The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Saint Fan CaM]

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. 

I find myself torn somewhat by this argument. On the one hand, I believe that there is huge waste and unfairness in the benefits system - it’s needs overhaul and frankly it’s unsustainable if the UK is to wrestle itself from the doom loop we’re heading into. There are drains on the system that are unsustainable, however I don’t see SOG’s case as one that would contribute unfairly to this position potentially. He’s paid his NI presumably for the required number of years and in his time of need the system has failed for him and his Wife, when what was needed was more granularity to means assessment (i.e. if the intention was to only require assistance for say 6 months while his Wife found new work, then that could be agreed up front and therefore an endless benefit claim averted. What he got was not a means test - it was a blank and terminal “no”.

The fact of the matter is that Government systems are terribly antiquated. They don’t work for the people they are employed to serve and consequently administrative costs have sky-rocketed. For example, I know from recent personal experience that HMRC systems are blighted with problems and complaint management is months behind, all because their software algorithms are terribly outdated.

Unfortunately Labour ultimately have no power or will to stop the waste and inequality in the benefits system and that’s mostly driven by the Trade Unions protecting things like the unfair State-funded employee final salary pensions (most private sector employees don’t get those benefits now) and back-benchers afraid of losing their seats. And the tragedy is that the other established opposition parties won’t deal with it either (the Tory’s failed after 14 years).

[Farmer Saint]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kpmm20zwwo

We'll see if it happens, but positive if it does. We seem to have a far better relationship with France, and the EU as a whole, under this current government.

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

The fact of the matter is that Government systems are terribly antiquated. They don’t work for the people they are employed to serve and consequently administrative costs have sky-rocketed. For example, I know from recent personal experience that HMRC systems are blighted with problems and complaint management is months behind, all because their software algorithms are terribly outdated.

Unfortunately Labour ultimately have no power or will to stop the waste and inequality in the benefits system and that’s mostly driven by the Trade Unions protecting things like the unfair State-funded employee final salary pensions (most private sector employees don’t get those benefits now) and back-benchers afraid of losing their seats. And the tragedy is that the other established opposition parties won’t deal with it either (the Tory’s failed after 14 years).

Here we're back to my oft made point with regards Government systems and processes. Any changes to both need to made hand in hand, and with a view to a complete overhaul combining system enhancement and process innovation and engineering. However this takes a huge amount of money and time, with ROI low at first and over a long period. No government will commit to that money for the next government to benefit.

It's why, and I will repeat this ad infinitum, I am so disappointed with Starmer and his "country before party" rhetoric that he is not following through on.

[Saint Fan CaM]

24 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kpmm20zwwo

We'll see if it happens, but positive if it does. We seem to have a far better relationship with France, and the EU as a whole, under this current government.

Words - nothing more. Starmer is a champion at saying one thing and not delivering in reality - I have precisely zero confidence in him or the French police.

[sadoldgit]

3 hours 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. 

My point is that the system is supposed to be there to support people who need it. Means testing to me should be about looking at each case on its own merits and providing commensurate support. Yes, you probably need a cap but a set amount might be below some people’s needsand more than other people’s needs.If it is the case that generally people rely on two incomes then that should be taken into account if one income goes. Means testing doesn’t mean you still have one income so you are ok.

It doesn’t matter if my wife had left her job willingly or was sacked. It didn’t affect the outcome of our case. You keep going on about nice holidays. Perhaps you know one person who does and base your assumption that everybody is on that but I think you will find that people struggling to make ends meet and even have to rely on food banks don’t go on nice holidays.

We weren’t fussed about having a nice holiday. We just wanted to meet our monthly bill obligation whilst my wife looked for another job.  We did take responsibility for ourselves thanks and we found a way through it without any state support. Others probably weren’t as fortunate.

I am not looking for sympathy, I am just trying to point out, from first hand experience, that the current benefit system, Universal Credit, is very hard to obtain, the system is a nightmare to negotiate and this idea that most people who do use this system are all living it up thanks to those who are working is pure nonsense.

Edited 2 hours ago by sadoldgit

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

My point is that the system is supposed to be there to support people who need it. Means testing to me should be about looking at each case on its own merits and providing commensurate support. If it is the case that generally people rely on two incomes then that should be taken into account if one income goes. It doesn’t matter if my wife had left her job willingly or was sacked. It didn’t affect the outcome of our case. You keep going on about nice holidays. Perhaps you know one person who does and base your assumption that everybody is on that but I think you will find that people struggling to make ends meet and even have to rely on food banks don’t go on nice holidays.

We weren’t fussed about having a nice holiday. We just wanted to meet our monthly bill obligation whilst my wife looked for another job.  We did take responsibility for ourselves thanks and we found a way through it without any state support. Others probably weren’t as fortunate.

I am not looking for sympathy, I am just trying to point out, from first hand experience, that the current benefit system, Universal Credit, is very hard to obtain, the system is a nightmare to negotiate and this idea that most people who do use this system are all living it up thanks to those who are working is pure nonsense.

You didn't need it, you wanted it. Big difference. 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You didn't need it, you wanted it. Big difference. 

Indeed.

And in this case the benefit system worked exactly as it should - i.e. you are not entitled to benefits if you voluntarily give up your job.

I imagine that because Mrs SOG left her job due to intolerable conditions, bullying, harassment etc, all her losses were covered when she claimed through the tribunal system for unfair constructive dismissal? 

[Weston Super Saint]

11 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

. It doesn’t matter if my wife had left her job willingly or was sacked.  

Yes it does as you found out.

I believe you need to wait six months before claiming if you leave your job voluntarily. Seems like the rule was applied fairly in your case.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Words - nothing more. Starmer is a champion at saying one thing and not delivering in reality - I have precisely zero confidence in him or the French police.

It’s not Starmer’s place to deliver. It’s down to Macron. We are paying them enough money. Time they delivered.