Welfare Cuts

Is it really, If people are of the opinion that they’re same as the Tories. I’ve just mentioned 1 aspect of where they’re not. We all want those that should be receiving benefits to continue to receive them, and we want those that shouldn’t to stop receiving them. Only time will tell if what the govt have said/done today will have the desired effect,

 

He's entitled to his view but when he tells me not to 'get my knickers in a twist' I find that patronising. He should have simply argued his case without resorting to belittling comments. Then when I counter his belittling/patronising comment by a patronising comment of my own (done deliberately to show him its not nice) he plays the victim and refuses to acknowledge his tone towards me personally. Whether or not you agree with his views on the topic is up to you. He did ridicule me, however mildly it may seem. It was petty and uncalled for so I called him out. If I seem over-sensitive to you on this specific point perhaps I am but the topic is relevant for a close family member, I have strong views about it and cannot accept petty insults without responding in like manner.

 

Come on, let's chill, it's not like its a MDT or owt

 

People in the most need will now receive far less. It will make many people who live independently have to fall back on the state completely, after their savings have gone, they have sold their house and moved back into the rented accommodation. Then it will cost the state far more, unless we just let them die on our streets.

 

I've no interest in getting in to an argument with you and I won't be discussing the matter further after this reply, but you responded to Selby's original reply with:
'Utter Tripe' and 'Lap up the propaganda'
https://barnsleyfc.org.uk/threads/welfare-cuts.336161/page-3#post-3433406

It wasn't until after you posted the above that the twisting knickers were mentioned, which has to be one of the tamest rebuffs a person can make. You've since called Selby patronising and a joke and written at length about his alleged wrongs. I don't see them form him at all.

 

There's a disconnect somewhere in the thread by those defending the Labour announcement. Either, you thank the Tory party for their excessive generosity to those who they believed were in genuine need and whose benefits have now been stopped, or you denounce those individuals who Labour believe stole their benefit money by swinging the lead and malingering. I don't think you can have it both ways. Is it praise for the Conservatives for being over generous, or condemnation by Labour towards the putative, feckless layabouts?

 

We had a vote on Electoral reform in 2011 and people rejected it.

 

Ok. All I'll say on that without getting into a pointless argument is that my comments weren't directed at the individual, they were directed at content. The 'joke' comment was referencing his hypocrisy. The 'patronising' comment I've explained. The 'tripe' comment was referencing content (as I thought his argument was rubbish). Ive explained why I took offence and even if you think it was mild it was still belittling as I've already explained. I've done nothing wrong. If you disagree with me and have a different perspective that's up to you. I'll leave it there on the issue. I contributed to the thread to explain a point of view. I would rather stick to that to be honest.

 

Im More shocked that PIP wasn't means tested than I am that the rich will no longer be able to cream off it

 

The real question is: do we think the current trajectory of welfare benefits spending is sustainable, and if so, what pays for it?

The thing that does need sorting is the state pension triple lock. It should be index-linked (CPI) but not linked to wage growth or a random 2.5% increase. That, too is unsustainable.

 

Or you can realise stuff isn't black and white/left and right and needs sorting regardless of which party was in charge?

 

Do you think they will aim it at the severely disabled John, or the monumental rise In unemployment issues blamed mainly on mental issues brought on by covid . It's not just about removing benefits. But getting people into and back into jobs . Are we not killing two issues with one stone. Most of those in unemployment may benefit mentally.
I posted a link to the tory debacle several years ago. There was no compassion there mate.
My Mrs, a nurse was unable to work due to physical condition. Went through the process and the questions were stupid. Such as the ability to walk a set distance. Unable to do physical work demanded in her profession, Never worked since. No benefits.
There were horrific examples of the examiners being so incompetent, and in some instances told to hit targets.

 

What needs sorting? Put it into words.

 

Wealth tax on assets of individuals with £10m or more ,a mere 2% would raise 25 billion a year

 

That we have more people (and more worryingly more under 25s) signed off as unfit for work % wise than any other European country.

I've read that whilst other countries saw a spike during Covid, most have returned to pre pandemic levels. But ours hasn't.

That's what needs sorting - if the increase continues at the same rate then it's going to be a very hefty bill for a long, long time.

 

Learnt

 

Ah, Abbotonomics? A valid political choice, I have to concede. The legal challenges, aggravation and political damage would be considerable though?

 

Serious question DR...how did you work this out

 

Surely you would do both. Create a better welfare system for those in the most need. (Not the benefit fiddlers). And a tax on wealth in whatever form it takes. (from tax fiddlers and those who can afford it most ) To create a fairer society.

 

Whether it would or wouldn't, that doesn't really answer @orsenkaht's question. The question is whether a bloated and out of control welfare bill, completely out of step with other comparable first world countries, and projected to rise by another 26 billion a year by the end of the parliament, is sustainable. The answer isn't just finding ways of raising more money to pay for it, the right answer surely is to deal with the reasons why it is growing at such a pace and correct it, because no matter how you raise the money, that money could be doing so much more to better public life and services, and there is so much that needs the money spent on it. Plus, it is unarguably better for the the individuals concerned if as many as possible who could work with the right support, are supported into work, rather than just leaving them on benefits for life and worrying only about where to target next to pay for it.

Just for context only, not a suggestion that this is where all the money should go instead, the total cost of fixing all local authority controlled local roads to bring them back up to first world standards seen in other European countries is now forecast to be 17bn according to this article

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...of fully fixing,being filled every 18 seconds.

17bn, full cost. But our welfare bill is not just 26bn a year, that's the amount it is forecast to go up by, within 4 years at current rates of increase. Every year.

So, regardless of how it's paid for, is that sustainable?