Iain Duncan Smith to live on £53/week fastest petition ever?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 04 Apr 2013, 12:40

extractorfan wrote:Well I didn't sign the petition because its bloody silly as it is obvious that the proles think it's unacceptable for a rich person to attempt to address the concerns of the poor.

This is a stance I would sympathise with if said proles would get off their benefit fattened asses and do something political themselves, or even read a book or two in order to elevate them out of the psychological misery they find themselves in, only they won't because they can't be arsed.

So comparatively rich people have to do it, who have to pussy foot around the banking class because if they don't the banking class, via the gutter press, will tell the stupid not to vote for the person trying to help them.

If you see what I mean...

The VAST majority of people in receipt of a variety of social security benefits are WORKING. This is because, even though they are working, they are NOT PAID ENOUGH to be able to afford to live.

Therefore, the VAST majority of people who are going to be f***ed over by these benefit changes are WORKING people.

But hey, don't mind me. Don't let the facts get in the way of your pathetic Daily Mail prejudices

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 04 Apr 2013, 12:45

stevecook172001 wrote:THe VAST majority of people in reciept of a variety of social security benefits are WORKING.

Therefore, the VAST majority of people who are gouing to be ****** over by thse benefit changes are WORKING people.

I know

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 04 Apr 2013, 12:46

extractorfan wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote:THe VAST majority of people in reciept of a variety of social security benefits are WORKING.

Therefore, the VAST majority of people who are gouing to be ****** over by thse benefit changes are WORKING people.
I know

Well then what's all this shit about benefits claimants getting off their "benefit fattened arses"?

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 04 Apr 2013, 13:45

stevecook172001 wrote:Well then what's all this shit about benefits claimants getting off their "benefit fattened arses"?

I know I don't post a lot, but thought my comment would be taken as aimed at the chattering classes.

I don't buy the vilification of the poor any more than you, although true and tragic that they do not help themselves, and I'm talking about the vast majority, not the handful that think and get active. I used to think I was a socialist, but I realized that the very people who socialism would have helped despised me for my thoughtfulness, and voted for Thatcher. I thought a lot of Kinock, but people bought the media spin that he was a buffoon. I could see this even at just 16 years old.

So I gave up caring so much and just started accepting.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 04 Apr 2013, 15:04

So I gave up caring so much and just started accepting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdD5jRM5xZk

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 04 Apr 2013, 17:25

IDS beaten to it!

Labour MP has a go at living off £18 a week for food.

I therefore took up the challenge of trying to live on £18, and I want to tell Members what it is like. It is extremely unpleasant. I had porridge for breakfast every morning, as I usually do, but I make my porridge with milk; now I was making it with water. I had to eat the same food over and over and over again. Single people are hit particularly hard, because cheap food comes in big packs. I made a stew at the beginning of the week, and I ate the same food four nights a week. I had pasta twice a week. I had baked potatoes. I had eggs on six occasions. It was completely impossible to have meat or fish; that was out of the question. It was also impossible to have five portions of fruit and vegetables a week.

I therefore also have a message for the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Anna Soubry, who is responsible for public health. She was criticising people on low incomes for obesity. Of course people on low incomes are more likely to have that problem; they have to fill up on toast and biscuits.

I found myself waking up in the middle of the night absolutely ravenous, having to make cups of tea and eat biscuits. I had a headache for five days in that week, and I was completely lethargic and exhausted by 4 pm. Some people are on jobseeker’s allowance and are looking for a job. Looking for a job is a job in itself; it takes time and energy. The people whom DWP Ministers want to do workfare are being expected to work 30 hours a week, yet they are not going to have enough to eat properly.

Most shocking of all was the fact that come Sunday I ran out of food—there was literally nothing left to eat that night. If Ministers are happy with the notion that 660,000 of our fellow citizens are literally not going to have enough to eat by the end of the week, all I can say is that I pity them because they have no pity and no conception of what they are going to do to the people in our constituencies who will be faced with this bedroom tax.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 04 Apr 2013, 17:29

For everyone who would like to see Iain Duncan Smith living on £53 a week, here's a useful calculator. Even if it's not possible to live on that little, he said he could, so still needs to be encouraged to prove it!

http://www.minimumincome.org.uk/

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 04 Apr 2013, 17:37

Sh!t, I feel hungry just reading that!

As to caring or not, we're getting to the point at which caring is no longer the issue. We're at the point where enlightened self-interest kicks in. People without enough money to let them eat properly are going to get hyper eating crap, or desperate not eating enough.

Perhaps the most useful thing they could do at a WRAG is buy in supplies of porridge/bacon/grapefruit/etc and cook people a decent breakfast.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 04 Apr 2013, 18:00

RC

Having read that article - I must admit it seems churlish at the very least to deny people enough to get them through the week when it saves so very little money.

Seriously, £18 a week for food, even if this would doubled and there was 5 million people (I made this number up I haven't looked up how many are in the position she refers to in the article) requiring this extra money to eat better its only £90 million. So the benefit changes still save £3.51 billion instead of £3.6 billion and nobody has to go to hungry.

Suprised at some of the comments - many reckon £18 is enough!? Seriously???

Blimey

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 04 Apr 2013, 18:19

George Osbourne has linked benefit reform to the Philpott case. Nice.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04 ... _hp_ref=uk

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 04 Apr 2013, 18:42

He was just following the daily hate, which had it as their front-page lead yesterday. I saw it in the post office.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 04 Apr 2013, 19:10

I thought osbourne was referring to phillpots prolific breeding purely for benefits unlike the mail who seem to claim the welfare state was producing nutters! To be fair the former is fair comment the latter is just mad daily mail rantings!

hodson2k9 · Post by **hodson2k9** » 04 Apr 2013, 19:45

Totally_Baffled wrote:
I don't agree. Its completely irrelevant.

What is relevant is:

Is the £53 quid figure right?

Is this after Rent/Council tax/bills etc or before?

Can the amount of benefit this man is entitled to be lived on? After all the welfare state is (quite rightly) a safety net.

I punched the numbers into the benefits calculator on the "Turn2Us" website and I made it about £95 quid per week net of Coucil Tax and Rent. So it isn't clear what the numbers are - and that was only point I made in my original post**

**One thing to make clear - if the £53 quid is a genuine figure before Rent/Ctax then its too low and needs reviewing. The mistake IDS has made is not to query the number in the first place on the basis he wouldnt be aware of the numbers on each and every personal situation.

Ill tell you how it affects me and my family as i am once again out of work after being employed for 1 month via a job agency. We live in a 3 bedroom house and i have a 5 year old son and a 18 month old daughter so all rooms are being used. We used to get full rent and council tax payed for us.

However with the new rules we are now only entitled to a 2 bedroom house, as they say our son and daughter can share the same room. So now we have to pay for the extra room out of our benefit money which is 15 pound a week plus 5 pound a week council tax leaving us 20 pound a week lighter than before the new rules.

Hope thats helped you understand the new rules a bit better.

ETA: im not moaning about the new rules by the way im very grateful to have a roof over our heads and food on the table.

The only thing these new rules have done to us is make it harder for us to eat healthy as organic and healthy foods are alot more expensive than the other foods.

For example 2 organic chicken breasts costs 5 pound in asda where as you can get 5 non organic, anti-biotic filled chicken breasts for the same price. Same goes for all vegetables etc there alot dearer to feed 4 people than say a tin of beans and a loaf of bread.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 04 Apr 2013, 19:50

Hope thats helped you understand the new rules a bit better.

Thanks Hodson it does

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 04 Apr 2013, 20:04

Thanks for that post H2K9, some people seem to forget that these ideological cuts are affecting real, live people. I've been on benefits in the past and I think that the safety net is now being cut away for vast swathes of the population. It is definitely ideological and the way the poor are being demonized is disgusting.