UK Politics

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
gbnz
Posts: 2847
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: UK Politics

Post by gbnz »

djnotts wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 6:40pm ^
As an OAP with no car, but who does sometimes drive the gf's modest motor, I actually pretty much agree. But then, unlike many, public transport is good AND we can afford taxis for hospital visits etc.
+ 1. Live in a small place, it's only a 8 mile round walk to the station, normally walk at least one way. Buses are fairly decent, at worst can catch one of the last buses stopping 11.75 miles away, it's an easy enough walk back (Nb. Do need to sort out a knackered old bike for leaving near the bus stop, am happy enough leaving a half decent bike one at the unmanned rail station, c/w decent locks, but a bus stop ?)

Fortunate, am only partially disabled, haven't had a leg temporarily paralysed for a full 2 yr's now, leg shortened 2.25yr's back tends to be a nuisance on longer walks (Nb. Have only had to do a 19 - 25 mile walk after last bus, three times the past 16-17 months, can be a nuisance. And motorists always stop to offer / insist on a lift between 1am - 5am, sometimes a couple of hours either side
djnotts
Posts: 3575
Joined: 26 May 2008, 12:51pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: UK Politics

Post by djnotts »

^ I could possibly walk 2 miles, my gf maybe 0.25. Has to be taxis!
pete75
Posts: 16656
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by pete75 »

[XAP]Bob wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 6:05pm
pete75 wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 3:27pm Beats me how anyone on benefits can afford to run a car.
Have you tried *not* running a car?
For most people that means public transport, which means many jobs aren't accessible, and is more expensive than running a car in many ways.

Yes - *we* all know that a bike is seriously overpowered as a transport option... but the vast majority don't see it that way.
From what I've heard about the current UK benefits system it isn't generous enough to finance a car.

Ps why do you put a pair of asterisks around some words?
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
gbnz
Posts: 2847
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: UK Politics

Post by gbnz »

djnotts wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 7:34pm ^ I could possibly walk 2 miles, my gf maybe 0.25. Has to be taxis!
Know the feeling, a knees been knackered all autumn ! Definitely need to spend that £50 on a scrap bike, for those bus stop lock ups
(Nb. So annoying to have scrapped 3 bicycles in 15 years - space/storage required scrapping, parts saved from two)
reohn2
Posts: 45878
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by reohn2 »

So immediately someone begins drawing benefits their driving licence should be revoked?
If it is you chaps have a strange way of looking at life,particularly other people's lives :roll:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
PH
Posts: 13898
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: UK Politics

Post by PH »

gbnz wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 3:58pm Suppose those groups who don't need to drive, such as benefit claimants and OAP's, should have their driving licences removed anyway

Perhaps on moving back into work, benefit claimants (Nb. Excepting OAP's) could have their licence returned.
A large proportion of people on benefits are in work, about 40% of Universal Benefit claimants, I don't know the figures for other benefits.
Of those unlucky enough to have lost their employment, the vast majority are back in work withing 12 months (78%) with over half of those back in work within six months.

Those on benefits are not some sort of under class, they're just people who mostly have the same lives to live as the rest of us. The idea that they might have removed their entitlement to drive I find absurd in the extreme.
gbnz
Posts: 2847
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: UK Politics

Post by gbnz »

PH wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 10:53pm
gbnz wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 3:58pm Suppose those groups who don't need to drive, such as benefit claimants and OAP's, should have their driving licences removed anyway

Perhaps on moving back into work, benefit claimants (Nb. Excepting OAP's) could have their licence returned.
A large proportion of people on benefits are in work, about 40% of Universal Benefit claimants, I don't know the figures for other benefits.
Of those unlucky enough to have lost their employment, the vast majority are back in work withing 12 months (78%) with over half of those back in work within six months.

Those on benefits are not some sort of under class, they're just people who mostly have the same lives to live as the rest of us. The idea that they might have removed their entitlement to drive I find absurd in the extreme.
"Their entitlement to drive" ? Thought we faced an environmental emergency, climate change and all that, with huge costs attached ? Merely seems bizarre that those who have no need to drive, contribute nothing via their own endeavours & create vast quantities of pollution in driving, should in any case be allowed to drive (Nb. Like most, couldn't really give a damn about all that climate change stuff)

Have been a benefit claimant for 6.5yr's (60+ emergency ambulance rides & hospital admissions, several presumed deaths, two dozen broken bones, drowning, one off temporary paralysis of left side, last presumed dead when carried off a hi speed train in November, am effectively "not allowed to work". NHS have threatened me, some Dr I've never spoken to, stated + 6yr's back, that I couldn't walk. Have found light walking boots tend to last 10-12 months max, before being knackered).

But why should someone with 24 Hr's free a day, be allowed to drive? Vast costs of pollution, so such can buy another donut, down at Tescos. Or visit an aged parent, easily visited on foot, bicycle, bus or train ? And whilst haven't had to visit the DWP for five years (Nb. Occasionally drop in to chat to staff, one even secretly gave me details of an employer last summer), the number of obese who don't work, is astonishing. Perhaps they and society would be supported, via enforced walking?
PH
Posts: 13898
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: UK Politics

Post by PH »

gbnz wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 12:27am
PH wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 10:53pm
gbnz wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 3:58pm Suppose those groups who don't need to drive, such as benefit claimants and OAP's, should have their driving licences removed anyway

Perhaps on moving back into work, benefit claimants (Nb. Excepting OAP's) could have their licence returned.
A large proportion of people on benefits are in work, about 40% of Universal Benefit claimants, I don't know the figures for other benefits.
Of those unlucky enough to have lost their employment, the vast majority are back in work withing 12 months (78%) with over half of those back in work within six months.

Those on benefits are not some sort of under class, they're just people who mostly have the same lives to live as the rest of us. The idea that they might have removed their entitlement to drive I find absurd in the extreme.
"Their entitlement to drive" ?
If you need to question what entitlement to drive means, try Google. Entitlements are listed on the back of a driving license and referred to as entitlements on all the Government websites.
But why should someone with 24 Hr's free a day, be allowed to drive?
That may be your experience of being on benefits, I'll suggest it isn't most peoples. If car use was to be restricted, it would need to be in a way that wasn't discriminatory, targeting benefit claimants isn't that way. Most of the reasons people require a car, or don't, won't change if their circumstances lead them to claim a benefit.
Stevek76
Posts: 2216
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: UK Politics

Post by Stevek76 »

Very unclear what this policy would actually achieve, seems likely to be hard to enforce (already have major issues with resources for road crime) and just make it harder for people to get back into work.

Mostly appears to be performative cruelty to look tough on benefits that costs minimal £s to do (since a law/etc might be changed and that's it).

Had enough of that rubbish from the last government.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20244
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by [XAP]Bob »

gbnz wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 6:28pm
[XAP]Bob wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 6:03pm
gbnz wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 3:58pm Suppose those groups who don't need to drive, such as benefit claimants and OAP's, should have their driving licences removed anyway

Perhaps on moving back into work, benefit claimants (Nb. Excepting OAP's) could have their licence returned.
I really hope you're trying to say something other than what you've written.
Hmm........given that people who are motorists, generate a huge, environmental impact, yes I am serious. Why should individuals living without contributing via work, be allowed to create vast quantities of pollution, when they don't can't justify a vehicle?

Given we have a car dominated society, it's more than possible that the administrative overload of only allowing benefit claimants to drive for interviews or when back in employment, would be too much. Who knows, a pool of cars needed for interview needs, a "ticket" system? But OAP's ? Seems absurd that a non productive welfare dependent grouping, should be allowed to drive
So you think the only contribution we can make to society is to work?

And you don't think disabled people can work, or that pensioner or benefit claimants work.

You're *so* wrong, on *so* many levels I don't know where to start.

Let's start with the easy one - 38% of UC claimants are in work (OBR figures).
53% of disabled people are in work as well (Family Resources Survey 2021-2022).
15% of pensioners are working (Pensioner's incomes 2023).

As for OAPs being "non productive welfare dependant" less than 50% of pensioner's income is from benefits.

So no - you can't just broad brush large swathes of society of out existence claiming they don't work and are therefore of no use.



Then you have other things that people do, that contribute to society, rather than GDP.

Can I suggest a little compassion, and a little thought into groups you don't belong to.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20244
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by [XAP]Bob »

pete75 wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 8:24pm Ps why do you put a pair of asterisks around some words?
Standard notation for emphasis.
From what I've heard about the current UK benefits system it isn't generous enough to finance a car.
Depends what car you're trying to pay for, and whether you already own it.
If you're just buying third party insurance, and VED, on a monthly basis - then there is the annual hit of an MOT (and the fear of any repair costs), but it's just fuel.
And that combination is often cheaper than public transport (which should be to the utter shame of government).

#vimesboots - it's one of those things that make it much more expensive to be poor.
Last edited by [XAP]Bob on 23 Jan 2025, 12:09pm, edited 1 time in total.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
gbnz
Posts: 2847
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: UK Politics

Post by gbnz »

PH wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 9:36am
gbnz wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 12:27am
PH wrote: 22 Jan 2025, 10:53pm
A large proportion of people on benefits are in work, about 40% of Universal Benefit claimants, I don't know the figures for other benefits.
Of those unlucky enough to have lost their employment, the vast majority are back in work withing 12 months (78%) with over half of those back in work within six months.

Those on benefits are not some sort of under class, they're just people who mostly have the same lives to live as the rest of us. The idea that they might have removed their entitlement to drive I find absurd in the extreme.
"Their entitlement to drive" ?
If you need to question what entitlement to drive means, try Google. Entitlements are listed on the back of a driving license and referred to as entitlements on all the Government websites.
But why should someone with 24 Hr's free a day, be allowed to drive?
That may be your experience of being on benefits, I'll suggest it isn't most peoples. If car use was to be restricted, it would need to be in a way that wasn't discriminatory, targeting benefit claimants isn't that way. Most of the reasons people require a car, or don't, won't change if their circumstances lead them to claim a benefit.
Most people don't "NEED" car's they choose to have to them and pollute, main & injure, inflicting huge costs on society

Only have to look at my nearest neighbours
- Retired, only uses the car to take the dog for a walk. Drives to the beach to walk a dog. Could easily walk to the beach, a flat, level, well surfaced, country path, but drives. Routinely complains about the traffic on the road, the lack of parking near the beach. Of course I walk to the beach, other than normally using the same route to get to the station

- Works. Nurse. Approximately a 5-7 minute walk to work. Could easily walk to work, but drives (Nb. I know, because we routinely leave flats at the same time, heading to precisely the same junction on the road, though I normally turn right to a bakers, the hospital requires a turn to the left.

- OAP. Happily able to & walks up mountains, lives 3-4 minutes from the main bus stop, FOC bus pass the past 24yr's, the main bus goes to the precise location being travelled to, the bus station being immediately adjacent to the destination. Claims she loves buses, has a FOC bus pass, travelled on a bus once in 1981 and perhaps again in 2018. But drives, though loves buses

- Another OAP. Also happily able to & walks up mountains. Obviously he drives to buy a newspaper, we left at the same time last Friday, exchanged "morning" 4-5 minutes later as he was getting out of his car, to buy a newspaper. Checking on bike / hike, it's a 233 metre walk to buy a newspaper, but a 1.01 mile drive

Always found it amusing at County Hall several years back, all the green warriors (females) would drive to the bakers. They were always ecstatic, even shocked that I would walk. A 6-7 minute walk across an absolutely level, well surfaced, tarmac path, crossing open area of grass & tree's, hardly demanding. Don't think I ever met more than 1-2 others who'd walk. Why would anyone, never mind self declared eco warriors chose to spend 4-5 minutes walking to the car, in the car park, followed by the 2-3 minute drive to the bakers?

But just as using 5yr olds to clean chimneys used to be the norm, many seem unable to comprehend using their feet, to do that drive
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 20244
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by [XAP]Bob »

gbnz wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 12:06pm Most people don't "NEED" car's they choose to have to them and pollute, main & injure, inflicting huge costs on society
You're forgetting that society *expects* car use, and so most places are built around cars.

Yes, your neighbour might be able to walk to work, but then they have to walk back at times when they don't feel safe out.
They might be able to walk to get a paper, but carrying a couple of days worth of shopping might be beyond them.

They might be able to get all their shopping at the end of the street, it'll only cost them triple what it would at the supermarket down the road.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 6631
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: UK Politics

Post by roubaixtuesday »

gbnz wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 12:06pm
PH wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 9:36am
gbnz wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 12:27am

"Their entitlement to drive" ?
If you need to question what entitlement to drive means, try Google. Entitlements are listed on the back of a driving license and referred to as entitlements on all the Government websites.
But why should someone with 24 Hr's free a day, be allowed to drive?
That may be your experience of being on benefits, I'll suggest it isn't most peoples. If car use was to be restricted, it would need to be in a way that wasn't discriminatory, targeting benefit claimants isn't that way. Most of the reasons people require a car, or don't, won't change if their circumstances lead them to claim a benefit.
Most people don't "NEED" car's they choose to have to them and pollute, main & injure, inflicting huge costs on society

Only have to look at my nearest neighbours
- Retired, only uses the car to take the dog for a walk. Drives to the beach to walk a dog. Could easily walk to the beach, a flat, level, well surfaced, country path, but drives. Routinely complains about the traffic on the road, the lack of parking near the beach. Of course I walk to the beach, other than normally using the same route to get to the station

- Works. Nurse. Approximately a 5-7 minute walk to work. Could easily walk to work, but drives (Nb. I know, because we routinely leave flats at the same time, heading to precisely the same junction on the road, though I normally turn right to a bakers, the hospital requires a turn to the left.

- OAP. Happily able to & walks up mountains, lives 3-4 minutes from the main bus stop, FOC bus pass the past 24yr's, the main bus goes to the precise location being travelled to, the bus station being immediately adjacent to the destination. Claims she loves buses, has a FOC bus pass, travelled on a bus once in 1981 and perhaps again in 2018. But drives, though loves buses

- Another OAP. Also happily able to & walks up mountains. Obviously he drives to buy a newspaper, we left at the same time last Friday, exchanged "morning" 4-5 minutes later as he was getting out of his car, to buy a newspaper. Checking on bike / hike, it's a 233 metre walk to buy a newspaper, but a 1.01 mile drive

Always found it amusing at County Hall several years back, all the green warriors (females) would drive to the bakers. They were always ecstatic, even shocked that I would walk. A 6-7 minute walk across an absolutely level, well surfaced, tarmac path, crossing open area of grass & tree's, hardly demanding. Don't think I ever met more than 1-2 others who'd walk. Why would anyone, never mind self declared eco warriors chose to spend 4-5 minutes walking to the car, in the car park, followed by the 2-3 minute drive to the bakers?

But just as using 5yr olds to clean chimneys used to be the norm, many seem unable to comprehend using their feet, to do that drive
Not sure what any of that has to do with singling out benefits recipients for a special punishment.
gbnz
Posts: 2847
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: UK Politics

Post by gbnz »

roubaixtuesday wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 12:15pm
gbnz wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 12:06pm
PH wrote: 23 Jan 2025, 9:36am
If you need to question what entitlement to drive means, try Google. Entitlements are listed on the back of a driving license and referred to as entitlements on all the Government websites.

That may be your experience of being on benefits, I'll suggest it isn't most peoples. If car use was to be restricted, it would need to be in a way that wasn't discriminatory, targeting benefit claimants isn't that way. Most of the reasons people require a car, or don't, won't change if their circumstances lead them to claim a benefit.
Most people don't "NEED" car's they choose to have to them and pollute, main & injure, inflicting huge costs on society

Only have to look at my nearest neighbours
- Retired, only uses the car to take the dog for a walk. Drives to the beach to walk a dog. Could easily walk to the beach, a flat, level, well surfaced, country path, but drives. Routinely complains about the traffic on the road, the lack of parking near the beach. Of course I walk to the beach, other than normally using the same route to get to the station

- Works. Nurse. Approximately a 5-7 minute walk to work. Could easily walk to work, but drives (Nb. I know, because we routinely leave flats at the same time, heading to precisely the same junction on the road, though I normally turn right to a bakers, the hospital requires a turn to the left.

- OAP. Happily able to & walks up mountains, lives 3-4 minutes from the main bus stop, FOC bus pass the past 24yr's, the main bus goes to the precise location being travelled to, the bus station being immediately adjacent to the destination. Claims she loves buses, has a FOC bus pass, travelled on a bus once in 1981 and perhaps again in 2018. But drives, though loves buses

- Another OAP. Also happily able to & walks up mountains. Obviously he drives to buy a newspaper, we left at the same time last Friday, exchanged "morning" 4-5 minutes later as he was getting out of his car, to buy a newspaper. Checking on bike / hike, it's a 233 metre walk to buy a newspaper, but a 1.01 mile drive

Always found it amusing at County Hall several years back, all the green warriors (females) would drive to the bakers. They were always ecstatic, even shocked that I would walk. A 6-7 minute walk across an absolutely level, well surfaced, tarmac path, crossing open area of grass & tree's, hardly demanding. Don't think I ever met more than 1-2 others who'd walk. Why would anyone, never mind self declared eco warriors chose to spend 4-5 minutes walking to the car, in the car park, followed by the 2-3 minute drive to the bakers?

But just as using 5yr olds to clean chimneys used to be the norm, many seem unable to comprehend using their feet, to do that drive
Not sure what any of that has to do with singling out benefits recipients for a special punishment.
Merely illustrating that the majority don't NEED to drive, and therefore having measures in place to ensure those who don't need to drive, seems a perfectly rational approach. Perhaps having withdrawal of the right to drive, needs to be applied to wider parts of society who have no NEED to drive.

Suppose when the driving generation die out, will seem bizarre in future that many thought they could drive, as a "right" (Nb. Bit like cigarette users, deeply offended that they're no longer allowed to indulge their right to smoke in shops, on the bus or train, down the gym or wherever. The concept that everyone should accept being adversely effected by the toxic effects of their choice, is dying away, will happen with driving at some stage)
Post Reply