Crosswords1 min ago
Benefits System overhaul
41 Answers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7516551 .stm
Benefit claimants could be forced to pick up litter and erase graffiti under plans to be unveiled by ministers.
The Welfare Green Paper is set to include proposals to force those unemployed for more than two years to work full-time in the community.
Incapacity benefit will be scrapped as part of a scheme to get more people claiming the benefit back to work.
Minister James Purnell says the plans are "revolutionary". The Tories say they had many of the ideas first.
This shake-up will apply to all 4.5 million people on out-of-work benefits, but is expected to impact most on those on Jobseekers Allowance.
Conservative support
Under plans laid out in the Green Paper, claimants will have to carry out four weeks' community work once they have been unemployed for more than a year.
After two years, they will be ordered to work full-time in the community.
Incapacity Benefit claimants will all move to the new Employment Support Allowance by 2013, which ministers hope will be regarded, for all but the most disabled people, as a temporary benefit
About time?
Is this far enough?
Benefit claimants could be forced to pick up litter and erase graffiti under plans to be unveiled by ministers.
The Welfare Green Paper is set to include proposals to force those unemployed for more than two years to work full-time in the community.
Incapacity benefit will be scrapped as part of a scheme to get more people claiming the benefit back to work.
Minister James Purnell says the plans are "revolutionary". The Tories say they had many of the ideas first.
This shake-up will apply to all 4.5 million people on out-of-work benefits, but is expected to impact most on those on Jobseekers Allowance.
Conservative support
Under plans laid out in the Green Paper, claimants will have to carry out four weeks' community work once they have been unemployed for more than a year.
After two years, they will be ordered to work full-time in the community.
Incapacity Benefit claimants will all move to the new Employment Support Allowance by 2013, which ministers hope will be regarded, for all but the most disabled people, as a temporary benefit
About time?
Is this far enough?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oneeyedvic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
These measures will just drive more people into the poverty trap.There is still far too much ageism in the workplace.
People over fifty sometimes don't stand a chance of work in their particular fields if they have been made redundant .
And why should they be forced to sweep the streets when they are trained in a skilled job .
There is no more big industry in this country .Apprenticeships have been scrapped .Years ago young men leaving school could train as electricians ,builders ,plumbers .engineers etc .
Even British Gas only want graduates !
The jobs are not there .Plenty of minimum wage jobs .In my local paper that is all that is advertised .And people who take these jobs are paying more tax .No wonder they are disillusioned and think sod it .
Gordon and Co have loused up big time and now they want to start cracking the whip .No good shutting the stable door etc .
I have no beef with genuine people who cannot work through disability etc .They should crack down on the scroungers not those who genuinely seek work where very often there is none to be had .
People over fifty sometimes don't stand a chance of work in their particular fields if they have been made redundant .
And why should they be forced to sweep the streets when they are trained in a skilled job .
There is no more big industry in this country .Apprenticeships have been scrapped .Years ago young men leaving school could train as electricians ,builders ,plumbers .engineers etc .
Even British Gas only want graduates !
The jobs are not there .Plenty of minimum wage jobs .In my local paper that is all that is advertised .And people who take these jobs are paying more tax .No wonder they are disillusioned and think sod it .
Gordon and Co have loused up big time and now they want to start cracking the whip .No good shutting the stable door etc .
I have no beef with genuine people who cannot work through disability etc .They should crack down on the scroungers not those who genuinely seek work where very often there is none to be had .
Of-course it would be ideal to have everyone back at work who are able and to have them off benefits , I detest benefit cheats and they tend to cause people to think bad of all people on the benefit system. However , if the majority were made to work or lose their benefits I can't see Brown handing the working population a rise in their wages from any money saved.
Lol ..I can't see them handing out wage increases either bigmamma unless it's to themselves .
They want to keep people on the low paid treadmill so that their targets and statistics look good .They'll be bringing back means testing soon, building workhouses and employing beadles to hand out gruel.
In the meantime there is a shortage of skilled labour .
Labour governments were always spend now pay later and now we are paying ....and how .
They want to keep people on the low paid treadmill so that their targets and statistics look good .They'll be bringing back means testing soon, building workhouses and employing beadles to hand out gruel.
In the meantime there is a shortage of skilled labour .
Labour governments were always spend now pay later and now we are paying ....and how .
They should be forced to sweep the streets (or do whatever other work they can find), shaneystar because the world (and more importantly the taxpayer) does not owe them a living.
Yes, it�s unfortunate that some people have to take jobs which are �beneath� them. That�s life.
Anyway, I should not worry too much. These measures will never be properly implemented as UK governments (of all colours) lack both the will and the ability to discriminate between the needy and the ********/greedy.
Yes, it�s unfortunate that some people have to take jobs which are �beneath� them. That�s life.
Anyway, I should not worry too much. These measures will never be properly implemented as UK governments (of all colours) lack both the will and the ability to discriminate between the needy and the ********/greedy.
New Judge,
It strikes me that this disagreement of whether the rich should help the poor is more a question of morality than logic.
The rich do not owe the poor a living. In the same way that I don't owe my little sister a living. But she fell on hard times I'd feel inclined to help her. It's part of being a cohesive family. And the rich helping the poor seems to me to be a part of living in a society. It's not even something I begrudge. I want to help the hindmost.
TV documentaries and certain newspapers present those on benefit as wily cheats, laughing their way to the dole office and back. If you actually spend time in the job centre (Have you? I have), you'll see that many of them are old or socially awkward or painfully uncommunicative or profoundly unskilled. The least employable people around. They're the people from school who sit in the corner and struggle every day.
Yes, the system is abused. And yes, a year out of work should ring alarm bells. But let's not scorn the benefit system as some pathetic leftie gravy train. Or trot out this 'well if they just worked as hard as me....' argument because it's laughably superior and simplistic.
It strikes me that this disagreement of whether the rich should help the poor is more a question of morality than logic.
The rich do not owe the poor a living. In the same way that I don't owe my little sister a living. But she fell on hard times I'd feel inclined to help her. It's part of being a cohesive family. And the rich helping the poor seems to me to be a part of living in a society. It's not even something I begrudge. I want to help the hindmost.
TV documentaries and certain newspapers present those on benefit as wily cheats, laughing their way to the dole office and back. If you actually spend time in the job centre (Have you? I have), you'll see that many of them are old or socially awkward or painfully uncommunicative or profoundly unskilled. The least employable people around. They're the people from school who sit in the corner and struggle every day.
Yes, the system is abused. And yes, a year out of work should ring alarm bells. But let's not scorn the benefit system as some pathetic leftie gravy train. Or trot out this 'well if they just worked as hard as me....' argument because it's laughably superior and simplistic.
I left my job through illness in February, and claimed benefits. Such a meagre amount, and yes, I get a small company pension. Everything was means tested, so even with my pension, I was not one single penny better off than somebody whose entire income was benefit based.
I do not feel fit and well enough to work, but I have just taken a job anyway, in heavy engineering, and hope that i'll be able to stick with it.
I tried applying for lighter work, in shops etc but nothing doing.
If it all messes up and I end up having to leave work again, how could I cope with the stress etc of work provided by the state in return for benefits?
I hate benefits, and don't want to be on them, even though I've contributed to the mfor 41 years, but if I'm ill, then I need them, and not some private company government agency forcing me off them, or else.
I do not feel fit and well enough to work, but I have just taken a job anyway, in heavy engineering, and hope that i'll be able to stick with it.
I tried applying for lighter work, in shops etc but nothing doing.
If it all messes up and I end up having to leave work again, how could I cope with the stress etc of work provided by the state in return for benefits?
I hate benefits, and don't want to be on them, even though I've contributed to the mfor 41 years, but if I'm ill, then I need them, and not some private company government agency forcing me off them, or else.
I don't think anyone is complaining about people who can't work, and I don't think anyone objects to helping them, but there are plenty out there who won't work, and they're the ones who must be stopped. They are laughing their way to the dole office and back. I wonder how many who contribute to AB are fit to work, but are nevertheless happy to live permanently on benefits? Any offers?
There has been a benefit system since 1945 or thereabouts. There have been a number of Conservative Govts since then, who far from dismantling the system haven't materially changed it.
According to some AB posters the solution to the problems of the small % who abuse the system, is quite simple and straightforward. Just don't pay the lazy **** less, bas tards!! (Lovely bit of laissez faire welfare). Therefore it seems surprising that non of the previous administrations have adopted this policy - which would suggest that maybe the solution isn't quite as simplistic as some posters would claim. Maybe the system whilst not perfect, given all political parties seem to support this system, presumably the system on the whole is considered better than any alternatives.
Like Quinlad, I feel it is a moral issue,a deontic duty, to help those in need, and would therefore prefer some of my taxes are 'wasted' on 'scroungers' in order to ensure that the welfare system continues.
According to some AB posters the solution to the problems of the small % who abuse the system, is quite simple and straightforward. Just don't pay the lazy **** less, bas tards!! (Lovely bit of laissez faire welfare). Therefore it seems surprising that non of the previous administrations have adopted this policy - which would suggest that maybe the solution isn't quite as simplistic as some posters would claim. Maybe the system whilst not perfect, given all political parties seem to support this system, presumably the system on the whole is considered better than any alternatives.
Like Quinlad, I feel it is a moral issue,a deontic duty, to help those in need, and would therefore prefer some of my taxes are 'wasted' on 'scroungers' in order to ensure that the welfare system continues.
That is exactly the point naomi - a point that Quinlad appears to have missed.
As a civilised society we should, of course, look after those that cannot work.
But why should we have to look after those people who choose not to work?
I defy anybody on this site to come up with a coherent compelling reason why those in our society who choose not to work should receive taxpayer's money.
As a civilised society we should, of course, look after those that cannot work.
But why should we have to look after those people who choose not to work?
I defy anybody on this site to come up with a coherent compelling reason why those in our society who choose not to work should receive taxpayer's money.
I was livid to hear a woman up at school saying that they were looking for somewhere to rent and that the social would pay up to �500 a month for them to get a nice 4 bedroomed house. They have never worked and have just been given a car, even though there is sod all with either of them. How many times have the government said they are going to crack down on benefit cheats and nothing is done ? It's pathetic.
I really do hope New Judge that you never find yourself in a position where you are forced to sweep streets or do other demeaning tasks .As far as I am concerned this is just criminalising those who are unemployed through no fault of their own .
If you had cared to read my post properly you would have noted that I have no time for scroungers either and object strongly to paying for their plasma teles but while this government continues to let companies ship work abroad and invests nothing in our industry we are going to a see a lot more skilled people out of work .
We need large scale investment in industry and training for people to be able to do well paid interesting work that gives them pride in themselves not mindless minimum wage stuff where they end up paying more tax and earning the same amount that they would on benefit .
You cannot presume that everyone on benefits is a skiver .
So while these guys are being forced to sweep the streets how do they find the time to look for a proper job then ?
And what's going to happen to those who are already employed to sweep the streets .The councils won't want to pay them if they can get benefit claimants to do it
So they in turn will be out of work and the hamster wheel keeps on turning
What I find even more disturbing is that the genuinely sick and disabled are going to be forced to jump through hoops to prove their disabilities .
Brown is creating a slave labour economy and by your reasoning I expect you will be one of those cracking the whip.
If you had cared to read my post properly you would have noted that I have no time for scroungers either and object strongly to paying for their plasma teles but while this government continues to let companies ship work abroad and invests nothing in our industry we are going to a see a lot more skilled people out of work .
We need large scale investment in industry and training for people to be able to do well paid interesting work that gives them pride in themselves not mindless minimum wage stuff where they end up paying more tax and earning the same amount that they would on benefit .
You cannot presume that everyone on benefits is a skiver .
So while these guys are being forced to sweep the streets how do they find the time to look for a proper job then ?
And what's going to happen to those who are already employed to sweep the streets .The councils won't want to pay them if they can get benefit claimants to do it
So they in turn will be out of work and the hamster wheel keeps on turning
What I find even more disturbing is that the genuinely sick and disabled are going to be forced to jump through hoops to prove their disabilities .
Brown is creating a slave labour economy and by your reasoning I expect you will be one of those cracking the whip.
It is not a question of the rich helping the poor, quinlad. It is a question of whether those willing to work and are doing so (sometimes in terrible jobs for little pay and hence not rich) should help those who are not so willing and have, in fact, steadfastly refused to become so.
I�m glad that you supported your sister in her need. You knew the circumstances in which she found herself, decided she needed help and provided it.
Unfortunately taxpayers do not have the luxury of deciding whom they support and whom they do not. Those tasked with making the decision for them (using cash forcibly removed from their income) are clearly not doing the job properly.
I have no problem accepting a moral responsibility to help those in need. As you say, it is part of living in a civilised society. What I object to is supporting people who can easily support themselves, but have chosen not to do so.
This post is all about the government�s aim to sort this issue out. My original post suggested that this is unlikely to succeed. A few cosmetic changes may be heralded as �radical reform� but in practice this will amount to name changes for some of the various benefits (accompanied, of course, by zillions of hours overtime for those tasked with administering the changes).
What makes me think it will fail is that in 1998 Frank Field was tasked by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to �think the unthinkable� on this issue. He did so, and was promptly sacked for his efforts, almost certainly at the behest of the then Chancellor, now our Prime Minister.
I�m glad that you supported your sister in her need. You knew the circumstances in which she found herself, decided she needed help and provided it.
Unfortunately taxpayers do not have the luxury of deciding whom they support and whom they do not. Those tasked with making the decision for them (using cash forcibly removed from their income) are clearly not doing the job properly.
I have no problem accepting a moral responsibility to help those in need. As you say, it is part of living in a civilised society. What I object to is supporting people who can easily support themselves, but have chosen not to do so.
This post is all about the government�s aim to sort this issue out. My original post suggested that this is unlikely to succeed. A few cosmetic changes may be heralded as �radical reform� but in practice this will amount to name changes for some of the various benefits (accompanied, of course, by zillions of hours overtime for those tasked with administering the changes).
What makes me think it will fail is that in 1998 Frank Field was tasked by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to �think the unthinkable� on this issue. He did so, and was promptly sacked for his efforts, almost certainly at the behest of the then Chancellor, now our Prime Minister.
I�m sorry shaney but I cannot agree.
It is not �criminalising� somebody to insist they work for a living when there is work available. If that work is associated with the receipt of benefits then so be it.
I did read your post properly and I do not make the presumptions you suggest. In particular you cited people over 50 who, having been made redundant, cannot find a job in the field in which they used to work. You went on to say that they should not be forced to sweep the streets. Well, I�m afraid that they should if that is the only gainful employment available to them. I accept that the cause of their plight may not be of their own making, but neither was it mine or other taxpayers, many of whom may be worse off than some of the 50-somethings you describe. Life has a habit of being particularly unfair sometimes.
However, the example you quote is not the main cause of the problem. The main cause is that huge numbers of people who are quite able to work and for whom work is available have opted for a lifetime on benefits. Many have the aspiration to �graduate� to Incapacity Benefit, where the payments are more generous and the conditions imposed less onerous. We have the ludicrous situation where 2.6m people of working age are allegedly too incapacitated to work. I have worked alongside some severely disabled people (e.g. no legs). They manage to work. I have also seen, in the course of my work, young people physically and mentally fit enough to drive and socialise often to excess, but who have been �incapacitated� by some ongoing minor ailment.
These are the people who need identifying and either made to work or go hungry. There would then be more help available for those genuinely in need. As has been pointed out, neither party has got to grips with this issue and it is my view that neither ever will.
And that is scandalous.
It is not �criminalising� somebody to insist they work for a living when there is work available. If that work is associated with the receipt of benefits then so be it.
I did read your post properly and I do not make the presumptions you suggest. In particular you cited people over 50 who, having been made redundant, cannot find a job in the field in which they used to work. You went on to say that they should not be forced to sweep the streets. Well, I�m afraid that they should if that is the only gainful employment available to them. I accept that the cause of their plight may not be of their own making, but neither was it mine or other taxpayers, many of whom may be worse off than some of the 50-somethings you describe. Life has a habit of being particularly unfair sometimes.
However, the example you quote is not the main cause of the problem. The main cause is that huge numbers of people who are quite able to work and for whom work is available have opted for a lifetime on benefits. Many have the aspiration to �graduate� to Incapacity Benefit, where the payments are more generous and the conditions imposed less onerous. We have the ludicrous situation where 2.6m people of working age are allegedly too incapacitated to work. I have worked alongside some severely disabled people (e.g. no legs). They manage to work. I have also seen, in the course of my work, young people physically and mentally fit enough to drive and socialise often to excess, but who have been �incapacitated� by some ongoing minor ailment.
These are the people who need identifying and either made to work or go hungry. There would then be more help available for those genuinely in need. As has been pointed out, neither party has got to grips with this issue and it is my view that neither ever will.
And that is scandalous.
a few years ago a young lady that i knew went out shopping with her mother. father was at home aged about 54 he was made redundant and tried for all kinds of jobs from cleaning bogs to sweeping streets , you name it he would apply for it . after being out of work for around 8 months he must have said enough is enough.
my friend and her mother walked in through the frontdoor
looked up and saw her father swinging from a rope from the loft .
New Judge i hope you never become ill or lose your job you may get one hell of of shock when you try and claim any benefit and the bills start growing and you start getting into more and more debt.
people like you see one story in the news about someone getting X number of pounds and think that everybody gets it
get in the real world you sad muppet
my friend and her mother walked in through the frontdoor
looked up and saw her father swinging from a rope from the loft .
New Judge i hope you never become ill or lose your job you may get one hell of of shock when you try and claim any benefit and the bills start growing and you start getting into more and more debt.
people like you see one story in the news about someone getting X number of pounds and think that everybody gets it
get in the real world you sad muppet
No, tranmerekid, I do not see one story and think it applies to everybody. I have made a careful study of the news item, I do indeed inhabit the real world and, as a result of some of the work I do, I have considerable knowledge of the benefits system and those who benefit from it. Stemming from that knowledge I have long been suggesting that the system is in need of overhaul (as many of my previous answers will attest). In short, I am more than able to sort out press sensationalism from fact.
The story you quote is tragic. And for each one like this, there are countless others where people working have also seen fit to end it all because the pressure (or monotony or sheer grind) of their jobs has been too much for them.
Sad as all that may be, it is not the point of this thread. The government has said it proposes to make it more difficult to spend long periods on benefits where and when work is available. This should not affect those who genuinely cannot work or cannot find employment and it might, just might, leave more funds available to help them. Some of them, perhaps, like your friend�s father. I�m all for it.
What I�m not in favour of is people choosing not to support themselves when they can, and then expecting the taxpayer to fund their lifestyle.
I too hope that I never need to depend on benefits. If I do hit hard times there will be no shocks for me as it is unlikely that the benefit system will help me. Having worked for a long time I have accumulated some savings. I will therefore (quite rightly) be expected to live off those savings and will not be eligible for support until they are exhausted.
In the same way, I expect people who are able to support themselves by working to do so. It�s not much to ask and if that makes me a �sad muppet� (whatever that may be) then so be it.
The story you quote is tragic. And for each one like this, there are countless others where people working have also seen fit to end it all because the pressure (or monotony or sheer grind) of their jobs has been too much for them.
Sad as all that may be, it is not the point of this thread. The government has said it proposes to make it more difficult to spend long periods on benefits where and when work is available. This should not affect those who genuinely cannot work or cannot find employment and it might, just might, leave more funds available to help them. Some of them, perhaps, like your friend�s father. I�m all for it.
What I�m not in favour of is people choosing not to support themselves when they can, and then expecting the taxpayer to fund their lifestyle.
I too hope that I never need to depend on benefits. If I do hit hard times there will be no shocks for me as it is unlikely that the benefit system will help me. Having worked for a long time I have accumulated some savings. I will therefore (quite rightly) be expected to live off those savings and will not be eligible for support until they are exhausted.
In the same way, I expect people who are able to support themselves by working to do so. It�s not much to ask and if that makes me a �sad muppet� (whatever that may be) then so be it.
Latest Posts
Personal Finance4 mins ago
News12 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
