You do realise I was not espousing this though; it actually was IDS’s reasoning when he re-evaluated benefits.
I was not on about scammers; I was referring to people who have been on benefits the whole of their lives, and intend to end on benefits. its an entirely different problem, and there are way way more people like this than anyone on here would like to admit, bar a few of us that have seen and experienced it. Career benefit claimants. Now it may be there are valid medical reasons for such, but by and large from my own experience, its idleitis. IDs saw fit to starve them out; but I’m not sure the situation has improved since UC was introduced. I do agree that there needs to be a radical look at wealth redistribution.
But this is a valid question - how do you spend an entire life on benefits?
My understanding of UC was that it in principle it’s a decent idea but implemented by a Tory and therefore a complete disaster.
It seems that we’re in the position where there’s a whole host of reasons while people struggle and why people cant work and only a few where people choose not to. Perhaps the solution lies in there somewhere?
One thing I would like to add to the debate is geography. I live in a rural area where work is pretty scarce at times and often seasonal as well. I’ve seen people being offered jobs that would mean they spend a huge chunk of the wage being offered simply getting to and from work. That doesn’t seem to play into the whole benefits / working argument. It’s easier for people in larger built up areas, but even many of those suffer through the loss of industry etc.
Again, as a % of people claiming benefits, the number you are talking about is very small. No-one is saying these people don’t exist but they are not large enough in number to justify whole scale changes to the benefits system to leave everyone else worse off.
Whole host of reasons come into play. In previous decades, the fall out in mining towns that lost their primary industries would see people signed off by their GPs, either because of genuine physical or mental needs, or because they felt sorry for workers who could no longer find the sorts of work they had done for most of their lives.
A lot of those who are truly vulnerable and at risk of spending much of their lives on benefits will have multiple issues that need to be tackled before they move on (for example, someone who grew up in the care system or is homeless may have 2 or 3 issues to contend with such as abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, having been in prison etc). In the past, that hasn’t always been recognised and the support they need hasn’t always been available. Government cutbacks usually make things worse for them.
One of the strengths of Universal Credit is that it is an in and out of work benefit - so there is greater incentive for jobcentres to give needed support and not simply move people into unsustainable jobs at the earliest opportunity.
UK benefits total about £150 billion (bn), with state pensions about another £100bn on top of that I think. For those on the main benefit - Universal Credit - a £20 a week top up was introduced last April to account for the costs of the Corona Virus ) that’s another £5-10bn there I think. That is due to end this March/April.
Edited with thanks to @Kopstar for spotting my silly error!
Im not sure about this, is there any official data to support this?
The issue with ex-mining towns is there was no work to gain; the areas were abandoned by the Gov, especially the East-Midlands. It was like a shift change, the pits moved out and the smack dealers moved in. nevertheless, some of the people I am referring to, still managed to stay out of work when there were pits and textile factories.
Depending on the amount being earned, under Universal Credit you don’t usually face the same cliff edge as you would have with the older benefit system where once you earned above a set figure or worked 16 or more hours, your claim to benefits would close. Instead a % of your benefits would be reduced for every £ you earned. A better off calculation can be done with the jobcentre to see whether you would benefit from taking the job. It doesnt sound good though as you describe it.
But it’s easy for people to fall into the benefit trap. A forced dependance on welfare. Some people choose this, of course, for others there is no choice.
Not sure what official data is out there, but I will have a think as to what sort of data might help answer the question and dig around. I would expect there is something on worklessness in families as children are more likely to be unemployed if both their parents are.
I do remember reading of a Troubled Families programme that was launched about 5 or 6 years ago I think. Not sure if it is still running but I think that may have been aimed at helping families that had a long history of worklessness in the household - but i think that also required the families to be fall under other categories too (exclusion, social nuisance etc).
There might also be something showing volumes and lengths of claims…
The reports I remember reading have all identified people who needed additional support, not those who didnt need it .
If you ignore the 13M people getting a state pension, there are 7M working-age people receiving benefits.
Many of these will be receiving either
Carers benefit
Housing benefit
Disability benefit
When boiling it down further. 2.3 million people receive universal credit. One-third of these are currently working. Another half million are not required to work (eg disabled), leaving just 0.9M looking for work.
So while benefits cost billions. Many work for very little (carers) or cant work, or have retired.
When you put it into plain numbers I guess it kind of exposes the issues with the costs of living vs wages that exists in the UK.
To me, and I concede it’s a very simplistic view it sounds as if you start to address that issue then much of the issue of benefits starts to dissolve.
There is a of course a huge business angle to this. Simply increasing costs increases prices etc.
state pensions are defined in the legislation as a welfare benefit, so it is correct to include them in the figure. Obviously any discussion around benefits should make clear whether it is using a figure including them.
Presumably some pensioners will also be receiving other benefits such as help with housing costs, which won’t be broken down in the figures generally given.
That is a lot of money. When you are spending that much money, year in , year out, just to keep the bottom from falling off, there’s some serious structural problems in your socio-economy.
Rather than handing out that much money just to keep some people survive (and not come after you with pitchforks) wouldn’t it be better to spend that on structural adjustments so those people have decent income to support themselves.
Pleb?
Posh moron nincompoop more like.
Shameful headline, it’s more, pressure from idiots. As if Covid should be controlled, well mark my words it can not be controlled that’s why the people are being asked to help restrain it’s spread.
Does make you wonder who we would get if Boris wasn’t there, scary!
For me this is just another ramping up of pressure on Johnson, the puppet. He has almost outstayed his welcome and this is just another jolt to remind him following on from the fact that Starmer and Blackford effectively pulled his pants down in PMQ’s yesterday.
if there wasn’t a pandemic, I believe Boris would be gone or close to. He’s served his purpose in delivering Brexit in whatever form and the outfall from that would have been used to push him out.
He has been stitched up like a kipper (pun intended)
Maybe however it’s highly inaccurate in that context (at least for my definition of Pleb (oringinally designating a ‘non-citizen’ of the lowest of low classes).
It was clear when his advisors were relieved of their positions that after X-Mas the pressure on him would be increased and a probable challenge in the spring. Everything is going to plan. (my assesment at the time and confirmation of that coming in).
It’s more difficult to asses the effects of the pandemic on the tories imo. Boris was elected with amassive majority so had great political influence.His ‘usefulness’ to ‘them’ was Brexit which he effectively delivered so i suppose without the pandemic they wouldn’t have anything to ‘get’ him by in the public eye. The calls for getting ‘back to normal’ are strong (we have read on here) yet the pandemic shouldn’t be usable in this way (to over throw the incumbent moron and replace him by another) in an intelligent normal society.
