Government steals money people should have got, attempts law change so doesn't have to pay it back.

So remember that thread where people were being forced to work for free for benefits and it was ruled that it breached laws?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland

The Department for Work and Pensions has introduced emergency legislation to reverse the outcome of a court of appeal decision and "protect the national economy" from a 130m payout to jobseekers deemed to have been unlawfully punished.

The retroactive legislation, published on Thursday evening and expected to be rushed through parliament on Tuesday, will effectively strike down a decision by three senior judges and deny benefit claimants an average payout of between 530 and 570 each.

That's even worse than when the law allowed MPs to essentially commit fraud with their expenses but now a government department is just rewriting it's laws to stop them paying out money that would have been paid out anyway had they not cheated the public as it's not like a compensation payment.

Retroactive legislation is often used in tax law. In order to avoid people taking countermeasures to move their valuables out of their range, they generally take effect from the day they're introduces, even if they're passed on a later date. Few seem to have any problem with this. So few have any standing to criticize retroactive legislation being used for taking away people's money.

It can, however, be criticised for being used to save one's own ass. The government messed up in passing sufficient legislation, so it should bear the risk of its own mistake. Certainly the economic situation in the UK must be dire, if 130 million could threaten national economy.

Well now, that sounds incredibly classy. Glad to see government isn't corrupt or anything.

Pfft I still think if they turned down potential work then they shouldn't get any benefit payouts anyway.

Gov try to help people find work by giving them a foot in the door...
People kick and scream because they don't wont to work...
Gov takes away money for not working...
People kick and scream because they no longer get paid to sit on their arses...

Personally I'm on the governments side on this one even if its a dickish way of going about it.

Before people bite my head off I've worked with people that were brought into the company on this scheme. Only 2 out of 30 - 35 people were worth employing, and you know what happened to them?

They got given a job... The scheme only works if people are actually willing to put in a days graft.

snowbear:
Pfft I still think if they turned down potential work then they shouldn't get any benefit payouts anyway.

Gov try to help people find work by giving them a foot in the door...
People kick and scream because they don't wont to work...
Gov takes away money for not working...
People kick and scream because they no longer get paid to sit on their arses...

Personally I'm on the governments side on this one even if its a dickish way of going about it.

Before people bite my head off I've worked with people that were brought into the company on this scheme. Only 2 out of 30 - 35 people were worth employing, and you know what happened to them?

They got given a job... The scheme only works if people are actually willing to put in a days graft.

The main complaint being that if they're working a full day why aren't they being paid a full day, with large corporations taking advantage of this to get essentially free unskilled labour.
It's hardly people kicking up a fuss because they just want money for free.

I was on JSA 6 months ago and they tried to put me through ridiculous shit which wouldn't help me, wouldn't help my CV and only benefited Tesco and Pound land.

I genuinely don't get how you can't support a person being paid for the hours they're working.

snowbear:

They got given a job... The scheme only works if people are actually willing to put in a days graft.

For less than half of a day's wages of course.

OT-Bullshit. There's a reason that separation of powers works. It keeps government from passing what essentially amount to illegal laws. Rewriting the law so that the courts can't do anything about it is the very definition of corrupt. And seriously 130 million dollars is the end of the world? I bet there's a whole lot of other things that could be cut in its place, even if 130 million dollars was a big deal at all.

This is why I view the constitutional (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3) ban on retroactive laws in the US is a very good thing.

I see that Labour is supporting this.

Well, there goes any doubts I had that Ed Miliband is just another New Labour, Blairite cunt.

Revnak:

snowbear:

They got given a job... The scheme only works if people are actually willing to put in a days graft.

For less than half of a day's wages of course.

OT-Bullshit. There's a reason that separation of powers works. It keeps government from passing what essentially amount to illegal laws. Rewriting the law so that the courts can't do anything about it is the very definition of corrupt. And seriously 130 million dollars is the end of the world? I bet there's a whole lot of other things that could be cut in its place, even if 130 million dollars was a big deal at all.

it's in pounds which makes it roughly 200 million dollars.
I guess the government would have trouble magicking that amount of money from thin air seen as the budget is already overstretched.

carlsberg export:

Revnak:

snowbear:

They got given a job... The scheme only works if people are actually willing to put in a days graft.

For less than half of a day's wages of course.

OT-Bullshit. There's a reason that separation of powers works. It keeps government from passing what essentially amount to illegal laws. Rewriting the law so that the courts can't do anything about it is the very definition of corrupt. And seriously 130 million dollars is the end of the world? I bet there's a whole lot of other things that could be cut in its place, even if 130 million dollars was a big deal at all.

it's in pounds which makes it roughly 200 million dollars.
I guess the government would have trouble magicking that amount of money from thin air seen as the budget is already overstretched.

That's less than a thousandth of last year's deficit. It is in no way a big deal. That is precisely the kind of money that governments can magic away. Also, when you're cutting spending, try not to cut the part that was just recognized as needing to be spent due to immoral and illegal laws.

Revnak:

carlsberg export:

Revnak:

For less than half of a day's wages of course.

OT-Bullshit. There's a reason that separation of powers works. It keeps government from passing what essentially amount to illegal laws. Rewriting the law so that the courts can't do anything about it is the very definition of corrupt. And seriously 130 million dollars is the end of the world? I bet there's a whole lot of other things that could be cut in its place, even if 130 million dollars was a big deal at all.

it's in pounds which makes it roughly 200 million dollars.
I guess the government would have trouble magicking that amount of money from thin air seen as the budget is already overstretched.

That's less than a thousandth of last year's deficit. It is in no way a big deal. That is precisely the kind of money that governments can magic away. Also, when you're cutting spending, try not to cut the part that was just recognized as needing to be spent due to immoral and illegal laws.

indeed, im not saying this is right (i think its disgusting) obviously the morally corrupt and tight fisted politicions think that amount of money is worth chopping and changing laws so they can get their own way.

Suave Charlie:
[

I was on JSA 6 months ago and they tried to put me through ridiculous shit which wouldn't help me, wouldn't help my CV and only benefited Tesco and Pound land.

So you're saying that sitting on your arse doing nothing looks better on your CV than actually working? Any job is better than no job even if its working at frigging pound land.

Just because you don't want to work at Tesco's the Gov should give you an amount of money for doing nothing?

Revnak:

For less than half of a day's wages of course.

No as in those that were good got given a Full time contracted job with full wages.

I don't see this as being made to work for free, its working to earn your benefits. when you've proven you're willing to work then you can have a helping hand.

snowbear:

Revnak:

For less than half of a day's wages of course.

No as in those that were good got given a Full time contracted job with full wages.

I don't see this as being made to work for free, its working to earn your benefits. when you've proven you're willing to work then you can have a helping hand.

So only about 20% of people are good enough to work at Tesco? Bullshit. And realize that 20% includes extremely temporary jobs at extremely short hours. And that doesn't change the fact that they're working full time hours for next to nothing. It's corporate welfare, and it's wrong.

Revnak:

So only about 20% of people are good enough to work at Tesco? Bullshit. And realize that 20% includes extremely temporary jobs at extremely short hours. And that doesn't change the fact that they're working full time hours for next to nothing. It's corporate welfare, and it's wrong.

From what I saw from the "workers" we had it wouldn't surprise me if that figure was halfway right. The company I was working for was a construction company and all that was required was a small amount of manual labour, from carrying tools and railing panels, and digging holes into soft dirt. Hardly back breaking work, but most of the workers would take hours doing simple tasks or digging two or three holes. Some flat out refused to do anything.

Taking money from hard working tax payers with no intention of working and putting anything in the system is worse than this original story by an order of magnitudes.

In general I find the whole take from the rich and give to the poor attitude strange and dishonest. If somebody / group of people have worked hard to gain money why should they then give it all away to somebody who is too lazy to find a job or somebody who couldn't be bothered to do well at school?

snowbear:

Revnak:

So only about 20% of people are good enough to work at Tesco? Bullshit. And realize that 20% includes extremely temporary jobs at extremely short hours. And that doesn't change the fact that they're working full time hours for next to nothing. It's corporate welfare, and it's wrong.

From what I saw from the "workers" we had it wouldn't surprise me if that figure was halfway right. The company I was working for was a construction company and all that was required was a small amount of manual labour, from carrying tools and railing panels, and digging holes into soft dirt. Hardly back breaking work, but most of the workers would take hours doing simple tasks or digging two or three holes. Some flat out refused to do anything.

Taking money from hard working tax payers with no intention of working and putting anything in the system is worse than this original story by an order of magnitudes.

In general I find the whole take from the rich and give to the poor attitude strange and dishonest. If somebody / group of people have worked hard to gain money why should they then give it all away to somebody who is too lazy to find a job or somebody who couldn't be bothered to do well at school?

From my experience job hunting, the problem is just the opposite. There are too many people looking for too few jobs which all of them are capable of doing.

Except there are other requirements they have to go through with, such as looking for work and the like. That all makes sense, unlike forcing them to work for absolutely no noticable reward.

Except many of these people are well educated, they just don't have jobs. And if you value hard work, you should also value paying people for hard work, rather than just forcing them to work.

Revnak:
Snip

They may be capable but are they willing. It was attitude problems that was the biggest issue with the guys that we were given.

Personally that doesn't make sense to me. If people don't have a job they should be looking for one regardless of getting JSA. The reward is they get their JSA and really if you even it out how much is claimed compared to the hours they are asked to work, its more than fair. most of the people we had had been on JSA for 6 months plus, and were made to work 20 hours a week for up to a month to keep their JSA. If you ask me they were pretty well paid for the amount of hours they did. If I got paid up to 1700 tax free for doing 40-80 hours easy work I would bite your hand off.

Being well educated isn't everything, sure it helps but sometimes just being a hard worker takes precedence.

I not saying the scheme is perfect, it does need a few tweaks but the outcry's against it are unjustified.

I do think that if the larger companies want an individual to stay on longer than the 2/4 weeks (whatever has been agreed) then they should be forced to employee said person (this is what we did) or at least top their JSA up so it equates to minimum wage (taxable though).

Love how they are passing this law to avoid having to pay benefit claimants who deserve compensation but they aren't kicking up the same fuss over compensating train companies after they pulled out of the bidding process for a service package (which iirc will cost them a lot more than 130M)

This is typical Tory tactics of attack the people they know cant fight back, a train company is someone they cant afford to piss off as they'll spend the next year in court and spend far more and still probably lose. A jobseeker with 20 quid to their name though? Easy.

Karma168:
Love how they are passing this law to avoid having to pay benefit claimants who deserve compensation but they aren't kicking up the same fuss over compensating train companies after they pulled out of the bidding process for a service package (which iirc will cost them a lot more than 130M)

This is typical Tory tactics of attack the people they know cant fight back, a train company is someone they cant afford to piss off as they'll spend the next year in court and spend far more and still probably lose. A jobseeker with 20 quid to their name though? Easy.

Money they deserve??? Hardly. If they had earnt the money then they would deserve it. As they have not earnt it then they havent earnt any compensation either. They aren't attacking the poor youre being a drama queen, they are trying to get people off their arses and back into work where they belong.

snowbear:

Karma168:
Love how they are passing this law to avoid having to pay benefit claimants who deserve compensation but they aren't kicking up the same fuss over compensating train companies after they pulled out of the bidding process for a service package (which iirc will cost them a lot more than 130M)

This is typical Tory tactics of attack the people they know cant fight back, a train company is someone they cant afford to piss off as they'll spend the next year in court and spend far more and still probably lose. A jobseeker with 20 quid to their name though? Easy.

Money they deserve??? Hardly. If they had earnt the money then they would deserve it. As they have not earnt it then they havent earnt any compensation either. They aren't attacking the poor youre being a drama queen, they are trying to get people off their arses and back into work where they belong.

Perhaps they would have an easier time getting into work if there were more actual jobs available, and employers didn't have a source of free forced labour.

snowbear:

Karma168:
Love how they are passing this law to avoid having to pay benefit claimants who deserve compensation but they aren't kicking up the same fuss over compensating train companies after they pulled out of the bidding process for a service package (which iirc will cost them a lot more than 130M)

This is typical Tory tactics of attack the people they know cant fight back, a train company is someone they cant afford to piss off as they'll spend the next year in court and spend far more and still probably lose. A jobseeker with 20 quid to their name though? Easy.

Money they deserve??? Hardly. If they had earnt the money then they would deserve it. As they have not earnt it then they havent earnt any compensation either. They aren't attacking the poor youre being a drama queen, they are trying to get people off their arses and back into work where they belong.

a) Unemployment benefits are designed to help a person get back into work. You are arguing that they should work to get money they should be using to fund their job searching. Son, that's just stupid. Stupid because they should be using that time to find jobs and stupid because it's taking away a paid job and installing a free job, effectively putting someone out of work.

b) The government is using retrospective statutory laws. I have never heard of such a thing. It is undermining the rule of law. That's immoral on so many levels I can't communicate how pissed off it's made me.

c) Use your brain. Skivers versus Strivers is a trick concocted by the Conservative party to slash benefits left, right and centre. Chanting and repeating different variations of it, like what you've just done, is bad for the UK. It's bad for the economy, it's bad for society and, in the end, it'll be bad for you as well.

snowbear:
If somebody / group of people have worked hard to gain money...

Okay, so money is an incentive to work.

snowbear:
The company I was working for was a construction company and all that was required was a small amount of manual labour, from carrying tools and railing panels, and digging holes into soft dirt. Hardly back breaking work, but most of the workers would take hours doing simple tasks or digging two or three holes. Some flat out refused to do anything.

So then, perhaps you could incentivise people to dig holes in soft dirt by paying them properly.

If people don't have a job they should be looking for one regardless of getting JSA.

Evidently you don't understand how JSA works. As its name - Jobseeker's Allowance - implies, it's an allowance you get for looking for jobs: no applying, no money. In fact, I can tell you from personal experience that even after you've signed a contract and are just waiting a few weeks for your job to start, you still have to waste your and prospective employers' time sending in applications for jobs you aren't going to take.

* * *

It is probably fair to say that many of the long-term unemployed are likely to be bad workers - because bad workers have trouble getting jobs. These ones will have attitude problems: in many cases, they will have deep and potentially intractable problems. It is obviously a mistake to think you can wave a few hours hole-digging and shelf-stacking at them and turn them around: you may as well try to plug a hole in a dam with cream cheese. Workfare's primary objective is political - the gratification of people who hold the unemployed in contempt - and very little to do with making the unemployed employable.

Frankly, a lot of these unemployed might not be the brightest sparks, but they don't need to be to realise they are not going to be made employable by workfare. They know there currently aren't enough jobs anyway. They know they're at the back of the employment queue even if there are plenty. They know they'll learn nothing to significantly improve their chances. Why would anyone wonder why they don't care?

The baseline is this naive idea that the long-term unemployed are just shiftless shirkers who can be kicked into becoming productive members of society by the appropriate punitive measures. This is to comprehensively fail to understand what's going on: but then politicians don't need to when a political blame and shame game is cheaper and easier for votes than solutions.

snowbear:

Karma168:
Love how they are passing this law to avoid having to pay benefit claimants who deserve compensation but they aren't kicking up the same fuss over compensating train companies after they pulled out of the bidding process for a service package (which iirc will cost them a lot more than 130M)

This is typical Tory tactics of attack the people they know cant fight back, a train company is someone they cant afford to piss off as they'll spend the next year in court and spend far more and still probably lose. A jobseeker with 20 quid to their name though? Easy.

Money they deserve??? Hardly. If they had earnt the money then they would deserve it. As they have not earnt it then they havent earnt any compensation either. They aren't attacking the poor youre being a drama queen, they are trying to get people off their arses and back into work where they belong.

Did they work? Then they have earned minimum wage AT THE LEAST. If they are forced to work a full time position where the company doesn't have to pay them, then that position can not be filled by someone who actually needs the money! There are only so many positions to be filled... Fill them with free workers and you have no room for those who need the job. A company WILL NOT hire someone for minimum wage when they can fill the same position with people they need not pay.

DJjaffacake:

Perhaps they would have an easier time getting into work if there were more actual jobs available, and employers didn't have a source of free forced labour.

Sorry but when I got made redundant a month later I had two part time jobs going, and a year after that I'm back into full time employment earning a decent salary. Maybe I'm just very lucky. Plus there's nothing stopping people from going self employed. knock on a few doors wash some windows, but no people don't want to do that because they are wrapped up nice and cosy claiming welfare. I know people that apply for jobs that they know they wont get because its easier than doing actual work for a living.

Odgical:

a) Unemployment benefits are designed to help a person get back into work. You are arguing that they should work to get money they should be using to fund their job searching. Son, that's just stupid. Stupid because they should be using that time to find jobs and stupid because it's taking away a paid job and installing a free job, effectively putting someone out of work.

b) The government is using retrospective statutory laws. I have never heard of such a thing. It is undermining the rule of law. That's immoral on so many levels I can't communicate how pissed off it's made me.

c) Use your brain. Skivers versus Strivers is a trick concocted by the Conservative party to slash benefits left, right and centre. Chanting and repeating different variations of it, like what you've just done, is bad for the UK. It's bad for the economy, it's bad for society and, in the end, it'll be bad for you as well.

A) No I'm saying people complaining that the free money that they are given out of good will, for doing no work was taken away because they aren't willing to do a few hours to earn that money are abusing the system and shouldn't be entitled to anything. So your saying if someone works a mere 20 hours a week they no longer have time to find a proper job? Now that is what I call stupidity. Sure some of the bigger companies may have taken advantage of the system but blame them not the system. I know for a fact the not a single days work was lost to a JSA worker where I was.

B)More immoral than people abusing the welfare system and stealing peoples hard earned taxes? I think not.

C) I do use my brain thank you very much, and from personal experience I can say you are very very wrong. Sure not all people claiming JSA are skivers and scroungers and there are genuine cases. But a fair amount are and not just JSA claimants either. People abusing the system is hurting the economy I don't know how you cant see that.

Agema:
Snip

We did that's my point. The workers that were good enough got not only employed with a full time contract but trained as well. If others were good enough they would have got a job too, but they simply weren't.

I know very well how it works. I'm just saying if there was no such thing as JSA would people then stop applying for jobs? People should be doing that anyway and just be grateful that they are given any help/money at all. And to put nothing back in the system whilst slowly bleeding it dry is disrespectful to the people paying into the system in the first place. The country isn't a bottomless pit of money and sooner or later things like JSA may disappear all together.

Look I know the system isn't perfect I never claimed it was, but a better attitude towards the people trying to help them out would go a very long way, and less of this entitled bullcrap.

snowbear:
A) No I'm saying people complaining that the free money that they are given out of good will, for doing no work was taken away because they aren't willing to do a few hours to earn that money are abusing the system and shouldn't be entitled to anything. So your saying if someone works a mere 20 hours a week they no longer have time to find a proper job? Now that is what I call stupidity. Sure some of the bigger companies may have taken advantage of the system but blame them not the system. I know for a fact the not a single days work was lost to a JSA worker where I was.

B)More immoral than people abusing the welfare system and stealing peoples hard earned taxes? I think not.

C) I do use my brain thank you very much, and from personal experience I can say you are very very wrong. Sure not all people claiming JSA are skivers and scroungers and there are genuine cases. But a fair amount are and not just JSA claimants either. People abusing the system is hurting the economy I don't know how you cant see that.

a) The money isn't given for free, it isn't given for no work, it's given to find a job, not to work at a job for free which fucks over the economy. I don't care if something is evil or good, I care if it works and this doesn't work! You know those statistics that economists are scratching their heads over? The ones where unemployment is down but household income isn't going up? This is why! This is funding inequality! But Odgical, I thought you didn't care about good or evil? Well, inequality brings in a heapload of problems that makes for a crappy economy and I -hate- stupidity causing a crappy economy.

b) I absolutely do think it is far worse. Absolutely. Completely. If you change statute laws retrospectively you can effectively declare things were illegal when they were legal and arrest people for doing something that was fine at the time. It goes against the foundations of the legal system in this country and is far worse than people breaking laws.

c) The only people I know on JSA are genuinely looking for jobs and it's practically a full time job to look for jobs right now. Yes, 20 hours a week can fuck you over. Also, I'm far less worried about people receiving JSA and then spending it all than I am about people with a huge amount of money in the bank just waiting to spend it. People not spending is hurting the economy, not people on job seekers. You have fallen utterly for Tory myths and lies.

snowbear:

DJjaffacake:

Perhaps they would have an easier time getting into work if there were more actual jobs available, and employers didn't have a source of free forced labour.

Sorry but when I got made redundant a month later I had two part time jobs going, and a year after that I'm back into full time employment earning a decent salary. Maybe I'm just very lucky. Plus there's nothing stopping people from going self employed. knock on a few doors wash some windows, but no people don't want to do that because they are wrapped up nice and cosy claiming welfare. I know people that apply for jobs that they know they wont get because its easier than doing actual work for a living.

Yeah, you probably are lucky. There are six jobseekers for every vacany in the country. And no, just knocking on a few doors and washing some windows is not enough to pay for rent, food, and necessities, especially when there are plenty of professional, established window cleaners (and other self-employed people) already doing the job.

snowbear:

We did that's my point. The workers that were good enough got not only employed with a full time contract but trained as well. If others were good enough they would have got a job too, but they simply weren't.

Yes - and what do we do about those people who weren't good enough? It's all very well complaining about them, but what about solutions?

The tragic reality is that this has always been the case and always will. You can look at comments from 200 years ago and find the same chunk of people, and the same sentiments, and the same wondering what the hell we do with them (workhouses, in those days - not that they proved satisfactory).

People should be doing that anyway and just be grateful that they are given any help/money at all. And to put nothing back in the system whilst slowly bleeding it dry is disrespectful to the people paying into the system in the first place. The country isn't a bottomless pit of money and sooner or later things like JSA may disappear all together.

Considering how little unemployment welfare costs, actually the country pretty much is a bottomless pit of money. Total welfare expenditure (not including state pensions) is just over 7% GDP, and that's higher than normal during our current recessionary times. Although historically it's not actually that high: in perspective, it's less than the country was spending on welfare for almost the whole period between 1970 and 1995 (as high as 12% GDP in the '80s). Actual unemployment benefit is a small fraction of this - in fact, if twice as many people were drawing JSA as now, the welfare budget would still be under 8% (although in practice over 8% as many would also need stuff like housing benefits too).

One way or the other, a rational look at the numbers show the UK is very clearly in no risk whatsoever of being unable to cope with benefits to the unemployed. This should be obvious also from observing Europe, where numerous countries have had worse unemployment and more generous benefits systems for many years without going broke (no, I don't mean Greece, Italy etc.)

One may indeed criticise the potential ungratefulness of many unemployed. But then, given they have to cope with the being dirt-poor, receiving general societal contempt and dealing with all their many and varied other problems, I don't expect them to be particularly gracious about the world.

snowbear:
[

Money they deserve??? Hardly. If they had earnt the money then they would deserve it. As they have not earnt it then they havent earnt any compensation either. They aren't attacking the poor youre being a drama queen, they are trying to get people off their arses and back into work where they belong.

They are on jobseekers, they are legally entitled to the money that was denied them due to illegal conditions. Doesn't matter if they are 'lazy', the money was withheld when there was no legal right to do so, it should be paid back. When you sign on both you and the government enter a contract, the government broke that so should be forced to honour their side of the agreement.

And no they aren't trying to get people into proper employment, they're trying to hide them so they can spin political figures and look like they're actually fixing things (hint: a triple-dip is not fixing things). You can argue that 'any job is better than no job' all you want but frankly, it's bullshit. You forget 2 major things:

1. The jobs people are forced to do are jobs a monkey could do, there is no skill set you learn that is applicable to anything else but that job - there are zero transferable skills.

2. Why would anyone hire for these kind of bottom of the ladder jobs when they can get free workers that we pay for?

Yes make people do something more with their time but a compulsory full time placement that leaves no time to actually go get a job is counter productive and a waste of time and money. Instead focus on making sure that every person you have on the books has a decent level of competency in maths, English and ICT - all of which are essential in the modern workplace.

I'd be fine with this, IF it actually did what they pretended it did.

What a good workfare scheme would do is give the unemployed new skills, and a certificate saying they'd learnt those skills to a new level. For instance, someone who has basic office skills, get them back into an office, and then at the end of 4 weeks, they can have a signed confirmation from management that they're skilled in MS Office, telephone work, etc.

However, at present we have people shoved into shops, if they're lucky given half an hour's training and then expected to work for free for the rest of the month, getting nothing out of it.

The sad thing is I'd actively like to do work placements, gain relevant experience, and prove myself to employers, I'd happily work for a month with only my benefits and expenses covered if it meant a good chance of being taken on full time afterwards.

At present, it's just an easy way for employers to get free staff for a few weeks, then replace them with a fresh lot, and it's making unemployment worse, not better.

I'm just waiting for IDS's basement to be discovered, where he's got a family of benefit claimants he's been torturing on a daily basis for his own perverse pleasures.

On that day there'll be a bill passed that retroactively allows the torture of poor people by the rich so that he's not seen as doing anything wrong.

Just surprised they didn't change the rules on speeding so that Chris Huhne could have kept his job, and stayed out of court, but he's only a Lib Dem so I guess they didn't think it worth it.

This whole scheme was bullshit from the start. People on volunteer courses to improve their qualifications for jobs were made to stack shelves.

One little thing that always seems to get lost here, so many 'jobseekers' have recently lost their jobs, and have been paying into the system for years.

They're not getting 'free' money, they're simply claiming some of their 'national insurance' back to tide them over until they're employed again, and as such, shouldn't have to jump thru so many ridiculous hoops to prove themselves worthy.

For an example, above, the case that once you've got a job, you still need to actively seek work and waste everyone's time applying for other jobs, in case you find something that'll start that day, and only last the eight days between now and starting the job you've been offered.

Secondly, the sheer amount you have to do means people inevitably have to apply for jobs they don't want or can't get, just to be seen to be doing enough, which helps no-one except the Daily Mail/Sun readers who think anyone on benefits is lazy scum and deserves to be punished for daring to ask for seventy quid a week of their tax money back.

Lastly, (I could go on for ten pages about how much is wrong, but I won't bore you lot any further) Cait Reilly, the student who started all this was already volunteering when she was forced to quit her placement helping at a museum, which was building skills in her chosen career, to go and stack shelves at Poundland. She has since taken a job at ASDA. If you listen to IDS, the lying liar who lies for the Tory Party, she's a lazy, feckless loser who doesn't want to work (tho she was already volunteering) and who thinks she's too good to work in a supermarket (who's working in one.)

Workfare doesn't give people useful skills or training, you're simply shoved in, showed how to put a can on a shelf then made to work for free for a month or more, and if you do, but they don't think you're trying hard enough, they'll stop your money anyway. Let's also remember how many long term sick and disabled people are being put thru this shit, since ATOS 'cured' them overnight with it's magical assessments. Yes the ATOS thrown out of the US for fraudulent reports.

this is what happens when you have no "separation of powers" and an "unwritten constitution"...

snowbear:

Karma168:
Love how they are passing this law to avoid having to pay benefit claimants who deserve compensation but they aren't kicking up the same fuss over compensating train companies after they pulled out of the bidding process for a service package (which iirc will cost them a lot more than 130M)

This is typical Tory tactics of attack the people they know cant fight back, a train company is someone they cant afford to piss off as they'll spend the next year in court and spend far more and still probably lose. A jobseeker with 20 quid to their name though? Easy.

Money they deserve??? Hardly. If they had earnt the money then they would deserve it. As they have not earnt it then they havent earnt any compensation either. They aren't attacking the poor youre being a drama queen, they are trying to get people off their arses and back into work where they belong.

and you'll know the prior working lives of everyone in receipt of unemployment benefit do you ? you'll know their tax and national insurance contribution history (and can likewise see it into the future) ? for approximately 2-3 million people ?

no of course you don't -.-

it is highly doubtful you know the life story of even one of the thousands of people involved in the story reported in the OP.

the vast huge majority of "the unemployed" will only ever be transiently unemployed during an other wise "normal" working life (which btw contains an average of 4 different "careers") and over the course of which they will always pay taxes and national insurance.

this fact is undeniably proven by the vast statistical difference between "the unemployment figures" at any given time and "the long term unemployment figures" (which in the UK is officially those who have been without for work for 5 years) which are always far, far lower.

and i don't have to know or judge people to know that; it's simply as clear as day in the numbers.

if anyone is being a "drama queen" it's you because your underlying interpretation (in common with many others) relies on all approx 3 million unemployed being some kind of permanently static and unchanging group of "lazy" "scroungers" that you can point a finger at and wail "michty me!!!" about (using multiple punctuation marks no less...) rather than what they are actually are which is, in the vast majority, "normal" "everyday" people (and "taxpayers") who "in the grand scheme of things" are merely temporary "unemployed" largely due to the entirely external and poor state of the wider economic environment.

in short the "unemployment figures" that they report on the news and the like are never a static number containing the same 2-3 million people as the last time you looked (at any time) and if you don't fundamentally understand that...and that "unemployment" can befall absolutely anyone through no fault of their own...including you -.-...you have a very, very slim grasp of the subject.

you are right about one underlying concept: social security benefits are part of what we pay taxes for when we are working.

to ensure our "social security".

much like a form of insurance...

part of the system is even called "National Insurance" to reinforce this and both "Job Seekers Allowance" and the new "Employment Support Allowance" are "National Insurance" "contribution-based" payments for up to the first year of a claim.

it is therefore only right and proper that it should be duly forthcoming -.-

Sleekit:
this is what happens when you have no "separation of powers" and an "unwritten constitution"...

snowbear:

Karma168:
Love how they are passing this law to avoid having to pay benefit claimants who deserve compensation but they aren't kicking up the same fuss over compensating train companies after they pulled out of the bidding process for a service package (which iirc will cost them a lot more than 130M)

This is typical Tory tactics of attack the people they know cant fight back, a train company is someone they cant afford to piss off as they'll spend the next year in court and spend far more and still probably lose. A jobseeker with 20 quid to their name though? Easy.

Money they deserve??? Hardly. If they had earnt the money then they would deserve it. As they have not earnt it then they havent earnt any compensation either. They aren't attacking the poor youre being a drama queen, they are trying to get people off their arses and back into work where they belong.

and you'll know the prior working lives of everyone in receipt of unemployment benefit do you ? you'll know their tax and national insurance contribution history (and can like wisesee it into the future) ? for approximately 2-3 million people ?

no of course you don't -.-

it is highly doubtful you know the life story of even one of the thousands of people involved in the story reported in the OP.

the vast huge majority of "the unemployed" will only ever be transiently unemployed during an other wise "normal" working life (which btw contains an average of 4 different "careers") and over the course of which they will always pay taxes and national insurance.

this fact is fact undeniably proven by the vast statistical difference between "the unemployment figures" at any given time and "the long term unemployment figures" (which in the UK is officially those who have been without for work for 5 years) which are always far, far lower.

and i don't have to know or judge people to know that; it's simply as clear as day in the numbers.

if anyone is being a "drama queen" it's you because you're underlying interpretation (in common with many others) relies on all approx 3 million unemployed being some kind of permanently static and unchanging group of "lazy" "scroungers" that you can point a finger at and wail "michty me!!!" about (using multiple punctuation marks no less...) rather than what they are actually are which is, in the vast majority, "normal" "everyday" people (and "taxpayers") who "in the grand scheme of things" are merely temporary "unemployed" largely due to the entirely external and poor state of the wider economic environment.

in short the "unemployment figures" that they report on the news and the like are never a static number containing the same 2-3 million people as the last time you looked (at any time) and if you don't fundamentally understand that...and that "unemployment" can befall absolutely anyone through no fault of their own...including you -.-...you have a very, very slim grasp of the subject.

you are right about one underlying concept: social security benefits are part of what we pay taxes for when we are working.

to ensure our "social security".

much like a form of insurance...

part of the system is even called "National Insurance" to reinforce this and both "Job Seekers Allowance" and the new "Employment Support Allowance" are "National Insurance" "contribution-based" payments for up to the first year of a claim.

it is therefore only right and proper that it should be duly forthcoming -.-

Well said.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked