Makerfield By Election

Ilovecheese

I see no reason to resent people on benefits. it may look easy but the reality is that it doesn't lead anywhere.
I sometimes used to envy people who were at home with their children while I was at work, but now I am glad I was able to save in a pension scheme, and have more life choices.

I am aware of the restrictions faced by people on benefits, and think it is wrong that people in work should have to suffer the indignity of having their accounts scrutinised by others and means-tested. In the end, it's just so employers can get away with paying less, and leaving the topping-up to the taxpayer.

Anyone working full-time should be able to pay for adequate housing, heating and food. A working couple should be able to support a family. I keep saying this, but to me it is the root of the problems in the UK. Someone has to find a way to make it work - rent caps, tax breaks for parents, loans to employers instead to benefits to workers - I don't know, but I'm not a politician. Something, though.

I don't resent people on benefits. I would hate the scrutiny and dependency, but I do think that people who work should be better off. It's not just the income, it's things like discounts for the unwaged. I don't want to see people denied things because they aren't working, but it makes no sense to have a situation where workers can't afford things that non-workers can. I enjoy a lot of courses, for instance. They are expensive, so I ration them, but people on benefits often get them free or at huge discounts. It's the same with theatre tickets - concessions for the unwaged. It's not the end of the world for me - I could push the boat out and afford more if I wanted to - but I can understand a working mother who can't afford to take her children to an event resenting it when a non-working friend can take her family free because she doesn't work.

Do I want to swap places? No, of course not, but why is that the alternative? I know that a lifetime on benefits is not fun and that choices are limited, but so are the choices of people on low wages and pensions. It's not a case of the privileged on one side and benefit claimants on the other - there's a lot of ground in the middle, with people living similar lives, but some working to pay for them and others not.

I see no reason to resent people on benefits. it may look easy but the reality is that it doesn't lead anywhere.
I sometimes used to envy people who were at home with their children while I was at work, but now I am glad I was able to save in a pension scheme, and have more life choices.

Casdon

twaddle

Casdon

Doodledog

That depends on the number of children, which brings in more if you are on benefits, but not if you are working to support them.

I think there is a perception based on the material goods people own, the number of holidays they take, etc. people use the same amount of income to very different effect, and others don’t know their true circumstances, how much debt they have, etc.
I also think it costs more to go to work than to not do so, because of the travel, clothes, less time to make money go further etc. .

I think people who aren't entitled to benefits don't understand the restrictions placed on people who are entitled. They seem to have an inflated view of what people receive.

I’m sure that’s true, but doesn’t detract from the point I made I don’t think - some people, whether employed or on benefits, or both, are better at managing their money than others, and appearances can be deceptive.

Ah! I get your point. Yes, I think that's true and unless people are totally open about their income, it could be that people seem to be better off than they are.

fancythat

^I think people who aren't entitled to benefits don't understand the restrictions placed on people who are entitled. They seem to have an inflated view of what people receive.^

Which restrictions?
The, cant work more than 16 hours per week?

That rule doesn't exist any more.

I volunteer with the CAB. Although my specialism is recruitment/HR, I sometimes deal with cases regarding benefits.

It is not uncommon for people who have never had to resort to benefits before to be shocked at how little they will receive. They have heard from others that people on benefits are cared for, so it's distressing to find out the reality.

Some examples are savings, which are restricted. If a family or individual has been saving up for something like a new car or even a mortgage, they will find that they are not eligible to claim means-tested benefits. In most cases, they can't continue to claim full benefits while earning even a small amount in a part-time job. Attempts to save money like taking in a lodger or sharing accommodation with others in the same situation will be penalised.

Claimants have to sign on regularly, which for some involves a long and expensive journey. A cancelled bus could mean that the signing on slot is missed and the claimant will then lose benefits. Life on benefits really isn't the bed of roses some people seem to think it is.

twaddle

Casdon

Doodledog

That depends on the number of children, which brings in more if you are on benefits, but not if you are working to support them.

I think there is a perception based on the material goods people own, the number of holidays they take, etc. people use the same amount of income to very different effect, and others don’t know their true circumstances, how much debt they have, etc.
I also think it costs more to go to work than to not do so, because of the travel, clothes, less time to make money go further etc. .

I think people who aren't entitled to benefits don't understand the restrictions placed on people who are entitled. They seem to have an inflated view of what people receive.

I’m sure that’s true, but doesn’t detract from the point I made I don’t think - some people, whether employed or on benefits, or both, are better at managing their money than others, and appearances can be deceptive.

MayBee70

The Greens seem to think that Burnham is in favour of proportional representation. Do they really think that he will implement that if he’s PM with a huge majority in parliament …

Well, he is. Who's to say what he would do if PM.

He's also in favour of more devolution to the regions.

Wyllow3

Rarely, I disagree with you, WWM.

I think you are painting/fearing "worst outcomes" to a certain extent.

I know, but I’m so damned annoyed with them. The first hurdle and they throw in the towel - where is their spine and intelligence.

I am jumping up and down in annoyance here.

The Greens seem to think that Burnham is in favour of proportional representation. Do they really think that he will implement that if he’s PM with a huge majority in parliament …

I think people who aren't entitled to benefits don't understand the restrictions placed on people who are entitled. They seem to have an inflated view of what people receive.

Which restrictions?
The, cant work more than 16 hours per week?

MaizieD

^I think it was when house prices increased[cant remember why] that problems really started.^

Here you are, fancythat

My useful friend Chatgtp

.^The 1971 “Competition and Credit Control” reforms^

A major financial liberalisation under the Conservative government loosened banking controls.

Banks became more aggressive lenders and began competing more directly with building societies for mortgage business.

^*Many economists see this as an important turning point in UK credit growth and asset inflation.*^

Many economists see this as an important turning point in UK credit growth and asset inflation.*

Thank you.

Casdon

Doodledog

That depends on the number of children, which brings in more if you are on benefits, but not if you are working to support them.

I think there is a perception based on the material goods people own, the number of holidays they take, etc. people use the same amount of income to very different effect, and others don’t know their true circumstances, how much debt they have, etc.
I also think it costs more to go to work than to not do so, because of the travel, clothes, less time to make money go further etc. .

I think people who aren't entitled to benefits don't understand the restrictions placed on people who are entitled. They seem to have an inflated view of what people receive.

Doodledog

That depends on the number of children, which brings in more if you are on benefits, but not if you are working to support them.

I think there is a perception based on the material goods people own, the number of holidays they take, etc. people use the same amount of income to very different effect, and others don’t know their true circumstances, how much debt they have, etc.
I also think it costs more to go to work than to not do so, because of the travel, clothes, less time to make money go further etc. .

fancythat

Doodledog I used to agree with a lot of your posts.

Then I didnt.

Now I do again. Great!

I'm not sure what to say to that .

I don't think my views have changed, but maybe they have.

That depends on the number of children, which brings in more if you are on benefits, but not if you are working to support them.

Doodledog

Casdon

Galaxy

They want to be able to afford a home, a car and a holiday ( none of them high end) after working 40 hours a week. That's the 'radical change' they would like. It is slightly more complex as it isn't just about money, but that is a key part of it.

Unfortunately that has never been achieved, councils used to be the go to for homes and holidays for those who couldn’t afford them any other way, but it seems that society has moved on from wanting that safety net.

I think that home ownership didn't used to be such a big driver as it is now. In the 70s around a third of people lived in council houses, and many others rented privately. The right to buy scheme swept that away, and council houses moved from being 'for the doctor and the dustman' to a safety net for those who would otherwise be homeless, whilst those who bought them sold them on or rented them out, and they were lost to the social rental sector.

Housing Associations often don't offer lifetime tenancies, and things like bedroom tax have removed even that safety net for many.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to want to be able to have more than a basic standard of living if they work full-time. It is low wages and high rents that drive a lot of the discontent pushing people towards Reform - particularly when they know that benefit claimants often get more money than they do.

One way or another (and I don't know how) we need to reset the welfare state so that a decent house, heat and food on the table are things that working couples can take for granted, so they have an incentive to aim for more. Means-tested benefits and top-ups remove that incentive, and expensive childcare makes things worse. It's a mess.

I would dispute the word "often" as in "benefit claimants often get more money than they do". They usually don't.

keepingquiet

Oreo

keepingquiet
You seriously think that Reform and their voters are all ex Tories?
Would it surprise you to know that many are ex Labour voters?
Our democracy is safe enough, it’s democracy to have a by-election.

I didn't say they all were. I only know one ex-Labour councillor that went to Reform- apart from another Reform MP who went from Labour to the Tories and then to Reform.

My now all Reform councillors, whilst maybe not previously members of the Tory party, are certainly involved in local businesses and on-line content creators etc who clearly have fingers in lots of financial pies in my area. To me this makes them Tories in all but name.

A number of the Reform councillors who have been given cabinet positions in the new Essex County Council are former Conservatives. It's a bit ironic if people have voted for "change" because some of the same old faces are back again. Strangely enough, the first thing they did was to scrap some library charges which the Conservatives had introduced. I wonder who they're going to blame for the pot holes!

I think it was when house prices increased[cant remember why] that problems really started.

Here you are, fancythat

My useful friend Chatgtp

.^The 1971 “Competition and Credit Control” reforms^

A major financial liberalisation under the Conservative government loosened banking controls.

Banks became more aggressive lenders and began competing more directly with building societies for mortgage business.

*Many economists see this as an important turning point in UK credit growth and asset inflation.*

Doodledog

Casdon

Galaxy

They want to be able to afford a home, a car and a holiday ( none of them high end) after working 40 hours a week. That's the 'radical change' they would like. It is slightly more complex as it isn't just about money, but that is a key part of it.

Unfortunately that has never been achieved, councils used to be the go to for homes and holidays for those who couldn’t afford them any other way, but it seems that society has moved on from wanting that safety net.

I think that home ownership didn't used to be such a big driver as it is now. In the 70s around a third of people lived in council houses, and many others rented privately. The right to buy scheme swept that away, and council houses moved from being 'for the doctor and the dustman' to a safety net for those who would otherwise be homeless, whilst those who bought them sold them on or rented them out, and they were lost to the social rental sector.

Housing Associations often don't offer lifetime tenancies, and things like bedroom tax have removed even that safety net for many.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to want to be able to have more than a basic standard of living if they work full-time. It is low wages and high rents that drive a lot of the discontent pushing people towards Reform - particularly when they know that benefit claimants often get more money than they do.

One way or another (and I don't know how) we need to reset the welfare state so that a decent house, heat and food on the table are things that working couples can take for granted, so they have an incentive to aim for more. Means-tested benefits and top-ups remove that incentive, and expensive childcare makes things worse. It's a mess.

I agree, my point was that it has never been achieved in the past. People s expectations are higher than they were in the past, as is the standard of living of the majority of the population, and the gap between the haves and the have nots is increasing.

Apologies if I misjudged it, fancythat

But we were Keynesian in that era, not market led, state spending is Bad.

Doodledog I used to agree with a lot of your posts.

Then I didnt.

Now I do again. Great!

Galaxy

Oh I thought it was a nostalgic tone.

Usually references to the '60s and '70s precede mention of union power (a Bad Thing), rubbish rotting in the street and high mortgage interest rates etc.

Galaxy

Oh I thought it was a nostalgic tone.

Thank you!

Like in the '60s and '70s. as fancythat says, in it seemed to me, a tone that implied that this was a Bad Thing.

Why on earth you got that is quite mind blowing.

I would go a step further and say, like in the 60s and 70s, when many women didnt work or had part time[pin money ] jobs.
[Yes I know there are many parents of GNs who did work in the 60s and 70s].

I will go even further still.
I think it was when house prices increased[cant remember why] that problems really started.

Casdon

Galaxy

They want to be able to afford a home, a car and a holiday ( none of them high end) after working 40 hours a week. That's the 'radical change' they would like. It is slightly more complex as it isn't just about money, but that is a key part of it.

Unfortunately that has never been achieved, councils used to be the go to for homes and holidays for those who couldn’t afford them any other way, but it seems that society has moved on from wanting that safety net.

I think that home ownership didn't used to be such a big driver as it is now. In the 70s around a third of people lived in council houses, and many others rented privately. The right to buy scheme swept that away, and council houses moved from being 'for the doctor and the dustman' to a safety net for those who would otherwise be homeless, whilst those who bought them sold them on or rented them out, and they were lost to the social rental sector.

Housing Associations often don't offer lifetime tenancies, and things like bedroom tax have removed even that safety net for many.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to want to be able to have more than a basic standard of living if they work full-time. It is low wages and high rents that drive a lot of the discontent pushing people towards Reform - particularly when they know that benefit claimants often get more money than they do.

One way or another (and I don't know how) we need to reset the welfare state so that a decent house, heat and food on the table are things that working couples can take for granted, so they have an incentive to aim for more. Means-tested benefits and top-ups remove that incentive, and expensive childcare makes things worse. It's a mess.

Graphite

When I mentioned radical change I was thinking more along the lines of renationalising the sectors that have been privatised including water and social care so we aren’t paying through the nose for others to get rich.

I agree we need a major change in taxation and to start taxing the very wealthy. If the rich threaten to move abroad … bye, bye and take Farage and his flying monkeys with you.

The PM I really want is Zohran Mamdani.

That is one aspect of it, yes. But it all relates to the way that the economy is run. Renationalisation would prevent more money flowing to the wealthy in the form of dividends and make it available for reinvestment to improve the infrastructure.

I'm interested to know just how Mamdani reduced the New York deficit Hopefully not by austerity...