Waltham Forest News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Iain Duncan Smith's Chingford constituents support proposal to cap benefits

4:13pm Monday 23rd January 2012 in Waltham Forest News By Joe Curtis

Jackie Graham Jackie Graham

CHINGFORD MP Iain Duncan Smith has defended his proposed shake-up of the welfare system as a reform bill is debated in the House of Lords this week.

The Work and Pension Secretary hopes to introduce a £26,000-a-year cap on household benefits, which he claims would save the UK an estimated £290 million next year.

But critics argue children could suffer and have called on child benefit to be excluded from the plan.

Reporter Joe Curtis took to the streets of Chingford to find out what Iain Duncan Smith’s constituents think about the reforms.

Jackie Graham, 52, of Eatons Mead, Chingford, said: “I would like to reduce the cap further: it should be way below that. I go to work and I don’t get £26,000. People on benefits can still earn more than people who work.”

Keith Findlay, 63, of Station Road, added: “I think £26,000 is more than enough for most people. If you have kids it’s your responsibility to look after them within your means.”

Chris Fitzgerald, 75, of Whitehall Gardens in Chingford, said: “It’s probably a realistic sum of money at the moment. It’s not much but it’s realistic. Children’s benefits should be separate though, they need looking after and if you have a couple of kids suddenly £26,000 doesn’t look like that much.”

Danton Pendell, 49, of Connaught Road, said: “Benefits have got out of control in this country. £26,000 is outrageous, it should be much less than that. People must live on what they can afford, too many people take the mick.”

Daphne Pollock, 75, of Buxton Road, added: “It’s a good idea because people are conning the system by not working. I don’t earn that on my pension. Child benefit is difficult because it can be difficult to support a family on that money.”

Gemma Kenny, 23, of Friday Hill, said: “It’s quite a lot, it’s more than what graduates would earn for a while. I work in a nursery and I think child benefit shouldn’t be included in it because a lot of parents can barely afford to send their children here as it is.”

Click here to follow the Chingford Guardian on Twitter

Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Twitter

Comments(12)

Oliver_Highams_Park says...
5:25pm Mon 23 Jan 12

Good grief. Not surprising you get comments like this considering the amount of Daily Mails being flogged in the local newsagents. It's quite shocking how poorly informed people are (no thanks to the Local Guardian either).

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Robert19 says...
7:43pm Mon 23 Jan 12

From the way this story is reported a couple of people interviewed seem to be saying that an individual gets that amount. Very few families in fact get anything like that. Most people on Benefits do not want to be on Benefits. It is no fun. Rags like the Daily Mail and Express pick on a few extreme cases (that need to be dealt with admittedly) and imply that all people on Benefits are scroungers. Lose your job and you too will become a scrounger! Poor people are being demonised for something that was mainly the fault of the fat cats in the City.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Sam Hain says...
11:04pm Mon 23 Jan 12

Well what a surprise! A vox pop of the Tory-voting burghers of Chingford was bound to elicit a response like this. What a waste of time and effort to tell us the bleedin' obvious!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Andrewfd says...
12:24pm Tue 24 Jan 12

Before I was made redundant I did not get that sort of money before tax (Let alone after tax) running a companies warehouse. As I have always saved, I was only entitled to six months jobseeker allowance then nothing even though I had worked for all except for two weeks since leaving school, 21 years with one employer and 9 with the second.

I do not have a problem with this as I am able to support myself until I get an income again but if a person had to be able to earn more than £36,000 to get just the same money as on benefits where is the incentive to work??

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Heartlysmum says...
12:38pm Tue 24 Jan 12

The usual Daily Mail anything they print is rubbish brigade. True a certain amount is spun or plain wrong as they now admit to in their retraction column.
However to say all benefit claimants are being treated as scroungers is total nonsense, that makes all claimants of child benefits scroungers. The problem we have is, it has become easier to stay at home on benefits for some people than it is to go and work. Fortunately there are plenty of people who want/need to work and they should need be earning less at home on benefits than working. Benefits is not a way of life it is a lifeline, learn to live with it.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

ShinySue says...
2:13pm Tue 24 Jan 12

sam Hain - well us tory voting chingford burghers would say that wouldnt we - seeing as we are the working part of the borough! |(cue hail of bullets)

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Robert19 says...
10:15am Wed 25 Jan 12

Andrewfd you are not comparing like with like. A single person on Benefit will not receive £26,000. Large families living in larger properties can receive this amount.
My point about the Daily Mail is that they churn out stories and front page headlines about atypical ne'er do well individuals and families to fan prejudice against people at the bottom of Society and enable this government to hit the poorest. Rarely do they report on the outrageous City salaries given to people who are laughing at the rest of us while they find even more creative ways of avoiding their tax liabilities. Compare what the government is doing with the Benefits system to how they are dealing with banker's bonuses.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Mrs Penfold says...
2:43am Thu 26 Jan 12

when I was unemployed and needed help I couldnt get it because I owned my property. Had I been renting and not bothered to support myself I would have been far better off.

I totally agree with the cap. Lets make the benefit system far fairer

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Sam Hain says...
9:06am Thu 26 Jan 12

ShinySue wrote:
sam Hain - well us tory voting chingford burghers would say that wouldnt we - seeing as we are the working part of the borough! |(cue hail of bullets)
Why waste bullets!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Bernard 87 says...
9:16am Fri 27 Jan 12

I think there are very few people, whatever party you support, who do not agree that we need a benefits cap. Even if this report was conducted in Walthamstow town centre you would still find people supporting IDS' plans.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

5555sam says...
8:17am Sat 28 Jan 12

Hard working low to middle earners are sick to the back teeth of hearing arguements against capping at 26k, most of us who are working and contributing have far less disposable income than those who have large sums deposited by the state into their bank accounts each week. Get real and get a job or volunteer for a worthy cause.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Walthamster says...
11:23pm Sat 28 Jan 12

The average wage in Waltham Forest is about £26,000 -- and that's before tax. If benefits are untaxed, a £26,000 cap would be equivalent to a wage of something like £35,000. So I can't see what's wrong with capping benefits at about that level.

Where the government is totally wrong is letting a commercial company, Atos, use unqualified assessors to re-classify people with disabilities as being able to work, and therefore cut their benefits.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

Most popular






About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree