The Reform Thread

[sadoldgit]

14 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Zac Polanski is a bloody fool. Nothing less. The more people like him, the quicker this country will be buggered. An fool with no experience who thinks you can make womens breasts larger by staring at them. No sane individual would employ him as the 'tea boy' let alone leader of their political party 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/

And yet you don’t seem to have a problem with Donald Trump, who is clearly mad, or Farage. 🤷🏻

Are you ever going to tell me what my extreme views are?

[sadoldgit]

14 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Taking of transparency and being authoritarian an interesting video.....all of which is factually true.

 

The fact that you get a like from your separated at birth twin speaks volumes. Still, it’s good to know that two people who live so far away are so expert at what is happening in the UK.

[tdmickey3]

14 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Zac Polanski is a bloody fool. Nothing less. The more people like him, the quicker this country will be buggered. An fool with no experience who thinks you can make womens breasts larger by staring at them. No sane individual would employ him as the 'tea boy' let alone leader of their political party 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/

Can I just ask if you still want children in poverty

[Turkish]

33 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

And yet you don’t seem to have a problem with Donald Trump, who is clearly mad, or Farage. 🤷🏻

Are you ever going to tell me what my extreme views are?

Rape apologist, defender of domestic violence, supporter of far left extremism, antisemitic, racist, benefit scrounger. Need I go on?

[sadoldgit]

17 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Taking of transparency and being authoritarian an interesting video.....all of which is factually true.

 

Remind me Ralph, do they still have the death penalty in Thailand?

[Sir Ralph]

3 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

Can I just ask if you still want children in poverty

I didnt say that, as you know. Maximising benefit payouts is obviously up your street so I know you will support any increase in welfare. Its clearly very fair that someone on benefits can earn more than somebody on a minimum wage. Why do you support that I wonder?

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

4 hours ago, revolution saint said:

I thought you'd be all for bigger tits - you seem to take the side of most of them.

Its fine, get personal. The bigger point is you think Polanski has a clue? 

[Sir Ralph]

 

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Remind me Ralph, do they still have the death penalty in Thailand?

I dont live in Thailand (unless thats an attempt at humour). And also what is the relevance?

You ignored the point though, funny how its Labour who are introducing the authoritarian policies isnt it.

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[revolution saint]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Its fine, get personal. The bigger point is you think Polanski has a clue? 

It was a joke.  I quite liked Chinatown though.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

It was a joke.  I quite liked Chinatown though.

Thats a better joke. First one was too obvious 👍

[badgerx16]

31 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

I dont live in Thailand (unless thats an attempt at humour). And also what is the relevance?

You ignored the point though, funny how its Labour who are introducing the authoritarian policies isnt it.

What authoritarian policies are they introducing that haven't been proposed or supported by other parties ?

For instance, on 7th August the Telegraph ran the following story;

"The Conservative Party will “very carefully” consider introducing compulsory digital ID cards, the shadow home secretary said.

Chris Philp said he believed there was a “very strong case” for introducing the cards to make it easier for people to prove who they are when using taxpayer-funded services."

 

"His comments came after Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said in June that she would be open to the introduction of the cards to clamp down on illegal migration."

,..............

They are not aboloshing jury trials, as has been claimed by a few rabid commentators, and the changes, ( which I don't agree with btw ), will not affect the majority Crown Court cases; this from the BBC - "There are around 1.3 million prosecutions in England and Wales every year, and 10% of those cases go before a Crown Court. Of those, three out of 10 result in trials.

The reforms appear to mean that more than two out of 10 will still go before a jury. "

Edited 4 hours ago by badgerx16

[tdmickey3]

52 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I didnt say that, as you know. Maximising benefit payouts is obviously up your street so I know you will support any increase in welfare. Its clearly very fair that someone on benefits can earn more than somebody on a minimum wage. Why do you support that I wonder?

This is an absolutely rubbish post again!

I support welfare for those that need it unlike you, who wanted kids to suffer..... We know what you are..

Who I support is my business 

[Sir Ralph]

28 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

What authoritarian policies are they introducing that haven't been proposed or supported by other parties ?

For instance, on 7th August the Telegraph ran the following story;

"The Conservative Party will “very carefully” consider introducing compulsory digital ID cards, the shadow home secretary said.

Chris Philp said he believed there was a “very strong case” for introducing the cards to make it easier for people to prove who they are when using taxpayer-funded services."

 

"His comments came after Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said in June that she would be open to the introduction of the cards to clamp down on illegal migration."

Some Tories have identified the benefits and others have identified concerns about privacy. It is certainly not Tory policy nor is it roundly supported by them. Most Conservative voters will not want it. Notwithstanding this, the comment was from a Reform Cllr.

Therefore you cant say that the Tories support digital id cards, but it is Labour Party policy. Im aware of the potential benefits but the likely 'creep' into private life will no doubt be the result over coming years, which I think on balance will be more harmful. So the introduction of digital ID's and also the reduction in juries would be my key objection. Again I understand the reasons for the reform but I believe it will give more autonomy to Government to influence the judiciary. 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

This is an absolutely rubbish post again!

I support welfare for those that need it unlike you, who wanted kids to suffer..... We know what you are..

Who I support is my business 

I find it laughable that because I dont believe that, on balance, the removal of the two child benefit cap is not societally a positive thing, that 'I want kids to suffer'. This type of statement comes from someone who has the inability to understand somebody else's perspective and is melodramatic. I understand why people want to remove the cap but I dont agree with it, on balance, for reasons set out. You have the inability to compute that anybody else may have a different view from you. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[tdmickey3]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I find it laughable that because I dont believe that, on balance, the removal of the two child benefit cap is not societally a positive thing, that 'I want kids to suffer'. This type of statement comes from someone who has the inability to understand somebody else's perspective and is melodramatic. I understand why people want to remove the cap but I dont agree with it, on balance, for reasons set out. You have the inability to compute that anybody else may have a different view from you. 

You write a lot of waffle but we all see through it.... 

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

You write a lot of waffle but we all see through it.... 

Another great response there.  Classic.

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Some Tories have identified the benefits and others have identified concerns about privacy. It is certainly not Tory policy nor is it roundly supported by them. Most Conservative voters will not want it. Therefore you cant say that the Tories support digital id cards, ...........

So pretty much the same as the Labour party. My point was that the idea of digital ID cards is not restricted to Labour. I assume if Badenoch was PM and proposing this, as she has suggested she might, you would similarly be opposed to it.

17 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 Im aware of the potential benefits but the likely 'creep' into private life will no doubt be the result over coming years, which I think on balance will be more harmful. So the introduction of digital ID's and also the reduction in juries would be my key objection. Again I understand the reasons for the reform but I believe it will give more autonomy to Government to influence the judiciary. 

 

So currently these proposals are not, in themselves, "authoritarian", but there is potential for ' creep' in the future. What is to stop a future Tory or Reform Government enacting that 'creep' ?

[Sir Ralph]

20 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So pretty much the same as the Labour party. My point was that the idea of digital ID cards is not restricted to Labour. I assume if Badenoch was PM and proposing this, as she has suggested she might, you would similarly be opposed to it.

So currently these proposals are not, in themselves, "authoritarian", but there is potential for ' creep' in the future. What is to stop a future Tory or Reform Government enacting that 'creep' ?

Yes I would be opposed to it but they arent proposing it so its completely hypothetical. I dont believe the idea that the Tories support this is correct (see the below) - this is promoted by the Government. There is nothing to stop any future Government enacting the 'creep', albeit a party that doesnt support it in the first place is clearly less likely to enact the 'creep' than one that does. I dont want the proposal by the current Government because it opens up that opportunity and was not put forward in their Election Manifesto and therefore the electorate (the people who the Government is allegedly supposed to serve) did not vote for it. If you can point me to Reform or the Tories saying this is party policy then fine, but it isnt so I dont think you would be able to.

Edited 3 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes I would be opposed to it but they arent proposing it so its completely hypothetical. I dont believe the idea that the Tories support this is correct (see the below) - this is promoted by the Government. There is nothing to stop any future Government enacting the 'creep', albeit a party that doesnt support it in the first place is clearly less likely to enact the 'creep' than one that does. I dont want the proposal by the current Government because it opens up that opportunity and was not put forward in their Election Manifesto and therefore the electorate (the people who the Government is allegedly supposed to serve) did not vote for it. If you can point me to Reform or the Tories saying this is party policy then fine, but it isnt so I dont think you would be able to.

Kemi backtracking on the comments she made in June saying she would be open to introducing ID cards.

( I'm not saying I support the proposal, but the Tories are being very two-faced, or very forgetful, about this ).

Edited 3 hours ago by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

... was not put forward in their Election Manifesto and therefore the electorate (the people who the Government is allegedly supposed to serve) did not vote for it. 

Most things introduced by Governments, of any hue, have not been in a manifesto.

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I didnt say that, as you know. Maximising benefit payouts is obviously up your street so I know you will support any increase in welfare. Its clearly very fair that someone on benefits can earn more than somebody on a minimum wage. Why do you support that I wonder?

With a lowering birth rate, it obviously pushes us towards an increase in migration to pull workers in. Why wouldn't we look to increase the birth rate for those responsible parents who can't afford a third child? It will encourage homegrown workers, and should help us, down the line, to have a larger and more skilled workforce, at the cost of migrants. Economically it is the responsible thing to do at a relatively low cost.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/03/26/rise-in-older-mothers-means-britain-must-rely-on-migration/#:~:text=Mothers are waiting longer to have their first child&text=Prof Harper's comments comes days,rates have continued to plunge.

Not only that, it will decrease the current children in poverty, allowing them a more balanced upbringing, hopefully allowing them to fulfil their potential.

Edited 2 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

19 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Most things introduced by Governments, of any hue, have not been in a manifesto.

I'm not sure about that. Most big things are in manifestos unless circumstances change meaning a new policy is required. This is a big thing that was not.  They are trying to introduce through the back door 1.5 years in and I'm not sure what the change in circumstance is. The reality is they knew it wasnt an electable policy so kept quiet. 

[Sir Ralph]

17 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

With a lowering birth rate, it obviously pushes us towards an increase in migration to pull workers in. Why wouldn't we look to increase the birth rate for those responsible parents who can't afford a third child? It will encourage homegrown workers, and should help us, down the line, to have a larger and more skilled workforce, at the cost of migrants. Economically it is the responsible thing to do at a relatively low cost.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/03/26/rise-in-older-mothers-means-britain-must-rely-on-migration/#:~:text=Mothers are waiting longer to have their first child&text=Prof Harper's comments comes days,rates have continued to plunge.

Not only that, it will decrease the current children in poverty, allowing them a more balanced upbringing, hopefully allowing them to fulfil their potential.

Have you calmed down now?  I was worried you were going to give yourself a hernia.

Who says responsible parents will be the ones that benefit from this? What about the parents that have no intention of working and it encourages to have more kids? Why did the Government not introduce a policy to use the monies to provide working families in poverty with tax breaks? 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I'm not sure about that. Most big things are in manifestos unless circumstances change meaning a new policy is required. This is a big thing that was not.  They are trying to introduce through the back door 1.5 years in and I'm not sure what the change in circumstance is. The reality is they knew it wasnt an electable policy so kept quiet. 

Unless they are prescient and can foresee 4 years into the future, a manifesto is a wishlist of "things we might do in year one, or possibly year two".

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Have you calmed down now?  I was worried you were going to give yourself a hernia.

I was always calm, but let's not deflect from the issue at hand.

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I'm not sure about that. Most big things are in manifestos unless circumstances change meaning a new policy is required. This is a big thing that was not.  They are trying to introduce through the back door 1.5 years in and I'm not sure what the change in circumstance is. The reality is they knew it wasnt an electable policy so kept quiet. 

https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/tories-conservatives-broken-promises-levelling-up-nhs-housing/

 

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Unless they are prescient and can foresee 4 years into the future, a manifesto is a wishlist of "things we might do in year one, or possibly year two".

But we were less than two years in....what circumstance meant that they could not have forseen this?

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/tories-conservatives-broken-promises-levelling-up-nhs-housing/

 

The Big Issue, that notouriously politically balanced publication. If we take it for what is it you are saying that Labour are no better that the Tories. I would add that this is 14 years of Tories vs 1.5 years of Labour

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

The Big Issue, that notouriously politically balanced publication. If we take it for what is it you are saying that Labour are no better that the Tories. I would add that this is 14 years of Tories vs 1.5 years of Labour

So? Which of those points aren't true? The point is that manifesto's are a wishlist and very rarely followed through on.

Are you just ignoring my other point?

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

So? Which of those points aren't true? The point is that manifesto's are a wishlist and very rarely followed through on.

Are you just ignoring my other point?

Who says responsible parents will be the ones that benefit from the two child cap removal? What about the parents that have no intention of working and it encourages to have more kids? Why did the Government not introduce a policy to use the monies to provide working families in poverty with tax breaks? 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Who says responsible parents will be the ones that benefit from the two child cap removal? What about the parents that have no intention of working and it encourages to have more kids? Why did the Government not introduce a policy to use the monies to provide working families in poverty with tax breaks? 

That's what this is? How do you police that - how do you find "working families in poverty" (ignoring the fact that working families should never be in poverty)?

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

But we were less than two years in....what circumstance meant that they could not have forseen this?

No idea. Possibly having got into government they have found out that after 14 years of the Tories doing fuck all the issues around migration are more difficult than they previously thought. 

 

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

That's what this is? How do you class that - how do you find "working families in poverty" (ignoring the fact that working families should never be in poverty)?

If you are employed or have a joint or single salary below £X (possibly on a tiered basis) why couldnt you introduce tax breaks to those people. They are responsible but are struggling and deserve help.

That way you avoid encouraging the irresponsible who would have more children as a result of the policy to be covered by the tax payer.

Why did the Government not introduce a policy like this? 

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

No idea. Possibly having got into government they have found out that after 14 years of the Tories doing fuck all the issues around migration are more difficult than they previously thought. 

 

I'm not sure about that, they knew it was a big issue. I agree the Tories did a bad job on migration and Labour have been left holding the baby. However, I think its more likely they ignored it because they knew it wouldnt be an electable proposal, in the same way that it caused problems for Blair when he suggested it.

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

If you are employed or have a joint or single salary below £X (possibly on a tiered basis) why couldnt you introduce tax breaks to those people. They are responsible but are struggling and deserve help.

That way you avoid encouraging the irresponsible who would have more children as a result of the policy to be covered by the tax payer.

Why did the Government not introduce a policy like this? 

That's what they've done. It's £80k.

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

That's what they've done. It's £80k.

Firstly in most places, £80k is too high. 

My beef isnt that you shouldnt help employed families who are struggling (we should) but why long term unemployed should benefit from it. Why not have a policy which means that if you are working but below a specific salary (lower than £80k) the two child cap is removed. That would help those responsible people who are in employment.

It may even possibly even encourage some people with more kids who are unemployed into employment to obtain the benefit.

Why are people in long term unemployment allowed to access it if they have not been responsible in pro creating? 

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

I dont live in Thailand (unless thats an attempt at humour). And also what is the relevance?

You ignored the point though, funny how its Labour who are introducing the authoritarian policies isnt it.

I thought that you were shacked up in Thailand with nic? My bad if not.

The point was that Thailand is more of an authoritarian place to live than the UK.

Do you have a problem with improving law and order in the UK? The only people who will have a problem with facial recognition will be those who have done something wrong. We are currently constantly caught on CCTV, door cameras, dashcams etc. Do you have a problem with those?

You ignored my constant request to explain what my extremist views are.

You are a bit of a hypocrite aren’t you?

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Firstly in most places, £80k is too high. 

My beef isnt that you shouldnt help employed families who are struggling (we should) but why long term unemployed should benefit from it. Why not have a policy which means that if you are working but below a specific salary (lower than £80k) the two child cap is removed. That would help those responsible people who are in employment.

It may even possibly even encourage some people with more kids who are unemployed into employment to obtain the benefit.

Why are people in long term unemployment allowed to access it if they have not been responsible in pro creating? 

Just unemployed, or disabled as well? How many years unemployed? Is that both parents, or is one allowed to be unemployed? What happens if they had the kids when they were in long term employment, but have come onto hard times and are unable to get another job?

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Just unemployed, or disabled as well? How many years unemployed? Is that both parents, or is one allowed to be unemployed?

That is the detail of the policy that can be worked out and rules could clearly be made. A cannot see how your questions are insurmountable as such thresholds are already placed on people in relation to other benefits and taxes for example.

The point being is that the Government has not introduced anything to stop long term unemployed people who have had too many kids from claiming the benefit and you havent given any rationale for it and neither has the Government. Why?

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

That is the detail of the policy that can be worked out and rules could clearly be made. A cannot see how your questions are insurmountable as such thresholds are already placed on people in relation to other benefits and taxes for example.

The point being is that the Government has not introduced anything to stop long term unemployed people and you havent given any rationale for it and neither has the Government

Come up with the rules then? It can't be hard as you're asking why your idea hasn't been implemented.

This is why your ideas get dismissed as too simplistic. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Come up with the rules then? It can't be hard as you're asking why your ideas hasn't been implemented.

This is why your ideas get dismissed as too simplistic. 

Ok, I've explained that coming up with the rules isnt insurmountable. Such rules are applied by Government across a Miriad of policies, including welfare. Is your point that introducing such thresholds is insurmountable, even though such thresholds are applied in many other areas of life?! 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Ok, I've explained that coming up with the rules isnt insurmountable. Such rules are applied by Government across a Miriad of policies, including welfare. Is your point that introducing such thresholds is insurmountable?! 

The more rules you have, the easier it is to game and the implementation is far more difficult (hence the move to Universal credit), but anyway, I'm asking you to do it. Just have a go.

Edited 1 hour ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

We'll ignore the implementation and operational costs at maintaining these rules for the time-being.

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

The more rules you have, the easier it is to game and the implementation is far more difficult (hence the move to Universal credit), but anyway, I'm asking you to do it. Just have a go.

As a starting point, if you have not been employed from the date of the introduction of the removal of the cap for at least 1 year you can't benefit from it. Why would that not work?

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

As a starting point, if you have not been employed from the date of the introduction of the removal of the cap for at least 1 year you can't benefit from it. Why would that not work?

So do both working parents need to be in full employment? Or is part time work enough? Someone loses their job as the main bill payer whilst the other half stays at home to look after the kids. They need a £70k job to keep their lives ticking over. They have some savings, but it's very hard to find that £70k job as the job market has been shit for years, so they struggle to find that role. After a year of looking and burning through savings, and applying for jobs that 600 people are applying for, they can't find one, and then you cut off their help. Is that fair?

Edited 49 minutes ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

16 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

So do both working parents need to be in full employment? Or is part time work enough? Someone loses their job as the main bill payer whilst the other half stays at home to look after the kids. They need a £70k job to keep their lives ticking over. They have some savings, but it's very hard to find that £70k job as the job market has been shit for years, so they struggle to find that role. After a year of looking and burning through savings, and applying for jobs that 600 people are applying for, they can't find one, and then you cut off their help. Is that fair?

This is where you need studies and specialist input to come up with the detail. You and I dont have this information so neither of us fully know the answers. If this was down to me, the two child cap has been in place so this should only apply if both parents are working at least 35 hours a week between them and they are below £35k. This figures are indicative.

In the scenario you mentioned, the relevant couple wouldnt beenfit from the removal of the cap anyway, so it wouldnt make a difference to them and they wouldnt have their help cut off in this respect. If someone below the £35k threshold lost their job, the other could always work. If both of them lost their jobs but had been in long term employment before (e.g. at least 3 years), you could have a 6 month grace period to keep paying this whilst they find a job.

There will be some circumstances where the help wouldnt be there for a few people that need it. But you need to balance this negative off against the long terms unemployed who are taking tax payers money having been irresponsible. That to me is a bigger negative.

Also the £70k example. In the majority of the country people can get by on less than that. If you are in trouble, you reduce your expenses and expectations to reflect your current position. You dont rely onthe state to maintain your lifestyle. Thats half the problem, people expect the state to intervene in too many scenarios at the cost of the responsible tax payer.

Edited 32 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[Farmer Saint]

11 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is where you need studies and specialist input to come up with the detail. You and I dont have this information so neither of us fully know the answers. If this was down to me, the two child cap has been in place so this should only apply if both parents are working at least 35 hours a week between them and they are below £35k. This figures are indicative.

In the scenario you mentioned, the relevant couple wouldnt beenfit from the removal of the cap anyway, so it wouldnt make a difference to them and they wouldnt have their help cut off in this respect. If someone below the £35k threshold lost their job, the other could always work. If both of them lost their jobs but had been in long term employment before (e.g. at least 3 years), you could have a 6 month grace period to keep paying this whilst they find a job.

There will be some circumstances where the help wouldnt be there for a few people that need it. But you need to balance this negative off against the long terms unemployed who are taking tax payers money having been irresponsible. That to me is a bigger negative.

So as far as you are concerned, a family unit should contain two full time working parents at all times? Are you aware of the ridiculous cost of childcare? Easily will clear out more than one of those salaries. Why wouldn't the above benefit from the removal of the cap btw?

This is just one scenario - there are a thousand of these different scenarios. Who is going to administer all these different nuances? It's going to take a huge amount of people, doing a huge amount of interviews, to administer these rules, as all these stats just aren't available.

I think I have very much proven my point here.

Edited 26 minutes ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

So as far as you are concerned, a family unit should contain two full time working parents at all times?

This is just one scenario - there are a thousand of these different scenarios. Who is going to administer all these different nuances? It's going to take a huge amount of people, doing a huge amount of interviews, to administer these rules, as all these stats just aren't available.

I didnt say that. A single parent should work 17.5 hours. Of course there are different scenarios and you can't account for them all its impossible. If you wanted to apply for benefits now you have to provide lots of information to be assessed anyway so I dont see whats ddiferent. Where is the scenario covered of the long term unemployed milking the system?

It seems you want all persons covered in every scenario which is a huge cost to the responsible tax payer who is not covered / loses out. Who is thinking of the tax payer in these scenarios? Thats half the problem, people expect the state to intervene in too many scenarios at the cost of the responsible tax payer, hence the bloating of the state.

Edited 25 minutes ago by Sir Ralph

[sadoldgit]

8 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is where you need studies and specialist input to come up with the detail. You and I dont have this information so neither of us fully know the answers. If this was down to me, the two child cap has been in place so this should only apply if both parents are working at least 35 hours a week between them and they are below £35k. This figures are indicative.

In the scenario you mentioned, the relevant couple wouldnt beenfit from the removal of the cap anyway, so it wouldnt make a difference to them and they wouldnt have their help cut off in this respect. If someone below the £35k threshold lost their job, the other could always work. If both of them lost their jobs but had been in long term employment before (e.g. at least 3 years), you could have a 6 month grace period to keep paying this whilst they find a job.

There will be some circumstances where the help wouldnt be there for a few people that need it. But you need to balance this negative off against the long terms unemployed who are taking tax payers money having been irresponsible. That to me is a bigger negative.

Also the £70k example. In the majority of the country people can get by on less than that. If you are in trouble, you reduce your expenses and expectations to reflect your current position. You dont rely onthe state to maintain your lifestyle. Thats half the problem, people expect the state to intervene in too many scenarios at the cost of the responsible tax payer.

How do you know just how many people who are taking benefits should not be receiving them? Given the massive leap in the cost of living in the UK over the last few years, don’t you think that many a “responsible tax payer” has found themselves in need?

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

How do you know just how many people who are taking benefits should not be receiving them? Given the massive leap in the cost of living in the UK over the last few years, don’t you think that many a “responsible tax payer” has found themselves in need?

Hence my suggestion to help the 'responsible tax payer'. I've literally just suggested that!

There are clearly people taking the piss out of the benefits system, some of whom I know of (but am not friends with). Can you tell me that there arent and what percentage are receiving an appropriate level of welfare?

Some on here seem to think its ok for the long term unemployed to milk the system on the two child cap point. I dont.

 

Edited 19 minutes ago by Sir Ralph