[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

[iup=3577153]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3576663]Prototype[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3576518]Tineash[/iup] wrote:Cameron's newest wheeze: No housing benefit & no JSA if you're 18-21.

erm. no words. Who is this for? To impress old grumpy UKIP voters?

A man who's lived such an institutionalised life that he has no grip on reality.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have rich and supportive parents to fall back on.

I don't think that 18-21 year olds should get housing benefit. If they can't afford to move out of home, they should continue to live with their parents. JSA, however - they should definitely get that.

One thing that's never mentioned is the minimum wage for apprentices. It's absolutely pathetic: £2.68 an hour.

So tell me Eighy, how are these young adults supposed to move out of sink estates to find employment in the first place? This will do nothing but reduce social mobility.

[iup=3576681]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3576651]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:To be fair, it's easy to find ridiculous fringe stuff at any party conference. The Labour one always has meetings that are so far left wing and out of touch with reality it's hilarious, and the Conservative one doubtless has some Thatcher-revering knees-up. That being said, those UKIP examples are kerrazee.

Well, you do still have the trade unions and the parts of Labour's past, but a big part of it is also a right wing neoliberal playground:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/solomon- ... erence-104

Labour need money as they're in danger of going bankrupt. It's hardly a surprise that they would sell their principles down the river in order to make a quick buck, and hope that no one notices.

[iup=3577153]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I don't think that 18-21 year olds should get housing benefit. If they can't afford to move out of home, they should continue to live with their parents.

And for those people where that is not possible? A 19 year old orphan can be married with kids and lose their job through no fault of their own, should they be treated differently to a 22 year old who has never worked, who has loving parents but who wants to live on their own?

[iup=3577156]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3576681]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3576651]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:To be fair, it's easy to find ridiculous fringe stuff at any party conference. The Labour one always has meetings that are so far left wing and out of touch with reality it's hilarious, and the Conservative one doubtless has some Thatcher-revering knees-up. That being said, those UKIP examples are kerrazee.

Well, you do still have the trade unions and the parts of Labour's past, but a big part of it is also a right wing neoliberal playground:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/solomon- ... erence-104

Labour need money as they're in danger of going bankrupt. It's hardly a surprise that they would sell their principles down the river in order to make a quick buck, and hope that no one notices.

They sold their principles a long time ago. This isn't a problem for the Tories as they never had any.

[iup=3577154]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:So tell me Eighy, how are these young adults supposed to move out of sink estates to find employment in the first place? This will do nothing but reduce social mobility.

It's nonsense that you have to move house in order to find a job in the same town. You're not blacklisted if you live on a sink estate. Use public transport or walk to get to work. In the case of moving out of an industrial town or whatever, no one has the 'right' to move to another town on the State's dime.

It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.

[iup=3577157]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577153]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I don't think that 18-21 year olds should get housing benefit. If they can't afford to move out of home, they should continue to live with their parents.

And for those people where that is not possible? A 19 year old orphan can be married with kids and lose their job through no fault of their own, should they be treated differently to a 22 year old who has never worked, who has loving parents but who wants to live on their own?

You can always come up with exceptions. The orphan should be supported as he has nowhere to go - the fact remains, IMO, that if a typical 18-21 year old can't afford to move out of home, they shouldn't be given a place for free.

[iup=3577165]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577157]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577153]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I don't think that 18-21 year olds should get housing benefit. If they can't afford to move out of home, they should continue to live with their parents.

And for those people where that is not possible? A 19 year old orphan can be married with kids and lose their job through no fault of their own, should they be treated differently to a 22 year old who has never worked, who has loving parents but who wants to live on their own?

You can always come up with exceptions. The orphan should be supported as he has nowhere to go - the fact remains, IMO, that if a typical 18-21 year old can't afford to move out of home, they shouldn't be given a place for free.

Of course there are exceptions, that's why a blanket statement of "I don't think that 18-21 year olds should get housing benefit" just doesn't work. And there are lots and lots of exceptions.

Also, why should an 18 year old be treated differently to a 22 year old, no matter the circumstances? Do they pay less in tax? Do they have less social responsibilities? They are either adults (and should be treated the same as all other adults) or they are not.

[iup=3577162]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577154]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:So tell me Eighy, how are these young adults supposed to move out of sink estates to find employment in the first place? This will do nothing but reduce social mobility.

It's nonsense that you have to move house in order to find a job in the same town. You're not blacklisted if you live on a sink estate. Use public transport or walk to get to work. In the case of moving out of an industrial town or whatever, no one has the 'right' to move to another town on the State's dime.

It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.

Are you serious? Quite often you have to move house in order to get a job. There are whole areas where jobs simply aren't available. Why would you deny someone the opportunity to move to somewhere where there might be more jobs? What about people who live in small villages with terrible transport links? Maybe you're from a big city and you simply don't understand what it's like to live in another part of the country. I know a few people who've moved and claimed housing benefit before they found employment. They HAD to do this and all found jobs.

Benefits aren't about getting back what you've put in, that's a selfish attitude. It's about helping those who need it.

[iup=3577170]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577162]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577154]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:So tell me Eighy, how are these young adults supposed to move out of sink estates to find employment in the first place? This will do nothing but reduce social mobility.

It's nonsense that you have to move house in order to find a job in the same town. You're not blacklisted if you live on a sink estate. Use public transport or walk to get to work. In the case of moving out of an industrial town or whatever, no one has the 'right' to move to another town on the State's dime.

It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.

Are you serious? Quite often you have to move house in order to get a job. There are whole areas where jobs simply aren't available. Why would you deny someone the opportunity to move to somewhere where there might be more jobs? What about people who live in small villages with terrible transport links? Maybe you're from a big city and you simply don't understand what it's like to live in another part of the country. I know a few people who've moved and claimed housing benefit before they found employment. They HAD to do this and all found jobs.

Your examples are all well and good, FE, but you've moved the goal posts - I was responding to you talking about people moving out of sink estates in order to find jobs. I really do question your assertion that there are whole areas where jobs simply aren't available, unless you're talking about small villages in the middle of nowhere.

I live in Bristol. There are absolutely fuckloads of jobs here, and no reason why any 18-21 year old who lives in a bad area in this city should be given a flat when they could stay at home and travel to work until they can afford their own place.

[iup=3577154]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:Benefits aren't about getting back what you've put in, that's a selfish attitude. It's about helping those who need it.

Emphasis on 'need', rather than a lifestyle choice that simply makes an individual more comfortable when there are deserving cases that need our time and money.

[iup=3577201]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I live in Bristol. There are absolutely fuckloads of jobs here, and no reason why any 18-21 year old who lives in a bad area in this city should be given a flat when they could stay at home and travel to work until they can afford their own place.

You are again assuming that everyone has the chance to stay at home with their parents, some people don’t have any. There are lots of reasons why staying at home even if you have parents is not a great solution for a lot of young people. Two quick examples would be if you have abusive parents or if you already have a family of your own.

It is also not fair to expect 18-21 year olds to act and pay into the system like adults, but to then treat them differently when they need help from the system.

[iup=3577201]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577170]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577162]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577154]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:So tell me Eighy, how are these young adults supposed to move out of sink estates to find employment in the first place? This will do nothing but reduce social mobility.

It's nonsense that you have to move house in order to find a job in the same town. You're not blacklisted if you live on a sink estate. Use public transport or walk to get to work. In the case of moving out of an industrial town or whatever, no one has the 'right' to move to another town on the State's dime.

It's an interesting difference in political/societal philosophy between people who think you should work towards a goal (eg. moving out of home), as opposed to getting a place for free off the State before you've even contributed in terms of tax and National Insurance. Sorry, but when we're so heavily in debt, the latter is silly, and anyway it's hardly likely to lead to a good work ethic.

Are you serious? Quite often you have to move house in order to get a job. There are whole areas where jobs simply aren't available. Why would you deny someone the opportunity to move to somewhere where there might be more jobs? What about people who live in small villages with terrible transport links? Maybe you're from a big city and you simply don't understand what it's like to live in another part of the country. I know a few people who've moved and claimed housing benefit before they found employment. They HAD to do this and all found jobs.

Your examples are all well and good, FE, but you've moved the goal posts - I was responding to you talking about people moving out of sink estates in order to find jobs. I really do question your assertion that there are whole areas where jobs simply aren't available, unless you're talking about small villages in the middle of nowhere.

I live in Bristol. There are absolutely fuckloads of jobs here, and no reason why any 18-21 year old who lives in a bad area in this city should be given a flat when they could stay at home and travel to work until they can afford their own place.

[iup=3577154]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:Benefits aren't about getting back what you've put in, that's a selfish attitude. It's about helping those who need it.

Emphasis on 'need', rather than a lifestyle choice that simply makes an individual more comfortable when there are deserving cases that need our time and money.

Moved the goal posts, perhaps. But there are a number of reasons why you might not live close enough to a job you can do. You're lucky enough to come from a nice city in the south. Things aren't as peachy everywhere else. Is coming from a poor family a lifestyle choice? Because you seem to think it is.

Get 'em down mines soon as they turn 16 says I. Did me no wrong *coughs* My father was miner, my father's father was a miner and my father's, father's, father was miner too. Born and bred in this village my family were.

[iup=3577217]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote: Is coming from a poor family a lifestyle choice? Because you seem to think it is.

No, it isn't a lifestyle choice. But neither is it your 'right' for the State to fund you to move out of the family home, just because you want to live elsewhere but don't have a job that allows you to afford it yourself. It's what you said earlier: The benefits system should be based on NEED.

"I don't think these people with full legal rights, including but not limited to the right to marriage should get housing benefit"

[iup=3577276]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577217]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote: Is coming from a poor family a lifestyle choice? Because you seem to think it is.

No, it isn't a lifestyle choice. But neither is it your 'right' for the State to fund you to move out of the family home, just because you want to live elsewhere but don't have a job that allows you to afford it yourself. It's what you said earlier: The benefits system should be based on NEED.

And you NEED to make sure that the young poor have absolutely no advantages that you don't right?

[iup=3577276]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577217]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote: Is coming from a poor family a lifestyle choice? Because you seem to think it is.

No, it isn't a lifestyle choice. But neither is it your 'right' for the State to fund you to move out of the family home, just because you want to live elsewhere but don't have a job that allows you to afford it yourself. It's what you said earlier: The benefits system should be based on NEED.

What if a 20-year-old on a full time income has his/her hours reduced to 10 hours per week. Does he qualify for help? No?

Say you yourself were 20 years of age, and heaven forbid, got an illness preventing you from working. Do we just say 'come back when you're 22'?

[iup=3577201]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I live in Bristol. There are absolutely fuckloads of jobs here, and no reason why any 18-21 year old who lives in a bad area in this city should be given a flat when they could stay at home and travel to work until they can afford their own place.

[iup=3577276]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:No, it isn't a lifestyle choice. But neither is it your 'right' for the State to fund you to move out of the family home, just because you want to live elsewhere but don't have a job that allows you to afford it yourself. It's what you said earlier: The benefits system should be based on NEED.

You say that there is no reason for 18-21 year olds to have housing benefit, but then you say that the system should be based on need?

Which of these cases needs the benefit system:

1) A 20 year old widowed mother of two loses her job. Her parents retired early and have moved abroad.

2) A 22 year old living in the family home decides it is time he moved out.

The benefits system should be there to help people and to support them. It is madness to suggest that as soon as you are over 21 you suddenly have more need of benefits than somebody of 19. The system should always be based on the needs of the people involved with their individual circumstances taken into account, not a blanket rule based solely on age.

[iup=3577214]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577201]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I live in Bristol. There are absolutely fuckloads of jobs here, and no reason why any 18-21 year old who lives in a bad area in this city should be given a flat when they could stay at home and travel to work until they can afford their own place.

You are again assuming that everyone has the chance to stay at home with their parents, some people don’t have any. There are lots of reasons why staying at home even if you have parents is not a great solution for a lot of young people. Two quick examples would be if you have abusive parents or if you already have a family of your own.

It is also not fair to expect 18-21 year olds to act and pay into the system like adults, but to then treat them differently when they need help from the system.

'NEED' is the operative word here, and 'not a great solution' isn't a need. You can extrapolate out details of help that would be handy to anyone's life. For example, I drive over 18,000 miles a year in order to see my young son once a week and show him that he has another home here in Bristol. I used to use my girlfriend's 10 year old Peugeot, but recently we had some near-misses in terms of breakdowns very close to the Wednesdays when I see my son, so the weekly trip became extremely stressful. It is absolutely essential that I have a reliable car in order to never miss a visit, so because I can't afford a car myself (because of rent, bills, the maintenance payments to my ex-wife and the big fuel bill for travelling) I have had to lease a modest one through my business with enough mileage allowance to cover all the travelling - which is expensive. I am lucky that I am able to do this, but I would argue that my 'need' for a reliable car to see my son far outweighs the need of an 18 year old who wants to move out of his mum's place but has a perfectly good roof over his head. The system doesn't help me, why should it help him?

[iup=3577276]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577217]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote: Is coming from a poor family a lifestyle choice? Because you seem to think it is.

No, it isn't a lifestyle choice. But neither is it your 'right' for the State to fund you to move out of the family home, just because you want to live elsewhere but don't have a job that allows you to afford it yourself. It's what you said earlier: The benefits system should be based on NEED.

This is such a selfish attitude to have. It should be the 'right' of everyone to get the same opportunities in life. Benefits should help to increase social mobility, not just act safety net.

It's easy to argue what people do and don't 'need' when you want a race to the bottom for the poor on the grounds that it might be cheaper. I'd argue that moving living on your own is an essential part of development. I really don't think you understand how hard it is for some people to continue living at home, I guess because you're lucky enough to have had a childhood free from poverty or abuse.

If someone doesn't have food and shelter it is the state's responsibility to provide that person with basic food and shelter, irrespective of age or background. I don't believe anyone should be hungry or homeless. But the Tories would let those they deem "lazy" starve on the streets.

I remark that within Conservative ideology, only poor people can be "lazy"; it doesn't really matter if you can't find work if you're already rich.

[iup=3577287]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577214]Moggy[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3577201]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:I live in Bristol. There are absolutely fuckloads of jobs here, and no reason why any 18-21 year old who lives in a bad area in this city should be given a flat when they could stay at home and travel to work until they can afford their own place.

You are again assuming that everyone has the chance to stay at home with their parents, some people don’t have any. There are lots of reasons why staying at home even if you have parents is not a great solution for a lot of young people. Two quick examples would be if you have abusive parents or if you already have a family of your own.

It is also not fair to expect 18-21 year olds to act and pay into the system like adults, but to then treat them differently when they need help from the system.

'NEED' is the operative word here, and 'not a great solution' isn't a need. You can extrapolate out details of help that would be handy to anyone's life. For example, I drive over 18,000 miles a year in order to see my young son once a week and show him that he has another home here in Bristol. I used to use my girlfriend's 10 year old Peugeot, but recently we had some near-misses in terms of breakdowns very close to the Wednesdays when I see my son, so the weekly trip became extremely stressful. It is absolutely essential that I have a reliable car in order to never miss a visit, so because I can't afford a car myself (because of rent, bills and the maintenance payments to my ex-wife) I have had to lease a modest one through my business with enough mileage allowance to cover all the travelling - which is expensive. I am lucky that I am able to do this, but I would argue that my 'need' for a reliable car to see my son far outweighs the need of an 18 year old who wants to move out of his mum's place but has a perfectly good roof over his head. The system doesn't help me, why should it help him?

You are seeing this solely as some young bloke that wants a bachelor pad. I would agree with you that you probably shouldn’t move out of a happy family home until you can afford it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this country that did/do not have the happy family that most of us here have had.

Not everyone has a family home. Not everyone gets on with their families. Not everyone is safe in the family home. Not everyone is able to be accommodated in the family home.

Your need to own a car to see your son is irrelevant to a discussion on housing benefit.