Big pronouncements

Doodledog - much to ponder in your post but I think some of it underlines the problem of trying to forge a solution out of a per household payment and an individual income limit. But yes I agree with you that it shouldn’t even be a separate payment but rolled up into the basic pension. But that ship has sailed because of the ineptness of how the issue was handled initially. But no one can convince me that the currrnt system is equitable.

Yes, as I said, I understand why you feel that couples do well. They may do, but there is more to it than that.

I feel the same about child benefit. Two working people pay two lots of commute, childcare and so on (not to mention the tax that pays for it), and a couple with one worker doesn't need a lot of that. They save on cleaners, childcare, train fares/petrol and all the costs associated with working, and pay one lot of tax. Yet people complain that there can be two people earning near the threshold who are able to claim despite the fact that they earn twice as much as the single earning couple, forgetting all the things I mentioned above. Also, there is always the option for the non-working parent to get a job, but not always an option for the dual income couple to earn more.

WRT the WFA, two people may have the heating on at the same time, but they might not. I am still up now, and my husband is in bed. Obviously the last thing we need is heating on tonight, but in December it will be different. Also, the feminist in me objects to women working all their lives and ending up subject to the whims of men, just because the men have earned more (because of historical sexism increasing their pensions). Maybe the amounts per person in a couple could be lessened? Would that make it 'fairer'?

Cross posting. I wrote the last post before I read yours, so it may not make sense in that context.

Doodledog

Yes, as I said, I understand why you feel that couples do well. They may do, but there is more to it than that.

I feel the same about child benefit. Two working people pay two lots of commute, childcare and so on (not to mention the tax that pays for it), and a couple with one worker doesn't need a lot of that. They save on cleaners, childcare, train fares/petrol and all the costs associated with working, and pay one lot of tax. Yet people complain that there can be two people earning near the threshold who are able to claim despite the fact that they earn twice as much as the single earning couple, forgetting all the things I mentioned above. Also, there is always the option for the non-working parent to get a job, but not always an option for the dual income couple to earn more.

WRT the WFA, two people may have the heating on at the same time, but they might not. I am still up now, and my husband is in bed. Obviously the last thing we need is heating on tonight, but in December it will be different. Also, the feminist in me objects to women working all their lives and ending up subject to the whims of men, just because the men have earned more (because of historical sexism increasing their pensions). Maybe the amounts per person in a couple could be lessened? Would that make it 'fairer'?

I know all of this is just an academic argument because no govt in the foreseeable future will go near WFA with a barge pole but I do find it fascinating as to how this govt allowed itself to get into such an unfair mess. Yes I agree it’s a similar mess to what the last govt did with CB. I take all your points about two people in a house not necessarily being in the same room all the time etc and I share your views about the feminist aspects but accepting all that, a couple with a ‘joint’ income of £70 000 will almost always be better off in terms of disposable income than a single person with £35,000.01 not to mention my more extreme examples ( and I do know two couples in those situations)
Basically, the WFA system now takes a contribution based benefit (SP) paid to individuals, then at the point of £35,000 per individual turns an add on (WFA) into a means tested benefit which is paid per household . But in the rest of the benefit system, means tested benefits ( mainly UC) are based on joint household incomes( no feminist issues here) . So basically it’s just a complete mess, How could it be fairer ? Well as I said above, it won’t change now but a quick fix would be to increase the £35k level for single people or decrease it for each person in a couple. Thanks for reading as they say ( if you have thus far)

Doodledog I do know you aren't actually doing this (though maybe there's a hint there when you separate them by "privilege") - and i know hou ard talking now rather than childhood but generally I'm bemused as to why people assume that Burnham and Starmer have different backgrounds.

Is it just branding and accent?

When I was growing up it seemed to me that Culcheth was pretty well off. It was surrounded by leafy green spaces and people saw it as midfle class (or upper working class) desireable - a step up from (say) Leigh and Astley. I didn't know Oxtead but it doesn't sound so dissimilar.

Oxted of course is traditionally coded as affluent Home Counties, and the North West is coded as "The Industrial North," but their actual day-to-day physical environments growing up—tree-lined, quiet, suburban villages with gardens and green commons seem remarkably similar to me.

I haven't watched the new for days and must admit feel much better for it. Do not agree how AB got in and think he will just wing it anyway as he obviously doesn't care how he gets anywhere.

Rough sleepers his number one priority, i thought he was streetwise doesn't he know most choose this lifestyle to indulge their addictions

jakuss
I think you are misinformed if you think that.

​The primary triggers that push people into rough sleeping:

​Eviction and high rent / lack of affordable housing
​Relationship or family breakdown
Job loss
​Leaving institutions (e.g., leaving prison, care, or military service without support)
​Fleeing domestic abuse
​Severe, untreated mental health struggles

Substance misuse can contribute to housing instability for some people. However, it is important to recognise that addiction may also develop as a result of the trauma and stress associated with homelessness.

ssj.org.uk/what-causes-homelessness-in-the-uk-10-common-reasons-people-become-homeless/?hl=en-GB

It does sound odd I admit but some rough sleepers choose that form of life and turn down help.

NotSpaghetti

Doodledog I do know you aren't actually doing this (though maybe there's a hint there when you separate them by "privilege") - and i know hou ard talking now rather than childhood but generally I'm bemused as to why people assume that Burnham and Starmer have different backgrounds.

Is it just branding and accent?

When I was growing up it seemed to me that Culcheth was pretty well off. It was surrounded by leafy green spaces and people saw it as midfle class (or upper working class) desireable - a step up from (say) Leigh and Astley. I didn't know Oxtead but it doesn't sound so dissimilar.

Oxted of course is traditionally coded as affluent Home Counties, and the North West is coded as "The Industrial North," but their actual day-to-day physical environments growing up—tree-lined, quiet, suburban villages with gardens and green commons seem remarkably similar to me.

I was talking more about attitude than actual privilege. I can afford Starbucks coffee, but I don’t assume everyone can, so don’t think in terms of cuts (or benefits) being equivalent to a flat white. Many do though, as they struggle to see beyond their own circumstances.

I was speculating about KS and AB, quite possibly wrongly, but that’s what I meant.

I did notice your distinction Doodledog and my response to it was a bit off piste. Sorry. I honestly don't know if you are right or not. And I only know one person who actually knows AB and nobody at all who knows KS.

I think I am genuinely confused about their backgrounds (which to me are similar) and the public perception of them though.
I suppose, logically, KS was, in reality, less privileged than AB as he had a very ill mother.
🤷‍♂️

westendgirl

It does sound odd I admit but some rough sleepers choose that form of life and turn down help.

An offer of "help" is rarely an offer of a home. It is usually an offer for a single night.

They can't (usually) take pets, there's threats of violence, they will probably lose the relatively "Safe" spot they have found outside, there are conditions too...

The vast majority of rough sleepers - usually around 90% to 93% will accept a direct, secure housing placement when it comes without the traditional barriers (like mandatory sobriety, pet bans, or family separation).
This is seen to be why "Housing First" works.
There are several studies on this.
Here's a meta analysis:
www.researchgate.net/publication/341891534_Effectiveness_of_permanent_supportive_housing_and_income_assistance_interventions_for_homeless_individuals_in_high-income_countries_a_systematic_review?hl=en-GB

Oh, and retention is pretty good too.
Forgot to note the number still living there and coping after a year - but it was 80%plus I think.
And some studies did 6 year follow-ups too with good results.

Housing is also about retention.

From Today's Times
"Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants make up a far higher proportion. Earlier this year the Centre for Social Justice think tank found that there had been a 396 per cent increase in non-EU citizens sleeping rough in Britain since 2021. In London, 47 per cent were not British. The recent decision to allow the sudden early release of some prisoners — many of whom had nowhere to go — has exacerbated the situation"
I witness a " Rough sleeper" begging in London recently who changed shift on his "spot" with another person, it was too slick to be genuine.

AB did mention raising the Personal Allowance threshold after the 5 year period I think that would be a biggie

Shame he’s u turned after being advised not to do it.

With regard to the early release of prisoners I suggest you listen to the details of Wes Streeting and Shabana Mahmood have a jolly good laugh about the subject.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

AB did mention raising the Personal Allowance threshold after the 5 year period I think that would be a biggie

Shame he’s u turned after being advised not to do it.

What actually happened ( source BBC)

‘Burnham told the Times over the weekend that the "frustration about the personal allowance" he had heard while campaigning in the Makerfield by-election was "lodged in my mind".
The prime minister then told reporters on Monday that "all of this will be looked at" in the next budget but conceded any change would be expensive and "difficult given the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves".

My local Tesco has a mother and daughter "tag team" Visgir1
The mother is in her 60s and has been on the streets for years... The daughter relatively recently living on the street, the mother trying to support her. The daughter can't hold down a tenancy anymore and just moved out. She has complex mental health needs.
The daughter was very twitchy last time I spoke to her and couldn't wait for me to finish shopping to give her a yogurt... her choice of foodstuff - but she left before I was done.

Her mother said "yes, she's really unwell and now mixing with the "wrong sort"

Sometimes things are not what they seem.

Visgir1

From Today's Times
"Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants make up a far higher proportion. Earlier this year the Centre for Social Justice think tank found that there had been a 396 per cent increase in non-EU citizens sleeping rough in Britain since 2021. In London, 47 per cent were not British. The recent decision to allow the sudden early release of some prisoners — many of whom had nowhere to go — has exacerbated the situation"
I witness a " Rough sleeper" begging in London recently who changed shift on his "spot" with another person, it was too slick to be genuine.

Visgirl: there had been a 396 per cent increase in non-EU citizens sleeping rough in Britain since 2021. In London, 47 per cent were not British.

This is scary and shocking and with so many new arrivals each week will only get worse. People have been arguing on these threads for years that we should welcome asylum seekers, but these stark figures show why we can't do this. We cannot keep having people enter the country when there is nowhere for them to live. And releasing prisoners will only add to the problem.

NotSpaghetti

Doodledog I do know you aren't actually doing this (though maybe there's a hint there when you separate them by "privilege") - and i know hou ard talking now rather than childhood but generally I'm bemused as to why people assume that Burnham and Starmer have different backgrounds.

Is it just branding and accent?

When I was growing up it seemed to me that Culcheth was pretty well off. It was surrounded by leafy green spaces and people saw it as midfle class (or upper working class) desireable - a step up from (say) Leigh and Astley. I didn't know Oxtead but it doesn't sound so dissimilar.

Oxted of course is traditionally coded as affluent Home Counties, and the North West is coded as "The Industrial North," but their actual day-to-day physical environments growing up—tree-lined, quiet, suburban villages with gardens and green commons seem remarkably similar to me.

I grew up in Oxted and there were some very affluent areas, huge houses and gardens, many of the residents commuting to the City (of London). I lived in the area known as the "village" and the Starmer house was on the edge of Hurst Green which had a large council housing estate.
It was undoubtedly a class-ridden childhood and yes we had green spaces, the North Downs, and lots of fields and trees, though in my childhood it was actually on the A25, so quiet wasn't a word I would use!

Chestnut

Visgir1

From Today's Times
"Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants make up a far higher proportion. Earlier this year the Centre for Social Justice think tank found that there had been a 396 per cent increase in non-EU citizens sleeping rough in Britain since 2021. In London, 47 per cent were not British. The recent decision to allow the sudden early release of some prisoners — many of whom had nowhere to go — has exacerbated the situation"
I witness a " Rough sleeper" begging in London recently who changed shift on his "spot" with another person, it was too slick to be genuine.

Visgirl: there had been a 396 per cent increase in non-EU citizens sleeping rough in Britain since 2021. In London, 47 per cent were not British.

This is scary and shocking and with so many new arrivals each week will only get worse. People have been arguing on these threads for years that we should welcome asylum seekers, but these stark figures show why we can't do this. We cannot keep having people enter the country when there is nowhere for them to live. And releasing prisoners will only add to the problem.

Percentages can be made to look very scarey. What are the actual figures in the information from the right wing think tank?

Thanks Mamie I only know what I have heard / read about Oxtead.
I did know Culcheth a bit in my youth.