If I can give my own thoughts and experiences of university and the horrific current system.
I'm a student in my final year of Sixth Form. I got okay GCSE results, but my predicted at A Level would get me into most unis, if I can get them on the day.
So this year has seen the process of deciding whether or not to apply to university for myself and the majority of my peers. I've known some of the brightest in my year, who by all means can be considered top students, admit that they are not going to university because of the immense debt they would be put under.
The Universities coped fine when it was £3000 a term per pupil. The increase of the cap was supposedly to allow the top universities to up their prices in order to reflect their higher quality. However, this simply hasn't been the case, with almost all non-Russell Group universities also upping the price of their degrees to 9k/term.
Then, beginning this year, universities were allowed to add another £250, and after this year, increase their tuition fees annually by the rate of inflation.
So for me, if I get into my desired 4 year course, I will have around £50,000 of debt on tuition fees alone, without even considering the maintenance loan. In all likelihood, my debt will be around £75,000 by the time I graduate.
This hasn't had the effect of increasing the quality of degrees, or making them worth more in employability. Its main effect has been to intimidate those who are more financially conscious, those from poorer backgrounds, many of whom see no way in which they can fund their degree.
So, without a shadow of a doubt I would support even a lowering of tuition fees. Education shouldn't be a business, and nor should the mindset of 'not for the likes of me' be allowed to return.
These days i think you need to work out how to make yourself stand out from the crowd, because a degree doesn't guarantee you do any more.
What, like walking into the interview room with my sack hangin out
Have racked up 9000*4 years = £36,000 Plus around £5k * 4 years maintenance loan = £20,000
So I'm starting the world of work with £56,000 of debt.
But you only pay 9% a year of what you earn over £21,000. So if you're on £25,000 you pay 9% of £4,000 = £360 a year.
The way I think of it is that to get into my field of work I need a degree, everyone my age in my field will also have a degree with the same amount of debt. It's an even playing field unless someone has rich parents who can afford to pay it all outright.
To use Cambridge University as an example, they estimate the actual cost (to them) of providing an undergraduate education to be £18k pa on average - in other words even at £9k pa, the taxpayer is still providing a 50% subsidy.
Have racked up 9000*4 years = £36,000 Plus around £5k * 4 years maintenance loan = £20,000
So I'm starting the world of work with £56,000 of debt.
But you only pay 9% a year of what you earn over £21,000. So if you're on £25,000 you pay 9% of £4,000 = £360 a year.
The way I think of it is that to get into my field of work I need a degree, everyone my age in my field will also have a degree with the same amount of debt. It's an even playing field unless someone has rich parents who can afford to pay it all outright.
But then what's the point of everyone getting degrees if it's just an even playing field? I'd want something that makes me stand out at the end of it if I'm committing 50k of debt to it, no matter how small the repayments are.
A lot of university funding models are "pack em in, especially if they are rich and foreign" so that will change.
Sad thing is certain subjects such as STEM need more people going into them, not fewer Especially physics. I'm involved in widening participation in STEM, trying to get people from more diverse backgrounds. Not a single chance of convincing people from disadvantaged backgrounds into uni with those levels of debt.
Also, we advertised for a job as a graduate chemical patent attorney. Got nearly 300 applicants all with the relevant degree (or nearly about to graduate). That took some sifting. Many firms look only for candidates with a PhD now.
But if you had a physics/electronics degree you could name your price.
My advice is think very hard about what you want to do and get work experience, make contacts, research it... For some jobs it's tough out there.
Have racked up 9000*4 years = £36,000 Plus around £5k * 4 years maintenance loan = £20,000
So I'm starting the world of work with £56,000 of debt.
But you only pay 9% a year of what you earn over £21,000. So if you're on £25,000 you pay 9% of £4,000 = £360 a year.
The way I think of it is that to get into my field of work I need a degree, everyone my age in my field will also have a degree with the same amount of debt. It's an even playing field unless someone has rich parents who can afford to pay it all outright.
But then what's the point of everyone getting degrees if it's just an even playing field? I'd want something that makes me stand out at the end of it if I'm committing 50k of debt to it, no matter how small the repayments are.
Because if I didn't have the degree I wouldn't get the job?
I meant even playing field among others my age going into the same field
In my constituency i have the Independent Millwall Supporter lady, and it turns out that Peter Fortune of the Conservatives is a Palace fan. So, any Tory supporting Lifers got advice regarding who I ought to vote for?
In my constituency i have the Independent Millwall Supporter lady, and it turns out that Peter Fortune of the Conservatives is a Palace fan. So, any Tory supporting Lifers got advice regarding who I ought to vote for?
This all makes sense (costs notwithstanding) but there would still be a large number who are unable/unwilling to recognise those opportunities and to grasp them so then what? (if the goal is to eliminate poverty)
Define a large number and how you are certain that, if a government provided the right levels of support and incentives to people to seek opportunities to stand on their own two feet, that the number of people still choosing to exist a life of shiftless pleasure on benefits would be at a level unacceptable to most taxpayers?
We have to be realistic about two things. In practice, there will always be some people in poverty, and there will always be some people who refuse to work. In the former case, there will be temporary poverty (e.g. where people fall on hard times but strive and are supported to get back up again) and those in permanent poverty, who are beyond help for whatever reason as they refuse all support or help. These people generally do not live enviable lives, either sleeping rough or ending up in shelters or hostels.
Amongst those who refuse to work regardless of incentives, again they are similar to those who end up in permanent poverty. They are beyond help. The people belonging to these groups are incredibly low in number.
Those who wilfully refuse to work because they are gaming the system but would refuse to accept a life of destitution if they had to make a choice between working and not working, that is what we concentrate on. There seems to be a persistent narrative, particularly amongst Tory voters (although also plenty of working class non-Tory voters, those who likely read tabloids and voted for Brexit) that benefit fraud is a huge cost on our budget. It is only, in fact 0.7% of the benefits spend (figures 2014). This equates to 0.1% of the national budget. Now 0.1% of the budget is still a very big sum of money in real terms, but eliminating this number completely is almost impossible, just like it is impossible to completely eliminate crime or poverty.
But misconceptions drive hatred towards those who accept welfare in order to survive. A poll of UK citizens indicated that they thought on average 24% of all benefit payments were fraudulently claimed. This is well out of whack from 0.7%. Likewise, the DWP publishes figures when people 'shop' those they think are benefits cheats, and 85% of those allegations are proven to be false. The general UK public seems to hate people on benefits and have fears that we are throwing too much money 1at those claiming fraudulently, but these fears are utterly unfounded.
As I said before, over two thirds of those claiming welfare are in work. They are already doing everything they can to survive on their own and they still cannot make ends meet through no fault of their own. Surely everyone should be able to agree that those in employment, on PAYE, should be paid a fair wage to afford the basics - food, shelter and heat. Yet the reality is for more than six million British workers who are paid below the living wage, they cannot. Some of these people will be the young who manage to reduce their costs on the basics because they live with their parents, but many more will be those trying to support their own families or who do not have the luxury of being looked after by their family. Surely someone doing a full-time job in the UK, whether they're a bin man, an engineer, a KFC server or a nurse, should be paid enough in order to afford a roof over their head (even just a room in a flatshare), enough food to eat and enough money not to freeze to death. By attacking the causes of exploitation of low-paid workers, whether by their employers or by greedy landlords, as well as ensuring a decent minimum wage, that is the best way of achieving what I would hope we would all agree to be a noble aim, to have all full-time workers to be out of poverty.
There are some people who cannot work full time though through no fault of their own. Poor health, whether physical or mental, is a prison for some people and without support they simply cannot survive. The Tory cuts are causing people to suffer and in some cases die over decisions made over their fitness to work and eligibility for welfare. I quote the Independent:
"Take Annette Francis, a mother who suffered from severe mental illness and who died penniless after her benefits were stopped. And then there’s Mark Wood, an Aspergers sufferer from David Cameron’s constituency who starved to death after his benefits were cut. Or Brian McArdle, a partially blind and paralysed man who died the day after his disability benefits were stopped due to a fatal heart attack caused, his relatives say, by stress related to the decision."
People should not starve to death in modern Britain, that is absolutely shameful. Sadly Mark Wood's case is not the only one of its kind but many more will go unreported.
It is more or less impossible to survive on the UK benefits system alone, the payments simply do not add up to anywhere near what the cost of living is. Those on this thread who claim they know dozens of benefits cheats or those living a life of luxury whilst on benefits, I can assure you that they are not receiving all that money from honest welfare payments alone. It isn't surprising that those engaging in benefits fraud are, usually, also engaged in other profitable criminality that explains their ill-gotten gains. That isn't a problem with the welfare state, that is a problem with crime and Tory cuts to the police certainly do not help in catching these criminals, who are playing the system from both ends.
The fact is, the vast majority of welfare claimants, and those in poverty, are honest, good people doing their best to earn an honest keep as best they can. Over a quarter of British children live in poverty and up to a third of all British disabled people live in poverty. As one of the richest countries in the world, I think that is, to repeat, absolutely shameful. Our country ought to be judged by how it treats the people at the bottom, not how large those at the top live. And I intend to vote for a party that is going to make their lives better, not one that is objectively making the poverty issue in this country worse.
Yes, I had a friend who worked in a jobcentre who told me that about 10% of the unemployed are unemployable for different reasons - sometimes because they have just been unemployed for too long. Governments waste too much time and money trying to get these people into work whereas the trick is to stop people getting into that category.
Some of it, by tax rises, improving tax efficiency and going after tax avoiders and evaders.
But I do agree that even if Labour claim it is entirely fully costed, we are right to be sceptical over such an ambitious program.
I do not believe increased tax returns will materialise immediately (tax rises never usually do so due to a lag effect). And there will likely be an increase in borrowing to get this investment started.
But that is what this is about, investment. You will struggle to find any credible economist that continues to support the Tory program of austerity, as more and more evidence piles up that all they have managed to do is worsen our growth and harmed our ability to reduce the deficit. Yes, the economy is growing and the deficit reducing, but at a much slower pace than what it should be, and certainly compared to other similar countries that decided to invest as opposed to cut. All the Tories managed to do was suck demand out of the economy.
I believe investment now will lead to greater returns later, similar to the J-curve effect - our deficit will increase in the short run but it will kickstart the economy, increase demand and productivity will rise, leading to the deficit to fall at a much greater pace than before.
In my constituency i have the Independent Millwall Supporter lady, and it turns out that Peter Fortune of the Conservatives is a Palace fan. So, any Tory supporting Lifers got advice regarding who I ought to vote for?
They say that every vote counts but Seth me old mate you are screwed.
What is telling is that the NHS, Education etc... is paid for by taxation and borrowing pays for infrastructure related investement. It is a very Keynesian manifesto.
Have racked up 9000*4 years = £36,000 Plus around £5k * 4 years maintenance loan = £20,000
So I'm starting the world of work with £56,000 of debt.
But you only pay 9% a year of what you earn over £21,000. So if you're on £25,000 you pay 9% of £4,000 = £360 a year.
The way I think of it is that to get into my field of work I need a degree, everyone my age in my field will also have a degree with the same amount of debt. It's an even playing field unless someone has rich parents who can afford to pay it all outright.
But then what's the point of everyone getting degrees if it's just an even playing field? I'd want something that makes me stand out at the end of it if I'm committing 50k of debt to it, no matter how small the repayments are.
Because if I didn't have the degree I wouldn't get the job?
I meant even playing field among others my age going into the same field
Ah right sorry, I missed that crucial detail in your post. In that case, fully justified.
Listening to Tim Farron I am now 100% convinced that the conservatives will wipe them out next month. To say he is out of touch is an understatement
He's missed an open goal. After their much improved performance in local and by elections all the Lib Dems had to do was show they have a new credibility as centre left.
And they come up with a referendum on the terms of Brexit! Very few will have an appetite for this. Put it in the hands of our elected MPs to wade through the complication by all means but another referendum?! A strategically stupid move Mr. Farron, and I voted Remain.
Meanwhile I've shown in various posts above that it is the rich not the poor which have been disproportionately and negatively impacted by Tory tax policy - however I accept there are other offsetting non-policy driven factors like booming house and share prices which clearly don't benefit the poor at all.
No you haven't. They may have been disproportionately affected by income tax policy, but you've conveniently ignored the uprating of VAT to 20%, and the negative impact that has had on those on the lowest incomes, as well as the various tax credit changes.
Doesn't really tell the full story. In the first budget after her election in 1979 she reduced the top rate from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%. She continued to cut the basic rate every budget over the next few years down to 25% which was when I started work (88/89). The top rate reduced to 40% in 85 I think. Not so sure on Corp tax, i'd have to check. I have in the back of my mind at some point (50's/60's?) the top rate of income tax was 90%.
Nope, the top rate cut from 60% to 40% was in 1988 too.
This all makes sense (costs notwithstanding) but there would still be a large number who are unable/unwilling to recognise those opportunities and to grasp them so then what? (if the goal is to eliminate poverty)
Define a large number and how you are certain that, if a government provided the right levels of support and incentives to people to seek opportunities to stand on their own two feet, that the number of people still choosing to exist a life of shiftless pleasure on benefits would be at a level unacceptable to most taxpayers?
We have to be realistic about two things. In practice, there will always be some people in poverty, and there will always be some people who refuse to work. In the former case, there will be temporary poverty (e.g. where people fall on hard times but strive and are supported to get back up again) and those in permanent poverty, who are beyond help for whatever reason as they refuse all support or help. These people generally do not live enviable lives, either sleeping rough or ending up in shelters or hostels.
Amongst those who refuse to work regardless of incentives, again they are similar to those who end up in permanent poverty. They are beyond help. The people belonging to these groups are incredibly low in number.
Those who wilfully refuse to work because they are gaming the system but would refuse to accept a life of destitution if they had to make a choice between working and not working, that is what we concentrate on. There seems to be a persistent narrative, particularly amongst Tory voters (although also plenty of working class non-Tory voters, those who likely read tabloids and voted for Brexit) that benefit fraud is a huge cost on our budget. It is only, in fact 0.7% of the benefits spend (figures 2014). This equates to 0.1% of the national budget. Now 0.1% of the budget is still a very big sum of money in real terms, but eliminating this number completely is almost impossible, just like it is impossible to completely eliminate crime or poverty.
But misconceptions drive hatred towards those who accept welfare in order to survive. A poll of UK citizens indicated that they thought on average 24% of all benefit payments were fraudulently claimed. This is well out of whack from 0.7%. Likewise, the DWP publishes figures when people 'shop' those they think are benefits cheats, and 85% of those allegations are proven to be false. The general UK public seems to hate people on benefits and have fears that we are throwing too much money 1at those claiming fraudulently, but these fears are utterly unfounded.
As I said before, over two thirds of those claiming welfare are in work. They are already doing everything they can to survive on their own and they still cannot make ends meet through no fault of their own. Surely everyone should be able to agree that those in employment, on PAYE, should be paid a fair wage to afford the basics - food, shelter and heat. Yet the reality is for more than six million British workers who are paid below the living wage, they cannot. Some of these people will be the young who manage to reduce their costs on the basics because they live with their parents, but many more will be those trying to support their own families or who do not have the luxury of being looked after by their family. Surely someone doing a full-time job in the UK, whether they're a bin man, an engineer, a KFC server or a nurse, should be paid enough in order to afford a roof over their head (even just a room in a flatshare), enough food to eat and enough money not to freeze to death. By attacking the causes of exploitation of low-paid workers, whether by their employers or by greedy landlords, as well as ensuring a decent minimum wage, that is the best way of achieving what I would hope we would all agree to be a noble aim, to have all full-time workers to be out of poverty.
There are some people who cannot work full time though through no fault of their own. Poor health, whether physical or mental, is a prison for some people and without support they simply cannot survive. The Tory cuts are causing people to suffer and in some cases die over decisions made over their fitness to work and eligibility for welfare. I quote the Independent:
"Take Annette Francis, a mother who suffered from severe mental illness and who died penniless after her benefits were stopped. And then there’s Mark Wood, an Aspergers sufferer from David Cameron’s constituency who starved to death after his benefits were cut. Or Brian McArdle, a partially blind and paralysed man who died the day after his disability benefits were stopped due to a fatal heart attack caused, his relatives say, by stress related to the decision."
People should not starve to death in modern Britain, that is absolutely shameful. Sadly Mark Wood's case is not the only one of its kind but many more will go unreported.
It is more or less impossible to survive on the UK benefits system alone, the payments simply do not add up to anywhere near what the cost of living is. Those on this thread who claim they know dozens of benefits cheats or those living a life of luxury whilst on benefits, I can assure you that they are not receiving all that money from honest welfare payments alone. It isn't surprising that those engaging in benefits fraud are, usually, also engaged in other profitable criminality that explains their ill-gotten gains. That isn't a problem with the welfare state, that is a problem with crime and Tory cuts to the police certainly do not help in catching these criminals, who are playing the system from both ends.
The fact is, the vast majority of welfare claimants, and those in poverty, are honest, good people doing their best to earn an honest keep as best they can. Over a quarter of British children live in poverty and up to a third of all British disabled people live in poverty. As one of the richest countries in the world, I think that is, to repeat, absolutely shameful. Our country ought to be judged by how it treats the people at the bottom, not how large those at the top live. And I intend to vote for a party that is going to make their lives better, not one that is objectively making the poverty issue in this country worse.
Much of what you say resonates but it's generic comments like 'no fault of their own' which will never sway the centre voters that Labour needs to attract again. Of course this is true of many and probably the majority but not all.
I am reluctant to use personal examples as they miss the point, but my father-in-law lives entirely on benefits having pissed away a good career through reckless spending and professional misconduct.
In his case the fault is entirely his own and moreover you could have predicted it twenty years ago when he gave the clearly false impression of being very well-off.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
If parents can't afford this their child gets access to a nimbus for one hour a day and 1 floppy disk per term
Nimbus...... you are showing your age young man!
I remember our pc at primary school year 6. Sat in this massive cabinet with something akin to shop window shutters that came down and were locked very securely every afternoon by ms Walsh
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
If parents can't afford this their child gets access to a nimbus for one hour a day and 1 floppy disk per term
Nimbus...... you are showing your age young man!
I remember our pc at primary school year 6. Sat in this massive cabinet with something akin to shop window shutters that came down and were locked very securely every afternoon by ms Walsh
PC at primary school?? Ha ha ha !
I know right, you get sacked for calling the ginger kid Carrot these days
"This is an absolute serious question. You stated "we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power".
So I assume you mean since the 2010 coalition, why do you think this is? What action have they taken to cause this, Is it the benefit cuts?
What exactly are labour planning to do to eradicate this Poverty?
What did the Tories do to worsen our country's poverty?
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues. - Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty. - Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty. - schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances. - NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover. - Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers. - as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions. - cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas - bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize - not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances - VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income - social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty - Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job - EMA axed - cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas"
Add to this, doubling of rough sleepers since 2010, and increases in homeless households and rising numbers of households in temporary accommodation. Introduction of the more expensive affordable rent tenure. Extension of right to buy by increasing discounts and the forced sale of council houses to pay for it. Axing of housing benefit for 18 - 21 year olds. Extending the single room rate of local housing allowance for all single people from 25 years old to 35 years old. Allowing housing associations to increase their rents and to sell off stock to replace the cuts in social housing grant. Reducing local housing allowance from the 50th percentile to the 30th percentile, and then the freezing of LHA rates. Reduction in discretionary housing payment budgets to top up housing benefit claims. Axing of lifetime social housing tenancies.
Reality Check: How many apprenticeships have been created since 2010? BBC 15 May 2017
The claim: Since 2010, the government has revived the culture of apprenticeships by creating two million new places and will create another three million by 2020.
Reality Check verdict: There were not two but nearly two-and-a-half million new apprenticeships created in England under the coalition government between 2010-11 and 2014-2015. Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the culture of apprenticeships had been revived with the creation of two million new places between 2010 and 2015. That period was actually the time of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. Skills and training are devolved policy areas so the figures quoted by Mr Green apply to England only. There were not two but nearly two-and-a-half million new apprenticeships in that period. According to a report by the House of Commons Library, using figures by the Department for Business Innovation & Skills, between 2010-11 and 2014-15, there were 2.428 million new apprenticeships started in England.
Mr Green said there will be another three million new apprenticeships created by 2020. Under the Conservative government in 2015-16, there were 509,400 new apprenticeships in England, 9,500 more than the previous year.
The report points out that the growth has been driven by an increase in the number of apprenticeships available to people aged 25 and over, who took 44% of all new available spaces in 2015-16. The number of women starting apprenticeships has been higher than men in every year in that period. In 2015-16, women started 53% of apprenticeships and men 47%.
All public sector employers with at least 250 employees in England must employ new apprentices as 2.3% of their headcount each year.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has, however, warned in a report this year that that this large expansion "risks increasing quantity at the expense of quality".
The Department for Education said at the time that standards are "rigorously checked".
Nurses are on a higher wage than the grads starting in our agency... Speaking to someone on our grad scheme today and absolutely none of them are using food banks. Why do we always hear that nurses are using food banks?
Comments
Have racked up 9000*4 years = £36,000
Plus around £5k * 4 years maintenance loan = £20,000
So I'm starting the world of work with £56,000 of debt.
But you only pay 9% a year of what you earn over £21,000. So if you're on £25,000 you pay 9% of £4,000 = £360 a year.
The way I think of it is that to get into my field of work I need a degree, everyone my age in my field will also have a degree with the same amount of debt. It's an even playing field unless someone has rich parents who can afford to pay it all outright.
Sad thing is certain subjects such as STEM need more people going into them, not fewer
Especially physics. I'm involved in widening participation in STEM, trying to get people from more diverse backgrounds. Not a single chance of convincing people from disadvantaged backgrounds into uni with those levels of debt.
Also, we advertised for a job as a graduate chemical patent attorney. Got nearly 300 applicants all with the relevant degree (or nearly about to graduate). That took some sifting. Many firms look only for candidates with a PhD now.
But if you had a physics/electronics degree you could name your price.
My advice is think very hard about what you want to do and get work experience, make contacts, research it... For some jobs it's tough out there.
Nearly spat me Pepsi Max out
I meant even playing field among others my age going into the same field
So, any Tory supporting Lifers got advice regarding who I ought to vote for?
http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017
We have to be realistic about two things. In practice, there will always be some people in poverty, and there will always be some people who refuse to work. In the former case, there will be temporary poverty (e.g. where people fall on hard times but strive and are supported to get back up again) and those in permanent poverty, who are beyond help for whatever reason as they refuse all support or help. These people generally do not live enviable lives, either sleeping rough or ending up in shelters or hostels.
Amongst those who refuse to work regardless of incentives, again they are similar to those who end up in permanent poverty. They are beyond help. The people belonging to these groups are incredibly low in number.
Those who wilfully refuse to work because they are gaming the system but would refuse to accept a life of destitution if they had to make a choice between working and not working, that is what we concentrate on. There seems to be a persistent narrative, particularly amongst Tory voters (although also plenty of working class non-Tory voters, those who likely read tabloids and voted for Brexit) that benefit fraud is a huge cost on our budget. It is only, in fact 0.7% of the benefits spend (figures 2014). This equates to 0.1% of the national budget. Now 0.1% of the budget is still a very big sum of money in real terms, but eliminating this number completely is almost impossible, just like it is impossible to completely eliminate crime or poverty.
But misconceptions drive hatred towards those who accept welfare in order to survive. A poll of UK citizens indicated that they thought on average 24% of all benefit payments were fraudulently claimed. This is well out of whack from 0.7%. Likewise, the DWP publishes figures when people 'shop' those they think are benefits cheats, and 85% of those allegations are proven to be false. The general UK public seems to hate people on benefits and have fears that we are throwing too much money 1at those claiming fraudulently, but these fears are utterly unfounded.
As I said before, over two thirds of those claiming welfare are in work. They are already doing everything they can to survive on their own and they still cannot make ends meet through no fault of their own. Surely everyone should be able to agree that those in employment, on PAYE, should be paid a fair wage to afford the basics - food, shelter and heat. Yet the reality is for more than six million British workers who are paid below the living wage, they cannot. Some of these people will be the young who manage to reduce their costs on the basics because they live with their parents, but many more will be those trying to support their own families or who do not have the luxury of being looked after by their family. Surely someone doing a full-time job in the UK, whether they're a bin man, an engineer, a KFC server or a nurse, should be paid enough in order to afford a roof over their head (even just a room in a flatshare), enough food to eat and enough money not to freeze to death. By attacking the causes of exploitation of low-paid workers, whether by their employers or by greedy landlords, as well as ensuring a decent minimum wage, that is the best way of achieving what I would hope we would all agree to be a noble aim, to have all full-time workers to be out of poverty.
There are some people who cannot work full time though through no fault of their own. Poor health, whether physical or mental, is a prison for some people and without support they simply cannot survive. The Tory cuts are causing people to suffer and in some cases die over decisions made over their fitness to work and eligibility for welfare. I quote the Independent:
"Take Annette Francis, a mother who suffered from severe mental illness and who died penniless after her benefits were stopped. And then there’s Mark Wood, an Aspergers sufferer from David Cameron’s constituency who starved to death after his benefits were cut. Or Brian McArdle, a partially blind and paralysed man who died the day after his disability benefits were stopped due to a fatal heart attack caused, his relatives say, by stress related to the decision."
People should not starve to death in modern Britain, that is absolutely shameful. Sadly Mark Wood's case is not the only one of its kind but many more will go unreported.
It is more or less impossible to survive on the UK benefits system alone, the payments simply do not add up to anywhere near what the cost of living is. Those on this thread who claim they know dozens of benefits cheats or those living a life of luxury whilst on benefits, I can assure you that they are not receiving all that money from honest welfare payments alone. It isn't surprising that those engaging in benefits fraud are, usually, also engaged in other profitable criminality that explains their ill-gotten gains. That isn't a problem with the welfare state, that is a problem with crime and Tory cuts to the police certainly do not help in catching these criminals, who are playing the system from both ends.
The fact is, the vast majority of welfare claimants, and those in poverty, are honest, good people doing their best to earn an honest keep as best they can. Over a quarter of British children live in poverty and up to a third of all British disabled people live in poverty. As one of the richest countries in the world, I think that is, to repeat, absolutely shameful. Our country ought to be judged by how it treats the people at the bottom, not how large those at the top live. And I intend to vote for a party that is going to make their lives better, not one that is objectively making the poverty issue in this country worse.
But I do agree that even if Labour claim it is entirely fully costed, we are right to be sceptical over such an ambitious program.
I do not believe increased tax returns will materialise immediately (tax rises never usually do so due to a lag effect). And there will likely be an increase in borrowing to get this investment started.
But that is what this is about, investment. You will struggle to find any credible economist that continues to support the Tory program of austerity, as more and more evidence piles up that all they have managed to do is worsen our growth and harmed our ability to reduce the deficit. Yes, the economy is growing and the deficit reducing, but at a much slower pace than what it should be, and certainly compared to other similar countries that decided to invest as opposed to cut. All the Tories managed to do was suck demand out of the economy.
I believe investment now will lead to greater returns later, similar to the J-curve effect - our deficit will increase in the short run but it will kickstart the economy, increase demand and productivity will rise, leading to the deficit to fall at a much greater pace than before.
As am I where I live.
To say he is out of touch is an understatement
And they come up with a referendum on the terms of Brexit! Very few will have an appetite for this. Put it in the hands of our elected MPs to wade through the complication by all means but another referendum?! A strategically stupid move Mr. Farron, and I voted Remain.
I am reluctant to use personal examples as they miss the point, but my father-in-law lives entirely on benefits having pissed away a good career through reckless spending and professional misconduct.
In his case the fault is entirely his own and moreover you could have predicted it twenty years ago when he gave the clearly false impression of being very well-off.
So I assume you mean since the 2010 coalition, why do you think this is? What action have they taken to cause this, Is it the benefit cuts?
What exactly are labour planning to do to eradicate this Poverty?
What did the Tories do to worsen our country's poverty?
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues.
- Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty.
- Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty.
- schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances.
- NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover.
- Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers.
- as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions.
- cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas
- bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize
- not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances
- VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income
- social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty
- Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job
- EMA axed
- cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas"
Add to this, doubling of rough sleepers since 2010, and increases in homeless households and rising numbers of households in temporary accommodation.
Introduction of the more expensive affordable rent tenure.
Extension of right to buy by increasing discounts and the forced sale of council houses to pay for it.
Axing of housing benefit for 18 - 21 year olds.
Extending the single room rate of local housing allowance for all single people from 25 years old to 35 years old.
Allowing housing associations to increase their rents and to sell off stock to replace the cuts in social housing grant.
Reducing local housing allowance from the 50th percentile to the 30th percentile, and then the freezing of LHA rates.
Reduction in discretionary housing payment budgets to top up housing benefit claims.
Axing of lifetime social housing tenancies.
BBC 15 May 2017
The claim: Since 2010, the government has revived the culture of apprenticeships by creating two million new places and will create another three million by 2020.
Reality Check verdict: There were not two but nearly two-and-a-half million new apprenticeships created in England under the coalition government between 2010-11 and 2014-2015.
Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the culture of apprenticeships had been revived with the creation of two million new places between 2010 and 2015.
That period was actually the time of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government.
Skills and training are devolved policy areas so the figures quoted by Mr Green apply to England only.
There were not two but nearly two-and-a-half million new apprenticeships in that period. According to a report by the House of Commons Library, using figures by the Department for Business Innovation & Skills, between 2010-11 and 2014-15, there were 2.428 million new apprenticeships started in England.
Mr Green said there will be another three million new apprenticeships created by 2020.
Under the Conservative government in 2015-16, there were 509,400 new apprenticeships in England, 9,500 more than the previous year.
The report points out that the growth has been driven by an increase in the number of apprenticeships available to people aged 25 and over, who took 44% of all new available spaces in 2015-16. The number of women starting apprenticeships has been higher than men in every year in that period. In 2015-16, women started 53% of apprenticeships and men 47%.
All public sector employers with at least 250 employees in England must employ new apprentices as 2.3% of their headcount each year.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has, however, warned in a report this year that that this large expansion "risks increasing quantity at the expense of quality".
The Department for Education said at the time that standards are "rigorously checked".