[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24834558Abolition of living fun – illegal[/url.

So what do you suppose they do? In the example you provide above. Three single mothers of young children. What do they do now?

Well yes, poor people do have the right to legal representation. Its called justice for all.

Given the proposed restrictions to legal aid and judicial reviews, you have to wonder how much longer justice will be available to those who cannot afford it?

You really should sort your own spelling and grammar, before calling other people out as thick.

Take the cut like everyone else is going to have to.

People are going to have to start living responsibly, within their own means, and not just using the state as a cash-cow.

You would have to earn somewhere in the region of £35K before you can put £500 p/w in your pocket as net income. One of these mothers has 6 (yes, 6) kids. Benefits should be there to support the most needy, not to encourage people to turn themselves into baby-making factories.



Increasingly, you will find they don't. Legal Aid has pretty much gone for everything except crime, dental negligence (bizarrely) and matters of public policy (like this one).

Quote ="The Video Ref"Take the cut like everyone else is going to have to. People are going to have to start living responsibly, within their own means, and not just using the state as a cash-cow. You would have to earn somewhere in the region of £35K before you can put £500 p/w in your pocket as net income. One of these mothers has 6 (yes, 6) kids. Benefits should be there to support the most needy, not to encourage people to turn themselves into baby-making factories. Increasingly, you will find they don't. Legal Aid has pretty much gone for everything except crime, dental negligence (bizarrely) and matters of public policy (like this one).'" You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

Quote ="The Video Ref"Take the cut like everyone else is going to have to. People are going to have to start living responsibly, within their own means, and not just using the state as a cash-cow. You would have to earn somewhere in the region of £35K before you can put £500 p/w in your pocket as net income. One of these mothers has 6 (yes, 6) kids. Benefits should be there to support the most needy, not to encourage people to turn themselves into baby-making factories. Increasingly, you will find they don't. Legal Aid has pretty much gone for everything except crime, dental negligence (bizarrely) and matters of public policy (like this one).'" You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

Daily Mail Editorial alert!

How many of the kids did she have befeore having to go on benefits?

How much of a "cut" are you taking if "everyone" has to?

Not sure...the one with 6 kids is from Romania, apparently.



If you really want to make this personal:

A substantial one. I work for HMG and our pension scheme has just been entirely rewritten. I am probably going to have to work for 3 years longer than I had planned, and I will receive far less when I eventually do retire.

"Everyone" isn't.



Will that mean the state is going to stop subsidising big business, then?

Quote ="Hull White Star"You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths'" That's great. Left-leaning newspaper produces article based on study by left-leaning think-tank.

Quote ="Hull White Star"You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths'" That's great. Left-leaning newspaper produces article based on study by left-leaning think-tank.

Quote ="Hull White Star"You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths'" Link doesn't work? To turn the argument around, why [ishould[/i the State pay more in welfare than people who go out and earn it (on average)? I must admit to being particularly unsympathetic to someone who claims they can't survive on £500 per week of welfare, given that if I was out of work as a single male I'd be entitled to £75pw (I just worked it out on the Gov UK website) of welfare.

Quote ="Hull White Star"You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths'" Link doesn't work? To turn the argument around, why [ishould[/i the State pay more in welfare than people who go out and earn it (on average)? I must admit to being particularly unsympathetic to someone who claims they can't survive on £500 per week of welfare, given that if I was out of work as a single male I'd be entitled to £75pw (I just worked it out on the Gov UK website) of welfare.

VR & Ajw should read this:- www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866 and be ashamed of whats happening. Sanctioned for doing a college course to further your career prospects and therefore not being available to look for work? [iThe new regulations - which mean a minimum four-weeks without JSA for anyone deemed to have breached them - are designed to help those without a job, according to the DWP. "This is absolutely not about saving money or punishing people," the spokesman says. "Our role is to help people into work."[/i So how is witholding money which means these people have absolutely no income to eat let alone go out and look for jobs supposed to "help people into work"? And how is it not [ipunishing[/i people? According to the dictionary a punishment is a penalty imposed for wrong doing. If taking away the benefit (penalty imposed) for wrong doing (not abiding by their so called rules) isn't a punishment then I don't know what is. More lies from IDS' mouthpiece that is the DWP.

VR & Ajw should read this:- www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866 and be ashamed of whats happening. Sanctioned for doing a college course to further your career prospects and therefore not being available to look for work? [iThe new regulations - which mean a minimum four-weeks without JSA for anyone deemed to have breached them - are designed to help those without a job, according to the DWP. "This is absolutely not about saving money or punishing people," the spokesman says. "Our role is to help people into work."[/i So how is witholding money which means these people have absolutely no income to eat let alone go out and look for jobs supposed to "help people into work"? And how is it not [ipunishing[/i people? According to the dictionary a punishment is a penalty imposed for wrong doing. If taking away the benefit (penalty imposed) for wrong doing (not abiding by their so called rules) isn't a punishment then I don't know what is. More lies from IDS' mouthpiece that is the DWP.

Has it not occured to you (or anyone for that matter) that these people don't get £500 in crisp £50 notes every week? Most of that is made up of housing benefit which goes to the landlords.

Quote ="Hull White Star"VR & Ajw should read this:- www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866 and be ashamed of whats happening. Sanctioned for doing a college course to further your career prospects and therefore not being available to look for work? [iThe new regulations - which mean a minimum four-weeks without JSA for anyone deemed to have breached them - are designed to help those without a job, according to the DWP. "This is absolutely not about saving money or punishing people," the spokesman says. "Our role is to help people into work."[/i So how is witholding money which means these people have absolutely no income to eat let alone go out and look for jobs supposed to "help people into work"? And how is it not [ipunishing[/i people? According to the dictionary a punishment is a penalty imposed for wrong doing. If taking away the benefit (penalty imposed) for wrong doing (not abiding by their so called rules) isn't a punishment then I don't know what is. More lies from IDS' mouthpiece that is the DWP.'" Indeed. The jobcentre in York has recently started making the long term unemployed go in to the jobcentre every day. Regardless of any part time work they may have. So they've either lost the part time jobs they had or have stopped claiming JSA. I don't think anyone has a problem with there being a punishment aspect for people who don't do enough to get a job, but it's how it's being applied that's the problem. A 4 week punishment is too much for a minimum sanction and the abolition of rapid-reclaim is pure madness amongst several other barmy aspects of JSA and JobCentres.

Quote ="Hull White Star"VR & Ajw should read this:- www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866 and be ashamed of whats happening. Sanctioned for doing a college course to further your career prospects and therefore not being available to look for work? [iThe new regulations - which mean a minimum four-weeks without JSA for anyone deemed to have breached them - are designed to help those without a job, according to the DWP. "This is absolutely not about saving money or punishing people," the spokesman says. "Our role is to help people into work."[/i So how is witholding money which means these people have absolutely no income to eat let alone go out and look for jobs supposed to "help people into work"? And how is it not [ipunishing[/i people? According to the dictionary a punishment is a penalty imposed for wrong doing. If taking away the benefit (penalty imposed) for wrong doing (not abiding by their so called rules) isn't a punishment then I don't know what is. More lies from IDS' mouthpiece that is the DWP.'" Indeed. The jobcentre in York has recently started making the long term unemployed go in to the jobcentre every day. Regardless of any part time work they may have. So they've either lost the part time jobs they had or have stopped claiming JSA. I don't think anyone has a problem with there being a punishment aspect for people who don't do enough to get a job, but it's how it's being applied that's the problem. A 4 week punishment is too much for a minimum sanction and the abolition of rapid-reclaim is pure madness amongst several other barmy aspects of JSA and JobCentres.

Has it not occured to you that most people who work hand over a considerable number of £50 notes to their landlord or mortgage provider each month?

And 80-odd per cent of those in receipt of housing benefit are in work. But hey! Let's deal with the housing shortage by the state stumping up cash to give to private companies/individuals as grants to buy houses of up to £600k, and looking almost like a plan to create a specific plan to cause another bubble and another crash, and continue to consider actually creating affordable housing as being 'bad'.

But hey – you appear to be convinced that we really are 'all in it together'.

Except of course those at the top who have had a tax cut to complement there rising pay.

In what way do you expect them to ‘take the cut’? you have to pay for your rent, you have to pay for food and clothing the kids. What exactly are you expecting them to ‘cut’?

Why did you need to emphasise that someone had six kids? Am I supposed to be shocked by that? Am I supposed to think kids this person isn’t worthy of so many kids? What?

pretty sad indictment of the selfish nature of this government really.

And has it not occured to you that these people may have worked just as hard and handed over a number of £50 notes to their landlord or mortgage provider before they became redundant or ill?

The state needs to pay out welfare that is enough for people to be housed, not starve and provide something more than a hand to mouth existence i.e. we don't want a return to the work house do we?

If they don't do that just because there are people in work who earn less doesn't mean the amount of benefit paid is too high. It means wages are too low.

[uIf[/u the amount required prevent a return to the workhouse is more then the "average wage" then:

1. Those on average wages will need to claim benefits themselves or they clearly won't have enough to live on.
2. The "average wage" is not enough meet the cost of living in this country or at least in certain parts of it.
3. The state (i.e. the taxpayer) is subsidising a low wage economy.



The biggest cost of the welfare state (excluding state pensions) is housing benefit. Most of the people who get this amount of money never see it. It goes straight to the landlord.

The fact more welfare is spent on those in work to top up low wages than the unemployed goes to show we ARE subsidising a low wage economy.

Do you think landlords are going to reduce rents because their tenants have suddenly had their benefits capped?

A cap on benefit is a crude method designed to appeal to the Daily Mail brigade and solves nothing. It can even cost the state money elsewhere as councils have to start housing people thrown out of private accommodation and it can mean people who were working but in receipt of benefit become unemployed as they can't live close enough to work anymore. I am sure health issues arise as people skimp on heating their homes and even food costing the NHS more.

Drive people into poverty and that is what you get.

The stance taken by government attacks the problem from the wrong end. Reduce the cost of living (rents mainly) and/or do things like have employers pay the living wage and the problem of a large benefit bill simply goes away.

That [iwas[/i unusually bad grammar on my part. I am sure you got the point though.

Yes, we both know I did.

Quote ="DaveO"The state needs to pay out welfare that is enough for people to be housed, not starve and provide something more than a hand to mouth existence i.e. we don't want a return to the work house do we?'" Does it really [ineed[/i to? Welfare should be (and was originally designed as) a safety net to help people who had hit rock bottom. It should not be a lifestyle choice. Quote If they don't do that just because there are people in work who earn less doesn't mean the amount of benefit paid is too high. It means wages are too low.'" Wages are, generally speaking, set by market supply and demand, both of labour and goods. A 'false' increase in wages would probably put too much money into the economy and fuel inflation. In order to curtail it, interest rates would have to rise substantially, people would not be able to afford their mortgages, and we know the rest... Quote The biggest cost of the welfare state (excluding state pensions) is housing benefit. Most of the people who get this amount of money never see it. It goes straight to the landlord. '" Just because they never see it, does not mean that we can discount it as a financial benefit they receive. I pay around £200 a month to the Student Loans Company. I never see that money in my pay packet, other than as a line in my pay advice telling me the money has been paid to the SLC, but it is still classed as part of my salary. I cannot then approach my employer and argue they did not pay me that £200 because it was paid to someone else on my behalf. Which, I think, is the argument you are trying to make. Quote Do you think landlords are going to reduce rents because their tenants have suddenly had their benefits capped? '" Ironically, the market may force them to, if no-one is allowed to claim more than £500 a week. Quote A cap on benefit is a crude method designed to appeal to the Daily Mail brigade and solves nothing. '" Perhaps. But is also enjoys huge public support. See below: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/publ ... rk-or-move Quote The stance taken by government attacks the problem from the wrong end. Reduce the cost of living (rents mainly) and/or do things like have employers pay the living wage and the problem of a large benefit bill simply goes away.'" I would love to try and reduce the cost of living, particularly housing. I am looking at buying a house at the moment. Prices in some areas are artificially high because many properties have been snapped up by buy-to-let investors, meaning there are no reasonably priced properties for people who actually want to put down roots in the area. Ironically, the flip side of this coin is that the huge oversupply of rental properties on the market (again, in some areas) has resulted in landlords reducing rent to compete to get tenants.

Quote ="DaveO"The state needs to pay out welfare that is enough for people to be housed, not starve and provide something more than a hand to mouth existence i.e. we don't want a return to the work house do we?'" Does it really [ineed[/i to? Welfare should be (and was originally designed as) a safety net to help people who had hit rock bottom. It should not be a lifestyle choice. Quote If they don't do that just because there are people in work who earn less doesn't mean the amount of benefit paid is too high. It means wages are too low.'" Wages are, generally speaking, set by market supply and demand, both of labour and goods. A 'false' increase in wages would probably put too much money into the economy and fuel inflation. In order to curtail it, interest rates would have to rise substantially, people would not be able to afford their mortgages, and we know the rest... Quote The biggest cost of the welfare state (excluding state pensions) is housing benefit. Most of the people who get this amount of money never see it. It goes straight to the landlord. '" Just because they never see it, does not mean that we can discount it as a financial benefit they receive. I pay around £200 a month to the Student Loans Company. I never see that money in my pay packet, other than as a line in my pay advice telling me the money has been paid to the SLC, but it is still classed as part of my salary. I cannot then approach my employer and argue they did not pay me that £200 because it was paid to someone else on my behalf. Which, I think, is the argument you are trying to make. Quote Do you think landlords are going to reduce rents because their tenants have suddenly had their benefits capped? '" Ironically, the market may force them to, if no-one is allowed to claim more than £500 a week. Quote A cap on benefit is a crude method designed to appeal to the Daily Mail brigade and solves nothing. '" Perhaps. But is also enjoys huge public support. See below: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/publ ... rk-or-move Quote The stance taken by government attacks the problem from the wrong end. Reduce the cost of living (rents mainly) and/or do things like have employers pay the living wage and the problem of a large benefit bill simply goes away.'" I would love to try and reduce the cost of living, particularly housing. I am looking at buying a house at the moment. Prices in some areas are artificially high because many properties have been snapped up by buy-to-let investors, meaning there are no reasonably priced properties for people who actually want to put down roots in the area. Ironically, the flip side of this coin is that the huge oversupply of rental properties on the market (again, in some areas) has resulted in landlords reducing rent to compete to get tenants.

"Lifestyle choice"?

Apart from in the vivid imaginations of frothing Dally Wail and Torygraqph readers, how many benefit claimants do you really think view welfare dependency as a "lifestyle choice"?

In an experience dealing with them every day, I'd say 30%+

Or 'under two thirds'.

By gum, even assuming you're correct, that doesn't bear out the government lies.