Jump to content

making the feckless work for their dole


Guest Anonymous
 Share

Is this a good idea  

41 members have voted

  1. 1. Is this a good idea

    • yes
      28
    • no
      15


Recommended Posts

The cuts might look fine on a balance sheet but be prepared for the real world consequences (crime etc. see above).

 

point in case yes , bits of paper n pyshe keep blue collar workers well fed and the poor bamboozled , and the fact of the matter is they are going to shaft us hard to pay for thier nasty greed fuelled mistakes , i.e. recession/depression

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

the difference being is one half of the partnership is out earning the money so that together they can bring up their children. the couple on benefits sit home screwing and producing ever more kids that the rest of us have no choice but to bloody well pay for.

 

with a dole check should come some kind of contraception if you cant feed em dont breed em.

 

If only. Single mothers with one or two kids I can live with but some just look on children as a way to get money. Worked all my days and don’t have children..why should I pay for someone else to stay at home with half a dozen of them or pay child tax credits to someone earning twice as much as I do. Couldn’t get over the people on over £35000 actually having the nerve to complain about losing the child tax credits. We are all going to have to face the pinch, me along with everyone else are going to have to accept that.

As for getting the unemployed to do community work. Another one of those things that sound on the face of it to be a good idea, it would be so satisfying to wipe the smug smile off the face of those who knowingly go out of their way to make a career out of claiming benefits with no thought for those of us who foot the bill. Actually however I fear it would just end up costing us money to a) assess if those on benefits are physically/mentaly able to do the work, B) police the system to make sure those who should are actually attending and not working dirt. You would only end up with those with a conscience & sense of self responsibility on these things anyway, the real ‘feckless’ career claimants would as always find a way out of it. It’s galling to think you are paying for someone to sit on the dole their whole life but the alternative is that you have to work alongside someone who has gone their entire life so far avoiding work. Can you imagine what a skiving pain in the ass they would be to ‘work’ alongside every day? (Sorry, that should be ‘when they can be bothered to turn up’ not ‘everyday’ and the word 'work' requires some revision as well I think). Got to look on the bright side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that folk need two jobs to be able to afford to live. With the outrageous cost of housing and associated costs it is not really suprising folk appear to prefer to stay at home and spend their time bringing up their children. But this thread is about picking on a minority, which, if addressed will not solve our problems.

Thatcher and her Gov started selling council houses at knock down prices, this some believe was to go some way to prevent strikes and other sorts of actions. If you own your own house you cannot go on strike without fear of loosing said house, which means you get walked over, mainly by private companies.

Shetland wealthy???

 

Poverty worst in Shetland islands

 

Published Date: 20 August 2010

By Andy Philip

Poverty affects up to a quarter of households in a remote area of Scotland, according to a new study. Official figures revealed the Western Isles was the most poverty-stricken part of Scotland, with 25 per cent of households defined as such.

Higher than average levels of "relative poverty" were also recorded in 19 of the 32 local authorities despite a Holyrood target to lower the number.

 

Health secretary Nicola Sturgeon defended her government's record, saying: "We have an ambitious target to significantly increase the proportion of income earned by the poorest households in Scotland by 2017.

 

"However, full control of the tax and benefits system will enable us to tackle poverty most effectively. In the meantime, we are already making representations to Westminster on their plans to cut in areas like housing benefit and ensure Scotland's voice is heard and vulnerable people are protected."

 

If you add on fuel poverty the general cost of living on a remote area and the way your fellow islanders will make as much off you as they can in some instances, it seems that although you say only a small amount are unemployed, many are still skint and rely on benefits.

 

How would you deal with someone who could feed their kids but was made unemployed, claimed the right benefits that were entitled to them, but due to the high cost of child care were unable to get out to earn money.

 

Your thoughts always seem to have some sort of human fiddling involved, but perhaps it just may be the way you explain yourself.

 

Again, too simplistic and does not take into account folks circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shetlandpeat - Speaking from my own experiences of living for yonks in social housing in London and now being a home owner in Shetland (Well, hubby has the mortgage), I have to say that from such experiences the unemployed "feckless" I have met tended to be mums of 3 or 4 children (have NEVER worked) or single males. I do have friends who have previously worked and have disabilities now struggling to get by on benefits who would dearly love to work and would welcome packages enabling them to do so.

 

Yes, people do fiddle and many people turn a blind eye to it. How many people do you know who sell goods on eBay but never declare the income? How many people do you know where, for example, you have been in your local pub and have heard the local "feckless" single, unemployed male bragging about how he is working the next 3 days cash in hand on a building site (Above the permitted hours and wages allowed under Job Seekers allowance)?

 

Yes, childcare is an issue but it has been for yonks and yes, it should be addressed. However, as I've stated elsewhere on Shetlink, it was within Labour's Budget Speech that they intended housing benefit reform and other cuts to benefits.

 

Perhaps we should all adapt what appears to be your attitude to bankrupt GB, continue to live beyond our means, encourage people not to even attempt to seek employment, support all those with an alternative lifestyle (the "feckless" who claim unemployment benefit, work tax-free, go to the pub every week and have Sky Sports package), not cut any public services at all, use colour photocopiers, use high quality paper because hey - cutting any costs wouldn't help it would seem in your book.

 

Enjoy watching Shameless? Perhaps yes but do you encourage that mentality in real life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

if they dont attend remove their benefits, if they do attend a skive and take the piss remove their bennefits. just like in a job if you skive and take the piss your wage is removed. thats the whole point trying to install a work ethic in those that clearly have none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is the discrimination, who would then decide.

 

Of course folk fiddle, human nature.

 

I would bet however more could be gained by chasing someone using loopholes to avoid millions in tax than someone claiming a few hundred a year.

 

Then what happens to the children?

 

Should they be penalised too?

 

The political party stuff does not mean much in these cases.

 

This has been going on for many many years.

 

Not something that can be fixed overnight, of you could end up diverting resources away from groups who will need it as they will have to rely on voluntary aid more and more, and even then the hand outs or grants to those organisations will be curtailed.

The present GOV has ringfenced adult education but councils are looking to opt out of providing it and passin it to the 3rd sector. Colleges. But they will still be responsible for it and will still be inspected. So even though the money is to ramain to train these folk, to go and work, more of the cash will be spent on red tape and interim management, it will also mean that the council may save say half a million, they would loose the million or so grant given for adult education, that will go to the college, yet the council will have the same costs but no income.

With the predicted job losses and the hope that as many new jobs will be created as in the boom times as we steer through this world created minefield, of which USA are now feeling the pinch there will new no extra jobs for folk to do, unless they all become childminders, look after each others kids and still be paid by the GOV and have top ups to bring them up to minimum standards.

 

I think the minimum wage will apply so someone claiming DOLE, not income support, as that is not in the title. We are really talking about single folk, they would still only be required to work less than 15 hours a week, have transport paid so as not to drop below the min wage and still have other benefits paid.

Unless you are talking abou punitive measures and only paying folk 2 pounds an hour, me thinks that will result in more sick notes from the NHS.

And so the cycle continues...

 

But yes folk should be encouraged to work, I feel bringing up children is a full time job already. But I am sure every mother would be happy to allow someone else to do that to satisfy folk.

 

More latchkey kids, poorly fed and so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just take everyone who does not come up to turningright standerd and put them all through the council incinerator. Just like old Hitler did back in 1940

 

Better still why not buy them a one way ticket to Mars then they'll be in good company

see

http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=164510#164510

 

That’s a councillor special only sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From today's Guardian

 

Ian Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, said today it was a "sin" that people failed to take up available jobs as he prepared to announce a tougher-than-expected squeeze on the unemployed.

 

This will see the jobless face the threat of losing all benefits for as long as three years if they refuse community work or the offer of a job, or fail to apply for a post if advised to do so.

 

In the most severe welfare sanctions ever imposed by a British government, unemployed people will lose benefits for three months if they fail to take up one of the options for the first time, six months if they refuse an offer twice, and three years if they refuse an offer three times.

 

Downing Street sources said the new "claimant contract" will come into force as soon as legislation is passed, and may not wait for the introduction of a streamlined universal credit system in 2013-14.

 

Duncan Smith will tell MPs today that he is introducing the biggest shake-up of the welfare system since the Beveridge reforms ushered in the welfare state after the second world war. He will say that a new universal credit system will make 2.5 million of the poorest people better off and reduce the number of workless households by 300,000.

 

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Duncan Smith said the sanctions would be applied to those who would not cooperate when work was available.

 

He said that 4 million jobs were created under Labour, yet 70% of them were filled were by people from overseas because people from this country were not capable or able to take those jobs. "Surely that's a sin, that's the problem," the former Tory leader said.

 

The key incentive in his measures was that "work should always pay and that you should be better off in work than out of work".

 

He said the situation of one in five households out of work could not persist and needed to be changed and promised a package of support to help people overcome difficulties to get back into employment.

 

He told BBC Breakfast: "We will help people look for work and get them work-ready; that will go alongside it. Then, if having done all of that people have a job offer, they should take that work. That's a condition most taxpayers would accept."

 

The new workfare regime is certain to be criticised for expecting the jobless to take work at a time when unemployment is forecast to rise. The move could potentially leave thousands of people receiving no benefits other than some money to cover their housing costs.

 

Duncan Smith said: "We are coming out of a recession, more jobs are being created ... It is not enough but it is growing all the time. As the economy grows and more jobs become available, all we are simply saying is, people have a responsibility now we are making work pay to take the job when it is available."

 

The welfare white paper is deemed so groundbreaking that David Cameron chose to laud the measures as he landed at the G20 summit in South Korea.

 

He said: "The message is clear. If you can work, then a life on benefits will no longer be an option. If people are asked to do community work they will be expected to turn up. If people are asked to apply for a job by an adviser they will be expected to put themselves forward. If people can work and they are offered work, they will be expected to take it. This is the deal. Break the deal and they will lose their unemployment benefit. Break it three times and they will lose it for three years."

 

The regime will apply to all 1.6 million jobseeker's allowance claimants, irrespective of how long they have been unemployed. JSA is worth only £64.45 a week for over-25s, and No 10 said it expected the sanction to be enforced, once warranted, as a matter of course.

 

Job advisers should not use discretion to let people stay on benefit, Downing Street said, arguing that too many advisers did not make use of the sanctions available to them.

 

Many charities and local government leaders will be wary of offering work to unemployed people, especially if they have been in effect forced to take the work or lose benefit. The community jobs set aside for the jobless include clearing up litter and doing charity work.

 

Cameron argues that the new regime is necessary to prevent a dependency culture. He believes a new universal credit system bringing together tax credits and a range of benefits simplifies the system so much that it will ensure work will always pay in comparison with staying unemployed. Ministers say that, with 5 million people on out-of-work benefits and almost 2 million people growing up in workless households, they have to embark on "root and branch reform".

 

The new universal credit, costed at £2bn for this parliament, is designed to remove the financial disincentives to work, ensuring that someone keeps a minimum 35p in every extra pound earned. Cameron said: "It simply has to pay to work. You cannot have a situation where if someone gets out of bed and goes and does a hard day's work they end up worse off. That is not fair and sends entirely the wrong message."

 

Duncan Smith will cast his reforms as a "once-in-a-generation" attempt to get the jobless back to work. But the man credited by Duncan Smith as his greatest influence on poverty reduction criticised the changes. Bob Holman, an academic and community worker from Glasgow who has worked for Duncan Smith's thinktank the Centre for Social Justice, accused the work and pensions secretary of forcing people into "degrading" jobs.

 

Asked his opinion about Duncan Smith and his plans for welfare reform, Holman said: "Well, my view has taken a bit of a dent. When Iain came to Easterhouse [in Glasgow] in 2002, one of the things he expressed admiration for were unemployed people who were working or giving their time as volunteers to our project … Now he seems to have turned that on its head.

 

"He seems to be regarding them with disrespect and saying 'you're not really a part of society. We're going to force you to do these, what are really degrading jobs,' which won't equip them for anything, but in a way are punishing them for not working and in a climate in which jobs are hard to get."

 

Douglas Alexander, Duncan Smith's Labour shadow, told BBC Breakfast that his party supported moves to simplify the benefits system, but concerns remained about job availability.

 

He said: "If we can have a simpler benefits system that removes disincentives for people to get into work, we will support them. That was a big part of the work we were trying to take forward ourselves when we were in government."

 

He added: "Our real concern is this: without work these changes won't work. If you are going to move people from welfare into work, there needs to be jobs for people to take up ... It is important to remember that if you get these changes wrong, you could end up with a higher welfare bill not a lower welfare bill."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first reaction to reading the news article above was that it would surely lead to an increase in petty crime as people who lose their benefits will be desperate enough to do anything to keep food on the table. Or of course people like these http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11717851 will have to take up the task of feeding the unemployed.

 

Then I read the article again and I have decided that as long as there are proper safeguards in place to prevent people losing benefits when they are incapable of work rather than unwilling to work including a fast appeals system for those who believe they have been treated unjustly by the system it may well be worth giving the proposed measures a try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I read the article again and I have decided that as long as there are proper safeguards in place to prevent people losing benefits when they are incapable of work rather than unwilling to work including a fast appeals system for those who believe they have been treated unjustly by the system it may well be worth giving the proposed measures a try.

 

Well that is the concern. It's a big concern now and I can only see it being a bigger one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I read the article again and I have decided that as long as there are proper safeguards in place to prevent people losing benefits when they are incapable of work rather than unwilling to work including a fast appeals system for those who believe they have been treated unjustly by the system it may well be worth giving the proposed measures a try.

 

Well that is the concern. It's a big concern now and I can only see it being a bigger one.

 

Is the shake-up announced today relating to job seekers allowance only because if so, then those people who cannot work would not be claiming job seekers allowance but would be on other benefits instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unlinkedstudent wrote

Is the shake-up announced today relating to job seekers allowance only because if so, then those people who cannot work would not be claiming job seekers allowance but would be on other benefits instead?

Or would they?. Thinking not only of alcoholics and drug addicts but also of people with learning difficulties and those with mental illnesses that are not severe enough for them to be receiving incapacity benefit (or who maybe have got turned down for it by some pen-pusher) but who are still not capable of obtaining and holding a job. And of course those who suffer from various illnesses such as chronic back pain or various allergies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unlinkedstudent wrote
Is the shake-up announced today relating to job seekers allowance only because if so, then those people who cannot work would not be claiming job seekers allowance but would be on other benefits instead?

Or would they?. Thinking not only of alcoholics and drug addicts but also of people with learning difficulties and those with mental illnesses that are not severe enough for them to be receiving incapacity benefit (or who maybe have got turned down for it by some pen-pusher) but who are still not capable of obtaining and holding a job. And of course those who suffer from various illnesses such as chronic back pain or various allergies.

 

The system isn't perfect and I'm the first to admit improvements are required but people can appeal (at present) re incapacity benefit, etc. However, the line does need to be drawn somewhere. I stated earlier that employers breaking the DDA need to be brought more to book but likewise, assistance should be given to those, not just with disabilities whereby they may well be in receipt of incapacity benefit, but those with "borderline disabilities" where their day-to-day ability to work may well be affected.

 

A post above quoting from the TV report stated that some guy in Glasgow (Yep, I haven't scrolled back) made some comment I think about degrading jobs - well pardon me, many of us have taken on "degrading jobs" in order to get by - I for one in a previous recession took on a role well below the salary and what I'm qualified to do despite it paying slightly more than the dole. I think this is half the problem as I've tried to say previously - if it means you take a job IF offered to you as a kitchen porter instead of what you are trained to do due to there being no vacancies in your trained line of work, then why the hell should you be able to claim job seekers allowance?

 

I may be being a tad over-optimistic, but perhaps if the genuine work-shy were forced into work, there would be scope to address the inadequacies relating to those with disabilities who are definitely unable to work and provide a fairer benefits system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...