campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by Blagsta, Nov 28, 2007.

  1. AnnO'Neemus

    AnnO'Neemus Is so vanilla

    Again, shevek, isn't there an issue regarding the disparity of incomes between you and your partner. If your income is low and you can't afford to pay half of the 675 rent, then shouldn't you put it to your partner that maybe you should consider moving to somewhere cheaper? If there's only two of you, you should be able to get a one bed place that's less than 675 per month.

    It seems as though your partner is expecting to live the lifestyle that his income affords him, completely disregarding the fact that your income does not support your contributing half shares, which is arguably putting you under a heck of a lot of undue pressure, which surely can't be good for your mental health. (iirc, wasn't there an issue of your partner having a really finicking and expensive diet, being really insistent about what he will or won't eat, but insisting that you pay half towards the groceries, even though you can't really afford it, and you're not the one who's the fussy eater?)

    It sounds as though your partner really wants to have his cake and eat it, just wants to carry on living his life regardless of the fact that you really can't keep up with his spending practices.

    I really think you need to have an open and honest conversation about all the pressure that it's putting you under, that you're living in a property with a high rent, that you're on a limited income and can't afford to keep up with his spending preferences.

    If he really can't make any compromises, or if he can't or won't shoulder more of the financial burden to take into account that you're partners, then maybe you ought to be asking yourself whether he's giving you the kind of respect that you deserve.

    From things you've said in the past, it seems as though he's demanding that you're equal partners in terms of spending, when the reality is that you're not equal partners in terms of earning.

    Your situation is much like a husband-wife partnership in that respect, where he fulfills the traditional role of 'breadwinner', he's the one with the full-time career, whereas you're in a part-time and low paid job. I'm guessing that in such relationships, the 'breadwinner' doesn't expect or demand that their supporting partner pays a half share of everything. I'm guessing that because you work part-time that you do a lot of things around the housework, keep on top of things domestically, which enables him to concentrate on his career.
  2. TremulousTetra


    I don't know whether anybody has mentioned this, but there is a group, a national group, called The Direct Action Network. They do some very good stuff. I was involved with them for about 18 months, two years. Fucking amazingly well organized, when carrying out a direct action.
  3. caravankev

    caravankev New Member

    In the late nineties i was told by the job centre that i could not sign on as i was too sick to work despite the fact that i ran a very busy charity.Eventually i saw the relevent doctor who told me that he had been brought out of retirement to do the IB assessments.
    I failed that test with 13.5 points, needed 15 at that time. Appealed, which was heard in my absence as nobody had informed me about it.Got a solicitor involved who got me another appeal where i represented myself and was given 17 points and a unanimous decision in my favour.That was in 98, counts for nothing now apparently. Point is that's where the Doctors come from. And Dewhursts of course.:facepalm:
  4. caravankev

    caravankev New Member

    I would be more than willing to be part of a class action against these changes if anyone is interested, no one has mentioned the disability rights act or the human rights act in this thread. Disabled people fighting/supporting a case against the Government might have more impact than protesting.
    Does anyone know of any student lawyers that might be interested in making a name for themselves because they care.And not for the money.Also surprised that the IB 104 week link rule has'nt been mentioned here.
    If you have, as in my case, previously passed the tests that got you on IB in the first place but are now being told you have been miraculously cured, then does this prove past or present medical negligence? Maybe that argument may not stand up in law but you get the idea i hope.
    Re Peter Hain, some time ago i met a man who is a great admirer of his,(i got the impression he knew him)we had an argument and he told me that he was going to tell Peter Hain about me in a threatening manner.Dunno what he was gonna tell him. I made sure that this pratt received some info on Mr Hain's past misdemeanors. A week or so later he tried to apologise but i told him to fuck off. This man, (Peters friend, allegedly) was at that time claiming benefits and working as a night security guard, cash in hand. Once boasted he had 20 grand in the bank. It pay's to know Mr Hain it seems. Toads.
  5. belboid

    belboid TUC Off Your Knees

    Just got this in me mail - anyone know owt about it?

    (apols if its already been posted)

    No to Welfare Abolition
    the national planning meeting

    Manchester University Students Union, Steve Biko Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PR, rooms MR1 and MR2
    Saturday 14th November
    Arrive 11.30am for 12 noon start. Finish 5.30pm.

    * The aims: stop the implementation of the welfare reform (abolition) bill; build a network of solidarity between claimants; create links between unemployed workers and workers in the PCS

    * The day: 1. Share information 2. Plan a national action 3. Build a strategy and work out how we can co-ordinate nationally

    The Welfare Reform Bill is a massive attack on the disabled, single parents, unemployed workers and workers in the Department for Work and Pensions and we cannot allow it to be implemented.

    14th November is a chance for welfare and disability rights activists, members of unemployed workers' groups and trade unionists to get together, build links of solidarity and plan our struggle. If you are organising against welfare abolition or want to start doing so, please make sure people from your group come along.

    We say to the government and the bosses, we do not exist for your benefit!

    Free lunch will be provided

    Let us know you are coming by emailing
    Contact rebecca.galbraith AT if you want to use the free creche

    Contact hackneyunemployedworkers AT if you need transport from London

    Join the email discussion list here:
  6. Falcon

    Falcon Well-Known Member

    In keeping with the general sense of entitlement to something for nothing held by the prospective attendees, no doubt. A good marketer knows his audience - nice touch.
  7. Paulie Tandoori

    Paulie Tandoori shut it you egg!

    :facepalm: or maybe :D or maybe :oops: or maybe :mad:

    altho actually i'll settle on :rolleyes:

    single parents getting it in the neck again from today.....

    Gingerbread have recently completed research that followed some of the first parents to move onto Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). The benefit rules changed recently so that most single parents whose oldest child is aged 12-15 have been moved off Income Support and onto JSA in the last few months. The changes will be affecting more parents with younger children over the next two years.

    key finding - Before the move, parents expected to feel under considerable pressure to find work once they were on JSA. Once they were on JSA many parents did indeed feel under pressure and some were applying for jobs that would not really be suitable. In general the increase in pressure was not accompanied by more support to find a job; once on JSA many parents said that they had not had any support or advice about job hunting apart from hurried fortnightly sign-on appointments.
  8. Falcon

    Falcon Well-Known Member

    Paulie, I'm not much bothered which smilie, knock yourself out. In 15 years time the planet will be living with the energy it had available in the 50's, but with twice as many people on it. I realise that doesn't register with the majority, but it means global economic contraction, collapsing public health and political turmoil. From that perspective, the grievances of those who had hoped to externalise the cost of raising their family and being relieved of the burden of an "unsuitable" job, while society neglected the incredible cost and effort of preparing itself for that future, will be just one of the many absurdities of our age we will look back upon with a sense of enormous disbelief and resentment. Enjoy it while it lasts.
  9. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

  10. Paulie Tandoori

    Paulie Tandoori shut it you egg!

    So fuck welfare and every man/woman/child for themselves eh?
  11. Falcon

    Falcon Well-Known Member

    I'm saying today's level of welfare support was unimaginable in the 50's, and any level will be unimaginable in the 2020's without considerable effort now. So fuck everybody in the 2020's, eh?
  12. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    why not just fuck 'em now eh Falcon?
  13. treelover

    treelover Well-Known Member

    too many of these 'catastrophists' they are like some of the old Marxist fundamentalists who attacked reformism because it wasn't the full works of the master, etc.
  14. Paulie Tandoori

    Paulie Tandoori shut it you egg!

    so what do you suggest then?

    given, for eg, that pensions expenditure is by far the largest portion of social security expenditure? starve the pensioner? be good to hear your solutions.....
  15. treelover

    treelover Well-Known Member

    Eh?, the welfare state came into its own in the 50's, its become more minimal ever since, anyway this is a thread for positive ideas, etc, go and join Carousel for the cynical stuff.
  16. Paulie Tandoori

    Paulie Tandoori shut it you egg!

    it's worth highlighting that my predictions re: the increased failure rates of the new test of entitlement have, sadly, been realised.

    although my estimates were wildly wrong.....More than two-thirds of applicants for a new sickness-related benefit are failing in their claims, suggesting many of the 2.6 million existing incapacity benefit claimants will be forced on to a lower level of benefit when they are assessed over the next two to three years.
  17. Falcon

    Falcon Well-Known Member

    I was raised in a single parent family in the 60's. Your comment makes me laugh.
    Well, how about testing current recipients, eliminating the scroungers and use the money saved to strengthen efforts to prepare for the coming changes? From your comments, sounds like we are on the right track, and the children today who are the hopeful recipients of welfare tomorrow should be relieved...
  18. The Black Hand

    The Black Hand Unclean

    FFS the level of benefits is half the size of the dole when it was brought in in 1912. Things are already desperate. Already circa 60% or more of people entering prison are on welfare. There is nothing new in this, but punishing the poor is NOT the way to go (see Loic Waquant Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity, Duke University press, 2009). We should be campainging for more universalism and increased levels of benefits.
  19. Falcon

    Falcon Well-Known Member

    One of the better kept secrets of the 1914-1918 war, only recently revealed in declassified documents, was that the British treasury and the finances of the British Empire were in fact bankrupt (by, amongst other enterprises, the welfare experiment to which you refer)
    Specie payments (gold and silver bullion) were promptly suspended by the Bank of England leading directly, through the special relationship between HM Treasury and the New York banking syndicate of Morgan, to the inception of the 1914-1918 war to restore public finances through war reparations against Germany (Engdahl pp35-37).

    This country is well on its way to bankruptcy again. Did you bother to look at what happened in Soviet Russia following its (petroleum crash) bankruptcy? Read Orlov and note the Soviet Union was far better prepared than we are. Are you paying attention to what is happening to the world energy supply and what that means for us? Read Greer. Have you any notion about how much putting us on a sustainable footing will cost? Read MacKay (it's free, you'll like it). Have you any thoughts on how "increased levels of benefit" are to be funded ("taxing the rich" doesn't work any more, turns out their wealth was a hallucinated collection of IOUs that can't be converted into any physical goods or services), or should we just have another war so that the 18% of UK households who are notionally in poverty yet can still afford a TV licence can continue to watch Strictly Come Dancing?

    It's time to stop sniffing the petrol fumes and wake up.
  20. Imagine

    Imagine Well-Known Member

  21. treelover

    treelover Well-Known Member

    If I remember rightly the Guardian supported the abolishing of Incapacity Benefit to be replaced by ESA

    btw, I wonder if folk know there was a competiton for senior DWP staff to 'name' the new benefit which replaced IB, prize was a bottle of champagne, you couldn't make it up.

    this one is even better

    Is Labour abolishing illness?

    Alison Ravetz

    Published 01 May 2008
  22. Paulie Tandoori

    Paulie Tandoori shut it you egg!

    Former (social security) minister Tony McNulty is to be rebuked for his expenses claims following an inquiry and asked to repay about £13,000, the BBC understands.

    funny old world innit. minister abuses the system, gets away with saying sorry. (and a more dense and pointless politician it's difficult to imagine, let alone recall)

    claimant abuses the system. threatened with prosecution. benefits stopped. sometimes public opprobrium and shaming as a scrounger, a thief, a malingerer....:rolleyes:
  23. Falcon

    Falcon Well-Known Member

    He has been named and shamed on the public broadcasting network. Could you be any more partial in your assessment?
  24. Paulie Tandoori

    Paulie Tandoori shut it you egg!

    nope. bloke's a cunt of the highest order. he's shameless, he's clueless, he's a disgrace. go back and read hansard to gauge his views on citizens wbo bend the rules for their own advantage and then come back with his spineless apology that he found himself forced to make today. utter utter wanker of a politician tbf, lowlife pondscum, words can't describe how lowly i view him.
  25. Falcon

    Falcon Well-Known Member

    I can only agree. The same can be said of the many claimant abusers that infest an otherwise worthy system. And here you are defending them.
  26. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    "infest". nice use of language there
  27. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    How do you quantify this "many" of which you speak?
    Are we talking about the substantive figures provided by the Audit Commission?
    Or perhaps the self-serving figures provided by the DWP for incidences of "benefits fraud" (which also happens to include their own over-payment errors, for some reason)?
    Maybe you're relying on media coverage to inform your view of "many"?
    Or perhaps you've got a big enough pair of testes to acknowledge the truth that for all benefits except housing benefit, claimant abuse is low, in no instance over 5%, even at the most scabrous estimates (housing benefit being an exception, due to the fact that it isn't claimant but landlord abuse that drives up the fraud so markedly)?
    But hey, don't let easily accessible data (you can find it all at directgov) get in the way of your ill-informed polemic, eh? :)
  28. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Not unexpected, though. It'll probably start ranting about "useless mouths" soon.
  29. Falcon

    Falcon Well-Known Member

    By administering a test. If, after testing, the number of legitimate claimers remains substantially unchanged then I will accept that I was ill-informed. What will you do?

    No. Let me guess: if retesting returns the same number of claimants as before, you will claim that the test was fair. If it doesn't, you'll claim that it wasn't. Would that be about right?
  30. treelover

    treelover Well-Known Member

    Did anyone go or is welfare still the lefts poor sister...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice