Jump to content

Universal Credit

Recommended Posts

Re: The workhouse.

 

Believe it or not I'm old enough to know someone who was once in the workhouse, and it was a travesty masquerading as a Christian institution. It wasn't Christian, it wasn't even humane. And once you went into it, it was almost impossible to get out of. So inmates gave up that last essential human emotion - hope. They just waited to die and frequently helped the process along.

 

If we return to workhouses, (and I'm sure this government will consider it sooner or later,) I don't think we can consider ourselves a decent society.

 

Thankfully no one is suggesting bringing that kind of thing back, but the past isn’t a good reason for not creating something better. Something that thousands of our young men and women already use could be provided throughout the country for anyone in need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thankfully no one is suggesting bringing that kind of thing back, but the past isn’t a good reason for not creating something better. Something that thousands of our young men and women already use could be provided throughout the country for anyone in need.

 

I'm all for trying to find a system that works. I've often thought bringing back National Service for young people and the unemployed in certain circumstances might be a good idea. When Lo and behold, Cameron announced (Big Headlines) that he was doing just that. Not many people saw the small print that it would last precisely 2weeks, rather than 2 years...honestly - that man.

 

Everything always falls apart when it comes to funding, and no method or system is going to be without cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has clearly revealed an issue. Some benefit claimants are incapable of spending the money they are given on what it's intended for. So it would be foolish not to recognise that and reinstate direct payments to their landlords. However it would also be foolish to continue to give these people any cash benefits as they won't be any more able to manage them.

 

These people clearly cannot run their own lives, giving them cash is not helping them.

 

That would indeed be an interesting experiment, I'm no expert on benefits but I have been very grateful that they exist on a couple of occasions. Now I was fortunate that I had some savings to subsidise the benefits I claimed and was only out of work for relatively short periods but I shudder to think how I would have made ends meet had I have been in genuine long term need of benefits.

 

I reckon you're idea of micro-managing the money of the unemployed would probably cost more in the long run If the welfare of the recipients was taken into consideration, as far as I can see life on benefits is not easy and simply doesn't cover the true cost of a healthy life.

 

All this re-iterated crap about flat screen TV's and the boosey life of Riley is frankly ridiculous from my out of work experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm all for trying to find a system that works. I've often thought bringing back National Service for young people and the unemployed in certain circumstances might be a good idea. When Lo and behold, Cameron announced (Big Headlines) that he was doing just that. Not many people saw the small print that it would last precisely 2weeks, rather than 2 years...honestly - that man.

 

Everything always falls apart when it comes to funding, and no method or system is going to be without cost.

 

My system would save money, make people healthier and our environment would be cleaner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would indeed be an interesting experiment, I'm no expert on benefits but I have been very grateful that they exist on a couple of occasions. Now I was fortunate that I had some savings to subsidise the benefits I claimed and was only out of work for relatively short periods but I shudder to think how I would have made ends meet had I have been in genuine long term need of benefits.

 

I reckon you're idea of micro-managing the money of the unemployed would probably cost more in the long run If the welfare of the recipients was taken into consideration, as far as I can see life on benefits is not easy and simply doesn't cover the true cost of a healthy life.

 

All this re-iterated crap about flat screen TV's and the boosey life of Riley is frankly ridiculous from my out of work experiences.

 

I'm not saying micromanage every claimant, I'm saying give them a choice. Direct payments and vouchers for those who need the help, cash for those who don't, but no recourse to public funds if they screw up. Help those who really have problems and give the tree a shake for the wasters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying micromanage every claimant, I'm saying give them a choice. Direct payments and vouchers for those who need the help, cash for those who don't, but no recourse to public funds if they screw up. Help those who really have problems and give the tree a shake for the wasters.

 

Fair comment, could be a kind of safety net for people who fall through the first safety net too because I think that people who we turn our back on will be a problem in other ways. I don't want some desperado to mug my elderly mother or burgle me because they were starving to death in our land of plenty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My system would save money, make people healthier and our environment would be cleaner.

 

How do you work that out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's no wonder we live in a nanny state, the problem is the recipients not the ideology of personal control and self financing.

 

The next step is to build huge complexes for those people incapable of managing their free money, a bit like army barracks in which everything is provided leaving them with no need for money.

 

Well it is time they learnt. If they can't manage their own money, how are they keeping alive.

 

No doubt you were all saying the same things about bankers a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has clearly revealed an issue. Some benefit claimants are incapable of spending the money they are given on what it's intended for. So it would be foolish not to recognise that and reinstate direct payments to their landlords. However it would also be foolish to continue to give these people any cash benefits as they won't be any more able to manage them.

 

These people clearly cannot run their own lives, giving them cash is not helping them.

 

Yet with housing, giving money direct to the landlord works really well and the tenants are happy about it and don't feel stigmatised.

 

There simply isn't an equivalent for food- all proposed systems seem to be based on vouchers and people aren't happy with that, and, do feel stigmatised.

 

...So it would be foolish not to recognise that and reinstate direct payments to their landlords...

Yes, I agree completely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what will happen with all the local councils, when the rent money doesn`t come in, will they go bankrupt and have to lay of even more workers, or am i missing something and the government will bail them out, and people that do work will they have to pay more rent to try make up the shortfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what will happen with all the local councils, when the rent money doesn`t come in, will they go bankrupt and have to lay of even more workers, or am i missing something and the government will bail them out, and people that do work will they have to pay more rent to try make up the shortfall

 

That's why it's an ill thought out bit of nonsense.

 

If it aint broke don't fix it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet with housing, giving money direct to the landlord works really well and the tenants are happy about it and don't feel stigmatised.

 

There simply isn't an equivalent for food- all proposed systems seem to be based on vouchers and people aren't happy with that, and, do feel stigmatised.

 

 

We're talking about people who if we give them our money for their housing if left to their own devices don't use it for that. I doubt they have even heard of the word stigmatised. If they can't be trusted to spend one benefit on what it is intended for what makes you think they become models of probity where other handouts are concerned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.