WC1 wrote:This is just another aspect of the Coalition's attack on the living standards of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Its purpose is purely and simply to cut housing benefits and damn the consequences. The rest of us are being drip fed the line that these people are scroungers and ne'er do wells, living high on the hog while the rest of us struggle in "the current economic climate". Each of us has to come to our own conclusions, but it might help if I give an example of a lady known to me here in Campbeltown. This lady lives in a rented house which is certainly "too big" for her. Her family have grown up and moved out, so she has spare rooms. As a result she will lose a big lump of her benefits unless she "downsizes". Two problems with that. One, there's a dearth of smaller properties available in the rental sector. Two, this has been her home for decades, the home into which she moved with her late husband when they were married and in which she brought up her family and to which her family return when they come to stay with her from time to time. So she has to decide what is more important to her: to "take the hit" and live on a reduced income in order to go on living in the home that is such an important and valuable part of her life, or to give that up for the sake of being able to avoid living from hand to mouth. A lot of us are taken in by the Coalition's propaganda about cutting benefits, about making the people living on benefits accept the same hardships as the rest of us. This used to be known as "divide and rule". But we need to remember the human stories behind the statistics. There's one of them being lived out down your street.
WC1 wrote:I wouldn't count on the government giving them anything . . .
four eyes wrote:here's a link to an interesting report, all you Daily Mail readers, and hard-working strivers please read
http://www.turn2us.org.uk/pdf/Mythbusting.pdf
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests