Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Well I never.
they'll see things right.
LOOK, PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THEY READ AND WHAT THEY'RE TOLD
Wait a second I'm going to try Yahoo Answers and I'll get back to you.
are much more numerous, and much more varied than those who read the likes of the Daily Mail and Daily Express.
I'd say left wingers in this country are just as blinkered in what sources they use (Twitter circlejerks, sharing political memes through Facebook with false info, parroting whatever's in the Guardian or New Statesman).
(and, as anyone, anywhere, who works in this research will tell you - they're never, ever actually representative)
they have at least made some effort to weight their figures.
The questions on the other hand are dreadful and blatantly lead respondents... "Do you agree" style questions will always get artificially high figures of agreement.
The sad likelihood is that some of the people who voted in this poll but will one day find out the reality for themselves.
neither of those sentences make sense!
wake up housername!
*Which explains how the government intend to get away with these welfare reforms.
The sad likelihood is that some of the people who voted in this poll/share the views of those that do will one day find out the reality of the proposed Tory benefit reforms for themselves...
having said that the opposition's complete lack of, er, opposition on welfare reform can't have helped. Miliband's apparent loyalty to Liam Byrne is difficult to understand. Then again, Labour is the party that gave us all James Purnell.
for any mention of the fact that support for a combination of lower taxes and lower spending fell to six per cent.
any particular insults you want hurling at him? For a small fee, ofc.
I'd quite happily slip you a few quid to do that.
doesn't it ever get old?
I suspect you may have psychopathic tendencies.
Unemployment at extremely high levels (i.e. the opportunity to 'stand on one's own feet') and THAT is when people decide that being on benefits is beyond the pale. Have a whinge about it when the government is doing victory laps because of 4% unemployment...
And getting loads of likes. Some twat I'm friends with keeps liking it and it's coming up in my feed ALL THE TIME
As an aside - what is up with this trend of posting something on a company or group's wall trying to get thousands of likes with some carefully targeted *like this if* shit. Doing my head in
Ignore if you LOVE cancer and wish everyone had it.
These things piss me off no end.
it's ridiculously easy to live on benefits.
I say that as a single person who has exerienced them in the past, and as someone who has known both single and two-parent families on them, as well.
Obviously, most people don't live on £10 a day (single person, over 25 JSA), and think that it would be pretty grim doing so, but it's actually not, it's fucking easy. You get up when you want, you eat three warm meals a day, you still have enough for a couple of pints a day with yer pals, you can still do things socially, you just have to watch what you spend a bit, that's all.
You can't really say this without it sounding like you're winding peope up, but i honestly think benefits are too high. It's an alright life. It's certainly not all white cider, leaky walls, stale bread and ITV like people try and portray it to be.
My old flatmate was made unemployed, and lived on benefits for over a year. We lived a pretty studenty lifestyle at the time, and his last job had been minimum wage, so his standard of living didn't drop massively.
He wasn't fleecing the system or anything, but I do think if things had been tougher he'd have been more motivated to find a job and spend less time parked on the sofa playing xbox.
anyone else got some first hand tales?
It's a pain, but not impossible. Without having to go to work everyday it would be piece of piss.
ergo it is possible to live without money
after spending 3 weeks pissing away just under a grand a week.
i imagine it does you good to have a little rest.
Handy tip: Make sure your rent, bills, travel and food is paid for at the beginning of the month, then that £71 goes further.
It's not impossible by any means and, if you watch your spending, you can do it without having a crap lifestyle but it's still tight and I don't think it should be a cut any further. That said, it comes down to more than simply benefits - two of the biggest issues that cause poverty and poor poverty management and people getting into massive debts they need to pay off. Then the benefits get way harder to live on.
And you can be simplistic and say that's people's faults for getting into these situations but it's also people who've never had anyone teach them how to manage their finances, which as big a part of the problem as the actual benefits themselves.
but it's really odd that there isn't proper financil education in schools.
most people i know do that for the last week of each month, tbh.
plus it's going to be a LOT less fucking easy when Housing Benefit is cut as well
Yeah, if you can get your rent and tax sorted you can live off £71 a week but it's fucking difficult to do it if you've got to pay the bulk of those things as well...
though i've no idea why someone wouldn't be entitled to that.
odds are they wouldn't have a mortgage if they were unemployed or had had a low-paid job (as most claimants do), or live with their parents/family (though if they did, that's food and non-covered bills costing less).
i've met very few people who claim one without the other.
This is for families more than single people I think but might mean people start getting way less housing benefit, which is the crux of the issue in my opinion (along with assessing long-term disabled people as fit to work and the rumours that jobcentres now have targets for how many people they strike off benefits each month)
and i'd get by very easily in any city in the world - London, Moscow, Tokyo, any of your overpriced Scando places.
I wouldn't be paying £55 to see Radiohead, or shelling out a grand on a fibreglass bicycle, or £30 on a new Sigur Ros vinyl, but then that's not living in the real world either, is it?
KiK's £70 a week
This week we follow our rotund Mancunian to the urban sprawl of Volgograd where he finds his JSA buys a lot of cabbage & potato homebrew but where he also discovers that the dodgy Kazak bookies bash YOU
....if you are living in the real world.
I get by on £75 a week after bills (apprentice wage) and I spent £63 on my Radiohead ticket next month.
Many people think benefits are too high until they are cut and that affects any payments they, or their close family, receive.
'louise mensch in pictures'
People saying that they ‘ live on £70 a week at the end of the month’ are seriously missing the point here.
Of course anyone ‘could’ do this, but imagine it week in, week out, not every now and then because you have overspent earlier in the month or similar. You get an interview say, and you have no suit, no way of spending £10 on getting a hair cut, something breaks and you can’t replace it, you can never travel, buy gifts for your family at Christmas or birthdays, never eat out, the choice to use or not use public transport becomes a matter of serious consideration, food choices are limited, you become a grown adult who may well feel quite cut off in terms of communications and telecoms, every choice is stressful, and all of this in the face of fairly aggressive pressure to consume, keep up and partake … The list goes on and on.. it is the RELENTLESS and PERILOUS nature of living so close to the breadline that is what really hurts people and families.
Only ever a few pounds from having to borrow and starting a debt cycle, only ever a few days from being totally broke and at the mercy of circumstance. Suggesting you can conceptualize this based on the occasional few days of not being flush is akin to suggesting you could live like a nomad because you once walked home from a night out instead of getting a taxi.
not being able to afford a £10 haircut twice a year IS a major worry for people on benefits.
You adapt. You borrow a suit to get a job, you walk or get a cheap bike, you buy family presents that mean more because you've had to put thought into it rather than just walking into HMV and spending £60, you go without restaurants or an iPhone.
There's nothing PERILOUS about it, you're being a drama queen.
you insinuating that going without luxuaries is PERILOUS is no less insulting that someone employed saying they know what it's like to go without money.
assume people have a support network or some savings or similar. What if you have pre-existing debts? .. not saying it isn't possible to adapt, but it is all encompassing for many, add children, sick family or whatever to the mix and it gets, yes, perilous.
x that by 4 for the cheapest haircut possible for a girl.
cheapest haircut i can currently find is 40 pound. So no hair cut for me :(
Get a job.
any movement on seeing beyond the beer belly of your own privilege and contributing something worthwhile?
^there you go.
Starve people? Workhouses?
The point at which benefits become a long term "lifestyle choice" is usually when an area has gotten so depressed there's no other option and a crippling social spiral has taken hold. It's an incredibly difficult problem to tackle but making life even more hard for these people doesn't strike me as the best solution.
or a different solution, education? narrowing the wealth gap? job creation?
That's really the best solution you can come up with?! and if people keep choosing to live on benefits, then what? reduce it further?
or the outlawing of unemployment?
how does incentivising people to get a job create more jobs?
When there are already large numbers of applicants for availabke jobs?
There are less jobs than people who are jobless, why are you blaming the jobless for the unemployment figures when it is the lack of jobs that is the problem.
That is insane.
You should concentrate on getting everyone to work and off benefits when there is a glut of jobs.
(of course where there is a shortage of skills needed then education on the job would be best)
arrrr lads I wuz only trolin ya! can't beleive you feel for it!!!11
Samuel Ibbott - once again you reveal what an unpleasant little prick you are.
this hasn't got anything to me with me.
so all your comments in this thread are quotes from the article?
But I wouldn't know, really. I didn't read the article.
(this is the only rebuttal you ever deserve you stupid little worm)
are sick/disabled claimants
..I'd say a fair amount of people on benefits LITERALLY CANNOT stand up on their own two feet
genuinely interested in where these figures are?
at least 75% of people on benefiddles are for one of four reasons - alcoholism, 'bad back', stress, depression.
in any case, they should be able to stand up.
Having worked in mental health for a couple of years the scope of disability is much wider than the blokes you meet down the boozer.
Anyone who thinks its not alot of money is middle class
Anyone who thinks you can't get a packet of Polos for 13p... well, you draw your own conclusions.
(you can't actually. You can maybe get them for that in parts of asia.)
You bourgeois ponce.
The growing up thing was to highlight how I know its different for different people. I could live like a king where I grew up having my rent paid and £70 every week. As it is, I know I couldnt in a city, and plan accordingly by saving when times are prosperous
Im just bitter that the unemployed get to enjoy themselves like I did in the pub at lunchtime every day
I saw a sign by the stairs that said 'keep right'. I think we're experiencing a cultural shift.
surely they are in every tube station.
Times are changing.
im sure it's been keep right since I was here. Maybe I'm too much of a drone to notice.
This is distressing news.
im confused now, i'm sure it always says keep left but thinking about it the slow lane is always on the right
and they say the Tories have no heart!
it becomes fashionable to find groups or people to criticise/blame, rather than analyse and tackle the true main causes, pobably because the true main causes are probably something to do with something that is still somehow powerful and influential.
is so that they can witdraw more and more welfare payments.
Because THEY cannot afford to pay for welfare anymore.
Because the economy is broken, but most do not realise/want to realise this, so instead as it runs down, the weakest will be hit first and then the next weakest and then the next.
However the government will have to find some way of dealing with them, something cheaper that prison.....perhaps they will just let them live in cardboard box slums?
I dont know, what do you guys think?
What will gov allow to happen to the people on welfare when they stop it?
what a bunch of total thundercunts
And if so, how would that lead to those on the dole (particularly the long term unemployed) being encouraged to get off it and find work?
that the government considers to be the minimum required for what *they* deem to be an acceptable standard of living, an increase in line with inflation would seem to be about right.
If they uprate by more or less, then it's effectively an admission that they've been under/overpaying in recent times, which is an entirely different debate to whether they should - in general - uprate in line with inflation.
Everytime there is a benefit 'cut' (whether that be JSA, housing benefit etc...) everyone on here has a little cry about how bad it is for certain people.
But do people think that benefits should be increased instead? Or are people saying that the level of benefits is about right as it is?
I'm more concerned that there are a number of MPs who don't understand how inflation works
Dis is like.....'home'.
You are like 'family' (like a stupid annoying little brother)
Theo is a slightly scary 'cold' repressed sexist uncle