Universal Credit: Should it be scrapped?

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • I'm not suggesting it be scrapped, I'm all for the idea in principle but they should have got the computer system working properly, ( I've been told it won't even recognise Northern Ireland postcodes.) and ensured delays didn't happen. They started the roll out by only dealing with single people. If that had been perfected before they moved on to couples and families it would have been a much smoother transition.

    Agree, Morgan.

    Going back to your earlier post, with all this mess in delayed payments, rather than introduce the system that immediately paid in four week lump sums, perhaps they should have eased it in. By making payments weekly, then payments every 2 weeks and eventually leading to it being monthly. As you say, someone getting nothing for 6 weeks, then paid 4 weeks at once, will instantly put them in debt and start a cycle from which they can't come out of.

    I'm not sure about paying the benefits straight to the landlord. In theory, it sounds great, but how can people ever learn to budget, if the largest chunk of their budget is organised for them? Or perhaps, it should be a phased approach again, pay some direct to the landlord but not all.

  • Not sure if I'm really understanding you here, LW. What is unstable about affluence? Do you mean that you can get very rich people and somehow this causes others to become very poor? Are you talking about redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have nots?


    Again, you've lost me on those who have to rely on unreliable folks? What unreliable folks?

    It isn't affluence itself that is unstable it is the phenomenon of affluence. It cannot be relied on (answer to second query about what is unreliable). It isn't the affluent people who are unreliable, although they can be as they are people and people can be unreliable. What is meant was that being wealthy can change at the drop of a hat. Being a wealthy country can change and has, through history at the mercy of economic shift, climatic disaster, natural catastrophe as well as that old chestnut invasion and conquest.

    This is the bubble of thin glass that governments are relying on to implement their mad theories of social justice and endless welfare. It is like relying on a spider's web to hold you up if you want to use it to travel between two cliffs. If it breaks, or the wind tears it, you plummet into the abyss.

    Mere wealth isn't a reliable thing as the reason for that affluence is what might or might not hold it up. As Britain is no longer a manufacturing nation, and never will be what it once was, that affluence that is the result of centuries of collative profit since the times of the early Kingdoms and Christendom, the industrial and agricultural revolutions and the factory system, are gone, or are rapidly departing. They are departing because there has been an economic and industrial shift. In fact there will also be a shift in banking capitals to match this. Goodbye cash, it's going to go to Shanghai.

    Affluence and wealth of a nation can therefore vanish practically overnight in historical time and if politicians cannot work with new ways of maintaining wealth or creating it from workable sources, if they cannot adapt to change in other words, they will not be able to stop the rot or the crash that is the inevitable result of a changed world.

    Various ideologies in the west (one in particular) are actively changing the western world and its civilizations by incorporating much of the rest of the world as cheap labour disguised as social justice and "replacement population", chasing out its own wealthy and educated by draconian taxation and stupid discriminatory policies to fund failing systems and unrealistic ideals. This is the the pathway to ruin.

    I don't see any politicians capable of dealing effectively with this crisis. Therefore - man the lifeboats unless some come along who can.

  • Agree, Morgan.

    Going back to your earlier post, with all this mess in delayed payments, rather than introduce the system that immediately paid in four week lump sums, perhaps they should have eased it in. By making payments weekly, then payments every 2 weeks and eventually leading to it being monthly. As you say, someone getting nothing for 6 weeks, then paid 4 weeks at once, will instantly put them in debt and start a cycle from which they can't come out of.

    I'm not sure about paying the benefits straight to the landlord. In theory, it sounds great, but how can people ever learn to budget, if the largest chunk of their budget is organised for them? Or perhaps, it should be a phased approach again, pay some direct to the landlord but not all.

    At least paying the rent direct to the landlord would stop so many evictions. The cost of those socially and economically must be enormous.

  • At least paying the rent direct to the landlord would stop so many evictions. The cost of those socially and economically must be enormous.

    Also a lot of private landlords are now refusing to take tenants who are on benefits as the housing benefit is no longer paid direct to them and due to the fact Housing benefit is capped in some areas so it no longer covers the whole of the rent that private landlords charge.

  • Also a lot of private landlords are now refusing to take tenants who are on benefits as the housing benefit is no longer paid direct to them and due to the fact Housing benefit is capped in some areas so it no longer covers the whole of the rent that private landlords charge.

    That's a deliberate part of UC as the bulk of it was always for rent, so by not quite paying the full amount, its meant to nudge the recipient into looking for a job.

  • I don't see any politicians capable of dealing effectively with this crisis. Therefore - man the lifeboats unless some come along who can.

    I snipped out the bulk of your quote there, but I am replying to all of it.

    Although not for discussion here, the advent of AI and robots could have a dramatic effect on wealth. I don't think it will vanish overnight, that you think it will, but it could go quickly.

    I'm hoping there won't be any giant tidal waves hitting the UK soon, or that we get invaded, but I take your point. Things change and as history has demonstrated, things can change quickly sometimes.

  • It won't have to be if the British get a grip on what could destroy our ancient people forever. I know I must sound like a prophesying crone when I say things like this, but ... bad moves by governments seeking to be universally good can do enough damage to sink the ship of state and set the citizens adrift. In-fighting is a sign that all is not sweetness and light among the mighty. I just wish the mighty could come to some sort of decision concerning what is good for the people and the future of the nation and stop trying to be the world's welfare system and dumping ground. Small island - will sink.

  • That's a deliberate part of UC as the bulk of it was always for rent, so by not quite paying the full amount, its meant to nudge the recipient into looking for a job.

    Which is fine if the recipient is fit and capable of working, as some of them have been deemed fit to work by the flawed work capability assessment system when in reality they are not fit for work.

  • There have been cases, haven't there, of severely disabled people being told they need to go and get a job. The private company that runs the assessment system doesn't get paid unless they get people into work. So, the company doesn't care whether someone is "fit or proper" but is only interested in money for itself.

  • Some people will be worse off under universal credit - but they can take on more work to increase their income, the minster in charge says.

    Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey defended the new benefit system amid reports 3.2 million households will lose more than £2,000 year.

    The problems with Universal Credit seem to be continuing, yet the government still wants to roll this out across the country.

    As I've said before, I agree with the idea of a single benefit, but leaving people in destitution, especially the disabled and elderly is terrible.

    Where I disagree with The Left is on the notion that people on benefits have a right to live where they want. I cannot afford to live in central London, so why should people be given thousands of pounds of taxpayers money so that they can enjoy a view across the Thames that I cannot?

  • Universal credit is a good idea. It's the implementation that is faulty.

    I agree with your view that nobody has a 'right' to live within 1 mile of work, or be unemployed and have better choices than those who work.

    Up here, it's fairly normal to travel 15-20 miles to work. Some travel even further. Why is London different? I think the cost of one flat in London could be used to help many more people if sensible choices were made.

    Likewise with 10 bedroom £2m homes for large families. My grandparents raised loads of kids in a very small house. OK, birth control wasn't available then, but it is now. People choose to have large families so they should support them themselves, unless it's a case of illness or injury.

    I still rankle about the EU immigrant (originally from Somalia but became French) who is now a permanent 'student' in the UK, demanding a VERY large house from the government for his very large family, and that was a few years ago.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • Howls of upset as per usual from the left about this , when will people realise that benefit claiming is not a career choice and I have a brother inlaw in this ridiculous situation. Labour love people on benefits , they want people on them as they vote Labour mostly and allow for the non job army to grow to oversee them for life.

    Many of us used to get paid weekly but now get paid monthly , we all had to knuckle down but knew this change was coming , we saved and were fine .We didn't blow our salaries in one day as some universal credit claimants seem to be doing ,but then that is the fault of the moron spending it all, nobody else.

    Disabled and old should not be hurt by the implementation of universal credit , look after them , the rest can get on with it .

  • Universal credit is a good idea. It's the implementation that is faulty.

    I agree with your view that nobody has a 'right' to live within 1 mile of work, or be unemployed and have better choices than those who work.

    Up here, it's fairly normal to travel 15-20 miles to work. Some travel even further. Why is London different? I think the cost of one flat in London could be used to help many more people if sensible choices were made.

    Likewise with 10 bedroom £2m homes for large families. My grandparents raised loads of kids in a very small house. OK, birth control wasn't available then, but it is now. People choose to have large families so they should support them themselves, unless it's a case of illness or injury.

    I still rankle about the EU immigrant (originally from Somalia but became French) who is now a permanent 'student' in the UK, demanding a VERY large house from the government for his very large family, and that was a few years ago.

    I think when the media, especially the BBC and Guardian, are telling us that UC is a disaster, what they are not saying is why UC was brought in to begin with and that's to get people to work.

    As someone who had a reasonably good City wage and then for the last 10+ years has had a carer's "wage", I know what I prefer....:(

    The problems with the implementation are genuine in some cases. Some very sick people are getting caught up and having to wait six weeks for the first UC payments are terrible when rent needs to be paid every month, but what the BBC ignores is those who can work and don't. The fact that they experience difficulties in getting payments, is a good thing, in my opinion.

    My parents came from large families and were raised in small houses. Three or four kids to a bed. I have someone who lives near me (I see them take their kids to school in the mornings) and they are baby machines. They've had babies for the last 15+ years, I lost count after number six. Although the only positive note is that the couple have stayed together, which is not surprising as its profitable to them to keep breeding, its their job.X/

  • Howls of upset as per usual from the left about this , when will people realise that benefit claiming is not a career choice and I have a brother inlaw in this ridiculous situation. Labour love people on benefits , they want people on them as they vote Labour mostly and allow for the non job army to grow to oversee them for life.

    Many of us used to get paid weekly but now get paid monthly , we all had to knuckle down but knew this change was coming , we saved and were fine .We didn't blow our salaries in one day as some universal credit claimants seem to be doing ,but then that is the fault of the moron spending it all, nobody else.

    Disabled and old should not be hurt by the implementation of universal credit , look after them , the rest can get on with it .

    Agree.

    The being paid monthly, I'd imagine, is a shock to someone who is used to getting money weekly, but as you say, you adapt. They need to sit down and write up what their costs are for the month on a bit of paper and budget accordingly. As you say, some choose not to budget.

    As for Labour, someone said to me once, "they like to make average what is excellent." More money, means more options. The means to get more money should be via work, not claiming more benefits and that is why UC is hated, as it eliminated several different benefits and potentially several cash payments into one.

  • But waiting more than six weeks for the changeover does seem a bit excessive when switching from weekly/fortnightly payments to monthly most months have roughly four and a half weeks so would take five weeks at the most, but then again it's a government department where feet dragging and excuse making are the norm.

  • But waiting more than six weeks for the changeover does seem a bit excessive when switching from weekly/fortnightly payments to monthly most months have roughly four and a half weeks so would take five weeks at the most, but then again it's a government department where feet dragging and excuse making are the norm.

    The problem is that nobody gets pulled up for doing a crap job in the public sector, at both high and low level jobs. Their jobs are safer than anyone in the private sector. Locally, the ones who work in the public sector brag about it, knowing they can be as crap, or as demanding as they like regarding time off, flexi hours, etc., and nobody will do anything about it. That knowledge attracts a lot of the lazy and idle.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!