Don't cap my benefits...

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 4:48 am

Did anyone watch this fly on the wall programme?

BBC One - Panorama, Don't Cap My Benefits, Trail: Don't Cap My Benefits

theia · Post by **theia** » Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:38 pm

I watched it. It seemed that most of the families were rehoused back in their own area eventually, or did I get that wrong?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:57 am

Fiddling your benefits or fiddling your expenses, is one more wrong than the other? The percentage of people who fiddle their benefits is nothing like the govt would have us believe. On the other hand the vast amounts lost through tax avoidance and outright fiddling is astronomical.

As an aside, seen on greenock today a UKIP campaign car. They're rarer than tory ones I feel privileged now that I can say I have seen one.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:00 pm

You stay in Greenock gmc?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:18 pm

gmc;1451760 wrote: Fiddling your benefits or fiddling your expenses, is one more wrong than the other? The percentage of people who fiddle their benefits is nothing like the govt would have us believe. On the other hand the vast amounts lost through tax avoidance and outright fiddling is astronomical.

As an aside, seen on greenock today a UKIP campaign car. They're rarer than tory ones I feel privileged now that I can say I have seen one.

Then you couldn't have seen It because It had nothing to do with fiddling benefits.

The situation was that previous governments ie Labour allowed a system where people on benefit who have never worked a day In their lives could claim more money than someone working full time on the national wage.

In comes Cameron and welfare reform and he says this will be stopped so they cap benefits at £500 a week.

The problem then Is that some people have rented houses In London way beyond their means knowing they'll never have to pay the rent themselves because they know they will never get a job.

So In recent reforms, benefit Is capped leaving most living In London unable to pay their rent.

The benefits department then set about re-housing the one's being evicted. Only due to the high rents In London, they have to be re-housed In Birmingham where rents are cheaper. Many of them had to downsize and It's fair to say they wern't happy.

All were told that If In fact they worked for 16 hours a week, they wouldn't have their benefit capped as much as It was possible to stay where they were. All but one Turkish man seemed to furious at the mere suggestion they get a part-time job.

One woman Irked me the most. Single Mum with 7 children living In a house that most people would never be able to afford. Never worked a day In her life and had 7 children on benefit knowing she had no way of supporting them but the tax payer would. She then has a hissy fit about having her benefit capped and being told she would have to downsize.

On the other hand, the entire process was a farce. Families uprooted from their homes, children taken out of schools to move them miles away for cheaper rents.

I was left with the conclusion that I agree with Cameron that no-one should get more In benefit than someone working full time but the situation where people rented houses way out of their league knowing the benefit system would pay the rent was able to flourish.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:56 pm

Do you know that many companies employ people on low wages, who are subsequently able to claim benefits to supplement their wages?

Many of the service industries super markets, restaurants, Hotels, and the like, can bring in time critical amounts of staff for 4 hour shifts to cover the companies busy periods, giving the company the flexibility to use 2 employees to cover 2 four hour shifts that previously might have been one employee's full shift wage wise.

So people can work 16 hours and still get benefits, in fact people decline overtime because this means hassle with their current claim.

I am not complaining that the benefit system couldn't be tweaked to be fairer for those that work hard, but you cannot just pull the rug from under peoples feet without people falling over and getting badly hurt.

People would be more amenable to benefit cuts if they could see fairness across the board, but banker bonus payment announcements on a regular basis plus tax fiddling multinationals make this nit picking money saving for PR is bad news.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:14 pm

Bruv;1451790 wrote: Do you know that many companies employ people on low wages, who are subsequently able to claim benefits to supplement their wages?

Many of the service industries super markets, restaurants, Hotels, and the like, can bring in time critical amounts of staff for 4 hour shifts to cover the companies busy periods, giving the company the flexibility to use 2 employees to cover 2 four hour shifts that previously might have been one employee's full shift wage wise.

So people can work 16 hours and still get benefits, in fact people decline overtime because this means hassle with their current claim.

I am not complaining that the benefit system couldn't be tweaked to be fairer for those that work hard, but you cannot just pull the rug from under peoples feet without people falling over and getting badly hurt.

People would be more amenable to benefit cuts if they could see fairness across the board, but banker bonus payment announcements on a regular basis plus tax fiddling multinationals make this nit picking money saving for PR is bad news.

The ensuing farce of capping benefit affects those In London far more than other cities because of the high rents.

It should never have been allowed to happen full stop. A system where someone who has never worked a day In their lives living In a house that most people couldn't afford and benefits paying the rent and Council Tax.

I don't however, believe In pulling the rug out from underneath them. It's way too late for that. The scandal was allowed to flourish. I am all In favour of capping benefit at £500 a week so that newly unemployed live within within their means. Yet It's too late for the one's who have benefited from the system In the past. Pulling children out of schools and uprooting families to re-locate In another city away from all friends, family and support network Is unreasonable.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:47 pm

Meanwhile in the same city a bank bailed out from public funds (from the same tax kitty) After losing billions, yes billions, pays it's managers over £500 million in bonuses.

Natwest Bonuses

Average bonus rise

And it's all our money................funny priorities to me.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:19 am

Bruv;1451798 wrote: Meanwhile in the same city a bank bailed out from public funds (from the same tax kitty) After losing billions, yes billions, pays it's managers over £500 million in bonuses.

Natwest Bonuses

Average bonus rise

And it's all our money................funny priorities to me.

I don't think either end of the scale is particularly savoury. Neither shows any integrity.

I also think that families should be prepared to move area. Whether on benefits or not, families often have to uproot...it happens!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:02 am

theia;1451810 wrote: I don't think either end of the scale is particularly savoury. Neither shows any integrity.

I also think that families should be prepared to move area. Whether on benefits or not, families often have to uproot...it happens!

Given this a little more thought.

Has anybody wondered if this might be the consequence of our Maggies, Right toBuy, Deregulation of the Banks, the resulting property boom, including the Buy to let scheme, added to the sell off of council housing?

The way it is told today it is purely down to poor families knocking out kids, demanding the government supports them, no outside influences at all?

The truth is the government can't afford to support them....................and the feckless bankers and their bonuses.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:27 am

Bruv;1451819 wrote: Given this a little more thought.

Has anybody wondered if this might be the consequence of our Maggies, Right toBuy, Deregulation of the Banks, the resulting property boom, including the Buy to let scheme, added to the sell off of council housing?

The way it is told today it is purely down to poor families knocking out kids, demanding the government supports them, no outside influences at all?

The truth is the government can't afford to support them....................and the feckless bankers and their bonuses.

I can see what you're saying, Bruv, and I agree that none of us is immune to external factors. But, I just feel that there comes a time when we have to take some responsibility for our lives. If we don't we are merely victims of circumstances.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:32 am

Bruv;1451819 wrote: Given this a little more thought.

Has anybody wondered if this might be the consequence of our Maggies, Right toBuy, Deregulation of the Banks, the resulting property boom, including the Buy to let scheme, added to the sell off of council housing?

The way it is told today it is purely down to poor families knocking out kids, demanding the government supports them, no outside influences at all?

The truth is the government can't afford to support them....................and the feckless bankers and their bonuses.

Surely it's all a consequence. Right to buy possibly is, as a lot of the three or four bed houses in this area were bought. It's why I'm way up the list for housing right now. We ourselves looked at buying our parents house many years ago but didn't go through with it in the end. My housing situation may have been very different right now if we had.

Capping doesn't affect me, there are not enough benefits coming into this house for that. I do have to top up my rent and a new thing for the last year is I have to pay a quarter of the Council Tax which is a struggle.

I agree with the capping for those that have managed to somehow work the system. It's all mind boggling though, surely the majority of people raking it in and not working are those that are considered long term sick? I have lost count of the times I have seen a young lad running through our town with a crutch over the last year. What's with that, how can he run if he needs a crutch constantly!

What's the answer though, I can't 'afford' to work in my current housing and I want to. I need the lower social housing rent so I can work and get off benefits. So surely the government need to adjust things so when working and in private housing there is more of a sliding scale for help with rent/council tax or maybe it's private rents that need to be capped.

Or maybe I should downgrade to a two bed private rent, get the 16 year old boy sharing with the 12 year old girl and the toddler will have to come in with me? I would have to lie, estate agents won't allow you to rent below your needs. I've considered it in the past too, I asked the council years ago for a two bed thinking I would have a sofa bed and sleep in the living room. Wasn't allowed according to their rules.

How many more people are like me, they can't actually afford to work. It's that that needs to be changed, then people will move into work and self sufficiency without being 'made' to. They will do it willingly for their own good, their own self esteem and because they want to pass a work ethic on to their children. There will only be a few who won't want to work and will want to continue to work the system.

In amongst all this there needs to be a living wage and better employers who actually treat their workers as people and not someone that can be replaced in a moment. Then there needs to actually be jobs out there!

I could go round in circles all day, the country is a mess really, will what this government is trying to do eventually fix it? Or does more need to be done?

I'll try and finish watching the programme too, seemed very severe sending people as far away as they did, but hey, I know that people get sent here to Cornwall and Cornwall receives money for having them and they get housed straight away. The system is corrupt!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:08 am

Notice how all the people they followed In the programme were either black, Immigrants or single mothers ????

Typical biased BBC

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:00 am

There Is no denying that The Right To Buy scheme damaged Social Housing but three decade on, with all new builds contracted to hand over a minimum of 10 % to social housing, that has recovered.

The problem In some area's Is that there Is simply nowhere to build new or social housing properties. As an example, Tower Hamlett's London. Where exactly do they build? The only land Is In the suburbs and then you have people as In the BBC documentary who believe they have a right to be housed there whatever and then bitterly complain that they have to wait for a council house.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:51 am

McOscar;1451867 wrote: Notice how all the people they followed In the programme were either black, Immigrants or single mothers ????

Typical biased BBC

I would imagine that would be the average for people in London claiming the sort of benefits the programme is about.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:02 am

McOscar;1451867 wrote: Notice how all the people they followed In the programme were either black, Immigrants or single mothers ????

Typical biased BBC

Finally managed to watch it all. I found it biased to people who decided to be unrealistic about the situation. What about the people who dealt with the cap head on and took matters into their own hands, found alternative social housing or private rents?

Biased tv yet again to portray all benefit claimants to be unreasonable idiots who expect someone else to sort them out.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:17 am

McOscar;1451870 wrote: There Is no denying that The Right To Buy scheme damaged Social Housing but three decade on, with all new builds contracted to hand over a minimum of 10 % to social housing, that has recovered.

I very much doubt it.....and the latest Headline News bears that out. 47 Affordable houses

Scroll down this page to see the statistics concerning housing.

The problem In some area's Is that there Is simply nowhere to build new or social housing properties. As an example, Tower Hamlett's London. Where exactly do they build? The only land Is In the suburbs and then you have people as In the BBC documentary who believe they have a right to be housed there whatever and then bitterly complain that they have to wait for a council house.

Funny you should mention Tower Hamlets and the availability of building land.

They seem to have found the space to plonk a few high value office blocks up, I am thinking The Shard here, not sure if it is within Tower Hamlets but the same rules apply.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:46 am

Bruv;1451881 wrote:

Funny you should mention Tower Hamlets and the availability of building land.

They seem to have found the space to plonk a few high value office blocks up, I am thinking The Shard here, not sure if it is within Tower Hamlets but the same rules apply.

Most office blocks are usually built on land that had commercial buildings prior. You have to have a balance. In any built up area, you must have work. If you have work, there must be buildings to accommodate that work. No work In the area, people leave for area's where there Is work, trade suffers, shops close and soon you have a ghost town... there has to balance of the two.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 12:11 pm

McOscar;1451883 wrote: Most office blocks are usually built on land that had commercial buildings prior. You have to have a balance. In any built up area, you must have work. If you have work, there must be buildings to accommodate that work. No work In the area, people leave for area's where there Is work, trade suffers, shops close and soon you have a ghost town... there has to balance of the two.

So building upward to accomodate more office space is ok, but building upward to accomodate the work force is not?

No comment about ALL that house building because as you said...."with all new builds contracted to hand over a minimum of 10 % to social housing, that has recovered."

It hasn't you know.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:19 pm

Bruv;1451885 wrote: So building upward to accomodate more office space is ok, but building upward to accomodate the work force is not?

No comment about ALL that house building because as you said...."with all new builds contracted to hand over a minimum of 10 % to social housing, that has recovered."

It hasn't you know.

Councils often get the balance wrong but balance Is what they all hope to achieve.

When The Right To Buy scheme was Introduced, there was also a social housing policy In force where first generation could Inherit the property automatically. Many councils have abolished this now, but the amount of people handing back social housing Is very small. Look at all the hoo ha over the bedroom tax and trying to get tenants to downsize.

So, If you were handed your council house when you were In your twenties and starting a family then on average the tenant Is going to be In that property for up to say, 40 years. Then their first generation could take over the tenancy and tie that house up for another 40 years.

It's fair to say that we are not building social housing estates but If you were to add up all the 10 %'s all over the country, I bet more are being built today than 30 years ago before new builds were obligated to provide the 10 %.

Then look at the amount of years one council house was tied up for 30 years ago, what was the difference between that and someone buying that house? It's still unavailable for an entire generation.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 am

Interesting by contrast.

Last night I watched a Channel 4 fly on the wall ' How to get a council house' which by co-Incidence was In Tower Hamlets.

No Immigrants, no people ranting and raving about downsizing and the capping.

But they did show a new housing estate In TH that has just been built with 2,200 new homes...

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:52 am

McOscar;1451942 wrote: Interesting by contrast.

Last night I watched a Channel 4 fly on the wall ' How to get a council house' which by co-Incidence was In Tower Hamlets.

No Immigrants, no people ranting and raving about downsizing and the capping.

But they did show a new housing estate In TH that has just been built with 2,200 new homes...

Yes, the new housing felt like a very positive step.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:09 am

McOscar;1451942 wrote: Interesting by contrast.

Last night I watched a Channel 4 fly on the wall ' How to get a council house' which by co-Incidence was In Tower Hamlets.

No Immigrants, no people ranting and raving about downsizing and the capping.

But they did show a new housing estate In TH that has just been built with 2,200 new homes...

So did I......

No immigrants ? So where did all the immigrants from the first documentary go?

Both had their own built in bias, it's impossible not to be biased to a certain extent.

For me it was just the same information from a different perspective.

How did they manage to fit in all those dwellings? Didn't you say there was no space for homes?

It doesn't matter who tells the story, the background remains the same. House prices are high partially due to the sell off of housing stock, and the same stock falling into the hands of private landlords, who due to the benefit system.....as it was... could ask whatever they wanted and the council had to pay......why ? Because they had just sold their bloody houses into the private sector.

It doesn't matter who first purchased the houses, the subsequent banking events credit relaxation etc.etc. resulted in the criminal disparity that we watched in both documentaries, all orchestrated by the government and their paymasters in the city.

I think this is comparable to the crimes committed by Blair and the Bankers, social engineering on a grand scale.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:18 am

posted by mcoscar

Then you couldn't have seen It because It had nothing to do with fiddling benefits.

You know sometimes I think you don't read things properly before you respond. It was an aside, look it up and yes I did see it. It's rare enough to warrant comment. Only the BNP has less representation in Scotland than ukip. I see you are in full BNP rant mode

As to the rest of yur rant i would refer you to the rest of my comment. Of all you read is the daily mail you will never get an accurate picture.

As to house prices, Cameron has done exactly what brown did, instead of letting market forces bring down prices they bring in the help to buy scheme.

posted by bruv

You stay in Greenock gmc?

Nope there on business. It's one of the grottier post industrial ghettos, lovely scenery though.

posted by mcoscar

The ensuing farce of capping benefit affects those In London far more than other cities because of the high rents.

Well boo hoo, anyone unemployed in london just doesn't want to work in other parts of the country there just aren't any jobs that's why employers get away with zero hours contracts and employing everybody on part time contracts so they save on national insurance and the like, great for them but effectively the state is subsidising the likes of tesco and asda.

It really doesn't matter how cheap manufacturers can make their goods a low wage economy is not one that is likely to be successful unless people have disposable income sooner or later the economy will falter and die, you can't built an economy based on call centres and working in retail and the food industry. Asda walmart tesco and their like buy everything abroad, just imagine of that money had been spent buying our own manufacture.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:32 am

Bruv;1451948 wrote:

How did they manage to fit in all those dwellings? Didn't you say there was no space for homes?

.

I was talking about expanding In built up area's not building on recently demolished commercial property,

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:33 am

gmc;1451966 wrote: posted by mcoscar

. I see you are in full BNP rant mode

. Good... I'd hate to embarrass the Party.