Universal Credit

[MrSmith 10]

Didn't they use to call them workhouses?

 

No.

 

In England and Wales a workhouse, colloquially known as a spike, was a place where those unable to support themselves were offered accommodation and employment.

 

 

In areas such as the provision of free medical care and education for children, neither of which was available to the poor in England living outside workhouses until the early 20th century, workhouse inmates were advantaged over the general population, a dilemma that the Poor Law authorities never managed to reconcile.

 

 

Doesn't look like a bad idea though.

Why would providing food, accommodation, employment, medical care and education be a bad thing?

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

The rest of the article is here, just to give a deeper understanding.

 

wiki - Workhouse

 

They weren't wonderful places to be, and that is why they ended.

[onewheeldave 22]

Why is there no stigma attached to being judged so irresponsible that you will use money provided to keep a roof over your head on other things, but there is a stigma attached to being judged so irresponsible that you'll waste money provided for essentials on booze, fags or drugs?

 

I don't know- there just is: though the stigma I was referring to was nothing to do with 'being judged so irresponsible that you'll waste money provided for essentials on booze, fags or drugs'- it was the stigma attached to having to use food vouchers to get your food.

 

 

Either they can manage the money we give them or not, they can't have it both ways.

 

Well they can- they obviously have for the past several years.

[MrSmith 10]

The rest of the article is here, just to give a deeper understanding.

 

wiki - Workhouse

 

They weren't wonderful places to be, and that is why they ended.

 

But they could be if run correctly, the accommodation I was in when serving her majesty could be described as a workhouse, everything I needed including work was provided, and have to say it was a very enjoyable part of my life, food when I wanted it, medical care when I needed it, companionship with like mined people, education and training and a job that was second to none.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

But they could be if run correctly

Would you make the admission voluntary, or compulsory?

[andygardener 10]

 

Well they can- they obviously have for the past several years.

 

Under the last government. Governments change.

 

A system which lets the claimant make the call as to whether they can be responsible or not with all the money they are given seems preferable to one which is arbitrary in telling the feckless they are responsible when it comes to cash benefits and the sensible they are feckless when it comes to rent.

[Anna B 1,401]

So would you agree that it would be better not to

give money to people on benefits and just pay the supplier directly for everything they need?

 

No.

 

I see no reason to change a system that already works and replace it with yet more bureucracy.

 

Paying a supplier is a direct route to corruption, no doubt one of Dave's buddies would get the contract giving him carte blanche to charge inflated prices. (A4e anyone?) Whereas allowing people to buy anywhere encourages competition which keeps the prices reasonable.

 

Believe me, anyone on benefits already knows where to get stuff at the cheapest prices.

[MrSmith 10]

Would you make the admission voluntary, or compulsory?

 

I would make them voluntary just as they used to be.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

People can have their benefits set up to pay fuel bills directly.

 

Fuel Direct

 

-----

I would make them voluntary just as they used to be.

The choice between starvation and entering a workhouse isn't voluntary.

[MrSmith 10]

No.

 

I see no reason to change a system that already works and replace it with yet more bureucracy.

 

Paying a supplier is a direct route to corruption, no doubt one of Dave's buddies would get the contract giving him carte blanche to charge inflated prices. (A4e anyone?) Whereas allowing people to buy anywhere encourages competition which keeps the prices reasonable.

 

Believe me, anyone on benefits already knows where to get stuff at the cheapest prices.

 

 

If so then paying the landlord must also be a direct route to corruption.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Read the full article and it makes a very good point that people with learning disabilities are unable to properly manage their finances and falling into arrears because they've had this money thrust upon them.

 

While it may be considered 'nannying' people by paying their rent for them it works perfectly fine and always keeps them paid up on rent.

 

I haven't read the full article but in the quoted bit, rent arrears in south Wales went up 50%. That's a hell of alot of people with learning disabilities. I'd guess they haven't had to sort out their own rent since the pits shut.

 

Why not give an incentive - sort it all out yourself (like the rest of have to) get a tenner a month or something. State has to do it all, less money. An admin fee if you like.

[davyboy 18]

So they know how to pay their gas bill and electricity bill and food but they don't know how to pay rent?

 

Many of them are on meter cards which they top up at various outlets.

If they have no money they go cold.

They are also paying through the nose for their gas and electric compared with the lucky ones who can afford to pay by DD.