David Cameron's new Benefits

I do it all online without having to buy a single newspaper. We use 2 different addresses/names to get extra bookings, or if only booking one break it enables me to keep one hol in my 'basket' whilst searching for a better one using the other name/code on another computer.

 

you need to give more details then that scrungee im thick you know

 

I'm not knocking The Sun, Scrungee. I used to work in a press office. We spent hours wading through worthy stuff, so The Sun was a bit of welcome light relief. It could always be relied upon to come up with a decent 'Freddy Starr Ate My Hamster' headline.

 

I think all of those people that had kids just for the money or other perks are going to regret it soon though, David Cameron looks like he meens business. Also if the housing bennefit changes go through they will be stuck with them untill they are 25 if they take after their parents!

 

provided that the concept of contributing to the welfare of the society is fully accepted and implementedfor the ables, I think that the various benefits/supports are great.
And more emphasis should be on the recruiting side of the workforce meaning make the unables ables.

 

I will soon be training unemployed people to start up their own gardening/landscaping and commercial/domestic cleaning businesses

these will be long term unemployed people who are keen to start up their own businesses ....

I have had several meetings with jobcentre officials and they are very keen to supply people who are seriously looking to work

lots of redtape involved, but we are nearly there .... This has been going on for several months now ....

I will also pay them a higher than minimum wage during the training (I don't have to as jobcentre says they will supply the people for work experience, but I prefer to pay) .... the money that I pay them will be properly invoiced etc and sadly, this amount is deducted from their jobseekers allowance, so maybe thats why some people dont want to work? ....

if you work, you get the same amount of money as if you dont work .... the system is wrong

 

does not matter who appears to be in charge (Blair, Cameron etc) ...

Cameron is only a puppet and spokesman .... he says what he is told to say by people in higher up positions ...

 

Please do not feel that you are ranting.You are not CK. Like Bilbo, you are telling it - as it is - from your heart and from your soul. I trust the GC members on this site - whom I have never met - more than I do a single politican in the Government.
No wonder the French had a revolution. It saddens me to hear you tell me all these things. The straw that breaks the camel's back is quietly growing.......

 

thanks Jenny that was kind of you to say

 

I agree totally, FC; the original idea was that we all paid into the system so that it could provide some support when things went wrong. It was meant to ensure that no one would go hungry or be unable to access basic health care. Unfortunately it is now doing much more than that. It is supporting people who have never worked, and probably never will. It is supporting EU migrants who send our comparatively generous child support payments back home to their country of origin, and draw unemployment benefit when they aren't working. It is supporting people who are probably capable of doing something useful but have nonetheless managed to persuade their doctor that they're feeling a bit peaky. It is funding all kinds of NHS treatments which were unheard of when the welfare state began.

Personally I think there has to be a bit more emphasis on the people who are actually out there grafting and creating the country's wealth. No wealth - no money for anything much. There won't be much point in arguing about who is entitled to what when there's nothing left in the kitty. Your last long post put things very well. People who are earning really quite decent wages aren't being rewarded with much of a life. The housing market is indeed part of the problem. It began in the days of Thatcher, when our government thought it would be a wonderful idea to remove all the brakes on lending. What could possibly go wrong? Before that time, the amount any individual could borrow in the form of a mortgage was very strictly limited - no silly multiples, no money without proof of income, no skanky little buy-to-let-ers with their towering pyramids of debt. I'm no economist but I'm willing to bet that the fact that most people couldn't borrow very much kept house prices in check; after all a commodity is only worth what people are able to pay.

Now, it generally takes two incomes to pay for a very basic dwelling, be it rented or bought. And, as you have said, there really isn't that much over at the end of the month. The only mystery is why more people haven't given up and decided to put their efforts into getting themselves signed off. It costs to go to work. You have to run a car and/or pay for public transport, and no one from the welfare department steps in to offer you a sub. You probably have to look reasonably smart. Then there are all those incidental expenses you incur just by being away from home all day. The working day itself has got longer and harder for many people and they have to keep grafting for more years than their parents ever did in order to receive a pittance of a pension.

We seem to have reached a stage where the ordinary working people who pay for everything are being totally disregarded. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

 

No - surely not, I thought the Monarchy (and Joe Public) lost control of our politicians hundreds of years ago, so these folks are still in charge then? Flippin eck! (or is it Free Masons?)

 

Nah .... it's not them

 

Thank goodness for that! So if even higher than the Monarchy, perhaps this one then?

 

Go on Dim then - tell us. WHO'S in charge????