The Labour Government

The WFP wasn’t a freebie though 1997 the beginning of huge rises in utility bills for everyone, allowing a government any colour of government to get away with withdrawing or means testing benefits can’t ever be a good thing.

The government will continue to pay themselves a fuel allowance out of income tax Reeves said "the poorest pensioners on Pension Credit" will continue to get WFP.But it is pensioners a couple of pounds above the PC threshold who are poorest-they miss out on the circa £3k worth of benefits PC brings now they won’t get the WFP
 
blueinsa said:
France is safe I think and he would be correct.
Click to expand...

But so what? International law does not require that a refugee makes their application for refugee status is made in the first safe country they arrive in otherwise most of them wouldn’t be able to claim in France either. There is nothing wrong in an applicant saying “I have friends and family in country X which I don’t have in country Y where in any event I don’t speak the language.”

So for “you should have applied in France” to be a thing you need to be contemplating withdrawing from a whole raft of international treaties. If that’s what you think the country should do that’s up to you but (a) it won’t, at least not under the current government and (b) just saying “should have applied in France, send them back” is just naive.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
You're getting fixated about this subject.

FYI the Winter Fuel allowance was only introduced in 1997 (by a Labour Government) so its not been provided for that long a time (unlike sick pay, state pensions etc)

During the last 15 years most of the State Benefits (introduced by Labour and or Liberals ) have either been slashed or become means tested by the Conservatives .... There wasn't this sort of outcry when the two child cap was put on Child Tax Credits (2017) or Universal Credit (2018) despite the fact that if anyone needed looking after and feeding properly it was a child. (as a result we are now introducing ''breakfast clubs'' in schools).

All that Labour have done is to move the benefit to means tested... probably one of the few ''in year'' savings that they could make bearing in mind that everything else has been stripped to the bone by the Tories.

I would imagine that there was a lot of soul searching before this was announced ... wether it is the right decision remains to be seen .... but its implementation is indicative of the state of the country's finances (again) after a long period of Tory Rule.

Once again .. its strange how people who probably laughed when unemployment benefits (and other benefits ) became means tested are now getting all upset because a 'freebie' that they receive has become ....means tested.
Click to expand...

Where to begin…

Firstly, I don’t laugh at anyone having any benefits cut. I’ve been on my bare bones before so appreciate what it’s like when you literally have no food to eat. I’ve been there and appreciate there are people who are worse off than that.

Secondly, no issue with it being means tested but folk living on less than £269 a week need it.

Thirdly, just because it was introduced by a Labour government doesn’t give them “carte blanche” to remove it without due consideration nor appropriate impact assessments - which they haven’t done - thus your premise they have given this “a lot of soul searching” is somewhat at odds with the facts.

Fourthly, they are the party of government - it becomes a little tiresome all this whatabouterry - this is their record now. Anything else is about as constructive as debating who is the more abhorrent serial killer between Fred West and Jeffery Dahmer.
 
Children have the highest poverty rates in the UK. Pensioners have the lowest poverty rates in the UK. If Labour can take from pensioners and give to children surely this is a good thing?
 
Chris in London said:
But so what? International law does not require that a refugee makes their application for refugee status is made in the first safe country they arrive in otherwise most of them wouldn’t be able to claim in France either. There is nothing wrong in an applicant saying “I have friends and family in country X which I don’t have in country Y where in any event I don’t speak the language.”

So for “you should have applied in France” to be a thing you need to be contemplating withdrawing from a whole raft of international treaties. If that’s what you think the country should do that’s up to you but (a) it won’t, at least not under the current government and (b) just saying “should have applied in France, send them back” is just naive.
Click to expand...

It just needs a continent wide agreement on how to fairly deal with it. It’s not a UK problem, a French problem, an Italian problem etc it’s a European issue that just needs collaborative thinking.

Likelihood of it happening? Zero. In the meantime the far right rise off the back of it. If you control process at the European level you control the numbers and the messaging and you leave the far right with only one argument - “we don’t like immigrants because they are foreigner’s” which doesn’t tend to play terrible well to the masses compared to a message of immigrants stop you getting GP appointments or kids in your school or a council house which is much more palatable however inaccurate or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.