That's probably what I'll end up doing.

For those condemning Milliband's speech out of hand, an interesting piece here: www.leftfootforward.org/2013/06/ ... n-welfare/

For those condemning Milliband's speech out of hand, an interesting piece here: www.leftfootforward.org/2013/06/ ... n-welfare/

Milliband's speech was actually ok.

Looks like he has finally realised that Labour need some economic credibility. Just saying they will reverse tory policies when there will be no money to do so makes him sound silly.

Also welfare reform is popular, it is sensible to get on that bandwagon.

I also like the idea that people who have worked for a long time and find themselves unemployed will get a higher rate of benefits than those that have never worked.

The argument against that is that copying a government that has no "economic credibility" – that is failing on the specific, stated points that the Chancellor laid out as key – is hardly conducive to any credibility.

You are confusing economic credibility with the perception of economic credibilty.
They are not the same thing.
The Tory message about it all being Gordon Brown's fault is erroneous and at best disingenuous.


It would ... but he never has said that.


This sums up a lot of what is wrong with the public's engagement with politics.
When people would rather have bandwagon politicians than someone with genuine conviction, we would be in very poor situation.

Perhaps Barry should have provided a rllinkrl to illustrate his point better?

Oh sure, you can always find a small number of of individuals who are apparently shafting the system - I say apparently because upon closer inspection you see that the individual concerned is renting private accommodation because her local authority is unable to find her a suitable home - thats your first problem right there.

The father of six of her children is allegedly not paying her any child support at all - thats your second problem right there.

Look at the breakdown of her "benefits" and you'll see that there is nothing there that could be perceived as "scrounging" or "shirking", indeed if she got her act together and worked for a small number of hours a week she'd probably find that she'd qualify for Working Tax Credits too.

But of course its just so much simpler when you can vilify the individual person instead and use words like "hardworking good tenants" to turn groups against each other.

Unfortunately there are many who are too lazy or stupid to attempt to strip off the lacquered veneers.
They are content at being outraged without any intention of digging or delving deeper, it just doesn't suit them.
Sad but very true.

And unfortunately the lazy and stupid include local councilors and MP's too - aided and abetted by newspaper editors.

Indeed.
I'm by no means limiting it to the hard of thinking on the Sin Bin.

Just to update you all – Barry has not further replied to my tweeted questions, since responding with a curt 'yes' to my question of whether he knoew that 80% plus of all housing benefit is paid to people who are in work.

I think you'll find it's the good ol" British taxpayer who is paying the rent on this six bedroomed property, not this workshy, but extremely fertile individual. I would hope that her local council could offer a perfectly adequate 4 bedroomed house from their local stock, or provide an explanation as to why she hasn't been offered one.



More of a CSA problem I would think.



So, in Chicken World, reaching the age of 37 without contributing anything into the system via a job, is not considered as scrounging or shirking? How odd. I'll admit, with seven kids she hasn't neglected that side of her contribution to british society, but are you seriously suggesting there is any danger of her being vertical long enough to to hold down a job? What would you have to earn to bring home a similar salary that matched her benefits, or bettered them to provide a bit of encouragement? 45k....50K? And her qualifications for that, is what?



Vilify is a tad emotive, but in any case, why should those hardworking good tenants who make up 80 percent of claimants, not feel ticked off when they read about cases like above? Or hear the banal nonsense quoted in defence of the current benefit set up?

Have you met her? If not, how do you know she is "workshy"? Just because she hasn't worked in 20 years doesn't imply she is.



So still a problem though



In Rumpel World, not knowing the first thing about someone appears to give you a licence to describe someone as shirking or scrounging. Are you a Tory Minister by any chance?



I assume you've done a poll of these 80% of tenants to confirm they are hardworking and are ticked off by this?