Benefits Britain : the live debate...

BA and his hater crew will be drooling over this and nodding along with the other benefit haters like a nodding Churchill dog.  

I really didn't like the interviewer much! He sort of kept cutting people off and asking questions before people had finished speaking!

I liked his shoes through.

eddie wrote:I really didn't like the interviewer much! He sort of kept cutting people off and asking questions before people had finished speaking!

I liked his shoes through.

I didn't like it when he kept cutting Owen Jones off!

Daggers at the screen!    

eddie wrote:I really didn't like the interviewer much! He sort of kept cutting people off and asking questions before people had finished speaking!

I liked his shoes through.

An well,something out of nothing!

It could've been better IMO and needed to be longer too

eddie wrote:It could've been better IMO and needed to be longer too

They should commission a program about the rich, and the tax evaders!

Catman wrote:

eddie wrote:It could've been better IMO and needed to be longer too

They should commission a program about the rich, and the tax evaders!

They have, its called Prime Ministers Question Time

benefits are a necessary thing, we can't let people starve because they are out of work, it's striking a balance were people are clearly better off for working.

heavenly father wrote:benefits are a necessary thing, we can't let people starve because they are out of work, it's striking a balance were people are clearly better off for working.

This is why I cannot understand why some people are objecting so strongly to the introduction of Universal Credit. It is simpler and more transparent and means work - any type of work for any length of time - will make people better off than not working.

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:benefits are a necessary thing, we can't let people starve because they are out of work, it's striking a balance were people are clearly better off for working.

This is why I cannot understand why some people are objecting so strongly to the introduction of Universal Credit.  It is simpler and more transparent and means work - any type of work for any length of time - will make people better off than not working.

Correct - Universal Credit is what IDS promised - help for those out of work who want to get in to work - help to get out of the benefits trap which is so passionately fought over by Labour and the left.

The debate was awful.

As somebody said - not long enough - the real debate has actually been going on for years.

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:benefits are a necessary thing, we can't let people starve because they are out of work, it's striking a balance were people are clearly better off for working.

This is why I cannot understand why some people are objecting so strongly to the introduction of Universal Credit.  It is simpler and more transparent and means work - any type of work for any length of time - will make people better off than not working.

A far simpler method would be to nationalise the banks, reintroduce national service for young people and pay everyone a living wage.

£11Trillion is swilling about in tax havens and your priority is to punish the most vulnerable in society.

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:

This is why I cannot understand why some people are objecting so strongly to the introduction of Universal Credit.  It is simpler and more transparent and means work - any type of work for any length of time - will make people better off than not working.

Correct - Universal Credit is what IDS promised - help for those out of work who want to get in to work - help to get out of the benefits trap which is so passionately fought over by Labour and the left.

The debate was awful.

As somebody said - not long enough - the real debate has actually been going on for years.

The wonderful thing with UC in my opinion is that work will always pay - and more work will always pay more. I fully understand how the current system presents barriers to those looking for work - unless you can earn more than benefits everything you earn is taken off benefits so you see no gain - you can get wages for 10 hours work and you will be no better off than if you had not bothered - and that is before the monsterous paperwork.

I believe UC will result in a sea change in atttitude from the bottom - people will take a couple of hours work and get paid for it and keep the money - which will mean if they see and opportunity to do a few more they will be able see themselves with more money.

I mean I know that morally people should prefer to work than not to work but when at the end of the week working results in no difference in the amount of money they take home then practically people are going to ask what is the point - and at the moment that is a difficult to answer.

sphinx wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Correct - Universal Credit is what IDS promised - help for those out of work who want to get in to work - help to get out of the benefits trap which is so passionately fought over by Labour and the left.

The debate was awful.

As somebody said - not long enough - the real debate has actually been going on for years.

The wonderful thing with UC in my opinion is that work will always pay - and more work will always pay more.  I fully understand how the current system presents barriers to those looking for work - unless you can earn more than benefits everything you earn is taken off benefits so you see no gain - you can get wages for 10 hours work and you will be no better off than if you had not bothered - and that is before the monsterous paperwork.

I believe UC will result in a sea change in atttitude from the bottom - people will take a couple of hours work and get paid for it and keep the money - which will mean if they see and opportunity to do a few more they will be able see themselves with more money.  

I mean I know that morally people should prefer to work than not to work but when at the end of the week working results in no difference in the amount of money they take home then practically people are going to ask what is the point - and at the moment that is a difficult to answer.

This is all very true. I just dont trust IDS as fa\r as I could chuck him

Here's the real problem - people are receiving too much in benefits.

From what you're saying sphinx - where do people get off benefits altogether? When does it stop?

All people who don't work need to be told is "yes, you may end up with less from work, but tough sh1t - you have to work your way up".

BigAndy9 wrote:Here's the real problem - people are receiving too much in benefits.

From what you're saying sphinx - where do people get off benefits altogether? When does it stop?

All people who don't work need to be told is "yes, you may end up with less from work, but tough sh1t - you have to work your way up".

£70 a week is not too much.

You really are a vile little cretin, and i hope that one day you fall on hard times and have to try and live on that.

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Here's the real problem - people are receiving too much in benefits.

From what you're saying sphinx - where do people get off benefits altogether? When does it stop?

All people who don't work need to be told is "yes, you may end up with less from work, but tough sh1t - you have to work your way up".

£70 a week is not too much.

You really are a vile little cretin, and i hope that one day you fall on hard times and have to try and live on that.

Thank you Mr Catman.

I genuinely wish you every success and happiness in your life.

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:benefits are a necessary thing, we can't let people starve because they are out of work, it's striking a balance were people are clearly better off for working.

This is why I cannot understand why some people are objecting so strongly to the introduction of Universal Credit.  It is simpler and more transparent and means work - any type of work for any length of time - will make people better off than not working.

Makes perfect sense to me Sphinx. No one should be better off on benefits than being in work, soul destroying   

For those that are physically able......& that's most of them,benefit claimers should be made to work for their money.

A 40 hour week should be the minimum period of work & those that refuse should be whipped & have their benefits removed.

Why shouldn't people work for their benefits wage packet?

And claiming that they are incapable of working because they are alcoholics,druggies or both should not be a bar to working for their benefits wage packet.

Keeping the country clean should be their main occupation with other employment taken on as & when needed.

Shady wrote:For those that are physically able......& that's most of them,benefit claimers should be made to work for their money.

A 40 hour week should be the minimum period of work & those that refuse should be whipped & have their benefits removed.

Why shouldn't people work for their benefits wage packet?

And claiming that they are incapable of working because they are alcoholics,druggies or both should not be a bar to working for their benefits wage packet.

Keeping the country clean should be their main occupation with other employment taken on as & when needed.

If they are going to work 40 hours why not just make what you are getting them to do a REAL job, you know one that pays a living wage so they don't need benefits?

I think getting people to work 10-20 hours is fair/realistic. How are legitimate claimants meant to find proper work back in their sector if they are spending 40 hours a week sweeping sidewalks?

The immigration debate is on channel 5 the now, guaranteed to send some RW over the edge in a right hissy   

I've not watched it but I've just been reading about White Dee as it was mentioned elsewhere on the Forum and I had no idea who she was.

Please tell me she's not for real:

White Dee wrote:‘I want to work, I do. But some days I just can’t get out of bed. Oh, I wish I had more oomph but I don’t. It is not because I am lazy, it’s not because I can’t be a**ed, it is because I just can’t.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565121/So-White-Dee-does-feel-poster-girl-thats-wrong-Britain.html

Utter rubbish, if she was that depressed she wouldn't be able to answer her front door let alone be on TV.  If I were on benefits I would be seriously pissed off at the image she portrays

Very true FTL.

She is a disgrace and an embarrassment.

SEXY MAMA wrote:Very true FTL.

She is a disgrace and an embarrassment.

Has anyone looked into her background?

Might be, that she was put into the show, to suit a RW agenda.

She isn't representative, of the majority of the poor.

I hear that she wants to stand for parliament.

The Daily fucking Mail, will back her, no doubt.