The "food stamp fridge"

[lawlifelgbt]

Well said, moodygirl! And thanks for saying you're proud of me upthread. :)

I don't really want to get into this argument right now because Aunt Flo is making me miserable! So also I appreciate the cheering up.

[moodygirl86]

Well said, moodygirl! And thanks for saying you're proud of me upthread. :)

I don't really want to get into this argument right now because Aunt Flo is making me miserable! So also I appreciate the cheering up.

That Aunt Flo is the bane of my feckin' life, thankfully she left me alone last week. Sorry to hear she's darkening your doorstep!

I should stay away from this argument too, but I've had a few pints tonight and I'm feeling argumentative. (Yes, I'm on the dole and buying ALKY-HOL! Shock horror! I expect to be arrested by the poverty police forthwith).

[browncoatslytherin]

Well said, moodygirl! And thanks for saying you're proud of me upthread. :)

I don't really want to get into this argument right now because Aunt Flo is making me miserable! So also I appreciate the cheering up.

i'm on that same time, law :/ i feel ya.

also, just wanted to add...during my stint on welfare, i had a variety of friends that were also on welfare, with varying degrees of what i would call "need". for instance, my now-ex's aunt (she was never married to his uncle, but she was such a long-term gf so that she was family) got disability and also food stamps and the whole package. i don't doubt she has medical issues, but her disability claims stated that her back problems were so severe that she couldn't work. yet, she went out dumpster diving all the time and would take me to food banks, where she would personally haul out lord knows how much canned food and other items that were pretty heavy. i'm not sure why she was precluded from any work, as she seemed to be able to function to at least get either a part time job, or even a full time job as long as she was able to remain stationary if she was concerned about long-term standing (she was one of those people that boasted about knowing everything, even if she didn't). *shrug* so, i've seen both sides of the coin, and while i know that there are people out there that are on welfare who maybe don't need to be, there are definitely a whole lot more that really do need it. and i don't think they should be punished for the actions of other people.

[moodygirl86]

i'm on that same time, law :/ i feel ya.

also, just wanted to add...during my stint on welfare, i had a variety of friends that were also on welfare, with varying degrees of what i would call "need". for instance, my now-ex's aunt (she was never married to his uncle, but she was such a long-term gf so that she was family) got disability and also food stamps and the whole package. i don't doubt she has medical issues, but her disability claims stated that her back problems were so severe that she couldn't work. yet, she went out dumpster diving all the time and would take me to food banks, where she would personally haul out lord knows how much canned food and other items that were pretty heavy. i'm not sure why she was precluded from any work, as she seemed to be able to function to at least get either a part time job, or even a full time job as long as she was able to remain stationary if she was concerned about long-term standing (she was one of those people that boasted about knowing everything, even if she didn't). *shrug* so, i've seen both sides of the coin, and while i know that there are people out there that are on welfare who maybe don't need to be, there are definitely a whole lot more that really do need it. and i don't think they should be punished for the actions of other people.

Regarding back problems. My mum's long-time good friend and neighbour has been on Disability Living Allowance, then Employment Support Allowance for the best part of 20 years with a back condition. D can't sit/stand for long periods as that also makes her pain flare up. So that lets her out of, say, working in a shop. She can do moderate exercise, like swimming, but can't walk long distances (she's entitled to a free bus pass). If she injures herself, or if her condition worsens, she could easily end up wheelchair-bound. I appreciate that might sound dubious to someone who hasn't lived with that, and I can't remember the exact medical name for her particular problem, and I'm not criticising you personally, but just wanted to point out that does happen.

D had to go to be assessed in 2012 when the UK government were trying to push as many disability benefit claimants as possible onto Jobseekers' Allowance, and she said the woman she initially got was very cold in her manner, and borderline rude. Apparently, she insisted on speaking with her back to D, and D had to ask her, "How can you assess me if you won't make eye contact?" She got another assessor, who agreed it was blatantly obvious she wasn't fit for work, and told her to come and see him again in 12 months. As far as I know, she's still claiming ESA and nobody has given her any more crap.

But yeah, this is my rather long winded way of saying that back problems can severely impact your ability to work long hours without precluding half an hour's exercise, whether that's swimming or bin diving.

[lawlifelgbt]

You should be able to buy alcohol if you're on welfare, just in normal amounts, and not with specifically food benefits. I think the drug-testing for applicants and the idea that they shouldn't drink is kind of degrading. While a small amount of people don't work BECAUSE of substance problems, the aim of welfare is to help people get to the "normal" life (meet their needs, have enough not to be looked down on). And normal people do sometimes drink.

Also, welfare is patronizing and hard to deal with. I think I would want a drink after going to a welfare office! Alcohol can, in moderate amounts, give someone enjoyment and relaxation, and I wouldn't begrudge you normality and being able to feel better, moodygirl. :)

[moodygirl86]

You should be able to buy alcohol if you're on welfare, just in normal amounts, and not with specifically food benefits. I think the drug-testing for applicants and the idea that they shouldn't drink is kind of degrading. While a small amount of people don't work BECAUSE of substance problems, the aim of welfare is to help people get to the "normal" life (meet their needs, have enough not to be looked down on). And normal people do sometimes drink.

Also, welfare is patronizing and hard to deal with. I think I would want a drink after going to a welfare office! Alcohol can, in moderate amounts, give someone enjoyment and relaxation, and I wouldn't begrudge you normality and being able to feel better, moodygirl. :)

Thanks! Luckily in the UK, benefits are paid in cash and there's no drug testing. I think it's disgusting that some US states find it acceptable to invade people's privacy like that. I think Iain Drunken Tit was recently on about forcing people to seek rehab and get card payments if they have a history of drug/alcohol problems. Yeah, because that'll REALLY make people want to seek help for substance abuse, won't it!

[browncoatslytherin]

Regarding back problems. My mum's long-time good friend and neighbour has been on Disability Living Allowance, then Employment Support Allowance for the best part of 20 years with a back condition. D can't sit/stand for long periods as that also makes her pain flare up. So that lets her out of, say, working in a shop. She can do moderate exercise, like swimming, but can't walk long distances (she's entitled to a free bus pass). If she injures herself, or if her condition worsens, she could easily end up wheelchair-bound. I appreciate that might sound dubious to someone who hasn't lived with that, and I can't remember the exact medical name for her particular problem, and I'm not criticising you personally, but just wanted to point out that does happen.

D had to go to be assessed in 2012 when the UK government were trying to push as many disability benefit claimants as possible onto Jobseekers' Allowance, and she said the woman she initially got was very cold in her manner, and borderline rude. Apparently, she insisted on speaking with her back to D, and D had to ask her, "How can you assess me if you won't make eye contact?" She got another assessor, who agreed it was blatantly obvious she wasn't fit for work, and told her to come and see him again in 12 months. As far as I know, she's still claiming ESA and nobody has given her any more crap.

But yeah, this is my rather long winded way of saying that back problems can severely impact your ability to work long hours without precluding half an hour's exercise, whether that's swimming or bin diving.

oh i don't discount back problems at all. i have issues myself, although nothing that would preclude me from work. i just eye-rolled every time this aunt would talk excitedly about climbing in and out of dumpsters and finding everything from toys to electronics to all manner of furniture on her escapades, which usually was an all-day affair. i would be thinking, "sooo...you can climb in and out of dumpsters, rifle through god knows how much stuff, lift and carry all manner of items...do this a few days a week in between making food pantry runs that mean standing in line a couple of hours and hauling heavy food items around...but you can't do any kind of work at all, not even office work where you'd be sitting a good bit (which she claims to have experience in, although the variety of jobs she's claimed to have held seems incredible)..riiiiiight...whatever."

[Walking Cat Bed]

You should be able to buy alcohol if you're on welfare, just in normal amounts, and not with specifically food benefits. I think the drug-testing for applicants and the idea that they shouldn't drink is kind of degrading. While a small amount of people don't work BECAUSE of substance problems, the aim of welfare is to help people get to the "normal" life (meet their needs, have enough not to be looked down on). And normal people do sometimes drink.

Also, welfare is patronizing and hard to deal with. I think I would want a drink after going to a welfare office! Alcohol can, in moderate amounts, give someone enjoyment and relaxation, and I wouldn't begrudge you normality and being able to feel better, moodygirl. :)

I bought alcohol a few times while on food stamps, but not WITH food stamps. Only food items are allowed, no alcohol, pharmacy, or household items (which meant I'd scrounge together cash for toilet paper and soap and allergy medicine, and when I had an extra $10 I'd pick up a six-pack of a locally-brewed beer, which would last close to a month).

[alba]

Thanks! Luckily in the UK, benefits are paid in cash and there's no drug testing. I think it's disgusting that some US states find it acceptable to invade people's privacy like that. I think Iain Drunken Tit was recently on about forcing people to seek rehab and get card payments if they have a history of drug/alcohol problems. Yeah, because that'll REALLY make people want to seek help for substance abuse, won't it!

:lol: This is the best name for that douchecanoe I've ever heard!

[RosyDaisy]

I have a "judge not" and "none of my business" attitude when it comes to people on public assistance. Otherwise, I would be a hypocrite given the fact that I have filed for SSDI.

[feministxtian]

I have a "judge not" and "none of my business" attitude when it comes to people on public assistance. Otherwise, I would be a hypocrite given the fact that I have filed for SSDI.

SSDI is a different program from SSI...my husband filed for it, got rejected three times.

I think the whole welfare argument is bullshit. The accusations of people having more babies so they can get more money is pretty much a lie. I personally would like to see more emphasis on job training and placement, subsidized day care, and adequate housing, but that's just me. It seems that the anecdotal stories of people abusing the system are being used as the rationale for cutting or doing away with the programs. I'd rather see people go off of hard numbers (that I'm too lazy to look up right now) and see where things could be made better. I've been on welfare, gotten food stamps, Medicaid and all that stuff before. I used it as a springboard to a better life but I realize that not many folks are like me. Yes, I think the programs should change. No, I don't have the "right" to judge anyone.

For every person who chooses to judge someone on welfare...what have YOU done to help someone? Did you talk to them about going to school? Did you talk to them about finding a job? Did you try to understand the situation they're in right now? If not, STFU.

[browncoatslytherin]

SSDI is a different program from SSI...my husband filed for it, got rejected three times.

I think the whole welfare argument is bullshit. The accusations of people having more babies so they can get more money is pretty much a lie. I personally would like to see more emphasis on job training and placement, subsidized day care, and adequate housing, but that's just me. It seems that the anecdotal stories of people abusing the system are being used as the rationale for cutting or doing away with the programs. I'd rather see people go off of hard numbers (that I'm too lazy to look up right now) and see where things could be made better. I've been on welfare, gotten food stamps, Medicaid and all that stuff before. I used it as a springboard to a better life but I realize that not many folks are like me. Yes, I think the programs should change. No, I don't have the "right" to judge anyone.

For every person who chooses to judge someone on welfare...what have YOU done to help someone? Did you talk to them about going to school? Did you talk to them about finding a job? Did you try to understand the situation they're in right now? If not, STFU.

when i went to apply in ohio, after being on pa benefits, i was told i didn't qualify (even under the same circumstances) unless i had disability or i was pregnant. the woman i talked to practically encouraged me to get pregnant. perhaps it was an isolated incident, but i did feel like i was being encouraged to do something that i didn't want to do in order to get benefits that i felt i should have and that i had been getting previously from another state under the same circumstances.

i do agree, though, that there should be more programs to help people get on their feet better. i had to struggle myself through college, and it got very difficult at times. from the welfare office itself, in pa and ohio, i didn't feel like there was a lot of other options given. i did accomplish my goals in school and graduated, but i wish there had been more support going along that path. and i was really only able to go back to school after i turned 24 and didn't have to put my parent's financial info on the fafsa application. until then, i was stuck, even though i hadn't lived with them since before i turned 20 and had been on welfare since 21, almost 22. i had wanted to go back to school before, but couldn't because of that, which i think i've already railed on as being complete bullshit. i felt like i was kept on welfare, which was discouraging as all get out. i'm glad to be off of it now. but i remember how helpless, hopeless, and morally degrading it felt every time i walked into that office.

[Trynn]

You should be able to buy alcohol if you're on welfare, just in normal amounts, and not with specifically food benefits. I think the drug-testing for applicants and the idea that they shouldn't drink is kind of degrading. While a small amount of people don't work BECAUSE of substance problems, the aim of welfare is to help people get to the "normal" life (meet their needs, have enough not to be looked down on). And normal people do sometimes drink.

Also, welfare is patronizing and hard to deal with. I think I would want a drink after going to a welfare office! Alcohol can, in moderate amounts, give someone enjoyment and relaxation, and I wouldn't begrudge you normality and being able to feel better, moodygirl. :)

I certainly agree. I think booze is an absolute necessity of life.

[Mama Mia]

SSDI is a different program from SSI...my husband filed for it, got rejected three times.

I think the whole welfare argument is bullshit. The accusations of people having more babies so they can get more money is pretty much a lie. I personally would like to see more emphasis on job training and placement, subsidized day care, and adequate housing, but that's just me. It seems that the anecdotal stories of people abusing the system are being used as the rationale for cutting or doing away with the programs. I'd rather see people go off of hard numbers (that I'm too lazy to look up right now) and see where things could be made better. I've been on welfare, gotten food stamps, Medicaid and all that stuff before. I used it as a springboard to a better life but I realize that not many folks are like me. Yes, I think the programs should change. No, I don't have the "right" to judge anyone.

For every person who chooses to judge someone on welfare...what have YOU done to help someone? Did you talk to them about going to school? Did you talk to them about finding a job? Did you try to understand the situation they're in right now? If not, STFU.

Well, I actually spent my whole working career helping people get on their feet - both directly and in developing and administrating programs. And before that was on aid, at a time when half the people I knew were on aid as well. So I have a pretty large sample of people to go off of. I think hard numbers regarding cheaters or slackers are pretty much impossible to get -- because by the very nature people aren't going to advertise it. So you get a few, very few, people who get caught blatantly cheating, but someone who has another baby just to avoid work requirements is hardly going to say that's the reason they got pregnant. A family supposedly living off $600 a month and food stamps and still able to drive a car and get by fairly well is probably doing something on the side and not reporting it. And you do get a reasonably large number of people who will absolutely resist any and all attempts to go to training or work. You just do.

Truthfully I think part of the problem is that there is little to no acknowledgement that getting and keeping even a moderately well paying job while raising little kids ( often as a single parent) is damn hard, and expensive as hell. And you likely will lose actual real, useable income if you go from income based rental costs ( if you were lucky enough to be in low-income housing), having to pay at least some day care costs, having taxes taken out of your check, and no longer getting food stamps or free health care. Plus gas to drive to work and daycare, and clothes, and likely more picking up something quick and pricey for dinner because you are too damn tired....The sticker shock of work can be huge. Add to that all the day to day stress of juggling work and little kids and home ......uggghhh...and they never talk about that in all the rah rah rah back to work trainings.

And the irony is, the better an initial job you get-- the worse the drop will be, specially if you live in a high cost area. So if you somehow manage to go from living off $700 a month plus foodstamps for your family of 4 with an adjusted rent of $150 a month, being home with your one school age and two little kids. To getting a great job, as say, a teacher - starting at $40,000. After a very, very short transition you will be paying $1500 for a 2 bedroom apartment $1200 in childcare costs. ( and that's assuming that you are still getting a small subsidy on both! ) A few hundred in various taxes and insurance. You don't qualify for food stamps anymore. Your school age kid, might just possibly squeak by under the wire for reduced bu not free lunch. How the hell does that work?

[moodygirl86]

when i went to apply in ohio, after being on pa benefits, i was told i didn't qualify (even under the same circumstances) unless i had disability or i was pregnant. the woman i talked to practically encouraged me to get pregnant. perhaps it was an isolated incident, but i did feel like i was being encouraged to do something that i didn't want to do in order to get benefits that i felt i should have and that i had been getting previously from another state under the same circumstances.

Yeah, I've had people give me that advice too; don't get me wrong. But about that, I think what we need to be looking at, is the fact that so many women seem to feel that having a baby is their only option for getting ahead. I grew up on a council estate in quite a shitty town, and yes, lots of the girls I grew up with did have a baby or two before 20. I've no idea if that was deliberate to get a council house of their own, and it's none of my business if they did, so I'm going to assume no. But, let's say for a minute that this was the case, what's making them feel that having to be responsible for another human being 24/7 for at least the next 16 years is the easier option than getting their own job (where they're only required to put in 40 hours per week) and being financially independent? To me, this would be proof that society is still automatically pressuring girls and young women into motherhood, regardless of whether they're suited to it or not. And if so, this is what we should be looking at, rather than pointing fingers at "welfare mums".

[browncoatslytherin]

Yeah, I've had people give me that advice too; don't get me wrong. But about that, I think what we need to be looking at, is the fact that so many women seem to feel that having a baby is their only option for getting ahead. I grew up on a council estate in quite a shitty town, and yes, lots of the girls I grew up with did have a baby or two before 20. I've no idea if that was deliberate to get a council house of their own, and it's none of my business if they did, so I'm going to assume no. But, let's say for a minute that this was the case, what's making them feel that having to be responsible for another human being 24/7 for at least the next 16 years is the easier option than getting their own job (where they're only required to put in 40 hours per week) and being financially independent? To me, this would be proof that society is still automatically pressuring girls and young women into motherhood, regardless of whether they're suited to it or not. And if so, this is what we should be looking at, rather than pointing fingers at "welfare mums".

maybe. i only say that as i'm not sure if it's something that is done consciously or done as a result of there being such limited options for low-income individuals that girls feel that this is the only way to make sure that they have support of some kind.

[moodygirl86]

:lol: This is the best name for that douchecanoe I've ever heard!

I think he must have been monitoring this thread, as his plan has reared its ugly head! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 63854.html

Seriously, I'm trembling with anger. Not every benefits claimant is automatically an addict or an alcoholic, and conversely, not every addict is on benefits. Individuals found to be suffering addiction need to be offered help, NOT condemned. Also we'll still need cash in our bank account for direct debits, standing orders and other expenses! I pay electricity on a PAYG meter, which only accepts pound coins. My rent is paid by standing order and water bills by direct debit. And I still need cash to travel to job interviews, and to work until my first payday! I imagine most claimants' circumstances are similar. He doesn't give a damn about helping people, the hypocritical piece of shit, he only wants to punish anyone who had the temerity to be born without the proverbial gold spoon in their mouth! The man is pure evil and he must be stopped!

[DGayle]

I actually had a "friend" ask me, "what exactly do you spend those foodstamps on that 190 is not enough? Pop and premade microwave dinners?" I think that assumption is pretty rampant and needs to die. I end up spending about $220 a month, usually borrowed money. I don't buy pop, or candy, or microwavable meals. I buy meat, rice, dried beans, fruit and veggies, bread, pasta. Making my own food with ingredients ends up being cheaper than buying premade shit. That might be because it's just me, and not me + several kids, but that's how it works out for me. I make tuna casserole and chicken and rice in batches and eat it over several days. I eat salads and eggs and drink juice. The assumption that I get "tons" of money for food really irks me, and it's something I hear from assholes a lot of the time. Not always about me directly, but often in general. Foodstamps are not meant to cover your entire food budget. They are a supplement. How you choose to spend them is a personal choice, and people hear that monthly number and, underestimating the true cost of good food, assume it's a lot.

Edited because I do know which homophone to use when

Where I live, those premade microwave dinners for a single person usually costs less than making fresh. It's hard to beat $2/meal when you've just come off a double-shift. That's still $60/mo. Cheap chicken is about $7-$8 per bird. It's ridiculous. Frozen juice is about $1.50 fora container of "cocktail." So when I hear that "are you buying pricy TV dinners," I want to lay into someone about how that's sometimes the cheaper way.

I remember when we were really hard up for money. The On-Cor chicken parmesan was $3 for a box of 8. We'd put that over pasta, and have a couple meals, if my husband and I splurged and had 2 patties each (at that time, we were so poor we had nights where we split one hot dog in one pack of ramen, and no, we didn't qualify for food stamps). We got lucky when his mom found out and demanded we allow her to fill our freezer. We were embarrassed to have been found out, embarrassed to have been offered help, embarrassed to have accepted it, but I was pregnant, and I know as a mom, I'd do the same for my kids and their families.

That time though was a good check on how much cheaper it can be to buy that crappy junk food. And when money is tight these days, like it is right now, we know how to each cheaply better than we did since we are lucky we don't risk days of having $2 to eat on all day for days on end.

My best friend is on food stamps right now, and sometimes she splurges and gets something I think is too expensive, but she pays for it later by not having enough money. She'd rather have a few hungry days to have a treat or 2 a month because she has those treats to look forward to when she's hungry, and they're a break from worrying every meal. She won't take money for food, so I do have her here for dinner as often as she can come up (I won't go to her place because I'd be tempted to punch her good-for-nothing boyfriend in the balls). In a country that throws away so much, no one should starve. I'm not saying everyone should be feasting on filet mignon and lobster with only the finest of organic, hand-selected baby greens, but everyone should have something in their bellies other than ramen and mystery cuts of mystery meat slathered in salt-heavy, mystery-filled tomato sauce.

[DGayle]

You should be able to buy alcohol if you're on welfare, just in normal amounts, and not with specifically food benefits. I think the drug-testing for applicants and the idea that they shouldn't drink is kind of degrading. While a small amount of people don't work BECAUSE of substance problems, the aim of welfare is to help people get to the "normal" life (meet their needs, have enough not to be looked down on). And normal people do sometimes drink.

Also, welfare is patronizing and hard to deal with. I think I would want a drink after going to a welfare office! Alcohol can, in moderate amounts, give someone enjoyment and relaxation, and I wouldn't begrudge you normality and being able to feel better, moodygirl. :)

I know the concern with alcohol is how easy it is to start drinking heavily. Buy a 12-pack and intend on rationing it, and once you start feeling a minor buzz, keep drinking until it's all gone. Poor-life sucks, and a lot of people don't have the ability to stop, and buying single 40's is a whole lot more per ounce than buying a case. I've seen far, far, far too many people go down that rabbit hole. Temptation, thy name is Budweiser. I don't think that beer should be seen as part of a "normal" life. It's a luxury item, and not one that you can usually get for free, the way you can get pot free if a friend grows it in his yard. But there's not really any way to sniff people out, and testing people for stuff costs a whole lot more anyway. I think it was Florida that spent 10x the cost of testing people than it saved kicking people off who had pot in their systems from a few weeks earlier (drug-testing doesn't even pick up most stuff after a few days anyway). So regardless of personal feelings, if you think it's going to save money to start testing, it's not. That should shut down debate over testing, but it doesn't.

[Trynn]

Actually, I don't have TOO hard of a time getting free booze. I'm trying not to be manipulative, so I don't let it happen often, but if I wanted to, I could totally get tons of free booze.

Does that mean I don't deserve food? Heck, after a 12 hour shift, a shot or two of vodka helps me relax. However, I do not find it addictive. I still go to work and I my best to pay my bills. Should I then be cut off if I accept someone's free offer of a small bottle of vodka?

[DGayle]

Trynn, did I say I support cutting people off, or in any way testing? No. In fact, I said, "everyone should have something in their bellies other than ramen and mystery cuts of mystery meat slathered in salt-heavy, mystery-filled tomato sauce." No qualifiers. No teetotling, no drug-treatment, nothing.

[alba]

I think he must have been monitoring this thread, as his plan has reared its ugly head! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 63854.html

Seriously, I'm trembling with anger. Not every benefits claimant is automatically an addict or an alcoholic, and conversely, not every addict is on benefits. Individuals found to be suffering addiction need to be offered help, NOT condemned. Also we'll still need cash in our bank account for direct debits, standing orders and other expenses! I pay electricity on a PAYG meter, which only accepts pound coins. My rent is paid by standing order and water bills by direct debit. And I still need cash to travel to job interviews, and to work until my first payday! I imagine most claimants' circumstances are similar. He doesn't give a damn about helping people, the hypocritical piece of shit, he only wants to punish anyone who had the temerity to be born without the proverbial gold spoon in their mouth! The man is pure evil and he must be stopped!

Oh, FFS. I really, really hope this lot don't get elected again. I don't think this country can stand another five years of the Tories.

[moodygirl86]

Oh, FFS. I really, really hope this lot don't get elected again. I don't think this country can stand another five years of the Tories.

Well, I for one will not be voting for them! Not that I've ever voted Conservative in my life, of course. I've only been old enough to vote in two of the General Elections (2005 and 2010). Both times I voted Lib Dem, but of course my second time resulted in the Coalition we've got now! So I'm genuinely angsting between Lib Dems and Labour (just because the latter aren't as bad). My mum always drummed into me that Labour are our allies as working class people, but to be honest New Labour (Blair onwards) just seem to be Tories in sheep's clothing. (I agree that Old Labour genuinely cared about the working man!) Miliband has also worried me with some of his comments about the welfare system, though he's probably not as extreme as Cameron and IDS. So who's the lesser of two evils? Lib Dems seem the obvious choice, though how likely are they to beat Tories/Labour? I've got seven months to decide...

[alba]

Well, I for one will not be voting for them! Not that I've ever voted Conservative in my life, of course. I've only been old enough to vote in two of the General Elections (2005 and 2010). Both times I voted Lib Dem, but of course my second time resulted in the Coalition we've got now! So I'm genuinely angsting between Lib Dems and Labour (just because the latter aren't as bad). My mum always drummed into me that Labour are our allies as working class people, but to be honest New Labour (Blair onwards) just seem to be Tories in sheep's clothing. (I agree that Old Labour genuinely cared about the working man!) Miliband has also worried me with some of his comments about the welfare system, though he's probably not as extreme as Cameron and IDS. So who's the lesser of two evils? Lib Dems seem the obvious choice, though how likely are they to beat Tories/Labour? I've got seven months to decide...

I voted Lib Dem, too, sadly. All the major UK parties are as bad as each other; I don't know how I'll vote yet either. SNP? Greens?

[moodygirl86]

I know so many people who said they voted Tory in 2010 and don't regret it, as they're "making people work". Most people who think that has never actually been out of work themselves, and don't seem to understand what a recession is, save for the token Tory supporter who has claimed benefits while out of work but is still adamant that every benefit claimant is a scrounger except them. But other than that, it must be so easy for some people to be blind to The Man's evil if it doesn't affect them personally, or even if it does but they think "That doesn't apply to me because I'm the RIGHT sort of benefit claimant, doing everything right." Either way, there still seems to be a widespread attitude - whether accurate or not - of "Well it doesn't affect me so I'm all right Jack, and fuck the ones who do fall victim!"