This is definitely a good move on paper.
The article I linked referred to these intentions. I just found it a bit ‘Starmer Labour’ that he announced these good intentions and then removed the £2.00 cap.
Burnham has reversed this which I applaud.
1 Like
Whether the announcements are right or wrong depending on views, they have to be questioned.
Please take my post as questioning rather opposing. One thing I do like about Burnham is that you can see a plan or an idea, whether it be right or wrong.
Unwilling to call an election because he doesn’t want to throw the Country into disarray at a time where the UK requires stability. Then suggests Labour may put a Referendum on their next Mandate.
Focus on cutting the Welfare Bill, remove the Triple lock then introduce Adult Social Care. Is this not another way of filing a cost under a different Title?
I am not against electoral reform, for example Birmingham City Council is made up of a an almagamation of parties with no input from the Party who took the most seats.
I think I may have responded to your previous post. On the pie chart 1% may be assigned to unemployment benefit but it is the other benefits that usually come associated with it, like housing and disability benefits, carers benefits, etc.
There is also the associated costs of, no Tax/N.I. I have also previously mentioned the estimated Costs to the Economy of the 1m plus people that fall under NEETS.
I want a Country that supports anyone who is struggling. I want everyone to live a humane life but I also want it to be just and controlled. So, I believe I fall inline with the common majority.
I understand @LondonRich comments, is it stereotyping yes but that doesn’t mean he is wrong or tarnishing everyone with the same brush.
For every person I see going to the local newsagent’s, buying an energy drink/Alcohol, cigarettes and a scratch card there is someone else of a similar position spending that money wisely. Additionally, there are also people working two jobs and managing every penny, who are no better off.
The system is not actively managed, it is a tick box exercise and easily circumvented.
Yes, let’s support people who require assistance but if any party wants to reduce the Welfare budget they first need to make the unpopular call of investing in the actual system, that assess and monitors claimants. Reduce it by being more efficient than making cuts.
1 Like
My child has combined severe ADHD. Are we just making it up to get money? And if so when can we expect this mythical cheque to drop?
5 Likes
It is isn’t red blinkers to point out that requiring Voter ID was brought in by Johnson’s Conservative Party in response to no actual instances of electoral fraud and despite warnings that it disenfranchise poorer voters.
You are saying this in the context of 14 years of the Tories ruining the economy. How can you talk about Labour damage after what Liz Truss did to the economy. Forty odd days in power and we’re going yo be paying for it for a generation.
Even if Labour wanted to cripple the country with debt they couldn’t. Our credit rating was utterly wrecked by the lettuce.
It’s is a truth universally acknowledged that fraudulently claimed benefits are such a vanishingly minuscule part of the overall welfare budget, that bringing in an army of civil servants and the technology to assess those claims more thoroughly would cost the country magnitudes more that could ever be saved even by eradicating all bogus claims.
2 Likes
Imagine going in to bat for either Labour or the Tories. Fucking hell.
sorry, after re-reading my post i may have not been clear with my point. My focus is not to spend money on identifying fraudulently claimed benefits. More about how the claims are assessed and managed.
How are disability benefits measured, what are the parameters for disabilities where it is assessed rather than on actual medical evidence.
Maybe, have a system that requires receipts to document where benefits are spent.
I think it is very naive to believe that claimed benefits are used in a massively constructive and honest way. Research is only as good as the investigation carried out, the sample area, etc.
Nice Gif
Corrected to reflect how your post will be processed by a large percentage of the forum.
It’s ACDC when they play their heaviest songs
Do you mean in terms of Work Capability Assessments? Supposedly all assessments are based on medical assessments. This was originally based on GP records, but was switched to a private sector provider under the Blair government.
The Wiki page provides a plain English description of the history:
I did have some experience of the administration of it. I can’t say that many people were very happy with the process, apart from some of the doctors carrying out the assessment who were getting money for old rope.
1 Like
The Rest Is Politics has had an interview with Andy Burnham. It’s around an hour long and covers a lot of subjects, but he is asked about the Manchester City / UAE situation (I’ve bookmarked it at the relevant bit):
He is making the point that the football integrity and UAE investment are different matters and that the 115 charges are a different matter.
I think these remarks are aimed more at the UAE than the British public: essentially saying that they should not try to use leverage to try and overturn it. I think the UAE will do that anyway.
TBH, they could threaten future investment, but what would they do with their existing investments? If a lot of that is tied up in land and physical properties, all they can do is cut off their nose to spite their face.
3 Likes
Maybe Burnham could tax UAE? He will tax anything else.
You know I was stereotyping for effect and a reaction. But the point remains. If you are struggling then live within your means. These people do not. They see instagram. They see other peoples lives. They want what they should no have. It’s modern life.
And then the benefits system lets you do that. You can get £30k in benefits for the right circumstances. Madness.
My mum did not want to claim carers allowance for looking after my dad with dementia. Sigh…..
Can you please detail the circumstances please?
I’m looking for a career change!
3 Likes
You might need 3 kids, ADHD, small cock trauma, no job……
No. Just self diagnose. Call Andy. He will help.
The main rules are:
- Universal Credit is means-tested. You and a live-in partner are assessed together, whether married or not. Savings and investments above £16,000 normally exclude you; amounts between £6,000 and £16,000 reduce payments. Your main home is excluded. Household income also affects entitlement.
- There is normally a benefit cap. For couples and single parents, it is £22,020 a year outside Greater London or £25,323 inside London, including rent support. Single adults without children have lower caps.
- Some households are exempt from that cap. Examples include receiving PIP, qualifying disability or carer support, or having sufficient earnings. This allows qualifying benefits to total more than £30,000.
- Work requirements usually apply to UC, adjusted for health, caring and childcare circumstances. Failing agreed requirements can reduce payments.
For example, using current 2026/27 rates, a single adult aged over 25 with qualifying disabilities, no other income and savings below £6,000 could receive:
| Component | Annual amount |
|---|---|
| Basic Universal Credit | £5,099 |
| Higher UC health element, if eligible | £5,158 |
| PIP at both enhanced rates | £10,119 |
| Illustrative eligible rent support of £800/month | £9,600 |
| Total | £29,976 |
While nothing should be paid to those conning the system, if the system pays for people with 3 kids, ADHD, small cock trauma then it is set up to be used for these things and maybe needs changing.
While you might not agree that some diagnosis should be helped out by the welfare system, there maybe some that you do think should be but other people don’t.We,the people, don’t get to pick and choose, others decide that.
While the problem lies with those who con, if they are, the generosity of the welfare system, the system and those who designed it are enabling those people to do so as those who can, won’t change it.
How much of what is allocated to those systems go to fraudulent claims, I’d hazard a guess that it’s miniscule compared to the amount that goes to those legitimate claims.
2 Likes