The thing that gets me, is he keeps beating the drum about 'tax payers, 'tax payers money'. It's extremely disingenuous and perverse.
The vast majority of those claiming right now have been tax payers, are tax payers and will for most of the rest of their lives be tax payers.
God I hate this lot.
What is a vast majority?
Where does the £53 come from, as some must have different levels of benefit, some may be working to top up their benefits, some may have children and claim extra money.
Where does the £53 come from, as some must have different levels of benefit, some may be working to top up their benefits, some may have children and claim extra money.
Pity your controller treats people as if they have been scrounging scum for all of their lives.
I'd quite like to see Ian Duncan Smith demonstrate just how he would live on £53 a week. If he can't or won't, then one can only assume he's talking bollocks as usual.
Maybe like a tory counterpart from the 80's who appeared on world in action IDS will put his money where his mouth is
and do a dispatches or panarama special where he will attempt this feat i'll bet he will still have money left over at the end of the week
That was then unknown Tory backbencher, Matthew Parris, MP for West Derbyshire. He admitted what a struggle it would be to do it week in week out. Still it changed his life as it led to a career in the media. He wouldn't have got Waldens old job on Weekend World without it.
Speaking on a general level, £56.25 is what pretty much all single unemployed folk under 24 will be getting.
There's no flash cars, flash houses like you read about in the Daily Mail. There's no multitude of benefits on top. That's all you get, nothing more nothing less. Out of that will have to come electric, gas, water rates, even bedroom tax for some now I think.
Yes, that's the amount pretty much every single unemployed under 24 year old on Job seekers will be receiving. That's the cold hard truth of the matter, below the calculated lies and propaganda.
I'd quite like to see Ian Duncan Smith demonstrate just how he would live on £53 a week. If he can't or won't, then one can only assume he's talking bollocks as usual.
I know where you're coming from, but I wouldn't.
If you're being a benefits tourist like that, one would never understand what it's truly like. It's not just about the money.
Also, even if we look at just the money angle, one of the biggest killers is the fact that over time one is going to need to start replacing expensive essentials and there's just no way to do this when receiving such a paltry sum each week.
he was asked "could you live on £53 a week?", to which he replied "If I had to, yes".
What else could he say? He's hardly going to say "no it's impossible to live on that amount, therefore what the government is doing is condemning people to a life of poverty"is he?
The point I am making is he was asked a question, and gave the only answer he could. He wasn't the one to bring the subject up.
He should, because that's what he's always argued:
I wouldn't expect an honest answer from him though.
the problem with the benefit system before, was not the amount of money given out, it was
1) it only gave you money, it did nothing to support you into training, or into work
this has not changed, and arguably is worse than ever
2) whilst benefits was busy increasing to keep people afloat, wages at the lower end of the jobs market were not.
Simply giving unemployed people £71 a week, isnt enough, they need to be in real training, as well.
the current problem at the moment is that the Tories and IDS is living in a bubble of the reality of the current job market, and make plans that are totally divorced from it.
I would have been stuffed this week. Even though I done OK with my shopping: £37, my electric was £15. I would have had £1 left to live it up.
And you have to find money to travel to any interviews you might have, plus get to the jobcentre to sign, travel around to find work, either pay your internet bill or pay to use the internet in a library (£2 per hours here, and its rare they have a spare computer) etc etc...
I'd quite like to see Ian Duncan Smith demonstrate just how he would live on £53 a week. If he can't or won't, then one can only assume he's talking bollocks as usual.
could you live on 50 odd pound a week, then get seriously sick, see a doctor who states your seriously ill, then get ordered to an ATOS test only to be told you're not ill and have all your benefits stopped weeks before (leaving you penny less and sick) they had the decency to even tell you.
And all the while Mr Smith, have prize prats like you trying to demonise and scapegoat.
I would have been stuffed this week. Even though I done OK with my shopping: £37, my electric was £15. I would have had £1 left to live it up.
for what its worth, if someone was going to see if they could do it, simply doing it for 1 week, is pointless, you need to commit to doing it for 6 months, and see how long you last.
If everything is paid for(housing, energy bills,etc), you probably could if you had to.
You wouldn't even get full housing benefit if in private accomodation. You'd only be eligible for the single room rate, which is set at less than the average room rate for the area.
for what its worth, if someone was going to see if they could do it, simply doing it for 1 week, is pointless, you need to commit to doing it for 6 months, and see how long you last.
They are so out of touch with the real world. Coming out with that comment is rubbing peoples noises in. I hope people wake up at the GE and kick the posh boys out.
Comments
What is a vast majority?
Where does the £53 come from, as some must have different levels of benefit, some may be working to top up their benefits, some may have children and claim extra money.
That was then unknown Tory backbencher, Matthew Parris, MP for West Derbyshire. He admitted what a struggle it would be to do it week in week out. Still it changed his life as it led to a career in the media. He wouldn't have got Waldens old job on Weekend World without it.
Speaking on a general level, £56.25 is what pretty much all single unemployed folk under 24 will be getting.
There's no flash cars, flash houses like you read about in the Daily Mail. There's no multitude of benefits on top. That's all you get, nothing more nothing less. Out of that will have to come electric, gas, water rates, even bedroom tax for some now I think.
Yes, that's the amount pretty much every single unemployed under 24 year old on Job seekers will be receiving. That's the cold hard truth of the matter, below the calculated lies and propaganda.
Not a lot is it?
I know where you're coming from, but I wouldn't.
If you're being a benefits tourist like that, one would never understand what it's truly like. It's not just about the money.
Also, even if we look at just the money angle, one of the biggest killers is the fact that over time one is going to need to start replacing expensive essentials and there's just no way to do this when receiving such a paltry sum each week.
He should, because that's what he's always argued:
'Labour’s approach [to poverty] was a ‘vicious trap’ and had left ‘disturbing number’ of people trapped in poverty'
"A system that was originally designed to support the poorest in society is now trapping them in the very condition it was supposed to alleviate."
I wouldn't expect an honest answer from him though.
Clothes, shoes, etc don't wear out over that time and if you did it in fairly seasonable weather you could probably turn the heating off etc.
But week in, week out for months on end? The man should be made to walk the walk rather than talk the talk.
It's not though.
But thats not how it works...everything has to come out of the £53 per week...
I could very easily live with £50 spare per week after paying everything..
That's it isn't it.
There's also the psychological element to it too. It's a lot different when one can see no end.
1) it only gave you money, it did nothing to support you into training, or into work
this has not changed, and arguably is worse than ever
2) whilst benefits was busy increasing to keep people afloat, wages at the lower end of the jobs market were not.
Simply giving unemployed people £71 a week, isnt enough, they need to be in real training, as well.
the current problem at the moment is that the Tories and IDS is living in a bubble of the reality of the current job market, and make plans that are totally divorced from it.
I would have been stuffed this week. Even though I done OK with my shopping: £37, my electric was £15. I would have had £1 left to live it up.
And you have to find money to travel to any interviews you might have, plus get to the jobcentre to sign, travel around to find work, either pay your internet bill or pay to use the internet in a library (£2 per hours here, and its rare they have a spare computer) etc etc...
http://www.freeimageslive.co.uk/files/images006/relaxing_skeleton.jpg
Here's the petition to suggest he tries it
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week
could you live on 50 odd pound a week, then get seriously sick, see a doctor who states your seriously ill, then get ordered to an ATOS test only to be told you're not ill and have all your benefits stopped weeks before (leaving you penny less and sick) they had the decency to even tell you.
And all the while Mr Smith, have prize prats like you trying to demonise and scapegoat.
Exactly. I could do it for one week.
link doesn't work
Does on mine buts its a skeleton as he would be going hungry if he needed shoes or clothing.:D
This is more to do with matching the experince up with planned benefit changes, than anything else.