I understand she said:


'I think at the end of the day one of the kindest things that we can do is try to help people to support themselves and work around their finances. Some of my most heartbreaking cases are those that come to me saying that they are struggling and then you go through with them their expenditure and income – I'm not generalising at all, I'm talking about some very individual cases – and actually they just haven't realised some of the savings that they need to make themselves. You know it can be… things like paid subscriptions to TVs and you just sit there and you think you have to sometimes go without if you are going to have people make ends meet.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-33...l#ixzz3rOylvmiO



I can't really see what she has to apologise for? It seems to me that she is speaking common sense.

The only thing I see wrong is Labour trying to make capitol from it.

Sounds like common sense to me to.

Satellite or cable TV subscriptions, the latest smartphone, booze, fags and dare I say it, illegal drugs are all 'luxuries' when you are short of money

Not to mention tattoos!

Unfortunately the dregs of society at the trailer trash end of our society (and sadly the trailer trash don't exclusively live in trailers) seem to think that certain things are essential items of existence rather than luxuries. They get a bit too precious and sensitive when a few home truths are pointed out while they stub out their fags and are asked to turn off their 50" HD telly.. Good on T Crouch MP for voicing what many think. Shame that some misguided Labour drones seem to have misread the silent majority mood.

When you have nothing, little luxuries kind of turn into essentials; however, my main beef is with the misrepresenting of the MP by Labour. Whether on this forum, or elsewhere, people are very quick to make up their minds before listening (or reading). In

Its called 'living within your means' if you can't afford it, don't have it. Something most people, the council and this government fail somehow to be able to get there minds round. What my dear Mum used to understand as 'housekeeping'. Or if you prefer, economics 101.

Sadly, these political truisms often get bent and mangled so the message gets missed. Look at all the fuss created about a fairer way of assessing benefits and then squeals about a mythical bedroom tax; sensible suggestions for managing just get trashed. This is just another example; it's nothing new.

Is this where we are as a sociery: the poorest can't afford television - and we despise them for wanting it? Are we content that the living standards of the Daily Mail readership goes up while the poorest are expected to enjoy their post-war austerity? I'm not.. Even if morality and common decency weren't enough, enlightened self-interest will tell you that a substantial difference between rich and poor will strain the social fabric and then everyone suffers when that rips.

The difference is that they want the televisions without having to work for them. They hold out their hands for their freebies and seem to think benefits should be paying for smart phones and their 40 fags a day habit.

I see Brighthouse have a stand on Northbrook Street today.

Spart, that's why all these immigrants keep coming, because the British working class are just content to sit about grabbing whatever benefits their way. The same reason they took no notice of Norman Tebbitt's suggestion - get on your bike and look for work.....most of them have cars. It's always been the same, when anyone suggests people should take responsibility they are shouted down. One of the biggest takes for welfare benefits is single mums - but what happened when we tried to get idle dads to cough up?

Sure,decent people wouldn't be comfortable with this situation if they empathised with their situation and thought of them as decent people such as themselves - psycopaths can do this, but generally decent people have empathy, and the trick is to de-humanise the poor and cast them as undeserving ingrates - the Hate Mail has made quite an industry out of just this.

TBH - my irritation was on the political abuse, rather than social comment. Parties issuing strawman arguments to land political punches. The Monster Raving Tories did it a while back with their Corbin feels sorry for Osama Bin Laden initiative.

Sadly, that's now the state of British politics. It's what we want because that's what we vote for.

Aren't you all making the assumption that she is talking about the unemployed rather than the low paid?

I wasn't assuming anything past the fact that they couldn't afford television - I don't find that just whoever it is, be they pensioners, low-paid, or whatever.

One certain poster appears to think that anyone who does not have such an high powered job as herself should be sacrificed for the good of such as herself if needs be..............and to keep WBC ticking along nicely of course?

Well some were assuming. In general, is it possible to get credit if you're unemployed? I'd have thought the people that this MP is referring to as those on low pay. Personally, I think anyone that works full time ought to be able to afford the odd luxury. Perhaps the issue is employers not willing to pay a living wage? There will always be people living beyond their means. You don't have to be poor to do that.

Oh please, you aren't supposed to be noticing that, anymore than you should be noticing that our grocers employees need tax subsidies to make a wage to exist on! Still, they get staff discount! I suppose the odd luxury like being just about able to rent a flat, if your mate is willing to share, is worth having. People always want more don't they?

I wouldn't assume that either, I understood her to be saying that Sky, Netflix, Amazon Prime subscriptions were not basic needs. I don't think she was questioning having a TV to watch free TV.

Agree; but should we also strongly suggest these people don't shop at Waitrose or M&S on the same basis?

What they can afford the License fee..........must be claiming far too much. Keep this up and they will want toilet paper in their outside loos as well?

Fair point I guess, but she did say TV subscriptions.

This is all to do with a feeling of entitlement.

A whole generation have been brought up thinking that a minimum standard of life (including SKY, mobile, broadband etc) are an entitlement.
Whether they can generate the income to support this is to them not relevant. If they cannot then others should pay for it.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!

I have never claimed a penny off the state in my life. If I don't earn it, I cannot have it.

This poor woman put her head above the parapet. She only said what a lot of people dare not. But then if you do have such an opinion you are a right wing B****rd

Most of us pay National Insurance contributions, so those who lose their jobs can expect the benefit. Just as if my house burnt down, I'd feel entitled to the insurance cheque. I suppose that makes me a left wing B****rd!

If you paid for Insurance you would be perfectly entitled to the cheque. That would not make you left wing.
If you did not pay for Insurance and your house burnt down and you expected the state to build you a new one that would make you left wing.
Otherwise why should any of us bother to cover ourselves for anything?

That's a courageous position TD&H, cutting the state pension and other pensioner benefits so that state pensioners can't afford a TV license - but fair play if you think they don't deserve that standard of living.

No work no pay a good principle, it works in the States. We'd stop all these concerns if we did have a real 'market driven' economy. No more National Insurance, simply let everyone buy their own pension, health and job loss cover - that could be made compulsory as it was in the thirties. It would be much more focussed on the individual and at a stroke, stop the sponger complaints.

Dear Simon,

I was not talking about pensioners. But you knew that.

Regards
TDH

Ayup! I've a coupla little uns going spare like, be gradely to boost t'pension like be getting em a job sweeping chimneys like.

More likely it's more mundane and just poor money management. That's what the MP was saying wasn't it?

But in your view people are wrong to expect a comparable living standard to their peers and the state has no obligation to feed and house them, so actually that is what you are saying. Of course many pensioners were wealthy before they retired and will not depend on state hand-outs now they are retired, but yes, for those individuals who didn't enjoy such success and maybe hadn't worked for years they will be dependent on the state - so really, we should set the state benefits so low that state pensioners can't afford a telephone or television?

"so really, we should set the state benefits so low that state pensioners can't afford a telephone or television?"

Well were would you set base benefits -

In my mind they should cover health (inc dentistry) a roof over your head (and utilities), enough money for staple foodstuffs if cooked in a moderately sensible way (I understand not everyone is a chef but surely something like pasta with a tomato, onion and some form of protein sauce is within everyone's grasp), a base level form of telephone communication (a payg mobile is now cheaper to run than a landline) internet (if not in with phone - as without it you can not engage with a lot of government things even and you end up paying a lot more for other items), TV beyond free to air is a luxury if you already have the internet. Also enough for cheap sturdy non branded clothing and a decent interview suit. Finally some form of travel permit allowing public transport out of rush hour (as long as you are in education, actively seeking work, have a child under 3 or are retired).

Beyond that it is all luxury - a very frugal person should on benefits maybe be able to save £10 a week for rainy days. most £5 if spending sensibly, if they can do more than that then the benefits are set too high in my view

State Pensioners over 75 years old don't need to pay for a TV kicence

Oh goody. Can't wait.