No Fault Evictions

[woodieallen]

....

People who deliberately sponge off our welfare system are a scourge of society.
....

Agreed. Like Marie Buchan. In the paper today...


A mother of eight has told of her lavish spending on a horse and breast enhancement surgery despite being on benefits.
Marie Buchan has been relying on taxpayer-funded handouts for 23 years amounting to about £500,000 over that period.
But despite being jobless and living off of the state, the 42-year-old has been able to spend the money frivolously.
Ms Buchan, 42, who has been dubbed “The Welfare Queen”, told The Sun: “Being on benefits has never held me back from doing anything. I have had a lot of luxuries.”
The single mother, who lives in a four-bedroomed house in Selly Oak, Birmingham, is among about 9.4 million people who are currently jobless, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the Labour Party Conference on Tuesday, Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, vowed to “do everything we can to tackle worklessness”.
In her 23 years of claiming benefits, Ms Buchan’s annual income has fluctuated between £26,000 and £37,000.
While she admits she feels guilty for taking taxpayers’ money, she argued there is no incentive to work.
“I believe we are better off on benefits, because we get help in every area of our lives, whether that’s the rent, bringing up the kids, or bills,” she said.
“You can access food banks or fuel vouchers. There’s a lot of help out there. I’ve completed six college courses on mechanics and social work, but I’m still sitting here claiming my benefits. I’ve done nothing with them.
“It’s very easy to sit in the system for the rest of your life.”

Kind of proves your point, IMO.

 

[Yorkieguy]

I see that delegates at the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool have voted to reverse the government’s controversial cut to winter fuel payments, in a blow to Sir Keir Starmer. While motions at the party conference are non-binding, and the government is not required to respond to them, the vote highlights major division within the party over the controversial policy.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham has described the policy as “cruel”, urging the prime minister to admit he made a “misstep”. She said: “The first thing Labour does is to take away the winter fuel allowance from the poorest in our society while they leave the wealthiest people pretty much untouched.”

Speaking ahead of the vote on Wednesday morning, Ms Graham said: “I do not understand, how our new Labour government can cut the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and leave the super-rich untouched. “This is not what people voted for. It is the wrong decision and needs to be reversed. “Friends, we are the sixth richest economy in the world. We have the money. Britain needs investment, not ‘austerity mark two’.

The winter fuel payment is a payment of either £200 or £300 to help pensioners with their heating bills. Around 10 million pensioners and seven million pensioner households are expected to be affected by the changes. Ms Reeves and Sir Keir have argued that increases in the state pension will outweigh the cut, leaving pensioners better off than they are currently even without winter fuel payments.

That’s arrant nonsense and they know it, yet Stramer talks of ‘honesty’ and ‘candour’.

Telling pensioners in October that next April their pensions will go up next April does not address how they’re going to keep warm in winter months. Furthermore, Starmer et al know fine well that the figures they quote for the pension increase only apply to pensioners who became eligible for the ‘New’ pension in 2016. Any pensioners older than 74 – the most vulnerable - are by far the majority and will on the old pension.

Pensioners born in 1934 during the depression who are now aged 90, spent their childhood during the war years, faced post-war austerity, with clothing and food rationing, which didn’t end until 1954. Some will have lost fathers fighting in WW2 and been raised by war widows. At age 18, they will have been conscripted to do National Service in the armed forces. (Conscription didn’t end until 1960).

Many will have suffered air raids which destroyed their house while they took shelter in Air Raid Shelters. Hull, where I live, suffered severe destruction through bombing. As many as 95% of its buildings were damaged. Overnight on Wednesday 7 and Thursday 8 May 1941, more than 70 German planes dropped tonnes of high explosives, and more than 9,000 incendiary bombs fell on Hull.

Many pensioners of that era will have worked in arduous manual jobs which will have taken its toll on their health and will not have an occupational pension. I dare say a good proportion will have been life-long Labour voters. The winter fuel allowance was just 0.3% of the total welfare bill - it should have been the last thing they touched - not the first.

That Starmer and Reeves made this their first priority within days of being elected is a truly worrying hasty lapse of judgement that it doesn’t bode well for the next five years. The freebie saga and their facile attempts to justify it lacks empathy, misjudges the public mood suggests a 'disconnect' from how the electorate would see it. They say it's 'in the rules'. Well it ought not to be and it's MPs who make the rules so start behaving yourselves and change the rules.

 

[woodieallen]

Oh, but they had to do it otherwise there would have been a run on the pound. "Just call me Pinicchio" said Starmer.

Starmer did also say that 'there was light at the end of the tunnel'. To which my wife replied 'Yes, he'll be gone in five years'.

 

[monster]

Sausages.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Possible explanations for cutting the winter fuel allowance:

• pensioners, particularly the "better off" tend to vote Tory so they don't matter
• Starmer and Reeves want to prove they can be tough and make difficult decisions
• total mis-judgement

Possibly a bit of all 3. Hugely unimpressed, although I am fortunate in that the loss of £300 will not lead to personal hypothermia.

The clothes, football tickets, holidays etc from donors row demonstrates sleaze still rules - all that separates Tory and Labour is the former had 14 years practice. That Starmer and Co are apparently incapable of the very sincere apology warranted is a disgrace.

Changes to the winter fuel allowance, private school status and even the partly self inflicted black hole of £22b are trivia. A very simple approach to put these "billions" into context:

• UK GDP in 2023 was £2273bn
• The low end of full time pay in the UK ~£22730. Middle income (say) £45460
• Divide one into the other and each £1bn is similar to £10-20 for an individual.

Very crudely the personal equivalent of the £22bn black hole is £2-400 (eg: set of car tyres, new washing machine etc). The saving from private schools and winter fuel allowance equates to £20-40 (an extra Starbucks once a month, take-away pizzas for a small family once a year).

To fix "chaotic Britain" will need far more fundamental actions - this is just political noise not very well communicated.

Some may recall Alan Clark (MP for Kensington and Chelsea) many years ago owning up to being "economical with the actualité". This has clearly become de-riguer amongst the political elite - used to great effect by Labour during the election campaign over taxes and borrowing.

I expect large tax increases on all but income tax, NI and VAT. I also expect weasel words around borrowing - seeking to justify it as "investment". Spend more money than income, and borrowing is the outcome.

The Labour scorecard thus far is dismal - the reality is they will be in charge for the next 5 years.

One can only hope their performance radically improves. What would be very helpful is a clear set of metrics to judge then whether they have delivered - unemployment, waiting lists, inflation, housebuilding, borrowing, GDP growth etc.

Failing this expect the usual set of distorted drivel from our political elite - both selectively using different data to support their case. The public deserve far better.

 

[Lons]

...............................That Starmer and Reeves made this their first priority within days of being elected is a truly worrying hasty lapse of judgement that it doesn’t bode well for the next five years. The freebie saga and their facile attempts to justify it lacks empathy, misjudges the public mood suggests a 'disconnect' from how the electorate would see it. They say it's 'in the rules'. Well it ought not to be and it's MPs who make the rules so start behaving yourselves and change the rules.

You other points are exactly what I explained in my email to our new MP though being the spineless wimp he is and absent of any moral values it will go straight over his head.

I very seriously doubt however that the decision to can the WFP was done in haste. Every Labour manifesto from since the payment was introduced has included a pledge to retain it except that is for that manifesto this year in which it was absent. That rather proves that they had already decided their course of action and the constant comment " we have to make difficult decisions" blurted out in every sentence it a blatant lie.

 

[Lons]

Possible explanations for cutting the winter fuel allowance:

• pensioners, particularly the "better off" tend to vote Tory so they don't matter
• Starmer and Reeves want to prove they can be tough and make difficult decisions
• total mis-judgement

I would add another.
They know damned well that during the next 5 years many of those pensioners will have died and are hoping the ones left will have suffered dementia and have forgotten all about it. Of course should their own predictions of 4000 early deaths come to fruition then so much the better as that's 4000 less pensions to pay. At the current OLD pension rate of £8814 pa that would save them more than £35m pa.

Sounds cynical? I bet it's been discussed.

 

[ey_tony]

Agreed. Like Marie Buchan. In the paper today...


A mother of eight has told of her lavish spending on a horse and breast enhancement surgery despite being on benefits.
Marie Buchan has been relying on taxpayer-funded handouts for 23 years amounting to about £500,000 over that period.
But despite being jobless and living off of the state, the 42-year-old has been able to spend the money frivolously.
Ms Buchan, 42, who has been dubbed “The Welfare Queen”, told The Sun: “Being on benefits has never held me back from doing anything. I have had a lot of luxuries.”
The single mother, who lives in a four-bedroomed house in Selly Oak, Birmingham, is among about 9.4 million people who are currently jobless, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the Labour Party Conference on Tuesday, Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, vowed to “do everything we can to tackle worklessness”.
In her 23 years of claiming benefits, Ms Buchan’s annual income has fluctuated between £26,000 and £37,000.
While she admits she feels guilty for taking taxpayers’ money, she argued there is no incentive to work.
“I believe we are better off on benefits, because we get help in every area of our lives, whether that’s the rent, bringing up the kids, or bills,” she said.
“You can access food banks or fuel vouchers. There’s a lot of help out there. I’ve completed six college courses on mechanics and social work, but I’m still sitting here claiming my benefits. I’ve done nothing with them.
“It’s very easy to sit in the system for the rest of your life.”

Kind of proves your point, IMO.

They're human leeches and an affront to every decent person who works and pays their taxes which is why socialism is a failed concept/ideology because it rewards system abuse and punishes meritocracy.
My OH deals with people like this on a daily basis. One receives huge amounts of benefits...fair enough some justified but she can afford to smoke two packs of cigarettes per day, every day which equates to between £600 and £800 per month!

Pensioners have to live on that amount whilst having their winter fuel award taken away from them while she can afford to light up cig after cig and not have to worry.

It's utterly obscene and immoral.

 

[Lons]

The clothes, football tickets, holidays etc from donors row demonstrates sleaze still rules - all that separates Tory and Labour is the former had 14 years practice. That Starmer and Co are apparently incapable of the very sincere apology warranted is a disgrace.

They clearly think the general public are stupid and can't see through the deceit.
I saw some of the Starmer interview with Paxton in the USA and he was again asked about the Arsenal tickets, his reply was that if he didn't accept them he couldn't take his son to a football match. That's an unbelievable excuse from a man who earns almost £170k from his day job plus his investment income and the fact he's a multi millionaire. The vast majority of football supporters are hard working ordinary people and the suggestion the stealer Kier pay for his own tickets just doesn't compute in his twisted brain. The bloke is a joke.

 

[ey_tony]

Why on earth would Starmer need someone to buy his clothes or glasses etc if between him and his OH they have a joint income of at least £200,000 pa.

It's nothing more than cronyism through and through and he's no better than the last lot and they were bad enough.
The man is a disingenuous charlatan.

 

[Spectric]

Starmer did also say that 'there was light at the end of the tunnel'. To which my wife replied 'Yes, he'll be gone in five years'.

Optimistic, five years labour will be thrown back into the long grass but starmer I doubt will last that long the way he is acting.

They know damned well that during the next 5 years many of those pensioners will have died and are hoping the ones left will have suffered dementia and have forgotten all about it.

I doubt anyone is going to let people forget what they did to pensioners, in five years time they will be queuing up to remind everyone in there election campaigns.

his reply was that if he didn't accept them he couldn't take his son to a football match. That's an unbelievable excuse from a man who earns almost £170k from his day job plus his investment income and the fact he's a multi millionaire.

Times must be tough for millionares if they cannot afford cloths, need other men to buy their wives cloths and cannot afford tickets to a football game.

This bloke is just a very sad excuse for a leader and in most corporations the shareholders / stakeholders would have thrown him out but we have been lumbered with a court jester.

 

[Chris152]

I would add another.
They know damned well that during the next 5 years many of those pensioners will have died and are hoping the ones left will have suffered dementia and have forgotten all about it. Of course should their own predictions of 4000 early deaths come to fruition then so much the better as that's 4000 less pensions to pay. At the current OLD pension rate of £8814 pa that would save them more than £35m pa.

Sounds cynical? I bet it's been discussed.

CF Johnson's inclination to let the old and vulnerable die during the Covid crisis rather than further damage the economy? Now that was a real money-saver.

 

[Lons]

CF Johnson's inclination to let the old and vulnerable die during the Covid crisis rather than further damage the economy? Now that was a real money-saver.

Just indicates they're all the same

 

[Chris152]

Just indicates they're all the same

Yes, I was thinking to write I've no doubt that these issues are discussed, whichever the government.

 

[AJB Temple]

Good point. Politics is often about choices with imperfect information. BJ & Co had no idea how the pandemic would pan out. In the end the policies protected the elderly and BJ ended up in intensive care. Starmer's winter fuel policy was clearly pre-meditated and fully quantifiable. I think there is a difference.

 

[Jacob]

They're human leeches and an affront to every decent person who works and pays their taxes which is why socialism is a failed concept/ideology because it rewards system abuse and punishes meritocracy.
My OH deals with people like this on a daily basis. One receives huge amounts of benefits...fair enough some justified but she can afford to smoke two packs of cigarettes per day, every day which equates to between £600 and £800 per month!

Pensioners have to live on that amount whilst having their winter fuel award taken away from them while she can afford to light up cig after cig and not have to worry.

It's utterly obscene and immoral.

Agreed. Like Marie Buchan. In the paper today...


A mother of eight has told of her lavish spending on a horse and breast enhancement surgery despite being on benefits.
Marie Buchan has been relying on taxpayer-funded handouts for 23 years amounting to about £500,000 over that period.
But despite being jobless and living off of the state, the 42-year-old has been able to spend the money frivolously.
Ms Buchan, 42, who has been dubbed “The Welfare Queen”, told The Sun: “Being on benefits has never held me back from doing anything. I have had a lot of luxuries.”
The single mother, who lives in a four-bedroomed house in Selly Oak, Birmingham, is among about 9.4 million people who are currently jobless, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the Labour Party Conference on Tuesday, Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, vowed to “do everything we can to tackle worklessness”.
In her 23 years of claiming benefits, Ms Buchan’s annual income has fluctuated between £26,000 and £37,000.
While she admits she feels guilty for taking taxpayers’ money, she argued there is no incentive to work.
“I believe we are better off on benefits, because we get help in every area of our lives, whether that’s the rent, bringing up the kids, or bills,” she said.
“You can access food banks or fuel vouchers. There’s a lot of help out there. I’ve completed six college courses on mechanics and social work, but I’m still sitting here claiming my benefits. I’ve done nothing with them.
“It’s very easy to sit in the system for the rest of your life.”

Kind of proves your point, IMO.

If you believe that you would believe anything.
Which paper would that be then?
Viz magazine?
No, The Sun of course! Britains worst so-called news paper!
N.B. In case you don't get it: it does not mean that there are 9.4 million women with 8 children and enhanced breasts. She is almost certainly the only one, if true at all that is; much more likely to be a stupid Sun story enhancement.
Sun readers like that sort of nonsense - gives them something else to moan about - and mentions breasts! The Sun's main USPs, their speciality!
They always seem unhealthily preoccupied by single mothers on benefits, they get mentioned a lot. So this "enhanced" story really hits the mark!
Silly boys!

 

[Jacob]

....Starmer's winter fuel policy was clearly pre-meditated and fully quantifiable. ...

...but politically clumsy and inept, as is almost everything he does or says.
He's weird on TV - he dodges questions and talks over the interviewer, and it's the only time he smiles (or smirks). Can't help thinking of football the way he dodges and weaves, smirking in a self congratulatory way

 

[Lons]

More "errors of judgement"?

 

[AJB Temple]

I agree it is politically inept. Especially given pre-election statements. However, what matters to me most is good policies and the ability to see them through. Not sure that we have seen anything yet except "it will all be better in the end" rhetoric. That is concerning as they have had 14 years to plan. When taking over the helm of UK economy plc. they should have been ready to steer the ship.

 

[Lons]

It goes on and on. There's another story at the minute about him accepting £20k worth of accommodation during the election because he was concerned his son who was doing GCSEs might be affected by reporter hanging around his house. It was of course from his best mate Ali