Benefit cuts proposed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

vindiboy

Full Member
Posts
3,808
Likes
4,268
Dave is on about more cuts to welfare benefits again, I am anti Tory,but have to agree with him that benefits such as Housing allowance to under 25 s who have gotten themselves Pregnant and obtained housing benefits on the strength of that deserve to have the benefits removed,a couple saving to buy a home and acting responsibly get no help at all,that can't be fair, people who won't take a job after 2 years on the dole are also targets, good I say ,why should we keep the layabouts, no jobs to be had I hear you say, there are lots of jobs available here in the South but the youngsters won't take them as they can get the same money in benefits it seems.
Larger Families [ more than 3 Children ] face losing Child benefit for the 4 th and subsequent Child, good I say , if you want a larger Family keep it yourself. Not popular Policies or oppinion I am sure but this is the real World.
 
Last edited:
Dave is on about more cuts to welfare benefits again, I am anti Tory,but have to agree with him that benefits such as Housing allowance to under 25 s who have gotten themselves Pregnant and obtained housing benefits on the strength of that deserve to have the benefits removed,a couple saving to buy a home and acting responsibly get no help at all,that can't be fair, people who won't take a job after 2 years on the dole are also targets, good I say ,why should we keep the layabouts, no jobs to be had I hear you say, there are lots of jobs available here in the South but the youngsters won't take them as they can get the same money in benefits it seems.
Larger Families [ more than 3 Children ] face losing Child benefit for the 4 th and subsequent Child, good I say , if you want a larger Family keep it yourself. Not popular Policies or oppinion I am sure but this is the real World.

Sadly giving sex education in schools has failed, or certainly the bit after when precautions are discussed. We seem to be wasting good public money as this part of education seems to be ignored.

The number of girls getting pregnant without a serious partner is incredible, then for the state to look after them because of their own choice of unprotected sex. It's your choice, you have to be responsible for your actions and don't expect others to do it for you.

Sadly, this is a generation who in many ways expect it all to be given them on a plate.

Yes, parents have to take a share of the blame as the word NO seems to be lacking in their vocabulary, especialy when it comes to pester power.

I see very young girls wheeling their latest must have toy (baby) in an expensive pram, talking incessantly on the top of the range mobile phone and smoking. Where do they get their money from??.

They MUST have a big LCD TV with Sky+ as they get Soooooooo bored, but even the furniture isn't that bad.

I got married young at 20 and had children by the age of 21 and we struggled to get them a good home, education and travel, and to do it we scrimped & scraped. A colour TV was a luxury!! (we didn't get one for quite a few years). But sadly expectations are so high and they get given so much that if I was in the same situation, I would think twice about working!!

Also, there are many instances of a girl claiming to live on her own, but had a live in boyfriend who claims to live at home with his parents. They both get benefits that add up to more than if they lived as a couple AND in many cases, they "Do a bit on the side" because they can't live on the dole money, can they!!

I realise that this scenario doesn't apply to everyone, but look around and see how many it does.
 
I am a qualified and experienced youth worker who was forced out of youth work about 12 years ago when the govt of the day decided to abolish the youth service and instead put money into Connexions (careers advice for young people). As a result, many youth centres, groups and projects across the country lost their funding, and the young people with whom they worked, providing informal "citizenship", welfare support and a safe alternative to hanging round the streets at night, lost out. A generation on, and society wonders why teenagers hang round bus stops, spar shops etc at night - and condemn them for being what they are - young people who want to spend time together, play music, expend energy, and socialise. The message that successive governments have given young people is, by cutting services which were specifically targeted at them, that they don't matter, they are not important.

For 3 years I worked in a young person's sexual health clinic as an outreach worker and education worker. This involved working in schools, colleges, youth clubs (before they closed) and hanging round bus stops etc at night, talking to young people about safe sex, self-esteem, personal relationships, drugs, alcohol and various other issues about which, other than from parents and teachers, young people had no other objective, impartial and factually correct form of advice or support. During the course of those 3 years I came across many young women who were in temporary accomodation in the YWCA, or local Nightstop and who were pregnant. These young women were as young as 16 but for various reasons they were no longer able to live at home in the parental house (assuming that there was such a thing which was not always the case). They were often what people would call "disadvantaged" or "disaffected" in that as a result of far from ideal family circumstances, they did not perform well at school, did not get any support from any adult source and had little or no formal education or adult support and guidance. In many cases, these young people had had such a raw deal from life that their self-esteem was very low. For young women with low self-esteem, the ability to reject any form of attention (including inappropriate sexual attention) and to resist peer pressure, or the ability to insist on contraception, or the ability to maintain a regular daily routine of taking the pill, or the ability to access emergency contraception was very difficult if not impossible. Their priority each day was to ensure that they had somewhere to stay that night. From the work that I did with such young people, I became very aware of the very low understanding of the true facts about sex, contraception and risk - the majority of their knowledge came from peers and teenage magazines.

When such a young woman became pregnant, they often buried their head in the sand and ignored it for as long as possible. By the time they came to the centre where I worked for a pregnancy test, they were often too advanced to have any alternatives than to continue with the pregnancy but not being registered with a GP or having no permanent address meant that they could not access normal ante-natal services. I worked closely with the local midwifery unit to develop a new role of teenage pregnancy midwife to work specifically with such young women, and developed support for them in terms of social welfare.

In all the time I worked with such young women, I never once came across one who had deliberately got pregnant to obtain housing or benefits. I often suspected that a certain young woman may have been careless about contraception because they actually wanted a child (and that is a perfectly valid reason, many older people do the same thing in similar circumstances but are rarely prejudiced in the same way) - and with backgrounds which included little or no love and affection and attention, a baby offered them unconditional love, a basic human need in all of us.

At the time (and this was around 2000), even then it was very difficult for young people to obtain independent housing - private landlords required a month's rent as deposit and a month's rent in advance, often the best part of £1k. As for council housing, the council were only legally obliged to offer accomodation if a pregnant young woman was at risk (and although they often were, the young women didn't always see themselves as being at risk), or under 18 or homeless. Regular emergency accommodation at the various hostels put them lower down the priority pile, pregnant or not. Many young women returned to the YWCA "mother and baby" unit as there was no other accomodation for them, it got them off the streets but was far from ideal and there was a waiting list. Very few were able to get council housing. At the time, a new initiative was being developed, known as Foyers, which were essentially to provide accomodation and support to vulnerable young people, but places were limited and there was a waiting list for those too.

The young people I worked with were very aware that pregnant or not, they would still struggle to find independent accomodation and had little expectation other than continuing to live at Night shelters or on friend's floors, or in the bed of whoever offered.

In the 3 years that I was in the job (and it was a lottery funded job as the public sector did not recognise the need for such work, and at the end of the grant period, continuation funding was not available and so the job folded, and I had to look for work elsewhere), we waited for the govt's Teenage Pregnancy Strategy to be released. It was due not long after I started in the job, and still hadn't been published by the time I left. If it had been, my work could well have continued as there would have been funding to continue it. The message from the govt yet again is that the welfare of young people was not a priority. But they were an easy target to demonise.

In light of continued cutbacks and benefit restrictions over the past decade, I have no doubt that it is harder than ever for young people to obtain independent housing, and this generation of teenagers will have grown up knowing that, so I can not in all honesty imagine that young women in great numbers are deliberately becoming pregnant in order to be socially housed.

And I haven't yet discussed the role of the young men (or indeed the older men who took advantage of vulnerable young women) - equal responsibility for the prevention of unwanted pregnancy has to be given to the man, but there is no national campaign to demonise such young men for their behaviour.

I firmly believe that everyone has the right to their own opinions but, particularly when I hear opinions which are based on incorrect information, I feel that I have to give the true facts (true in my eyes from my experience) and challenge misconceptions and inaccuracies.
 
Also what about kids who no longer have parents ? or the ones who have grown up in childrens homes or the care system where would they go until they reached 25 ?
I have to be honest I really see a major problem in 20 to 30 years as the working population is getting smaller and the retired and non working population is growing ?
It may well be that work houses or euthanasia will really be on the agenda in years to come !

I could recomend a few people for both :lol-053::lol-053:
 
Also what about kids who no longer have parents ? or the ones who have grown up in childrens homes or the care system where would they go until they reached 25 ?
I have to be honest I really see a major problem in 20 to 30 years as the working population is getting smaller and the retired and non working population is growing ?

I agree. Without a partner, or kids, and not much of a pension, I'm going to be dependent on the state.

It may well be that work houses or euthanasia will really be on the agenda in years to come !
:scared:

Having seen the devastating effects of a parent displaying symptoms of dementia on the family, and knowing that this is the calm before the storm and that it is going to become very very unpleasant and difficult, and that my mum is likely to lose her house and savings (luckily she will not be aware that despite having made a will to leave what she has struggled and sacrificed for, for her children and grandchildren, she will likely end up leaving them nothing), I give permission for someone to shoot me once I've lost my marbles

Although, that said, the naughty side of me says, let me live long enough to be a burden on the politicians ;)
 
Well The Tower Blocks in Southampton are teeming with un married couples and single Mothers with several Children, none of them appear to work, lots are Pregnant again,most smoke, [ very cheap habit that ] and we are all paying for their pleasures, I still think it is time a major shake up of the system is overdue, we cannot afford to keep it as it is.If the money in the pot went to those in our society that you talk about who genuinely needed help because they are incapable of self support, there would be more money available for them, it is the ner do wells and scroungers we want shot of.[ From the benefits system ].
 
Last edited:
Part of the problem is, we are now getting the second generation of single mothers i.e. those born of single mothers, booted out in their young teens so Mum can at last get a life (she'll only be about 32 herself). They don't know any other kind of life but the one their parent showed them.

So, what's the answer? Compulsory birth pill from the age of 14?

By taking away their housing benefit DC is just going to boot them out on to the street. Tragically, we would then have an increase in abandoned babies.

No, the real reason for taking away housing benefit for under 25s is cost saving so our government can spend our money on fighting someone else's wars.

Tone
(Gently climbing down from soap box and high horse simultaneously)
kngt.gif
 
No , taking away their Housing benefit will force them into paid employment and send a clear message to the up and coming scroungers that there is no money available to them and make them more responsible.They may have to work [terrible ] for the same amount of money paid to them in benefits but it won't be coming from the Tax payer, what is wrong with that ?
 
I was specifically talking about young single mothers. How are you going to force them into employment that would pay enough to put the child into daycare? If they have to work (if indeed there is any) you'll get a growth in the unofficial child minder market, and that is dangerous.

No, the real problem is the pregnancies. Stop them getting pregnant. Then yes, they could work, if anyone would employ them.

Tone
 
Well The Tower Blocks in Southampton are teeming with un married couples and single Mothers with several Children, none of them appear to work, lots are Pregnant again,most smoke, [ very cheap habit that ] and we are all paying for their pleasures,

Sorry Vindiboy but I feel that this is a huge generalisation and prejudgement. I think it is wrong to prejudge a couple for not being married and a single parent for having several children. This is the kind of rhetoric that the media portrays and which results in mass castigation of good honest people who have less life opportunities than others. I wonder what the stats would show if a survey was done to assess pregnancy and / or smoking rates, they may well be higher as unwanted pregnancy and smoking is associated with deprivation and poverty somewhat ironically. It is very easy to see a certain type of person out and about in a certain area and to assume that they are representative of their neighbourhood. There are probably many other people in those flats in completely different circumstances who aren't as visible as others, such as older people who don't go out much and are therefore invisible to society.

I think the key word is "appear" - it is very easy to judge someone negatively in a snapshot circumstance - a couple of young teenage mothers may meet up once a week to get the bus together to their support group and health visitor session and this could be the only time they have any meaningful and positive social interaction, but seeing 3 young mums with buggies getting on a bus, talking and laughing together, is likely to be seen as them going off to enjoy themselves at the tax payers expense.

And it is hardly surprising that those who have no choice about where they live but who have to accept whatever they are offered and be grateful for it, end up living in the kind of residences that no-one would willingly choose - in the past this is how ghetto-ised pockets of social classes developed, whether it was racial or age or class based. In recent years, there seems to have been a change in policy in that different "types" of people are moved into social housing neighbourhoods, mixing older folk with younger people and incorporating those from different cultures. It will take time for this to have an impact as those in social housing know how lucky they are to have it and tend to be long term tenants.

I still think it is time a major shake up of the system is overdue, we cannot afford to keep it as it is.If the money in the pot went to those in our society that you talk about who genuinely needed help because they are incapable of self support, there would be more money available for them, it is the ner do wells and scroungers we want shot of.

I do agree that a major shake up is overdue, but it needs to be done in a way that properly consults with those affected and the organisations who work with them, instead of tokenistic consultations which are moulded in such a way to fit with the plan which has already been decided before the consultation. This could actually save a huge amount of money in the long run. Unfortunately, vulnerable members of our society are not the best at shouting out for themselves.

And becoming a benefit scrounger could happen to anyone unlucky enough to develop an illness or disability which affects their ability to work, or unlucky enough to be made redundant, or unlucky enough to have a marriage or long term relationship break down or just unlucky enough to discover that they have become pregnant after a quick fling (hands up those of us who haven't ever crossed their fingers and hoped at a certain time of the month). There but for the Grace of God go I.

I suppose it's all about the spin which is put on it.
 
By removing housing benefits to under 25s, Cameron is not solving a problem, he's just moving it and creating one somewhere else. It's called Politics.
 
Dave is on about more cuts to welfare benefits again, I am anti Tory,but have to agree with him that benefits such as Housing allowance to under 25 s who have gotten themselves Pregnant and obtained housing benefits on the strength of that deserve to have the benefits removed,

According to my local council housing rules, if a teenage girl left her parents home for no other reason than she wanted to. She would not have priority ''points'' for social housing as she had made herself ''voluntary homeless''. Having read the speech it is nothing but rhetoric, and a typical Cameron smoke screen, no hard facts, no quantifiable evidence given.

there are lots of jobs available here in the South but the youngsters won't take them as they can get the same money in benefits it seems.

I don't know where in the South you are but here in Kent that is total Bull****, my lad (who is now 23) has been in and out of work for the last 4 years and can only really get work through agencies working night shifts for minimum wages and doing stupid hours, 16 hours on Saturday I think it was, starting at 5 am.. He does it though.
 
By removing housing benefits to under 25s, Cameron is not solving a problem, he's just moving it and creating one somewhere else. It's called Politics.


When can we expect the next riots I wonder. Then Dave can ride to the rescue
 
from experience i say parents of single mothers have more than just a share of the blame.my parents were rubbish and 2 of my 3 sisters were single mums. i'm convinced they were trying to find love in some form,there wasn't any at home,and young girls with low self esteemhave always been easy prey.girls also isuspect get pregnant to bolster their self esteem and to ha a companion to share their otherwise lonely life. strangely, we had 3 daughters,all of whom knew they were loved and wanted and none of them got pregnant,so as someone with 3 sisters,3 daughters,a wife a mother and a granddaughter,i've known a few women quite well
 
A couple near here have just got caught - reported and caught in the act. They live apart, got 4 kids, both houses on benefits. Been caught living in one house and renting out the other. The guy is 23 and never worked a day in his life. She's pregnant again and cant see what theyve done wrong.

Its about time the housing abuse was stopped. Too many freebies, too many people expecting o get everything for nothing.
 
No system can be changed at the stroke of a pen and be fair or good.

I cannot see what advantage there will be and there could be a big down side. This is the age group who (statistically) commit more crime. Make them desperate and even homeless and we will have problems.

One idea I would like to see is a change in how child benefit is paid. It should not be in cash but as a Tax allowance. Working people will still get the benefit, those on low wages will get a tax credit and those not working will get an allowance which need not be equivalent to the full child allowance.

Some of you will say that kids will suffer. Whatever benefits a family loses then they will suffer anyway. There needs to be an incentive to get off benefits. Personally, I would give nothing to any young single men and women unless they did some sort of labour for it. I am not saying 40 hours a week, just enough to get them out of the house. This country is a pig sty with litter everywhere. Get them cleaning the place up. It is often young people who make the mess in the first place (but not exclusively).
 
Last edited:
No system can be changed at the stroke of a pen and be fair or good.

I cannot see what advantage there will be and there could be a big down side. This is the age group who (statistically) commit more crime. Make them desperate and even homeless and we will have problems.

One idea I would like to see is a change in how child benefit is paid. It should not be in cash but as a Tax allowance. Working people will still get the benefit, those on low wages will get a tax credit and those not working will get an allowance which need not be equivalent to the full child allowance.

Some of you will say that kids will suffer. Whatever benefits a family loses then they will suffer anyway. There needs to be an incentive to get off benefits. Personally, I would give nothing to any young single men and women unless they did some sort of labour for it. I am not saying 40 hours a week, just enough to get them out of the house. This country is a pig sty with litter everywhere. Get them cleaning the place up. It is often young people who make the mess in the first place (but not exclusively).

The reason I did not press the "like" button is because I am not convinced by the changes to child benefit you propose. Traditionally, the idea of paying it as a sum to the mother was because the father (usually the breadwinner and the one who would get the tax relief) could not be guaranteed to spend it on the children. Stereotypes, I know, but most stereotypes are based on fact.

The rest of what you say I agree with. It seems to me to be crazy that there are so many jobs that, as a society, we need to be done (from litter-picking to stamp-licking) that it is a nonsense to pay able-bodied people a weekly wage for doing nothing. Apart from anything else, having a job (and lets not call it anything other than a job!) will restore self-esteem to a lot of unemployed people. There will always be the work-shy and the criminal but the majority are decent people who find themselves on benefit through no fault of their own.
 
I believe demographics will show pockets of deprivation where these problems are far more prevalent. In Wales they're known as 'Communities First' areas. They attract a lot of extra funding, and depending on the person controlling it, some is spent wisely, some isn't.

What I find very disappointing is the low expectation of an entire generation (generalisation agreed!) of people in this area. People aged around 18 - 25 who get into multiple problems, often started by parenting a child, often leading to extremes of substances abuse, drugs etc....

My charity when started was aimed specifically at this group of people to help them resolve their current issues and raise their expectations. This was a charity started by someone living in the heart of the community and wanting to help that community. Mainly for political reasons, other charities who received funding for 'numbers through doors' attacked my charity and forced me effectively to shut shop. I opened nationaly under a different name and it has been massively successful.

The point I'm trying to make is that helping these people is not balck and white, as shown by my experience. It does not alter my life one jot, but it stops me being able to play the role I wanted, in a community crying out for it, for purely political reasons.

So Mr Cameron, you can't have it both ways. You can't cut the funding with one hand causing worse problems, and give some back with the other to help resolve the very same issues.
 
seems to me,reading along, that's there's still folk who'd be happy to see a bit of selective sterilisation,like they used to do in the states and germany.fine.who makes the choices?
 
and talking about single mothers,in bath,in the early seventies,there was a home where old women were taken for walks round the town every now and again,nearly all of these women had proved themselves mental cases by getting pregnant,either by choice or by force,there was no difference apparently and were institutionalised for the rest of their lives . by right thinking people who knew what was best for them.so that was ok then
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top