IDS 'I could live on £53 a week'.

[gibbsy]

This could only come from the mouth of a totally arrogant, ignorant rich man. I doubt very much that he could eat a lunch that cost less than £53. The only thing he has done with this crass statement is to bring politics, yet again, into disrepute. The man is not fit to hold high office in government.

Iain Duncan Smith: I could live on £53 per week - Telegraph

 

[Deleted member 13294]

This could only come from the mouth of a totally arrogant, ignorant rich man. I doubt very much that he could eat a lunch that cost less than £53. The only thing he has done with this crass statement is to bring politics, yet again, into disrepute. The man is not fit to hold high office in government.

£53 after rent and bills?

Hell I could live on that for a week. Of course it wouldn't be easy, but isn't that the point?

 

[Rasczak]

We are talking about £53 after rent and bills though - which is a lot more manageable IMHO. I spend my working weeks away from home and, in a particularly lean week where I am not buying additional luxuries my Monday to Friday food shop can be significantly less than £53. I suspect if I was buying food from budget ranges - and maybe even core ingredients rather than fully or partially 'prepared' foodstuffs - it could be driven down even further.

I don't think anyone would argue £53 per week would give a great quality of life - but it would be manageable for a period of time whilst someone was getting back on their feet. One could also comment it might also provide some additional motivation to do the same!

 

[karkus30]

£53 after rent and bills?

Hell I could live on that for a week. Of course it wouldn't be easy, but isn't that the point?

Easy, I do that now. Between us we spend less than £90 on shopping and live pretty well on that. Our weekly budget after bills is £120 and we save out of that, so £106 is easily possible.

 

[BISHI]

£53 after rent and bills?

Hell I could live on that for a week. Of course it wouldn't be easy, but isn't that the point?

Well that would depend on how much his particular housing and energy costs were.
I suppose if you remove any socialising, small luxuries, any addictions and expenses for any children - then I suppose £7.50 a day for 3 meals, clothing and the means to keep clean could be considered fair - if you've never had to struggle in your privileged life..!

 

[Deleted member 13294]

Well that would depend on how much his particular housing and energy costs were.
I suppose if you remove any socialising, small luxuries, any addictions and expenses for any children - then I suppose £7.50 a day for 3 meals, clothing and the means to keep clean could be considered fair - if you've never had to struggle in your privileged life..!

It is £53 after rent and bills. The article says so, and I repeated it.

If children were involved then the benefits would reflect that.

Addictions - if you are on benefits then either give up or get a job and fund it yourself.

Socialising and small luxuries - again you need to live within your means.

Meals and clothing - it certainly wouldn't be easy in the longer term. But as a short term safety net it should be adequate.

And not sure what you mean about a privileged life. My background is far from being privileged.

 

[gibbsy]

£53 after rent and bills?

Hell I could live on that for a week. Of course it wouldn't be easy, but isn't that the point?

The £53 'after rent and bills' only covers rent and council tax. You would still have to pay for gas, electric and water. Essentials.

Think carefully. I'm lucky, no mortgage so for argument's sake I'll not include council tax. Gas and electricity costs £23 weekly, water £6. Then there is insurance premiums, TV licence, all paid by direct debit. In all £44 weekly. I've left out car insurance and fuel for the car and pet insurance. That would leave me £9 a week for food. Hell I could live on £53 a week, not.

There have been plenty of other politicians who have bragged that they have lived in benefits for a week. Before IDS opens his stupid gob again perhaps he should live on benefits for a year. Then, perhaps, I'd have a little respect for his remarks.

 

[EarthRod]

This could only come from the mouth of a totally arrogant, ignorant rich man. I doubt very much that he could eat a lunch that cost less than £53. The only thing he has done with this crass statement is to bring politics, yet again, into disrepute. The man is not fit to hold high office in government.

I don't know where you get the 'totally arrogant, ignorant rich man' bit from - can you state your source?

When he left the army as a lieutenant he couldn't find a job and claimed unemployment benefit for several months. When he found a job he was made redundant after several months and back on unemployment benefit before finding another job. He ended up selling magazines.

So, he's been there and done that already.

 

[karkus30]

The £53 'after rent and bills' only covers rent and council tax. You would still have to pay for gas, electric and water. Essentials.

Think carefully. I'm lucky, no mortgage so for argument's sake I'll not include council tax. Gas and electricity costs £23 weekly, water £6. Then there is insurance premiums, TV licence, all paid by direct debit. In all £44 weekly. I've left out car insurance and fuel for the car and pet insurance. That would leave me £9 a week for food. Hell I could live on £53 a week, not.

There have been plenty of other politicians who have bragged that they have lived in benefits for a week. Before IDS opens his stupid gob again perhaps he should live on benefits for a year. Then, perhaps, I'd have a little respect for his remarks.

No, after rent and bills. Electricity is 'billed' is it not ?

 

[BISHI]

Everybody's housing and bill expenses will not be the same will they ..?

Removal of socialising, existing addictions and any little luxuries won't exactly have a beneficial effect on ones mental state would it..?

I was referring to IDS not you ..!

 

[Ed Selley]

Presumably, to make this little experiment completely valid, Mr Duncan Smith would be entitled to increase the sum of money he's being asked to live on by going out and securing alternative employment in the same way as the man that started this peculiar argument off in the first place is?

 

[Stuey1]

The £53 'after rent and bills' only covers rent and council tax. You would still have to pay for gas, electric and water. Essentials.

Think carefully. I'm lucky, no mortgage so for argument's sake I'll not include council tax. Gas and electricity costs £23 weekly, water £6. Then there is insurance premiums, TV licence, all paid by direct debit. In all £44 weekly. I've left out car insurance and fuel for the car and pet insurance. That would leave me £9 a week for food. Hell I could live on £53 a week, not.

There have been plenty of other politicians who have bragged that they have lived in benefits for a week. Before IDS opens his stupid gob again perhaps he should live on benefits for a year. Then, perhaps, I'd have a little respect for his remarks.

It says £53 per week after rent and bills - not rent and council tax...

he was earning £50 pw + £57pw in housing benefit + between £37 - £50pw in tax credits

so in essence he isn't living off £53 pw, he is living off between £144 - £157 per week...

It's clearly not a situation that anyone would want to be in, but £53 a week after rent and bills which is what the article states is enough for someone to live on as long as they are careful.

I am employed full time and still after rent and bills - don't clear much more for food and clothes

 

[kav]

I've lived on less than £100 per month after mortgage and bills, so £53 a week sounds manageable. Not pleasant, but manageable.

 

[karkus30]

Presumably, to make this little experiment completely valid, Mr Duncan Smith would be entitled to increase the sum of money he's being asked to live on by going out and securing alternative employment in the same way as the man that started this peculiar argument off in the first place is?

Oh no, remember the economy is like a big pie. If you happen to be a piece of apple, then you must remain a piece of apple for eternity.

 

[EarthRod]

Oh no, remember the economy is like a big pie. If you happen to be a piece of apple, then you must remain a piece of apple for eternity.

... Crumbs!

 

[961]

I understand there is a benefits cap of £26,000 pa for a family

Our income is much less than that and we have no benefits

My daughter has an income of much less than that and has no benefits apart from a 25% reduction in council tax because she lives alone

Why should we pay benefits to £26,000 for others?

A guy on the radio had benefits of around £50,000 and was complaining he wouldn't be able to afford to live if his benefits were cut to £26,000

Turned out he had 9 children

The interviewer asked him if he should have considered how he was going to support them before...

He said "They were sent by God"

 

[Ruperts slippers]

I don't know where you get the 'totally arrogant, ignorant rich man' bit from - can you state your source?

When he left the army as a lieutenant he couldn't find a job and claimed unemployment benefit for several months. When he found a job he was made redundant after several months and back on unemployment benefit before finding another job. He ended up selling magazines.

So, he's been there and done that already.

Salt of the earth is ole dunc...

Anyway,my brother is currently on jsa which £71 per week,he also gets his rent partially paid, his council tax paid in full.

So out of his £71 he has to find the rest of his rent and all his his other bills water rates,leccy/gas and feed himself...
Its not a nice situation to be in,most people think'll they'll be able to find employment easily, he did after his employment ended last year in august, well it's now april and still no employment...

 

[logiciel]

The £53 'after rent and bills' only covers rent and council tax. You would still have to pay for gas, electric and water.

So there'd be only one bill and that would be for council tax?
That doesn't make sense.
The term "bills" is generally used for precisely the utilities, gas, electricity, and water.
My fortnightly delivery from supermarkets averages his weekly £53.

 

[pragmatic]

Are benefits (a terrible word which is indicative of the problem) for substance or a lifestyle.

For a single person, as a lifestyle base benefits are pretty merge. For an individual with children, child tax credits more than quadruple cash benefits (for a single child), also a guarantee of social housing, as a single male you don't get.

Obviously there are additional costs with having children, but one off's like cots and pushchairs can be paid for with a loan/grant. (not that I'm trying to drive down this direction).

When I have been unemployed between jobs unemployment benefit as it includes housing/council tax benefit mean that food and utilities are generally covered, there was the inconvenience of going to the job centre to show that you've been looking for jobs, but that was it really.
If you didn't have access to transport (live in a village) or have mobility issues then it would be a real pain.

The point being, as a single person (the minimal received) as a short term safety net it is sufficient, but you can't expect to go out to the pub, or buy cloths that don't come from a charity shop/primark.

Benefits should be renamed subsistence allowance or something similar to fully express their purpose.

 

[karkus30]

... Crumbs!

Worse if you are crumbs. ;-)

 

[pragmatic]

For a fair comparison IDS should only get what someone on benefits should, so I believe the inc bills was a misprint/misspoke, it would include council tax and hb, well until a certain point and then a 10% cut hits that needs to be made up from somewhere.

I don't believe anyone is claiming benefits should make life comfortable, I also don't believe anyone is saying benefits are not enough to subsist on, covering basic human needs. The argument seems to be the middle ground of what is substance and what is a luxury.

Child tax credits are the real scam, those should be looked at, especially as its called a tax credit but is nothing of the such (I'd be happier if it was split between a cash payment an tax threshold lift 25/75).

 

[Pecker]

It'd be interesting to hear what the least amount of money is that IDS has ever had to live off.

I could say that I could live off a bowl of rice a day like some in the third world, but I would expect everyone here to reserve judgement if I'd had 3 squares + left overs every day for my entire life.

Why would anyone be more credulous of IDS?

I'd be happier with a politician of any party who said "Given my background I have no idea how anyone can live off £53 a week".

Steve W

 

[pragmatic]

Are there any mainstream MPs where this is true? Many haven't had a job except politics.

Maybe he would do well to have advisor's that express the real world implications of his decisions, and maybe he has (doubt it though) and on consideration believed the upsides are greater than the downsides for society as a whole.

 

[Deleted member 13294]

Why would anyone be more credulous of IDS

Perhaps because he has worked in the real world, been made redundant and had to claim unemployment?

And also even his harshest critics would acknowledge that he has spent a lot of time in the area of welfare. He isn't just a 'nasty' tory making cuts for the sake of it.

From wikipedia.
After his term as party leader, Duncan Smith established the Centre for Social Justice in 2004. This organisation is a centre-right think tank which works with small charities with the aim of finding innovative policies for tackling poverty. (Duncan Smith served as the centre's chairman until he joined the Cabinet in May 2010, and remains its Life Patron.[22]) He also served under Michael Howard on the Conservative Party's advisory council, along with John Major, William Hague and Kenneth Clarke.[23]
On 7 December 2005, Duncan Smith was appointed Chairman of the Social Justice Policy Group, which was facilitated by the Centre for Social Justice. The group's aim was to "study the causes and consequences of poverty in Britain and seek practical ideas to empower the least well-off," and was one of several that were set up by Conservative Party leader David Cameron. Duncan Smith's Deputy Chair was Debbie Scott, the Chief Executive of the charity Tomorrow's People. The group released two major reports, "Breakdown Britain" and "Breakthrough Britain". "Breakdown Britain"[24] was a three hundred thousand word document that analysed what was going wrong in the areas of Economic Dependence and Unemployment, Family Breakdown, Addiction, Educational Failure, Indebtedness, and the Voluntary Sector. "Breakthrough Britain"[25] recommended almost two hundred policy ideas using broadly the same themes. On their website the group claimed that the Government has so far taken on sixteen of the recommendations, and the Conservatives twenty-nine.

 

[pragmatic]

Some people seem to have the simplistic though process, that if you're not giving increasing amount of money/welfare to poor people you're increasing poverty.

The problem is far far deeper than that, and weaning people off of welfare will be painful, but will be a worthy goal, not for economic reasoning, but entirely for improving the quality of life that people have and aspirations they pass on to their kids (the real victims of welfare dependency).

People who need welfare should get it, those that can work should, it's the only path out of poverty, "feed a man a fish ..." and all that.

A paid in vs paid out system like France would be beneficial (pun not intended), it would break the generational dependency.

This seems to be the whole left vs right methodology, left looks to the short term fix for today, using emotive language like compassionate, while the right looks at fixing the underlying long term problem and comparatively look like the bad guys.
This is sullied by the idea that the right are rich folks bullying the poor, and the left are the paragon of virtue that is on the side of the poor.

I see it is as tough father vs. the one who wants to be your mate (both love you equally but have different methods of showing it), in the long run the former will see you right, even if you need to do the hard things you would rather not.

Anyway that's my personal treatise on a pure left vs. right (not that such a thing really exists as both are polluted with all sorts of other vested interest groups).