The Labour Government

[Chippy_boy]

I haven’t lost interest in politics. I’ve lost interest in debating politics with people on social media that debate politics to get a rise out of their opponents.

Why are you still posting here then?

 

[metalblue]

Fucking lot more than that. My brother, his wife and 2 of their children and absolutely shameful in the way they play the system. They know all the benefits and how to maximise them - lived in (relative) comfort for decades and not paid a penny tax.

Seriously , they give advice to people on how to maximise benefits and avoid having to work

The problem, as I see it, with welfare is there are parts that are not means tested so the amount payable can be quite high. There are a set of benefits that are subject to the benefit cap - which effectively is no one on benefits can receive more than the average wage (albeit the cap seems to be the gross rather than net amount).

There are then other well meaning benefits that don’t have caps and not means tested - take the scenario of having a child on the spectrum (and I’m not an expert in this section so forgive in advance any clumsy language) with a diagnosis of ADHD and autism- you can get about a grand in additional payment. The logic being that having such a child limits your ability to work as you need to look after them - I get the logic, so far so good. You then claim for another child with a similar diagnosis and you get the same money again on top of- I accept you may need to work a bit less but I don’t understand the logic that you would still get the full element designed to help support you needing to work less. Add a third and so on and so forth - there are only so many hours you can give up working!!! None of this is capped or means tested and let’s be honest these days no kid is just a naughty **** like when we were young they’ve got to have a “condition”.

So here is a genuine example of a single mum, 3 kids, one just recently diagnosed with Tourette’s and the other autistic. Both kids are likely going to be fully functioning adults albeit with fairly low paid jobs but the eldest won’t cope with secondary school so I’m not saying there isn’t a genuine issue here. The mother works part time and brings home £1600 a month. Additionally receives £450 from absent father.

She has put all her details in to a claims calculator and it calculates that she will get £5,618.64 per month plus on top she will get her £1,600 wages and the £450. If she earns more her claim goes down for that month accordingly so effectively she is guaranteed to receive £7,668.64 a month - which she pays out her rent and an eye watering £2000 for child care a month when she works (ie she pays more out then she receives just to work).

I know this person personally and she has sent me the screenshot so I know it’s true, but that is unsustainable and she doesn’t strike me as being in a particularly unusual or complex situation. I’m not suggesting the claim process is easy, I don’t believe it is, my concern is the sheer size of the claim and the lack of any sort of control or someone thinking “oh that’s a bit much”.

She was saying she is in groups where people have 5 kids with diagnosis. I’m all for them having all the support they need but if I was the government I’d be taking a long hard look at tapering the claim value for families with two or more kids having a diagnosis. I’d additionally take a long hard look at the cost of childcare because it makes no sense for someone to pay £2000 out to earn £1600 so they’ll stay at home rather than work - my solution would be a huge increase in state run childcare provision and the government are trying on child care and that is to their credit (but as always you have to invest first to receive benefit later which we know is a really hard sell to Reeves right now).

It’s all a bit of a pickle really.

 

[hilts]

I haven’t lost interest in politics. I’ve lost interest in debating politics with people on social media that debate politics to get a rise out of their opponents.

Nice catch 22 you got yourself into when you flounced

Can't post on topic because you said it was pointless(again and again and aga...)

Can't stay away because of your narcissistic tendencies.

Well done turning into the Bluemoon bore.

Until next time

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I haven’t lost interest in politics. I’ve lost interest in debating politics with people on social media that debate politics to get a rise out of their opponents.

Yes still you post to tell us how you have lost interest in posting? Is this not just weird attention seeking ?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Yes still you post to tell us how you have lost interest in posting? Is this not just weird attention seeking ?

Sigh. It is if you have a binary outlook.

Like most reactions on here, nuance is dead. Everything is about discrediting anything that isn’t agreed with.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Some good news (sort of) this morning.

The new 1 in 1 out deal with France - they send us 1 asylum seeker for every 1 boat crossing person we return, is actually a big step forward.

You might imagine a 1 for 1 swap won't reduce numbers, but of course it will, since people will be much less likely to attempt a boat crossing knowing they will simply be sent back again.

There's 2 reasons it's not great. First, the 1 we do have to take is someone likely to be eligible for asylum. The 1 coming in on a boat is likely not. So whilst the boat crossing numbers might fall, we could in theory deport most if not all those currently illegally arriving by boat. In the new system, we will be taking people we can't deport.

So the new regime is better than the current reality - that currently we don't send anyone back. But worse than the current theory whereby we should already be able to send everyone back.

The other bad thing (for me) is that it perhaps makes people less likely to vote Reform. Illegal boat crossing numbers are likely to fall, reducing the political noise over migration - Reform's key campaigning issue.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Sigh. It is if you have a binary outlook.

Like most reactions on here, nuance is dead. Everything is about discrediting anything that isn’t agreed with.

Mate, you repeatedly post on the politics thread telling everyone else that it is pointless to do so? Can you not even see the irony? Its looking pretty desperate. If you dont like posting fair enough, then you should stop, but you should also stop telling others what to do? Has it not occurred to you that people enjoy discussing politics on here, even tho you dont?

I'm expecting you next to repeatedly tell everyone you're going to stop posting?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Sigh. It is if you have a binary outlook.

Like most reactions on here, nuance is dead. Everything is about discrediting anything that isn’t agreed with.

Rubbish. You're talking shite ;-)

 

[west didsblue]

The problem, as I see it, with welfare is there are parts that are not means tested so the amount payable can be quite high. There are a set of benefits that are subject to the benefit cap - which effectively is no one on benefits can receive more than the average wage (albeit the cap seems to be the gross rather than net amount).

There are then other well meaning benefits that don’t have caps and not means tested - take the scenario of having a child on the spectrum (and I’m not an expert in this section so forgive in advance any clumsy language) with a diagnosis of ADHD and autism- you can get about a grand in additional payment. The logic being that having such a child limits your ability to work as you need to look after them - I get the logic, so far so good. You then claim for another child with a similar diagnosis and you get the same money again on top of- I accept you may need to work a bit less but I don’t understand the logic that you would still get the full element designed to help support you needing to work less. Add a third and so on and so forth - there are only so many hours you can give up working!!! None of this is capped or means tested and let’s be honest these days no kid is just a naughty **** like when we were young they’ve got to have a “condition”.

So here is a genuine example of a single mum, 3 kids, one just recently diagnosed with Tourette’s and the other autistic. Both kids are likely going to be fully functioning adults albeit with fairly low paid jobs but the eldest won’t cope with secondary school so I’m not saying there isn’t a genuine issue here. The mother works part time and brings home £1600 a month. Additionally receives £450 from absent father.

She has put all her details in to a claims calculator and it calculates that she will get £5,618.64 per month plus on top she will get her £1,600 wages and the £450. If she earns more her claim goes down for that month accordingly so effectively she is guaranteed to receive £7,668.64 a month - which she pays out her rent and an eye watering £2000 for child care a month when she works (ie she pays more out then she receives just to work).

I know this person personally and she has sent me the screenshot so I know it’s true, but that is unsustainable and she doesn’t strike me as being in a particularly unusual or complex situation. I’m not suggesting the claim process is easy, I don’t believe it is, my concern is the sheer size of the claim and the lack of any sort of control or someone thinking “oh that’s a bit much”.

She was saying she is in groups where people have 5 kids with diagnosis. I’m all for them having all the support they need but if I was the government I’d be taking a long hard look at tapering the claim value for families with two or more kids having a diagnosis. I’d additionally take a long hard look at the cost of childcare because it makes no sense for someone to pay £2000 out to earn £1600 so they’ll stay at home rather than work - my solution would be a huge increase in state run childcare provision and the government are trying on child care and that is to their credit (but as always you have to invest first to receive benefit later which we know is a really hard sell to Reeves right now).

It’s all a bit of a pickle really.

£92k per year net?
Equivalent to one person on around £140k paying income tax and NI?
Surely not.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Mate, you repeatedly post on the politics thread telling everyone else that it is pointless to do so? Can you not even see the irony? Its looking pretty desperate. If you dont like posting fair enough, then you should stop, but you should also stop telling others what to do? Has it not occurred to you that people enjoy discussing politics on here, even tho you dont?

I'm expecting you next to repeatedly tell everyone you're going to stop posting?

Why would I do that? I post when the insults ramp up, showing that the thread is futile. It’s just a thread that goes round in circles saucing the same stuff until someone gets personal and attacks other posters.

 

[metalblue]

£92k per year net?
Equivalent to one person on around £140k paying income tax and NI?
Surely not.

It’s true mate. Now this is her predicted claim and she is waiting the formal confirmation of her daughter’s diagnosis before applying.

As I said she doesn’t strike me as having a particular unusual situation. Her kids aren’t severely disabled or anything remotely like that that would make you think “ok a bit lumpy but fair enough” (given how few families are in this situation). I think there are, what?, over 600k of kids getting EHCP and I believe she doesn’t even qualify for that because they aren’t “that bad” (forgive the clumsy language).

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Some good news (sort of) this morning.

The new 1 in 1 out deal with France - they send us 1 asylum seeker for every 1 boat crossing person we return, is actually a big step forward.

You might imagine a 1 for 1 swap won't reduce numbers, but of course it will, since people will be much less likely to attempt a boat crossing knowing they will simply be sent back again.

There's 2 reasons it's not great. First, the 1 we do have to take is someone likely to be eligible for asylum. The 1 coming in on a boat is likely not. So whilst the boat crossing numbers might fall, we could in theory deport most if not all those currently illegally arriving by boat. In the new system, we will be taking people we can't deport.

So the new regime is better than the current reality - that currently we don't send anyone back. But worse than the current theory whereby we should already be able to send everyone back.

The other bad thing (for me) is that it perhaps makes people less likely to vote Reform. Illegal boat crossing numbers are likely to fall, reducing the political noise over migration - Reform's key campaigning issue.

Just listened to Healey the defence secretary on this morning, he sounded as if he didn't have a clue about how to stop the boat crossings? He bizarely actually thinks the French Police are now going to stop the boats crossing.

Pretty obvious that you stop the incentives, you crack down really hard on employers who use cheap black market labour. Make an example of them, by locking them up for three years. We can do this for other reasons.

You house asylum seekers in fenced camps with tents. Yes just like Glastonbury ! Its not illegal to do so before people say it is?

You stop giving people money and free prescriptions and make sure they have to wait at the back of the queue like everyone else for NHS health care, not bring in private doctors to treat them.

Keep them secure and stop them from working and absconding, feed them, give them shelter and warmth and ensure they are safe and have health care which is no better than everyone else in the UK. But that's it, nothing more.

 

[metalblue]

Some good news (sort of) this morning.

The new 1 in 1 out deal with France - they send us 1 asylum seeker for every 1 boat crossing person we return, is actually a big step forward.

You might imagine a 1 for 1 swap won't reduce numbers, but of course it will, since people will be much less likely to attempt a boat crossing knowing they will simply be sent back again.

There's 2 reasons it's not great. First, the 1 we do have to take is someone likely to be eligible for asylum. The 1 coming in on a boat is likely not. So whilst the boat crossing numbers might fall, we could in theory deport most if not all those currently illegally arriving by boat. In the new system, we will be taking people we can't deport.

So the new regime is better than the current reality - that currently we don't send anyone back. But worse than the current theory whereby we should already be able to send everyone back.

The other bad thing (for me) is that it perhaps makes people less likely to vote Reform. Illegal boat crossing numbers are likely to fall, reducing the political noise over migration - Reform's key campaigning issue.

Now we’re talking to the French again instead of shouting and pointing fingers at them wouldn’t the simple solution be to setup a processing centre in the camps - those accepted come in as legal migrants, working from the start etc etc.

Anyone denied is sent back to origin.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Mate, you repeatedly post on the politics thread telling everyone else that it is pointless to do so? Can you not even see the irony? Its looking pretty desperate. If you dont like posting fair enough, then you should stop, but you should also stop telling others what to do? Has it not occurred to you that people enjoy discussing politics on here, even tho you dont?

I'm expecting you next to repeatedly tell everyone you're going to stop posting?

Agree particularly about the enjoy discussing bit. I like the banter and "robust" debate.

I don't do social media apart from BM really, and one of the things I actually like about it is that Ric allows a good deal of abuse! Sure I get called a **** from time to time and probably get a bit shirty about it at the time, but really I don't mind. I have my views and like to express them and when people call me a tosser then fair enough.

I also bear no animosity to any posters on here. It's all a bit of fun. Some of you lot behave like right dickheads on here I think, but at the end of the day there's no-one I wouldn't enjoy a pint with. We are all Blues at the end of the day.

 

[BridgyDids]

Some good news (sort of) this morning.

The new 1 in 1 out deal with France - they send us 1 asylum seeker for every 1 boat crossing person we return, is actually a big step forward.

You might imagine a 1 for 1 swap won't reduce numbers, but of course it will, since people will be much less likely to attempt a boat crossing knowing they will simply be sent back again.

There's 2 reasons it's not great. First, the 1 we do have to take is someone likely to be eligible for asylum. The 1 coming in on a boat is likely not. So whilst the boat crossing numbers might fall, we could in theory deport most if not all those currently illegally arriving by boat. In the new system, we will be taking people we can't deport.

So the new regime is better than the current reality - that currently we don't send anyone back. But worse than the current theory whereby we should already be able to send everyone back.

The other bad thing (for me) is that it perhaps makes people less likely to vote Reform. Illegal boat crossing numbers are likely to fall, reducing the political noise over migration - Reform's key campaigning issue.

So the answer to the Reform agenda (which in your words would make people less likely to vote Reform) is to work in cooperation with our European neighbours?

Well, this is a riddle within a puzzle.

What stopped that happening until recently?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Why would I do that? I post when the insults ramp up, showing that the thread is futile. It’s just a thread that goes round in circles saucing the same stuff until someone gets personal and attacks other posters.

Not everyone does that? And you're not the thread policeman, although at times you come across as if you think you are.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Now we’re talking to the French again instead of shouting and pointing fingers at them wouldn’t the simple solution be to setup a processing centre in the camps - those accepted come in as legal migrants, working from the start etc etc.

Anyone denied is sent back to origin.

Would it work though? If the thousands hanging around in France thought there was a reasonable chance they'd be deported (where to, is another question) then maybe they'd just bugger off to Belgium, or the Netherlands or wherever? Schenghen was such a ridiculous idea in practice. Nice in theory to be able to travel around Europe unrestricted, but in practice and unworkable can of worms with respect to illegals.

 

[Chippy_boy]

So the answer to the Reform agenda (which in your words would make people less likely to vote Reform) is to work in cooperation with our European neighbours?

Well, this is a riddle within a puzzle.

What stopped that happening until recently?

Good question. But something clearly changed. You will probably argue it's because Starmer has improved relations so much (hurrah, well done Keith). My suspicion is that he probably has but at what cost. Like off the record agreement to the Youth Mobiliy scheme etc.

Remember Keith is on record saying something along the lines that he'd like to take UK-EU integration so far that no-one will be able to tell we'd had Brexit. How democratic of him. Not.

 

[stonerblue]

The problem, as I see it, with welfare is there are parts that are not means tested so the amount payable can be quite high. There are a set of benefits that are subject to the benefit cap - which effectively is no one on benefits can receive more than the average wage (albeit the cap seems to be the gross rather than net amount).

There are then other well meaning benefits that don’t have caps and not means tested - take the scenario of having a child on the spectrum (and I’m not an expert in this section so forgive in advance any clumsy language) with a diagnosis of ADHD and autism- you can get about a grand in additional payment. The logic being that having such a child limits your ability to work as you need to look after them - I get the logic, so far so good. You then claim for another child with a similar diagnosis and you get the same money again on top of- I accept you may need to work a bit less but I don’t understand the logic that you would still get the full element designed to help support you needing to work less. Add a third and so on and so forth - there are only so many hours you can give up working!!! None of this is capped or means tested and let’s be honest these days no kid is just a naughty **** like when we were young they’ve got to have a “condition”.

So here is a genuine example of a single mum, 3 kids, one just recently diagnosed with Tourette’s and the other autistic. Both kids are likely going to be fully functioning adults albeit with fairly low paid jobs but the eldest won’t cope with secondary school so I’m not saying there isn’t a genuine issue here. The mother works part time and brings home £1600 a month. Additionally receives £450 from absent father.

She has put all her details in to a claims calculator and it calculates that she will get £5,618.64 per month plus on top she will get her £1,600 wages and the £450. If she earns more her claim goes down for that month accordingly so effectively she is guaranteed to receive £7,668.64 a month - which she pays out her rent and an eye watering £2000 for child care a month when she works (ie she pays more out then she receives just to work).

I know this person personally and she has sent me the screenshot so I know it’s true, but that is unsustainable and she doesn’t strike me as being in a particularly unusual or complex situation. I’m not suggesting the claim process is easy, I don’t believe it is, my concern is the sheer size of the claim and the lack of any sort of control or someone thinking “oh that’s a bit much”.

She was saying she is in groups where people have 5 kids with diagnosis. I’m all for them having all the support they need but if I was the government I’d be taking a long hard look at tapering the claim value for families with two or more kids having a diagnosis. I’d additionally take a long hard look at the cost of childcare because it makes no sense for someone to pay £2000 out to earn £1600 so they’ll stay at home rather than work - my solution would be a huge increase in state run childcare provision and the government are trying on child care and that is to their credit (but as always you have to invest first to receive benefit later which we know is a really hard sell to Reeves right now).

It’s all a bit of a pickle really.

Free child care has to be the way to get parents back into work.

 

[M18CTID]

It’s true mate. Now this is her predicted claim and she is waiting the formal confirmation of her daughter’s diagnosis before applying.

As I said she doesn’t strike me as having a particular unusual situation. Her kids aren’t severely disabled or anything remotely like that that would make you think “ok a bit lumpy but fair enough” (given how few families are in this situation). I think there are, what?, over 600k of kids getting EHCP and I believe she doesn’t even qualify for that because they aren’t “that bad” (forgive the clumsy language).

If that's true then it's pretty mad really. I'm in no way disputing that this person is entitled to apply for those benefits and is clearly not one would class as a benefit cheat, but as you say it probably needs tapering off somewhere. Those child care costs are ridiculous as well.

The whole benefits system is clearly very complex and does need an overhaul but it needs to be done without harming those who genuinely need help. I've got my own criticisms of it due to my other half and the 2 occasions she's applied for PIP. The first time was in the wake of a failed operation at Tameside hospital in 2010. This was supposed to be a very simple procedure but it left her with chronic abdominal pain and she's now on medication for it for the rest of her life. She lost her job at Asda a couple of years later due to not being able to go in some days when there were flare ups. She applied for PIP shortly after losing her job and she got knocked back because they believed she was still mobile enough to carry out everyday tasks, etc. There was no consideration that her condition was not really visible from the outside.

10 years afer that fuck-up, she suffered a brain haemorrhage and spent 9 days in Salford Royal. It happened while she was driving as well. I couldn't go to see her as it was during Covid. Anyway, she's suffering the effects of it to this day and will do for the rest of her life - fatigue, headaches, tinnitus, etc. So she was advised by one doctor to apply for PIP. I thought surely this time she'll be successful but no, how wrong I was. It was a phone consultation and the girl was talking to her like she was my other half's best mate. And because she told her that she's still fit enough to get out of the house on good days, they knocked her back. Apparently, because she can sometimes get out to attend a Tai Chi session then she's not entitled to it. I did tell her afterwards that she shouldn't have mentioned the Tai Chi as they'll look for any excuse not to award it but from what I could gather, even if she can get up and make a brew then that goes against her as well. The impression I got was that while she should be entitled to PIP, she'd only have a chance of getting it if she told them what things are like on her worst days and not on her better days.

Not only that, she's not entitled to any other benefits either apart from the £80 a week carer's allowance she gets for her dad. The reason that she's not entitled to anything else is because she lives with me and as I work full-time, my wages are supposed to cover us both. I wouldn't mind but while I'm on a reasonable wage, I'm still a basic rate taxpayer and since she's been unable to work since 2012, it's plunged me thousands of pounds into debt in order to keep a roof over our heads.