Big pronouncements

​The primary triggers that push people into rough sleeping:

​Eviction and high rent / lack of affordable housing
​Relationship or family breakdown
Job loss
​Leaving institutions (e.g., leaving prison, care, or military service without support)
​Fleeing domestic abuse
​Severe, untreated mental health struggles

Substance misuse can contribute to housing instability for some people. However, it is important to recognise that addiction may also develop as a result of the trauma and stress associated with homelessness.

ssj.org.uk/what-causes-homelessness-in-the-uk-10-common-reasons-people-become-homeless/?hl=en-GB

jakuss
I think you are misinformed if you think that.

Rough sleepers his number one priority, i thought he was streetwise doesn't he know most choose this lifestyle to indulge their addictions

I haven't watched the new for days and must admit feel much better for it. Do not agree how AB got in and think he will just wing it anyway as he obviously doesn't care how he gets anywhere.

Doodledog I do know you aren't actually doing this (though maybe there's a hint there when you separate them by "privilege") - and i know hou ard talking now rather than childhood but generally I'm bemused as to why people assume that Burnham and Starmer have different backgrounds.

Is it just branding and accent?

When I was growing up it seemed to me that Culcheth was pretty well off. It was surrounded by leafy green spaces and people saw it as midfle class (or upper working class) desireable - a step up from (say) Leigh and Astley. I didn't know Oxtead but it doesn't sound so dissimilar.

Oxted of course is traditionally coded as affluent Home Counties, and the North West is coded as "The Industrial North," but their actual day-to-day physical environments growing up—tree-lined, quiet, suburban villages with gardens and green commons seem remarkably similar to me.

Doodledog

Yes, as I said, I understand why you feel that couples do well. They may do, but there is more to it than that.

I feel the same about child benefit. Two working people pay two lots of commute, childcare and so on (not to mention the tax that pays for it), and a couple with one worker doesn't need a lot of that. They save on cleaners, childcare, train fares/petrol and all the costs associated with working, and pay one lot of tax. Yet people complain that there can be two people earning near the threshold who are able to claim despite the fact that they earn twice as much as the single earning couple, forgetting all the things I mentioned above. Also, there is always the option for the non-working parent to get a job, but not always an option for the dual income couple to earn more.

WRT the WFA, two people may have the heating on at the same time, but they might not. I am still up now, and my husband is in bed. Obviously the last thing we need is heating on tonight, but in December it will be different. Also, the feminist in me objects to women working all their lives and ending up subject to the whims of men, just because the men have earned more (because of historical sexism increasing their pensions). Maybe the amounts per person in a couple could be lessened? Would that make it 'fairer'?

I know all of this is just an academic argument because no govt in the foreseeable future will go near WFA with a barge pole but I do find it fascinating as to how this govt allowed itself to get into such an unfair mess. Yes I agree it’s a similar mess to what the last govt did with CB. I take all your points about two people in a house not necessarily being in the same room all the time etc and I share your views about the feminist aspects but accepting all that, a couple with a ‘joint’ income of £70 000 will almost always be better off in terms of disposable income than a single person with £35,000.01 not to mention my more extreme examples ( and I do know two couples in those situations)
Basically, the WFA system now takes a contribution based benefit (SP) paid to individuals, then at the point of £35,000 per individual turns an add on (WFA) into a means tested benefit which is paid per household . But in the rest of the benefit system, means tested benefits ( mainly UC) are based on joint household incomes( no feminist issues here) . So basically it’s just a complete mess, How could it be fairer ? Well as I said above, it won’t change now but a quick fix would be to increase the £35k level for single people or decrease it for each person in a couple. Thanks for reading as they say ( if you have thus far)

Cross posting. I wrote the last post before I read yours, so it may not make sense in that context.

Yes, as I said, I understand why you feel that couples do well. They may do, but there is more to it than that.

I feel the same about child benefit. Two working people pay two lots of commute, childcare and so on (not to mention the tax that pays for it), and a couple with one worker doesn't need a lot of that. They save on cleaners, childcare, train fares/petrol and all the costs associated with working, and pay one lot of tax. Yet people complain that there can be two people earning near the threshold who are able to claim despite the fact that they earn twice as much as the single earning couple, forgetting all the things I mentioned above. Also, there is always the option for the non-working parent to get a job, but not always an option for the dual income couple to earn more.

WRT the WFA, two people may have the heating on at the same time, but they might not. I am still up now, and my husband is in bed. Obviously the last thing we need is heating on tonight, but in December it will be different. Also, the feminist in me objects to women working all their lives and ending up subject to the whims of men, just because the men have earned more (because of historical sexism increasing their pensions). Maybe the amounts per person in a couple could be lessened? Would that make it 'fairer'?

Doodledog - much to ponder in your post but I think some of it underlines the problem of trying to forge a solution out of a per household payment and an individual income limit. But yes I agree with you that it shouldn’t even be a separate payment but rolled up into the basic pension. But that ship has sailed because of the ineptness of how the issue was handled initially. But no one can convince me that the currrnt system is equitable.

Because a single person with an income of £35,000.01 gets nothing but a couple with an income of £35,000 each £70,000 between them get £200/300 WFA between them. Also a couple where one has an income of £35,000 and the other an income of £35,000.01 and upwards ( no upper level) will get £100/£150 . It’s a real dogs dinner because it marries together a per household payment and an individual income limit. At its hypothetical most ridiculous single people with an income of £36 001 gets nothing nothing but a couple where one has £35,000 and the other £100,000 get £100/150
The reason I brought up WFA was in the context of Oreo saying the £45 should be a targeted payment But the ‘targeting’ of WFA is utterly ludicrous imo

WFA was a disaster. I can only assume that focus groups said the same as Gransnet - that people who 'didn't need' it would be happy to give it up - but didn't take account of boasting and a reluctance to have anything 'taken away'.

My feelings on means-testing are well known, and the WFA is a perfect example of why I feel as I do about it. It should have been added to pensions and tax would have reclaimed some of it from those who pay it. Not ideal, and still means-tested really, but better than the debacle we got. I would have liked to see it added to UC for working couples, too.

I see what you mean about couples doing better, Tuliptree, but not every couple spends all day in the same room - when both of us are in we are often doing different things in different parts of the house during the day, which both need to be heated in winter. Also, not all couples share resources equally, and we pay tax and NI as individuals, so it seems to me fair that we should get all benefits as individuals too. I don't want to be dependent on someone else just because I live with them (hypothetically - Mr Dog is not remotely parsimonious 🥳).

I can't imagine AB being so far removed from the people he represents. WFA worked out at about £4 a week, and I can imagine some LP advisors thinking of that in terms of cups of coffee, forgetting that by no means everyone pays that sort of money for coffee every day, and that if you are spending all your income every week on essentials, the £200 you might have been given makes the difference between paying the bill on time and not, regardless of how many lattes it might have bought from Starbucks.

I have friends who look at life like that, and see themselves as socialists. They do want fairness, but have lost sight of what it means in reality, and measure things in terms of their own privileged lives, not those of the people they want to help. It's the 'not everyone should go to university' thing again. It's one thing if you have friends and family who can give your children a start without one (or if your own children all have have 2:1s from prestigious institutions), but another when you leave school as soon as possible and have to compete with those who have them. The only way to deal with that is to lower expectations, which the privileged never have to do, so can't imagine. 'There's money to be made doing gardens' means one thing to someone with an address book full of friends with acres that need taming, and another to someone on a council estate where hardly anyone has a job.

I think Starmer could well be in the 'privileged' group, although obviously I don't know, and could be maligning him. I don't think Burnham is (well, on a day to day basis he 100% will be, but he has his feet on the ground and has enough sense to listen to those who know what's what for 'ordinary people'), and IMO that's what we need in a leader today.

^ Couples in particular do very well out of it^

How do you work that out? Its paid per household. DH and I get half each.

www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/how-much-youll-get

Targeted benefits are a huge challenge - the systems for deciding the targeting can cost more than they save.

*Burnham and his merry band of cronies. Have still not said anything about economic growth, or rising, unemployment and tackling the ever growing welfare state costs.
Not to mention Social Care and the NHS* - they are not a merry band of cronies - they are the cabinet!

And they have not had 48 hours yet - give them a chance!!

Oreo

WFA was too targeted as those just above the line lost out and they were poor too, like my own Mum.
It was a big political mistake by KS and RR.

Abolishing WFA was a major political mistake but it was and is in need of reform equitably. It’s completely unfair and ridiculous in who does and doesn’t qualify. Couples in particular do very well out of it

As regards Manchester, there is a history - I lived there when years of feminist action resulted in the Equal Opportunities Committee on 16th July 1984. I remember visiting....

So I was cross checking further and came across this reminder

www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/what-we-do/equalities/independent-inequalities-commission/

Burnham was amongst those who set up not just this commission but even more significantly

The Greater Manchester Race Equality Panel was formed in December 2020 as a result..

(But the national Equality and Human Rights Commission -EHRC has had its headquarters/offices in Manchester since its creation in 2007. And I suspect the Womens Equality Commission spawned these Manchester settings.

Hear hear. It's been in the grip of London far too long.

I think decentralisation is a very good idea. It means that relevant government departments can be nearer to those they serve.
Savings can be made on estate costs in London, and a wider talent pool of employees, rather than mainly drawn from the south east.

Burnham and his merry band of cronies. Have still not said anything about economic growth, or rising, unemployment and tackling the ever growing welfare state costs.
Not to mention Social Care and the NHS

Never mind the ever growing problems around immigration and guaranteed job losses due to AI

Basically, because they have no ideas or policies. Just empty promises And are too weak to stand up to the real causes of these problems and sort them out.

Or they will more importantly, lose voters. Which is really the only real game in town. And always has been to stay in power.

As for his Manchesterisms. Well he kind of did take the buses back into public ownership. Spent a fortune on painting them yellow as part of the Bee Network.

Services has not improved. Some may say actually got worse.

As for regional.govrnment.Never going to happen in England.

And the Downing Street of the North? This is the best joke l have heard all week. Publicity hang over from George Osbourne's Great Northern Powerhouse.

The VAT cut is a nice gesture but will end up doing little to help people because …

Martin Lewis: I’ve just got the latest energy bill predictions. The average of 3 sources show the Price Cap rising 5.1% on 1 Oct - as the last week has seen very high wholesale rates. An annualised rise of £93 on a typical bill.

Blame the warmongers for that.

Whitewavemark2

What Burnham has done today imo is to “signal” the direction of travel, and in the process indicating to the struggling that help will indeed be coming - although probably in the longer rather than shorter term. But we shall see.

I do agree with is, in other words gesture politics.

WFA was too targeted as those just above the line lost out and they were poor too, like my own Mum.
It was a big political mistake by KS and RR.

That’s because you know nothing about me Tuliptree and I don’t have you ‘down’ as anything at all.

Oreo

I prefer money to go to those who need it.

I didn’t have you down as someone in support of abolishing WFA except for those on pension credit. Interesting

I prefer money to go to those who need it.