How Can A Government That Spends Billions On Mass Testing Quibble Over Helping The Low Paid?

MaizieD

But in answer to your question, Pippa, if we're going to have a government ideologically driven by minimal state spending on public services and benefits, while handing out cash left right and centre to their cronies and donors, then it follows that they will resist any attempt to increase state welfare, especially if the 'temporary' rise in benefit looks to become permanent through being implemented over a longish period.

I think that is sadly very true Maizie. I have to admit I neither want the "individual sovereignty" of the far right government we have or the state owned and run of the far left. I do appreciate getting a mixed economy right is not easy but the idea that "what I have I will not share" is not even good for the right wingers with that creed. We here it often on here with the "I worked all my life" crowd who don't want to pay taxes or sustain a benefits system.

I notice, along with the attempted refusal to continue the uplift (followed perhaps by a U turn when they realise some in their own party feel uncomfortable with that) and the lack of insight into the need for all to get the £500 payment for staying at home in isolation, we are also to see a large rise in council tax - one of the most regressive taxes we have.

In growstuff's post of Tue 19-Jan-21 09:26:38, she says I've been able to dip into savings, but most people claiming UC don't have that cushion. I have long thought the un-cushioned are those who suffer the most. We so often hear on GN that people don't know how to budget, cook, etc., but this obviously comes from those who don't understand what it is to not have choice in so many areas of life.

I am sure mankind can overcome the pandemic and that countries can pull back again economically in the future as they did after the war but that was done in a very Keynsian way - even helping our previous enemies to recover and I just don't see this "ideologically driven" government being able to do that.

Where is the government that puts family and community first rather than the individual or the creed?

MaizieD

But in answer to your question, Pippa, if we're going to have a government ideologically driven by minimal state spending on public services and benefits, while handing out cash left right and centre to their cronies and donors, then it follows that they will resist any attempt to increase state welfare, especially if the 'temporary' rise in benefit looks to become permanent through being implemented over a longish period.

It will certainly seem like a cut when/if it comes to an end, especially before there are new jobs available. We haven't even come to the worst stage yet, which will be when furlough schemes end. I suspect Sunak knows that and realises how much welfare is going to cost for many years to come. There are people who are being affected now who can't just be dismissed as shirkers (or whatever the gutter press likes to call the unemployed).

I won't continue the statistics 'debate', Alegrias, just point out that being anywhere near the 'top' with infections or deaths is not a good look at all.

Alegrias1

It is and I'm sorry for derailing it. But I won't let misinformation go uncorrected when it is such an important topic.

And I'd rather stick to the topic in the OP. It's irrelevant where the UK is in the rankings. This is about supporting people who are experiencing extreme difficulties and the government's priorities.

But in answer to your question, Pippa, if we're going to have a government ideologically driven by minimal state spending on public services and benefits, while handing out cash left right and centre to their cronies and donors, then it follows that they will resist any attempt to increase state welfare, especially if the 'temporary' rise in benefit looks to become permanent through being implemented over a longish period.

OK, really sorry but I'm going to defend myself here. If people say we're the top of the table for infections or anything else, and we're not, then it is misrepresenting the way we are dealing with this pandemic and I will continue to call it out. I am very angry with the way that this whole thing has been handled by the government but I am not going to let exaggeration stand unchallenged.

It is and I'm sorry for derailing it. But I won't let misinformation go uncorrected when it is such an important topic.

Alegrias1

Nope - number 8 by deaths per million. Italy, Slovenia, Belgium and others all higher.

So what? It's not a bloody league table!

Alegrias1

We don't have the worst rate of infection in the world.

According to Worldometer we are number 25, on cases per head of population. Sweden, Portugal, Netherlands, USA, Israel and others all have higher rates than us.

Posting incorrect information does nobody any good and just makes people more worried than they need to be.

I thought this thread was about Universal Credit.

Hands up here! I'm one of the people who benefits from the £20pw up lift, which combined with the temporary scrapping of the minimum income "floor" for the self-employed, means that I've been able to claim just over £80 a month plus a reduction in my council tax for the last few months. I won't be able to claim after April because I'll receive state pension, which is more generous.

It's made a huge difference to me, even though it hasn't compensated for my lost earnings. I've been able to dip into savings, but most people claiming UC don't have that cushion. I live extremely frugally, but I can't live on the amount the government thinks I should, even with the £20 uplift. I've also been able to carry on with some work behind my computer screen and have no human contact, but most people on low incomes can't do that either.

Much of the reporting about the pandemic is, in my opinion, a smokescreen. Vaccinations aren't going to be the magic wand. The government really needs to concentrate on the people who have been hit hardest, including those on zero hours contracts and those working in the arts. Not only would supporting them better result in people staying at home when they're infected, but It would also avoid some of the worst financial fall out.

The mantra at election time was about "levelling up" and people need to hold the government to what it promised. It's not about HS2 and handing out contracts for bogus retraining to mates. It's about listening to the concerns of real people and not trying to play pathetic political games, such as calling the debate yesterday a "stunt" or trying to demonise those needing free school meals as people who would waste money on crack.

Nope - number 8 by deaths per million. Italy, Slovenia, Belgium and others all higher.

No, we just appear to have the worst no. of deaths per million...
There's some sort of disconnect between these two 'statistics'...

We don't have the worst rate of infection in the world.

According to Worldometer we are number 25, on cases per head of population. Sweden, Portugal, Netherlands, USA, Israel and others all have higher rates than us.

Posting incorrect information does nobody any good and just makes people more worried than they need to be.

All through this pandemic, people have continued to work with symptoms, of course.

Nobody is really going to stay at home, risking financial ruin, for the benefit of the wider public.

People have bills to pay, children to feed. People won't 'self isolate' when they return from abroad will they?.

Nobody checks either!

The government are just being two-faced, as usual, still trying to project a good image. It isn't working.

We wouldn't have the worst infection rates in the world if our (laughable) restrictions and lockdowns actually worked, would we?