JerryChicken wrote:The concern should not be the colour of the party in power at the time that the ideaology was introduced, nor for that matter the concern of why all party's seem happy to continue and expand the ideaology, but should be the concern that a privately owned, for-profit business model could be constructed from a process that should be the responsibility of a government department, ie the assesment of criteria to hand out public money from a government department should be well within the capabilities of that department given that it is they who write the specifications in the first place.

When you then introduce a bonus system based on a target of refusals, then you are starting to get insidious, there should be no targets, merely qualifications - with qualifications you have a line in the sand where disability recieves or doesn't recieve support, with targets you have a moveable line that no-one really understands from one month to the next.

El Barbudo wrote:I think you might have missed the point.
The state was not "spent-up" until after the banks had been bailed-out, up until then the deficit and debt levels were well within manageable margins by any Western Democratic state's standards.

Sal Paradise wrote:Regarding benefits you cannot have a position whereby those who choose not to work are better off than those who do

Sal Paradise wrote:Regarding benefits you cannot have a position whereby those who choose not to work are better off than those who do, its immoral. Not giving annual increases to those who choose not to work helps to redress the balance a little, this is a cut I agree with. Benefits should provide a very basic subsistence not cigarettes, Sky TV, beer, holidays etc.

samwire wrote:so, it's labour ideology to make the sick/disabled suffer? their voters should be ashamed of themselves.

the colour of the party is entirely relevant. the process wasn't set up by the money grabbing, capitalist swine tories it was set up by the sodding labour party. it's exactly the sort of thing the tories would and indeed should do. the fact is the labour party did it. they decided the sick/disabled were screwing the system. what's that word that does the rounds here, oh yeah, the labour party and by association it's voters 'demonise' the sick/disabled.

the government decided the private sector could do it cheaper and quicker.

Sal Paradise wrote:Not giving annual increases to those who choose not to work helps to redress the balance a little, this is a cut I agree with. Benefits should provide a very basic subsistence not cigarettes, Sky TV, beer, holidays etc.

Him wrote:Which people have chosen not to work?

JerryChicken wrote:I agree with your first point, but for your second, how low would you set the bar - if we assume a family of two adults and two school age children (say, in their teens) but both parents out of work although seeking work - what should the benefits office pay the family ?

Kicking off with housing benefit, if we assume that they are in rented accomodation should their benefits pay all fo their rent or just some of it ?

Should their council tax be subsidised or waivered ?

How about a car, is it reasonable that they should be able to run a modest five year old car ?

Food ?

Clothing ?

Where should we set the bar ?

Sal Paradise wrote:In my extended family there are 9 who could work but would rather claim the benefit because it easier and they will make more money when you add all the different benefits they can claim. All have children none appear to be married not sure how that helps but it must.

2 have been convicted of dealing drugs - this is a matter of public record - yet still claim the benefit despite being able to afford £40k worth of ganga plants and £10k of cash that they extracted in the raid, he was also renting two houses not bad on benefits.