Is Politics Devoid Of ANY Humanity?

Wanting to reduce the number of benefits being paid by providing employment as an alternative for those who are able to work is different to reducing the amount of benefits that are paid out. The provision of an infrastructure to enable people to work is not without significant cost, but ultimately it should improve the quality of life of the individuals affected.

Young people must be helped to have employment, age 20 and
a life of benefits

But it has been made very clear by the Government that they want to reduce the amout of benefits that are paid out. They have said out loud that it is unsustainable. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that it is a fase economy , but that is what is happening.

Ilovecheese

Thing is, Galaxy while that is a really good point, it would mean spending money to help the young people involved. Whereas the point of this exercise is to spend less.

No, it’s to spend money more effectively while still helping the people most in need. Please read the Green Paper to get a full perspective on this.

Yours is a similar argument to the one over the Winter Fuel Payment. It has saved money by removing the universal entitlement but has helped the poorest by encouraging them to claim Pension Credit which is a gateway to a range of other help.

Since July 2024, 117,800 Pension Credit claims have been awarded, a 64% increase compared to the previous year. The average award is £75 pw plus the ancilliary benefits of WFP + WHD.

Taking into account claims still to be processed and processing costs as a whole, the cost is similar to the savings from removing universality but the poorest are helped.

Ilovecheese

Thing is, Galaxy while that is a really good point, it would mean spending money to help the young people involved. Whereas the point of this exercise is to spend less.

It's false economy.

The money is presumably to fill the mythical black hole but what they should be doing is redirecting this money, and more, to invest in these young people, their futures and the future of of country.

Thing is, Galaxy while that is a really good point, it would mean spending money to help the young people involved. Whereas the point of this exercise is to spend less.

there could be a middle ground where some of us don't think young people should be written off to a life of not working

And that’s the thing that really worries me about what seems to be a sea-change in society - that so many young people are NEET.

I can’t find a breakdown in the numbers e.g. how many young people are severely disabled and cannot work, how many are able and have tried to get into the job market and given up, how many are graduates who have never worked since finishing post-compulsory education etc.

You're right it being unfair treating you as a "couple" when you are "house sharing". You cant be the only ones in this situation. Can it be got round by separate rental contracts with the landlord? Certainly worth raising with your MP as its a green paper.

Or you know there could be a middle ground where some of us don't think young people should be written off to a life of not working. Some of us might think that this a situation we wouldn't want for our own children so why would we cheer it on for other people's children. Some of us might think that socialism might not be care workers and bin men working endless hours of difficult work to help support the (frequently middle class) people who know how to play the system.

All well and good what they are proposing, BUT my lived experience thus far is, I houseshare to save money same as my housemate, neither can afford to rent and pay bills for a whole house each, we have a room each and a room each for our respective children. BUT because we are deemed a couple, neither gets any help as we simply refuse to lie and say we are an item when we clearly with our respective relationships elsewhere are not. Both work, he does earn bit more than me and has been bailing the household out as my part time job became even more part time once the NMW went up, employer simply dropped hours to save. ( still expectsd same amount of work though, funny that) I am long term very ill never recovered from covid acannot get a docs appt and end result look and feel like death most days. Been tryin to get a second job but every single employer has either politely said they prefer a school leaver, or else taken one look at my aged 40 yrs in the past 5 self and kindly suggested I would not be fit enough to do the job ( believe me I have tried and tried to mask this) When I sday every single employer, there really aren't that many jobs actually out there and now I see even more companies are closing down, so where are all these magical jobs that are happy and able to take on disabled and sick people?

The point of this exercise is to save money for the treasury. The government has said that the amount of money that is given to people who are ill or who are disabled is unsustainable, that is what they have said. Therefore we will have to reduce the amount of money that is paid to people who are ill or who have disabilities .
We either accept that this will reduce the quality of life for people who are ill or disabled, or we pretend that they are not ill at all (over diagnosis, snowflakes, etc.)

Who knows whether OP is in receipt of a health-related benefit and is worried she might lose it or is speaking on behalf of others? Key here is that this is only a Green Paper, a consultation document. Everybody is invited to submit comments and suggestions.

As always, the press goes into overdrive, stoking unnecessary fear and worry.

I understand the economical arguments: tax the wealthy instead, no need to balance the books etc but that is only focusing on one aspect.

Something is changing in the UK. Fewer and fewer are people working, many claiming mental health as the reason.

We have around a million 16-24 year olds who are not in employment, education or training, 600,000 of them not even looking for work. That's four times the population of my nearest city.

We have a record number of people between the ages of 50 and 66 no longer working.

The working-age population is around 44 million from a total population of around 70 million, 13 million of whom are under 16 and 13 million over 65.

More than nine million working age people are not economical active i.e. nort working and not looking for work. That leaves 35 million people working. So we only have around half of the whole population in work - which is unsustainable if the economy is to grow.

For every two people receiving some kind of benefit (whether it’s child benefit at one end for a new-born, through working-age benefits to state pension at the other end), for every one person working.

The Green Paper is titled Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working. What is wrong with the ethos behind that if it encourages and helps people to find work and discourages a life exisiting on residual welfare?

Picking up on Caleo’s point. The voluntary sector will have a part to play in this through providing work opportunities. Voluntary work is often a pathway to paid work.

There will be more voluntary work on behalf ofpeople who cannot help themselves.

Before workhouses and such the Church took care of the sick, the traveller, and the poor. Maybe churches will step up to organise care of the needy on a very large scale.There is a lot of good will among the public that simply needs organising.

Yes. Weird in the extreme.

Allira

Barleyfields

How wrong you are. I’m a Conservative voter. Not very observant are you?

What do you mean by ‘and when they come for [me]’?

Very strange comment Barleyfields

Not to be taken seriously.

I think it is a reference to the Martin Niemoller poem ( he was a German pastor, and opponent of nazism in Germany)

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
........................................................
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

I think she rather flatters herself.

Barleyfields

I doubt mae will respond MOnica. Her MO seems to be light blue touch paper with goady post, then retreat.

A few people like that to be honest.

Perhaps OP is busy?

Of course your child may respond inthis way Allira, just as some adult do. However, it is crucial to teach and encourage children and young adults a healthy awareness of their knowledge boundaries.

This involves teaching them not only the information itself but also the importance of questioning, exploring, and recognising the limitations of their understanding. By doing that we will equip them with the tools necessary to navigate a complex world, fostering a generation that values curiosity and critical thinking. It seems we have not always been successful at doing this with previous generations.

The Importance of Being Seven - but seven year olds do know absolutely everything and never tire of letting you know that.

Allira

"But now I am Six, I'm as clever as clever, So I think I'll be six now for ever and ever"

That is what the six year old believes because they know so little about life.

I do need chocolate

I wonder whether it’s become more obvious abou much little we have compared to those with much more because of freedom information
But Sharon clean those floors quicker etc

"But now I am Six, I'm as clever as clever, So I think I'll be six now for ever and ever"

mae13

Barleyfields

I doubt mae will respond MOnica. Her MO seems to be light blue touch paper with goady post, then retreat.

Barleyfields: a dyed in the wool Reeves/Starmer disciple!

Are you 6?

Very strange indeed. However, from someone who identifies Barleyfields as a dyed in the wool Reeves/Starmer disciple perhaps we have to accept Strange

Very strange indeed.