He won't back it up Minty because he can't. In his own words when we met in July "don't take any notice what I write on the message board, I just like to wind people up".

I guess he thought yesterday was my turn to be wound up, but it didn't work, again in his words peoples problem is thinking that a few random peoples opinion on line matters", so I took his own advice, his opinion of me is of no matter to me either.

So, Standee reckons that 30%+ are on the fiddle.
Does that justify penalising the other 70%?

We hear the same argument about the unemployed, who can all get a job "if they really want to", despite the number of vacancies being about a fifth of the number of people out of work.

What we don't get is honesty.
If these critics were honest they'd admit that they simply don't feel any conscience towards helping their fellow man.

If Thatcher's Britain was the "me" society, what we are seeing now is the "Why should I" society.

Hello Marie.
Yah Boo to you too.

Quote ="The Video Ref"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. '" I said "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." How is that anything other than a safety net? Why would anyone choose to live like that? Quote 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...'" Your comments fails to address the point I made. The cost of living is what it is and if benefit levels and the wages of some people don't meet it then either the cost of living is too high or benefits and wages are too low. You seem to be suggesting that if market forces set wages at a certain level ( and with benefits set in relation to wages) and that means they aren't enough to meet the cost of living that is tough luck and people should go hungry. What other conclusion should I draw from your comments above? I'd also say if market forces are driving wages down as has happened (for all those bar the top few %) and living costs up the market isn't working and it needs regulating. This is the basis of Ed M's argument about an energy price cap and sorting out the energy market while the cap is in place. Quote 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.'" Not it's not. The argument the Daily Mail is making is that people have £500 a week cash in their hand or at least they want to give that impression. They ignore the fact they never see it and ignore the reasons why the amount of housing benefit is so high. The scandal is [uhow much it costs the state to fund housing benefit[/u not that these people get it. Your student loan is a poor analogy anyway. Under the post 2012 regime you would cease paying it if unemployed. Quote Ironically, the market may force them to, if no-one is allowed to claim more than £500 a week. '" I seriously doubt it. The shortage of housing (your favoured supply and demand argument) will keep rents high. In any case rents are too high (as are house prices), period, and this is a problem for our economy as a whole and one engineered solely but this government. If they think rents are going to fall because of a benefits cap they are living in cloud cuckoo land IMO. I'd expect instead to see an increase in homelessness and councils having to put people up in B&B's with rents staying high. Quote Perhaps. But is also enjoys huge public support. See below: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/publ ... rk-or-move'" I will guarantee you all those who do have never found themselves in the situation that would force the same on them. This is why I consider them (and those who hold similar views) stupid and ignorant. It would do a lot of people good to experience a period of unemployment and to have to deal with the ludicrous workfare impositions now placed upon them. They would soon change their tune and would question why after having paid into the welfare state (for many years in some cases) it's basically vanished when they need to call on it. Quote 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.'" Prices are artificially high because of the governments help to buy scheme as well. Our puny economic recovery is being based on a debt bubble and service industries once again (exactly what Osborne said was the wrong thing to be doing in 2010). As to the over supply of BTL properties the fact the housing benefit bill is so high says that overall BTL landlords are still coining it at the taxpayers expense despite any localised over supply in some areas.

Quote ="The Video Ref"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. '" I said "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." How is that anything other than a safety net? Why would anyone choose to live like that? Quote 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...'" Your comments fails to address the point I made. The cost of living is what it is and if benefit levels and the wages of some people don't meet it then either the cost of living is too high or benefits and wages are too low. You seem to be suggesting that if market forces set wages at a certain level ( and with benefits set in relation to wages) and that means they aren't enough to meet the cost of living that is tough luck and people should go hungry. What other conclusion should I draw from your comments above? I'd also say if market forces are driving wages down as has happened (for all those bar the top few %) and living costs up the market isn't working and it needs regulating. This is the basis of Ed M's argument about an energy price cap and sorting out the energy market while the cap is in place. Quote 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.'" Not it's not. The argument the Daily Mail is making is that people have £500 a week cash in their hand or at least they want to give that impression. They ignore the fact they never see it and ignore the reasons why the amount of housing benefit is so high. The scandal is [uhow much it costs the state to fund housing benefit[/u not that these people get it. Your student loan is a poor analogy anyway. Under the post 2012 regime you would cease paying it if unemployed. Quote Ironically, the market may force them to, if no-one is allowed to claim more than £500 a week. '" I seriously doubt it. The shortage of housing (your favoured supply and demand argument) will keep rents high. In any case rents are too high (as are house prices), period, and this is a problem for our economy as a whole and one engineered solely but this government. If they think rents are going to fall because of a benefits cap they are living in cloud cuckoo land IMO. I'd expect instead to see an increase in homelessness and councils having to put people up in B&B's with rents staying high. Quote Perhaps. But is also enjoys huge public support. See below: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/publ ... rk-or-move'" I will guarantee you all those who do have never found themselves in the situation that would force the same on them. This is why I consider them (and those who hold similar views) stupid and ignorant. It would do a lot of people good to experience a period of unemployment and to have to deal with the ludicrous workfare impositions now placed upon them. They would soon change their tune and would question why after having paid into the welfare state (for many years in some cases) it's basically vanished when they need to call on it. Quote 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.'" Prices are artificially high because of the governments help to buy scheme as well. Our puny economic recovery is being based on a debt bubble and service industries once again (exactly what Osborne said was the wrong thing to be doing in 2010). As to the over supply of BTL properties the fact the housing benefit bill is so high says that overall BTL landlords are still coining it at the taxpayers expense despite any localised over supply in some areas.

Quote ="WIZEB"While were discussing benefits it's becoming transparently clear that IDS's flagship Universal Credit roll-out is an unmitigated disaster. No wonder there having to sanction so many claimants. Trying to recoup some of the financial black-hole he's created. T0sser with a capital T.'" This is what us benefit scroungers think of him:- diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspo ... y.html?m=1

Quote ="WIZEB"While were discussing benefits it's becoming transparently clear that IDS's flagship Universal Credit roll-out is an unmitigated disaster. No wonder there having to sanction so many claimants. Trying to recoup some of the financial black-hole he's created. T0sser with a capital T.'" This is what us benefit scroungers think of him:- diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspo ... y.html?m=1

Too lazy to get a job unfortunately.



Those who don't claim housing benefit and rent don't 'see it' either. It is probably paid by standing order each month.




Bonkers statement.



Please show me some facts to support this 'guarantee'. The old 'everyone who has a different opinion' to me is ignorant line - really?!



Breaking News: The Welfare state has vanished. The nasty government has abolished the welfare state. Must have missed this one in the news. Or are you grossly exaggerating?



'puny economic recovery' - you mean three consecutive quarters of growth, growth predicted at 1.3% in the final quarter of 2013 and the UK being the 'fastest growing Western economy' according to ICAEW.

You predicted zero growth? Please don't lecture us on the economy. You haven't a clue.

Boo!

Didn't frighten me this time.

Are the neo-libs and Tories really so desperate that they have to resort to peeps like Ajw71 to cheer lead for them?

Yes. Yes they are. And none of them can answer simple questions on their statements/views/posts. They just cry about abuse or how it's all so unfair and then disappear for a while...

And how many people do you consider fall into this category and why do you think those that don't should have to suffer alongside those who do? To keep you happy is not the right answer.



Those who don't claim housing benefit won't be getting £100's a week in benefit directly or indirectly . What don't you understand about the fact housing benefit is the biggest benefit cost?



You really are not very bright.

[url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f8c2d50-30f3-11e3-b478-00144feab7de.htmlIMF says Help to Buy risks inflating prices[/url

"The IMF first expressed reservations about Help to Buy in its annual health check of the British economy in May, but has now joined a chorus of economists attacking the scheme for raising prices and pumping up an already rising market rather than helping people get on to the housing ladder."

And as to rents what is happening under this government is as that bastion of Tory support the Daily Mail points out here:

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325971/Crippling-cost-rent-revealed-Costs-rising-nearly-FIVE-TIMES-faster-wages.htmlMonthly payments rising nearly FIVE TIMES faster than wages[/url

"Rents are rising nearly five times faster than wages in a toxic combination which is crippling millions of households, a report reveals today."

House prices are up fueled by government policy and rents are out of control. All on this governments watch. Who's fault is that? Benefit claimants as well?





It took me five minutes to find those links above and I purposely looked for ones from sources other than those you would dismiss such as the Guardian. Five minutes to educate myself on the reality of the situation yet we have people who agree with a crude cap on benefits because of Daily Mail spin. What other conclusion is there to draw other than ignorance when they allow their opinions to be dictated by spin in newspapers? It's either ignorance or stupidity and what you don't seem to understand is your continued posting of statements that look simply as if you have swallowed the same spin hook line and sinker just labels you personally as one or the other.



As I have paid into the welfare state for decades I would not expect to be told to go and work for Poundland for free to "earn" my benefits were I to find myself unemployed. I would not expect to have to attend the job centre daily to prove anything. I would not sit on my backside taking my £75 a week but would be seeking employment on a daily basis and the vast majority of those unemployed are the same. Yet despite this if I don't comply with workfare schemes etc I could lose benefits. So yes, the welfare state has vanished.



I am sorry but you really don't know what you are talking about. That prediction from a firm of accountants has been met with understandable derision by those living in the real world to whom figures like 0.8% or 1.3% are meaningless. People are already fed up of hearing it when at the same time wages continue to fall and prices rise.

What has your stock reply got to do with what I posted anyway? That the recovery such as it is being fueled by consumption (which increases debt when wages are falling as they are).

Here is another link:

[url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4be6ab7a-1977-11e3-afc2-00144feab7de.htmlUK gets wrong kind of economic recovery[/url

and there are plenty more. Read a few and educate yourself.

No need, I know I am right, if other people are not aware of chose not to agree then that is fair enough, that is their right in a democracy. These boards are full of socialist liberals who want anyone who achieves anything to shell out more and more for those "less fortunate" and refuse to admit that even SOME of those "less fortunate" are there because they are too damned lazy to do anything about it.

The country (in fact, the developed world) has worked in this cycle for as long as history exists, at some point the "working class" get sick of working and decide they want the "upper class" to shell out more for them, so we get a socialist government for a while, said socialist government spends,spends,spends until the cupboards are bare, they squeeze the very people that voted them in and everyone rebels and votes someone else in (admittedly, a blended someone else is a rarity), said someone else comes in and makes difficult decisions, makes cuts, encourages enterprise of those that can afford it, people get left behind, they get angry, they get envious, and the cycle starts again.

Look at Social Housing, Labour spent loads providing houses in questionably constructed (both in planning and physical terms), the Conservatives neglected those assets for years and actively hived off the stock where they could, the stock got so poor (and the people in it so disenfranchised) that they voted a socialist government in to "fix" it, millions were spent on a programme to repair the homes (and millions were spent on many other projects), until, again, the pot of money ran out, and then we started all over again.

Health, Education, Foreign, Defense, Housing and Environmental policy are way too important to be left to 5 year windows, we've built a system that has an inherent "blame the last lot" clause in it. Why is it organisations I work with are expected to have a 30 year business plan, yet Government (of all colours) can make it up as they go along?

Anyone who [ireally[/i understands welfare reform knows it was necessary, the fact it was royally messed up is the fault of politicians and civil servants (notice I say welfare reform and not Universal Credit, because Universal Credit is a great idea IF the welfare reform hadn't been such a mess). Don't get me wrong, UC isn't perfect, but that's because the Government (of all colous) never listen to the people who know how it SHOULD work, they listen to studies and researchers who've never experienced a Friday night rent knock on a flat in Govan, and been chased through the Estate by someone high on their drug of choice with a bottle full of lighter fluid and a lit rag. (by far and wide the exception to the rule I would add)

What sane person would give out a 5 year fixed term tenancy, paid monthly in advance, to someone on full housing benefit paid 4 weekly in arrears, on the anniversary date of their UC award, meaning that every single social landlord in England & Wales is at risk from major financial losses because of a lack of information and conformity. Exascerbated by the fact the person gets the cash in [itheir[/i pocket, regardless of their capacity to self-manage funds, in some cases, even when they have known mental illness.

talk about a business model set up to fail

Seeing as you stated that there are people who claim are unfit to work who post on these boards who can work, you obviously mean me, lets not beat around the bush here Martin. How could you possibly know my medical history? Where you at my ATOS medical? Have you read my Rheumatologists reports? Have you read the DWP decision makers notes? You know the answer to those questions, so how you could possible [iknow [/i you are right is beyond me other than a brief conversation we had in July when you saw me for about 5 minutes.

I don't care if you think I'm "faking", your opinion of me is of no relevance to me, to quote you in a pm to me. Instead of spouting it on an insignificant message board, report me to the DWP if you think I am faking, otherwise your opinions are meaningless.

I can honestly say I was not referring to you, I don't think I brought disability benefit into it?

Thanks for the clarification, its much appreciated.

Not a problem, I'd rather discuss the issue in it's widest context.

IF people were not fiddling the system, there would be more available for those that genuinely need it. But if we're looking at fiddling systems lets start with Union Officials still living in Social Housing when they earn £120k+, MP's (of all colous) claiming allowances for things that people in Social Housing are being denied etc. etc.

There is also a distinction between genuine fraud within any system and then the moving of the goalposts to redefine what makes a genuine claimant and there has clearly been a colossal, some would say disgraceful number of incorrect reassessments made, some examples in the press being of almost criminal judgements.

how on earth is a "union official still living in social housing" an example of "fiddling the system"?

The union official concerned (I assume you are talking about Bob Crow), pays his due rent on time and lives in his council house perfectly legally. Where is the fiddle? Bob Crow makes no secret of the fact he favours renting from his council. He has had numerous opportunities to purchase his home under Right to Buy, thereby reducing his personal housing cost. He has spurned every opportunity because he believes in the right to decent, AFFORDABLE housing for all who require it. What is wrong with that? The problem has never been with people like Crow renting, it is with councils being prevented from building even more affordable homes to rent.

Until Thatcher flogged off council housing on the cheap, many professional people lived in council houses. There wasn't the stigma that is now attached to social housing, if anything is unfair, it is that stigma. Our continental neighbours have no problem with people renting from municipal authorities but some (like you) seem to think that unless you strive to become a mortgage slave then you are worse than useless.

Now you have attempted to shift the goalposts and have been called out by HWS (and folded like a fanny), maybe you could go back to your original assertions regarding benefit claimants using this board instead of working. Come on, put up or shut up.

Try that 'argument' in a court of law.



What you're talking about is perception – and claiming that your perception is right and anyone who differs from you is wrong. Again – try that in a court of law.



I don't think anyone here has ever suggested that nobody is playing games, but it is nice to see you acknowledge that it is "SOME". Not all. Some. And at a time when there are not jobs for all, it is frankly crass to pretend that chasing the "SOME" should be the priority. You do that when you have full employment, because anything else penalises and demonises those who do make an effort, who do want a job etc.



A little factoid: the Labour government under Blair and Brown was not a "socialist" one. Seriously – you know better than playing the Tea Party bølløcks.

In many other ways, you're absolutely right. That's neo-liberalism for you.

Incidentally: thank you for coming back and actually making a proper post.

Not easy to post anything substantial from my phone, todays was the first decent opportunity I had.

And to cod'ead, if Crow(ney) was re-assessed under the 5 year fixed term system, he'd be deemed not to be in housing need, I can guarantee you that.

That still doesn't explain how he's fiddling the system.

Care to have another pop?

I had no idea that Ian Duncan Smith posted on here.

He is using Social Housing when he doesn't need to, he is working the system to his own advantage. A bit like when it's always the "refuse collectors" that call for strike action, knowing full well they will get double time for working the weekend after the strike to collect the refuse, because the council has a statutory duty to collect.

I know you're not thick cod'ead, and I know you're a staunch socialist, but even you must think, somewhere, that a guy on £100k+ doesn't really NEED to be in a "council house"

I've said before, quite clearly, that I dislike Crow, but this housing stuff is getting tedious. Because the [iDaily Mail[/i doesn't like something and constantly highlights it doesn't make it any more a serious issue than the fact that the same rag has published pictures of Dave Prentis's house, with the carefully unspoken implication that that house is 'too big'.

Oddly, the [iMail[/i never seems to provide a logical case for why this is, or to state precisely what sort of house, at what cost, it believes such people should have/live in. It just intends to create what is, in many ways, a resentment – a 'politics of envy', is a phrase you might be familiar with.



You're implying that a certain group should not take industrial action because of a pre-existing arrangement that means that they only take industrial action for their own advantage. This is a non-sequitur.



On the other hand, it might be much more in keeping with the beliefs that you cite. And moving somewhere more expensive would doubtless open him up to different criticism – see above.

And it's all the same nonsense as we had from Sal recently, who has yet to provide an answer to the simple question (since he raised the topic) of what a "supposed socialist" should expect in their pay packet.

You're ignoring the question though, why is Crow(ney) entitled to Social Housing when he can, quite clearly, afford to live in private rented and let someone who actually NEEDS social housing have it?

As for Sal, I do hope you're not comparing me with it.

He was clearly entitled to when he got it – unless someone can prove otherwise. His decision to stay there – whether simply because he likes his home or because he feels an ideological commitment to council housing – is not the reason that we have a chronic housing shortage, and is a red herring.

As I pointed out, if you take the attitude of the [iMail[/i to Dave Prentis, then it's clearly a case of trade union general secretaries are not allowed to 'win', if you will, whatever they do. And the [iMail[/i – and others – never, ever posit real reasons for this approach or a logical suggestion of just where and how such people should live.

But that's not their aim: the aim is to smear. And as I said, to do so by creating a sense of resentment in the readership. In Crow's case, almost certainly hoping that people will see where he lives as some sort of 'con'.

As I said, that is a 'politics of envy'. Not: 'someone's doing worse than me and I think we'd all be better off if things were a bit fairer', but: 'someone's doing better than me/better than I think they should, and I think that's wrong'.