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]

5 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.

By the way, are smart phones really a luxury in this day and age or a necessity?

Edited 10 hours ago by sadoldgit
Added text

[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.

 

[sadoldgit]

Starmer has said himself that the welfare system needs to be overhauled. Why do the likes of Alan Sugar and Richard Branson get the winter fuel allowance for example?

The Universal Credit system has been slated over the years as not fit for purpose.

https://www.usdaw.org.uk/latest-news/universal-credit-is-not-fit-for-purpose/

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

Starmer has said himself that the welfare system needs to be overhauled. Why do the likes of Alan Sugar and Richard Branson get the winter fuel allowance for example?

The Universal Credit system has been slated over the years as not fit for purpose.

https://www.usdaw.org.uk/latest-news/universal-credit-is-not-fit-for-purpose/

an opinion piece slagging off the tories written by the former chair of the labour party. You really dont help yourself do you 😂

[iansums]

8 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.

Maybe you should change your username to ‘Prima Donna Saint’

[egg]

4 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

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).

Thanks for that. I disagree re a means test - an income and/or capacity threshold is a means test. Sure, it's crude and not as subtle as a case specific income needs and outgoings assessment, but what SoG wanted and still is the latter, not the means test that we have and they failed. 

Re the rest, yes, the system needs chronic overhaul. We see worthy applicants denied support, and others well overpaid. I've cited a family member who's part of the latter category. 

Public sector pensions is another issue which has been touched on above. Thy're massively unaffordable, but, are wholly unrelated to this particular discussion. 

Edited 9 hours ago by egg

[egg]

3 hours 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. 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.

By the way, are smart phones really a luxury in this day and age or a necessity?

If you have resources to get by, the money by definition isn't needed. 

A means test in terms of benefits is usually just a simple threshold. You are asking for a means assessment, which is a different thing. Ultimately, your suggested way would involve all sorts of staff, delay, assesment, evidence, reviews, appeals, and all sorts. What we have is a simple if you have less than X you qualify, with the point being that if you have more than X then there is presumed to be no actual need. 

Where we fundamentally disagree is your belief that benefits should supplement a need that we can meet from our own resources. If we can paddle our own canoe, we should. 

You mentioned holidays, and I offered no opinion on the rights or wrongs of your wife's decision. The benefits system did though, and you got by without that.

And please cut the patronising noise re living on benefits. I've lived it. You haven't as you didn't need it. 

[badgerx16]

4 hours 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.

"French Police will be allowed to intercept small boats at sea, provided they have not got any passengers aboard".

 

So pretty much nothing will happen.

[Farmer Saint]

43 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

"French Police will be allowed to intercept small boats at sea, provided they have not got any passengers aboard".

 

So pretty much nothing will happen.

WTF is the point, and what are we paying for? 

[Weston Super Saint]

51 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

"French Police will be allowed to intercept small boats at sea, provided they have not got any passengers aboard".

 

So pretty much nothing will happen.

Are "stowaways" technically "passengers" - asking for a friend in Dover.

[Weston Super Saint]

8 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

WTF is the point, and what are we paying for? 

If we refused to pay any more money, would the "service" we get from the French get worse?

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If we refused to pay any more money, would the "service" we get from the French get worse?

It couldn't, could it? May as well stop paying and invest the money in employing staff and speeding up applications.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If we refused to pay any more money, would the "service" we get from the French get worse?

Indeed. We get nothing of note from them. 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Starmer has said himself that the welfare system needs to be overhauled. Why do the likes of Alan Sugar and Richard Branson get the winter fuel allowance for example?

The Universal Credit system has been slated over the years as not fit for purpose.

https://www.usdaw.org.uk/latest-news/universal-credit-is-not-fit-for-purpose/

They don't. 

I got a letter telling me that I would get £200. Then on the back they told me how they were going to take it all back.

[pingpong]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

"French Police will be allowed to intercept small boats at sea, provided they have not got any passengers aboard".

 

So pretty much nothing will happen.

Doesn't that mean they will intercept small boats at sea? (Providing no passengers on board) How is that nothing? Or have I misread it?

[badgerx16]

20 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Doesn't that mean they will intercept small boats at sea? (Providing no passengers on board) How is that nothing? Or have I misread it?

Every small boat will set off with a 'passenger' on board. The French channel coast is very long, and the Police won't be patrolling very much of it.

[spyinthesky]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Every small boat will set off with a 'passenger' on board. The French channel coast is very long, and the Police won't be patrolling very much of it.

Dont some of the boats start their journeys in French rivers/canals so passengers dont always get aboard on the coast?

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Starmer has said himself that the welfare system needs to be overhauled. Why do the likes of Alan Sugar and Richard Branson get the winter fuel allowance for example?

 

They don’t. 

[hypochondriac]

Some talk online of Reeves having to leave as she's blatantly lied about this most recent black hole in order to push through big tax rises. I expect it's exaggerated but interesting to see if noise grows over the weekend.

[Lord Duckhunter]

10 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

My point is that the system is supposed to be there to support people who need it.

You didn’t need it, but tried to sponge off the state anyway.
 

All because your Mrs didn’t like her job. It’s people like you which bring the benefits system into disrepute.

Moaning about only have one car because you live in the sticks, fucking hell, you couldn’t make it up. Thinking the tax payer should subsidise your second car, dear god, it’s unbelievable.

To think you preach about selfishness and immorality of Tories and reform voters, yet want your 2 income lifestyle maintained when your Mrs stops voluntarily stops working. 

[Saint Fan CaM]

8 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

They don't. 

I got a letter telling me that I would get £200. Then on the back they told me how they were going to take it all back.

Yep, another example of Labour lies and waste. Absolute f-ing fraudsters.