HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by James Timkey, 16:08, Mon 15 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  As one of your constituents, who has worked all his life, I am more concerned about the proliferation of wind farms in the North Beds area, especially the one which is currently going through the planning process and Chelveston.

  Maybe you could focus your efforts in this area, especially as you attended meetings in the villages affected prior to the General Election pledging your support. Regards

  James Timkey

• Posted by Alistair Burt, 16:56, Mon 15 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Thank you Mr Timkey. Alistair has continued to work on the Wind Farms issue with constituents from the three areas we are concerned with and we are happy to update you if you would like to email directly to burta@parliament.uk This forum covers more general political issues and topics, hence Alistair's post on a wider political issue. Thank you for responding. Kind regards Office of Alistair Burt MP

• Posted by Evelyn Roxburgh, 17:08, Mon 15 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Benefits are for people in need, these people should not be better off than working people. Some make a career out of having children, often by unknown fathers.

• Posted by sandra marshall, 17:14, Mon 15 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I share the view that we have had a culture that encourages workshy people and delighted the Government is finally doing something about it. I hope this extends to immigrants wanting to come here to live off the tax payer, as well. However we must protect the vulnerable and be quite discerning as to who they are. By getting the workshy to work this should enable immigration to be capped effectively then maybe the word will get to these countries that the British tax payer is no longer willing to pay for them to come here and live off free housing and benefits. We need strong government. So let us hope they stand up to this problem more than they did the banks, who will still enjoy big bonuses whilst we all pay for it again and again. A.H.Marshall

• Posted by Pete Hindle, 17:34, Mon 15 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I have never seen a more blatant re-framing of the essential needs of our society. Folks who think that this has anything to do with stopping "workshy" people will be in for a big shock when the cuts start affecting their family. Perhaps facts would do in place of right-wing posturing?

  After all, isn't it a fact that more money is lost owing to unpaid tax bills from big companies than on spending to keep poor people out of desperate poverty? Or what about subsidising the arms industry - is that the best use of our money, seeing that we are told we are in such desperate straights financially? Won't reducing housing benefit in London just means that more people will want to live in Bedfordshire, driving up crime rates and rent around the area? That's nice if you live in London and have some money, but how is that going to affect people already living here? Again and again, it seems that the cuts are just out to hurt those the Tory party never liked in the first place.

  All this government really wants to do is slim the state down to fit an ideological vision. Sadly, it's a dumb idea that will just lead to suffering for the poor, while rich people take home the benefit. For a party that couldn't manage a majority in a fair election, this is a stunning betrayal of a country that will leave us open to the whims of the uncaring market, just like Ireland find itself now. We need to be building up the country and investing in it's people, not taking away the states protection against poverty.

• Posted by Neil Douglas, 17:34, Mon 15 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I don't believe anybody could not "share the view" the way you have phrased the question - who wouldn't agree that we must protect those in greatest difficulty and that repeated worklessness causes great damage? Something self-evidently has to be done and the previous government is culpable for letting the situation develop.

  I think a more interesting question with, reportedly 5 people chasing 1 job currently, is where will meaningful and satisfying work come from with the extensive job losses that are likely over the next few years?

  I'm not saying that those who are workshy should remain workshy - they shouldn't and they must be required to work.

  I am, however, concerned that people who were employed in the public services, and people who were employed by suppliers to those public services (amongst other groups) are about to find themselves redundant. These are not workshy people, but equally in the short to medium term there are unlikely to be meaningful and satisfying jobs (or indeed any jobs) that they can do without retraining.

  As an aside, retraining will be an interesting prospect, for those who have been through further education already there will be no access to government loans for tuition fees that are likely to treble.

  How do we deal with the newly redundant fairly, without making them feel that they are to blame for their situation?

• Posted by Robert Allen, 17:54, Mon 15 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I cannot be as eloquent as some of the people posting, nor do I profess to be knowledgeable about politics but, what I do know is. I am fed up of seeing people driving around in the obligatory BMW or the like, bedecked in gold, dressed in the latest designer clothing, and they have 'never' worked a day since leaving school. Of course there have to be cuts, and as usual no-one is too bothered until, 'it affects them'.

• Posted by Peter Wicks, 19:50, Mon 15 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Being a full blown socilist who has been unfortunate enough to live in this Blue county of Bedfordshire I find the term "work shy" extremely offensive, many have tried and failed to get work in this county are called "work shy" after trying hundreds of times to get a job.I will ask Alistair if he is selective in answering emails from his constituents and in particular the one I wrote about our council houses being sold off for the measly sum £8K each.Now that would have helped the tenants if they were offered the roof over their heads for this give away price.Now thats what I call Welfare reform, but no,GREED rules the hearts and souls and minds of all good Conservatives,6400 houses for just over eight grand each=a massive profit and a millionaire life style for a few ex council employees.So lets look up and down this corrupt Great Britain for other simular get rich "quick deals"

• Posted by Frank Fattori, 21:20, Mon 15 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Welfare is at the very root of the continued corruption and decay of society; while I whole heatedly support the long overdue attention the issue is receiving, the re-structuring of welfare needs to go far deeper, and with full disclosure of the facts and figures, & we need lots of public debate to put the socialist naiviety and rhetoric into proper perspective And let's all stop calling it 'credits' let's call it what it is!

• Posted by Neil Douglas, 21:51, Mon 15 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Peter, my apologies, I didn't intend the term "work shy" in any broad sense. It was intended to refer to those who are truly avoiding work - and I personally don't believe there are very many of them. I would never wish it to be applied to the genuine people who have spent themselves trying to find work and are broken and despondent at the lack of opportunity in front of them; somebody very close to me has been in that place for a long time, although in recent weeks finally was fortunate enough to find work.

• Posted by Jane Ashwell-Carter, 08:38, Tue 16 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Knowing a couple of people who openly admit they have no intention of ever working, and are happy to pass this attitude on to their children then I am all for the reforms. One told me the other day she had turned down a job (a good job too) because her partner said it was "beneath her". Shame sitting on the dole with the taxpayer funding their three kids isn't beneath him!

  Finding work IS hard, I recently was job hunting myself and yet, if you are prepared to work and prepared to hunt hard then something will come up, be it flipping burgers in McDs or cleaning toilets. It is work, it is supporting your own family.

  We do have a reliance on benefits culture and it is a shame and does nothing to help people's self confidence or self respect.

  Yes, these cuts will affect all of us, but it is the legacy of a reckless Labour Government and so as a country we will have to accept that tyimes are a little hard at the mo and pull through. Could be worse, as always...

• Posted by David Hatch, 09:53, Tue 16 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  No I don't agree. I'm self-employed and as far as I'm concerned the availability of work and the motivation to undertake is is a purely economic issue. The fact, is that there aren't enough worthwhile legitimate jobs to go around. Therefore, the issue becomes whether as a society we are prepared to marginalise those who cannot find worthwhile jobs, or accept that some of us are destines not to be lucky enough to find one.

  The currentl government policy obviously appeals to those of us lucky enough to find worthwhile regular employment, as it toadies to our natural selfishness in not wanting to support the less fortunate amongst our communities.

  However, the price we all pay for not being caring to others is that in extremes money can be obtained by less legitimate means and it is the lack of worthwhile legitimate occupations which does much to fuel street crime. There is also a direct link between lack of income and family violence.

  I believe that rather than making life harder for those in our communities who cannot find worthwhile occupations, the government would find its time better spend try to create worthwhile empoyment for those who are looking for work and can't find it.

  There will always be a few who prefer not to work, but these measures will impose greater hardship on everyone who is unable to find a job. It might make good headlines for the selfish masses but its bad news for our commmunities. Those who support this action should consider carefully that before this recession is over they too may find themselves signing on for job seekers allowance, and consider what sort of society they would like to live in.

• Posted by Jez Green, 13:27, Tue 16 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  As is always the case in life, a balance needs to found whereby those that are in true need are supported and those that 'use' the system should go unsupported. However, as soon as you start down the road of identifying and categorising 'the jobless', and their worthiness, you immediately create the differentiation you unnecessarily do not want. What is clear from the welfare reform information so far released is that this test will be harsher than seen before and this is of great concern to those of us who wish to ensure that the 'truly disadvantaged' are not adversely affected.

  What is abundantly clear is that the majority of pain will be felt by the many, and the few that have plunged this country into it's current state and fuelled these cuts remain in their ivory towers.

  On a final note, whatever, is suggested or implemented will have wide ranging and long term affects across the economy in both public and private sectors. The 'domino' affect will occur and if we push people to the limits of their survival and penalise those that are in true need, and allow those that are not, to escape penalty, then we have changed nothing, at a time when change is everything.

• Posted by jacqueline Bellew, 19:26, Tue 16 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Hi Alastair I think that this reform is well overdue. But feel that without support- people may well end up becoming depressed, anxious and in many cases, desperate. Our society created this culture of dependency - Frank Coffield wrote about 'The Cycle of Deprivation' , many years ago now. People cant just be left to sink or swim. They need to LEARN how to stop being dependent. They need to be taught how to deal with life off benefits. I dont believe that this is simply a matter of pointing them at the nearest job centre and saying 'go do it'. If we are ever to effect the seismic changes in society that these cuts are intended to do, then we must be prepared to teach people how to survive; for survive it is. Not to do this is to risk a hit on the criminal justice system, our already overloaded social services, and a generation that pass on, through their stories, bitterness, hatred and alienation from society. regards Jacqueline Baxter

• Posted by Peter Wicks, 09:25, Wed 17 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  The Hardest of times

  A short history lesson of times past and present.

  After the Second World War the men of Britain were adamant that they would not go back to the status of slave and master attitude of the pre war days, they had just fought a war with blood and sweat not to have the chains of servitude manacled to their bodies when they returned home…

  The war left Britain destitute without any help from the Marshal Plan that created the new Europe for we in Britain were absolutely broke and the Yanks offered no help what so ever…

  So after the war, this country kicked Churchill out of power and it elected the Labour Party with the biggest land side victory of all times and we had the one and only real socialist government this country had ever seen…

  What happened then MUST happen again the Labour Party set about rebuilding our country by a wonderful means called NATIONALISATION….

  Every industry that was in private hands was taken by the state, for the good of the many and not the few this included coal, electric, gas, water, shipping, trains, oil, Post office telephones, buses, trams , airports, airlines, and great swages of private lands, if it could benefit the people it was nationalised….

  Labour took from the rich and gave to the poor a Robin Hood of the 1940s we had our first National Health Service and a free dental service plus free prescriptions for all…

  But then the “Maggot” came along from the Tory Party who’s first vile job was to stop the free school milk kids were getting and this earned her the rightful name of “Thatcher the Snatcher” ….

  But Labour was getting soft and to lost its balls, it elected a Welsh windbag called Kinnock as its leader who set about to destroy labours socialist ideology in later years he received a seat in the House of Lords for this bit of treachery…

  So the Tory party gained power with a land slide election with the “Maggot” as its leader she was more right wing than Hannibal the Hun but far deadlier…

  She wanted to decimate all that our brave men had fought and died for in the second world war ”A country fit for heroes” and by all the unholy deeds in this world, she did….

  She set about to thief and sell the “Family Silver” as Ted Heath once called it, bit by bit she sold it to her filthy rich friends in the City and her own party until all that was left was our NHS, but that was a sell-off to far…

  Her own party chucked her out of office when she caused mass riots over her hated Poll Tax bill but all was not lost for the Tory Party a new face appeared on the cat walk of politics as Tory Blair…

  This chap pretended to be a socialist and a friend of the workers and with the help of Ginger Kinnock became the new leader of the Labour Party….

  Tory Blair was the biggest disaster to come the workers way he spun his lies so much that he nearly went into orbit with his blatant untruths about weapons of mass destruction crap but it caused the death of countless people in the conflict on desert sands…

  Tory Blair continued to flog off Britain but dressed in the sick little name of PFI this gave giant building firms like French Kier the go ahead to build hospitals for the NHS then charge the British public BILLIONS in rent for the next thirty years sick is not the word I use….

  So Labour is a sham, it ditched its roots long ago to the gods of greed and corruption and it will be obliterated at the next election and allow the Tory and Lib/Dems Candidates(coalition) To gain seats in the Halls of Westminster….

  Well done you greedy selfish gits, well done for now the true sprite of the old left wing of the labour movement will rise from the ashes of the shell of the party that once represented all the under dogs of this divided land…

  This is how it was my friends, the GREED of the few decimated all that was good and caring in the UK, we had money to spend on everything we wanted, paid for the services we owned and used which was for the good of the many and not the GREEDY unspeakable few who stole it all.

  Peter

• Posted by David Brittain, 12:05, Wed 17 November 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #

  This is not as straightforward as might be thought by some. After all, every person who's benefit we stop at one end, could well make a working person at the other end redundant! But having said that, I do accept the point that there are doubtless many families for whom unemployment benefit-gathering is a way of life. But I do not accept that this culture is as common a problem as we are led to believe - however much we read about benefit cheats in the media, and I think applying pressure should be done very carefully to protect the innocent. In my working past, I was unemployed myself for a while, and have also - whilst in employment - worked with the unemployed, and seen the despair and loss of confidence that can be associated with it. So we need to be surgical in our approach. We need to make sure that there REALLY ARE jobs for people to apply for ... That the disabled are properly and FAIRLY assessed ... That people who need it really DO get effective training (a major failure in the past) ... And that the children (or otherwise innocent dependants)of those from whom we eventually withdraw benefits, do not suffer unduly. We also need to ensure a more effective sliding scale of benefits for those who manage to find low paid or part-time work - particularly in difficult employment areas ...

  ... And in the end, those we oblige to do unpaid work should not be used to simply undercut otherwise employed people.

  ... But with all those caveats met ... In principle, I think what's left should be treated MUCH more robustly.

If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency, log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK, sign up in order to HearFromYourMP.