# Tories officially announce plan to force unemployed school leavers to do unpaid work full time



## stuff_it (Jul 10, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rayling-consider-teenage-job-search-plan.html



> All new benefit claimants will be required to search full-time for a job or volunteer for community work if they cannot secure employment, under the plan.
> A trial scheme is expected to be launched within weeks in London and ministers are said to be keen to examine whether such a strict approach could work nationally.


 
Now it begins in earnest.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 10, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Now it begins in earnest.


 
It's been like that here in Nederland for some years now. It's not unpaid, of course. The benefit is the payment. It does an argument no good when it's presented with distortians as its support.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It's been like that here in Nederland for some years now. It's not unpaid, of course. The benefit is the payment. It does an argument no good when it's presented with distortians as its support.


Recent study here says a single person needs £15k to live comfortably but not extravagantly in the UK - benefits (even with HB etc taken into account) is about half that and falling all the time, slightly less for the under 25s.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jul 10, 2012)

> Figures showed 99,700 people had been out of work for more than two years by May this year, compared with 43,300 in May 2010.


That's hardly the millions of 'feckless unemployed' that some of the media would lead us to believe, is it?


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 10, 2012)

Here's the link, the evil toffs are trying to condemn a large part of the population to living far below the 'real' poverty line.

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/minimum-income-standard-uk-2011


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2012)

pinkmonkey - you believe the figures?


----------



## krink (Jul 10, 2012)

even then, out of that 99 thousand people i bet there's still loads who do actually want a job and are trying to get one - i know plenty personally. it probably costs more going through the job search/training scheme/a4e charade with the long term don't-want-to-work people than it would to just leave them on the dole. so why not just leave the ones happy to sign on for ever? i pay taxes and i couldn't give a fuck if someone wants to stay on the dole.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Jul 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> pinkmonkey - you believe the figures?


of course not, but I would've thought the media wants us to believe that there's an unemployed underclass in the millions?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 10, 2012)

sign on - 6 months unpaid work

burgle houses instead - 120 hours community payback (if you get caught)


----------



## BigTom (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It's been like that here in Nederland for some years now. It's not unpaid, of course. The benefit is the payment. It does an argument no good when it's presented with distortians as its support.


 
Benefits are not wages though, and the position is not paid for by the company or organisation you are sent to work for.  I believe it is more correct to describe the work as unpaid than paid.
Also you do not recieve benefits as a result of doing the work.  You do the work as a result of receiving benefits.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2012)

pinkmonkey said:


> of course not, but I would've thought the media wants us to believe that there's an unemployed underclass in the millions?


there are millions of long term 'unemployed' but very few of them are on jsa


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 10, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Benefits are not wages though, and the position is not paid for by the company or organisation you are sent to work for. I believe it is more correct to describe the work as unpaid than paid.
> Also you do not recieve benefits as a result of doing the work. You do the work as a result of receiving benefits.


 
Benefits are payment. Most taxpayers, you know, those people that governments need to listen to to be (re)elected, don't care much if you call benefits wages or payment. They see it at as being the same.


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Benefits are payment. Most taxpayers, you know, those people that governments need to listen to to be (re)elected, don't care much if you call benefits wages or payment. They see it at as being the same.


 
That doesn't mean they are.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 10, 2012)

Time for some evidence on workfare for anyone who stumbles in here supporting it as a way to help unemployment.

1) http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/dwp-analysis-shows-mandatory-work.html
DWP analysis shows Mandatory Work Activity is not working - so they extend the scheme.
MWA does not help anyone get into work, it reduces the amount of benefits claimed slightly for a short period of time and caused some people to move to ESA (disability benefits) - presumably due to the stress or effect of MWA on them or their existing problems.



> 13 weeks after referral, those referred were 3 percentage points more likely to be on ESA. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is a complete policy disaster. ESA claimants are both more expensive and more difficult to get off benefit than JSA claimants. Indeed, the main thrust of welfare-to-work policy under both this government and the previous one has been to try to move ESA claimants closer to the labour market. MWA appears to achieve precisely the opposite. We can only speculate why, although the obvious answer is that the "hassle factor" of being referred to MWA had the unintended consequence of encouraging some claimants to claim a benefit - ESA - where there is not necessarily any obligation to look for work at all. In any case, whatever the explanation, the long-run costs of moving even a few JSA claimants to ESA will clearly outweigh any possible other benefits of the programme.


 
Now Jonathan Portes and this blog are very much about evidence based policy research, hence his analysis of this is about the numbers, not about the human impact and the fact that what this is causing is people to become sick or for an existing condition to worsen.  That's a real cost that should also be considered, though I don't blame him for not doing so.

also



> Finally, what about employment: no surprises, and no impact at all


 
So that's one scheme.. then there's the big one, the Work Programme.. £5bn going to companies like A4e and Working Links, who Private Eye said had 10% of their payment claims rejected by DWP and never challenged but clearly fraudulent under the Flexible New Deal.  I have no doubt all the other companies are the same.

How's that doing?

well.. um.. turns out it's doing pretty badly. A4e managed to get just 3.5% of their referalls into jobs lasting more than 13 weeks.. http://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-a4e-finds-jobs-for-3-5-per-cent-of-job-seekers

The number that the DWP are keener for you to have is 25% but there's some issues with this.

First of all, this is the number that leave benefits, not how many get jobs.  So anyone who dies will get put into this category.  afaik they don't ask why people sign off and you don't have to tell them.  I don't think this data is collected at all.
Still we know now that the figure is probably around 3.5% who get lasting jobs, some more who get short temp work and sign off for it and everyone else who signs off for whatever other reason.
[does it say if those are full time jobs? I know someone who got offered a job at superdrug from being placed there, but it was for 7 hours a week on a zero-hour contract so basically useless in the real world] 
Cost of each job *found* (not created - very important will come back to this) in those contracts was at a minimum £11,250 - http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?p=1223 

What we need now is the corresponding number for people who do not go onto the work programme and come of benefits in the same time period.  Pleasingly the DWP have a number for us.. 28%  
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/first-statistics-reveal-work-programme-to-be-a-shambles/

No idea if there's figures around that would correspond to the number getting jobs lasting 13 weeks or more.  It's a difficult one to do because you need to make sure you are getting the same cohort to compare - I think that 3.5% relates to long term unemployed who find it harder to get back into work.


Meanwhile there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of people losing hours and jobs because the companies are getting free labour in.  Of course there's no way to get a figure for this, all we can do is guess how common these stories are. 
Here's some, but I've heard others verbally - Argos comes up more than once, locally the story I was told was someone who was interviewed for a paid christmas job at Argos, didn't get it, then got sent to that store on the work experience scheme for 4 weeks in November/December and there was not one paid christmas temp there and I think 3 workfare people.  3 paid though temporary jobs gone.
http://www.channel4.com/news/now-asda-is-accused-of-employing-youths-for-no-wage


> Joseph said his full-time paid colleagues were less than thrilled.
> 
> "At nights when it was quiet and there was no one around to hear it would be like 'This is rubbish. There's no overtime and you're doing our work for us'."


 
I can't find but remember a Guardian CiF comment from someone who was at Tesco and when they finished asked the manager about a job and got a reply that was basically "why would I pay someone when I can get someone for free".

There was another one recently as well and I cannot for the life of me remeber where it was, I think it was Argos but I can't remember where the story was published.

Oh yeah, and I got involved with this back in November when a friend left poundland and then found out they'd been replaced with workfare people.


Now, back to the fact that these jobs are found and not created.  A big part of what the providers like A4e and Ingeus do is the same work as recruitment agencies do (and what we do when we're looking for work) - phoning round companies looking for people who are recruiting.  They take these jobs off the job market, so we can't access them ourselves.  If they didn't exist, the jobs would still exist and we'd get them either through recruitment agencies, or by finding them ourselves (perhaps through the job centre, I understand that's how it used to work...).
The crucial point here is that because of / by design this kind of scheme cannot reduce unemployment. 
At no point are any jobs created, except those done by the companies themselves.
With £11,250 I bet the govt could create a minimum wage job, taking into account that the person will pay some taxes at that level (so could be paid more, take home £11,250 cos the rest goes straight back to the govt) and they won't be getting benefits.. obviously there are overheads to a job as well but I have no idea how to work out the first part of it anyway so it's just speculation really.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Benefits are payment. Most taxpayers, you know, those people that governments need to listen to to be (re)elected, don't care much if you call benefits wages or payment. They see it at as being the same.


 

not all- the response to workfare from hitherto unheard voices was quite telling. It's one thing to think 'fuck you get a job' and another to realise that unpaid labour makes your own job  precarious


----------



## BigTom (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Benefits are payment. Most taxpayers, you know, those people that governments need to listen to to be (re)elected, don't care much if you call benefits wages or payment. They see it at as being the same.


 
I understand that, I disagree with them, it's not a point I try to push too much. I'm ok with talking about people on these schemes getting paid £1.73 or £2.10 / hour (I can't remember the exact figures please check before quoting these) and how disgraceful that is, I think that the benefits are not wages argument is very important but for the most part it's a huge discussion that I don't want to get into because most of the time when I'm talking about these things it's in the context of campaigning and I'd rather stick to how crap workfare is for all the reasons I posted in the big post I made shortly ago. On here though, those kind of discussions can be had cos we've got time and space to do it and talk about how crap workfare is as well 

I still think it is more correct to call these positions unpaid because the companies do not pay, the taxpayer does. I think if you said that these people were going to be made to do paid work people would assume the company is paying and that would be the usual impression that is given, but it's the wrong impression. So even if you think it is a distortion to describe it as unpaid, that distortion ends up giving the right idea to people in more cases than not.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It's been like that here in Nederland for some years now. It's not unpaid, of course. The benefit is the payment. It does an argument no good when it's presented with distortians as its support.


 
So it's a way of paying someone less than minimum wage?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 10, 2012)

What does "search for a job full time" mean?  Doesnt everyone who is looking for work do that?


----------



## smokedout (Jul 10, 2012)

pinkmonkey said:


> That's hardly the millions of 'feckless unemployed' that some of the media would lead us to believe, is it?


 
It's also not correct according to the ONS



> The number of people unemployed for over two years was 434,000 in the three months to April 2012, up 29,000 from the three months to January.


 
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/l...12/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Unemployment


----------



## Glitter (Jul 10, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> What does "search for a job full time" mean? Doesnt everyone who is looking for work do that?


 
No.

Actually, that's not true. Not everyone claiming JSA does that. That's not necessarily through any fault of theirs though and it's one more big stick to beat the vulnerable with. Especially those booted off ESA erroneously.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> What does "search for a job full time" mean? Doesnt everyone who is looking for work do that?


 
It means you can't do any voluntary work. Unless instructed to by the Tories.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jul 10, 2012)

Where are all these voluntary positions within the community going to come from exactly?  Aren't loads and loads of charities having their funding slashed, meaning they're having to shut projects down, meaning both employees and current volunteers are losing out.  I can already see people volunteering for charitable projects that they will need direct support from themselves because of various cuts in benefit and all that.

Where will this stand insurance wise?  If I was forced to volunteer and got injured, who would I go to if some sort of compensation was deemed appropriate?  I suppose I would be fucked, because no doubt this hasn't been thought through at all. 

Also note: many taxpayers were livid over the Tesco workfare debacle, when they realised not only were their taxes going to benefits, but Tesco were also being paid to take these people on.  Will a similar thing happen?  If they aren't, charities may not pay their volunteers but that doesn't mean there aren't costs.  CRB's, insurance, travel expenses, food are often things provided for by the charity to thank the volunteers in some small way for giving up their time.  I wonder how it will go down if job seekers do not receive these but employed people who decide to volunteer will.

What tasks will these people be performing exactly?  Painting fences and all that?  Councils already employ people to do these things, or they make use of 'community payback' schemes using young offenders.  What are they going to do with these young offenders if job seekers are doing these roles instead?  Put them into prison?  How is that saving money?  I can't see them investing in proper rehabilitation, can you?

Are they going to let average joe loose into youth services?  Many of these young people need specialised support.  Support by people who have trained for a long time and deserve to be paid for the time and energy they have spent training themselves. 

Fucking.  Stupid.  Ridiculous.  Idea.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It's been like that here in Nederland for some years now. It's not unpaid, of course. The benefit is the payment. It does an argument no good when it's presented with distortians as its support.


whats the benefits in the Netherlands?

Is it the paltry £36 a week son?  

it fucking isn't is it...

so how about once again you STFU as a know nothing cunt ... cheers the world...  

we have minimum wage in the UK which states all work which can be considered to be equivalent of an employed role has to be paid at this rate.  NO Exceptions.  NONE. 

If they force unemployed to work for what is considered a working role which anything which consumes 7 hours a day would be then it gets min wage or there'll be a major major riot...

also how fucking dumb is it to introduce this in London 3 weeks before the Olympics...

day 2 of the opening ceremony: 4000 dead as police continue to attack and shoot protesters being forced into slave camps by the right wing govt... several stars have been killed from the African relay team after they were mistaken for looters at the Westfield Stratford as they attempted to escape.... etc etc etc...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2012)

if there is a job, pay someone for it. If there is not, we as a society agree that starving people begging in the street is not cool so pay them enough to live- I'm sure diamond has a few spare quids. etc we know this and I'm preaching to the choir.

simple as really, doing unpaid work in waged positions fucks us all. Not just the young, not just left wingers who despise the idea that a company might profit from value taken twice- first as waged, then from the tax! It fucks everybody. It's the road to fucking serfdom


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 10, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> So it's a way of paying someone less than minimum wage?


no the dole in holland is actually considerably more advanced than it is in the UK it's why lumpy can't understand that forcing people here in the UK into penury might be a bad idea because the cunts so aloof if it isn't directly benefiting him he don't care... 

http://www.svb.nl/int/en/bbz/werkloos/werkloosheidsuitkering_uit_nl/


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 10, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> no the dole in holland is actually considerably more advanced than it is in the UK it's why lumpy can't understand that forcing people here in the UK into penury might be a bad idea because the cunts so aloof if it isn't directly benefiting him he don't care...
> 
> http://www.svb.nl/int/en/bbz/werkloos/werkloosheidsuitkering_uit_nl/


 
Ri-i-ight. Although this is the UK politics forum so my question was UK-centric. But fair play for the extra info to shut him up.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> we have minimum wage in the UK which states all work which can be considered to be equivalent of an employed role has to be paid at this rate. NO Exceptions. NONE.
> 
> If they force unemployed to work for what is considered a working role which anything which consumes 7 hours a day would be then it gets min wage or there'll be a major major riot...


 
I'd love to agree with you on this, but it's already happening on massive scale and thus far not a single petrol bomb thrown.

As for the olympics, if a large hoarde of disgruntled workfare peons take it upon themselves to run riot and completely sabotage the event it will be no more than poetic justice, not to mention one of the funniest things any of us is ever likely to see as Cameron and co's chickens come home to roost in front of the entire world.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 10, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> So it's a way of paying someone less than minimum wage?


 
I think that the real reason for this development is that it is designed to prevent those on benefits from taking black work.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I think that the real reason for this development is that it is designed to prevent those on benefits from taking black work.


 
John Terry


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 10, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> no the dole in holland is actually considerably more advanced than it is in the UK it's why lumpy can't understand that forcing people here in the UK into penury might be a bad idea because the cunts so aloof if it isn't directly benefiting him he don't care...
> 
> http://www.svb.nl/int/en/bbz/werkloos/werkloosheidsuitkering_uit_nl/


 
You seem to be suffering again from the malady that has so often in the past blinded you to fact. Where have I said that I agree with these proposals?


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Benefits are payment. Most taxpayers, you know, those people that governments need to listen to to be (re)elected, don't care much if you call benefits wages or payment. They see it at as being the same.


 
They don't care whether Tesco pays its staff or whether they pay Tesco's staff?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jul 10, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> day 2 of the opening ceremony: 4000 dead as police continue to attack and shoot protesters being forced into slave camps by the right wing govt... several stars have been killed from the African relay team after they were mistaken for looters at the Westfield Stratford as they attempted to escape.... etc etc etc...


You were having a wank there weren't you?'


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It's been like that here in Nederland for some years now. It's not unpaid, of course. The benefit is the payment. It does an argument no good when it's presented with distortians as its support.


 
No. If it was payment for work it would not be called a 'benefit' it would be called a 'wage' and would be subject to minimum wage law. How can unemployment benefit be payment for doing a job? You might as well suggest that child benefit is a cash prize for outstanding use of contraception.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 10, 2012)

Another thing, Garfy. Your link is to unemployment benefit and as such has no relevence to the Dutch system of paying "bijstand", i.e money paid to those not covered by unemployment benefit, to which I was referring.

Dumbhead!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Another thing, Garfy. Your link is to unemployment benefit and as such has no relevence to the Dutch system of paying "bijstand", i.e money paid to those not covered by unemployment benefit, to which I was referring.
> 
> Dumbhead!


 
Well, if you're referring to some daft dutch bijstand bullshit, why are you weighing in on a thread about UK unemployment, stiltoncrotch?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 10, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well, if you're referring to some daft dutch bijstand bullshit, why are you weighing in on a thread about UK unemployment, stiltoncrotch?


 
So you are another half-wit who thinks that insults add to his argument. I was comparing as anyone with half a brain would know, so you are excused for not knowing.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> So you are another half-wit who thinks that insults add to his argument. I was comparing as anyone with half a brain would know, so you are excused for not knowing.


 

No, I'm perfectly aware that  insults add nothing to the discussion - It's simply that you're not deserving of reasoned debate, intellectual badinage or Wildean bon-mots. All you merit is insults - You worthless lump of vaginal smegma.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> It's been like that here in Nederland for some years now. It's not unpaid, of course. The benefit is the payment. It does an argument no good when it's presented with distortians as its support.


In this country we have a legally set minimum wage. Benefits is far below this.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> I think that the real reason for this development is that it is designed to prevent those on benefits from taking black work.


 
Which is likely to be more damaging to the economy, a little tax-free cash in hand work here and there or a vast army of unpaid workers?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Benefits are payment. Most taxpayers, you know, those people that governments need to listen to to be (re)elected, don't care much if you call benefits wages or payment. They see it at as being the same.



You presumably have evidence for this claim about "most taxpayers"?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 10, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> No, I'm perfectly aware that insults add nothing to the discussion - It's simply that you're not deserving of reasoned debate, intellectual badinage or Wildean bon-mots. All you merit is insults - You worthless lump of vaginal smegma.


 
lol   A momentary lapse of anger after reading the OP.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> So you are another half-wit who thinks that insults add to his argument. I was comparing as anyone with half a brain would know, so you are excused for not knowing.



Ironic


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 10, 2012)

SpookyFrank said:


> Which is likely to be more damaging to the economy, a little tax-free cash in hand work here and there or a vast army of unpaid workers?


 
I don't disagree with what you are suggesting.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 10, 2012)

Blagsta said:


> Ironic


 
You would call yourself blessed if you had even half a brain.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2012)

they're planning on scrapping off loads of military personnel as well- in a perverse way I'm thinking potential sarges..


----------



## maldwyn (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> So you are another half-wit who thinks that insults add to his argument. I was comparing as anyone with half a brain would know, so you are excused for not knowing.


This is a thread about UK youth unemployment, what relevance does your Dutch comparison offer other than a thread de-rail?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> You would call yourself blessed if you had even half a brain.


Ironic


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 10, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> This is a thread about UK youth unemployment, what relevance does your Dutch comparison offer other than a thread de-rail?


 
The proposals mentioned in the OP, to which I replied, are precisely what the Dutch government brought into being some time ago. That is relevent, whether you like it or not.


----------



## junglevip (Jul 10, 2012)

smokedout said:


> sign on - 6 months unpaid work
> 
> burgle houses instead - 120 hours community payback (if you get caught)


 
I think that a good business model.  Not as elegant as massive banking fraud but with practice... ... .


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2012)

This can be added to Bole's (kiteflying for Cameron?) proposals that all benefits should only be focused on outcomes where 'productivity' can be shown to be an outcome, so no money for the 'useless mouths' pensioners, unemployed, this is really radical stuff and is unprecedented since the 1930's, the supine LP and lack of wider opposition is also alarming/frightening.

Kleins 'shock doctrine' theory is imo, very very apposite for all this...


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Jul 10, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Another thing, Garfy. Your link is to unemployment benefit and as such has no relevence to the Dutch system of paying "bijstand", i.e money paid to those not covered by unemployment benefit, to which I was referring.
> 
> Dumbhead!


 
http://www.dutchnews.nl/dictionary/bijstand.php



> _Bijstand_ (welfare) is a social security benefit for people with no income who are not claiming unemployment benefit (WW), incapacity benefit (WAO) or a state pension (AOW). Since 2004, local authorities have been responsible for paying welfare benefits and helping people back to work. In 2009 the basic benefit for a single adult was €615.15 a month plus holiday pay and health and housing subsidies.


 
FYI: €615.15 a month is about £112 / week for a single adult, that compares to £56.25 / week for an 18-25 year old single adult in the UK.
I'd say that was relevant to your statement that "It's been like that here in Nederland for some years now".


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 10, 2012)

Ms Ordinary said:


> http://www.dutchnews.nl/dictionary/bijstand.php
> 
> 
> FYI: €615.15 a month is about £112 / week for a single adult, that compares to £56.25 / week for an 18-25 year old single adult in the UK.
> I'd say that was relevant to your statement that "It's been like that here in Nederland for some years now".


 
I know of no 18 to 25 year olds who get that much.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 10, 2012)

Glitter said:


> No.
> 
> Actually, that's not true. Not everyone claiming JSA does that. That's not necessarily through any fault of theirs though and it's one more big stick to beat the vulnerable with. Especially those booted off ESA erroneously.


They are meant to be doing so when sent to A4E five days a week to play MS solitaire, so I assume it's going to be at least a year or two (if not longer) of workfare or permanent jobclub in areas of low employment. Fortunately not many unemployed graduates will be caught by this as they won't be able to afford uni in the first place.


----------



## coltrane (Jul 11, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> What does "search for a job full time" mean? Doesnt everyone who is looking for work do that?


 
The Explanatory Memorandum Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 2012 (Dated Jun 2012) explains what the nice new shiny, shiny regime (Increased Conditionality With Added Sanctions) is supposed to be:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/jsa-draft-regs-2012-memorandum.pdf

Page 5, Paragraph 18 spells it out:



> "*Meeting work search and work availability requirements*
> 
> 18. We expect claimants to do all they reasonably can to give themselves the best
> prospects of moving into work. In line with this,* in order to be treated as meeting *
> ...


 
Looks like the Jobcentre is going to require proof that Jobseekers spend 35 hours a week looking for work.

I reckon "voluntary work" referred to above is not the "voluntary" workfare the DWP are forcing claimants to undertake - maybe that is the "work preparation requirement" in the last line of the quote. Apparently clearing up dog-shit and removing grafitti (the Mandatory Work Activity bit) is going to provide claimants with the vital "soft skills" so valued by eager employers keen to fill their numerous vacancies.

Compare the languid tinkering around the edges of the problems caused by our thrusting and "strategically important" financial industry with the full on pedal to the metal "Welfare Reforms" being undertaken by the Coalition under the guidance of Lord Freud (a fucking investment banker).


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 11, 2012)

Is the concept of a company paying its' workers for doing a job totally dead now?


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 11, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Is the concept of a company paying its' workers for doing a job totally dead now?


Soon.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 11, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rayling-consider-teenage-job-search-plan.html
> 
> 
> 
> Now it begins in earnest.


 
Don't these fuckwits realise that looking for work is a full-time job in itself? Letters don't write themselves. Research takes time. Self-improvement takes time. Etc. Now, cracking down on those who don't look for work and can work is one thing, but this is something else.

You know, they could probably gather them all together in a holiday camp to supervise them better. After all, _Arbeit Macht Frei_, right?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> if there is a job, pay someone for it. If there is not, we as a society agree that starving people begging in the street is not cool so pay them enough to live- I'm sure diamond has a few spare quids. etc we know this and I'm preaching to the choir.
> 
> simple as really, doing unpaid work in waged positions fucks us all. Not just the young, not just left wingers who despise the idea that a company might profit from value taken twice- first as waged, then from the tax! It fucks everybody. It's the road to fucking serfdom


 
von Hayek is suing you for infringing his intellectual property rights.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 11, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> ... *half-wit* ... *insults add to his argument*... *as anyone with half a brain* *would know*, *so you are excused for not knowing.*


 
stupid is as stupid does lumpy...


----------



## Lock&Light (Jul 11, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> stupid is as stupid does lumpy...


 
You would know, Garfy.


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 11, 2012)

I'm a bit confused, the thing I read seemed to imply working withoiut getting benefit in order to 'qualify' for being on the dole. Which is crazy.
And they want to send people who don't want to be there to work with vulnerable old peoplle, what could go wrong there ?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2012)

Is this the same as YTS in the 80s and 90s where you basically earned your dole money with the promise of a job or skill at the end of it that sometimes materialised and sometimes didn't?


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 11, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Is this the same as YTS in the 80s and 90s where you basically earned your dole money with the promise of a job or skill at the end of it that sometimes materialised and sometimes didn't?


Are they actually getting money at all? What I read yesterday didn't seem to suggest that altho the article linked seems to hint at it. What I read was a period of time (undefined) of absolutely no money at all working so that you could claim dole eventually. Is this the case or not?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 11, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Are they actually getting money at all? What I read yesterday didn't seem to suggest that altho the article linked seems to hint at it. What I read was a period of time (undefined) of absolutely no money at all working so that you could claim dole eventually. Is this the case or not?


the plan is that in return for the STANDARD amount of dole you're legally entitled to.  Not a mini wage which is lower than the minimum wage.  If they did pay you they'd have to accept the minimum wage rules applied legally but if they are giving you a benefit then they can set the level and conveniently ignore the minimum wage rules as these don't apply to benefits... 

What it needs is like work fare for someone to take it to court and have it ruled illegal.  

however no doubt this itself will then become illegal I would assume they'll have one more defeat and then they'll say you may not take legal action in regards to your human rights or enactment enforcement if you are claiming benefits which will stop all future cases against them by saying ahhhhh we know it's unfair, but what are you going to do you can have our benefits we chose to give you and how we chose to give them to you or you can appeal using the law in which case we're not going to waste tax payers money on you until the court has made the descsion regarding you as we wouldn't want to over entitle you to amounts or monies you weren't entitled to in the first place and place you in a position of hardship having to return these amounts to us afterwards, we'd be failing in our duty of care towards preventing you going into debt...

what do you mean you can't afford to live and have a reasonable legal case?  You make it sound like we're at fault or should provide assistance to resolve this, if you had played ball none of this would have happened I'm afraid you've only yourself to blame for your current circumstances.  What's that Children you say, well I'm sorry but really did you make the adequate financial assessment before spawning them, how is it our responsibility to look after your children if you have thought to make financial provision.  Disabled you say, workshy we say.  I note you're able to fill out the claim forms, interesting... Claim rejected on account of being able to fill out forms... etc... etc...


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 11, 2012)

They're so busy creaming their pants with workfare and making people unemployed work for nothing, they seem to forget they need tax payers to keep the economy afloat. Hence us being in the biggest depression in living memory.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 11, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> They're so busy creaming their pants with workfare and making people unemployed work for nothing, they seem to forget they need tax payers to keep the economy afloat. Hence us being in the biggest depression in living memory.


no no no dear boy you see as the unhealthly rich they couldn't give two shits about you proles, your need for the economy illusion to be maintained or indeed anything other than making sure there investments and money addiction is fed.  in other words fuck off prolie back in your cave...


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 11, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> no no no dear boy .


???????


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 11, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> ???????


sarcasm...


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 11, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Is this the same as YTS in the 80s and 90s where you basically earned your dole money with the promise of a job or skill at the end of it that sometimes materialised and sometimes didn't?


No, YTS is more equivalent to modern apprenticeships. This new scheme is basically an extension of workfare and A4E type stuff.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> No, YTS is more equivalent to modern apprenticeships. This new scheme is basically an extension of workfare and A4E type stuff.



Christ!


----------



## _angel_ (Jul 11, 2012)

At least yts took you off the dole and you had somew choice in them. Oh god I can't believe this govt is so shit it makes me nostalgic for yts!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jul 11, 2012)

We all slagged YTS at the time. I was one of the lucky few that actually got a proper apprenticeship. And it's not like it worked out bad for the employers. We were basically doing fully skilled work for the last two years for reduced rate. Why do they have to get more greedy about it?


----------



## elbows (Aug 15, 2012)

Quartz said:


> You know, they could probably gather them all together in a holiday camp to supervise them better. After all, _Arbeit Macht Frei_, right?


 
Thought I'd stick this here as a seach revealed this was the last time that phrase was mentioned on the forums.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/aug/13/dailymail-twitter



> The Daily Mail has been embarrassed into deleting an offensive paragraph from an online contribution to its website.
> A piece headlined Why our new legions of unemployed graduates need to adjust their expectations, by Dominique Jackson, contained this extraordinary paragraph:
> 
> "The German slogan 'Arbeit Macht Frei' is somewhat tainted by its connection with Nazi concentration camps, but its essential message, 'work sets you free' still has something serious to commend it.​There is dignity to be gained from any job, no matter how menial, and for young people at the start of their careers, there are valuable lessons to be learned from any form of employment, whether that is on the factory floor, on a supermarket till or in the contemporary hard labour camp of a merchant bank or law office."​​This grotesque lapse in taste was removed from the article once its presence was revealed on the Twittersphere.


 
Somewhat tainted


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 15, 2012)

> “But I’ve got a 2:1. In sports journalism. Why won’t anyone give me a job?” If only I had a pound for every time I heard a similar lament.


 
...then you'd be fuckin penniless because no-one has ever actually said it to you. Now if only _I_ had a pound for every time I heard a thick, talentless journo trot out the same old lazy cliches.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 15, 2012)

elbows said:


> Thought I'd stick this here as a seach revealed this was the last time that phrase was mentioned on the forums.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/aug/13/dailymail-twitter
> 
> Somewhat tainted


 
There aren't enough s where that is concerned.  However, I'm more tempted to use  .


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 15, 2012)

elbows said:


> Thought I'd stick this here as a seach revealed this was the last time that phrase was mentioned on the forums.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/aug/13/dailymail-twitter
> 
> ...


Just..wow.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2012)

tbf its the wail living up to its fascist loving heritage


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> We all slagged YTS at the time. I was one of the lucky few that actually got a proper apprenticeship. And it's not like it worked out bad for the employers. We were basically doing fully skilled work for the last two years for reduced rate. Why do they have to get more greedy about it?


Like I may have said before, there are plenty of mickey mouse training schemes and apprenticeships out there but there are still proper ones in things that will lead to real employment for those who are lucky enough to get one and determined enough/have enough family support etc to stick at it. 

I'd actually have been better off had I been put in care (as I repeatedly begged my mum to when she threatened me with it) as at least I would have had some support to help me post 16 instead of being out on the streets like I was. There is still of course fuck all provision for young people with deliberately unhelpful families.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2012)

Just saw a brickies apprentice course offered at the princely sum of 2 pounds sixty an hour- thats fucking disgaceful. Who can live on that money? even if yer stillhome with ma, when your working you pay board. or not in the case of those joke wages


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 15, 2012)

elbows said:


> Thought I'd stick this here as a seach revealed this was the last time that phrase was mentioned on the forums.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/aug/13/dailymail-twitter
> 
> ...


This rather sums up the postmodern approach to history.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 15, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Just saw a brickies apprentice course offered at the princely sum of 2 pounds sixty an hour- thats fucking disgaceful. Who can live on that money? even if yer stillhome with ma, when your working you pay board. or not in the case of those joke wages


You can't unless your parents aren't on benefit due to the spare room tax.


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2012)

elbows said:


> Thought I'd stick this here as a seach revealed this was the last time that phrase was mentioned on the forums.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/aug/13/dailymail-twitter
> 
> ...


 
Hurrah for the Blackshirts!

do they ever learn?


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2012)

A neighbours son is on one of those Apprenticeships run by the local council, as a Ranger, etc, his sounds great, tbh, he is gaining lots of certificates, first aid, working with children, forestry skill, he is treated very well, the downsides, the wage is 97 pounds a week, he has to pay rent out of that as he left home early,

oh, and of course , will there be any ranger jobs after the cuts...


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2012)

Day one workfare beings for young people:

http://www.consent.me.uk/dayoneworkfare/



> The DWP today announced plans for a new, North and South London, 13 week workfare placement scheme (trailblazer) from Day One of a Jobseekers Allowance benefit claim for 18 to 24 years olds “who have less than 6 months work history since leaving full-time education will be referred to the programme.” The workfare placement “has to be of benefit to the community with a private or community-sector organisation – alongside provider-led jobsearch.”
> http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp...o-work-services/day-one-support-young-people/


 
13 weeks, 3 months. If you're a school leaver, and you don't secure yourself a job straight away you'll be put out to this scheme by the sounds of it. Not even given a chance to find work yourself first, and then be unable to even look for something because you're fulltime in the workfare placement.
It's such fucking bullshit.
At 16 I got a job at McDonalds.. the only work experience I had was the work experience placements at school and a paper round. I can't remember exactly what I got paid but it was over £3/hr (I remember that cos for some reason I remember my older brother got £3.01/hr in his first job and I remember I got a higher rate than him). That's more than young poeple will get today as they'll almost certainly be an apprentice on £2.60/hr (or is it £2.80/hr now? I think it's going up)

Somehow I doubt that they'll count a paper round in that 6 months work experience. I know this doesn't apply to 16/17yr olds so I guess the opportunity is part-time work whilst at college, and if you can't get that - or want to devote yourself fully to your course - then you'll be straight on this crap.

I'm 33 btw, so it's not like my experience is from a long time ago.

young people are getting royally shafted right now, it's a fucking disgrace.

London people, there's a boycott workfare national day of action on Sept 8th, I'm sure the SolFed's will be organising as well as LCAP/BW London. If you think this is total shit, get along to whatever demo is local to you. It's all part of the same thing and the 8th is going to be focused on the charities that are involved in workfare, that will be taking the young people on this scheme.[/quote][/quote]


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2012)

treelover said:


> A neighbours son is on one of those Apprenticeships run by the local council, as a Ranger, etc, his sounds great, tbh, he is gaining lots of certificates, first aid, working with children, forestry skill, he is treated very well, the downsides, the wage is 97 pounds a week, he has to pay rent out of that as he left home early,
> 
> oh, and of course , will there be any ranger jobs after the cuts...


 
Yeah, at least it sounds like what he is doing is what an apprenticeship should be like (Aside from the wage). Not like people at morrisons and places doing admin and retail apprenticeships, stuff that used to be trained in a few days or weeks, now stretched out over long time so they can pay poverty wages.


----------



## Karim (Aug 16, 2012)

Instead of benefits, unemployed teenagers should get food stamps...


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 16, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Just saw a brickies apprentice course offered at the princely sum of 2 pounds sixty an hour- thats fucking disgaceful. Who can live on that money? even if yer stillhome with ma, when your working you pay board. or not in the case of those joke wages



That's roughly what I was getting as a first year apprentice, twenty years ago.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 16, 2012)

Karim said:


> Instead of benefits, unemployed teenagers should get food stamps...


Perhaps if they herded them all in to camps it would be cheaper to keep an eye on them....


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2012)

Karim said:


> Instead of benefits, unemployed teenagers should get food stamps...


Why?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 16, 2012)

Karim said:


> Instead of benefits, unemployed teenagers should get food stamps...


 
Why? They'll only spend them on crisps.


----------



## Karim (Aug 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Why?


 
So you know the money will be spend on food, not weeds or booze.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2012)

oh god. just go away already.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 16, 2012)

Karim said:


> So you know the money will be spend on food, not weeds or booze.


Spending all my money on weed and booze is what made me the person I am today! Big ups for weed and booze!

TBF if anyone is daft enough to not even lay in the ramen, bread and beans before they spunk their giro then Darwin should be allowed to take its course. It wasn't so long ago that people were considered adults at 14.



killer b said:


> oh god. just go away already.


Can't we keep it till the weekend? I  missed out loads of digs at it while I was at Boomtown spending all my money on drugs and booze...


----------



## BigTom (Aug 16, 2012)

People used to swap asylum seekers vouchers for cash so that they were not forced to spend it at the more expensive places that accepted but could choose better value stores and places that sold some food that wasn't availalbe at the supermarkets that took part in the scheme and would get change for their purchases (which they didn't usually from the supermarkets). 
If Karim's plan came into force, I would start dealing weed and *only* accept these vouchers, just to piss him off.


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2012)

Karim said:


> Instead of benefits, unemployed teenagers should get food stamps...


 
You American?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2012)

I noticed that tax credits assumed my (severely disabled) 16 year old would be leaving school and reduced the amount by £110 a week when he turns 16. He won't be leaving school but I do wonder how any 16 year old would be expected to earn £110 a week, nowadays, even if they could get a job, let alone one in pads who doesn't speak.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 16, 2012)

treelover said:


> U mad bro?


CFY


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Why? They'll only spend them on crisps.


It's important to blame teenagers without jobs for the fact there aren't any jobs for them. Especially now when the emphasis is taking jobs away from people and giving them to people doing them for 40p an hour etc.
I was getting paid more for Saturday jobs (over twenty years ago) than some people are now working for either young people on crap wages or people working for their benefit at about a quid an hour.


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> CFY


 
?


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I noticed that tax credits assumed my (severely disabled) 16 year old would be leaving school and reduced the amount by £110 a week when he turns 16. He won't be leaving school but I do wonder how any 16 year old would be expected to earn £110 a week, nowadays, even if they could get a job, let alone one in pads who doesn't speak.


 
That's awful Angel, my neigh-bours son is on a council apprenticeship, it's only 92 pounds, where are these jobs?


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2012)

Btw, when are the youth going to wake up?, they are being shafted...


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 16, 2012)

treelover said:


> Btw, when are the youth going to wake up?, they are being shafted...


I get the feeling that the powers that be are hoping that they will all be too hungry to revolt by the time most of them realise.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 16, 2012)

Karim said:


> So you know the money will be spend on food, not weeds or booze.


 
But what's to stop an unemployed school leaver blowing his/her food stamps on a wheelbarrow full of toffees?

Plus how are they meant to buy clothes and get on buses and such?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> But what's to stop an unemployed school leaver blowing his/her food stamps on a wheelbarrow full of toffees?
> 
> Plus how are they meant to buy clothes and get on buses and such?


tsk details. Everyone knows you don't need accommodation clothing, heat etc until the age of 24. And everyone has a mummy and daddy with enough money to help you even if you  did need these pesky things.


----------



## killer b (Aug 16, 2012)

treelover said:


> Btw, when are the youth going to wake up?


teenagers aren't they? i needed three alarm clocks to get me up before 11 when i was 17. they'll probably get up at lunchtime.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 16, 2012)

treelover said:


> Btw, when are the youth going to wake up?, they are being shafted...


 
What do you mean by wake up? Round here they are well aware of how shafted they are getting, how fucked politics is.  For many of them, their first political experience was the Iraq War demo stuff, which failed totally.  They aren't going to go on marches because there's no point, they aren't involved in trade unions because they don't have jobs, and where they do have jobs there mostly aren't effective unions and so there's no point.
when I went on the tuition fee marches what was noticeable to me was how many 14-18 year olds were there and how angry they were about EMA being scrapped.  But the tuition fee marches failed.. so what's the point?

I think many are rejecting traditional politics on that basis, no interest in the political parties, rightly see politicians as self-serving lying scum, well aware of what the UK does around the world and how powerless they are to do anything much about it. The last school I worked at was largely muslim, and the favourite musician amongst the slightly older kids anyway (younger ones being into JLS, one direction etc) was Lowkey - because of his political/social message.  Partly that's cos palestine is a massive issue round here, but they took the wider political messages as well, and listened to lots of other conscious hip-hop/grime. I had great pleasure introducing them to Public Enemy.
Then look at traditional political groupings & unions - at least here in Birmingham it's mostly old, white men. And it's fucking dull. I barely want to be involved with it because of those reasons. 

So imo they youth of today are awake - but all the traditional political methods and groupings that we are or have been involved in are of no interest to them. I do think that this anger came out in the riots (amongst many other causes, I hesitate to even mention it here for fear of this thread descending into yet another argument about the "true" nature of last years riots).


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2012)

Karim said:


> So you know the money will be spend on food, not weeds or booze.


Sweetie, if you treat people like irresponsible children, they'll behave as irresponsible children.  Pay their benefit in cash and after a few weeks of perhaps being a bit silly with it, most young people quickly learn that paying for the essentials first is important.  

In any case, if all they get it food stamps how are they to afford clothes for an interview, travel to interviews, and the household basics (not to mention the rent deposit) to leave home when they need to?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Sweetie, if you treat people like irresponsible children, they'll behave as irresponsible children. Pay their benefit in cash and after a few weeks of perhaps being a bit silly with it, most young people quickly learn that paying for the essentials first is important.
> 
> In any case, if all they get it food stamps how are they to afford clothes for an interview, travel to interviews, and the household basics (not to mention the rent deposit) to leave home when they need to?


tbf benefits don't cover most of these things and 16 and 17 year olds don't qualify for benefits anyway.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 16, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> tbf benefits don't cover most of these things and 16 and 17 year olds don't qualify for benefits anyway.


Not so easy to make a living on the streets as it was back in the day either.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 16, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> tbf benefits don't cover most of these things and 16 and 17 year olds don't qualify for benefits anyway.


I was assuming that school leavers would include over 18s.  Goodness knows their level of benefit (let alone pay, if lucky enough to find full time work) doesn't give a lot of buying power, but it does give some.  Certainly more than vouchers for food would.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I was assuming that school leavers would include over 18s. Goodness knows their level of benefit (let alone pay, if lucky enough to find full time work) doesn't give a lot of buying power, but it does give some. Certainly more than vouchers for food would.


Yes but this government is not interested in giving them jobs. It wants them all (unless they're at uni or have parents who can buy them jobs) to be serfs on the dole doing work for whatever it is they get. They'd love the idea of food stamps - even if it costs more to administer.
Like I said the tax credits seem to expect a 16 year old will automatically leave school and get a job that pays £110 a week.


----------



## purenarcotic (Aug 16, 2012)

Cash is always better than vouchers. A voucher system takes away peoples' dignity and self respect.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Cash is always better than vouchers. A voucher system takes away peoples' dignity and self respect.


the whole point in a nutshell.. after working for the food stamps you get to walk umpteen miles to redeem the voucher at a supermarket not of your choosing, people still sneering how you are a scrounger


----------



## Clair De Lune (Aug 16, 2012)

A friend of mine recently was told he had to do this workfare shit by a lady in the dole office. He out and out refused claiming it was illegal and slave labour. He did so vehemently and as a result the lady in question said they would not be sending him on an unpaid placement afterall.


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 16, 2012)

Clair De Lune said:


> A friend of mine recently was told he had to do this workfare shit by a lady in the dole office. He out and out refused claiming it was illegal and slave labour. He did so vehemently and as a result the lady in question said they would not be sending him on an unpaid placement afterall.


 
Good for him, but brave; these people can cut up rough as I'm sure you don't need telling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2012)

Karim said:


> Instead of benefits, unemployed teenagers should get food stamps...


 
Thus making profits for both the administrative company (via the contract) and the chosen retailer(s) (via non-exchangeability).
This works so well that the only state that continues with it on a wholesale basis is the US.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2012)

Karim said:


> So you know the money will be spend on food, not weeds or booze.


 
It's always been amusing to me how the right, with their cant about freedom, forget that supposed factor when it comes to curbing behaviour they disapprove of.

Oh, and nice assumption that under-25s would necessarily spend their money on "weeds and booze".


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's always been amusing to me how the right, with their cant about freedom, forget that supposed factor when it comes to curbing behaviour they disapprove of.
> 
> Oh, and nice assumption that under-25s would necessarily spend their money on "weeds and booze".


Or indeed that people become suddenly less likely to do so at the age of 25!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Or indeed that people become suddenly less likely to do so at the age of 25!


 
Fair point!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 16, 2012)

As soon as I get some money in my pocket I'm always straight out to get some dandelion and a few cheeky nettles tbh.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Or indeed that people become suddenly less likely to do so at the age of 25!


When I had fuck all money (16-25) I was still old enough to realize I needed to eat and wear clothes. Booze only became consumed in large amounts after these ages when I was earning more or when I had 'saved up' for it.
To assume that everyone down on their luck is incapable of spending their money on anything other than fags or cider is utterly offensive. Then to make these people use food stamps, well it's just demeaning.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> As soon as I get some money in my pocket I'm always straight out to get some dandelion and a few cheeky nettles tbh.


 
Careful now. Those nettle dealers are notorious for trying to sting you!

<gets coat>


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 16, 2012)

if you give people foodstamps how are they meant to pay rent? seeing as they are cutting hb as well. btw in america people on foodstamps are still thought of as scroungers.it's a complete trap.

utterly sick of this shit.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 16, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> When I had fuck all money (16-25) I was still old enough to realize I needed to eat and wear clothes. Booze only became consumed in large amounts after these ages when I was earning more or when I had 'saved up' for it.
> To assume that everyone down on their luck is incapable of spending their money on anything other than fags or cider is utterly offensive. Then to make these people use food stamps, well it's just demeaning.


 
also ignores the causes of why people spend money on booze etc in the first place. and like there are no rich alcoholics/druggies.

Like making people live on foodstamps in the US has worked sooooo well in curbing the black market and the proceeds of crime.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2012)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> When I had fuck all money (16-25) I was still old enough to realize I needed to eat and wear clothes. Booze only became consumed in large amounts after these ages when I was earning more or when I had 'saved up' for it.
> To assume that everyone down on their luck is incapable of spending their money on anything other than fags or cider is utterly offensive. Then to make these people use food stamps, well it's just demeaning.


I lived on fuck all and was better at budgeting than I probably am now (tbh it does help if you're only looking after yourself). The arrogant attitude of people about young is just that. They are always boasting how they 'got a job' at that age conveniently forgetting that they lived thru times when there was pretty much a job for anyone who wanted one (and got paid proportionately better as well).
Even the recession of the 80s/ 90s is looking like a great era in comparison to this, I have never known there to be so few jobs about.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 16, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I lived on fuck all and was better at budgeting than I probably am now (tbh it does help if you're only looking after yourself). The arrogant attitude of people about young is just that. They are always boasting how they 'got a job' at that age conveniently forgetting that they lived thru times when there was pretty much a job for anyone who wanted one (and got paid proportionately better as well).
> Even the recession of the 80s/ 90s is looking like a great era in comparison to this, I have never known there to be so few jobs about.


Early 90s was Shangri-La compared to this time, though I've heard that the one in the 70s was near enough as bad.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Early 90s was Shangri-La compared to this time, though I've heard that the one in the 70s was near enough as bad.


At least people managed to claim benefits without being comprehensively shat on and demonised at the same time.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 16, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> At least people managed to claim benefits without being comprehensively shat on and demonised at the same time.


Apart from a month stoned on hash oil at the under 25s Job Club some time in the mid 90s I don't recall any trouble, but tbf it was around then that a mate ended up signing a week early by accident and then continued to sign and be paid the wrong week for about six months before they or the Jobcentre noticed.

That was back when you could cash a whole sick book with a bit of spare time and a biro....*sigh*


----------



## Belushi (Aug 16, 2012)

I hope those who advocate food stamps turn up to work one day to discover the boss has started paying them in his own currency that you can only use at outlets approved by the company.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I hope those who advocate food stamps turn up to work one day to discover the boss has started paying them in his own currency that you can only use at outlets approved by the company.


There was an act of parliament against that in 19th century. Wouldn't be surprised if the bastards are trying to repeal it.
What would the legal position be of a theoretical person working for their benefits in say tesco and only getting tesco vouchers instead of money?


----------



## Belushi (Aug 16, 2012)

Yes, it's still well remembered in south wales where the mineowners would mint their own money which workers could only use in the minewners shop.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 16, 2012)

some of these dead eyed tory boys would probably think that was a great idea though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> Early 90s was Shangri-La compared to this time, though I've heard that the one in the 70s was near enough as bad.


 
Thing was, although inflation went higher, and there were all sorts of knock-ons such as shortages of perishables (sugar and flour I remember especially well, although the bog-roll shortage was the funniest!), and climbing unemployment, I don't think we (i.e. the under 25s) felt it as badly because, for a start, youth unemployment never got beyond about half a million, plus back then, if you got a day's -worth of casual, you could do it, declare it, and just have a day-worth of benefit stopped.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I hope those who advocate food stamps turn up to work one day to discover the boss has started paying them in his own currency that you can only use at outlets approved by the company.


 
Yep. Fuck 'em into a company store arrangement, the star-bellied sneeches!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Aug 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> also ignores the causes of why people spend money on booze etc in the first place. and like there are no rich alcoholics/druggies.


 
Quite a few MPs I have interviewed at home on in their office  has cracked open the booze before lunch.
I can think of two or three occasions when it has been a little shocking and embarrassing. It inspired me at one time to think about setting up as many fake interviews as possible and keep rolling with the red light off. The things some of them say.
Couldn't really do it at ITV as I was holding down a actual job, and now I don't have access to cars and cameras. Bah.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 16, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> some of these dead eyed tory boys would probably think that was a great idea though


 
Ah well, now even if we set aside the a priori argument that any agreement entered into freely in a free market is by definition maximising the utility of both parties, and therefore if a company and worker wish to enter into such an agreement, why would we feel it is right for the state to intervene to prevent such a thing, thus reducing the amount of happiness in the world, there is actually a very strong argument that such an arrangement would be in the favour of both parties.

By paying their workers in vouchers that will be spent in their store (or perhaps in other stores as well that enter into mutual agreements - Tesco might be alright, but a Waterstone's staff member is unlikely to accept such an arrangement, leaving them unable to buy food and so on), this means that a larger amount of profit will be retained within the store than might be expected if you paid in cash.
This makes the company healthier, allowing it to grow and expand, thus securing the long term employment of the worker in question.
Indeed, the company may feel that the retention of this profit means that it is worth giving workers who agree to be paid in vouchers a discount on their purchases, or a good employee may manage to negotiate such a deal with the firm.  This would mean that the worker gets better value for their money than if they were paid in cash, whilst the company makes more profit. win-win.

Now who could possibly disagree with that pile of a-historical idiotic crap?


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 16, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> There was an act of parliament against that in 19th century. Wouldn't be surprised if the bastards are trying to repeal it.
> What would the legal position be of a theoretical person working for their benefits in say tesco and only getting tesco vouchers instead of money?


We all to whistle the classic song !!! i owe my soul to the company store !!!


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. Fuck 'em into a company store arrangement, the star-bellied sneeches!


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 16, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> I get the feeling that the powers that be are hoping that they will all be too hungry to revolt by the time most of them realise.


I agree but the people at peterloo though depicted by right wing cartoonist as portly ,i imagine had little spare meat on their bones


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 16, 2012)

don't they have some rocks they should be breaking into gravel? The tories I mean, not the unemployed and school leavers. I'd love to see them do that. For £20 a week. For the next twenty years.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> don't they have some rocks they should be breaking into gravel? The tories I mean, not the unemployed and school leavers. I'd love to see them do that. For £20 a week. For the next twenty years.


It could be used to pebbledash the outiside of all the new truly affordable social housing which will need building.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2012)

good idea. And for the roads as well. Can you imagine how much they'd complain about it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> if you give people foodstamps how are they meant to pay rent?


 
It occurred to me earlier that the above question is going to become more and more relevant as the HB/LHA cuts bite deeper. If claimants find that their "benefits" become substantially transmuted into "vouchers" entitling them to purchase goods at certain stores, how do they then make up the gap between their housing allowance and the actual cost of the rent?
The answer is, of course, that they will not be able to, in many cases, and the situation will be even worse if this government are allowed to introduce local benefit rates in place of national ones.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> good idea. And for the roads as well. Can you imagine how much they'd complain about it?


All the time- which would only add to the value of the punishment.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2012)

ah well. it'll be a hard life down at the gravel factory won't it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2012)

its worth remembering that in america, dealers often get nicked and inamongst the lovely lovely crack, guns and cash, theres foodstamps. lots of foodstamps. Those so concerned that the feckless underclass might spend cash on snouts and booze are encouraging people with dependency issues towards smack and rock basically.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I hope those who advocate food stamps turn up to work one day to discover the boss has started paying them in his own currency that you can only use at outlets approved by the company.


 

a company script. It's only a matter of time. I thought the film Matewan was exaggerating when it showed the black workers being told 'company script, company shop' but no, looked it up and they actually did do that shit. The Pennsylvanian labour struggle is astonishing in its 'have to search for it' reportage in orthodox history. Dropping bombs from planes onto strikers ranks as pretty fucking low.
American unionism later in years really took the hit from having done what the bosses did and got in bed with organised crime. A tragedy and one I'm sure you are aware of but it bears repeating. If you will use dirty tactics, do them yourself and don't get caught- and only in response to escalation from bosses and their pinkertons. RICO laws have done a few US unions and officials IIRC- Teamsters being one I think, recovered but bruised


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 17, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Dropping bombs from planes onto strikers...


 
Say what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Say what?


 
my mac is being a cunt, google 'Battle of Blair Mountain' the fuckers hired private planes to drop bombs on workers


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain





> By August 29, battle was fully joined. Chafin's men, though outnumbered, had the advantage of higher positions and better weaponry. Private planes were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners. A combination of gas and explosive bombs left over from the fighting in World War I were dropped in several locations near the towns of Jeffery, Sharples and Blair. At least one did not explode and was recovered by the miners; it was used months later to great effect during treason and murder trials following the battle


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2012)

Fucks sake, Virginia, West Virginia. Dunno how I got Pennsylvania in my head


----------



## Belushi (Aug 17, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Fucks sake, Virginia, West Virginia. Dunno how I got Pennsylvania in my head


 
Both were big coal fields


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> Fucks sake, Virginia, West Virginia. Dunno how I got Pennsylvania in my head


 
They're both mining country.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> a company script. It's only a matter of time. I thought the film Matewan was exaggerating when it showed the black workers being told 'company script, company shop' but no, looked it up and they actually did do that shit. The Pennsylvanian labour struggle is astonishing in its 'have to search for it' reportage in orthodox history. Dropping bombs from planes onto strikers ranks as pretty fucking low.
> American unionism later in years really took the hit from having done what the bosses did and got in bed with organised crime. A tragedy and one I'm sure you are aware of but it bears repeating. If you will use dirty tactics, do them yourself and don't get caught- and only in response to escalation from bosses and their pinkertons. RICO laws have done a few US unions and officials IIRC- Teamsters being one I think, recovered but bruised


 
Company stores were also a feature here, well into the mid-19th century.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 28, 2012)

In the independent the government announced this today I just wonder were they will go for this work experience they end up in overcrowded rooms with not enough toilet faclities like a4e

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...perience-or-face-cut-in-benefits-8084473.html


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 28, 2012)

> A something-for-nothing culture does no one any favours.


Whereas 30 hours a week for £56 is fine.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 28, 2012)

Chris "something for nothing" Grayling. £70k on expenses on a second home in london when his own home is 17 miles away from parliament.
Should imagine most people here know this little fact already but all these cunts in parliament moaning about something for nothing, culture of entitlement and so on and absolutely creaming it in on expenses, we should never let such comments pass without mentioning these things, I wish journalists would do it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...te-nearby-constituency-home-MPs-expenses.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2012)

i think it's a good idea. if this can't lead to a grander repeat of last year's riots, i don't know what will.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 28, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Chris "something for nothing" Grayling. £70k on expenses on a second home in london when his own home is 17 miles away from parliament.
> Should imagine most people here know this little fact already but all these cunts in parliament moaning about something for nothing, culture of entitlement and so on and absolutely creaming it in on expenses, we should never let such comments pass without mentioning these things, I wish journalists would do it.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...te-nearby-constituency-home-MPs-expenses.html


Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" .I am no god botherer but i just like that quote


----------



## tbtommyb (Aug 28, 2012)

As long as this is for genuine charities and social enterprises, I don't have a problem with this. What pisses me off is when private companies use this as cheap labour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2012)

tbtommyb said:


> As long as this is for genuine charities and social enterprises, I don't have a problem with this. What pisses me off is when private companies use this as cheap labour.


what is a 'social enterprise'? and how come you're quite happy for some people to benefit from coerced labour but not others?

would you, for example, be happy for a genuine registered charity like eton to benefit from this?


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 28, 2012)

tbtommyb said:


> As long as this is for genuine charities and social enterprises, I don't have a problem with this. What pisses me off is when private companies use this as cheap labour.


Yes if the work is voluntary and the youngster get something out of it.but there are only so many places and you might get a stage where like with conscription you have them whitewashing coal just to make work


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 28, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> Yes if the work is voluntary and the youngster get something out of it.but there are only so many places and you might get a stage where like with conscription you have them whitewashing coal just to make work


 
It's not voluntary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> Yes if the work is voluntary and the youngster get something out of it.but there are only so many places and you might get a stage where like with conscription you have them whitewashing coal just to make work


could you give me a specifick example of where people were conscripted to whitewash coal?


----------



## tbtommyb (Aug 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what is a 'social enterprise'? and how come you're quite happy for some people to benefit from coerced labour but not others?
> 
> would you, for example, be happy for a genuine registered charity like eton to benefit from this?


 
So basically, if I left school at 16 with not much in the way of prospects, while I was claiming dole I would volunteer at a local charity shop or try and do something decent. Get experience etc, then get on to a proper job as soon as possible. Pushing people to do this isn't a bad idea. Say you volunteer in a charity shop and then get a job in Tesco or M&S or wherever. Sure it's not your life's ambition but tbh a whole lot of people work in such jobs so harm in getting people into them. Yeah it's coerced but if all else they're doing is lying around and wanking I don't see any harm. I'm not saying the exact proposed model is perfect - if you can prove you're doing something useful then you should be excused (which is why I think that Poundland woman who was already doing museum volunteering got fucked over) - and 30 hours is maybe a bit much.

Your comment about eton is a bit of a distraction as that's more about whether eton should have charitable status. But if, for example, Eton helped fund a local school for disabled kids and someone went in a few hours a week to help there, then yeah that's fine.

And social enterprise? Well, a co-operative shop catering to the local community, mutuals etc. Your problems seem to be less with the general idea and more the specifics of what some might end up doing.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> could you give me a specifick example of where people were conscripted to whitewash coal?


It was a gross overplay of the make work attitude that had to be taken with people being put in the forces without a real purpose or need


----------



## BigTom (Aug 28, 2012)

edit: in reply to tommyb but qouting failed.

But the specifics matter - you've already said that what happened with Cait Reilly in Birmingham was wrong but from everything else you've said you'd have no problem with the scheme she was on, except that it involved private companies getting the free labour.
My google skills are failing me, but there were people being sent on mandatory work activity I think (supposedly restricted to charity/not for profit organisations) that went to private companies, and you should expect any scheme like this to end up being abused in similar ways, and in any case it'll be private companies running the schemes and making profit out of the forced labour.

And this scheme doesn't give school leavers any opportunity to find work, unless they have something sorted straight out of school. Trying to find work when you are already working for 30 hours a week is very hard. People have got sanctioned for not going to their work programme/workfare stuff because they had interviews, or been told they have to leave training courses..

It also totally ignores that the biggest barrier to a school leaver finding work is that they are competing with so many other people for the jobs that exist. Even 6 months experience is not going to help when you're up against people with years of experience.

And why the fuck should we expect 16 year olds to have 6 months or more work experience before they can get their first job? When did that become normal? I'm only 33 and I've said this before but at 16 I got my first job part time at mcdonalds, and me having zero work experience wasn't an issue, it was expected, a normal thing for the company to take school leavers with no experience, and I'd gain that experience and get paid..

And I'm going to start a new thread about this when I've had the time to read around it, but it appears that the DWP are in fact using workfare and sanctions to reduce the number of unemployed people - and if they are (and I definitely trust consent.me.uk to have the right information), then that's all this is about - taking someone off the labour force survey unemployment count to reduce youth unemployment.
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/how-the-dwp-manufactures-falling-unemployment-figures/


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 28, 2012)

I hate it when people refer to themselves as 'social entrepreneurs'. It's on a par with people calling our country 'UK PLC'. Stop trying to encapsulate the whole of reality into one, very narrow, economic world-view. Charity is charity, the market is different. A nation is a culture and a people, not a corporate entity devoid of history.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 28, 2012)

BigTom said:


> edit: in reply to tommyb but qouting failed.
> 
> But the specifics matter - you've already said that what happened with Cait Reilly in Birmingham was wrong but from everything else you've said you'd have no problem with the scheme she was on, except that it involved private companies getting the free labour.
> My google skills are failing me, but there were people being sent on mandatory work activity I think (supposedly restricted to charity/not for profit organisations) that went to private companies, and you should expect any scheme like this to end up being abused in similar ways, and in any case it'll be private companies running the schemes and making profit out of the forced labour.
> ...


The tories fiddling the unemployment figures started years ago with tebbit why do you think we have two figures one of those who claiming jsa and the other higher figure of people seeking work


----------



## BigTom (Aug 28, 2012)

yeah, but it's worth knowing how they are fiddling the unemployment figures


----------



## tbtommyb (Aug 28, 2012)

BigTom said:


> edit: in reply to tommyb but qouting failed.
> [snip]


 
I actually don't disagree with you on very much there. It does all depend on the implementation. If it's a purely local thing where your local broo fixes you up with some local charities, then that's great. If it's A4E dropping people into quasi-charitable organisations, then that's bad. Which probably means that I have a problem with the current implementation, but the idea itself, if implemented well, could do good.

I do think 30 hours is too much, probably should be linked to the hours you'd need to work to get benefits at minimum wage or something. It seems that 30 hours was a number plucked out someone's arse.

Regarding the whole experience thing, yeah loads of firms will take on part time staff or students with no experience, but as you point out they can choose from people who've proven themselves through years of work. Would you rather employ a 16 year old who's just scraped through GCSEs or someone who's been made redundant from a similar retail job? I'm not saying that's right, and I'd personally put in place a system of well funded apprenticeships to get young people learning and working and earning.

my impression is that this is a small budgeted project only looking at a small aspect of the whole problem, rather that getting to the root. but i think it's as much as we can expect for a while...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 28, 2012)

BigTom said:


> yeah, but it's worth knowing how they are fiddling the unemployment figures


 
I know that in the US they have a number of different measures of unemployment. The one usually quoted is 'U3 unemployment', but this only counts people who actively sought work in the last 4 weeks. So disaffected workers, or those who have simply applied for everything already, are not counted.



"The Real Unemployment Rate: 21.5%"


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I know that in the US they have a number of different measures of unemployment. The one usually quoted is 'U3 unemployment' (I think), but this only counts people who actively sought work in the last 4 weeks. So disaffected workers, or those who have simply applied for everything already, are not counted.
> 
> View attachment 22509
> 
> "The Real Unemployment Rate: 21.5%"


i'm actively seeking work and i have a job. which of your measures would i fit in?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm actively seeking work and i have a job. which of your measures would i fit in?


 
Fortunate.

eta: they aren't my measures, they're the US government's.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm actively seeking work and i have a job. which of your measures would i fit in?


You should do what bob monkhouse did,and play the bbc off against the itv You can't do that now because there is nowhere else to go sadly


----------



## tbtommyb (Aug 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm actively seeking work and i have a job. which of your measures would i fit in?


 
Which of the measures of unemployment would you fit into while having a job?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2012)

tbtommyb said:


> Which of the measures of unemployment would you fit into while having a job?


did I say unemployment?


----------



## treelover (Aug 28, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> Yes if the work is voluntary and the youngster get something out of it.but there are only so many places and you might get a stage where like with conscription you have them whitewashing coal just to make work


 
30 hours a week of conscripted labour is still 30 hours of free labour, the Tories were determined to bring this back, they read the blogs etc, comments, twitter, saw plenty of people were 'happy' if it was not the corporate sector that benefited, this will be their MO in the future, propose, remove, rebrand, the LP will aquiesce or create their own.

and of course as others note, A4E described themselves as a social enterprise...


----------



## treelover (Aug 28, 2012)

btw, they are in trouble, expect these announcements from now till the election, ill thought out, with no concern for the YP or claimant, etc..


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2012)

The answer, to avoid further pain, is "none of them"


----------



## tbtommyb (Aug 28, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> did I say unemployment?


 
You said 'which of your measures', responding to ItWillNeverWork saying 'they have a number of different measures of unemployment.'

So, basically, yeah, you did!


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 28, 2012)

I am coming up to retirement age .When i left school at fifteen in 1967 ,we had a lot more to look forward to ,we earnt enough to give our mums a few quid and buy some things, we wern't rich but the kids today have nothing their even worst of than the kids in the eighties,what a piss awful system we live under


----------



## treelover (Aug 29, 2012)

how long will they tolerate this 'war' on them?


----------



## starfish2000 (Aug 29, 2012)

I just think we should have a national work scheme that pays a minimum living wage, the biggest obstacle to someone going from long term unemployment to full time work is loosing housing benefit. If there was no such thing as benefits in the first place, but community work at a minimum wage would work.

Having money to buy the things you want and do the things y want is lovely.

We need to legalise drugs and prostitution  too, the black economy must generate billions, we need to tax it pronto!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 29, 2012)

Err, not sure about the last bit, but we certainly need a living wage, and a job guarantee program would be amazing. Housing is too expensive and people are out of work. Here's a crazy idea: pay people to build more homes and so bring prices down, increase employment, and raise wages all at the same time.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 29, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Err, not sure about the last bit, but we certainly need a living wage, and a job guarantee program would be amazing. Housing is too expensive and people are out of work. Here's a crazy idea: pay people to build more homes and so bring prices down, increase employment, and raise wages all at the same time.


Plus a large percentage of the bricks etc will come from british factories .it's so blindingly obvious ,but comes up against the idealolgy of the tories and to lesser extent nu labour


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 29, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> Plus a large percentage of the bricks etc will come from british factories .it's so blindingly obvious ,but comes up against the idealolgy of the tories and to lesser extent nu labour


 
Yep, it's odd how a 70 year old principle that even a child can understand - i.e. the beneficial knock-on effect on the private sector because of government investment - has completely passed over the heads of our politicians and so called 'professional' economists.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 29, 2012)

starfish2000 said:


> I just think we should have a national work scheme that pays a minimum living wage, the biggest obstacle to someone going from long term unemployment to full time work is loosing housing benefit. If there was no such thing as benefits in the first place, but community work at a minimum wage would work.
> 
> Having money to buy the things you want and do the things y want is lovely.
> 
> We need to legalise drugs and prostitution too, the black economy must generate billions, we need to tax it pronto!


 

Trouble is that aprox 90% of folk on HB ARE working !


----------



## gunneradt (Aug 29, 2012)

Maidmarian said:


> Trouble is that aprox 90% of folk on HB ARE working !


 
oh no they're not


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> oh no they're not


 
You reckon ? How ?

PS He's BEHIND you !


----------



## gunneradt (Aug 29, 2012)

Maidmarian said:


> You reckon ? How ?
> 
> PS He's BEHIND you !


 
this is a leftie fallacy - can't remember the exact figs but it's way lower than that - search another thread where this was discussed


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> this is a leftie fallacy - can't remember the exact figs but it's way lower than that - search another thread where this was discussed


 

Ah yes ### it's a mere 80%  silly me !


----------



## Lock&Light (Aug 29, 2012)

Maidmarian said:


> Ah yes ### it's a mere 80% silly me !


 
Facts are only usefull if they are true.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 29, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Facts are only usefull if they are true.


 

Yep   just like this ! ^^^


----------



## gunneradt (Aug 29, 2012)

Lock&Light said:


> Facts are only usefull if they are true.


 
its something like 26% I believe!!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 29, 2012)

Sources, anyone?


----------



## scifisam (Aug 29, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> its something like 26% I believe!!


 
It's only that low if you include pensioners, people with disabilities, and carers. It's about 80% for the people who actually could be going out to work.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Aug 29, 2012)

scifisam said:


> It's only that low if you include pensioners, people with disabilities, and carers. It's about 80% for the people who actually could be going out to work.


Eh? I might have misunderstood you here but you seem to be saying that pensioners, carers and people with disabilities should be working.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 29, 2012)

Fuchs66 said:


> Eh? I might have misunderstood you here but you seem to be saying that pensioners, carers and people with disabilities should be working.


 
no, she's saying it's 26% of the total housing benefit bill, but a lot of the housing benefit bill is made up of pensioners, carers and disabled people who otherwise are not expected to work. About 80% of the able people of working age who aren't carers who claim HB are actually working.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 29, 2012)

tbtommyb said:


> I actually don't disagree with you on very much there. It does all depend on the implementation. If it's a purely local thing where your local broo fixes you up with some local charities, then that's great. If it's A4E dropping people into quasi-charitable organisations, then that's bad. Which probably means that I have a problem with the current implementation, but the idea itself, if implemented well, could do good.
> 
> I do think 30 hours is too much, probably should be linked to the hours you'd need to work to get benefits at minimum wage or something. It seems that 30 hours was a number plucked out someone's arse.
> 
> ...


 
Ok, so how much experience does a young person need to have a chance against older people with long employment records? 3 months? 6? a year? two? I've got nearly 10 years experience in my sector and am failing to get permanent work because of the competition for jobs, I can't imagine how hard it must be for a school leaver (although my industry - arts & live music - has taken a real beating in the recession & cuts)

The root of the problem is the way that capitalism organises employment, especially during a crisis, which is to make people compete for jobs and leave some without work, rather than dividing up the work between the people available to work.
Yes a lack of experience is a barrier to employment, but it's not the root of the problem at all, and the blinkered emphasis on this barrier means that the real issue doesn't get addressed - and the individual gets the blame for unemployment.

Getting some experience really won't do much for young people in the current economic climate, and if we were in a boom with plenty of jobs available, they wouldn't need experience because employers would take on people with no experience.
The whole idea of unpaid work purely to gain experience is a sham to udnermine the minimum wage, to blame the individual for unemployment and keep running the whole lazy/feckless/scrounger narrative, and to hand money to private companies.

Proper apprenticeships are different because they teach someone a skill and trade over a long period of time. It's not really about gaining experience, except that experience is needed to become a skilled worker. 
This kind of scheme is nothing like that at all, and in fact if you try to access proper training courses you'll often run into problems with the job centre telling you that you have to go on to workfare and leave your training course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2012)

Fuchs66 said:


> Eh? I might have misunderstood you here but you seem to be saying that pensioners, carers and people with disabilities should be working.


They should. But there's a difference between useless toil and useful labour.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 29, 2012)

Maidmarian said:


> Trouble is that aprox 90% of folk on HB ARE working !





gunneradt said:


> its something like 26% I believe!!





scifisam said:


> It's only that low if you include pensioners, people with disabilities, and carers. It's about 80% for the people who actually could be going out to work.


 

For once, and possibly the only time I'll ever say this, I agree with GunnerADT (ouch).

Pensioners are about 25% of HB claimaints:

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbctb



> At May 2012:
> The total number of people receiving Housing Benefit was 5.03 million, with 5.92 million claiming Council Tax Benefit.
> 3.74 million Housing Benefit recipients were aged under 65, representing almost three quarters of all Housing Benefit recipients.


 
There are tables and stuff in that dwp link which probably has a full breakdown from may 2012 but right now I'm not going to look into it, cos I can't be arsed quite frankly.

in 2010, 26% of HB Claimants were employed, 22% unemployed:
http://www.crisis.org.uk/pressrelea...uopeddling-myths-to-sell-housing-benefit-cuts

The remaining quarter is disabled people and carers.

The 90% figure comes from here: http://www.bshf.org/published-infor...?thePubID=5E017604-15C5-F4C0-99F1DFE5F12DBC2A

it refers to new claimants in 2010/11 - so the 26% figure for HB claiamants who are employed is likely to be higher now. I suppose I should go through the data the DWP have and see how it's broken down.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 29, 2012)

BigTom said:


> For once, and possibly the only time I'll ever say this, I agree with GunnerADT (ouch).
> 
> Pensioners are about 25% of HB claimaints:
> 
> ...


 
OK, so it's more like half of the HB claimants who _could_ be working _are_ working. Although those figures don't tell us how many of_ those_ are single mums with one or more children under 5 on income support, either. Either way, just saying 'only 26% of HB claimants work' is totally misleading because your head automatically translates that as '74% of HB claimants are unemployed' which is unfair.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 29, 2012)

Right this is the data from the table for May 2012 - I don't know what Passported Benefits are and what Non-Passported benefits are so I'm not going to comment on the data..

This is from the XLS file that is linked to in this dwp link, table 6: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbctb



> *Year / Month - *May 2012
> 
> *All HB recipients - * *5,031,740*
> 
> ...


 
Sorry the formatting is totally messed up from c+ping from a spreadsheet - I'll try to rewrite it into something useful

Next step for me is to find out what non-passported / passported benefits means and whether income support is for employed people..

Clearly from this though:
900k / 5 million = ~ 18% in employment
664k = 13% unemployed on JSA
455k = 9% disabled on ESA (wonder if this also includes people who are still on IB?)
1m on pension credit = 20% retired I think, though you get pension credit if you are unemployed and over 60 so I'm not sure of this one either.

Then the 600k (12%) on non-passported benefits who are not in employment (but I don't know what this actually means), and the 1m (20%) on income support, which I also don't know what it means in relation to employment.

I'm wondering where people who are on carers allowance fits into this as well, perhaps that's a non-passported benefit?


----------



## weepiper (Aug 29, 2012)

passported benefit is one that automatically qualifies you for things like HB, healthy start tokens, tax credit prescription exemption cards. Free school dinners.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> OK, so it's more like half of the HB claimants who _could_ be working _are_ working. Although those figures don't tell us how many of_ those_ are single mums with one or more children under 5 on income support, either. Either way, just saying 'only 26% of HB claimants work' is totally misleading because your head automatically translates that as '74% of HB claimants are unemployed' which is unfair.


 
Yep, I would prefer to say only 22% of HB claimants are unemployed if it was only going to be one figure - though that suggests nearly 80% are employed which also isn't right.
It's not too much to say that 26% are in work, 22% unemployed, 25% pensioners and the rest disabled or carers though, and gives a clear picture.

Need to work through those DWP figures though for the most up to date numbers on this.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> passported benefit is one that automatically qualifies you for things like HB, healthy start tokens, tax credit prescription exemption cards. Free school dinners.


 
ok, so as it says JSA and ESA (income based) then does that mean that contributions based ESA/JSA would be in the non-passported benefits?
If so we can't break down these figures properly as we can't distinguish between unemployed & disabled in that first group.
Any idea where Carers Allowance comes in? I'm presuming it's a non-passported benefit now.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 29, 2012)

BigTom said:


> ok, so as it says JSA and ESA (income based) then does that mean that contributions based ESA/JSA would be in the non-passported benefits?
> If so we can't break down these figures properly as we can't distinguish between unemployed & disabled in that first group.
> Any idea where Carers Allowance comes in? I'm presuming it's a non-passported benefit now.


 
yep the figures are confusingly laid out. I don't know about Carer's Allowance, Greebo?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Aug 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> no, she's saying it's 26% of the total housing benefit bill, but a lot of the housing benefit bill is made up of pensioners, carers and disabled people who otherwise are not expected to work. About 80% of the able people of working age who aren't carers who claim HB are actually working.


Ah gotcha, it was early o clock.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 29, 2012)

BigTom said:


> ok, so as it says JSA and ESA (income based) then does that mean that contributions based ESA/JSA would be in the non-passported benefits?
> If so we can't break down these figures properly as we can't distinguish between unemployed & disabled in that first group.
> Any idea where Carers Allowance comes in? I'm presuming it's a non-passported benefit now.


Fairly sure Carer's Allowance doesn't automatically qualify anyone for housing benefit without other earnings/ partner's income being taken into account. Which is why I am not getting housing benefit.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 29, 2012)

BigTom said:


> edit: in reply to tommyb but qouting failed.
> 
> But the specifics matter - you've already said that what happened with Cait Reilly in Birmingham was wrong but from everything else you've said you'd have no problem with the scheme she was on, except that it involved private companies getting the free labour.
> My google skills are failing me, but there were people being sent on mandatory work activity I think (supposedly restricted to charity/not for profit organisations) that went to private companies, and you should expect any scheme like this to end up being abused in similar ways, and in any case it'll be private companies running the schemes and making profit out of the forced labour.
> ...


I got a job when I was 14/15 and still at school, didn't get paid much but I'm guessing they wouldn't even want to pay a 16 year old £1 an hour. Why not when they can get it for free. This idea of qualifying to go on the dole is sick in the head. They need to be making jobs. Clearly the work exists just no one wants to pay any more. That's madness, even before we get to the topic of abuse when you shove pissed off teenagers to look after  vulnerable people.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 29, 2012)

weepiper said:


> yep the figures are confusingly laid out. I don't know about Carer's Allowance, Greebo?


Sorry, just got back from Water Lane.  

CA isn't a passported benefit _per se_ but if you're slightly above the Income Support threshold, having an underlying (ie you won't actually be paid CA, you just get the premium + IS, if you qualify for IS) entitlement to CA gets you a premium of approx £27 a week, therefore may passport you onto HB and CTB.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 29, 2012)

ok, and income support is if you're on a low wage and working less than 16 hours/week, so that should be added the the in employment figure, but we can't break down that non-passported figure properly, though I'm guessing here that it won't be anyone who is in work though but whether they are carers, disabled or unemployed but getting contributions based JSA is impossible to work out..

So that means:

employed - 900k (non-passported benefits) + 1.1m (income support) = 2m / 5m = 40%

Pension credit (guaranteed credit) - well there's also pension credit (savings credit) so I don't know if all pensioners that could claim HB would be included in the 1m figure either.. since the DWP page says that it's just over 25% of HB claimants that are over 65 I'm saying it isn't, cos there's only 20% in that pension credit figure - so they must also be some on non-passported benefits as well.

again with unemployed we can't get a proper figure - there's those 660k (13%) on JSA (income based) but also however many there are on contributions based JSA..

Disabled the same - we can get a base figure from ESA (income based) but that won't include those on contribution based ESA who'll be in the non-passported figure, along with carers.

But I think we can say that 40% of HB claimants in May 2012 were in work, and around 25% were pensioners, leaving 35% unemployed, disabled or carers, with at least 13% being unemployed and 9% being disabled.

edit: nope - as weepiper has pointed out below, income support is not just for employed people


----------



## weepiper (Aug 29, 2012)

Income Support is also for single parents not working but looking after child(ren) under 5 years old BigTom, so it covers both employed and unemployed


----------



## BigTom (Aug 29, 2012)

ah ok, I read through this twice before deciding you needed to work as well as being a single parent:



> Who can get Income Support
> 
> It's for people who all the following apply to:
> 
> ...


----------



## BigTom (Aug 29, 2012)

ok, so basically we can say fuck all with any real detail from those figures easily available from the DWP, lol. Why am I not surprised.. I might have another look at that excel sheet and see if it gives any more information later on.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 29, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> In the independent the government announced this today I just wonder were they will go for this work experience they end up in overcrowded rooms with not enough toilet faclities like a4e
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...perience-or-face-cut-in-benefits-8084473.html


A mate who is doing Olympic security is in one of these - they are basically four rooms, two to a room, per shipping container. You share with a stranger and the frosted glass partition means you can watch them shower and poo albeit not clearly.







http://www.snoozebox.com/home/index.html#welcome


----------



## scifisam (Aug 29, 2012)

I was considering single parents of under-five year-olds as carers. They're not included in other unemployment statistics, so I don't see why they should be counted as unemployed just to make housing benefit sound worse. Yes, parents of kids that young can work, but it is much harder and can end up costing the state more in childcare than if they allowed the woman to not do paid work - it's the kind of situation where going out to work should not be an automatic expectation. The solution to high unemployment is not to force _more_ people to compete for the same number of jobs.



BigTom said:


> ah ok, I read through this twice before deciding you needed to work as well as being a single parent:


 
No, you don't. The 'less than 16 hours a week' can be 'not working at all' and in practice it usually is.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 29, 2012)

They aren't even scared to use the word 'unpaid' now.



> *End of welfare culture as young must work unpaid before claiming benefits*
> 
> *Young people will have to complete three months of work experience before they can claim unemployment benefits under Government plans to end the “something for nothing” welfare culture.*


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ust-work-unpaid-before-claiming-benefits.html


----------



## weepiper (Aug 29, 2012)

scifisam said:


> I was considering single parents of under-five year-olds as carers. They're not included in other unemployment statistics, so I don't see why they should be counted as unemployed just to make housing benefit sound worse. Yes, parents of kids that young can work, but it is much harder and can end up costing the state more in childcare than if they allowed the woman to not do paid work - it's the kind of situation where going out to work should not be an automatic expectation. The solution to high unemployment is not to force _more_ people to compete for the same number of jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't. The 'less than 16 hours a week' can be 'not working at all' and in practice it usually is.


 
I agree, I was meaning that in the government statistics they will be be more likely to be included in 'unemployed' rather than 'carers' (because they're bastards that way and will try and exaggerate the unemployment figures when it suits them)


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 29, 2012)

i put a bag with a playstation by our bus stop someone took it ,so doing my bit now some sixteen year old can spend his day playing itthat's according to grayling


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 29, 2012)

stuff_it said:


> A mate who is doing Olympic security is in one of these - they are basically four rooms, two to a room, per shipping container. You share with a stranger and the frosted glass partition means *you can watch them shower and poo* albeit not clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Sounds great when do I start?


----------



## purenarcotic (Aug 29, 2012)

I'm a little confused by that Telegraph article; the headline suggests they have to do unpaid work before they can get benefits, but further down it says that failure to attend these placements will result in benefits being stopped.

Can anybody clarify?  Will they have to work for three months before they can claim any benefit at all, or is it simply a case of not attending these 3 month placements equalling benefit sanction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Sounds great when do I start?


 
Pooing or showering?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I'm a little confused by that Telegraph article; the headline suggests they have to do unpaid work before they can get benefits, but further down it says that failure to attend these placements will result in benefits being stopped.
> 
> Can anybody clarify? Will they have to work for three months before they can claim any benefit at all, or is it simply a case of not attending these 3 month placements equalling benefit sanction.


 
They are entitled to benefits only if they agree to the temporary indentured labour.


----------



## purenarcotic (Aug 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> They are entitled to benefits only if they agree to the temporary indentured labour.


 
Cheers, VP. 

Still fucking ridiculous, obviously.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Cheers, VP.
> 
> Still fucking ridiculous, obviously.


 
Ridiculous; cuntish; disempowering; shaming.
What sort of introduction to adult responsibilities and "the world of work" is this coercion? Seems to me that what it says most loudly is "you fuckers are worthless. You're not even worth the few score a week we're giving you, you pieces of shit".

Fuck the worthless tossrags in parliament and in "big business" who've constructed this. Slow deaths to the lot of them.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> They are entitled to benefits only if they agree to the temporary indentured labour.


That will mean a three month+ period before they show up as unemployed


----------



## Frances Lengel (Aug 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pooing or showering?


 
I think we both know the answer to that.


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2012)

The October TUC protest could be massive if the TUC, unions, get their finger out...


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2012)

SO, there will be largely untrained young people, who have replaced paid care workers who have spent months doing vocational courses, and who may not want to be there, visiting and helping vulnerable people who this may be the only human being they see all week,

btw, awful to see Kay Adams, who I usually admire, on the Wright Stuff robustly defending these disgraceful free labour schemes, and against the rest of the panel..


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> SO, there will be largely untrained young people, who have replaced paid care workers who have spent months doing vocational courses, and who may not want to be there, visiting and helping vulnerable people who this may be the only human being they see all week,
> 
> btw, awful to see Kay Adams, who I usually admire, on the Wright Stuff robustly defending these disgraceful free labour schemes, and against the rest of the panel..


Yeah. What I heard about similar forced labour schemes in America, abuse rockets.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> That will mean a three month+ period before they show up as unemployed


 
It does, doesn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Yeah. What I heard about similar forced labour schemes in America, abuse rockets.


 
And not just abuse perpetrated by the unpaid labour, but abuse by retained staff too, because most of them are stressed by the fact that their paid work could come to an end at any time, and who is it more convenient to vent that stress on-  your employer or the people you're charged to help?


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 30, 2012)

it's just gonna create a generation of venomous criminals with a burning hatred of society , people who coulda grown up decent with fair chances but who will end up mugging , taking and selling drugs , burgling houses etc , and the slavedrivers taking advantage of the free labour should watch out because these people will hate you that much they'll nick anything in sight


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 30, 2012)

did anyone see the bloke off CEX on Secret Millionaire , he actually had the right idea how to do things , he took the most abusive charver out of a gang and discussed his alienation with society and listened to him , realised he's not gonna get a job with a criminal record and actually found one for him , a PAID one.


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> it's just gonna create a generation of venomous criminals with a burning hatred of society , people who coulda grown up decent with fair chances but who will end up mugging , taking and selling drugs , burgling houses etc , and the slavedrivers taking advantage of the free labour should watch out because these people will hate you that much they'll nick anything in sight


 
Haven't you just described the US? but of course they have a response to such people there, the prison industrial complex...

CEX is a rip off...


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2012)

'Neil Atkins (Tory Mayor) - chairman of the Trussell Trust -'

Just found out that the boss of the Tressell Trust , the Foodbank charity supported and endorsed by Smith and the DWP is as above a Tory..


----------



## cesare (Aug 30, 2012)

treelover said:


> 'Neil Atkins (Tory Mayor) - chairman of the Trussell Trust -'
> 
> Just found out that the boss of the Tressell Trust , the Foodbank charity supported and endorsed by Smith and the DWP is as above a Tory..


You shouldn't really be surprised at finding a goodly number of Tories in charitable endeavours. The Tories think that looking after the needy should be a matter of charity rather than the State looking after basic human needs.


----------



## treelover (Aug 30, 2012)

'Excellent article reminding us all - we are all of worth - despite what David Cameron and Ian Duncan Smith claim But - yesterday we had Boris Johnson show his true right wing colours to state London Teenagers will be forced to work for charities unpaid But what Cameron, IDS and Boris Johnson don't want to tell us is, before the election their Big Society Policy tsar Nat Wei set up a company to set up charities
Now this Charity Factory, The Shaftesbury Partnership, has a revolving door of failed Tory Candidates and Tory Party Policy Writers
So Tories set up a company to set up charities and then abuse their power to deny people benefits and then force them to go to their charities - which will then get a free supply of cheap labour - no doubt with everyone on the boards of the charities doing very well out of it
So which Tory Party Members are setting up charities hand over fist - with Cameron, Ian Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson stating "WE WILL FORCE BRITISH PEOPLE TO WORK FOR TORY CONTROLLED CHARITIES FOR NOTHING"
Well we have the Tory Party Treasurer, Stanley Fink, he is on the board of a charity
Well we have Nat Wei - setting up and on the board of multiple charities
We have Philip Harris - on the board of a charity
Neil Atkins (Tory Mayor) - chairman of the Trussell Trust - where Cameron declaring people are to be deprived of benefits - despite him increasing our NI contributions - with Neil Atkins running all over Britain setting up foodbanks and the government and Tory Councils set to send over 3 million families for the scraps from other people's tables
Yes - Everything is to be controlled by the new breed of 21st Century Charities - many of which are set up by people and organisations associated and members of the Tory Party
Effectively turning Britain into a workhouse for the Tory Party and it's members
Please sir may I have some gruel'


The post from CIF is very revealing, its clear that Cameron's stated aim is to ''defund the welfare state'' and with his help from all these Tory charity bosses is well on his way to acheiving it..


----------

