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.

 dæl wrote:

 Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

 Ribon Fox wrote:
Ordinarily I don't like a single thing that drips from Mr Ken Livingstone's But this time i do agree... dear god what have I become?

He's still being a wee bit hypocritical, though. I mean, even if Thatcher's government started the downfall as he sees it, Labour hardly stepped in and fixed these problems.
Perhaps that's what he's alluding to when he claims Labour need to step away from "Thatcherite" policies.

I think his best point is the comparison between Attlee and Thatcher. Attlee was a quiet man who got gak done, he sorted out the economy and set up the NHS and welfare state, everything was about the country while he took a back seat and acted like a chairman rather than a president.

At the time Atlee hadnt needed to contend with a burdgeoning NHS and the welfare state as he implemented them. His nationalisation of the industries although profitable initially began to collapse by the mid 70s during the militant unions and mounting inflation. It ended up contributing to the problems faced by the Governments at the time. Had previous governments initiated reforms and stood up to the unions earlier, then the miners strikes and mass closure of the mines of the 80s might have been avoided or much less prevalent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I don't understand? Why is it not comforting to know noone will ever go hungry?

Until inflation kicks in fr all the extra money that would need to be printed to follow up on this plan.

 Eetion wrote:

At the time Atlee hadnt needed to contend with a burdgeoning NHS and the welfare state as he implemented them. His nationalisation of the industries although profitable initially began to collapse by the mid 70s during the militant unions and mounting inflation. It ended up contributing to the problems faced by the Governments at the time. Had previous governments initiated reforms and stood up to the unions earlier, then the miners strikes and mass closure of the mines of the 80s might have been avoided or much less prevalent.

Attlee also didn't have massive oil revenues and had to pick the country up after a global war, I know which situation I would prefer to preside over.

Why would there need to be an influx of new capital? There is more than enough in the system currently (a lot of which doesn't actually exist on paper, but that's for another topic)

To pay everyone 10'000 for doing nothing? more would be needed and taxes raised. Paper finances would need to be printed, thus inflation increases,

Again, there is ample cash within the system already. Costings have been made on a partial citizens income and it comes to less than the current welfare bill. http://www.citizensincome.org/FAQs.htm

Why should hard working people constantly hand out for those that wont work.

Because the alternative is worse, vast increases in crime, homelessness and other undesirable factors. Taxes are essentially a levy paid for upkeep of the society you live in. I would rather live in a society with less crime and as few tramps hassling me for 20p as possible, if that means paying higher taxes then so be it. Also, the state not paying for such things often ends up with them costing more, look at the health costs in the States compared to elsewhere.

Didnt say those that are looking for jobs, those that actively wont work, satisfied with the benefits culture, i dont have the figures and its too late for me to find them, but id wager that majority of petty crime is not performed by those actively looking for or in jobs.

Which is the system we have currently. I'm not sure what you're getting at about the petty crime, removing any income from those people certainly won't reduce the petty crime.

Nope, just a job title change... serious manpower would be needed to direct the volunteers, if anything, it would open up more jobs, as its soeone needs to instruct how to operate machinery, organise and direct and instruct volunteers etc. There are too many areas of urban degeneration and too few finances and manpower to maintain them.

It's not a job title change, its a job change, which means the original job is available for someone to earn a wage for.

http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/news.aspx?id=801b809e-84a6-415f-9b41-42065d63c945
Seems to be that an appropriate value is the only drawback, some running oput towards the end of the month, but then how is that different from cash other than it cant be frittered What is it thats considered the major issue?

America has 20 million children living in a state of food insecurity http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/04/03/hunger-figures-show-massive-failure-of-food-stamps-or-fishy-statistics/
In Australia the food stamp scheme costs up to $4,500 per person to implement. http://australia.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/Australian-Welfare-Payments-go-Plastic-1265.php
You also have issues with fraud with stores only accepting stamps at 50% of their worth, then being disqualified, after which that person cannot get food, certainly in more rural areas.

 dæl wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

That's not exactly comforting.

I don't understand? Why is it not comforting to know noone will ever go hungry?

It's not comforting because per your statement, young people saw a significant decrease in productivity. Hardly a ringing endorsement, and not even remotely surprising.

There were also massive reductions in domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and road accidents. A similar scheme is being trialled currently in Namibia too. But, as I said, utopian, it's not going to happen for decades at the very least.

I hope it never happens at all, to be honest. In fact, I'd take up arms to stop it.

You would take up arms, and I assume kill people, to stop a system which treats everyone equally?

It doesn't treat people equally. If you can't figure out why, go away and have a think about it. If you still don't know, I'll explain it.

You are reaching now, I expressly said I have no issues with how high the top wages go, only that the lowest reach a liveable level. Don't make the assumption that everyone only cares about themselves, people are capable of empathy. A study found in fact that those people more inclined to hate often sit on the right side of politics, not the left.

Really? The pictures coming from Glasgow and Brixton say different. Also, my point was that you (and others on the left) seem to be of the opinion that the only way to help the lowest reach a liveable level is to take away money that other people have earned honestly, and at a much higher rate if those people happen to be earning more, because, well, feth 'em. They're rich. That's what I'm hearing a lot of these days. It's ugly sans-culotes nonsense.

Also please don't treat me as some spokesman for the left, I claim to be no such thing and have treated you as an individual. Please extend me the same respect.

Fair enough, but presumably you'll forgive me if constantly being painted as some sort of psycopathic ultra right-wing baby-eater by every lefty that crosses my path leads me to basically just say 'feth your feelings'. It's about time we started coming out of our closets and fighting back. We don't have to take the crap that's slung at us lying down, and I never will. I fight. Hard. You have no idea what the cost of being right-wing in the UK is at the moment. I get abuse literally everyday, sometimes from family members, but d'you know what? I know we're in the right and that gives me strength to just get on with it. So suck it up. I'm 'robust'.

£500m is far from incredibly expensive, especially when you consider the billions frittered away by Labour on the failed NHS IT system.

So I am throwing money at a problem, until I show otherwise, and then money isn't an issue?

Sorry, have you shown that having a doctor, carer and civil servant present at every DWP health assessment would be cheaper than £500m? I feel like I would have remembered that.

Reduction of spending doesn't seem such a motivation when it comes to pensions though does it? Pensions came to £74.2bn last year, while DLA came to £12.6bn.

Apples and oranges.

Yes, where the apple costs 6 times the orange, but the orange is the thing we can't afford for the fruit bowl.

No, not quite. The apple is the thing that everyone pays into via National Insurance, that guarantees an income upon retirement for those same people and for which we have an unlimited liability, which will only increase as the population ages AND grows. The other is an orange.

It's not a silly idea at all. Some people don't deserve welfare. It's a fact.

So they starve on the streets or turn to crime, how does that help society?

There's a third option.

Which is?

Work!

The OECD have shown that Britain has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world, and no offence, but I trust their finding more than anecdotal evidence. If we using anecdotes though I know (as I am sure you do too) of many people who have worked their backsides off for years and never even reached the 40% tax bracket. This "master of your own fate" stuff is not helpful or realistic in making social policy.

Neither is relying exclusively on quantitative analysis whilst rejecting the qualitative. Again, I can come back and explain that in more detail but I'd rather not do so here, as this is turning into a wall o' text.

The voluntary sector isn't that large, there's what 2 million unemployed currently.

The voluntary sector contributes an estimated £23.1bn to the UK economy, also, 'The voluntary sector paid workforce is roughly the same size as the number employed in restaurant and catering in the UK (around 770,000).'
Source: http://data.ncvo-vol.org.uk/almanac/voluntary-sector/finance-the-big-picture/how-big-is-the-voluntary-sector-compared-to-the-rest-of-the-economy/

I'd be interested to learn the ratio of unpaid volunteers to paid staff working for voluntary organisations, but in any case, it would probably produce significant efficiencies to set up new voluntary organisations to fulfill the roles of some public services, utilising people on benefits instead of full-time paid workers.

I'm in favour of a flexible labour market, but yeah, why wouldn't anyone want everyone who is able to work, to do so?

I would love such a situation, but it is unrealistic. There aren't 40million jobs in Britain.

You didn't ask me if it was realistic, you asked me if it was desirable.

 Eetion wrote:
Why should hard working people constantly hand out for those that wont work.

I beg your pardon? I won't work? Who do you think you are, sunshine? I'll have you know my volunteering is almost literally a part-time job! And don't give me that "you're not the type of jobless I was talking about" rubbish. Your grand plans for benefit reform affect all of us unemployed, so when you say things like "won't work" you are talking about me. If you're not, then how will my benefits be treated differently to those who "won't work"? If they won't be treated differently, then how do you justify basing these reforms on people not wanting to work when you're also rolling it out to affect those of us who do want to work?

I hate to pick on you, because practically everybody on your side of the debate has had the same attitude, so you can all consider that an open question.

 Eetion wrote:
Why should hard working people constantly hand out for those that wont work.

Alternative response!

You don't. The government pays me my benefits. Yes, I know where the government gets its money from. Thing is, it would still be taking that money from you even if it wasn't spending an infinitesimal portion of it on benefits. You think your taxes would be lower if the unemployed weren't getting benefits? Don't make me laugh!

Honestly, this whole "taxpayer" this and "taxpayer" that talk is utterly obnoxious. The way people talk about "handing out cash" - especially to immigrants! - you'd think that government officials knock on their door every other night, making them come down to the front door in their nightgown, all bleary eyed, and demand they hand over a fiver.

My benefits do not affect you. They don't affect any of you, so please drop the whole suffering martyr routine. I am not thankful to you for providing the taxes that pay my benefits, because you would have had to pay those taxes anyway, and I am not thankful to the government, because this is what they're here from. When I manage to get back into full-time employment, I certainly won't demand thanks or praise either. Hey, and if any of you want to enjoy the good life like me, feel free to quit or lose your jobs. Join the party! Being unemployed is super fun.

(Once again, sorry for picking on you in particular Eetion. That post was just such a good "best of" regarding the other side of the argument that I just had to quote you!)

 Eetion wrote:
I am also in favor of working for benefits, But not nesaceily for charities, but projects that benefit the community as a whole. Urban Regeneration projects, cleaning parks, fresh paint, cleaning graffitti, cleaning streets after public events like football matches, maintainence of school fields and childrens play areas on weekends.

Once again, if there are jobs out there to be done, that people can be paid for, let everyone apply for them.

 Eetion wrote:
Id also advocate the benefits system being a minimal cash sum, but should be lkargely in the form of 'vouchers'for food (not alcohol of cigarettes) utililities (gas, electric, water) travel (bus/public transport) basicly the benefits system is used to provide food and essentials for living but cannot be abused with unesssacery luxuries.

Toileteries, such as soap, shampoo, deodorant, face wash (yeah, not a luxury - even delicate soap is actually too harsh for those of us with sensitive skin), toilet paper? Replacements for non-consumable toileteries, such as hairbrushes and toothbrushes? Light bulbs? Replacing worn out clothes? Kitchen roll? Washing up liquid? Laundry detergent? Replacement cleaning materials, such as sponges and cloths? Phone bills? Haircuts? Dozens of other things that don't immediately come to mind?

None of these things are necessary, and I'm guessing they wouldn't be covered by vouchers (except possibly the toileteries). Vouchers are a solution born of begrudgement. It's basically "ugh, I suppose I can't let these people die, here's the absolute minimum you need to live". Not to mention the fact that they're supposed to be short-term, whereas unemployment can be long-term. Benefits are about helping people to get back on track. I lived for a month or two on the absolute bare minimum (hadn't applied for benefits, because I thought it would just be a short stint in unemployment). It was utterly demoralising and not conducive to finding a job at all. Not unless someone was looking to employ a shaggy, unkempt, miserable and de-energised caveman impersonator.

What does it matter to any of you about people "frittering" their benefits away? They can't get any more than they're offered. I'm guessing it's just a veiled way to say we get too much in benefits, right? Well, here's a story to make your blood boil! Due to some unforeseen expenditures, I was really short on cash one month. Every pound counted. There was also this film I'd been dying to see, but the closest place showing it was an entire train ride away! Expensive stuff, right? I went and saw the film. I don't even remember how I survived the rest of that month, nor what I needed the money for so badly (probably bills), but what I do remember is watching that film. I felt completely alive and revitalised. I felt like a person again. Even today, it makes me smile that I had that little light in the darkness. It's little moments like that that helped me through. How I survive should be down to me, because I know what I need and when I need it.

PS: Although not a smoker myself, forcing a smoker off of cigarettes would have a deleterious effect on their mental health. They are, you know, literally addictive.

 Pumpkin wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 dæl wrote:

I'd make them earn their benefits, though not quite in the way that the current government is doing. I'd make them volunteer an equivalent number of hours in minimum wage to the amount they receive. If you want to take, you must give back to society in some other way. No-one, not even disabled people (unless they are utterly incapacitated) should be allowed to receive money for nothing. Or chicks for free.

Which reduces the amount of work available for anyone looking for a paid job, as can be seen currently.

Nope. I'd make them work in the voluntary sector.

Sorry, but the "forced work" malarkey is a honking load of shash for a number of reasons. Starting with your voluntary idea...

I wasn't going to bother replying to you because I seem to have addressed some of the issues you raise here in my replies to the other guy, but since you think you're so clever, I thought I'd do you the honour. Hey, just think! You could print out a screen-grab of me bothering to reply to you and put in your CV! Here's goes:

First off, there are plenty of charities that would tell you where to shove your forced "volunteering". Oxfam, where I volunteer, refuses to accept "volunteers" from work scheme placements, because it's against their ethics. I think my local British Heart Foundation shop might be down with the scheme, but don't take my word for it.

I made no mention of charities. That's all you, star. What I will say is this: in the private school for Autistic and Dyslexic children where I volunteer in my spare time, they would take you and 5 of your mates tomorrow. In fact, I hear that many schools now only take TAs on an initial voluntary basis, though I can't vouch for the veracity of that. In any case, as someone else has already rightly pointed out, there are a variety of different areas in which one could volunteer.

Now, as we'll have to come crawling back to the private or public sectors, let's just recap the reasons we're all aware of (including you, it seems) regarding why, exactly, it is a honking load of shash.

Woah there, sweetheart. When talking out of one's backside, don't expect others to engage in conversation with it. I don't agree that we have to come crawling back to the private sector. Indeed, I'd sooner see new voluntary organisations set up (which the government has done, in fairness), than farm people out to private companies, not because its a bad idea, but because its a bad political move at this time. It opened up the coalition to unneccesary criticism and hilarious accusations of 'slavery' by nose-ring wearers. It's not slavery, it's work experience for people who might not have it. You can leave.

If you get a fething job.

Maybe I'm not a vengeance-fuelled, hate-filled monster, but when I hear sensationalist headlines like "feckless scroungers get more than hard-working employees", my initial thought isn't "those fiends! throw them onto the streets!", it's "how in the hell can low-wage employees be getting treated so badly in this day and age?". But, because it's easier to punish than render assistance

Nope, wrong again. It's much, much easier to render 'assistance' (money, basically). Politically, anyway. How do you think Labour stayed in for 13 years? Spend, spend, spend.

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/atos-tell-woman-with-mental-age-of-3-yrs-to-get-a-job-not-satire-please-share/

This seems highly inappropriate.

Fahmeena is 30 years old. She can’t walk or talk and has an estimated mental age of about 3 years old.

She likes to be called Princess Meena. Here she is:



ATOS – in their wisdom – have assessed her and have decided that Princess Meena doesn’t need any benefits and she should go and get a job instead.

So Meena’s sister – Farzana – has decided to turn to social media to ask for ideas about what job she could do.

Here’s some information to help you with ideas for work for Meena:

Meena has Profound Multiple Learning Disabilities (PMLD), brain damage, Cerebral Palsy, can’t talk, can’t walk, has a mental age of 3, is incontinent and likes wearing pink and Minnie the Mouse headbands as well as making gak bombs.

If you have any ideas for jobs that Meena can do, you can post your ideas under the hashtag #JobsforMeena on Twitter.

Presumably Princess Meena is an example of one of the myriad ’scroungers’ unfairly claiming disability benefits we hear so much about.

Not a word of this is satire I can assure you, but I’m sure many people will have the same question as I have.

What have we become in this once great country that we turn our backs on people like Meena?

Aww. That's a shame. Genuinely. Thing is, Atos didn't decide not to allow her to live on benefits, it was the DWP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?

Uh, so ATOS said that she shouldn't be on benefits. The DWP removed them from her. How does that make either party less amoral? 0.o

 Albatross wrote:

@Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?

Wait were you deliberately trying to be insulting there? That speaks a ways towards your stance on unemployment...

 Albatross wrote:

It's not comforting because per your statement, young people saw a significant decrease in productivity. Hardly a ringing endorsement, and not even remotely surprising.

The reduction in young people lead to higher levels of graduates due to no immediate financial pressures.

It doesn't treat people equally. If you can't figure out why, go away and have a think about it. If you still don't know, I'll explain it.

Universal benefit, single flat rate of income tax. I don't see any inequality. Please explain.

Really? The pictures coming from Glasgow and Brixton say different. Also, my point was that you (and others on the left) seem to be of the opinion that the only way to help the lowest reach a liveable level is to take away money that other people have earned honestly, and at a much higher rate if those people happen to be earning more, because, well, feth 'em. They're rich. That's what I'm hearing a lot of these days. It's ugly sans-culotes nonsense.

Nope, I couldn't care less about the rich, I would make sure people were paid a living wage and that corporations paid their fething taxes. The real welfare spending in this country goes to businesses (often multi-nationals), not individuals.

There's a third option.

Which is?

Work!

Assuming there is an available job immediately, if not then the person is stuffed.

The OECD have shown that Britain has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world, and no offence, but I trust their finding more than anecdotal evidence. If we using anecdotes though I know (as I am sure you do too) of many people who have worked their backsides off for years and never even reached the 40% tax bracket. This "master of your own fate" stuff is not helpful or realistic in making social policy.

Neither is relying exclusively on quantitative analysis whilst rejecting the qualitative. Again, I can come back and explain that in more detail but I'd rather not do so here, as this is turning into a wall o' text.

Every single academic analysis I've seen has shown that social mobility is getting worse and is one of the worst in the developed world, lots of forms of data are used, quantitative, qualitative and meta analysis. It always ends up with the same conclusion. I'm not refuting you knowing people who have done well for themselves, just positing that there may be some conformation bias in how you think about social mobility.

I'm in favour of a flexible labour market, but yeah, why wouldn't anyone want everyone who is able to work, to do so?

I would love such a situation, but it is unrealistic. There aren't 40million jobs in Britain.

You didn't ask me if it was realistic, you asked me if it was desirable.

You sure?

I'm more interested in your opinion on it's possibility than it's desirability.

 Albatross wrote:
I made no mention of charities. That's all you, star. What I will say is this: in the private school for Autistic and Dyslexic children where I volunteer in my spare time, they would take you and 5 of your mates tomorrow. In fact, I hear that many schools now only take TAs on an initial voluntary basis, though I can't vouch for the veracity of that. In any case, as someone else has already rightly pointed out, there are a variety of different areas in which one could volunteer.

And yet my original point stands: there's not even close to enough places in any organisation that isn't a profit-making one.

 Albatross wrote:

Woah there, sweetheart. When talking out of one's backside, don't expect others to engage in conversation with it. I don't agree that we have to come crawling back to the private sector. Indeed, I'd sooner see new voluntary organisations set up (which the government has done, in fairness), than farm people out to private companies, not because its a bad idea, but because its a bad political move at this time. It opened up the coalition to unneccesary criticism and hilarious accusations of 'slavery' by nose-ring wearers. It's not slavery, it's work experience for people who might not have it. You can leave.

If you get a fething job.

How convenient that you side-stepped the reasons I gave for it being a bad idea.

Even in terms of the government setting up new "voluntary" organisations for people on benefits, if there's work to be done, why ring-fence it? It should be open to all of us to apply for.

 Albatross wrote:
Aww. That's a shame. Genuinely. Thing is, Atos didn't decide not to allow her to live on benefits, it was the DWP.

I'm not sure it's a shame, it's certainly an outrageous treatment of the most utterly vulnerable in our society, someone that should be protected by our state and it's support mechanisms.

Are you not angered by this as I am? Also, don't ATOS assess the suitability for work? Why is this the DWP's stupidity rather than theirs?

 Albatross wrote:
Aww. That's a shame. Genuinely. Thing is, Atos didn't decide not to allow her to live on benefits, it was the DWP.

Based on nothing but Atos's assessment. That's how the system's set up. Atos knew full well what would happen to her, whereas the DWP weren't aware of the extent of her disabilities.

 Albatross wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?

Was there a particular point in your life where you turned into a seething, condescending jackanapes with poor social skills, or have you always been an awful person?

I've always been interested in the nature/nurture debate. Perhaps we could make a new topic of it!

 dæl wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

It's not comforting because per your statement, young people saw a significant decrease in productivity. Hardly a ringing endorsement, and not even remotely surprising.

The reduction in young people lead to higher levels of graduates due to no immediate financial pressures.

Under the system we have now, poorer people have (or can expect) a roughly similar level of income when studying at university. I should know I was one of them etc.

It doesn't treat people equally. If you can't figure out why, go away and have a think about it. If you still don't know, I'll explain it.

Universal benefit, single flat rate of income tax. I don't see any inequality. Please explain.

One group of people is paying for it out of money they have earned, another is not. Also, poor people will still be comparatively poor, you've just moved the baseline. Still not equal.

Really? The pictures coming from Glasgow and Brixton say different. Also, my point was that you (and others on the left) seem to be of the opinion that the only way to help the lowest reach a liveable level is to take away money that other people have earned honestly, and at a much higher rate if those people happen to be earning more, because, well, feth 'em. They're rich. That's what I'm hearing a lot of these days. It's ugly sans-culotes nonsense.

Nope, I couldn't care less about the rich, I would make sure people were paid a living wage and that corporations paid their fething taxes. The real welfare spending in this country goes to businesses (often multi-nationals), not individuals.

That's rhetoric. And I'm not even sure it's true that tax evasion costs more than the welfare state. Even if it did, corporations paying their taxes is a separate issue to welfare reform. I thought you weren't going in for the whole Robin Hood bit? In any case, I've yet to hear a government minister argue that corporations should avoid paying tax.

The OECD have shown that Britain has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world, and no offence, but I trust their finding more than anecdotal evidence. If we using anecdotes though I know (as I am sure you do too) of many people who have worked their backsides off for years and never even reached the 40% tax bracket. This "master of your own fate" stuff is not helpful or realistic in making social policy.

Neither is relying exclusively on quantitative analysis whilst rejecting the qualitative. Again, I can come back and explain that in more detail but I'd rather not do so here, as this is turning into a wall o' text.

Every single academic analysis I've seen has shown that social mobility is getting worse and is one of the worst in the developed world, lots of forms of data are used, quantitative, qualitative and meta analysis. It always ends up with the same conclusion. I'm not refuting you knowing people who have done well for themselves, just positing that there may be some conformation bias in how you think about social mobility.

For your consideration: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/socialmobilitydelusions2012.pdf

I'm in favour of a flexible labour market, but yeah, why wouldn't anyone want everyone who is able to work, to do so?

I would love such a situation, but it is unrealistic. There aren't 40million jobs in Britain.

You didn't ask me if it was realistic, you asked me if it was desirable.

You sure?

I'm more interested in your opinion on it's possibility than it's desirability.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Aww. That's a shame. Genuinely. Thing is, Atos didn't decide not to allow her to live on benefits, it was the DWP.

I'm not sure it's a shame, it's certainly an outrageous treatment of the most utterly vulnerable in our society, someone that should be protected by our state and it's support mechanisms.

Are you not angered by this as I am? Also, don't ATOS assess the suitability for work? Why is this the DWP's stupidity rather than theirs?

Atos have a computer based questionnaire where they mark the claimant a number between 0 and 15 based on their ability to perform tasks, but they ask in convoluted ways. "How did you get here today?" for example, if you say bus, they mark you for being able to walk to the bus, stand waiting, interact with the driver etc. Their scores are then sent to the DWP who take them as gospel. My friend has a changeable condition which they said varies several times, no mention of this on the report, only their capabilities on a perfect day. They also refused to talk about mental illness when it was brought up, which is really quite shocking, to me anyway. Although I have only been in one assessment, so can't speak for every case.

 Pumpkin wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I made no mention of charities. That's all you, star. What I will say is this: in the private school for Autistic and Dyslexic children where I volunteer in my spare time, they would take you and 5 of your mates tomorrow. In fact, I hear that many schools now only take TAs on an initial voluntary basis, though I can't vouch for the veracity of that. In any case, as someone else has already rightly pointed out, there are a variety of different areas in which one could volunteer.

And yet my original point stands: there's not even close to enough places in any organisation that isn't a profit-making one.

Based on?

 Albatross wrote:

Woah there, sweetheart. When talking out of one's backside, don't expect others to engage in conversation with it. I don't agree that we have to come crawling back to the private sector. Indeed, I'd sooner see new voluntary organisations set up (which the government has done, in fairness), than farm people out to private companies, not because its a bad idea, but because its a bad political move at this time. It opened up the coalition to unneccesary criticism and hilarious accusations of 'slavery' by nose-ring wearers. It's not slavery, it's work experience for people who might not have it. You can leave.

If you get a fething job.

How convenient that you side-stepped the reasons I gave for it being a bad idea.

Even in terms of the government setting up new "voluntary" organisations for people on benefits, if there's work to be done, why ring-fence it? It should be open to all of us to apply for.

Why?

 Pumpkin wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?

Was there a particular point in your life where you turned into a seething, condescending jackanapes with poor social skills, or have you always been an awful person?

I've always been interested in the nature/nurture debate. Perhaps we could make a new topic of it!

There's no need for that, at all.

 Pumpkin wrote:

@Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?

Was there a particular point in your life where you turned into a seething, condescending jackanapes with poor social skills, or have you always been an awful person?

If it makes you feel any better, I'm exactly the same in real life.

And I was being serious.

If people on benefits do work for their benefits, something I am entirely in favor of, applied appropriate to their skills and capabilities, then it should be work for the state, for the benefit of the people who's taxes are going into supporting them, not the private sector. Even clearing public lands and working on park upkeep and renovation and improvement of publicly owned sites and resources.

I saw this gak with the new deal temporary work placements back in the late 90s, they had to offer the worker a job at the end of the 6month placement or turn them lose and there were plenty of businesses just churning over 6month free labor at the tax payers expense. That is a failure. That is the equivalent of government propping up private industry.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Aww. That's a shame. Genuinely. Thing is, Atos didn't decide not to allow her to live on benefits, it was the DWP.

I'm not sure it's a shame, it's certainly an outrageous treatment of the most utterly vulnerable in our society, someone that should be protected by our state and it's support mechanisms.

Absolutely. It's shocking. Apologies if I appeared flippant initially, but, well, I am quite flippant. Also, shallow emotional affect. I genuinely can't help it.

Are you not angered by this as I am? Also, don't ATOS assess the suitability for work? Why is this the DWP's stupidity rather than theirs?

Yeah, it sucks I suppose. I don't really know how to feel about it though, because it's clearly propaganda. The fact that they incorrectly stated that Atos decided she couldn't have benefits, when the final decision is made by the DWP instantly set my alarm-bells ringing. Has this story been fact-checked?

Incidentally, I'm inclined to blame the DWP because it was probably some civil servant there who awarded it to a French IT outsourcing company instead of say... BUPA. Incidentally, I came close to applying for both the DWP and Atos's graduate scheme. Certainy fething glad I didn't now! Apparently I'm already a terrible person!

 Albatross wrote:

 Pumpkin wrote:

@Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?

Was there a particular point in your life where you turned into a seething, condescending jackanapes with poor social skills, or have you always been an awful person?

If it makes you feel any better, I'm exactly the same in real life.

And I was being serious.

Albatross you insulted Pumpkin and are now acting unashamed about it. Here's an easy link to this forum's posting rules, the first of which is to be polite.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
If people on benefits do work for their benefits, something I am entirely in favor of, applied appropriate to their skills and capabilities, then it should be work for the state, for the benefit of the people who's taxes are going into supporting them, not the private sector. Even clearing public lands and working on park upkeep and renovation and improvement of publicly owned sites and resources.

Yeppers! Take something from society, give something back... to Tesco!? It's just an open goal for critics of the government. Dave's had gak communications and strategic advice, in my opinion. I've been saying this for about a year. Boris' team is FAR superior. They've turned the guy into a rock star.

I saw this gak with the new deal temporary work placements back in the late 90s, they had to offer the worker a job at the end of the 6month placement or turn them lose and there were plenty of businesses just churning over 6month free labor at the tax payers expense. That is a failure. That is the equivalent of government propping up private industry.

Yep, same. I was just entering the workforce at around the time of New Deal for Musicians. Basically meant I didn't have to even look for a job and could continue pissing around in a band.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Pumpkin wrote:

@Pumpkin - PM me your location and a brief outline of your skills and I will find you a job by this time tomorrow. You up for it?

Was there a particular point in your life where you turned into a seething, condescending jackanapes with poor social skills, or have you always been an awful person?

If it makes you feel any better, I'm exactly the same in real life.

And I was being serious.

Albatross you insulted Pumpkin and are now acting unashamed about it. Here's an easy link to this forum's posting rules, the first of which is to be polite.

Sorry, are you a Mod now? Have you sent Pumpkin the same post? Or is it just that you agree with him and not me?

Bore off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait, where did I even insult him?

"Britain does not have a serious ‘social mobility problem’, but it does have a serious ‘underclass problem.’" (6). Albatross, I read a bit of your social mobility article but how does this quote disprove that there isn't a social mobility problem if underclass children are having there life chances

blighted how is that not a social mobility problem?

You inferred that you someone knew more about their life than them. That Pumpkin was apparently too lazy to go out and find a job, despite having stated that they had been looking one. You could go into their environment and find a job for them no problem. Its quite insulting to be unemployed and for someone who has one to turn up and say that its your fault for not being able to find one.

When questioned on it you acknowledged that you had caused offense, but didn't apologies. It was a personal slight, that's why I called you on it. =/

 Wyrmalla wrote:
You inferred that you someone knew more about their life than them. That Pumpkin was apparently too lazy to go out and find a job, despite having stated that they had been looking one. You could go into their environment and find a job for them no problem. Its quite insulting to be unemployed and for someone who has one to turn up and say that its your fault for not being able to find one.

When questioned on it you acknowledged that you had caused offense, but didn't apologies. It was a personal slight, that's why I called you on it. =/

I don't think Alby was saying he was lazy, it could just be that Pumpkin lacks direction or guidance to make himself/herself more employable.

 Albatross wrote:

I saw this gak with the new deal temporary work placements back in the late 90s, they had to offer the worker a job at the end of the 6month placement or turn them lose and there were plenty of businesses just churning over 6month free labor at the tax payers expense. That is a failure. That is the equivalent of government propping up private industry.

Yep, same. I was just entering the workforce at around the time of New Deal for Musicians. Basically meant I didn't have to even look for a job and could continue pissing around in a band.

I went to work at a toy and model shop as a lad of 19 on the new deal, via a private 'training company', the upstairs sold GW stuff, roleplay stuff, model kits and paints glues etc. Some other guy on the scheme had left, they told me how terrible he'd been... So I worked there, went in an hour early every morning and worked on an hour past closing each night, painted up dioramas at home to put on display, helped set up a club for the gamers on Weds nights to up sales, ran tutorials, ran competitions for painting and modeling, upped their sales by 40%. Put heart and soul into it. At the end of the 6 months, they were 'making up their minds' so made me jump through more hoops, when I overheard the owners one day working out getting the next gimp to come work for them on the scheme, they lamented losing me but 'were fethed' if they were going to pay a wage when they could get free help on a rotating basis every six months.

Well, I was paid an extra 5quid a week on top of JSA for working there for 6 months, by the tax payer, by the hard working, so this arsehole got a free minion and pocketed even more profit.

I should have been learning real skills somewhere, renovating a park or building pathways on the moors or helping the elderly or the disabled. Contributing to the people, not enabling personal greed.

I don't agree that we have to come crawling back to the private sector. Indeed, I'd sooner see new voluntary organisations set up (which the government has done, in fairness), than farm people out to private companies, not because its a bad idea, but because its a bad political move at this time.

I disagree quite strongly with this. I think its an awful idea.

But my disagreement is not necessarily based upon 'slavery' rhetoric, but rather economics. Allow me to illustrate.

Jack has been on benefits for six months. Under the new scheme, he is forced to go and work at his local Lidl 20 hours a week in order to receive his current benefits. His benefits (being only 24 years old) are a mere two hundred and twenty pounds a month. Now this is problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, if we are to tally up Jack's hours worked, we find that had he been being paid at minimum wage he would have received considerably more money (just over double the amount). This makes a mockery of the concept of a minimum wage.

Secondly, whilst Jack is occupying his position at Lidl, he is filling a place that another worker cannot have. Lidl will not be inclined to hire another worker after he leaves, they will simply funnel in yet another person under the same benefits for work scheme. The result being that whilst Jack and his successors may well have new job experience, the number of jobs available is being severely curtailed by this very scheme.

Thirdly, it enables a private company to effectively have workers that they can treat as poorly as they like. If Lidl manager Dave decides he doesn't like Jack's attitude, he can make his life absolute hell for the thirteen weeks he is there. Dave knows that Jack will not be around long enough to make any kind of complaint against him that would be heard. Jack also does not have the option of quitting if Dave makes his job intolerable, as he will lose his benefits.

Fourth, it distracts Jack from searching for a permanent post whilst working for Lidl. It remains in the realm of possibility that Jack would actually miss out on a suitable job whilst being forced to labour at Lidl.

Fifth, the number of professions available through the scheme are severely limited. If Jack is an actor, and has been spectacularly unsuccessful at securing a job the past eight months, a stint at Lidl will not aid him. It will not add to his CV. It will simply consume his time and energy into an activity that will advance him nowhere in life. This could apply to a great many other professions, from being a translator, to a graphics artist, and so on. For people like these, pushing a trolley around Lidl does nothing towards helping them secure longer term financial security.

Finally, the fact remains that Jack's labours are being done solely for the benefit of a private profit making corporation. Whilst I would refuse to use words like 'slavery', the fact is obviously apparent that Jack is being compelled/coerced to labour at a cut price rate for the enrichment of the owners and stockholders of a private commercial entity. Something which is mildly morally dubious.


Now all of those points could have various counter arguments and solutions raised (for example, you could say to point five that people like this should switch careers if they are unsuccessful in their chosen ones). But the fact remains that taken collectively, they paint a picture whereby one realises that the scheme does very little to help people into greater job security, whilst doing a considerable amount to its detriment.


I could see the scheme working if the benefits receivers were placed in government run training schemes geared towards certain government/council infrastructure projects or tasks (for example litter picking, road building, the rubbish vans, etc). You could have a limited intake in industries such as those for limited hours per week (say, two days of seven hour shifts?).

I feel that if the state will be paying the benefits of these people, the state should benefit from their labours, and should continue to offer them the support needed to help them out of poverty.

 Ketara wrote:
[
I feel that if the state will be paying the benefits of these people, the state should benefit from their labours, and should continue to offer them the support needed to help them out of poverty.

Yep, I said that above and Albatross agreed as well, free labour to the private sector is detrimental from all angles but the business' own, and obviously they are in favour of free workers at the very bottom end of their strata.

 Albatross wrote:
Under the system we have now, poorer people have (or can expect) a roughly similar level of income when studying at university. I should know I was one of them etc.

As a full time student with OU I get a tuition loan, but no other funding, but that obviously isn't the norm.

One group of people is paying for it out of money they have earned, another is not. Also, poor people will still be comparatively poor, you've just moved the baseline. Still not equal.

Inequality will always come second to poverty for me, if that baseline change means that people can afford to heat their house then that's grand by me. It's not really about being Robin Hood, it's about finding a system that works and provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

That's rhetoric. And I'm not even sure it's true that tax evasion costs more than the welfare state. Even if it did, corporations paying their taxes is a separate issue to welfare reform. I thought you weren't going in for the whole Robin Hood bit? In any case, I've yet to hear a government minister argue that corporations should avoid paying tax.

It's not even close to the cost of the welfare state, which is £170bn odd, while tax evasion and avoidance is about £40bn. When I say corporate welfare I include such things as housing benefit and tax credits. The rhetoric you often hear is that tax evasion and avoidance is higher than benefit fraud, which it is. If people have tried to sell it as more than the entire welfare budget they have either misremembered or misrepresented.
As for a government minister arguing for a company not to pay tax. You do have the George Osbourne vodafone case.

For your consideration:

Thank you, I shall read that tomorrow. I would like to see evidence that changes my view, because that would mean things were moving in the right direction.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
[
I feel that if the state will be paying the benefits of these people, the state should benefit from their labours, and should continue to offer them the support needed to help them out of poverty.

Yep, I said that above and Albatross agreed as well, free labour to the private sector is detrimental from all angles but the business' own, and obviously they are in favour of free workers at the very bottom end of their strata.

I'm not sure that Albatross necessarily agrees with the reasoning though, but rather thinks it's 'not a bad idea, but...a bad political move at this time.'

Jack should get a proper job instead of being an 'out of work actor', or more accurately, a 'bum'.