[Closed] Labour pandering to Mail again......

Looks entirely reasonable (with the exception of where the funding comes from) get the work shy buggers in the field or picking cockles.

Wait, I smell a troll, and some apathy to the same subjects...

[img][url= http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/5055032357_69d1d1be72.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/5055032357_69d1d1be72.jp g"/> [/img][/url] [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/54644045@N08/5055032357/ ]OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/54644045@N08/ ]JasonStarcraft[/url], on Flickr[/img]

These jobs people are going to be "encouraged" to take, I thought there weren't any ?

Maybe Scargill is recruiting to get more folks down the mines and starting a new NUM to finance his flat?

There's plenty of jobs if you're not picky.

Mrs Deviant walked out of her job on Wednesday morning, send her CV to several firms that morning and was being asked to come to interviews the same day, starts her new job Monday....it's not what she wants but it's work, she has further interviews in the area she does want to work next week.

Contrast that with my uncle who was made redundant as an IT manager and has been unemployed now for years because he won't entertain the idea of taking any other kind of work.

Can you [b]imagine[/b]

I mean just for one second [b]imagine[/b]

If the Tories has suggested this?

It sounds like a rehash of the old Community Programme again. Though the idea of offering the long-term unemployed guaranteed jobs is a good one I do wonder what they would actually be doing in this outsourced, automated world. And then there is the issue of an income protection guarantee, there's no point in working if you are going to be worse off.

That old compulsion chestnut... When are all the main political parties going to stop treating unemployed people as if they are inherently workshy objects that need to be forced into displacement activites so unpleasant that magically they will be motivated to find non-existant jobs? The UK is a post-industrial wasteland, not Mao's China, Stalin's Stankhovite Russia, or Hitler's Germany. Give them proper training and help, with a bouyant economy of proper jobs on a living wage rather than humiliating workfare and the JCP staff will be innundated with eager applicants.

Can you imagine

I mean just for one second imagine

If the Tories has suggested this?

i don't think anyone would find it difficult to imagine that at all

but then again they're simply both cheeks of the same neo-liberal arsehole so i'm not suprised by either of them saying it

Can you imagine

I mean just for one second imagine

If the Tories has suggested this?

What happened to having a strong opposition?!?
Atleast when they were in power they had us by the balls. Now they're just weak.

You'll find that most bullies are weak.

I think they've rather missed the point, how many employers would want to take these people, even if they are being paid to do so. For whatever reason these individuals are unemployable, I doubt the money on offer will cover the cost of supervising and training them.

i don't think anyone would find it difficult to imagine that at all

but then again they're simply both cheeks of the same neo-liberal arsehole so i'm not suprised by either of them saying it

+1

Loving the [b]bold[/b] stuff lately Zulu. Really adds emphasis to your particular brand of shtick.

Labour says it would offer the long-term jobless a guarantee of a six-month job if it was in government, but admits it cannot commit to the idea if returned to power.

excellent - they offer something they can't provide! that's a way to win over the voters!

wah wah wah Darcy - the eternal Leftie cry of "Tories out"

That they still managed to keep crying when they got their own party elected, because they weren't Lefty enough - its laughable.

And then the unions got their mate to lead the party, [s]Red[/s] Ed 'I can't believe he's not Tory' Miliband

Have you been and had a look over at COF? complete lefty meltdown on this 😆

And the best bit of all this? the Tories are now free to introduce workfare, and the lefties and unions can't even criticise it, as its their own policy 😈

I can highly recommend a bit of time out from the forum Zulu. New 2013, same old trolling (of course, you [b][i]are[/i][/b] a self confessed troll as you'll remember). Spend a bit more time with the family. Come back refreshed with something new to say. I dunno, say 12 months? For the good of STW. You never know, TJ might be back again.

EDIT: COF? Never heard of it. Is that somewhere else you troll as well? Have you found someone there to continually wind up like you did to TJ?

Zulu-Eleven - Member
And the best bit of all this? the Tories are now free to introduce workfare, and the lefties and unions can't even criticise it, as its their own policy

Why is the freedom to introduce a system that hasn't reduced unemployment anywhere it's been tried 'the best bit'?

Ah, thats it Darcy - every time I hit a nerve that undermines your pathetic lefty paper tiger posturing, you accuse me of Trolling.

I don't think you even know the meaning of the word to be honest!

As for winding up TJ - the poor little lamb, ah! - I think you'll find TJ's problems and subsequent banning were [b]entirely[/b] of his own creation, or are you convinced that he needs you to fight his battles for him? is that how little you really thought of him? Or do you just look down on everyone?

PS - COF: Comment is Free - the Guardian version of the Daily Mail comments section! Primarily contributed to by people like yourself, you'd feel at home there - See, you learn something every day...

That old compulsion chestnut... When are all the main political parties going to stop treating unemployed people as if they are inherently workshy objects that need to be forced into displacement activites so unpleasant that magically they will be motivated to find non-existant jobs?

I imagine when the workshy stop phoning LBC to say that despite being long term unemployed they turned down a job that required them to start at 8am (8-4 working hours)as that was unreasonable and to query why anyone would work for minimum wage

http://order-order.com/2012/12/30/on-the-dole-because-he-didnt-want-to-get-up-at-800-a-m/

And then there is the issue of an income protection guarantee, there's no point in working if you are going to be worse off.

the core of IDS's policy on benefit's then

I hit a nerve

😆 I'm positively zinging here, I can tell you.

As for CIF, I'm not sure I'm even registered to post on there...I have a dim memory of having posted there years ago, but it's all too anonymous for my liking. I imagine you'd love it there for the same reason.

you accuse me of Trolling.

It's not an accusation Zulu. You're a [b][i]self-confessed[/b][/i] troll. Don't you remember admitting to it?

To be honest mate, you seem to be getting very wound up yourself lately. You know, like TJ used to with your constant baiting. Take some time out, the forum would be a much nicer place without your type for a while.

Or do you just look down on everyone

I try not to look down on anyone at all Zulu despite your best efforts. I even have some sympathy for you sometimes.

CIF. FFS.

8)

big_n_daft - Member
[b]I imagine when the workshy stop phoning LBC[/b] to say that despite being long term unemployed they turned down a job that required them to start at 8am (8-4 working hours)as that was unreasonable and to query why anyone would work for minimum wage

How very silly. One bloke =/= people on benefits.

well just signed on , quick one today-- was better paid than Drogba for a minute 😉

there are a total of 12 new jobs this week, of all kinds in the joke centre,one was 'suitable' --so rang the number-- and low and behold-- they are fishing for cv's -- no vacancy really--another agency just blagging !!- it is the same every time-- there is a huge pool of unemployed/underemployed and those on below poverty 'wages'-- tis a miracle of economic magic-- and of course new labour wants to be seen out torying the bluebloods-- democracy -- my arse !

Look, I know can't get over the loss of your ideologue Darcy, but TJ's gone, you just have to accept it...

maybe you should read up on the Kubler-Ross stages of Grief and figure out where you are on the journey

You never know, TJ might be back again.

There there...

[img] [/img]

you just have to accept it,

I have mate, it's just you left (or right) that needs to now.

Have you found any strength and fortitude in the bible lately? I know it's one of your fave books.

How very silly. One bloke =/= people on benefits.

so you agree he is workshy?

one person never fully represents a group but callers to radio shows are however heard by a wide audience which the politian wants to attract support from

how would you get the LBC caller into employment?

a hand picked caller on a radio show-- how scientific-- hate those stupid phone ins-- lazy, reactionary , mush-- another version of mail outrage !

Sure Darcy:

Matthew 5:4 [i]"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted"[/i]

😉

Kubler-Ross stages of Grief

Wasn't that about acceptance of change?

Bible bashers-- all we need now is some hare-krishnas'!

big_n_daft - Member

how would you get the LBC caller into employment?

What a ridiculous question.

Lifer - Member

What a ridiculous question

it's the underlying subject of the thread, the OP expresses a low opinion of one policy, all I asked is what your idea was to get the long term unemployed* with attitudes expressed by the LBC caller into employment. So...

how would you get the LBC caller into employment?

*obviously many/ the majority/ nearly all/ 99.9999% of the long term unemployed would have jumped at the job offer the LBC caller turned down

rudebwoy - Member
a hand picked caller on a radio show-- how scientific-- hate those stupid phone ins-- lazy, reactionary , mush-- another version of mail outrage !

have you listened to the call? the LBC presenter was quite sympathetic/ understanding of the problems he initially talked about. He then drops in that he didn't take a job because of the 8am start when comfortable with the conversation

imagine when the workshy stop phoning LBC to say that despite being long term unemployed they turned down a job that required them to start at 8am (8-4 working hours)as that was unreasonable and to query why anyone would work for minimum wage

big_n_daft - Member

it's the underlying subject of the thread, the OP expresses a low opinion of one policy, all I asked is what your idea was to get the long term unemployed* with attitudes expressed by the LBC caller into employment. So...

No, it's about a specific policy idea of how to get people into work.

Workfare in other countries has failed to decrease the number of people on benefits, failed to improve the skills of those in the program and failed to get people in the program into full time employment while proving very expensive and complicated to administer. A better policy is therefore 'no workfare'.

The policy is another smokescreen, the poor are being blamed for taking benefits when there is little/no work available-- what work there is , is often at minimum wage, so depending on your circumstances, you could be 'worse' off than remaining on benefits-- a farcical situation--but instead of questioning 'substandard' wages-- we are supposed to beleive benefits are too generous !!!

This is my main gripe, there are way too many people working too many hours on low wages-- they are chasing a carrot-- there is a whole strata of 'well rewarded' occupations-- that are primarily non productive-- yet are given big status to ensure middle class are kept on side-- many on here moaning how bored they were before christmas.....

I shall not be rushing to work for sub benefit rewards.!

Rudeboy, an interesting post and you are quite correct in your conclusion that we have a farcical situtation - a fact recognised on both sides of the political spectrum, although the Tories are trying to copy Darling's 50p tax rate with the benefit trap for the Labour party....politicians, eh!!?!

But I am afraid that your reasons do not stack up. On wages, the UK is not particularly competitive versus peers or globally although this is improving.. For low-skilled jobs this is likely to be even more apparent. So can't really see your argument here. Plus we actually have a situation where employment is going up, without a rise in in output, which is sending an interesting message on UK productivity.

Please can you elaborate on this strata of well rewarded, but non productive occupations. I am struggling with my list.

The last line says it all.....hence most political parties recognise the need for change.

The trap being the 1% cap on benefits that will be debated next week in the Commons. This is just Labour's attempt to get in front of the Tory trap which is too flagged to be effective anyway IMO

go into any largish 'organisation' --there will be pr, hr, and other associated image management-- on very comfy remuneration-- i have worked in a number of housing associations--they are full of these people !

HR is to look after the Staff of the organisation.

Nothing to do with "image management"

Just saying 🙂

hr-- are not there to look after staff--they are there to protect organisation from litigation, same as h and s-- not really to promote h and s--more to indemnify against prosecution-ensuring no comebacks to company-- HR do indulge in huge image exorcises , the biggest worry for many of these orgs is public image and ensuring they get all the ticks from the overseer quangos-- another layer of puff makers--

and lest not forget the guiding hand for all these folk--the 10% gang- or Consultants as they are better known-- using the same blue prints wherever they go.....

Hmm, Human Remains and PR departments, you may well have a point 😉 !!

hr-- are not there to look after staff--they are there to protect organisation from litigation

Sounds like you have a slightly biased opinion to be honest.

Like you have a default negative view of anything that's part of any "organisation"

Here's a conundrum. I've been made redundant in the past but I had mortgage payment insurance to cover me. In order for that insurance to payout though, I had to be signed on. That's how the insurance company validates your claim

If I'm then forced to take a job at minimum wage (which won't cover my mortgage) I will lose the insurance I've been paying for (which does cover my mortgage).

Then I'm screwed even though I've tried to take responsibility for my situation.

If I'm then forced to take a job at minimum wage (which won't cover my mortgage) I will lose the insurance I've been paying for (which does cover my mortgage).
Then I'm screwed even though I've tried to take responsibility for my situation.

You would need to have been unemployed for two years or more for it to effect you.

I would have thought your Mortgage Insurance provider would have offered you a job themselves by that time just to save themselves some money paying out for your house.

Sounds like you have a slightly biased opinion to be honest.

no--just much experience of these things-- when they are public bodies they do tend to be more benign-- but in the private/semi private sector there is a whole different agenda-- and also lots of internal politics that workers seem to be on the receiving end of-- for me these are parasitical self serving in the main--

last org i had the pleasure of working for was a 'housing association ' that had managed to set up as stand alone-- when we were all part of the local authority there was a personnel dept, consisting of one person with a secretary to help, this dept oversaw 900= people--, upon privatising , we then had a HR dept of five 'looking' after 150 people--you are kidding me if you say they were there to help staff !!!

You would need to have been unemployed for two years or more for it to effect you.

Ah ok that makes sense. ASUs tend to pay out for 12 months.

deviant - Member

There's plenty of jobs if you're not picky.

Yes, that's right, there are 2.5 million jobs currently unfilled and every single person could have one, if they were just less picky. FFS. Being less picky gets one person a job that someone else would have taken, it doesn't create any more jobs.

Hang on, isn't this the whole point of democracy? Politicians having to give people what they want?

DD the new TJ, still as argumentative but ruder. You're right on track sunshine keep up the good work.

I shall not be rushing to work for sub benefit rewards.!

Don't you think that those who do work at or near minimum wage appreciate funding your benefits?

How much better off would you need to be to start "rushing"?

Raising the income tax threshold to £12k would get most low paid to "living wage" and reduce the merry-go-round of taxing people to give it back in benefits.

Income tax is a necessary evil to fund essential parts of society, but it is still the government taking "earned" money away from the people. Taxing the low paid is pointless if you rather expensively give it back via benefits or tax credits

teamhurtmore - Member

Plus we actually have a situation where employment is going up, without a rise in in output, which is sending an interesting message on UK productivity.

The last rise was largely down to people taking part-time work who would choose to be working full-time. Underemployment is almost as big a problem as unemployment, but doesn't show up in these stats, and that gives a pretty false impression.

Northwind, it is true that here has been an increase in part time work. But, that doesn't invalidate my point. Output per hour worked (the headline figure now quoted and the ONS' favourite measure) is on a downward trend in the UK and in most of Europe. Output per hour worked has fallen 2% YoY according to this week's stats.

The strange thing is that this is happening under a Tory government here (and governments of other political persuasions elsewhere). And yet a common accusation thrown about on STW is that the bloody Tories deliberately let unemployment rise as this improves the productivity of their "pay masters." Facts show that this is complete claptrap, but it remains an interesting question. The very odd trends across Europe were neatly summarised in the FT on 3 January? Since 2007, Ireland is the only economy that has experienced rising UN and rising productivity levels. Some will no doubt be relieved (sic) that this is happening under a Centre Right government but I would doubt the strict causation between these factors myself.