An offense to sleep rough, and illegal to feed the homeless

[Vicky.]

THEY spent much of the run-up to the election trying shake off their image as the nasty party.

But a heartless group of Tories have revealed their true colours by banning charities from running soup kitchens for the homeless.

Conservative Westminster council in Central London also wants to make it an offence to sleep rough – while slashing £5million of funding to hostels.

Astonishingly, town hall chiefs claimed soup kitchens only “encourage” people to sleep on the streets.

Westminster council, one of the richest in the land, wants to bring in a bylaw making it an offence to “give out food for free”, punishable by fines. The twisted move blows apart David Cameron’s Big Society boast that an army of volunteers will flock to help those worse off.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/feeding-homeless-to-be-banned-by-tory-run-westminster-113433

I sincerely hope this story is false, but I doubt it

How on earth will they enforce this? I'm sure for homeless people being in prison with a roof over their head and proper meals will be welcomed..so maybe this will do more good than harm. Can't see it being as straightforward as that though :/

[Vicky.]

I am sure these people are right though, and many people chose to be homeless just for the free soup :bored:

[Scarlett.]

I swear the Tories have just totally lost it and are actively trying to **** everybody in this country over.

[Vicky.]

I swear the Tories have just totally lost it and are actively trying to **** everybody in this country over.

I think this too tbh

Infact, my thinking is that they are trying to screw the country so much, that when they lose the next election, it costs whoever gets in ****loads to sort the mess out. And then the tories can bleat on about how much they spent trying to sort the mess out.. and get back in with their 'austerity' measures :S

[Benjamin]

Choosing to have a roof over my head or sleep on the streets in the cold and get free soup? Tough choice. They cannot be serious?

[arista]

This has been in BBC London and ITV London News
tonight they will give the real story


There views I trust.

The mirror - No way


if only vicky had another link

[Mrluvaluva]

I would not be surprised if Westminster Council were trying to enforce this. They have all kinds of rules. For instance, they have timed windows when businesses can put rubbish out for collection, because they don't want it to look untidy. So say you can put it out between, say, 06.00 and 08.00am. Most people are not at work at this time, but if you put it out at any other time you are fined. Work that one out.

As far as I can see, councils just look for any which way to save money, or try and get back some of their deficit, usually by fines.

If they slash funding to hostels, they're just going to make the problem worse and more widespread, but think of all the fines they can issue! Then they will have to employ more people to process them, and can pat themselves on the back over how many new jobs they have created whilst contributing to lowering unemployment figures.

[Vicky.]

(I did not realise this link was 2 years old. A friend just posted it on FB and I never thought to check)

[arista]

(I did not realise this link was 2 years old. A friend just posted it on FB and I never thought to check)


Change the Title add
2 Years Ago :

[Vicky.]

No

[user104658]

If they slash funding to hostels, they're just going to make the problem worse and more widespread, but think of all the fines they can issue! Then they will have to employ more people to process them, and can pat themselves on the back over how many new jobs they have created whilst contributing to lowering unemployment figures.

Their masterplan surely can't be to fine the homeless people themselves? ... ... homeless people are not exactly well known for having ... you know... money? I guess they could send in the bailiffs to seize their sleeping bags and fingerless gloves. They probably would.

in all seriousness though, the policy is clearly to try to "move them on" divorced areas. It's not a national policy, it's for one well off area of London... Their thinking will be "so long as its not on my doorstep, I don't care". Fairly typical Tory stuff, then.

[Mrluvaluva]

Their masterplan surely can't be to fine the homeless people themselves? ... ... homeless people are not exactly well known for having ... you know... money? I guess they could send in the bailiffs to seize their sleeping bags and fingerless gloves. They probably would.



Most street prostitutes aren't exactly known to be rolling in the stuff either, but it doesn't stop the courts from fining them, which in turn puts some back on the streets to pay for their fines.

Westminster council in Central London also wants to make it an offence to sleep rough.

If it was to become an offence, then they would surely either have to be cautioned, fined or incarcerated? None of them would be cost effective. It was a tongue in cheek comment about a hypothetical situation, but to be honest, nothing would surprise me.

[Nedusa]

So the Internment Camps are one step nearer ??

Welcome to Britain.......Arbeit Macht Frei !!!!

[Verbal]

I swear the Tories have just totally lost it and are actively trying to **** everybody in this country over.

Its what they've always done. Its just that there has been a big enough generation gap between Cameron and Thatcher for young people voting to not fully realise what they are like. I'd be very suprised to meet anybody who was working class and over 40 that voted for these bastards.

Actually nobody voted for them did they. The sooner this lot **** off the better.

[user104658]

Its what they've always done. Its just that there has been a big enough generation gap between Cameron and Thatcher for young people voting to not fully realise what they are like. I'd be very suprised to meet anybody who was working class and over 40 that voted for these bastards.

Actually nobody voted for them did they. The sooner this lot **** off the better.

Not even just working class people, they screwed the lower-middle class (which makes up the largest percentage of the population, I think?) In the 80s too and are doing the same now. Especially younger people who werent lucky enough to be in a financially secure position before the recession hit.

They hoodwinked people into voting for them last time, it's that simple. They said "look at the mess Labour has made! But don't worry, we'll fix it!" And millions of people who didn't have a clue about politics outside of their own back yard fell for it. I actually worked with a girl, definitely working class with two young children, who was banging on about voting Conservative and how they would fix things and how their pledges all sounded great, and I said several times before giving up, "they will screw you and your family to the wall". She wasnt listening, and now she's all over facebook moaning about the ConDems constantly.

Though I think that says a lot. Even after the questionable ethics of Blair and the political vacuum of Brown that followed, the Conservatives still only managed to scrape into power by annexing the LibDems. If you think of it in terms of a "clean slate", that vote should have been a landslide, but it wasn't even enough for a majority government.

I saw someone in another thread claim that "labour get in and spend all the money and then the conservatives get back in and fix it", a never ending pendulum. I agree about the pendulum but... Look at it from the other perspective. The Conservatives get in and BREAK every piece of infrastructure we have, and then once they're out it costs a fortune to try to fix it. Then they get back in by bleating on about excessive spending, and proceed to smash it all to pieces again.

The voting percentages last time show that most people definitely hadn't forgotten Thatcher, and little Dave has handily refreshed the memories of those who had.

[MTVN]

Well you're pretty much describing every opposition party in history, they all use spin, rhetoric and populist propaganda to persuade voters that they are the far better alternative, which isn't always the most difficult feat no matter who's in power. True, considering the state of things the Conservatives probably should have won a majority (and actually in the circumstances I think the marriage of convenience they made with the Lib Dems has proven to be far more solid than a lot of people would have expected), but on the same note you would also expect Labour to have a far bigger lead in the polls than they currently do have. Miliband might have had an alright conference - despite not really offering any long term and concrete policies - but most people still find it hard to see him as the Prime Minister and wouldn't trust him in the role, most likely scenario for 2015 is another hung parliament with the Lib Dems being King makers once again

[joeysteele]

Not even just working class people, they screwed the lower-middle class (which makes up the largest percentage of the population, I think?) In the 80s too and are doing the same now. Especially younger people who werent lucky enough to be in a financially secure position before the recession hit.

They hoodwinked people into voting for them last time, it's that simple. They said "look at the mess Labour has made! But don't worry, we'll fix it!" And millions of people who didn't have a clue about politics outside of their own back yard fell for it. I actually worked with a girl, definitely working class with two young children, who was banging on about voting Conservative and how they would fix things and how their pledges all sounded great, and I said several times before giving up, "they will screw you and your family to the wall". She wasnt listening, and now she's all over facebook moaning about the ConDems constantly.

Though I think that says a lot. Even after the questionable ethics of Blair and the political vacuum of Brown that followed, the Conservatives still only managed to scrape into power by annexing the LibDems. If you think of it in terms of a "clean slate", that vote should have been a landslide, but it wasn't even enough for a majority government.

I saw someone in another thread claim that "labour get in and spend all the money and then the conservatives get back in and fix it", a never ending pendulum. I agree about the pendulum but... Look at it from the other perspective. The Conservatives get in and BREAK every piece of infrastructure we have, and then once they're out it costs a fortune to try to fix it. Then they get back in by bleating on about excessive spending, and proceed to smash it all to pieces again.

The voting percentages last time show that most people definitely hadn't forgotten Thatcher, and little Dave has handily refreshed the memories of those who had.

I go fully with your pragraph in bold,
The 2010 election should have been the easiest ever for an opposition to party to win,it shouldhave been as you said a landslide yet David Cameron not only fell short but fell well short,19 seats in fact.
In fact had Labour held just about another 18 seats then it is more likely the Lib Dems would have pushed harder for a Coalition with them.
Alex Salmond of the SNP in fact still wanted that tried since he said there was a strong anti Conservative vote as to parliament.

I actually think myself, this is possibly still from a change as to politics that stems from what happened in 1997 with Tony Blair and his success.
There are issues that the Electorate will not again fully trust the Conservatives with,such as the NHS.
This is why in my view,it is going to be hard for the Conservatives to win outright for a good while in the future at least.
I believe that is something the Labour win in 1997 changed considerably.

The Conservatives have now never taken over 36% in a general election since 1992,all through this parliament after the first 6 months, they have been consistently in the lower 30s percentage wise and Labour in the higher 30s.
I think that is actually a firm position now. Labour's lead is not always great although polls like 32% for Con and 39% for Labour can in effect be the same thing in a poll that says Con 35% and Labour 36% because of the accepted margin of error.

Add to that the fact that Labour only needs to be just 2.5% ahead of the Conservatives and still get a likely overall majority whereas the Conservatives need to not just be that but have to be more like 6% ahead of Labour to scrape likely the barest of overall majorities.

The fact is, none of the leaders are great PM choices, the voters have been let down many times before.They don't really like any of them.
Margaret Thatcher was never a particularly liked leader but she won 3 elections.
Reading the run up to the 1979 election ,Jim Callgahan was apparantly far and away the leader liked the most with Margaret Thatcher well down the running but she still won the election.

These welfare changes as more and more are planned and announced and also the distrust as to Cameron as to the NHS, I then cannot see where anyone who felt they couldn't vote Conservative in 2010 will do so in 2015.

Those voters,(and I know of a good number too), that took Cameron at his word as to no across the board full reform of the NHS and gave him their vote in 2010, will not also be doing so in 2015 after him doing the total opposite.
Now also the feeling against the bedroom tax is gaining momentum and their policies outlined now are likely to get little support too now.
There is simply no compassion at all to their planned policies just discrimination against the poorest and weakest.

[Kizzy]

The tory mantra as ever is they are all for business, but who can afford to start a business?
It was also stated they created over a million private sector jobs, who can afford to access private sector services?
Who can afford to work in the private sector too with their temporary contracts and low wages?

[billy123]

A Tory MP has said the cuts arent that bad its not although people are dying on the streets.
Arrogant wanker.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chris-skidmore-mp-defends-cuts-2336876#.Uk_XiYkNrRw.twitter

He is wrong and it shows that they dont give a **** how much people are struggling unless it starts to cause them problems. Selfish to the core!
There is no such thing as society to the dirty tory scum. They only care about themselves.

BrzW53iVgaQ

[Kizzy]

They are though, look at Blackpool north they are suffering food poverty and their MP Paul Maynard says people are 'too reliant' on food banks....

[smeagol]

all they are trying to do is kill of the poor.the tories are doing what hitler tried they are just doing it in a more sneaky fashion.
they seem hell bent on destroying and killing of every poor person in this country.
i have never voted but i will be voting them out soon its possible .
they are widening the gap between the rich and poor to such a extent now there will be no going back.
soon as the election starts get that prick and his cronies out.

[reece(:]

I hope to god they aren't put in for PM again, all they do is ruin ****!! It's even worse now than Gordon Brown's run

[Vicky.]

all they are trying to do is kill of the poor.the tories are doing what hitler tried they are just doing it in a more sneaky fashion.
they seem hell bent on destroying and killing of every poor person in this country.
i have never voted but i will be voting them out soon its possible .
they are widening the gap between the rich and poor to such a extent now there will be no going back.
soon as the election starts get that prick and his cronies out.

So many people I know are saying that :laugh:

If nothing else, theres a slight silver lining to this shower of ****, its inspired people to use their right to vote

Its a shame though, that the only other realistic option is labour. Lesser of two evils, but still rather crap.

[MTVN]

all they are trying to do is kill of the poor.the tories are doing what hitler tried they are just doing it in a more sneaky fashion.
they seem hell bent on destroying and killing of every poor person in this country.
i have never voted but i will be voting them out soon its possible .
they are widening the gap between the rich and poor to such a extent now there will be no going back.
soon as the election starts get that prick and his cronies out.

Tad melodramatic..

[GypsyGoth]

The homeless should be picking up litter while they're out and about, they shouldn't really be sleeping on the job.

[smeagol]

So many people I know are saying that :laugh:

If nothing else, theres a slight silver lining to this shower of ****, its inspired people to use their right to vote

Its a shame though, that the only other realistic option is labour. Lesser of two evils, but still rather crap.

shower of sht lol i like that.

yea true. you can vote the smeagol party. my slogan will be smeagol will show the way, and we will all share the precioussssss lol

actually id love to do something. i hate politics but i really despise whats happening , i think im quite perceptive and what i see for the future is so bleak. we need a new party it seems

[Vicky.]

The homeless should be picking up litter while they're out and about, they shouldn't really be sleeping on the job.

If Osbourne/IDS happened to read this forum, you would be getting a job immediately for that post :joker:

[GypsyGoth]

If Osbourne/IDS happened to read this forum, you would be getting a job immediately for that post :joker:

:laugh:

[Kizzy]

Tad melodramatic..

No more melodramatic than the mail have been of late, I think they would rather a nazi sympathiser than a marxist be in government tbh.

[MTVN]

Fail to see the relevance of the Mail, am I supposed to be their representative or something

[Kizzy]

Tad melodramatic..

Fail to see the relevance of the Mail, am I supposed to be their representative or something

Woah chill out, the relevance is their attitude if late, the right wing rally cry that suggests in to me that nazism was a more attractive option than anything advocated by Ralph Milliband.
That was my logic there, I don't feel you are the tibb spokesperson for the mail, no need to get so defensive haha.

[MTVN]

Didn't think my comment was a particularly angry one lol, I just didn't see how your post about the Mail related to my first one

[Kizzy]

Your ' tad melodramatic' was a bit glib, to what seemed a fair analysis of what is happening today.
The media use sensationalism and lies to influence people daily and yet an opinion like that is seen as melodramatic?
Am I being oversensitive again? My bad.

[Joelle.]

An offence to sleep rough? How exactly are those geniuses going to enforce that. They can't exactly fine them if they have no money and I'm sure anyone sleeping in a cold, damp doorway would welcome a warm prison cell, with food. Hence defeating the object of this whole exercise... :bored:

[MTVN]

Your ' tad melodramatic' was a bit glib, to what seemed a fair analysis of what is happening today.
The media use sensationalism and lies to influence people daily and yet an opinion like that is seen as melodramatic?
Am I being oversensitive again? My bad.

Well it is a bit melodramatic to compare the Conservatives to the Nazis and say they are trying to 'kill off the poor', that goes beyond even the most sensationalist media

[Kizzy]

Well it is a bit melodramatic to compare the Conservatives to the Nazis and say they are trying to 'kill off the poor', that goes beyond even the most sensationalist media

Not at all, there is a comparison to be drawn here imo. The views of the current
Government and the media they control were and are still are more in line with facism than anyone would care to admit.

[MTVN]

Not at all, there is a comparison to be drawn here imo. The views of the current
Government and the media they control were and are still are more in line with facism than anyone would care to admit.

Can you elaborate?

In my view anyone who tries to equate the current government with fascism has very little understanding of what fascism actually was

[arista]

Your ' tad melodramatic' was a bit glib, to what seemed a fair analysis of what is happening today.
The media use sensationalism and lies to influence people daily and yet an opinion like that is seen as melodramatic?
Am I being oversensitive again? My bad.



Kizzy The Daily Mail (it sells massive amounts)
is putting views not lies.


Just like
the Daily Mirror does


did you miss question time BBC1?
its free to watch online

[Kizzy]

Don't patronise me please.

[arista]

Don't patronise me please.


I do not need to
i respect you

[Vicky.]

I don't honestly think its too melodramatic to suggest that they want to kill off the poor :shrug:

Removing disability benefits from those who needs them while telling them there are plenty of push button with your nose jobs..cutting HB knowing full well that there are no alternatives..seeming to want to abolish benefits altogether..slave labour..when the whole safety net goes as they seem to want, the options will be turn into a criminal (may aswell, being unemployed seems akin to being a criminal now anyway) or die off :S

[arista]

I don't honestly think its too melodramatic to suggest that they want to kill off the poor :shrug:

Removing disability benefits from those who needs them while telling them there are plenty of push button with your nose jobs..cutting HB knowing full well that there are no alternatives..seeming to want to abolish benefits altogether..slave labour..when the whole safety net goes as they seem to want, the options will be turn into a criminal (may aswell, being unemployed seems akin to being a criminal now anyway) or die off :S


But IDS said those that need help will get it.

"Abolish them" - For Slackers - even Labour will do that

[Kizzy]

I do not need to
i respect you

That was to MTVN arista.

[arista]

That was to MTVN arista.



Sorry

[MTVN]

I don't honestly think its too melodramatic to suggest that they want to kill off the poor :shrug:

Removing disability benefits from those who needs them while telling them there are plenty of push button with your nose jobs..cutting HB knowing full well that there are no alternatives..seeming to want to abolish benefits altogether..slave labour..when the whole safety net goes as they seem to want, the options will be turn into a criminal (may aswell, being unemployed seems akin to being a criminal now anyway) or die off :S

I don't think that could ever be possible though. In reality the amount being spent on welfare is actually still rising year on year, and we're spending far more than we were even just a decade ago, the Tories are more trying to arrest it's growth than overturn it. You are probably more aware of what's being done than me but if there wasn't some kind of reform to welfare the system would have collapsed under the weight of it, even though I can see why people think they are going about the reform in the wrong way

Also all the signs seem to be showing that things are picking up in this country; unemployment is down, housing prices are up, growth is getting stronger and the forecasts for this keep getting revised upwards, it was even being reported yesterday that Britain currently has the fastest rate of growth in the developed world, compared to a lot of Europe right now we're in a comparatively stable position

[joeysteele]

I don't honestly think its too melodramatic to suggest that they want to kill off the poor :shrug:

Removing disability benefits from those who needs them while telling them there are plenty of push button with your nose jobs..cutting HB knowing full well that there are no alternatives..seeming to want to abolish benefits altogether..slave labour..when the whole safety net goes as they seem to want, the options will be turn into a criminal (may aswell, being unemployed seems akin to being a criminal now anyway) or die off :S

I agree with this,a very thought provoking and also a worrying post.

To arista too, I have to say, Duncan Smith, who is someone I would consign to the political scrapheap tomorrow if I had my way, says those who need the most support will get it from his changes.
In fact those people are the very people who are being hit the hardest by his changes and he knows that only too well.
Organisation after organisation has told him but he ignores totally their concerns.

I hate to even allow the thought into my head that any Govt would put into practice a sort of vendetta against the poorest and weakest in society,however everything this Govt does as to welfare reform particularly, totally lacks compassion as to the policies and stinks of some sort of cleansing programme rather than genuine reform.

So back to Vicky's point in her post and I think she makes a very good case indeed as to the real intention behind this Govts welfare policies.

[Ninastar]

I was going to comment how this would never happen, but the fact that the article is 2 years old kinda proves it.

just another 'omg rich people hating on poor people!!!!!' article imo.

[Vicky.]

I don't think that could ever be possible though. In reality the amount being spent on welfare is actually still rising year on year, and we're spending far more than we were even just a decade ago, the Tories are more trying to arrest it's growth than overturn it. You are probably more aware of what's being done than me but if there wasn't some kind of reform to welfare the system would have collapsed under the weight of it, even though I can see why people think they are going about the reform in the wrong way

Also all the signs seem to be showing that things are picking up in this country; unemployment is down, housing prices are up, growth is getting stronger and the forecasts for this keep getting revised upwards, it was even being reported yesterday that Britain currently has the fastest rate of growth in the developed world, compared to a lot of Europe right now we're in a comparatively stable positionIts rising year on year because we have an aging population. The Tories are doing nothing to arrest its growth as its impossible to do so without touching pensions..and OAPs vote. They KNOW that over half the welfare budget goes on pensions/pension credit and such but they CHOSE to make out that its all JSA and cut away at what little those people have. When in reality they make up a tiny portion of the bill, but are baring the massive brunt of all of this rubbish. Hell, a few sheep even think that JSA/sickness benefit are actually the reason the country is in debt, with special thanks to the daily mail and its ilk.

The economy is picking up (IMO) in spite of the austerity measures, not because of. You cannot cut your way out of a recession.

[Vicky.]

But IDS said those that need help will get it.

"Abolish them" - For Slackers - even Labour will do that


If IDS told me the sky was blue I would go outside to check. The man talks so much crap I doubt even he believes it.

[Vicky.]

I was going to comment how this would never happen, but the fact that the article is 2 years old kinda proves it.

just another 'omg rich people hating on poor people!!!!!' article imo.

It appears it was only dropped because of big campaigns and charities and such getting involved.

But yeah, poor rich Tories and their mates. Always getting the blame for ****ting on the poor eh? I wonder why that is...

[DanaC]

They're looking to America for their ideas (though they always claim to be looking to some European or Scandinavian country). Yeah. Where the problem of poverty and worklessness is solved.

I swear they will not be content until we have cardboard cities sprouting on every large piece of wasteland and the poor have to wait until their asthma/diabetes/whatever chronic condition is at criss point before they can seek medical attention at A&E (and then get followed around by a £1200 bill).

And those who play ball, those who try to navigate the system, that bare few who qualify for assistance will be used as slave labour for their foodstamps, whilst private companies employ them at our expense.


Those old enough to remember Thatcher, most likely remember this speech by Neil Kinnock. Like him or loathe him, this speech said all that needs to be said about the Tories. It is as relevant today as it ever was then. This government, despite the allegedly calming hand of the LibDems, is going much, much further than Maggie ever dared.

If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as Prime Minister, I warn you.

I warn you that you will have pain - when healing and relief depend on payment.

I warn you that you will have ignorance - when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right.

I warn you that you will have poverty - when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a Government that won't pay, in an economy that can't pay.

I warn you that you will be cold - when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don't notice and the poor can't afford.

I warn you that you must not expect work - when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don't earn, they don't spend. When they don't spend, work dies.

I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.

I warn you that you will be quiet - when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.

I warn you that you will have defence of a sort - with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding.

I warn you that you will be home-bound - when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up.

I warn you that you will borrow less - when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.

If Margaret Thatcher wins, she will be more a Leader than a Prime Minister. That power produces arrogance and when it is toughened by Tebbitry and flattered and fawned upon by spineless sycophants, the boot-licking tabloid Knights of Fleet Street and placement in the Quangos, the arrogance corrupts absolutely.

If Margaret Thatcher wins -

I warn you not to be ordinary.
I warn you not to be young.
I warn you not to fall ill.
I warn you not to get old.

[MTVN]

Its rising year on year because we have an aging population. The Tories are doing nothing to arrest its growth as its impossible to do so without touching pensions..and OAPs vote. They KNOW that over half the welfare budget goes on pensions/pension credit and such but they CHOSE to make out that its all JSA and cut away at what little those people have. When in reality they make up a tiny portion of the bill, but are baring the massive brunt of all of this rubbish. Hell, a few sheep even think that JSA/sickness benefit are actually the reason the country is in debt, with special thanks to the daily mail and its ilk.

The economy is picking up (IMO) in spite of the austerity measures, not because of. You cannot cut your way out of a recession.

Pensions is a big part of it but welfare is also rising, in 2005 there was £78b being spent, this year there is close to £117b (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2013UKbn)

Do agree that they are making JSA etc. bear the brunt because like you say it would be political suicide to go after pensions, there's already enough criticism about that we don't do enough to look after our ageing population

[Suze]

I don't honestly think its too melodramatic to suggest that they want to kill off the poor :shrug:

Removing disability benefits from those who needs them while telling them there are plenty of push button with your nose jobs..cutting HB knowing full well that there are no alternatives..seeming to want to abolish benefits altogether..slave labour..when the whole safety net goes as they seem to want, the options will be turn into a criminal (may aswell, being unemployed seems akin to being a criminal now anyway) or die off :S

Vicky, you are so on the ball and have the right sympathetic attitude to towards those who need it. I rarely disagree with your posts, especially of late on this forum. You should go into politics yourself, get your voice heard, in fact! Vicky for PM :spin: :hello: Get yourself in the next TIBBs party election :dance:

[DanaC]

Here's the thing though: if the govenment is spending all that money on benefits, that means all those people claiming have money to spend on food and soap and shampoo and milk and all those basics. If the benefits are only meagre, rather than inadequate for even basic survival, then they may also be spending on cheap tvs and toys for the kids at Christmas, the odd day out at Alton Towers during the summer holidays, a cup of coffee from a cafe whilst they're out and about. And any other of those cheap, small luxuries that made life more than mere subsistence survival.

Now, on the one hand you can look at that and say why should my taxes pay for them to do more than scrape by? On the other hand you can recognise that all that low level spending goes into the high street and the businesses that need customers in order to stay in business...

And if benefits are so meagre that it becomes impossible to live on them at all, then those with jobs also stop spending. Because who can risk spending when tomorrow may bring unemployment and that bring destitution?

And if all those people aren't spending, then the places where they used to spend will not thrive and will cut their cloth to avoid insolvency.

The tories have created, and will continue to create a secondary recession that is entirely demand led. And the more they cut the money in people's pockets, the more they cast unemployment as the bottom of the barrel, as the moral failure of those without jobs and as the most broken picture of existence, the more fearful those in work will be and the less able those out of work will be to participate in the market at even those most basic levels. And so demand will continue to fall and the demand led recession will continue to deepen.

But the top tier of society do not feel the recession. The top earners in the UK have increased both their wealth in real terms and their share of the wealth of the country. Whilst paying a smaller proportion of that wealth and income in taxes. And the gap is getting bigger, and it is getting bigger faster with every passing year of this.

That's why they're doing this. Everything they do increases the wealth of their own peers. The fact that there are families with two working adults that still aren't earning enough to put food on the table and clothes on their kids' backs is an irrelevance to them. And those who lose their jobs due to this demand led recession are no longer of any importance except in their function as warning signs to keep the rest of us focused the wrong in our anger.

[Vicky.]

Pensions is a big part of it but welfare is also rising, in 2005 there was £78b being spent, this year there is close to £117b (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2013UKbn)

Do agree that they are making JSA etc. bear the brunt because like you say it would be political suicide to go after pensions, there's already enough criticism about that we don't do enough to look after our ageing population

Comparing to 2005 is a bit iffy really..considering we went through a huge recession :p

Obviously the bill will rise when more and more people are getting laid off and HAVE to claim benefits to live. Also, a massive proportion of benefits goes to people already in work..since we now have a load of 4 hour per week jobs and 0 hour contracts. This is why I tend to ignore the 'oh we have 100000 more people in work' stuff. Because most of the time, its not a 'real' job, simply a shuffling round and taking a few hours from existing staff to give to other people.

I absolutely disagree that anyone working fulltime (or near to fulltime) hours should have to claim benefits. I suspect if companies were made to pay a living wage (or the cost of living went down, whichever) the benefit bill would drop sharply.

Also, your chart includes pensions anyway, does it not? An looking at that, for the past 4 years or so, everythings been pretty steady

[Vicky.]

Vicky, you are so on the ball and have the right sympathetic attitude to towards those who need it. I rarely disagree with your posts, especially of late on this forum. You should go into politics yourself, get your voice heard, in fact! Vicky for PM :spin: :hello: Get yourself in the next TIBBs party election :dance:

Thanks :p

[Vicky.]

Here's the thing though: if the govenment is spending all that money on benefits, that means all those people claiming have money to spend on food and soap and shampoo and milk and all those basics. If the benefits are only meagre, rather than inadequate for even basic survival, then they may also be spending on cheap tvs and toys for the kids at Christmas, the odd day out at Alton Towers during the summer holidays, a cup of coffee from a cafe whilst they're out and about. And any other of those cheap, small luxuries that made life more than mere subsistence survival.

Now, on the one hand you can look at that and say why should my taxes pay for them to do more than scrape by? On the other hand you can recognise that all that low level spending goes into the high street and the businesses that need customers in order to stay in business...

And if benefits are so meagre that it becomes impossible to live on them at all, then those with jobs also stop spending. Because who can risk spending when tomorrow may bring unemployment and that bring destitution?

And if all those people aren't spending, then the places where they used to spend will not thrive and will cut their cloth to avoid insolvency.

The tories have created, and will continue to create a secondary recession that is entirely demand led. And the more they cut the money in people's pockets, the more they cast unemployment as the bottom of the barrel, as the moral failure of those without jobs and as the most broken picture of existence, the more fearful those in work will be and the less able those out of work will be to participate in the market at even those most basic levels. And so demand will continue to fall and the demand led recession will continue to deepen.

But the top tier of society do not feel the recession. The top earners in the UK have increased both their wealth in real terms and their share of the wealth of the country. Whilst paying a smaller proportion of that wealth and income in taxes. And the gap is getting bigger, and it is getting bigger faster with every passing year of this.

That's why they're doing this. Everything they do increases the wealth of their own peers. The fact that there are families with two working adults that still aren't earning enough to put food on the table and clothes on their kids' backs is an irrelevance to them. And those who lose their jobs due to this demand led recession are no longer of any importance except in their function as warning signs to keep the rest of us focused the wrong in our anger.

And this is exactly why I said earlier, you cannot cut your way out of a recession. The less people have, the less they spend, the less service jobs there are, less people employed as profits are down, and the cycle repeats again.

[user104658]

I've been saying for years that benefits money "floats" - it's not money down the drain, it's practically an economic investment. Benefits money doesnt get saved, invested or put away for a rainy day. Almost every last penny of it is spent, and most of that in retail. 20% of that benefits bill goes straight back to the government as VAT. A huge chunk of the rest of it is spent on food, clothes, electronics even, things that keep shops open and keep people in jobs. Austerity is a mistake. It's wrong-headed thinking put into force by people that have had an abundance of spending money for their entire life, and therefore don't actually understand the retail economy, because they have never and will never have to do anything other than reach into their back pocket in order to buy any small item they want on a whim.

[Kizzy]

It does, these 0hr temp jobs mean less money spent, nobody can borrow against that kind of job.
So people live hand to mouth unable to buy property.
Cutting taxes as tories seen to think is a draw for people to vote for them... But what is funding the economy? If it's not spending and tax?
Is it destined to be just the rich and business funding the economy?
If so we are moving to a new world order, no question.

[MTVN]

Comparing to 2005 is a bit iffy really..considering we went through a huge recession :p

Obviously the bill will rise when more and more people are getting laid off and HAVE to claim benefits to live. Also, a massive proportion of benefits goes to people already in work..since we now have a load of 4 hour per week jobs and 0 hour contracts. This is why I tend to ignore the 'oh we have 100000 more people in work' stuff. Because most of the time, its not a 'real' job, simply a shuffling round and taking a few hours from existing staff to give to other people.

I absolutely disagree that anyone working fulltime (or near to fulltime) hours should have to claim benefits. I suspect if companies were made to pay a living wage (or the cost of living went down, whichever) the benefit bill would drop sharply.

Also, your chart includes pensions anyway, does it not? An looking at that, for the past 4 years or so, everythings been pretty steady

Could have picked any year really, just chose 2005 cos it seemed nice and round lol, the chart separates welfare and pensions (like this year there was £139b on pensions and £116.6 on welfare according to it)

[Vicky.]

Could have picked any year really, just chose 2005 cos it seemed nice and round lol, the chart separates welfare and pensions (like this year there was £139b on pensions and £116.6 on welfare according to it)

Ahh right. Like the normal government figures should be when talking about welfare then :p

Will have a look later on I think for a breakdown of that. As I suspect that the number of in work benefits is rising quicker than anything else at the moment considering 90% or something of new housing benefit claims are made by those with jobs.

[Kizzy]

I'm not sure why that is seen as so acceptable these days either, when welfare was established it was for a safety-net for those in-between jobs... not those in work.
Why not put pressure on employers to pay a decent living wage to free them from being subsidised by benefits?

[DanaC]

because this way their 'job creator' friends can hire cheap labour, subsidized by our taxes.

[Kizzy]

It is a way for conservatives to invade every vein like a cancer...

[user104658]

I'm not sure why that is seen as so acceptable these days either, when welfare was established it was for a safety-net for those in-between jobs... not those in work.
Why not put pressure on employers to pay a decent living wage to free them from being subsidised by benefits?

The problem is that the cost of living (and most specifically, rent...) is so high that I'd say a living wage for a family would have to be at least 25,000 annually... Which after tax is deducted means that a full-time living wage would be in the region of £15 per hour which most employers simply could not afford as a minimum wage. They would have to let go of staff for it to be feasible.

I personally think, for it to be viable, that a living wage of around £10 per hour combined with a massive crackdown on rent costs, household fuel bills, and travel costs would be about right.

But, all of that assumes readily available FULL TIME (35 - 40 hours per week) employment... Proper full time hours are like gold dust at the moment. Zero hour contracts are common and even positions with salaries are often 20 or 25 hour. I think the govt. itself even classifies full time as 30 hours or more.

That needs addressing as well really. I know guys who work 50+ hour weeks every week, but more than half of it is classed as "overtime" and their flat contract reads 20 or even 16 hours. So their payslip is decent but they have no chance of, for example, getting a mortgage as no one will lend based on that - they'll only consider the 16 hours to be "secure" even if the person is actually working three times as many hours.

[Kizzy]

Exactly, there were laws put in place to restrict greedy landlords from exploiting those who needed to be near our towns and cities in times gone by.
Gone are the fair and clear contracts of employment, so it was possible to prove you had permanant and regular income for credit purposes now it seems these safeguards are being stripped away and society is effectively going backwards....