MOVES by Chancellor George Osborne to further slash the welfare bill which in Gloucestershire stands at £580 million were criticised by a county youth worker.
MOVES by Chancellor George Osborne to further slash the welfare bill which in Gloucestershire stands at £580 million were criticised by a county youth worker.
He used his speech to the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham to declare his intention to press ahead with £10 billion in welfare cuts by 2016/17, while ruling out the "mansion tax" on expensive properties.
Among those likely to lose out from the cuts are under-25s, who look set to be stripped of housing benefit, and unemployed parents, who may face reductions in the amounts of support they get for additional children.
He also indicated action would be taken to curb increases in jobless benefit, and bring it into line with pay rises of those in work.
NEW PROMOTIONS put out each calender month! Dont miss out!
Terms: Terms and conditions are when order is complete in full 5% discount will be given with this voucher!
Contact: 01452 223149
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
After the speech, Anna Reeves, manager of the Whaddon, Lynworth and Prior's Neighbourhood Project which works with young people, said the taking the benefit away may put a strain on families.
"If people in the under 25 age category are not able to move into their own homes it could have implications for the wider family," she said.
"Parents might find their sons or daughters are having to live with them for longer. But not only that – if their children have partners and children, they might all have to stay under the same roof which can create a more pressurised situation. If there are issues at home in terms of financial problems or other difficulties, what kind of support network will be in place to help people to move out if staying at home is not an option?"
Scrapping housing benefit for people aged under 25 would shave more than £13 million off the county's welfare bill official figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show.
Mr Osborne said: "Just as we should never balance the budget on the backs of the poor, so it's an economic delusion to think you can balance it only on the wallets of the rich. It is wrong that it's possible for someone to be better off on benefits than they would be in work."
Speaking after the speech, MP for Tewkesbury Laurence Robertson welcomed the move, he said: "We have got to reduce the welfare bill.
"The original intention was to help those who can't help themselves and to support people temporarily. It's grown beyond that."




Comments
by Bonkim2003
Wednesday, October 10 2012, 12:34AM
“NibNobs - you hit the nail on its head - look what ever rising expectations have led Greece to. Basics - you can not spend more than what you have - so don't promise the earth.”
by Bonkim2003
Wednesday, October 10 2012, 12:32AM
“TimMessanger - interesting and a must for everyone.”
by Bonkim2003
Wednesday, October 10 2012, 12:12AM
“Shireresident - understand your point - it is difficult to convince people that one can be detached from conventional wisdom, and direct without being labelled a Nazi or old fashioned.
Most people want to be uplifted by promises of a better tomorrow given the uncertainties that surround us today. Governments would like the illusion to continue.
If you want to be a realist and discuss things detached from your immediate condition, need to look at things objectively. Our notions of economics, and social equality, cohesion, etc, are features of recent history, developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, polished in the 20th, at a time when world populations were low, resources appeared infinite, land empty and scientific and industrial developments in the hands of few who could commandeer lesser beings to work to generate wealth for the few - this was global enterprise taking off. Social and cultural norms, even religious beliefs are conditioned by history.
Lifecycle is a feature of all natural and man-made constructs - and it is not too difficult to see that the fruits of science, technology, and international trade has led us to where we are and that we just can not go back and start anew via a different low-consumption/more sustainable route.
As things stand today, resources that are essential for the world systems to function are malfunctioning, countries that have the financial or political/military clout are cornering scarce resources, conflicts around the world are escalating mainly to control scarce resources. The 'haves' whilst trying to buy-out the have-nots by international aid to keep world peace are finding it impossible to keep the pace, or realising that their efforts are not working. Sections of populations around the world are increasing because of outside aid and medical advances, consequently reproducing at even higher rates putting ever more demand on resources.
If this sounds like Malthus - may be - I have not read Malthus, only know vaguely about his predictions - Karl Marx said similar things about the fate of capitalism. Most thinking folk should be able to arrive at the same conclusion by rudimentary cause and effect analysis, and looking at the way man has exploited earth's resources over the past century - quantities of source materials, and finished goods being shipped around, numbers travelling by road, sea and air, quest for ever increasing capacity or faster means of transport, housing, or whatever, and also their effects on climate, polar ice caps, air and water quality, and other indicators.
It is not difficult to carry out an audit of all the inputs and outputs and quantities of source materials readily available, and consumption rates - there are global models of these features - the only problem is that people do not want to hear bad news, and politicians do not want people to get alarmed; people do not change until hit when it will be too late.
Politicians promise increase in economic activity, well-paying jobs, more consumption, generating greater expectations all round. As seen by comments here, most blame the government when expectations are not fulfilled.”
by TimMessanger
Tuesday, October 09 2012, 11:17PM
“Watch Masters of Money to get an idea of where the problems originated!
http://tinyurl.com/92azltc”
by Shireresident
Tuesday, October 09 2012, 10:13PM
“Sorry to correct you Mr. Nobs but in the 70s my dad got given a bottom of the range mini on account of his war disability. He was in full time work so he needed it for his job. The day after he died it was towed away. Hardly the same as the caricature you present as the norm. The point that needs addressing is where are the jobs for people to go after that will take away benefit dependency? without them it's a bit mean spirited to tar every unemployed person with the same brush. All this setting up the poor as an aunt sally for the ills of society is very divisive and ultimately non productive. The government should be sorting out the causes of the recession rather than penalising it victims.”
by NibNobs
Tuesday, October 09 2012, 8:28PM
“Very intelligent conversation here on this subject!
The problem as I see it is the various benefits that were originally intended to be a temporary stop gap of last resort that people used to get have risen in value, desireability and have been made complicated. Living on housing benefits has become a lifestyle choice and it's so hard to take away money from people who have got used to it. You always hear people that are on LONG term benefits say "I want a job, I really do" but those tend to be the same people that are quite happy to be able to take their children to school at 9am AND be able to pick them up at 3pm, almost certainly work would prevent this. Of course people then get used to this and so it becomes a requirement by parents and the children. Take disability benefits, years ago people with a disability were issued with a horrible blue fiberglass one seater car, then along came the excellent mobility scheme with the opportunity to get a Ford Fiesta, Rover 213 or Vauxhall Corsa. These days people with that benefit tend to get £24,000 Golf TDi's, Vauxhall Zafira people carriers and Insignia's. Very nice but would people on mobility go back to having 'only' a 3 door Fiesta? Of course not. Once you are used to getting 100% of your rent paid with housing benefit AND your council tax paid with council tax benefit, plus income support or job seekers allowance which then entitles you to free prescriptions, discounts off travel etc - it's simply very hard to take things away from people once they get used to them. In fact everytime this government has tried to take something way from people, they naturally squeal.”
by Shireresident
Tuesday, October 09 2012, 6:50PM
“Bit old fashioned Malthusian notions Mr. B. also a touch of eugenics in your caricature of the feckless breeding habits of the "poor and ignorant". Must be nice being so superior. I happen to think that the problems you outline are resolvable provided governments think in joined up ways about the environment and social policy. Clearly this isn't happening at the moment, not just here but worldwide, still as a species we are quite good at solving the problems we create, just stay positive.”
by Bonkim2003
Tuesday, October 09 2012, 3:14PM
“IsitJimKerr - will go beyond what you say - you cannot spend what you don't have - UK population is increasing more than that in comparable western democracies - we appear to have imported the fecundity of some eastern cultures or the teachings of the Catholic Church - the world is already overpopulated, energy, water, and mineral resources depleting fast on the back of profligate consumption, medical/scientific advances/overseas aid have increased life-times of people on all continents, allowed more of the young to survive and populations to explode even at locations on earth that were inhospitable for life few decades back, the poor and ignorant on all continents breeding like there is no tomorrow - all told a future that is not very nice for mankind - but people sleepwalking into it.
Given the above situation, calls for ever more expansion of the economy, or government subsidised employment schemes to keep up living standards or incomes - is simply expanding the pyramid on loose foundations - perhaps we all need to lear to do with less, chuck out our 4 or 5G phones, cable TVs, foreign holidays, car travel, and more - and as said by IsitJimKerr - curb populations before nature does that for us.”
by TimMessanger
Tuesday, October 09 2012, 3:02PM
“The problem is that the workers wages have stagnated for many years, this means that they cannot purchase products that the workers make, the workers then lose their jobs and there are less workers to buy the products still being made. At the same time the owners of the companies are taking higher and higher wages / bonuses.
The current problems are caused by the introduction of "cheep credit" that allowed the workers (consumers) to carry on buying, this then transferred to the re-mortgaging to pay off card debts and release equity to purchase more. There is nothing for us left to borrow on and so we are here, you can't blame the last government for the problems you have to look at the capitalist system that is inherently unstable and has been pushed over the edge by the greedy on the top of the pile. How is it the rich are still getting richer during this down turn?”
by IsitJimKerr
Tuesday, October 09 2012, 2:48PM
“Shireresident........................having been unemployed myself many times, I know the feeling and I'm not referring to ALL unemplyed as being scroungers. In fairness to GO, he's not either.
If you take my 'exceptional' case of the parents with (nearly) five children, and who knows when they'll stop, you must accept that this is an outrageous p!ss take?
Yes, the 'liberals' will say we are a caring country, and it's our tradition that we accept that these things go on, well, during the good times, maybe, but with older middle income families REALLY struggling, the feckless carry on churning them out.
Taking a look at the bigger picture, and the elephant in the room that NO Government the world over is prepared to acknowledge, except the Chinese, world population has be curbed.
A start could be made with the Western world saying that only the first two will get child support, and that there is a maximum for a family of four, you want 'em, you pay for 'em.”