[Politics] Sunak's benefits shake up

[The Clamp]

<sigh>

The issue is that Sunk is planning to take the decision about who is sick enough for sick pay away from the sickness experts (medics: GPs and consultants) and hand over the decisions to an as yet un-named quango.

Nobody said all benefit claimants are legitimate.

Do you still not understand?

This is my biggest issue with the whole mad as f*** scheme.

If they stay in power I would not be surprised to see them reanimate the long dormant idea to move benefit claimants to areas with more job opportunities, or lose all their income.

Perhaps Rwanda?

 

[BLOCK F]

Sadly, the 'reality' is that this cohort doesn't have the same prospects as previous generations.
An average income for previous generations meant being able to buy a house relatively easily. These days (THESE DAYS), only those with help from parents (/family wealth) and/or above average income can get anywhere near the housing ladder.
The demotivation of facing the reality that even by working your arse off, you'll only ever be able to afford to rent and therefore help someone wealthy pay off their buy-to-let mortgage should not be underestimated. Just expecting them to be 'resilient' in the face of their reality doesn't cut it.

I am well aware of the problems facing the younger generation, especially housing costs. We have 3 children aged, 35, 32 and 30. None of them own their own property and are renting in the private sector. Nevertheless, they all work pretty hard and have done since being teenagers when they worked all kinds of hours in the local pub (like a lot of others did and still do).
Are you suggesting that the disaffected cohort and society just throw collective hands in the air and shrug shoulders (I don’t think you are), because if you are, that isn’t going to help. Or do you encourage the disillusioned to use any God given talents they may possess and make the most of the very short lives we all have, without them having to look back in years to come and wish they’d tried a bit harder and done things differently.
No-one is saying life is easy, but good grief, previous generations had it a lot harder than the likes of us lot bickering on NSC, so yes, developing resilience is going to be required.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sadly, the 'reality' is that this cohort doesn't have the same prospects as previous generations.
An average income for previous generations meant being able to buy a house relatively easily. These days (THESE DAYS), only those with help from parents (/family wealth) and/or above average income can get anywhere near the housing ladder.
The demotivation of facing the reality that even by working your arse off, you'll only ever be able to afford to rent and therefore help someone wealthy pay off their buy-to-let mortgage should not be underestimated. Just expecting them to be 'resilient' in the face of their reality doesn't cut it.

This.

I suppose this is simply market forces and supply and demand, albeit I have read that a 'rebalancing' to create a compliant working class, grateful for whatever penny they can earn has been welcomed and encouraged in what some people would describe as 'some quarters'. With house price inflation a welcome part of that. It doesn't map well to the flogging off of council houses in pursuit of the 'home-owning democracy' as Thatcher described it, of course, but who ever expected consistency from the tories?

A lad had a bit of a meltdown on NSC a couple of years ago when it seemed he would never be able to buy a home for him and his family. It was a tough read. I hope he's in a better place now.

 

[bWize]

They should be more focussed on investigating the billions made from fraudulent PPE contracts they gave out to their "mates" before picking on the mentally ill and those at the bottom of the chain.

 

[BLOCK F]

Or if enough just down tools then someone will have to consider the situation ? It’s a two way street.

It is indeed and I I am sure it is a situation that concerns the powers that be. If it doesn’t, it should do!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not laziness? What is it then? So they don't want to work FT because of 'self awareness of mental health?' How do you suggest they fund rent / clothes / entertainment etc if they don't want to work FT?

If it was a matter of 'want', your question is fair.

However the original point is that Sunk's plan is to take the judgement about the health of the claimant away from the health service and hand it over to an as-yet un-named body.

You still haven't given any indication you understand this. Do you?
I'm asking nicely and not being rude.

 

[theboybilly]

There has been a structural change post pandemic. 100,000’s of the 16 to 30 cohort don’t want to be slaves to the 35 to 40 hour week that we signed up to. I know some of them. Not laziness, instead self awareness of mental health. The same in other countries eg France.

If that's the case they've got a rude awakening coming

 

[BLOCK F]

This.

I suppose this is simply market forces and supply and demand, albeit I have read that a 'rebalancing' to create a compliant working class, grateful for whatever penny they can earn has been welcomed and encouraged in what some people would describe as 'some quarters'. With house price inflation a welcome part of that. It doesn't map well to the flogging off of council houses in pursuit of the 'home-owning democracy' as Thatcher described it, of course, but who ever expected consistency from the tories?

A lad had a bit of a meltdown on NSC a couple of years ago when it seemed he would never be able to buy a home for him and his family. It was a tough read. I hope he's in a better place now.

Hmm, ‘some quarters.’
Nutters maybe, but not the vast majority of right minded people in this country of all political persuasions ( the nutters excepted). How can parents really wish that kind of society on their offspring?

 

[beorhthelm]

Sadly, the 'reality' is that this cohort doesn't have the same prospects as previous generations.
An average income for previous generations meant being able to buy a house relatively easily. These days (THESE DAYS), only those with help from parents (/family wealth) and/or above average income can get anywhere near the housing ladder.
The demotivation of facing the reality that even by working your arse off, you'll only ever be able to afford to rent and therefore help someone wealthy pay off their buy-to-let mortgage should not be underestimated. Just expecting them to be 'resilient' in the face of their reality doesn't cut it.

there was a ~20 year period people in their 20's could get a flat on a single average salary, because available credit and prices low enough. so we're saying because of that, it's ok for this generation to give up, go for part time hours, and pout that it's just not fair? they can let someone else deal with all their problems.

 

[A1X]

<sigh>

The issue is that Sunk is planning to take the decision about who is sick enough for sick pay away from the sickness experts (medics: GPs and consultants) and hand over the decisions to an as yet un-named quango.

Nobody said all benefit claimants are legitimate.

Do you still not understand?

This. The question is actually a fairly simple one I believe.

Who do you trust to tell you you’re ill and what’s wrong with you?
A. The NHS
B. Serco / Fujitsu / G4S / A.N.Other (delete as applicable)

 

[Official Old Man]

I had a woman who went 'sick' with stress for 5 weeks, mainly because we were busy and I asked her to do some work rather than sit araound. She refused to attend any meetings to discuss her problems, just kept sending in sick notes. In the end I took legal advice and when she refused again to attend a meeting I was able to sack her with a further two weeks notice.
But all the time I knew she had a cash job cleaning in a hotel.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

why?

Indeed.

And, separately, how, without cracking down on innocent heads?

The solution offered, as has been noted repeatedly, is to overrule the decision of the doctors and consultants, and make a judgement on fitness to work, apparently, without taking into account their, er, fitness to work (by using criteria other than a claimant's health, as certified by a doctor, to make the decision).

But what, I keep asking myself, is the alternative to someone's health when determining whether someone is fit to work?

Given the continued whataboutery ('whatabout skivers and cheaters?') (not from you I hasten to add), whatabout this as a solution?

Whatabout trimming a benefit (after a doctor has recommended someone not work owing to health reasons) based on what they own? For example, if they own a home or a car, they should have the value of such items, or a proportion thereof, deducted from what they would have 'won' in benefits, if they refuse to work.

This would be an excellent scheme because people would need to be employed to decide how much the benefit should be reduced, which would be good for the economy.

And rather than this be a burden on the taxpayer, the new company (deciding on how much people's benefits should be cut) can be self funding - for every penny of benefits they save, the company can topsclice a commission.

And there is no need to 'make' anyone work of they don't want to. After the benefits have been cut or removed, the claimant can decided for themselves if they want to work or not. This is surely a fair way of saving taxpayers money and getting people back to work!

Obviously there will be a few innocent heads cracked down upon - people who have the medical condition diagnosed by their GP or consultant who have that actual condition and cannot work. But surely this will be a tiny minority and a price worth paying. And in any case, we can all find ways to make economies. Share a bath with a friend. And there are thousands of food banks.

Now, someone please explain to my why this is not utter f***ing madness.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This. The question is actually a fairly simple one I believe.

Who do you trust to tell you you’re ill and what’s wrong with you?
A. The NHS
B. Serco / Fujitsu / G4S / A.N.Other (delete as applicable)

Just like I have been trying to explain, except you're succincter

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Hmm, ‘some quarters.’
Nutters maybe, but not the vast majority of right minded people in this country of all political persuasions ( the nutters excepted). How can parents really wish that kind of society on their offspring?

I hope you're right. It won't be the parents of kids whose wealth means they are immune from the housing market's forces who would be bothered, though.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

They should be more focussed on investigating the billions made from fraudulent PPE contracts they gave out to their "mates" before picking on the mentally ill and those at the bottom of the chain.

Yes, a few weeks on Statutory Sick Pay fades into insignificance compared to the wholesale fraud below (4 examples).

 

[BLOCK F]

I hope you're right. It won't be the parents of kids whose wealth means they are immune from the housing market's forces who would be bothered, though.

Relatively few parents come into that kind of bracket.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

BBC News - Rishi Sunak sets out plans to tackle 'sick note culture'

Rishi Sunak sets out plans to tackle 'sick note culture'

The PM wants to strip GPs of power to issue sick notes but Labour says he has run out of ideas.

www.bbc.co.uk

Sunak is completely deranged. That's the most stupid proposal since his last idiotic idea.

FFS......

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Relatively few parents come into that kind of bracket.

I know. And people are still buying properties. Is it possible to manipulate house prices at a macro level? And why is it that people have protested about the price of petrol and yet nobody takes to the streets about the price of housing?

I don't know the answer to any of this. But someone (a collective someone) has benefitted from the house price inflation. Anyway, apologies for going off on a tangent.

 

[Weststander]

there was a ~20 year period people in their 20's could get a flat on a single average salary, because available credit and prices low enough. so we're saying because of that, it's ok for this generation to give up, go for part time hours, and pout that it's just not fair? they can let someone else deal with all their problems.

Society/nimbies can't have it both ways. Make it incredibly hard and expensive for literally anyone to build new homes (including housing associations), then be angry that people in the age 25 to 40 group are light years away from buying a home. A basis lesson in supply and demand would be a starter,

 

[Weststander]

I know. And people are still buying properties. Is it possible to manipulate house prices at a macro level? And why is it that people have protested about the price of petrol and yet nobody takes to the streets about the price of housing?

I don't know the answer to any of this. But someone (a collective someone) has benefitted from the house price inflation. Anyway, apologies for going off on a tangent.

New homes are bought by:
Investors
Young people, usually couples, who've saved and saved for years, making a hell of lot of sacrifices.
The descendents of well off parents and grandparents, I suspect many here have gifted a colossal helping hand.
Teachers, nurse, police, lone parents who get a foot in the door with affordable homes/shared ownership.