I See Our PM Is Doing A Big Speech...
about the welfare system and calling it a "Something for nothing culture" It might be for a few but as said previously if you haven't been caught up in the system, you don't know how horrible it is for most and many would argue that the thought that you will be comfortable on what you receive is questionable. It's an existence.
It is a safety net for most, a lifeline and that's all it is.
But as long as the media find the exceptional cases that they highlight and politicians keep talking about the young single Mum having children to seemingly different fathers or certain types of families that may be "Working the system" to avoid working, get money, to get a house. It gets the population going and then they do surveys with loaded questions that then allows the politician to say that he is only reflecting pubic opinion and that plays into the hands of our PM when he gives a speech as planned today.
But then genuine people are then lumped together with those they are condemning, those who are perhaps ill, suddenly lose their job and are trying to find another but especially in these times that's hard or are working in low paid jobs and are not having lots of holidays or buying all the latest gadgets or cars and are struggling to feed themselves, keep warm and pay the usual bills. Sadly this section of society(and that also includes many on a State pension and retired aren't talked about)
The minimum wage could actually be causing problems because often it has to be topped up by the Government and it's not a "Living" wage so in theory you are still getting "State" help and the employer is let off the hook from paying a decent wage to their employees.
Those who are doing all the shouting the scroungers are in for a shock when they find them themselves asking for help and if they get it they'll find it isn't the goldmine that they think it is.
To some extent we are playing the divide and play one section of society against another.
A lot of assumptions are made...you read and hear people saying about all the "Unemployed" are in the pub or McDonald's during the day etc...but unless you talk to the people and hear it from their mouths, as we are now in a 24/7 society perhaps they work different hours. Their partner may be working.
As I said elsewhere my Father works nights some weeks so if he'd been seen during the day to assume he wasn't working would've been wrong. Then there are the retired. And so on...
If you see a satellite dish on the side of a house you might assume that person is subscribing to Sky but they may have Freesat which is free(apart from the tv licence)and when I had Sky I was on a very basic package...no movies and no sports.
I cannot say that I never make assumptions myself but I try not to and always try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt because often when you talk to someone you find the situation is different or often most of us are similar in many ways...
This post has been provoked by a speech the PM has given today on changes he'd like to bring in over the next few years such as the widely reported in the Sunday newspapers of getting rid of Housing Benefit in homes where people under the age of 25 live. Where all these people are supposed to go, heaven knows, it's wrong to assume they can all return to the home they grew up in...
What hasn't been included in the speech but it has come out is the idea of paying different rates of benefit* depending on which part of the UK you live...Its hardly been reported but the other main political party that are likely to be voted back into power are keeping reasonably quiet on this but the hint is they are ok with it being looked into so I suspect if they get back into power they'd do something similar but these proposals are being suggested as being brought in after the next election so that would be after 2015.
I suspect if they had been brought in before then and you watch if I am not right on this(I have said it before)the opposition will put up a half hearted fight against some of the ideas this Government has, they be passed. Then when the other party gets in again they will say "We did not bring these laws in" They'll blame the Conservatives but they'll say "You can't blame us!" and then leave them in place rather than trying to reverse or amend them. They're all as bad as each other.
All they need to do is look at each individual case as everyone's circumstances are different. If they are getting something they shouldn't it can be taken away, so if they are receiving help unless you can prove they are dishonest they are doing nothing wrong. The only way a family may be managing on benefit is if I'll pick a scenario out of the air(it's a stereotypical generalisation, an assumption)
If you have one or two parents(who are looking for work so are claiming possibly Job Seeker's Allowance)and doing all that they are supposed to be entitled to it(you have hoops(Conditions to satisfy)to jump through otherwise you won't get it. Say there are two children aged 18 and 19 years also looking for work so are claiming, they are entitled in their own right to help. Now, that may mean that household has an income of £280 weekly but then again we have no idea whether they pool their money and share the bills. Whether they keep their own money or parents take a share of their children's money for board or whether the children pay for their own food, clothes etc...
But in theory they are doing nothing wrong. And if they are still at home, then that's what the PM wants because they are not in a property claiming Housing Benefit so he can't have it all ways. I'm afraid many of the population older than 25 will find themselves unable to take up living in a home without help because for many the buying of a house is out of the question and as many have to rent privately, the rents many Landlord's demand are outrageous but lets not think that social housing is cheap just perhaps a little less expensive but even the rents on social housing creeps up.
It's just that in comparison in London you may pay £800- £1,000 per month, around here you may pay around £400 per month but that may still be a struggle to find but it's going to be less expensive for the Government when paying Housing Benefit so again the Government could help by trying to instigate some kind of house building plan for affordable housing or try to see if in some way the Landlord's can be(Pigs might fly)persuaded to reduce what they charge their tenants.
And again if employers for those working would pay a "Living" wage...
The Speech
*It appears that Housing Benefit is already paid at varying levels but he is talking of making regional differences in what you receive in unemployment benefits. Well, wherever you are food and utility bills and daily life costs the same, they don't vary much so does he really think some areas you can say to someone you can live on £50. It's frightening. I hope it stays...just as a proposal. It may provoke people who don't usually bother to vote to do so. And if they do that will see the vulnerable(the low paid, the ill, unemployed)putting their "X"on the ballot paper but who will they vote for?
He's even looking again at what pensioners get such as bus passes, free tv licences and the Winter fuel allowance, whether they'll be scrapped, reduced or be given at a later age and if they increase the retirement age before you can quit work or get your State Pension they probably have a right to put these "perks" back or withdraw them.
Return Of The Nasty Party
How The Young Will React
Interesting that this blogger says what I have in the last paragraph of his blog "But the large majority of housing benefit claimants are actually in work: it is just that they cannot afford extortionate rents. If the Government was serious about taking down the housing benefit bill, it would build social housing, phase in rent caps and introduce a living wage."
I doubt that any party would do that, they haven't for the last 20+ years...
It is a safety net for most, a lifeline and that's all it is.
But as long as the media find the exceptional cases that they highlight and politicians keep talking about the young single Mum having children to seemingly different fathers or certain types of families that may be "Working the system" to avoid working, get money, to get a house. It gets the population going and then they do surveys with loaded questions that then allows the politician to say that he is only reflecting pubic opinion and that plays into the hands of our PM when he gives a speech as planned today.
But then genuine people are then lumped together with those they are condemning, those who are perhaps ill, suddenly lose their job and are trying to find another but especially in these times that's hard or are working in low paid jobs and are not having lots of holidays or buying all the latest gadgets or cars and are struggling to feed themselves, keep warm and pay the usual bills. Sadly this section of society(and that also includes many on a State pension and retired aren't talked about)
The minimum wage could actually be causing problems because often it has to be topped up by the Government and it's not a "Living" wage so in theory you are still getting "State" help and the employer is let off the hook from paying a decent wage to their employees.
Those who are doing all the shouting the scroungers are in for a shock when they find them themselves asking for help and if they get it they'll find it isn't the goldmine that they think it is.
To some extent we are playing the divide and play one section of society against another.
A lot of assumptions are made...you read and hear people saying about all the "Unemployed" are in the pub or McDonald's during the day etc...but unless you talk to the people and hear it from their mouths, as we are now in a 24/7 society perhaps they work different hours. Their partner may be working.
As I said elsewhere my Father works nights some weeks so if he'd been seen during the day to assume he wasn't working would've been wrong. Then there are the retired. And so on...
If you see a satellite dish on the side of a house you might assume that person is subscribing to Sky but they may have Freesat which is free(apart from the tv licence)and when I had Sky I was on a very basic package...no movies and no sports.
I cannot say that I never make assumptions myself but I try not to and always try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt because often when you talk to someone you find the situation is different or often most of us are similar in many ways...
This post has been provoked by a speech the PM has given today on changes he'd like to bring in over the next few years such as the widely reported in the Sunday newspapers of getting rid of Housing Benefit in homes where people under the age of 25 live. Where all these people are supposed to go, heaven knows, it's wrong to assume they can all return to the home they grew up in...
What hasn't been included in the speech but it has come out is the idea of paying different rates of benefit* depending on which part of the UK you live...Its hardly been reported but the other main political party that are likely to be voted back into power are keeping reasonably quiet on this but the hint is they are ok with it being looked into so I suspect if they get back into power they'd do something similar but these proposals are being suggested as being brought in after the next election so that would be after 2015.
I suspect if they had been brought in before then and you watch if I am not right on this(I have said it before)the opposition will put up a half hearted fight against some of the ideas this Government has, they be passed. Then when the other party gets in again they will say "We did not bring these laws in" They'll blame the Conservatives but they'll say "You can't blame us!" and then leave them in place rather than trying to reverse or amend them. They're all as bad as each other.
All they need to do is look at each individual case as everyone's circumstances are different. If they are getting something they shouldn't it can be taken away, so if they are receiving help unless you can prove they are dishonest they are doing nothing wrong. The only way a family may be managing on benefit is if I'll pick a scenario out of the air(it's a stereotypical generalisation, an assumption)
If you have one or two parents(who are looking for work so are claiming possibly Job Seeker's Allowance)and doing all that they are supposed to be entitled to it(you have hoops(Conditions to satisfy)to jump through otherwise you won't get it. Say there are two children aged 18 and 19 years also looking for work so are claiming, they are entitled in their own right to help. Now, that may mean that household has an income of £280 weekly but then again we have no idea whether they pool their money and share the bills. Whether they keep their own money or parents take a share of their children's money for board or whether the children pay for their own food, clothes etc...
But in theory they are doing nothing wrong. And if they are still at home, then that's what the PM wants because they are not in a property claiming Housing Benefit so he can't have it all ways. I'm afraid many of the population older than 25 will find themselves unable to take up living in a home without help because for many the buying of a house is out of the question and as many have to rent privately, the rents many Landlord's demand are outrageous but lets not think that social housing is cheap just perhaps a little less expensive but even the rents on social housing creeps up.
It's just that in comparison in London you may pay £800- £1,000 per month, around here you may pay around £400 per month but that may still be a struggle to find but it's going to be less expensive for the Government when paying Housing Benefit so again the Government could help by trying to instigate some kind of house building plan for affordable housing or try to see if in some way the Landlord's can be(Pigs might fly)persuaded to reduce what they charge their tenants.
And again if employers for those working would pay a "Living" wage...
The Speech
*It appears that Housing Benefit is already paid at varying levels but he is talking of making regional differences in what you receive in unemployment benefits. Well, wherever you are food and utility bills and daily life costs the same, they don't vary much so does he really think some areas you can say to someone you can live on £50. It's frightening. I hope it stays...just as a proposal. It may provoke people who don't usually bother to vote to do so. And if they do that will see the vulnerable(the low paid, the ill, unemployed)putting their "X"on the ballot paper but who will they vote for?
He's even looking again at what pensioners get such as bus passes, free tv licences and the Winter fuel allowance, whether they'll be scrapped, reduced or be given at a later age and if they increase the retirement age before you can quit work or get your State Pension they probably have a right to put these "perks" back or withdraw them.
Return Of The Nasty Party
How The Young Will React
Interesting that this blogger says what I have in the last paragraph of his blog "But the large majority of housing benefit claimants are actually in work: it is just that they cannot afford extortionate rents. If the Government was serious about taking down the housing benefit bill, it would build social housing, phase in rent caps and introduce a living wage."
I doubt that any party would do that, they haven't for the last 20+ years...
posted by The Great Gildersleeve | 12:14 pm
5 Comments:
Great post Gildy. I wholeheartedly agree with all you say.
I remember when John Redwood started to blame single parents for all the ills of society. It made me feel absolutely awful as if I had become lumped in with a whole stereotype.
Did he not then leave his wife for a single parent??? My memory may be playing tricks on me.
Wish I could say more but sadly only 20 minutes break so I will wish you a good day and better than yesterday.
Cx
It's a better day Carol, :-)
Unless all this comes in and he gets away with it but for now I can't worry about it. Thanks for the thumbs up, sorry it's another serious one about welfare and politics...
I added a little more while you were leaving your comment. Hope that also is something you agree with :-)
Enjoy your break...
Its all to easy to say 'the nasty party' but if you look into the speech its aimed at those who have never worked,and are fit and well, not those who are in need of help.Surely we cannot have a generation going from cradle to grave having contributed absolutely nothing?its not very good for them or the country.
The other thing is that it is part of the tory manifesto for after the next election so people will be able to vote for it -or not.
The Panorama programme tonight showed the state of Greece where the money has run out, loads of people are on the streets, homeless and getting food hand outs, and while I would prefer to be homeless in the lovely climate of Greece than the UK, its still a desperate situation as the drugs for the sick are also running out.
So should we carry on as we have been until our money runs out?
I used the headline of the article just to set up a link...some of what is proposed might have some merit but they always use the same stereo typical examples and that is to wind up the population at large.
He sets the private sector against the public sector.
The workers against the unemployed.
The well against the disabled.
And again the media and public lump everyone together.
There is enough money but as always it depends what the money available is spent on.
But again when the election comes around what choice is there?
A lot of those hurting or about to be squeezed until they squeak are working, on low wages, we know that the tax unused rooms is coming, We now have a reduction of help given on the community charge so if you are paying 75% because you are single soon you'll have to pay an extra 10% or you could say that the help received will now only be 15%.
How much more can you cut your cloth?
Post a Comment
<< Home