• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Robspur12 said:
I must be careful not to stereotype people on benefits, but There is a particular common housing benefit fraud where a couple claim to live apart and therefore claim housing benefit on one income only despite them actually living together. It infuriates me and takes away from needy people. These people can often afford items like iPhones etc because they are not needy yet being subsidized by the state and yet not enough is done to clamp down on it.
Click to expand...

Surely that would not be too hard to fix?
 
Robspur12 said:
You would think but when I report it to.the council investigations team I am met with its hard to prove who lives where, or our resources are too stretched. Not good enough really.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the number of people defrauding the system in this way -- and the amount of money they are taking that they shouldn't be -- is less than it would cost to make sure that absolutely zero fraud takes place at any one time. So some people get caught, some people get away with it. If it would cost more to ensure that zero fraud takes place, then that would take away even more money from the pot to give to those that actually need it. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place for the authorities.
 
monkeybarry said:
I agree and we should focus on absolute poverty, however we also need a mixture of help and opportunity to ensure people can achieve a base line of social standard - and that should be above just roof over their head and food on the table - that is a Victorian standard.
A baseline standard for living in 2015 must include the internet and a mobile phone - not having these two things will (do) exclude people from the job market and, to a lesser extent, society.
These are no longer luxury items.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the debate that needs to be had IMO. I think the internet is a must in this day and age, and a mobile phone probably is too. I think everybody can afford a mobile phone, you can pick one up for £20 or less with a free PAYG Sim, but people want IPhones and Galaxys and expect the government to subsidise them.
 
Richie said:
This is exactly the debate that needs to be had IMO. I think the internet is a must in this day and age, and a mobile phone probably is too. I think everybody can afford a mobile phone, you can pick one up for £20 or less with a free PAYG Sim, but people want IPhones and Galaxys and expect the government to subsidise them.
Click to expand...

I certainly think there are some that want all the bling smart phones, but also there are plenty of people that genuinely get down to their last few pounds regularly and are not tinkle takers. .

I think there was a scheme,maybe under Blair, where basic phones were supplied to help out with finding jobs.
the dza said:
I suspect that the number of people defrauding the system in this way -- and the amount of money they are taking that they shouldn't be -- is less than it would cost to make sure that absolutely zero fraud takes place at any one time. So some people get caught, some people get away with it. If it would cost more to ensure that zero fraud takes place, then that would take away even more money from the pot to give to those that actually need it. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place for the authorities.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. And this applies to so many sensationalist issues in the UK ( obv immigration is top of that list) - big story, big moral outrage, tiny reality
 
monkeybarry said:
I certainly think there are some that want all the bling smart phones, but also there are plenty of people that genuinely get down to their last few pounds regularly and are not tinkle takers. .

I think there was a scheme,maybe under Blair, where basic phones were supplied to help out with finding jobs.
Click to expand...

I agree, but often you hear about people down to their last few pounds and it really seems like they are prioritising the wrong things, like cigarettes, alcohol, take aways etc... There are absolutely those who need more state support but I suspect they are very hard to differentiate from those who could probably be much better off by just making better choices.

That was one of the things I remember taking away from Famous, Rich and Hungry where those 4 celebrities went to live with people on the poverty line, many are struggling because they simply don't have enough, and others because they aren't spending their money in the wisest fashion IMO.
 
the dza said:
I suspect that the number of people defrauding the system in this way -- and the amount of money they are taking that they shouldn't be -- is less than it would cost to make sure that absolutely zero fraud takes place at any one time. So some people get caught, some people get away with it. If it would cost more to ensure that zero fraud takes place, then that would take away even more money from the pot to give to those that actually need it. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place for the authorities.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point; plus the cuts that many Local Authorities have faced in recent years has often meant they have even less resources to do this. A very tricky situation for some Councils who really do want to sort out the scroungers. Also when a case is brought to court it can go against them on a technicality and they (the Council) can end up even more out of pocket
 
Or like Brighton council when it was run by the Greens they spent money on all the wrong things, like millions on cycle paths but cutting local drop in centres for old people. I am someone who cycles and likes cycle lanes but even I can see that is wrong, not to mention giving a 30m loan to a company who want to build a big erection on the seafront but could not get private funding for it.

When a similar erection was built on Portsmouth seafront it cost the local taxpayer millions to bail out. Some councils get in and just spend money in a mental fashion.

Despite my right wing leanings I am all for helping those who would perhaps be called the deserving poor, those who work but dont get paid much or people with proper illness.

Also on this topic of how people live I think benefits could be linked to good behaviour which is why I was all for the voucher system so you know people were purchasing the proper things in supermarkets. It would not bother me having to use vouchers, I often take different forms of vouchers in anyway when I do the shop(tight fisted bastard i know)

The should also be more lessons at school in how to balance your lifestyle with your income.
 
Richie said:
I agree, but often you hear about people down to their last few pounds and it really seems like they are prioritising the wrong things, like cigarettes, alcohol, take aways etc... There are absolutely those who need more state support but I suspect they are very hard to differentiate from those who could probably be much better off by just making better choices.

That was one of the things I remember taking away from Famous, Rich and Hungry where those 4 celebrities went to live with people on the poverty line, many are struggling because they simply don't have enough, and others because they aren't spending their money in the wisest fashion IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree, although I suspect they are in the minority. But the policy should be to focus on helping the ones in need, not penalising them because some people are less responsible.

Also, I'm sure for some people those little things, like fags, are the only ray of hope or enjoyment they get. Certainly in part of the country where employment and social progression are limited.

Until we get to a better state of supplying equal opportunity we should be careful about demonizing, as all that actually achieves is to stop the progression of the people that want to progress
Of course that doesn't make headlines - and the stupid British public struggle to comprehend anything with more substance or complexity
 
the dza said:
I suspect that the number of people defrauding the system in this way -- and the amount of money they are taking that they shouldn't be -- is less than it would cost to make sure that absolutely zero fraud takes place at any one time. So some people get caught, some people get away with it. If it would cost more to ensure that zero fraud takes place, then that would take away even more money from the pot to give to those that actually need it. It's a bit of a rock and a hard place for the authorities.
Click to expand...

I think the public benefit of stopping fraud out weighs any thing else. For 3 reasons - 1) if people can see others getting away with it they will chance their arm themselves, 2) people who work, hard and pay their taxes then lose confidence in the system and see every one who claim benefits as scrounges despite many being in genuine need 3) there is less money available for those in genuine need or to invest in public services. The local authorities IMO should find a way to have a zero tolerance approach to benefit fraud any thing else in the long run is short sighted.

Honestly some of the fraud I have witnessed in relation to housing benefit and blue badges, both of which had honourable intentions, shakes my faith in human nature. In the latter much of it is committed by the so called middle class.
 
Btw just to add to the food bank debate, I believe that many people who lose their jobs or have have very low pay end up using food banks, because it can take a long time for the benefits to be paid and in the mean time they literally have no money.
 
Robspur12 said:
Btw just to add to the food bank debate, I believe that many people who lose their jobs or have have very low pay end up using food banks, because it can take a long time for the benefits to be paid and in the mean time they literally have no money.
Click to expand...

The income isn't always low.
I know of a few middle class families that had decent jobs and mortgages, but costs go up and disposable income gets smaller.
Suddenly a job is lost and they have to go to a food bank a couple of times until the next pay comes in
 
The Tory mythology has commenced. No quotes from anyone, anywhere near Miliband. Just right wing speculative spin. How did Miliband not know? Well the polls were wrong weren't they? So there's your answer. I'll bet Cameron didn't know either. His polling would have been better, because the Tories have squillions of pounds to spend on election campaigns, but even then, I doubt even he would have been as certain as portrayed in that fluff piece.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
The Tory mythology has commenced. No quotes from anyone, anywhere near Miliband. Just right wing speculative spin. How did Miliband not know? Well the polls were wrong weren't they? So there's your answer. I'll bet Cameron didn't know either. His polling would have been better, because the Tories have squillions of pounds to spend on election campaigns, but even then, I doubt even he would have been as certain as portrayed in that fluff piece.
Click to expand...
I think it was linked in that article, but this is a good example of how the answers were there with the right polling.

There's also an interesting comment below the fold from a reader who was asked by a prospective Labour candidate whether he'd be voting for them. When he replied negatively the Labour candidate disappeared to find people who would vote for them. What a strange way of collecting data and an excellent way of ensuring the minimum number of votes.
 
scaramanga said:
I used to spend some Saturday nights at the LSE many moons ago......
Click to expand...
Fighting with the students?

Coogan_narrowweb__300x406,0.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back