Wealthy UK politician reckons he can survive on £53 a week.

reply to post by samerulesapply


Anyone can for the short term.....I want to see him do this while paying his bills for a year.......NOW you can join the rest of the Earth, minus the 1%......See how we have to struggle daily

He'd be pawning his wife's jewellery at Cash For Gold and googling wonga.com by the end of week 1. Might have to pull the kids out of Eaton too.

reply to post by RoScoLaz


This made me laugh!!! Soo true!!

He should pay a visit to a homeless hostel. Not a right wing one ... believe me there are some, but a real one, run by 'real' people. For 'real' people. Where benefits are docked every five minute and half the benefits are docked for loans. £53 quid a week is just a number, it doesn't mean that you actually receive that.

When your down on your luck and your life chances have been limited ... #ty childhood ... welcome to the real world Mr Duncan - Smith!

Forgot to mention .. benefits being docked by the DWP, not the hostels! Even in hostels they have to pay their way, by means of a service charge. It may only be a few pounds ... varies, could be around £20 per week, but that's a bloody lot of money when you haven't got a pot. It's a never ending spiral of poverty and eventually death from your circumstances. Harsh, but true ... Is this government for real or just nasty nasty people? Every time I see a smug tory on the news they always seem to have a smug look on their face, like they're playing a game.

Sooner they're gone the better!

reply to post by CranialSponge

What a twit.

I think you used the wrong vowel there.

reply to post by slinkey10

He wont do it, he's already dismissed the petitions as a 'stunt'

I think a more accurate and apt description of the man rhymes with stunt.

To be fair it would be a pointless exercise unless he was stripped of his self-respect and dignity as many who receive benefits are. (Sorry, perhaps I should have said "milk the benefit system" as many are being brainwashed into believing anyone who receives benefits are).

It is impossible to recreate the feeling of hopelesness and lack of self-worth that comes with being tossed on the scrapheap through no fault of your own.

Any politician of conviction with a feel for the people would win a landslide victory - unfortunately there are none that I am aware of about within mainstream politics and even if there were there is no way any of the major parties would elect him / her as leader for fear of upsetting the gravy train they exploit to the full whilst demonising the most vulnerable and needy and moralising to the rest of us.

reply to post by Freeborn

Any politician of conviction with a feel for the people would win a landslide victory - unfortunately there are none that I am aware of about within mainstream politics and even if there were there is no way any of the major parties would elect him / her as leader for fear of upsetting the gravy train they exploit to the full whilst demonising the most vulnerable and needy and moralising to the rest of us.

You can't be prime minister of the U.K without being a Bilderberger and unfortunately the Banks, Business and Huber rich only count in their world. Now that is a very very sad fact!!

In order for the experiment to work, he would be told he has to live on 53 a week for an indefinite period of time. He would have a definite time frame of when it was over unlike those living in such positions do not have that luxury if a time frame is given.

reply to post by Freeborn




Okay, that was hilarious !



But no, I didn't use the wrong vowel.

I wouldn't want to associate my favourite body part with the likes of such a moronic politician.

Originally posted by CX
And don't just do it for a week, knowing that in a few days you'll be back spending more on food over lunch than most do in a month.......try it for a year, with the same treatment that the government gives to people.

I'd pay good money to watch it.

CX.

Why should he do it for more than a week? He has a job, he worked hard for it. What point are you trying to make? Is this a forum for bashing people who earn more than you do?

reply to post by something wicked


No, it's not a forum for bashing people that earn more than we do, it's about exposing the lies and deceit of men like this.

If he is so confident that he could live on £53.00 per week, prove it. Even if it was for a month, it would certainly shut the likes of us up, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

What a twit.

I think you used the wrong vowel there.

reply to post by slinkey10

 

He wont do it, he's already dismissed the petitions as a 'stunt'

I think a more accurate and apt description of the man rhymes with stunt.

To be fair it would be a pointless exercise unless he was stripped of his self-respect and dignity as many who receive benefits are. (Sorry, perhaps I should have said "milk the benefit system" as many are being brainwashed into believing anyone who receives benefits are).

It is impossible to recreate the feeling of hopelesness and lack of self-worth that comes with being tossed on the scrapheap through no fault of your own.

Any politician of conviction with a feel for the people would win a landslide victory - unfortunately there are none that I am aware of about within mainstream politics and even if there were there is no way any of the major parties would elect him / her as leader for fear of upsetting the gravy train they exploit to the full whilst demonising the most vulnerable and needy and moralising to the rest of us.

Like the man or not (and that is up to you) are you claiming that IDS comes from a background of untold riches? You may want to look into that a little more.

Any politician with a feel for the people? EVERY politician will claim that, every one of them, what are you really suggesting? Who tosses someone on the scrapheap, why is the government always the perrenial scapegoat.... oh, I've got it, because it's the easiest one that absolves so many people from personal blame.

Sorry to sound a little hard line, have been kept up a lot over the last week by a neighbour. A single parent who tells anyone who will listen (people walking by, post man/woman who often ask me how I cope with it) how she has had her kids to guarantee her rent but then spends most nights and most days screaming at said kids or her and her partner having domestic rows. A 'feel' for the people, sometimes I know exactly how I feel.........

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by something wicked

 

No, it's not a forum for bashing people that earn more than we do, it's about exposing the lies and deceit of men like this.

If he is so confident that he could live on £53.00 per week, prove it. Even if it was for a month, it would certainly shut the likes of us up, wouldn't it?

It wouldn't shut anyone up. Do you work? If you do, do you live on more than £53 a week all in - and I mean all in? If you earn more then that is what you work for, surely?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that amount is good - far from it, but what would you like it to be, let's say a couple of hundred a week - great, let's see (if you work) if we can take that out of your income tax. See how it works?

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
This is the same politician who claimed a £39 breakfast on his expenses, payed for by the British public. After one of these breakfasts, he's got 14 quid for the rest of the week.

edit on 2-4-2013 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

I'm going to come across here as something I am not, but have you ever had to go away on your job for business reasons where you are placed in a hotel and found that is the only place you are going to get a meal for the day and you are therefore fairly much at their mercy for the cost of the breakfast? No? I have, at places where a coffee and a couple of slices of toast come to more than a tenner - and that is not in what you would call an upmarket hotel.

Unfortunately, that is life, and anyway, business expenses wouldn't come under personal spend - why should it? I don't earn enough to pay that kind of money for coffee and toast, but not having a meal would mean I was less able to do my job.

reply to post by something wicked


Yes I work and no, I couldn't live on £53.00 per week, and I am not the one claiming I can either.

The ideaology behind all of this is to lower the rate of benefit in order to force people out to work for dire wages. How about making wages more attractive for people to want to come off benefits? No, in fact I read today that the Government should consider reducing the National Minimum Wage or at the very least freeze it.

Working benefits are being frozen or at the very least only being increased by 1% each year. These benefits are in truth subsidies to companies in order to recruit people who want to work, but aren't willing to meet their wage demands. A wage that they need to feed and house their families.

I worked in the benefit system for many years and whilst I acknowledge there are some people out there who have abused the system, there are also quite a number of people out there who are genuinely looking for work or genuinely unable to work. Unfortunately this government has chosen to call all benefit recipients shirkers. They are being punished, the majority through no fault of their own, whilst the real burden on the U.K is the debt created by the banks. Yet the people who lead these organisations are being rewarded for failure. Where is the equality in this?

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
reply to post by something wicked

 

Yes I work and no, I couldn't live on £53.00 per week, and I am not the one claiming I can either.

The ideaology behind all of this is to lower the rate of benefit in order to force people out to work for dire wages. How about making wages more attractive for people to want to come off benefits? No, in fact I read today that the Government should consider reducing the National Minimum Wage or at the very least freeze it.

Working benefits are being frozen or at the very least only being increased by 1% each year. These benefits are in truth subsidies to companies in order to recruit people who want to work, but aren't willing to meet their wage demands. A wage that they need to feed and house their families.

I worked in the benefit system for many years and whilst I acknowledge there are some people out there who have abused the system, there are also quite a number of people out there who are genuinely looking for work or genuinely unable to work. Unfortunately this government has chosen to call all benefit recipients shirkers. They are being punished, the majority through no fault of their own, whilst the real burden on the U.K is the debt created by the banks. Yet the people who lead these organisations are being rewarded for failure. Where is the equality in this?

Now, don't get me wrong, I have spent time unemployed in the past, I know it's soul sucking - don't think this is an attack on people who want to work but they can't find work, it's not. The point is what do you feel is the amount that should be paid to a single individual out of work? What sum do you think is actually fair and would be palatable (spelling?) to the people who actually contribute to that? It's an open question, you name the sum and then here's the thing, challenge your political party of choice to guarantee they will honour that should they get into power - that would be a great thing.

As to benefits being frozen (1% increase is not a freeze though), I haven't had a pay rise for three years and I'm not expecting one anytime in the near future. Regardless of what you earn, you spend based on what you can afford - I'm a bit on the fence as to why I should be so sympathetic on one part of society being only given a 1% annual increase while my own has been and will be 0% (and trust me, I'm really not rich).

You say 'this government' - I can't say I am a fan of any of the big three, but I don't anticipate any big changes from any of them unless they do what the last government did which was to ignore reality and to just keep spending until the credit runs out and we are all fudged up - again. Blaming bankers who operate in a private industry is a nice opt out, but they are not under the control of the government - using that logic why not blame every football club for the amount they pay their players - still ridiculous sums, still a privately owned company who can spend its money as they see fit, but perhaps not such a popular target?

reply to post by something wicked


I believe that if you are made unemployed through no fault of your own, then you should receive at least a fair percentage of what you were earning for the first 3 months at least. This will give you enough breathing space to apply for jobs, go through the interview process and reference checks before re-entering the labour market.

Then your benefit should be reduced the longer you are unemployed. If you are unemployed for say 12 months, then what you receive should reflect that. If you unemployed for twenty years, and yes I came across people who were during my time in DWP, then you should receive a minimum payment. But even then I would put it at a figure of around £70.00.

I probably paid more Income Tax last year than a whole host of Companies paid corporation tax. Government should be going after these corporations, share the pain more equally.

I wouldn't hold out much hope of it though as all 3 major poilitical parties are controlled by the Bilderberger group, who in turn are pro European and are working towards a certain agenda on that front.

I haven't had a payrise in 5 years, yet we seem happy to allow M.P's to award themselves above inflation payrises. And before you suggest running for parliament, no thanks!!

We had something similar happen here in Australia a few months back, one of our bumbling pollies Jeeny Macklin, who takes home about $6000 a week, plus $1500 in expenses, claimed she could live off the $450 a fortnight welfare payment, in response to outrage by the public over the governments decision to reduce and comletely take away many sinlge mothers pensions when their children reach a certain age.

www.abc.net.au...

Now we are very lucky here in Australia, our population is low enough and we are wealthy enough as a country to support pretty much our entire unemployed population, and what they give you is pretty decent to be honest, about $250 a week and sometimes a little bit more, if you are young and unemployed, and even more if you are a parent or unable to work due to medical problems. Its enough to cover all the bare essentials, and you dont really have to do anything to get it other than lodge a form every two weeks saying you've been looking for work.

But for politicians who are earning thousands a week, its disgraceful for them to comment and make outlandish claims about them being able to survive on welfare payments, as someone said earlier they wouldnt last an hour before they were begging for change

59 lbs equals 90 U.S dollars. I wonder what rent is like where he's from?

I own a condo. I pay 284 a month which includes water, electricity and maintenance fees. and thats about the cheapest you can live anywhere. 90 x 4 is 360. That would leave me with 76 dollars to eat on for the month. Thats 19 dollars a week for food.

Ramen noodles cost 25 cents a serving. loaf of bread 1 dollar about 24 slices. Ham 5 dollars for 32 slices mayo 2.50 total cost so far for the week assuming I ate 1 sandwich a day and 1 ramen noodle a day is $5.26 ( with food left over) ( I assume water is free from the tap) and 13.74 left over to spend. Add 3 dollars for a bag of 7 apples a week brings me down to 10 dollars left. Add a dollar cheeseburger a day for dinner ( fast food) and I'm left with 3 dollars. I can add a 3 dollar can of coffee for the mornings and each day i will have kept well fed.

So It's entirely possible this could be done ( and thats with food left over)

Opps i was a little off.. the article says 53 lbs not 59 so that brings us down to 80 U.S. dollars. No problem, just get rid of the mayo and Poof.. back on track. One can also cut cost more because everything i mentioned was Wal-Mart prices. There are stores here at least anyway called Save-a-Lot that don't provide bags for groceries and they are much cheaper. This can still be done, easily if your thrifty with food left over.

I was homeless for 3 months years ago and I found it was easy to survive on just a little if you know how to be thrifty.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I'm from Glasgow and my rent is £385 a month for a 2 bedroom council flat. I imagine in London a single bedroom flat could cost the same per week! Never mind food, power and gas!

It just cant be done!!!

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

I'm from Glasgow and my rent is £385 a month for a 2 bedroom council flat. I imagine in London a single bedroom flat could cost the same per week! Never mind food, power and gas!

It just cant be done!!!

If you cant do it in your location with those prices - get rid of your highest expense - your rent. There are tons of people who are joining the tiny house movement and are making shelters they can live in dirt cheap. Many of these are mobile on trailers or even closets or garages and other tiny spaces rented out that is transformed into a tiny home See here for more info: www.youtube.com...

Now most people including myself might balk at living in such a small place but the point is no matter where you are if you have to be this thrifty, it is possible. There can be found a way to do it.

You don't even need gas or electricity. There are many good ways to cook heat and light a home without gas and electricity. Point is it's possible though you may have to drastically change your thinking about the way in which you do things.

reply to post by something wicked

Like the man or not (and that is up to you) are you claiming that IDS comes from a background of untold riches?

Whether I like the man or not is pretty much irrelevant - I don't agree with the policies he's implementing.

However, he's a proven liar and not really the sort of guy I'd imagine myself sharing a few pints with.

Maybe he doesn't come from a background of 'untold riches' but he certainly comes from a damn sight more affluent background than the vast majority of people in the UK.

Any politician with a feel for the people? EVERY politician will claim that, every one of them, what are you really suggesting?

Of course they do - and they are lying.

I think it's pretty obvious what I'm suggesting - that our politicians are self-serving, self-advancing egotists who put personal gain and advancement before the cares, concerns and interests of the electorate.
Their primary goal is maintaining the gravy train that they and their cronies exploit and manipulate to further their own agenda's.

Hope that's clear enough.

Who tosses someone on the scrapheap,

Millions have been consigned to the scrapheap - too old, too experienced, not experienced enough, wrong skill set blah blah blah.
Retraining?
The biggest joke of the lot.

why is the government always the perrenial scapegoat....

Because they are the one's in control and who profess to have all the answers.
Because they are the one's whose policies have failed this country in the past and are doing so now.
Because they are the one's who have the incestuous relationship with the bankers and industrialists who screw this country and it's people over at every opportunity.

oh, I've got it, because it's the easiest one that absolves so many people from personal blame.

Yes, some people do refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions, or inaction, but the vast majority are in the situation they find themselves in through no fault whatsoever of their own - seems to me that the actions of the small minority are beinng used to justify the targetting of the majority.