Jokes8 mins ago
First They Came For The Winter Fuel Allowance
And I did nothing because I wasn't eligible
Then they came for the benefits for the unemployed and again I did nowt
Nothing to do with me.
Now they're after disability living allowance
The barStewart's!
Seriously, are we as a nation in such a state we need to reduce the living standards of our poorest people?
Answers
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.When someone in authority, stand down Tora, can explain how we can afford to stockpile fighting age illegal immigrant invaders in hotels, feeding, watering, indulging their habits despite being alien to us and transporting them to town centres to spend their pocket money while doing away with support for the vulnerable citizens of our country they'll have my undivided attention.
Lets have Ukraine grandstanding put on pause for a day while our Keir comes on the telly, all news channels and spells it out in words even I can understand.
maggiebee 19.47 OH will be 92 next month, has been terribly ill and nearly died ovder the Winter - yes, we still have to pay the TV licence.
Now applying for Attendance Allowance, which should cover it plus a 'lifeline' button to summon aid if I'm out shopping etc..
Not pleading poverty particularly, we would manage somehow by cutting back even more (there's not much leeway left) - but in general terms 'Why are those in trouble being targeted the most?'
The bit I don't like about them cutting these things is there have to be safety nets put in place and they don't seem to think about things like that. Also when they cut the WFA no talks were had about ones close to the cut off line and now many have difficulty paying some bills. Why when they cut off the WFA for so many as they are not on pension credit do many MPs claim a heating allowance even though none of them are on pension credit and many are millionaires and still claim it including the Chancellor. A bit two faced to me and yes I know they can claim it but why do they when they have stopped so many from doing so and many claim much more than the couple of hundred they have stopped from others.
I notice that the plan from Rachel Reeves in 2013 was going to cost money not save money ( it was to be paid for by reintroducing a tax on bankers bonuses). So are we to expect savings this time?
The plan from 2013 was to require long term unemployed people to take a job after 2 years or lose benefits. Why 2 years. Why not say 6 months?
Who does she expect to willingly employ a long term unemployed, unwilling, resentful applicant who is only there because the benefits have stopped? Not me.
They will be looking for the first opportunity to go sick or claim some trumped up accusation of workplace bullying, sexual harassment or other grievance they can sue for.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.