I cannot believe this government.

[elisi]

From the BBC:
Eighteen Church of England bishops have signed an open letter, criticising the government's proposed welfare changes.

In the letter, in The Observer, the bishops express concerns about plans to limit the amount any household can claim in benefits to £500 a week.
[..]
The government says the changes, due to come into effect in 2013, will save £7bn in welfare spending and will encourage people currently on benefits to go out and find a job.

But the Children's Society, which supported the bishops' letter, has warned the cap could make more than 80,000 children homeless.

'Children in Need' was the day before yesterday... There are thousands of children in this country who live in poverty, having to rely on charities to get by, and *this* is what the government proposes?

Comments

[sueworld2003.livejournal.com]

Yeah, sick isn't it. :(

[elisi]

I understand the need to save money. But surely the government should save money so it could help those in need...

[cassi0pei4.livejournal.com]

Yes, because, if only those stupid poor people would get off their lazy asses and hand out a few resumés, clearly there would be no more poverty. Obviously the government just needs to give them a wake-up call to strengthen their work ethic.



Sometimes, I really hate people. Because there are people out there who would have agreed with those statements, without realizing that I said them sarcastically.

[elisi]

At my place of work there are currently two cleaning jobs being advertised. We have a had a LOT of applications... The whole 'they should go get a job' would be so much more convincing if there actually were jobs out there for people to get. I'm still slightly shocked that I actually have a job because finding one was so difficult.

[rothas-writing.livejournal.com]

This. Someone who at the time was a very close friend, and is now a bit more, spent 6 months looking for a job. He went from graduate job, to anything he could get. And by that point, and he still didn't have a job, he had to leave Scotland and return to live with his family in Canada. And another 6 months later, he still hadn't found a job, and FINALLY (after handing out more than 100 CVs) he has a devillish night shift that at least pays his rent and heating bill. It's INSANE. If jobs are this bad for people who graduate with a 1-grade at a British university, how does the government think it'll be for people who didn't? For those who couldn't afford further education? For those struggling to get through it? There simply aren't enough jobs to go around, no matter how much you smile and wear a suit and walk around town handing out CVs.... /sighs

[adoxerella.livejournal.com]

I can totally believe it. Then again the Republicans in my government would rather cut medicare and social security than tax the people who make more than $1million a year.

This is why I wish those damn Occupiers would have gotten their heads out of their arses and organized enough to become an actual movement. They have the right idea, but they couldn't come together enough to present it in a way that made sense to the masses.

[elisi]

Yeah, I keep telling myself that at least they're not Republicans... It's a crying shame that the Labour party is in such a shambles though, because we really need a good opposition. :(

And oh yes, I hear you. Good idea, but they needed a focal point, or spokes person, or *something*.

[rothas-writing.livejournal.com]

The London ones aren't doing too bad last I heard. British police are taking a lot better to them than American police.

[owlboy]

the approval rating for OWS varies between 50-60% in polls. "the masses" seem to get it and support it.

[eve11]

Okay, so to me, 500 pounds per week sounds like a lot for a straight unemployment check. That's like 26000 per year in British pounds = $41K/year in US dollars ($750/week)? What is the current rule?

[elisi]

I honestly don't know. It's a massively complicated system, and making the system *fairer* is absolutely a good thing. It's the attitude that gets me. OK, so there are certainly people abusing the system, but most people on benefits would much rather work if they could. However, having been looking for work myself for a good while (and still ridiculously grateful to have found some!), and having had a look into other people's circumstances thanks to job clubs etc, there are many many people who are forced to rely on government help, and it's not easy. Every penny can count. There are a *lot* of people living in poverty... Children in Need highlighted a breakfast club run by a charity, which fed children who would otherwise go hungry because their parents could not afford to feed them. Looking after people in genuine need should be at the heart of things, not designing systems that presume that everyone is lazy, and punishes them. /end rant

(Sorry. But if a lot of people - like churches and charities - are saying 'this is a bad thing', I tend to believe them, far more than the government.)

[rothas-writing.livejournal.com]

It's a good value for some, maybe a person living on their own, but if you have a househould of say... 4 kids? It's common enough. Then that money is going to be spread very thin. There's also the fact that even amongst just 1 or 2 people in a house, this money probably pays for food, in some places education, clothing, and RENT. Which is the biggie. Does this help at all?

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

Jobseeker's Allowance - the basic unemployment benefit - is only around £50 or £60 per person per week. But then you get housing benefit to help pay rent, child benefit for any dependent children you're looking after, and so on. It can add up.

And it's £500 per household, not £500 per person. And average rent for a two-bedroom house in London is £315 per week - nearer the centre it can easily be double that.

[rothas-writing.livejournal.com]

This is the kind of thing that honestly makes me despair in our government...

[elisi]

This really sums it up... :(

[lonewytch.livejournal.com]

Yeah it's depressing. What really gets to me is the inevitability of it. This is always what the Tories were going to do once they got in, and this is what they will continue doing while they are in power. They really have no clue.

I hadn't heard about this, but i was ranting to a friend just yesterday about the recent government review that says people off work sick for longer than 4 weeks will have to be assessed by an "independent panel of Doctors" to be signed off for any longer.
Because the family Doctor with a working knowledge of your medical history and perhaps complex case isn't trustworthy, right?
And the panel will be as accurate in their assessment of fitness to work as the current ESA assessors, of course. /sarcasm

And then don't even get me started on the new "work experience" placements the job centre do, where people are working full time for their benefits - less than minimum wage, obviously. And in places like Poundland, Tesco etc. So these companies get free labour, thus taking paid jobs off the market.
I'm all for supportive work experience, but ffs make the companies pay up the difference to make it into minimum wage, so it's effectively a proper job.

Labour need to organise. I had high hopes for Miliband as he seemed to fall very left of centre, but he doesn't have the charisma or the energy to make a really effective opposition.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

And then don't even get me started on the new "work experience" placements the job centre do, where people are working full time for their benefits

I actually did something similar to that when Labour were still in power and I was unemployed, but the course I was on sent us to places like charity shops to "volunteer" at. It ended up being a positive experience for me actually, and I got a great reference on my CV which led to me finding paid employment after that, so I've always been somewhat in favour of those sorts of courses as I believe they do help motivate people to an extent. But I had no idea that the current system has people working for companies like Tesco, that does seem ridiculously unfair. Surely it should be about helping out the community at the same time as getting some work experience in. If anything helping out in the NHS or something maybe, but definitely not companies like Tesco that can afford to pay for their own staff urgh

[elisi]

Yeah it's depressing. What really gets to me is the inevitability of it. This is always what the Tories were going to do once they got in, and this is what they will continue doing while they are in power. They really have no clue.
*shakes head sadly*

I hadn't heard about this, but i was ranting to a friend just yesterday about the recent government review that says people off work sick for longer than 4 weeks will have to be assessed by an "independent panel of Doctors" to be signed off for any longer.
Ooooh I read about that too. And how much is THAT going to cost?

I'm all for supportive work experience, but ffs make the companies pay up the difference to make it into minimum wage, so it's effectively a proper job.
*nods* I hadn't heard of this before, but that's just ridiculous. I thought they only worked for charities/did voluntary work.

Labour need to organise. I had high hopes for Miliband as he seemed to fall very left of centre, but he doesn't have the charisma or the energy to make a really effective opposition.
So, so much word. It's so annoying, because we NEED someone to hold the Tories back and be, well, electable...

[notarealverb.livejournal.com]

having to rely on charities to get by

I suspect this is part of the point.

[sensiblecat.livejournal.com]

Precisely. They see that people will get sentimental and raise £30m quid for stuff the Welfare State should be doing properly, and they rub their hands together in glee.

Those who can get BBC iPlayer might see if they can still catch a very good documentary on a couple of weeks ago, in which veteran journo John Humphries takes a hard look at why the welfare system isn't functioning, and whether being more like America would work or not.

The problem is that Thatcher's attack on the unions a generation ago has produced entire communities of workless people who know no way of transitioning to adulthood other than having kids and living on benefits. I don't think they would be in that position if they could choose, but the concept of choice has been taken away from them.

[elisi]

Oh yeah. That whole 'Big Society' thing... :(

[calapine.livejournal.com]

These attacks on the welfare state are disgusting and cruel and wrong, and it's crap like this that's pushed me reluctantly to nationalism, since Scotland only returned a single Conservative MP and we're still having to suffer from some of this crap when it ain't a devolved issue.

Basic standards of living should be a right, not something that depends on the whims of those with disposable income to provide via charity.

And why in times of 'economic crisis' is it the poorest in society that have to bloody well pay to solve it? (Esp in this instance where it's blatantly the mistakes of the rich that have caused the problem?) Why is money not raised by increasing the taxes on the rich? Why is it acceptable to increase poverty but not redistribute a tiny fraction of the wealth of the richest?

[elisi]

Basic standards of living should be a right, not something that depends on the whims of those with disposable income to provide via charity.
SO much word.

And why in times of 'economic crisis' is it the poorest in society that have to bloody well pay to solve it? (Esp in this instance where it's blatantly the mistakes of the rich that have caused the problem?)
Because the rich are better at cheating? :( Anyway, thank you for the lovely discussion above - it's nice to have people debating things without resorting to namecalling etc.

[ever-neutral.livejournal.com]

Ugh, WHAT. This is fucking awful. I'm so sorry to hear it.

[elisi]

Sadly I'm not surprised...