Yougov last relased a voting intention poll on the 24th of July. Have they left polling? I don’t see how they can expect to maintain a reputation as a respected polling organisation.
The lack of VI polling since the GE hasn’t been great. I’m hoping the budget marks a sea change on that front.
After the budget and Kemi becoming LOTO, hopefully it'll be game on... 🎯
I don’t see why those things would change the policy (or lack of it).
I also don't know why PB (which presumably has some sort of relationship with these companies) isn't politely asking what's going on.
I’ve said this to you before
1) Pollsters are evaluating their methodologies after the polling failure in July, three out of the last four general elections have seen spectacular polling misses.
2) Polls cost money and media organisations are unwilling to pay to commission polls
3) For some pollsters political polling represents fewer than 1% of their annual revenue yet it is the area they get judged on as a whole, for reputational reasons some are considering pulling out of the political polling market.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
The problem in this case, as ever, is how the benefit system should deal with housing costs.
Of that £33,000, £15,000 is going straight to a private landlord.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
It makes employment for them almost impossible. To have that much after tax you need to earn something like £50k a year. People with a poor employment record and uncertain attendance are just unemployable at that kind of level, no matter what their qualifications. How on earth do you make work pay in such a scenario?
Yougov last relased a voting intention poll on the 24th of July. Have they left polling? I don’t see how they can expect to maintain a reputation as a respected polling organisation.
The lack of VI polling since the GE hasn’t been great. I’m hoping the budget marks a sea change on that front.
After the budget and Kemi becoming LOTO, hopefully it'll be game on... 🎯
I don’t see why those things would change the policy (or lack of it).
I also don't know why PB (which presumably has some sort of relationship with these companies) isn't politely asking what's going on.
I’ve said this to you before
1) Pollsters are evaluating their methodologies after the polling failure in July, three out of the last four general elections have seen spectacular polling misses.
2) Polls cost money and media organisations are unwilling to pay to commission polls
3) For some pollsters political polling represents fewer than 1% of their annual revenue yet it is the area they get judged on as a whole, for reputational reasons some are considering pulling out of the political polling market.
1. A quarter of a year is ludicrous from a pollster for evaluating a methodology, whilst decades of polling reputation go up in smoke.
2. They are still polling - look at all the favourability polls and 'what is everyone's favourite biscuit' types polls we've seen. No way these polls don't include a VI question - or how would they be evaluating their methodology?
3. That's fine, valid business choice, then it would be good if they said so, piss or get off the pot.
Yougov last relased a voting intention poll on the 24th of July. Have they left polling? I don’t see how they can expect to maintain a reputation as a respected polling organisation.
The lack of VI polling since the GE hasn’t been great. I’m hoping the budget marks a sea change on that front.
We’ve had 11 polls so far this month. Why on earth do we need more for a general election that is several years away?
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
It makes employment for them almost impossible. To have that much after tax you need to earn something like £50k a year. People with a poor employment record and uncertain attendance are just unemployable at that kind of level, no matter what their qualifications. How on earth do you make work pay in such a scenario?
So there's a conversation about incentives there.
I don't see any reason why she should get more than the basic Universal Credit, and live with friends or relatives or with other people in a similar position.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
£33k/pa is a bargain compared to the £50k it appears to cost to house an illegal migrant in a hotel, or the £65k it costs to put someone in prison.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
The problem in this case, as ever, is how the benefit system should deal with housing costs.
Of that £33,000, £15,000 is going straight to a private landlord.
Well, £11k. But the point is the same. That's a pretty high rent for most parts of the country. Can we afford to keep them there?
Interesting to see local Government re-organisation is back on the political agenda and will be an integral part of the English Devolution Bill, due to be published next month.
Will this finally mark the end of the two-tier system in England? If so, how will this impact the 2025 County Council elections especially if the authorities being elected could cease to exist within the life of the current Parliament?
Taking Surrey for example, will the County take over the functions of the eleven Districts and Boroughs (the Cornwall solution) ir will the County be divided into three with each having the population of a London Borough (roughly 350,000) ?
I am trying not to be cynical, but I am imagining Sir Humphrey rubbing his hands with glee at some ineffectual new layer of regional government being set up and a whole new Whitehall department being created to oversee the poor loves.
In Durham they just got rid of the district councils and the county council took on all duties. Sadly it did not adopt the name County of County Durham County Council.
Two tier is just daft. Rubbish in your bin - District Council; rubbish you take to the tip* - County Council.
*I believe that they are referring to as "Household Waste Recycling Centres" in wokespeak. But tip is shorter.
If we are going to combine more district and county councils into unitaries then we also need stronger Parish and Town councils. Otherwise many could find most of their council decisions taken over the other side of the county
I agree if you take a county like Surrey (population 1.2 million) and try to make it a single council (as the County Council Conservatives want) it would become ridiculous. The alternative might be to create three Unitary authorities each of about 300,000-350,000 residents centred on Guildford/Woking, Dorking and Reigate/Redhill.
Not all of Surrey has Parish Councils (the more rural areas have retained theirs).
Essex would be interesting as well - any thoughts?
What might make sense, but be very controversial, would be a Blackwater Valley Council with Camberley, Farnham, Aldershot, Farnborough, maybe Sandhurst, parts of Hart
Interesting idea. I used to live in a small Hampshire town in that area, with a postal address that ended in Surrey! I think they fixed it a few years ago ago, and it now has a Hampshire address but still a GU postcode.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
In her case, it sounds a genuine disability, and not a mental one.
So the question becomes: how much should the state give to someone who cannot work due to a genuine disability? What is a reasonable amount? Enough to pay for rent, utilities and food?
But then there's the bigger question: why should someone who is living off benefits, however justified those benefits, get more money than someone who works?
The system is unfair; but I doubt it could ever be 'fair' due to all the edge and corner cases.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
£33k/pa is a bargain compared to the £50k it appears to cost to house an illegal migrant in a hotel, or the £65k it costs to put someone in prison.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
In her case, it sounds a genuine disability, and not a mental one.
So the question becomes: how much should the state give to someone who cannot work due to a genuine disability? What is a reasonable amount? Enough to pay for rent, utilities and food?
But then there's the bigger question: why should someone who is living off benefits, however justified those benefits, get more money than someone who works?
The system is unfair; but I doubt it could ever be 'fair' due to all the edge and corner cases.
I'm not sure. There are plenty of people with physical and mental disabilities who work at my firm, who are accommodated.
If State support should be directed at anything it should be supporting employers, where essential, to employ those with disabilities.
I disagree with people being paid £33k a year to have a nice flat and do nothing at our expense due to depression and a bad back.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
The problem in this case, as ever, is how the benefit system should deal with housing costs.
Of that £33,000, £15,000 is going straight to a private landlord.
Well, £11k. But the point is the same. That's a pretty high rent for most parts of the country. Can we afford to keep them there?
You can't save very much in rent because it is increasing rapidly due to the cost of compliance with regulation. If someone is accepted as 'disabled' then it would surely be wrong to move them to the cheapest accommodation possible away from friends/family?
The issue is the definition of 'disability', at what point this is accepted as a reason to leave the workforce.
Recent years have witnessed a global uptick in populist candidates and sentiment. Populist communication and campaign styles are well-studied, but whom in the U.S. mass public is attracted to populist ideas and why is still subject to debate. Using unique survey data, we employ latent profile analysis to estimate constellations of characteristics and orientations that relate to support for populist ideas in the United States. Instead of a single, linear path, there are several routes to populist support composed of many combinations of social, psychological, and political characteristics. Whereas some turn to populism because they feel like victims of the political system, others do so to create exclusive sovereignty for their preferred identity group(s). We also find that populist support is more connected to psychological and political orientations than socioeconomic circumstances or even political predispositions, such as partisanship. While populism, itself, is not anti-democratic, some forms of populist support appear to be exclusionary on the grounds of race, religion, and political identity.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
The problem in this case, as ever, is how the benefit system should deal with housing costs.
Of that £33,000, £15,000 is going straight to a private landlord.
Well, £11k. But the point is the same. That's a pretty high rent for most parts of the country. Can we afford to keep them there?
It's £1,250 a month. But it's certainly a tricky one, because the costs (personal and to the state) of enforcing a move to elsewhere are very high.
A quick look through Rightmove for Brighton finds that some bedsits you could get for a lot cheaper - though still £800ish! The cheapest one beds are about £1,000.
I suppose you could "level up" the country by offering flat housing benefit across the country, though that would flood the north with people with disabilities.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
They were in digital marketing and the Civil Service, not digital marketing in the Civil Service. The article also mentions recurrent joint dislocations so sounds physical rather than mental health related.
Worth noting too that the rules and rates of these benefits have not changed in the last 4 months and are the legacy of the last Government. The Labour government is planning changes to rehab these claimants back into work, so I am sure that this is an overdue reform that you will support.
"Harris spent Sunday in Pennsylvania, which may be the election’s biggest prize. Harris is next scheduled to go to Michigan. And after Tuesday’s closing argument in Washington, she plans to visit North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on Wednesday alone. She heads to Nevada and Arizona on Thursday.
What do we know about Trump’s schedule? He’s booked to host at least one rally every day next week: Monday in Georgia, Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Wednesday in Wisconsin, Thursday in Nevada, Friday in Wisconsin again, and Saturday in Virginia.
But as a reminder, these schedules are likely to change based on the campaigns’ intelligence on the ground."
Harris still hoping for NC, Trump presumably thinks it is safe, for now. Michigan was supposed to be safe for the Dems but the Arab vote there seems to have thrown it into the melting pot. Does Trump think he has better prospects in Wisconsin?
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
In her case, it sounds a genuine disability, and not a mental one.
So the question becomes: how much should the state give to someone who cannot work due to a genuine disability? What is a reasonable amount? Enough to pay for rent, utilities and food?
But then there's the bigger question: why should someone who is living off benefits, however justified those benefits, get more money than someone who works?
The system is unfair; but I doubt it could ever be 'fair' due to all the edge and corner cases.
I'm not sure. There are plenty of people with physical and mental disabilities who work at my firm, who are accommodated.
If State support should be directed at anything it should be supporting employers, where essential, to employ those with disabilities.
I disagree with people being paid £33k a year to have a nice flat and do nothing at our expense due to depression and a bad back.
Disabilities vary massively, both from person-to-person and even within individuals over time.
Yes, there will be people who are conning the state. Then there will be those who could work, but as well as a disability have lost the will; then there are those who could do a different job, but lack the training in another area; then there are those who simply cannot work due to the disability.
There is another group which I think is large, but rarely if ever mentioned - those who suffer from a disability but work through it, trying to live as normal a life as possible.
Some of those groups could go back to work, often in a different role to the one they have done or are trained for. But that's a hard ask for most people.
"Harris spent Sunday in Pennsylvania, which may be the election’s biggest prize. Harris is next scheduled to go to Michigan. And after Tuesday’s closing argument in Washington, she plans to visit North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on Wednesday alone. She heads to Nevada and Arizona on Thursday.
What do we know about Trump’s schedule? He’s booked to host at least one rally every day next week: Monday in Georgia, Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Wednesday in Wisconsin, Thursday in Nevada, Friday in Wisconsin again, and Saturday in Virginia.
But as a reminder, these schedules are likely to change based on the campaigns’ intelligence on the ground."
Harris still hoping for NC, Trump presumably thinks it is safe, for now. Michigan was supposed to be safe for the Dems but the Arab vote there seems to have thrown it into the melting pot. Does Trump think he has better prospects in Wisconsin?
Those schedules are totally bonkers for the candidates, they’ll likely be taking three flights a day. The veep candidates have their own schedules, which will be similarly bonkers. They’re all determined to visit anywhere that might be still in play, as well as supporting Gubbernatorial and US Senate candidates in their own close races.
See also, yesterday's story about declining birth rates.
And the lifestyle gap between people who have paid off a home at 1990 prices and those renting or buying at 2024 prices (aka 'every last penny you have, and some you haven't'.)
It's a fairly hefty "if", but if the government can make progress on that, they will deserve re-election, pretty much whatever mistakes they make.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
In her case, it sounds a genuine disability, and not a mental one.
So the question becomes: how much should the state give to someone who cannot work due to a genuine disability? What is a reasonable amount? Enough to pay for rent, utilities and food?
But then there's the bigger question: why should someone who is living off benefits, however justified those benefits, get more money than someone who works?
The system is unfair; but I doubt it could ever be 'fair' due to all the edge and corner cases.
I'm not sure. There are plenty of people with physical and mental disabilities who work at my firm, who are accommodated.
If State support should be directed at anything it should be supporting employers, where essential, to employ those with disabilities.
I disagree with people being paid £33k a year to have a nice flat and do nothing at our expense due to depression and a bad back.
Disabilities vary massively, both from person-to-person and even within individuals over time.
Yes, there will be people who are conning the state. Then there will be those who could work, but as well as a disability have lost the will; then there are those who could do a different job, but lack the training in another area; then there are those who simply cannot work due to the disability.
There is another group which I think is large, but rarely if ever mentioned - those who suffer from a disability but work through it, trying to live as normal a life as possible.
Some of those groups could go back to work, often in a different role to the one they have done or are trained for. But that's a hard ask for most people.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
They were in digital marketing and the Civil Service, not digital marketing in the Civil Service. The article also mentions recurrent joint dislocations so sounds physical rather than mental health related.
Worth noting too that the rules and rates of these benefits have not changed in the last 4 months and are the legacy of the last Government. The Labour government is planning changes to rehab these claimants back into work, so I am sure that this is an overdue reform that you will support.
Could anything make Bezos/ WaPo decision look worse?
It turns out something could! An op-ed by the man himself.
If he actually believed any of this piety, he could have made the choice before 2016 election, or 2020, or two years ago. Or *after* this one. Any time except the "Comey unit," 11 days before election day. https://x.com/JamesFallows/status/1851060450680570170
Which raises the interesting question whether there might also be a Comey Limit - a time to go before the election, beyond which it's impossible to undo the electoral damage of a major gaffe ?
Trump’s Puerto Rico fallout is ‘spreading like wildfire’ in Pennsylvania https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/28/trump-rally-puerto-rico-pennsylvania-fallout-00185935 ... “If we weren’t engaged before, we’re all paying attention now,” Martinez said. He added the morning radio show he hosts was chock-full of callers Monday sounding off on the Trump rally comments, including a Puerto Rican Trump supporter who is now telling people not to vote for the former president...
I think that Harris will win quite easily, but if I'm wrong and it's as close as polls suggest then that idiot 'comedian' could deprive Trump of Pennsylvania and hand the election to Harris.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
In her case, it sounds a genuine disability, and not a mental one.
So the question becomes: how much should the state give to someone who cannot work due to a genuine disability? What is a reasonable amount? Enough to pay for rent, utilities and food?
But then there's the bigger question: why should someone who is living off benefits, however justified those benefits, get more money than someone who works?
The system is unfair; but I doubt it could ever be 'fair' due to all the edge and corner cases.
I'm not sure. There are plenty of people with physical and mental disabilities who work at my firm, who are accommodated.
If State support should be directed at anything it should be supporting employers, where essential, to employ those with disabilities.
I disagree with people being paid £33k a year to have a nice flat and do nothing at our expense due to depression and a bad back.
Disabilities vary massively, both from person-to-person and even within individuals over time.
Yes, there will be people who are conning the state. Then there will be those who could work, but as well as a disability have lost the will; then there are those who could do a different job, but lack the training in another area; then there are those who simply cannot work due to the disability.
There is another group which I think is large, but rarely if ever mentioned - those who suffer from a disability but work through it, trying to live as normal a life as possible.
Some of those groups could go back to work, often in a different role to the one they have done or are trained for. But that's a hard ask for most people.
Life is a hard ask.
The thing is, however much you may feel otherwise, you were only ever one illness away from being in a similar situation. As were all of us.
I really wanted to go onto civil engineering; notably, tunnelling. After two years of my degree, I decided that because of health issues, it would not be a fulfilling career. Fortunately, and somewhat by chance, I had some skills in programming and contacts in that industry, allowing me to chuck in my degree and start software engineering.
But if I hadn't had those other skills, and it had turned out I couldn't work as a civil engineer; what would have happened to me? I'd like to think I've got the get-up-and-go to fight and do *something*, but I cannot guarantee it. Nor that that other career would have been as financially and mentally satisfying as programming turned out to be for me.
How easily could your own life have been derailed by illness?
Comments
Lost Chopin waltz unearthed after almost 200 years
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mlr8yl40do
Rather pleasant, whoever wrote it, if perhaps not fully polished.
https://youtu.be/yMPi7OlnkOE?si=OYcB6EpbMCHAOon_
1) Pollsters are evaluating their methodologies after the polling failure in July, three out of the last four general elections have seen spectacular polling misses.
2) Polls cost money and media organisations are unwilling to pay to commission polls
3) For some pollsters political polling represents fewer than 1% of their annual revenue yet it is the area they get judged on as a whole, for reputational reasons some are considering pulling out of the political polling market.
Of that £33,000, £15,000 is going straight to a private landlord.
2. They are still polling - look at all the favourability polls and 'what is everyone's favourite biscuit' types polls we've seen. No way these polls don't include a VI question - or how would they be evaluating their methodology?
3. That's fine, valid business choice, then it would be good if they said so, piss or get off the pot.
I don't see any reason why she should get more than the basic Universal Credit, and live with friends or relatives or with other people in a similar position.
So the question becomes: how much should the state give to someone who cannot work due to a genuine disability? What is a reasonable amount? Enough to pay for rent, utilities and food?
But then there's the bigger question: why should someone who is living off benefits, however justified those benefits, get more money than someone who works?
The system is unfair; but I doubt it could ever be 'fair' due to all the edge and corner cases.
NEW THREAD
If State support should be directed at anything it should be supporting employers, where essential, to employ those with disabilities.
I disagree with people being paid £33k a year to have a nice flat and do nothing at our expense due to depression and a bad back.
The issue is the definition of 'disability', at what point this is accepted as a reason to leave the workforce.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10659129241289135
Recent years have witnessed a global uptick in populist candidates and sentiment. Populist communication and campaign styles are well-studied, but whom in the U.S. mass public is attracted to populist ideas and why is still subject to debate. Using unique survey data, we employ latent profile analysis to estimate constellations of characteristics and orientations that relate to support for populist ideas in the United States. Instead of a single, linear path, there are several routes to populist support composed of many combinations of social, psychological, and political characteristics. Whereas some turn to populism because they feel like victims of the political system, others do so to create exclusive sovereignty for their preferred identity group(s). We also find that populist support is more connected to psychological and political orientations than socioeconomic circumstances or even political predispositions, such as partisanship. While populism, itself, is not anti-democratic, some forms of populist support appear to be exclusionary on the grounds of race, religion, and political identity.
A quick look through Rightmove for Brighton finds that some bedsits you could get for a lot cheaper - though still £800ish! The cheapest one beds are about £1,000.
I suppose you could "level up" the country by offering flat housing benefit across the country, though that would flood the north with people with disabilities.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/keir-starmer-labour-2-billion-welfare-blackhole-cxcxq9jtr
1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and,
2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow:
1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied.
2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this.
3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
Worth noting too that the rules and rates of these benefits have not changed in the last 4 months and are the legacy of the last Government. The Labour government is planning changes to rehab these claimants back into work, so I am sure that this is an overdue reform that you will support.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-benefits-sickness-work-liz-kendall-b2584903.html
As someone who does often help PIP claimants with their applications I know that it is not easy to file a successful claim.
"Harris spent Sunday in Pennsylvania, which may be the election’s biggest prize. Harris is next scheduled to go to Michigan. And after Tuesday’s closing argument in Washington, she plans to visit North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on Wednesday alone. She heads to Nevada and Arizona on Thursday.
What do we know about Trump’s schedule? He’s booked to host at least one rally every day next week: Monday in Georgia, Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Wednesday in Wisconsin, Thursday in Nevada, Friday in Wisconsin again, and Saturday in Virginia.
But as a reminder, these schedules are likely to change based on the campaigns’ intelligence on the ground."
Harris still hoping for NC, Trump presumably thinks it is safe, for now. Michigan was supposed to be safe for the Dems but the Arab vote there seems to have thrown it into the melting pot. Does Trump think he has better prospects in Wisconsin?
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, there will be people who are conning the state. Then there will be those who could work, but as well as a disability have lost the will; then there are those who could do a different job, but lack the training in another area; then there are those who simply cannot work due to the disability.
There is another group which I think is large, but rarely if ever mentioned - those who suffer from a disability but work through it, trying to live as normal a life as possible.
Some of those groups could go back to work, often in a different role to the one they have done or are trained for. But that's a hard ask for most people.
Build more houses. Five million more houses.
Then build five million more.
See also, yesterday's story about declining birth rates.
And the lifestyle gap between people who have paid off a home at 1990 prices and those renting or buying at 2024 prices (aka 'every last penny you have, and some you haven't'.)
It's a fairly hefty "if", but if the government can make progress on that, they will deserve re-election, pretty much whatever mistakes they make.
I really wanted to go onto civil engineering; notably, tunnelling. After two years of my degree, I decided that because of health issues, it would not be a fulfilling career. Fortunately, and somewhat by chance, I had some skills in programming and contacts in that industry, allowing me to chuck in my degree and start software engineering.
But if I hadn't had those other skills, and it had turned out I couldn't work as a civil engineer; what would have happened to me? I'd like to think I've got the get-up-and-go to fight and do *something*, but I cannot guarantee it. Nor that that other career would have been as financially and mentally satisfying as programming turned out to be for me.
How easily could your own life have been derailed by illness?