In praise of Iain Duncan Smith's Welfare Reforms

Really, Ana. Difficult to tell how it's meant on the page. What makes it ironic and not sarcastic? Actually, Ana, I do not know anyone who is a scrounging layabout. I know my sister is waiting for her second hip operation and after that, she will have to go on a course to prove she is not a scrounging layabout. When the course is finished she will be old enough to get her state pension.
Her son has been on countless couses and never been given the job he was promised at the end of the course. He's just been told, thank you, goodbye, and then someone else has been taken on to do the same course. He has to live on £78 per week, and if he does not turn up at the jobcentre on time because he had to walk as he could not afford the busfare, he has his money sanctioned. Fortunately his father is in work and he can go and live with his parents until he gets more money. He does not want to live like that. He's 38, and still has to ask his parents to subsidise him. This is because he lives in Hull. He's been to London and Leeds looking for work and always returned to Hull because he cannot afford to live anywhere else. There are more unemployed than jobs in Hull.

Ana it was your post 16:22 I was responding to.

I too question the benefit system. I dislike fraudulent claims and, as I have explained, I include those who deliberately avoid seeking work. It damages the majority of benefit claimants. So I think we agree on that!

Where we disagree, as I see it, involves the language used in debating the issue and the accuracy of statements being made. You believe the number of inappropriate payments is larger than I understand it to be. I believe repeated use of pejorative terms (e.g.'scroungers') can impact negatively on genuine claimants. That is why I call for empathy..not to stifle debate but to avoid hurting people.

Holly, have you looked at www.fairtaxmark.net and www.taxresearch.org.uk ? There are people trying to get organisations to pay their tax, and Tax Research is listened to by many financial institutions, thank gooodness. He gets people who tell him he's talking rubbish, too. But he's better at arguing than I am.

That was irony, not sarcasm, durhamjen

"Gosh, yes, that makes benefit fraud hardly worth bothering about, doesn't it?"
Would you call this comment by Ana sarcastic, Aka? It was aimed at me, but I do not care. I can take it.
Why do you assume that people who cannot fill forms in are doing it deliberately to defraud the system, which is what you are implying even whilst trying to deny it?
I had a fifty+ page form to fill in to decide whether we could get my husband's disability living allowance. We ended up getting someone from Ageuk, a retired lawyer, to help us get what we were entitled to because we were not sure, and we both have degrees. Filling in forms to get benefit is not like filling in forms to get a job. And I have helped people do that too, as a teacher of special needs in adult education at one time. I would hate to do it now.
I have been hounded by HMRC to get tax I did not owe. I would suggest you look at employment statistics to see how many jobs there are available, and how the government twists the statistics, but I know you would not, just as you will not watch the programmes about people being turned out of their family homes, because they might not confirm your prejudices.

Well, I'm afraid that's what I find rather irritating, Penstemmon - the assumption that anyone who dares to question the benefits system is lacking in empathy and/or compassion. I'm not sure which assertions of mine you were addressing, either...

I, too, know of people on benefits through no fault of their own. My own DD claims child tax credit because although she works full-time, the pay is low. As I said before, no one is saying that everyone claiming benefits is a scrounging layabout, but we all know some who are!

Aka, I think it's perfectly acceptable to state that in your opinion a comment is sarcastic.

It's another matter to say that another person is 'a sarcastic piece of work'. By all means debate an issue robustly and forcefully - even stridently, but when that debate degenerates into personal comments, any point of view is likely to be dismissed

durhamjen - I don't think people will give up flying so at least he's trying to make a difference and, as he says, it has to be someone with enough clout to make it happen.

I have heard about that form of heating before (from waste) and I can't understand why it isn't used more. It comes back again, imo, to supporting big business in order to bring in more taxation from consumers; such a shame they don't feel the same way about all taxation ...

Gosh now Ana is cross with me!

I did not think I was lecturing..just answering your assertions and stating my, different, opinion.

I only quoted a real life example to illustrate that ordinary people, like you and me, can find themselves in a bad place and need to claim benefits. It is hard enough to be in that situation without feeling that you may be considered one of the 'scoungers' and it just adds to a sense of shame that people already feel. Empathy is all I am suggesting.

I agree with others that compared to tax evasion, the benefit fraud bill is a mere drop in the ocean. I hear the public in the UK voice time and again that they want the government to deal with tax evasion but it still goes on. I'm not sure if I've linked this on this site before so I will apologise now if I am repeating it:

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-set-up-parasite-street-to-balance-the-benefits-debate-9067202.html

I do agree with the chap that wrote the article and is now campaigning against misinformation. I believe that the government prefers to set us against one another as it diverts attention from where they don't want it going (for obvious reasons).

The problem with the solution from IDS is that they are now throwing the baby out with bathwater and any developed country that doesn't feel deep shame that people have to rely on foodbanks has, imo, become amoral.

This is starting to get nasty. I'm not prepared to carry on a discussion which is fast disintegrating into personalities.

Holly, that last comment was to you. There's a lot going on since I started typing it.

Yes, seen it. There is a bit of a dichotomy having someone in the aviation industry discussing green fuel. All he needs to do is tell people not to fly. There are two biofuel from waste facilities in County Durham now. I have always thought it a good idea, as it reduces landfill. In fact in the 70s we lived on an estate that had a district heating scheme where all the heat and hot water came from a waste burning plant. It was altered years ago so all the houses had their own boilers. I bet they wish they hadn't now. All the pipework has probably deteriorated.

MiceElf the person WAS being sarcastic. She even boasted that it was justified. I think you owe me an apology.

I think we agree that there are probably not that many 'fraudulent' claims in relation to the budget as a whole.

However, I think there are people who do milk the system as a life-style choice and know exactly how to work the system. Some are receiving enormous amounts in housing benefit to live in houses that most of us can only dream of and demanding even more.

At the same time there are always stories of people who are struggling and unable to get enough in benefits on which to survive such as those mentioned by Penstemmon.

So what is going on?

It sounds like one rule for the benefits rich list and another for the poor.
Same as life in general.

No need to shout Aka
I would think that if you are not actively pursuing work and do not intend to then that is fraudulent. I am asserting that those claimants are a minority of claimants. Most benefits are claimed by the genuinely ill, disabled and the unemployed who are trying to find work and by low-paid workers.

Will you stop banging on about fraudulent claims. It's not those that are draining the system (though they certainly mount up). I'm talking about those who are claiming legitimately (!!) but simply refuse to get a job.

Those who are sent for an interview and deliberately mess it up, or turn up late if at all. Those who are told to fill in application forms and deliberately mess them up (and yes, I used to get so many like this when I was looking to take staff on). Those who know how to 'legitimately' play the system. People who say 'why should I work when I get more on benefit?'

I'm not making this up. I've heard it and seen it time and time again.

I've always felt that however much one might disagree with someone else, if an assertion is made, it should be supported by relevant trustworthy research. Accusing another person of sarcasm and being 'a piece of work' whatever that means, really says more about the writer than the person to whom it was directed.

As for Cameron suddenly deciding he's sort of religious, I rather agree with Campbell when he advised politicians not to 'do God'. His wishy washy speech has been thoroughly rubbished in many quarters, most effectively by Giles Fraser.

('those of the' etc...)

Thanks for the lecture, Penstemmon. No one is saying that most benefit claims are fraudulent, and I'd say the most strident voices on this thread are the anti-Coalition lobby!

By 'little people' I mean hardworking families, the retired etc. I do not personally think we are 'little people', but obviously some do.

Ana I do not think anyone has said that fraudulent claimants should not be pursued.
What many people dislike is the implication that most benefit claimants are fraudulent and by association damn all claimants.

There are already laws and systems in place to pursue fraudsters. If these were implemented effectively and efficiently that would leave those in genuine need of help feeling less demonised by strident anti-benefit voices.

My experience of benefit claimants is limited but current. A person who through illness, lost their business and savings. Their marriage broke down and they are unwell, penniless & homeless. Now living with a family member this means a 'housing benefit' element is not available. They receive about £78 pw in 'incapacity' benefit. Bear in mind they have paid tax/NI for 40 odd years as a 'professional'. It costs approx £20 in fares to visit children each week plus an additional £20 round trip to get to medical specialist. Personal items(toothpaste/shampoo/haircut etc) & new shoes etc. cost too. It is good for them to meet up with friends occasionally but that costs a further £20+ in travel..then a cup of coffee etc when out. Phone costs..to keep in touch with child and friends. All accommodation/ food/ laundry etc is provided by family member but if they were on their own £78 does not go far.

HMRC only seem able to hound little people including the retired for tax which they seem to think they owe (but often do not).

They need a huge shake-up.

durhamjen - the news programme was on Channel 4 and BA boss Willie Walsh was being interviewed about his ideas for bio-fuels and it was Mr Walsh who stated that none of the green tax money has been spent on investment; he didn't elaborate any further. The video link is here and his comment is at around 1:50

www.channel4.com/news/five-big-ideas-that-could-change-the-future-of-air-travel

It will be interesting to see if the Government backs this scheme or if it protects the Big 6 and declines to invest.

I bow to your superiour knowledge of the extreme left wing press jen and of course your superior ability to decide what deserves a sarcastic reply. I gather Grannylin us quite happy to support you in what is termed 'the lowest form of wit' ??? And of course you speak for Ghandi Gandhi too!

Penstemmon you are NOT a stupid woman, I know but I did not mention anyone making FALSE CLAIMS. Stop putting words into my mouth.