this new benefits plan

[Chilly]

BBC NEWS | Politics | Benefit shake-up 'revolutionary'

Now I quite like the idea of having benefit claimants carry out trivial and essential work in the commuinity. However, I have severe doubts that actually compelling and policing such activity will end up costing more than any potential savings from reduced benefits (and the problems that will cause in itself - more people homeless or getting involved in crime to pay for habits or just to live because they didnt go and clean up some graffiti).

I'd like to think this idea can be workable, but I also know that the civil service is a bunch of useless wankers and it will probably go completely belly up, cost a couple billion quids.

Any thoughts? And saying "no benefits ever to anyone" isnt an answer!

 

[Tom]

Once again Labour steal a Tory idea.

 

[Chilly]

And im sure the tories never steal any labour plans when they are in power. Grow up, Tom. It is the oppositions duty to oppose and come up with ideas, thus keeping the government in power less dishonest, of course some of these ideas (especially the better ones) are going to end up in Labour policy. I'd actually be pissed off if they DIDNT steal ideas as it would be to the detriment of the country.

 

[Uara]

Yeah, if one of the parties come up with a good idea and then talk about it, the other parties are bound to pick up on it and twist it with their own ideas. It happens all the time

 

[rynnor]

Yeah, if one of the parties come up with a good idea and then talk about it, the other parties are bound to pick up on it and twist it with their own ideas. It happens all the time

Thats because they are now practically the same party in political terms just different personalities running them.

In the past it would have been un-thinkable for labour to pick up tory ideas because they were once almost diametrically opposed but now with convergence to the centre theres very litle difference between their ideas so they are instantly interchangeable.

Yay for consensus politics - crap for voters who want a choice tho...

Edit: In the past it was like the choice between washing powder and bleach - now UK politics is about which brand of washing powder you like and which has the best adverts.

 

[taB]

It won't work.

Some chav fuck will take it to the European court because he's got an itchy nut-sack and can't be expected to pick up litter. EU will say it's against his human rights of being paid to watch Jeremy Kyle and overturn it.

Cynical, moi?

 

[Furr]

Hmm, I predict that what is a good idea that's been nicked from the Tories is going to be mangled up so Labour can say "hey this isn't a Tory idea, its a 'better' idea" where is will promptly not work on introduction. Just like the last few things they've "borrowed".

Plus a few Labour Backbenchers will rebel against this idea as many of their constituents tend to be on the "poorer" side and being forced to actually work for their community!!! Gosh no, "your'd be infringing on my bleeding human rights to be a leech off society init".

 

[ECA]

Whats fun is that if labour thought they had a hope in hell of winning the next election they would never implement this.

 

[MYstIC G]

I'd like to think this idea can be workable, but I also know that the civil service is a bunch of useless wankers and it will probably go completely belly up, cost a couple billion quids.

The Child Support Agency bullshit sums everything like this up for me, it'll cost more to run this than to leave it alone.

I think we should just force anyone who's on certain benefits (e.g. unemployment) to wear a GPS bracelet. That way this conversation:

"Did you go to that interview?"
"Yes"

with no method of checking, becomes

"Did you go to that interview?"
"Yes"
*checks computer GPS records*
"No you didn't, your jobseekers is halted"

This is obviously a very rough and ready example but I'm sure it conveys my point. Additionally I figure being tagged would be a deterrent given that most people have an instant hatred for any scheme that monitors their movements (ANPR for example).

 

[rynnor]

I think the biggest problem with implementing it is children - you cant suspend benefits for people who are primary carers for kids or are a parent in a family supporting the kids.

So girls can just get knocked up to sidestep all of this n lay back and enjoy free money...

Plus incapacity benefit - at some stage this still comes down to a guy saying he cant work because he has a bad back - since pain is not really measurable theres no way the doctor can really say the guy is fine and if he does the guy will just appeal it. (also known as Police early retirement on grounds of ill health ).

Benefits and benefits culture are indivisable - the only solution would be to scrap the lot and have people pay into employment insurance policies (state run ones not profit making) then it pays for itself and theres no burden.

 

[Chilly]

What do you mean no burden? Do I get my money back if Im healthy @ 65? Do I get it back with interest? Do I get it back with a GOOD rate of interest? Will I pay tax on that interest? etc etc etc. Sounds like a tax to me...

 

[ECA]

Let's be honest, poorhouses were a great idea but conditions were a bit too crap.

 

[rynnor]

What do you mean no burden? Do I get my money back if Im healthy @ 65? Do I get it back with interest? Do I get it back with a GOOD rate of interest? Will I pay tax on that interest? etc etc etc. Sounds like a tax to me...

On the state - basically they will get the whole lot underwritten so in the event of a major recession it wont cost them a shedload - it would still cost individuals but obviously you wont have to pay the usual taxes to cover it so could work out a lot cheaper - especially if you dont use it.

It also means the feckless who never work get 0..

 

[Faeldawn]

I know im a bastard (commie) at heart, but imo anyone who refuses to work should either be conscripted into the army and forced to fight in foreign lands or forced to do those jobs no-one wants to do (litter pickers, street sweepers, parking attendants, Northern Rock CEO etc).

Screw this "you get 1 year being a leach before we ask you to do anything" crap. Contribute or get out.

 

[chipper]

I know im a bastard (commie) at heart, but imo anyone who refuses to work should either be conscripted into the army and forced to fight in foreign lands or forced to do those jobs no-one wants to do (litter pickers, street sweepers, parking attendants, Northern Rock CEO etc).

Screw this "you get 1 year being a leach before we ask you to do anything" crap. Contribute or get out.

while i somewhat agree with you m8 there has be a grace period what happens to someone who is laid off or made redundant who's worked all there life why should they suffer the same treatment as some fuck tard who refuses to work.

 

[ford prefect]

BBC NEWS | Politics | Benefit shake-up 'revolutionary'

Now I quite like the idea of having benefit claimants carry out trivial and essential work in the commuinity.

Not sure I agree with it. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the majority of people on benefits are fiddling the system, and while many are I don't see that this is workable for the majority of people that genuinely need to be on benefits. It stinks a bit of community service for people who for whatever reason, can't work.

 

[Mey]

Plus the Army doesn't want all the fucktards who dont want to work and sit on there arse, because they do just that, sit on there arse. They want motivated people who are willing to work as a team and contribute.

 

[DaGaffer]

Not sure I agree with it. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the majority of people on benefits are fiddling the system, and while many are I don't see that this is workable for the majority of people that genuinely need to be on benefits. It stinks a bit of community service for people who for whatever reason, can't work.

I think the number of people who can't work at all, is a fair bit lower than the 4.5m people claiming benefits. My only concern about this is economic; will we end up spending more on the admin of the system than it costs just to leave people to rot on benefits? Of course there's always "the Devil finds work for idle hands" argument; it may be worth the extra cost to keep certain dolites off the streets.

 

[Chilly]

It would also act as a deterrant to potential benefit seekers who could reasonably find legitimate work elsewhere. this means a high cost initially may prove to be a good investment over time.

 

[ford prefect]

I think the number of people who can't work at all, is a fair bit lower than the 4.5m people claiming benefits.

In many cases it isn't a case of not being able to work at all, it is more of a case of not being able to find a job, which is especially true of many people with mental or physical disabilities who, statisitically are twice as likely to be unemployed as anyone else and four times more likely to be employed in a job they are over qualified for.

The thought that the majority of these 4.5 million people are happy to sit at home for the £60.50 per week Job Seekers allowance or the £75.40 statutory sick pay seems a bit odd to me. Even taking housing benefit and income support into account, you would be living on if not below the poverty line these days.

 

[DaGaffer]

In many cases it isn't a case of not being able to work at all, it is more of a case of not being able to find a job, which is especially true of many people with mental or physical disabilities who, statisitically are twice as likely to be unemployed as anyone else and four times more likely to be employed in a job they are over qualified for.

The thought that the majority of these 4.5 million people are happy to sit at home for the £60.50 per week Job Seekers allowance or the £75.40 statutory sick pay seems a bit odd to me. Even taking housing benefit and income support into account, you would be living on if not below the poverty line these days.

So if they can't find work, but are capable of working (which I agree is an issue) then the state finds them other work to do that benefits the economy. What's the problem? In fact if it was done well (which admittedly it won't be, after all, we're talking about government here) it could be used as a device to reduce employer prejudice towards disabilities. In the meantime it sweeps up the bad apples who are abusing the system. I actually don't think any of this will actually work as planned in reality, but the logic of it is sound enough.

 

[Chilly]

Yes agreed. You hit on a key point there, I rekon. The whole thing about overqualification for a given role. The UK is a highly literate and numerate (despite what the papers say) country, yet we still need people to clean the bogs and collect the rubbish like anywhere else. What happens currently is that we use foreign labour to plug this gap (hallo Polish, various African and other Eastern Euro peoples) that no one british really wants to do. So we end up with a segment of society who used to be coal miners and street sweepers but who are now generally either unemployed or economically unemployable (because you cant get away with paying the kind of wages to a brit as you would to a Pole) and for whom it would be trickey to re-educate into a new career. A lot of these people are on benefits, I would imagine, and quite rightly so as the state destroyed their employment sector and so can foot the bill for their leccy and baked beans.

 

[RandomBastard]

Well I'd love it if the chavs who hang around behind our office drinking cider/smoking weed (on private land no less) had to do community service, they obviously don't have jobs considering they just drink and do drugs all day and if they had to do community service maybe they'd be made to clean up their stupid mess.

 

[Munkey]

Yes agreed. You hit on a key point there, I rekon. The whole thing about overqualification for a given role. The UK is a highly literate and numerate (despite what the papers say) country, yet we still need people to clean the bogs and collect the rubbish like anywhere else. What happens currently is that we use foreign labour to plug this gap (hallo Polish, various African and other Eastern Euro peoples) that no one british really wants to do. So we end up with a segment of society who used to be coal miners and street sweepers but who are now generally either unemployed or economically unemployable (because you cant get away with paying the kind of wages to a brit as you would to a Pole) and for whom it would be trickey to re-educate into a new career. A lot of these people are on benefits, I would imagine, and quite rightly so as the state destroyed their employment sector and so can foot the bill for their leccy and baked beans.

Going beyond the coal industry and looking at oil. There are alot of engineers in the UK screwed over by the closure of North Sea Oil fields.

My dad when he became unemployed spent about a year and a half on the dole, unable to find work anywhere else. Ended up having to go abroad which just increases the brain drain even further.

Forcing him to become a street-sweeper or the equivalent would've made him contemplate suicide tbh, especially with a family to look after.

 

[Faeldawn]

Plus the Army doesn't want all the fucktards who dont want to work and sit on there arse, because they do just that, sit on there arse. They want motivated people who are willing to work as a team and contribute.

Conscription has worked very well in the past and it's not tank commanders or the intelligence services for them, it's the catering corps, sappers "mate" and general cannon fodder.

What has always galled me is when dedicated soldiers go away to a foreign land to die, people who are essentially productive members of society fulfilling a role, but the social-security leaches get to sit at home in a house which taxpayers paid for watching it all on a TV.... which taxpayers also paid for.

I agree some people deserve social benefits, but imo if you are able bodied and able to work, but are simply unwilling to do so, it should be the draft for you. Christ, why not send them off to be aid workers, dig wells in Africa or somesuch. Something to make their lives worthwhile.

Red rant off

 

[Raven]

My dad when he became unemployed spent about a year and a half on the dole, unable to find work anywhere else. Ended up having to go abroad which just increases the brain drain even further.

The difference is he looked for work he didn't just sit about playing on his xbox. Most of the people out of work are just plain scummers and I really do hope they bring this in, we will see a very rapid fall in the number of "job seekers"

I was made redundant last year (turns out it was the best thing that has happened career wise) I was out of work for nearly three months, luckily we had some money put away so I didn't need to claim the dole but it was nice to know it was there if i needed it.

Although as usual it seems to be blanket punishment which may well end up doing harm to genuine cases, some regions just don't have the jobs suited to the population, in which case the government should offer real training courses that are aimed at specific regions and improve the way the job centres works.

The economy simply cannot afford to carry these people anymore. If they are able to work and there are jobs then there is no reason at all for them to be out of work. If they don't like it they can go and live in the woods.

 

[SawTooTH]

I was made redundant last year (turns out it was the best thing that has happened career wise) I was out of work for nearly three months, luckily we had some money put away so I didn't need to claim the dole but it was nice to know it was there if i needed it.

I was made redundant about 10 years ago. I too didn't claim dole because its means tested and of course I had redundancy money to keep my family going whilst unemployed. What galls me is that you contribute year after year into the system and you don't have a right to any money back at all, until you are on the poverty line.

Meanwhile I keep paying taxes to fund all the really stupid ideas this Government comes up with....

 

[ford prefect]

All very good points tbh. People are very proud creatures. Most people given the chance are hard working and motivated to provide for themselves and their families. While working they beneift the economy and pay their taxes and that alone should be enough to ensure a reasonable income when they fall on hard times through no fault of their own. Forcing them into doing schemes like this so that they can claim a sum that will barely pay service bills let alone allow them and their families to eat is simply wrong.

If you are going to run such a scheme pay them a reasonable amount of money for their time and provide them a little more dignity.