comes to trusting such figures 100%. And as I keep saying; it's all down to the methodology used. Knowing the level of (in)efficiency of local employment service departments, I'd also be a bit wary of the figures being produced by hem, which the ONS relies on.

Hence why it's good to keep your eyes and ears, and crucially, your mind open, when trying to understand something in any depth.

Yeah, don't bother ever listening to anyone who might actually have some insight and knowledge of something, beyond simple numbers, eh?

Maybe some of us have the insight and knowledge to know that despite their faults (yes, not all stats are perfect), statistics tend to paint a fairly accurate picture.

"statistics tend to paint a fairly accurate picture."

We'd all like to think so. I think that they often do contribute towards creating a reasonably truthful narrative. But relying simply on numbers to support an argument that 'unemployment' is falling, is fraught with difficulty, as it doesn't actually paint as accurate a picture as one might hope. Take zero hour contracts; someone is 'employed', but may not actually be given any hours to work. And increasing numbers of people are being employed on a part time basis; a job which may have had 1 person doing 40 hours a week now has 2 people doing 20 hours a week each. So, it can be disingenuous to simply state 'unemployment is falling', when perhaps a more accurate picture would be that 'underemployment' is rising.

And for those who love their figures, this is quite interesting:

[i]"Between March to May 2016 and June to August 2016, the number of people in work and the number of unemployed people increased."[/i]