Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Saw this on the BBC Wesbite.

In a nutshell, the Government is looking into forcing long term benefit claimants to do manual labour, such as gardening and litter clearing.

Now as you might now, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to things, but I do feel that this might just be a good idea, if handled correctly. As the report says, it's aimed at flushing out the bone idle and those falsely claiming. Personally, I've wound up on the dole 3 times in my 30 years, and I can't say I'd have overly objected to having to work for it. Well, as long as when I have an interview I'm allowed to go. Seeing that caveat as a given in such a plan, but of course this might be doing the government more justice than they deserve.

So what you guys reckon? Can you see any glaring flaws in the plan? Could it have other side effects, positive or negative? I reckon that if we get some of the oiks off their arses and doing community works, we might see a greater care for their environs. After all, if you've busted a nut to clean something, you're going to care a lot more if someone seems intent on mucking it up again. At least, that's theory!

Well...

The UK has 5m people on out-of-work benefits and one of the highest rates of workless households in Europe, with 1.9m children living in homes where no-one has a job.

That would involve some serious costs. Are there places that would be set up to deal with it already? I'll have to look a bit further into the U.K.s system, but it seems a bit "damned if you do and if you don't".

There should be efforts to promote low level public service jobs instead of this relatively strange concept. I'm not saying that I think it is bad, and I often suggest that those receiving benefits should in some way support the society they are a part of. This may seem controversial, but a few hours a week volunteering locally really isn't too much to ask.

Staying busy is just better than being idle. It is a generally good idea, but definitely a tricky one to effectively put into use. Let me be clear, it really sounds as if more money will be spent forcing people to work full time, than the amount that maybe kinda could be saved. It will cost more than it makes. It will run at a loss, and I would be very surprised if that weren't the case.

These plans are based on the assumption that all the benefits agencies pool their data and can put resources into getting the long term jobless into work. They don't, cannot, and will not.

People who make false claims and who don't want to work will not be affected, really, the system is currently designed so that honesty gets you zilch. The majority of data is not checked for accuracy. You can claim benefits you are not entitled to simply by checking the correct boxes on a form.

Staff at these agencies have no interest in validating or substantiating claims.

I have been in the unhappy position of being jobless twice in my life, on both times I have been affected by and have seen shoddy dealing and mismanagement, Speaking with others in the same situation I have learnt that people who con the system repeatedly get away with it knowing that if anything happens there will always be something for them to claim.

The scroungers will watch the updates to this plan on their paid by the state plasma screen TV's with derision.

Its a good idea.

Work for your money you stinky doleys!

It would probably be easier that every time someone went in to collect their payments they were just put on a bus and taken somewhere that needed cleaning/etc, then they are paid at the end of the day.

And make it so they need to go in every day to get their benefits

In theory aren't the people supposed to be out looking for a job? It's hard to do that if you have to pick up trash 30 hours a week.

Well, yeah. But if you knew you'd have to work for your benefits, you would probably rather just get a job, as dole money is pretty gak. It's like £80 a fortnight.

The problem with the situation as it is now, is that it's treated as free money. I am a child of the Blair era - I was in my teens when he came to power, and Labour seemed to change the whole benefit culture. Everyone I knew claimed dole as soon as they turned 18. It was like a rite of passage. We thought it was a lark - we described it as free money. Even before you turn 18 you get EMA, which is basically a bribe for going to college, as if educating yourself wasn't incentive enough. There's also Income Support, Tax Credits, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Incapacity Benefit... the welfare state is a trough. It's money for nothing. In a wealthy country like the UK, there should be no excuse to sit on your arse taking money out of the pockets of your fellow man. There are jobs out there if you have the desire to work. People need to grow up and stop blaming the Credit Crunch. I get up every day a 5am and do a job I hate, just to put me through university at age 28. I didn't go when I was 18 because the system doesn't punish people for making crappy choices. There is no price for failure. I am acutely aware that my education is being partly subsidised by the tax-payer, so I work my arse off to get the best grades possible, and I take nothing for granted. It's a shame the same can't be said for the rest of my fellow students.

To many kids in my generation, sponging off the tax payer was presented as a right, and I'm sorry to say, we found it hilarious. We used it to score drugs and get pissed. I hear kids bragging about stuff like that all the time, even now. The only thing is, now it's firmly entrenched within the culture, as successive generations have followed that pattern. You now have whole families in which no-one has ever had a job.

That's vile.

You can claim dole if you're living at home with your parents (at least, you could when I was a kid, dunno if it's still like that) - so where's the incentive to move out and get a job? It shouldn't be allowed. I think the Spanish have welfare rules slightly better than us, in that you can't claim dole until you've worked for a certain length of time. We should have that, and we should make it contingent upon not being fired or quitting your job, so the only way you find yourself out of work is through no fault of your own.

We should heavily stigmatise welfare claimants - it should be something that NO-ONE wants to do. It should be a difficult, harsh existence. Hunger is a great motivator.

Albatross wrote:It's like £80 a fortnight.

Is that when the government decides every so often to declare an evening a "fortnight," where they take as many citizens as they can and go out building forts, especially against those north of Hadrian's Wall?

It's closer to £130 a fortnight.

I think Allba is possible a little more wound up by it than I am, but I do mostly agree.

What really, seriously pisses me off is when they complain that they can't afford luxuries on their benefits. Well, good quite frankly. They are a luxury for a reason you know.

Mr Mystery wrote:It's closer to £130 a fortnight.

I think Allba is possible a little more wound up by it than I am, but I do mostly agree.

What really, seriously pisses me off is when they complain that they can't afford luxuries on their benefits. Well, good quite frankly. They are a luxury for a reason you know.

Well... for 130 English dollars ever time they build a fort in the evening, they can get:

2 boxes of Daemonettes of Slaanesh.
A Greater Daemon of Slaanesh.
2 boxes of Seekers of Slaanesh.
A Soul Grinder.

That assumes a person starves to death or learns how to eat rocks.

No need to eat rocks. The eating of the sprue is a time honoured GW employee ability.

It's true.

I know in america it is stupidly easy to get placed on disability pay.

WarOne wrote:

Albatross wrote:It's like £80 a fortnight.

Is that when the government decides every so often to declare an evening a "fortnight," where they take as many citizens as they can and go out building forts, especially against those north of Hadrian's Wall?

Yes. They give you close to £130 each time.

@Mr. Mystery - Crikey! It's gone up to that much? That's mental!

Yes, I find it annoying. It doesn't keep me up at nights. It's just angers me that we spend so much on welfare in this country - it was running at £190bn a year! That's more than the nominal GDP of most countries in the world, according to the list of 190 national economies in the CIA World Factbook! Just crazy.

NO country needs to spend that much on welfare, no matter what blinkered socialists say.

As a socialist, even I see blatant abuse of the system.

But I'm pretty sure your total figure is a bit off matey.

Personally, I'm in favour of a voucher system. Rather than give them money, which can be spent on anything, the Government ensures that all the true essentials of life (water, food, shelter etc) are provided, and if you want something beyond that, you'll have to get up off your arse and work for it. Like the rest of the population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you're having genuine trouble getting into work (it can happen!) then you can go and do some work for the council to earn a little cash. And having earnt it, you can do as you wish with it. At least you're not getting it for nothing that way.

Mr Mystery wrote:As a socialist, even I see blatant abuse of the system.

AHAH! YOUR A SOCIALIST!

In England...

Which is in Europe...

Sorry. False alarm. If you were an American, then we would have a problem.

Mr Mystery wrote:As a socialist, even I see blatant abuse of the system.

Yeah, that wasn't directed at you, necessarily. That's why I said 'blinkered' socialists - tribal reds who just swallow the party line because their dad did, and HIS dad did ad nauseam. That's not to say I have even the remotest iota of respect for socialism, or the political beliefs of British socialists in particular. I just think it would be foolish to believe that all people who identify as socialist feel exactly the same about the policies of Labour.

But I'm pretty sure your total figure is a bit off matey.

Really?

London Evening Standard wrote:A single family pocketing £104,000 in housing benefit to live in London's wealthy Mayfair district was cited by George Osborne as evidence of the welfare state running out of control.

He promised a bulldozer-series of reforms to the mountainous £192 billion welfare bill, aiming to cut off payments to the better-off and those collecting needless amounts at the expense of struggling taxpayers.

Source:http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23847844-chancellor-takes-a-bulldozer-to-britains-pound-180bn-welfare-bill.do

Reuters wrote:Rejecting opposition criticism that the cuts were too severe and would hit the most vulnerable people hardest, Alexander said the 200 billion pound annual bill for unemployment payments and other benefits was too big to be ignored. "Welfare is an area that we have to look at," he said in an interview with Sky News. "Tackling the enormous deficit that Labour left us with is essential to underpinning the economic recovery. If we don't do that...then we would end up in a worse economic position.

Source:http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE68B0RQ20100912

Personally, I'm in favour of a voucher system. Rather than give them money, which can be spent on anything, the Government ensures that all the true essentials of life (water, food, shelter etc) are provided, and if you want something beyond that, you'll have to get up off your arse and work for it. Like the rest of the population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you're having genuine trouble getting into work (it can happen!) then you can go and do some work for the council to earn a little cash. And having earnt it, you can do as you wish with it. At least you're not getting it for nothing that way.

Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Alternatively, you could just make welfare recipients wear a big tabard that says:

IF YOU'RE READING THIS, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOU FEED ME.



Too much?

For some of them, not so much.

And don't worry about the top bit. Wasn't feeling tarred by your brush! Socialism to me requires the partner of social responsibility, you know, I look after the state, it looks after me type thing. Not mindless parasites.

And fair enough on the bill size!

As a stinky doley...

well long term sick am genuinely worried by what I am hearing.

There are definitely people who are genuine and the people taking the pee.
The latter will as stated continue to work the system and genuine people get stitched over. Just a hunch.

The thing that concerns me is that this is all taking place at a time of swingeing government cutbacks.
People are going to be made unemployed, then asked to do a job or lose benefits. This seems like crazy thinking but what can one expect of a Tory. They already had a job till you pillocks took it away

For the record I already volunteer and try to give something back. It isn't enough , but I cannot always manage the few hours I give.
Anyway
this time next year it will be the Almshouse for poor wretches such as like likes of me Guv'na, lawkes a lummee!

But why should you just be allowed money for literally nothing? Why shouldn't it be in exchange for work?

Joking apart, this is exactly the mindset that needs to go. Benefiits for a start are misnamed. Why should anyone benefit from being unemployed? I work for a living, because it makes me money, which I can then go spend. Why should there be the option of not working, yet still making money? What would be different between my full time wage, and being asked to do some work for Jobseekers money? I see none, other than a bizarre expectance that benefits require nothing from the recipient.

And if your out due to injury or illness, you get a different set of allowances do you not?

It's mental isn't it? To think that we have to make defence cuts in a time when the UK is at war, and the decisions taken could cost lives... And we're spending THAT much on people who just want to leech?

When I see chavs loafing about drinking cans of Stella at 11am, I just want to scream at them. Selfish fething losers. They are a blight on our country.

Mr Mystery wrote: Socialism to me requires the partner of social responsibility, you know, I look after the state, it looks after me type thing. Not mindless parasites.

This, essentially, is how it should work.
Anyway, I think that if this is handled correctly (which, given the inevitable screw-ups that various governments make regularly, it won't be) it could be a good idea. The people who want to work get to work and the people that don't have to anyway.

Bad Idea. it sounds good, but so does communism. Soon you'll have people being serfs or being forced to work for pennies on the pound. You'd just end up with poor people and minorities who can't find a real job, so for forced to work this BS because nobody will hire them.

Make them wear "wellfare clothes" and give them food stamps for Asda that cant be spent on booze or fags or scratchcards. Absolutely ZERO hard cash should end up in their hands.

Seriously. My system is flawless.

Issue them a "clothing allowance" they can spend at government places for the essentials. Shirts, pants, socs, underwear, they issue you it all when you join the army, same principal. The central govt could buy 100,000 T-shirts off Mike Ashley for about 50 grand.

If you took away their ability to get booze, fags, designer clothes and gambling, they would soon get back to work.

And if you provide them with food, medical care, clothing etc.. then you are surely not neglecting them?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:As a stinky doley...

well long term sick am genuinely worried by what I am hearing.

Well, if you're genuinely sick then why should you be worried? No-one's complaining about ill people leeching off the system. Can you work? If the answer is 'no', then I have absolutely zero problem with you claiming state assistance, nor should anyone. I think as a civilised country, we should provide a baseline of care for our most vulnerable citizens - I am a firm supporter of the NHS for example, although I would like to see reform. You should be as angry as anyone about it, Chibi. The drunks, smackheads and spongers who falsely claim Incapacity are spoiling it for people like you who the system is intended to help.

The thing that concerns me is that this is all taking place at a time of swingeing government cutbacks.
People are going to be made unemployed, then asked to do a job or lose benefits. This seems like crazy thinking but what can one expect of a Tory. They already had a job till you pillocks took it away

Mate, that's Labour logic. The jobs you're talking about should never have been created, we can't afford to sustain a public sector as big as ours is. That's WHY we have to make cuts.

To draw a crude analogy - coming off heroin is a painful and difficult process for junkies. If they hadn't got themselves addicted to smack in the first place they could have avoided that pain and difficulty. The public sector is a junkie blaming the people trying to rehabilitate it.

Defence cuts will also put more people out of work.
This will filter through the system as well.

So you are saying that it is good to make people work when there are jobs being axed?

That makes less sense.
I agree, there are some who just leech. These proposals won't affect them, but will potentially impact on those the the government is making redundant. If there is a recession there will be people still unable to find work in 6-12 months time. That puts hard working people in the "Stonky Doley" long term unemployed category.
They will then be expected to do a menial job instead of the one they were doing

Genuine people will already be doing what they can. My concern is they will be hit hardest.
TBH I don't totally disagree. Something needs to be done.
It is the wrong method at the wrong time imho

Again for the record, I don't have any tv let alone a plasma screen. Anyone who is on the rock and roll but not concerned about basics ie rent, heating, food and clothing is very possibly screwing the system over or I'm doing something very wrong.

PS don't drink, smoke, do drugs, go whoring or gamble.
no car either. Clothes are non label generic types.

sexiest_hero wrote:Bad Idea. it sounds good, but so does communism. Soon you'll have people being serfs or being forced to work for pennies on the pound. You'd just end up with poor people and minorities who can't find a real job, so for forced to work this BS because nobody will hire them.

In Britain, we have a minimum legal wage. Set the benefits work to that (£5.95 an hour now for over 25s I believe) and bingo, no more 'indentured labour'.

Indeed, the Government is then merely guaranteeing your income.... And how can anyone find fault in that?

mattyrm wrote:Make them wear "wellfare clothes" and give them food stamps for Asda that cant be spent on booze or fags or scratchcards. Absolutely ZERO hard cash should end up in their hands

The problem with stamps is that you quickly get a black market. Otherwise I would agree with you on welfare stamps/government shops etc.

Edit: although some kind of "chip and pin" system might help here - no idea.

sexiest_hero wrote:Bad Idea. it sounds good, but so does communism. Soon you'll have people being serfs or being forced to work for pennies on the pound. You'd just end up with poor people and minorities who can't find a real job, so for forced to work this BS because nobody will hire them.

Fair point, actually. The big problem with this, in my view, is that it may well end up punishing the people who genuinely cannot find a job, and have been looking. How do we draw the distinction between them and the minority of "spongers" who are causing the problem?

EDIT: Also, I believe someone pointed this out earlier, but minimum wage laws would have to apply to this work if it took place.

Albie
It isn't just Labour
The rise in adminstrators was instigated in the Thatcher era.

As for the stamps etc
To be out of work for long periods is bad enough. Again people who have genuine cause to be unable to find work will become further stigmatised.
It's a crackpot idea with zero merit.
Will just ctreate another layer of beaurocracy to administer for no real purpose but to humiliate good people.

signing off from this thread as it bodes ill for anyone in my position.
You would be condemning a lot of innocent people to unwarranted poverty and misery.
Good fun for you to take the piss out of people less fortunate than yourselves I suppose but I come to expect no less from such a rabid, egotistical bunch of uncaring crudmunchers.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:Bad Idea. it sounds good, but so does communism. Soon you'll have people being serfs or being forced to work for pennies on the pound. You'd just end up with poor people and minorities who can't find a real job, so for forced to work this BS because nobody will hire them.

Fair point, actually. The big problem with this, in my view, is that it may well end up punishing the people who genuinely cannot find a job, and have been looking. How do we draw the distinction between them and the minority of "spongers" who are causing the problem?

The people genuinely wanting work wouldn't bat an eyelid. As I said before, I'm happiest when I'm working. Gets me out the house, gives me something to do.

Indeed, I couldn't help but be suspicious of someone trying to get out of this should it come into force.