The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[badgerx16]

There will always be grifters, it is the consequence of having a welfare safety net.

There will always be 'employers' looking to game the system and shirk their responsibilities to their employees. This is a standard side effect of capitalism.

Until somebody invents the perfect system, with %100 employment at rates that guarantee an acceptable minimum standard of living, these 2 statements will remain true.

[badgerx16]

Ralph, have you ever in your life experienced living on welfare ? For most people it isn't the scrounger's utopia the Mail and Express like to portray.

Edited 23 hours ago by badgerx16

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Ralph, have you ever in your life experienced living on welfare ?

I’ve never lived on welfare. I have lived below the poverty line both in this country and abroad (the equivalent of UK poverty line). In this country my dad wouldn’t take welfare as a matter of principle.

I know of people in my area who are on welfare and they are certainly not struggling. Whilst some are certainly struggling, there is too much abuse of the system in my opinion. The Labour Cabinet believe the same as they wanted welfare reform. This isn’t some mad surprise or idea

Edited 23 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’ve never lived on welfare. I have lived below the poverty line both in this country and abroad (the equivalent of UK poverty line). In this country my dad wouldn’t take welfare as a matter of principle.

Whilst that is an admirable and principled position, it is one that others find harder to take.

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Whilst that is an admirable and principled position, it is one that others find harder to take.

I understand that and some people do need welfare. I know stories of guys working two jobs and struggling. I have the genuine utmost respect. Also for people in @sadoldgit situation.

However some need a kick up the ars and an ultimatum. I would question their tolerance threshold. That’s human nature. There is a lack of ars kicking in the current system.

Thanks for engaging in a respectful way.

Edited 23 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

15 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Put my view to one side. This is Tory policy to reinstate the two child cap for the reasons I said. This isn’t some outlier view. It’s the oppositions policy. 
 

I’ve lived in countries with true poverty and seen the consequence. I’ve also seen the opportunity a capitalist system can provide and encourage people out of poverty. Whilst I appreciate the respect you post with I don’t need lecturing from other rude posters about the consequences of poverty. 

The point is your opinion is that children should suffer in poverty as a result of their parents feckless attitude towards procreation. 

That's the problem here.

Lifting kids out of poverty should be the first agenda for any government, left or right. They are the economic future for countries, so you want them to be as high-achieving as possible. Starting them off in a life of poverty strangles that, and is very poor for the economy.

[sadoldgit]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’ve never lived on welfare. I have lived below the poverty line both in this country and abroad (the equivalent of UK poverty line). In this country my dad wouldn’t take welfare as a matter of principle.

I know of people in my area who are on welfare and they are certainly not struggling. Whilst some are certainly struggling, there is too much abuse of the system in my opinion. The Labour Cabinet believe the same as they wanted welfare reform. This isn’t some mad surprise or idea

How do you know what level of abuse the system is facing? A bloke down the pub type of actually factual information?

Everybody wants welfare form. No system is perfect, but I can tell you that getting Universal Credit and PIP is no walk in the park. My wife applied a few years ago when she left her job through bullying. She had to go in for several meetings and fill in countless forms. So did I, even though I wasn’t claiming benefit. In the end we were turned down because of my pension. The fact that we were relying on my pension and her wages to make ends meet didn’t come into it. They also said it was a pity that we had a mortgage as they could have helped us if we had been paying rent! 
You need to look beyond the rhetoric of Badenoch and Reform. The idea that thousands of people are living the life of Riley on benefits is no different from the myth that all of our problems are down to migrants. 
I was out of work for a period about 20 years ago so went sling to the job centre to see what they could do for me. It was so depressing that I never went back. They will always be people who play the system. That doesn’t mean that everybody is. Do you feel the same about very rich people who employ accountants to avoid paying tax? I don’t hear people of your ideology complain about the rich playing the system to get richer.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

How do you know what level of abuse the system is facing? A bloke down the pub type of actually factual information?

Everybody wants welfare form. No system is perfect, but I can tell you that getting Universal Credit and PIP is no walk in the park. My wife applied a few years ago when she left her job through bullying. She had to go in for several meetings and fill in countless forms. So did I, even though I wasn’t claiming benefit. In the end we were turned down because of my pension. The fact that we were relying on my pension and her wages to make ends meet didn’t come into it. They also said it was a pity that we had a mortgage as they could have helped us if we had been paying rent! 
You need to look beyond the rhetoric of Badenoch and Reform. The idea that thousands of people are living the life of Riley on benefits is no different from the myth that all of our problems are down to migrants. 
I was out of work for a period about 20 years ago so went sling to the job centre to see what they could do for me. It was so depressing that I never went back. They will always be people who play the system. That doesn’t mean that everybody is. Do you feel the same about very rich people who employ accountants to avoid paying tax? I don’t hear people of your ideology complain about the rich playing the system to get richer.

Yes if you’ve been recently employed the bizarre thing is it doesn’t help you. Long term benefit claimants are fine. I speak from experience of long term claimants I’m aware of. Says a lot about who the system helps and doesnt 

Edited 22 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Gloucester Saint]

53 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

There will always be grifters, it is the consequence of having a welfare safety net.

There will always be 'employers' looking to game the system and shirk their responsibilities to their employees. This is a standard side effect of capitalism.

Until somebody invents the perfect system, with %100 employment at rates that guarantee an acceptable minimum standard of living, these 2 statements will remain true.

Yep, through my involvement with CAMRA I see fantastic breweries and pubs doing well, some good ones earlier in their business plan struggling with big rent hikes and cost of stock/staff availability in more rural areas (esp from the big pub cos, get managing tenants in a lower rate and hike it hugely when they are getting established after 18 months) and some shysters. On the latter, here is a prime example from the Midlands earlier this year  

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Gloucester Saint

[badgerx16]

40 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I understand that and some people do need welfare. I know stories of guys working two jobs and struggling. I have the genuine utmost respect. Also for people in @sadoldgit situation.

However some need a kick up the ars and an ultimatum. I would question their tolerance threshold. That’s human nature. There is a lack of ars kicking in the current system.

Thanks for engaging in a respectful way.

Not bad for a Leftie, eh ?

[Mixedkebab]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

This is not aspiration. You don't aspire for children to not be in poverty. Kids are in poverty now, this will help to lift quite a few out. If that means we have to tax the rich, which includes myself, a bit more, then fuck it, we should do it. Children are not a commodity to use as collateral because you think that we should punish the feckless. We live in a country where two parents can both work full time and still have to use food banks. You do not understand the societal impact that poverty has on children.

I'm not a socialist, I'm a one nation Tory, and you ARE a cunt. A real, grade A, don't give a fuck about anyone than myself, cunt. Own it.

Jesus Christ, what an over privileged, self righteous shiny Herman Gelmet we’ve got here. “I’m a one nation Tory”. What kind of herpes brain actually sits and typed out this po-faced dribble on a message board?

[egg]

4 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I will respond to you. Later on. I can’t prove that. Ok most sensible people I know who graft and make net tax contributions to this country

The like minded people you associate with are not most people. 

Some people respect the need for a welfare state, and appreciate that not everyone who needs that welfare is a lazy scrounger.

Are you seriously suggesting that disabled people who can't work, for example, shouldn't have kids? 

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes if you’ve been recently employed the bizarre thing is it doesn’t help you. Long term benefit claimants are fine. I speak from experience of long term claimants I’m aware of. Says a lot about who the system helps and doesnt 

The whole welfare system has been a mess for years and as said is in urgent need of reform. I would have no problem in benefits being means tested. The trouble is that would involve a large increase in staff/expense/government spending. 
Labour are taking measures to get long term claimants (those who can) back into work. It takes time. Early days but let’s see how that develops.

[iansums]

I must have missed all the news reports of kids dying from poverty over the past 8 years 

[iansums]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The whole welfare system has been a mess for years and as said is in urgent need of reform. I would have no problem in benefits being means tested. The trouble is that would involve a large increase in staff/expense/government spending. 
Labour are taking measures to get long term claimants (those who can) back into work. It takes time. Early days but let’s see how that develops.

What measures? Genuine question, all I see is them making it more difficult for employers to take people on.

[benjii]

A lot of people think they are net contributors because they pay tax, but for a household to be a net contributor it needs to contribute around 17k per person of tax revenues each year.

Most people are living off the state. It's a question of degree.

[badgerx16]

One stupid manifesto pledge ditched;

"The government has U-turned on its manifesto commitment to offer all workers the right to claim unfair dismissal from their first day in a job."

[badgerx16]

21 minutes ago, iansums said:

I must have missed all the news reports of kids dying from poverty over the past 8 years 

Slightly over-dramatic headline perhaps ;

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-society-politics/news/article/5856/uk-children-dying-through-poverty-data-shows

"The report also shows that children living in the most disadvantaged areas are more likely to die in intensive care,"

“This report lays bare the stark and shameful reality that children in the UK are dying because of poverty. It is simply unacceptable that a child's postcode determines their chances of survival, health and opportunity."

 

https://www.nursinginpractice.com/clinical/one-third-of-uk-children-grow-up-in-poverty-with-higher-risk-of-dying-young/

"A report, Addressing Poverty Update: UK Children Dying through Poverty, highlights how children from disadvantaged areas face a 13 per cent higher risk of death in paediatric intensive care than those from the least disadvantaged areas. "

Edited 19 hours ago by badgerx16

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Mixedkebab said:

Jesus Christ, what an over privileged, self righteous shiny Herman Gelmet we’ve got here. “I’m a one nation Tory”. What kind of herpes brain actually sits and typed out this po-faced dribble on a message board?

Thank God we've got fuckwits like you to police us eh?

[Farmer Saint]

29 minutes ago, egg said:

The like minded people you associate with are not most people. 

Some people respect the need for a welfare state, and appreciate that not everyone who needs that welfare is a lazy scrounger.

Are you seriously suggesting that disabled people who can't work, for example, shouldn't have kids? 

I'm waiting for his suggestion of chemical castration to ensure people that he doesn't think should have kids, don't. 

I certainly know at least one person on this thread who should fall under that category.

Edited 20 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

24 minutes ago, iansums said:

I must have missed all the news reports of kids dying from poverty over the past 8 years 

Cool, well have a read:

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news-society-politics/news/article/5856/uk-children-dying-through-poverty-data-shows

https://www.ncmd.info/publications/child-mortality-social-deprivation/

https://cpag.org.uk/news/more-children-ill-poverty-bleak-paediatricians-survey-anniversary-child-poverty-taskforce

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

47 minutes ago, Mixedkebab said:

Jesus Christ, what an over privileged, self righteous shiny Herman Gelmet we’ve got here. “I’m a one nation Tory”. What kind of herpes brain actually sits and typed out this po-faced dribble on a message board?

Succinct.

[Farmer Saint]

10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

One stupid manifesto pledge ditched;

"The government has U-turned on its manifesto commitment to offer all workers the right to claim unfair dismissal from their first day in a job."

Good - businesses will be very happy with that. Let's see if they create the jobs they said that this policy was stopping...

[Farmer Saint]

39 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Succinct.

Do you know what "succinct" means, because the post is anything but?

Edited 19 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[badgerx16]

53 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Succinct.

Err, no.

"expressed in few words; concise; terse"

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Err, no.

"expressed in few words; concise; terse"

I typed out a response and then thought “I can’t be bothered”. I don’t want to waste any more time on him. Have a good evening 

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

37 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I typed out a response and then thought “I can’t be bothered”. I don’t want to waste any more time on him. Have a good evening 

So you thought you'd respond with a word that doesn't make any sense?

Edited 18 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

I think we're all waiting for Sir Ralph's responses, or will these just be added to the long list of questions he is yet to answer...

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think we're all waiting for Sir Ralph's responses, or will these just be added to the long list of questions he is yet to answer...

I would have responded to you but you were bloody rude this afternoon so I'm not wasting my time. I'm not dodging your questions as your responses were pretty average anyway - not exactly challenging. I just dont like you or care for your opinions and the other poster got you spot on. Learn to engage with people respectfully and people will respect you, regardless of whether you disagree.

Edited 17 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

21 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I would have responded to you but you were bloody rude this afternoon so I'm not wasting my time. I'm not dodging your questions as your responses were pretty average anyway - not exactly challenging. I just dont like you or care for your opinions and the other poster got you spot on. Learn to engage with people respectfully and people will respect you, regardless of whether you disagree.

Mate, you would prefer kids to be in poverty than to allow people child benefit for if they have more than 2 kids, and as the above studies prove, child poverty causes child deaths.

That's bordering on evil, so don't you dare try to take the high road.

I'll add those questions to the long list of questions you have refused to answer in the past.

Edited 17 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Mixedkebab]

18 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Mate, you would prefer kids to be in poverty than to allow people child benefit for if they have more than 2 kids, and as the above studies prove, child poverty causes child deaths.

That's bordering on evil, so don't you dare try to take the high road.

I'll add those questions to the long list of questions you have refused to answer in the past.

By the extreme bipolar style nature of your arguments you think the UK works like some clichéd Dickensian rip off drama series.

Nobody wants to see kids in poverty, your Bono style posh boy acting like a working class hero rant doesn’t make you any more caring than most.

There are many ways the government could’ve addressed child poverty, so that the money went directly to fund children’s services rather than a blanket payment to families, where some will of course use it for the right reasons but many others will abuse it.

Not necessarily agreeing with lifting the cap doesn’t make people akin to Pol Pot.

But your Student Grant, circular glasses, German army jacket, Steve Biko Union Bar style dribbling will carry on regardless.

[sadoldgit]

Not as bad as some would like to believe then …

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/sterling-uk-bond-prices-rise-whippy-trading-reeves-budget-soothes-some-nerves-2025-11-26/

 

[sadoldgit]

44 minutes ago, Mixedkebab said:

By the extreme bipolar style nature of your arguments you think the UK works like some clichéd Dickensian rip off drama series.

Nobody wants to see kids in poverty, your Bono style posh boy acting like a working class hero rant doesn’t make you any more caring than most.

There are many ways the government could’ve addressed child poverty, so that the money went directly to fund children’s services rather than a blanket payment to families, where some will of course use it for the right reasons but many others will abuse it.

Not necessarily agreeing with lifting the cap doesn’t make people akin to Pol Pot.

But your Student Grant, circular glasses, German army jacket, Steve Biko Union Bar style dribbling will carry on regardless.

“Many others will abuse it.” Where is the evidence for this statement. Define “many.” Do you think that maybe the word “some” might be more accurate or are just doing the usual assumption that we are a nation of scroungers?

[Sir Ralph]

15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Not as bad as some would like to believe then …

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/sterling-uk-bond-prices-rise-whippy-trading-reeves-budget-soothes-some-nerves-2025-11-26/

 

This is because the budget deficit hasn’t increased and has a larger headroom. The headroom itself is good in principle and could have been achieved by any government. It can be achieved in a number of ways, including cuts or a more balanced budget.

A lot of scepticism in the economy was already factored in before the budget because people knew what was coming and actually feared that the nutters were going to deliver a worse budget than they did. 

This government is obsessed with taxes rather than economic growth. Thats it. It doesn’t mean that the markets believe it’s a “good budget” and the article highlights the scepticism about long term growth.

Edited 15 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

They will always be people who play the system

Sounds like you and your Mrs were two them. Moaning that the tax payer didn’t pony up because of your pension & the lack of a mortgage. This is the problem with welfare, people who don’t need it, thinking it’s a right. It’s spread way too thinly, with the deserving getting less because of that. 

[Mixedkebab]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

“Many others will abuse it.” Where is the evidence for this statement. Define “many.” Do you think that maybe the word “some” might be more accurate or are just doing the usual assumption that we are a nation of scroungers?

Ok then, some. The only evidence I have is my eyes and ears, having lived with and among a lot of drink & drug abusers and thieves, who also happened to be parents, on various estates in the not too distant past, and I’m pretty sure that overall things haven’t progressed that much since then as far as bad parenting is concerned.

Of course there are plenty who manage to leave that behind and end up as cracking parents. Unfortunately there are plenty who don’t.

Edited 14 hours ago by Mixedkebab

[Farmer Saint]

8 hours ago, Mixedkebab said:

By the extreme bipolar style nature of your arguments you think the UK works like some clichéd Dickensian rip off drama series.

Nobody wants to see kids in poverty, your Bono style posh boy acting like a working class hero rant doesn’t make you any more caring than most.

There are many ways the government could’ve addressed child poverty, so that the money went directly to fund children’s services rather than a blanket payment to families, where some will of course use it for the right reasons but many others will abuse it.

Not necessarily agreeing with lifting the cap doesn’t make people akin to Pol Pot.

But your Student Grant, circular glasses, German army jacket, Steve Biko Union Bar style dribbling will carry on regardless.

That's not the argument, so wind your neck in.

His literal reasoning was that he has no problem seeing some children in poverty as collateral for not having this in place, as long as it doesn't mean we have feckless people having more money to spend on Tennents Super, fags and Sky TV. If he had just said he doesn't agree with it, and the money should be invested in a different way to help, then that's fine, it was the fact that he is happy to see the children suffer and is happy to see them in poverty to punish the parents.

Take your faux outrage at my posting style, and don't get involved in my debates. Thank you.

Edited 8 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

[Turkish]

7 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Sounds like you and your Mrs were two them. Moaning that the tax payer didn’t pony up because of your pension & the lack of a mortgage. This is the problem with welfare, people who don’t need it, thinking it’s a right. It’s spread way too thinly, with the deserving getting less because of that. 

Indeed, seems like he has a healthy pension and she left her job through choice. Like most people in the UK they were depending on two incomes but went down to one due to choosing the leave their job without another one to go to. Still far too easy to blame the benefits system when they didn't get what they wanted. Whinging about having to fill out countless forms is hilarious too, does he think they're just going to dish out money because they asked for it? Still im sure they got a nice little windfall when they wont the case for bullying in the workplace.

Edited 7 hours ago by Turkish

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

SoG gets told off for posting links etc without comment. What's your point? Good thing that net migration is down, bad thing that workers and tax payers are leaving, or something else? 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Indeed, seems like he has a healthy pension and she left her job through choice. Like most people in the UK they were depending on two incomes but went down to one due to choosing the leave their job without another one to go to. Still far too easy to blame the benefits system when they didn't get what they wanted. 

I've re read his post and am struggling to understand his issue. They were getting by on his pension and her wages, so failed a means test. 

I can only assume that there was an expectation of a state top up to make life more comfortable, ie to cover luxuries and extras.

In the next breath he calls for benefit means testing.

There's a disconnect there. 

Benefits should be means tested. They should also be reduced to a sensible level. I have a benefit dependent close relative who genuinely cannot work, and never will. They enjoy a two week cruise in the summer holidays, other breaks, the latest iPhone, etc. Nobody should have to struggle, but that's a fantastic quality of life which exceeds the obligations of the benefits system. 

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I've re read his post and am struggling to understand his issue. They were getting by on his pension and her wages, so failed a means test. 

I can only assume that there was an expectation of a state top up to make life more comfortable, ie to cover luxuries and extras.

In the next breath he calls for benefit means testing.

There's a disconnect there. 

Benefits should be means tested. They should also be reduced to a sensible level. I have a benefit dependent close relative who genuinely cannot work, and never will. They enjoy a two week cruise in the summer holidays, other breaks, the latest iPhone, etc. Nobody should have to struggle, but that's a fantastic quality of life which exceeds the obligations of the benefits system. 

Exactly right. He has a good pension by the sound of it, she can work but chose not too. They were getting by, they were means tested and didn't pass. The issue is he didn't get what he wanted. Managed to get another dig at Reform in though.

[Farmer Saint]

28 minutes ago, egg said:

I've re read his post and am struggling to understand his issue. They were getting by on his pension and her wages, so failed a means test. 

I can only assume that there was an expectation of a state top up to make life more comfortable, ie to cover luxuries and extras.

In the next breath he calls for benefit means testing.

There's a disconnect there. 

Benefits should be means tested. They should also be reduced to a sensible level. I have a benefit dependent close relative who genuinely cannot work, and never will. They enjoy a two week cruise in the summer holidays, other breaks, the latest iPhone, etc. Nobody should have to struggle, but that's a fantastic quality of life which exceeds the obligations of the benefits system. 

And this is why the benefits system needs drastic reform as those that really need it tend to not get it at levels needed and vice versa.

Essentially benefits should not be to maintain your current standard of living. It's to supplement you so that you are not left destitute. If you own a house, perhaps you need to sell or release equity, downgrade your car etc. The complexities of people's finances make it very difficult to apply rules that allows for all circumstances.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

That's not the argument, so wind your neck in.

His literal reasoning was that he has no problem seeing some children in poverty as collateral for not having this in place, as long as it doesn't mean we have feckless people having more money to spend on Tennents Super, fags and Sky TV. If he had just said he doesn't agree with it, and the money should be invested in a different way to help, then that's fine, it was the fact that he is happy to see the children suffer and is happy to see them in poverty to punish the parents.

Take your faux outrage at my posting style, and don't get involved in my debates. Thank you.

Thats not correct. I said the below and you asked me if reintroducing the cap would result in poverty. Of course it would compared to the non-cap position and I stated it. I didnt say I had no problem with kids in poverty. Then you got your knickers in a twist.

He can comment on your posts and this debate - thats why its called a Forum. 

There will be some occasions of poverty as a result. These already exist as the policy is in place. All policies have pros and cons.

However, this policy encourages irresponsibility and punishes those people that are responsible. Do you believe this policy will encourage people who are on welfare to have more kids and rely on the state at taxpayers expense?

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Weston Super Saint]

48 minutes ago, egg said:

SoG gets told off for posting links etc without comment. What's your point? Good thing that net migration is down, bad thing that workers and tax payers are leaving, or something else? 

The numbers are driven by the dependents of students who are no longer allowed to live and work in the UK - and had to pay to use the NHS whilst contributing NI and income tax as well as being economically active.

It's not a great achievement but can be trumpeted as reducing pesky immigrants for those that want to hear it.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The numbers are driven by the dependents of students who are no longer allowed to live and work in the UK - and had to pay to use the NHS whilst contributing NI and income tax as well as being economically active.

It's not a great achievement but can be trumpeted as reducing pesky immigrants for those that want to hear it.

I understand the numbers, I was just wanting to know Ducks point. He wanted Brexit, and reduced immigration, so I was intrigued on his take on it. 

[egg]

19 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

And this is why the benefits system needs drastic reform as those that really need it tend to not get it at levels needed and vice versa.

Essentially benefits should not be to maintain your current standard of living. It's to supplement you so that you are not left destitute. If you own a house, perhaps you need to sell or release equity, downgrade your car etc. The complexities of people's finances make it very difficult to apply rules that allows for all circumstances.

 

Yep. My main area of agreement with SoG was the oddity of benefits paying rent not a mortgage. I've never understood the principle of that. I get the point of a cap, and paying interest only and not capital, but only getting support for the roof over your head if it's owned by a 3rd party is a weird one. 

[sadoldgit]

33 minutes ago, egg said:

I've re read his post and am struggling to understand his issue. They were getting by on his pension and her wages, so failed a means test. 

I can only assume that there was an expectation of a state top up to make life more comfortable, ie to cover luxuries and extras.

In the next breath he calls for benefit means testing.

There's a disconnect there. 

Benefits should be means tested. They should also be reduced to a sensible level. I have a benefit dependent close relative who genuinely cannot work, and never will. They enjoy a two week cruise in the summer holidays, other breaks, the latest iPhone, etc. Nobody should have to struggle, but that's a fantastic quality of life which exceeds the obligations of the benefits system. 

We were getting by on both of our incomes. When we lost her income we had problems as we were reliant on both incomes. My wife left her job because of intolerable working conditions that seriously affected her mental health. Should she had stayed? We weren’t means tested. We didn’t qualify because of my income, which was barely enough to cover our basic outgoings. If the benefit was means tested we could have shown that we were struggling to cover our basic outgoings every month just on my income. Many people now rely heavily on two incomes, it is not unusual. If one person becomes employed for whatever reason, it puts an enormous strain on the family finances.

My point was that everybody’s needs are different. There is no  one size fits all and everyone seeking benefits should be treated on their own circumstances with the benefits being commensurate with their needs.

She was given a caseworker who was based somewhere else other than the building she needed to report to. There was no direct contact with her caseworker, it was all done through the person she met at the time. She never met the same person twice, nor did I. There was no way of building a relationship with anyone. It was all clicks on a computer with someone somewhere else making a decision and informing you by post. It is not a very humane system.

Because my wife had started an accountancy course, they eventually said that she qualified for a couple hundred loan as a “student.” We were never given any information about paying this loan back. About a year later some money disappeared from my account without any notification. After some digging I found out that it had been taken directly by the DWP without any prior contact with myself or my wife (who the loan was made to in the first place). No phone call. No letter.

It is an inhuman process and if you have worked all your life it is humiliating. We have both paid NI contributions for years and just needed some financial support to tide us over until my wife got another job, which wasn’t going to take forever.

No luxuries. No holidays for years because we had to pay back money we borrowed to pay the mortgage and bills. We went down from two cars to one which may not sound like a big deal but if you live out in the wilds with no decent public transport system it isn’t great. So no Egg, we didn’t seek help for luxuries. We sought help to pay our bills.

Like many people, this is a second marriage for both of us. We both had to start again which meant a new, big mortgage at an age when you expect to have either paid it off or nearly paid it off. 

We don’t have an extravagant lifestyle. The cost of living crisis has affected us just as it has many other people at an age where you hope that you don’t have to worry too much about making ends meet. I don’t see paying the electric bill and the mortgage as a luxury but it felt like that for a time. We haven’t had a proper holiday since before Covid but I’m sure we aren’t alone there and it isn’t the end of the world and we managed to get through a difficult period without having to sell our home.

Its very easy to be sniffy about benefits until you find yourself in a position when you need them.
 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

We were getting by on both of our incomes. When we lost her income we had problems as we were reliant on both incomes. My wife left her job because of intolerable working conditions that seriously affected her mental health. Should she had stayed? We weren’t means tested. We didn’t qualify because of my income, which was barely enough to cover our basic outgoings. If the benefit was means tested we could have shown that we were struggling to cover our basic outgoings every month just on my income. Many people now rely heavily on two incomes, it is not unusual. If one person becomes employed for whatever reason, it puts an enormous strain on the family finances.

My point was that everybody’s needs are different. There is no  one size fits all and everyone seeking benefits should be treated on their own circumstances with the benefits being commensurate with their needs.

She was given a caseworker who was based somewhere else other than the building she needed to report to. There was no direct contact with her caseworker, it was all done through the person she met at the time. She never met the same person twice, nor did I. There was no way of building a relationship with anyone. It was all clicks on a computer with someone somewhere else making a decision and informing you by post. It is not a very humane system.

Because my wife had started an accountancy course, they eventually said that she qualified for a couple hundred loan as a “student.” We were never given any information about paying this loan back. About a year later some money disappeared from my account without any notification. After some digging I found out that it had been taken directly by the DWP without any prior contact with myself or my wife (who the loan was made to in the first place). No phone call. No letter.

It is an inhuman process and if you have worked all your life it is humiliating. We have both paid NI contributions for years and just needed some financial support to tide us over until my wife got another job, which wasn’t going to take forever.

No luxuries. No holidays for years because we had to pay back money we borrowed to pay the mortgage and bills. We went down from two cars to one which may not sound like a big deal but if you live out in the wilds with no decent public transport system it isn’t great. So no Egg, we didn’t seek help for luxuries. We sought help to pay our bills.

Like many people, this is a second marriage for both of us. We both had to start again which meant a new, big mortgage at an age when you expect to have either paid it off or nearly paid it off. 

We don’t have an extravagant lifestyle. The cost of living crisis has affected us just as it has many other people at an age where you hope that you don’t have to worry too much about making ends meet. I don’t see paying the electric bill and the mortgage as a luxury but it felt like that for a time. We haven’t had a proper holiday since before Covid but I’m sure we aren’t alone there and it isn’t the end of the world and we managed to get through a difficult period without having to sell our home.

Its very easy to be sniffy about benefits until you find yourself in a position when you need them.
 

Your income meant that you didn't qualify. That's a means test. What you were/are expecting was an assessment and payment based on your particular circumstances. That's something altogether different, and absolutely shouldn't happen and would be completely unmanageable. A fair and sensible uniform amount should be paid,  but only to these who don't have the resources or the ability to look after themselves. Your wife chose to leave her job. I don't know whether she could and should have stayed - it'd be unfair for me to make that assessment, but in my experience, people often take the easier and softer way expecting state support. 

Benefits, however, should allow people to meet needs. Not go on nice holidays at the states expense. 

I'm not sniffy about benefits. I keep quiet about who and what I am, but I was raised on a council estate by parents with acute health issues. We were mostly benefit dependant, and life was basic and difficult. We needed the benefits and I'm grateful that they were available.

My parents worked when their health allowed,  and life was much better when they could do that. That gave me a work ethic - I worked 2 jobs whilst at school and gave up education (first time round) to bring some cash in. 

If I come across as having little sympathy for you and your wife having to live off your own resources, it's because I don't. People need to take responsibility for themselves as much as they can. 

Peoples attitudes and expectations need as much of an overhaul as the benefits system. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Your income meant that you didn't qualify. That's a means test. What you were/are expecting was an assessment and payment based on your particular circumstances. That's something altogether different, and absolutely shouldn't happen and would be completely unmanageable. A fair and sensible uniform amount should be paid,  but only to these who don't have the resources or the ability to look after themselves. Your wife chose to leave her job. I don't know whether she could and should have stayed - it'd be unfair for me to make that assessment, but in my experience, people often take the easier and softer way expecting state support. 

Benefits, however, should allow people to meet needs. Not go on nice holidays at the states expense. 

I'm not sniffy about benefits. I keep quiet about who and what I am, but I was raised on a council estate by parents with acute health issues. We were mostly benefit dependant, and life was basic and difficult. We needed the benefits and I'm grateful that they were available.

My parents worked when their health allowed,  and life was much better when they could do that. That gave me a work ethic - I worked 2 jobs whilst at school and gave up education (first time round) to bring some cash in. 

If I come across as having little sympathy for you and your wife having to live off your own resources, it's because I don't. People need to take responsibility for themselves as much as they can. 

Peoples attitudes and expectations need as much of an overhaul as the benefits system. 

Exactly the point. She is capable of working and chose to leave. She can work, decided not to. She could have got another job before she left, or she could have taken a temp job somewhere, instead they decided to take the benefit route. The SOG family didn't need benefits, they wanted them as an easy way out.