[Closed] You can say there's a tory conference on

I'd be more interested in why they are out of work for more that 3 yrs TBH.

[i]surely it will give a helping hand to the long term unemployed[/i]

how?

It's a short term politically minded solution to a long term social problem. The Toerags are just trying to win votes and don't really care what it does to people who wouldn't vote for them if their life depended on it.

Chap on R4 this morning saying that studies on these style schemes in other countries show almost know benefit in helping the long term unemployed back to work.

This is about idealogy / vindication / vote winning, IMO.

by getting them off their arses and back into a routine.
A routine where they have no jeremy kyle.
It might just give them a bit of self respect.

I'm sure the interests of the long term unemployed is at the forefront of the Tories concerns. And not some cheap approving headlines in tomorrows Daily Mail. Plus its another excuse to berate poor people. So its a win/win!

If you think, as the Tories and the Mail would like us all to believe, that the 2.5 million unemployed are presently all sat around watching Jeremy Kyle in their underwear on a 52" telly,and refusing the countless rewarding and well paid career opportunities coming their way, then you've clearly no experience of the spirit-crushingly depressing reality of looking for work in the current economic climate

And with this scheme they'll be eying up how many street cleaners and the like they can lay off, and then make the unemployed do their jobs for £70 a week instead

depends on the work I suppse

however having spent the 1st 6mths of the year unemployed I can possibly see a benefit, maybe for the long term unemployed

most of the people I encountered- training courses etc- were all desperate to get some real work and seemed to put a lot of effort into it

Im not sure this will help them, there just arent enough real jobs to go round, zero hours contracts, underemployment, part time jobs, compulsory shelf stacking at poundland, this scheme, it just feels like
the job market is treading water
certainly the DWP were desperate to unload you from the books by whatever means they could, no matter how bad it may be for your personal situation or career

This just has the feel of a standard tory party policy favourite

edit:
(iolo you lost any validity with the brainless jeremy kyle quip)

I hope they don't forget to include annual leave for the unemployed.

Doesn't help with the undeniable fact that there simply aren't enough jobs to go round though does it. Sounds like a rehash of the 'work for Tesco for free' policy.

yeah it's not about helping people back to work it's about winning votes BUT who else thought when they heard that 'YES get the lazy bleeders off their arses watching jeremy kyle and picking up litter' saying that, there's no way I'd vote tory but 3 years on the dole you've got to wonder. If they are good upstanding citizens they probably wouldn't mind going to pick up some litter, I know I wouldn't. If they are ****less lazy individuals who are doing everything they can to avoid work then good, some excercise won't do them any harm. I'm sure I heard on the radio that the number of people unemployed for over 3 years was something like 200k so not that many in the grand scheme of things but looks good for all the daily mail readers.

& yes perhaps there isn't that much work around but there are some jobs. Might be in shops, restaurants, postal depots. Not the best work but speaking for myself I'd much rather do any job than none, my pride and my wife wouldn't have it any other way. & People who think they're too good to work in a shop deserve to pick up litter imo.

The scheme, devised by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, will cost around £300m - with the money likely to be found from departmental underspends.

Departmental underspend? Is this in the department that has just written off that very same amount for the failed Universal Benefit IT system?

I can see this saving vast amounts of money. Potentially billions. Or will that be 'costing'......?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

It'll either end up being make work along these lines;

[img] [/img]

or, as binners said, taking paid work away from other people.

I can't see either being a desirable outcome.

It's just back to the victorian workhouse mentality;

[i]
In early Victorian times (see Poor Law), poverty was seen as a dishonorable state. As depicted by Charles Dickens, a workhouse could resemble a reformatory, often housing whole families, or a penal labour regime giving manual work to the indigent and subjecting them to physical punishment. [/i]

blame the poor for being poor and having no job.

When they do get a job make sure it doesn't pay enough to get them out of poverty.

The Tories love it, win win.

the poor house analogy is not a very good one, in the end poor house were actual closed because the middle classes didn't like poor getting better health care than them for "free". UK in politics of envy shocker 😉

by getting them off their arses and back into a routine.
A routine where they have no jeremy kyle.
It might just give them a bit of self respect.

With statements like that, I think you're going to need a bigger broom.

[i]middle classes didn't like poor getting better health care than them for "free"[/i]

ironically, this is what the Republicans in the US are riled about with the whole ObhamaCare thing.

I think it's a good thing, but..........

The 'universal benifit' should have been extended to actualy be universal to anyone unable to work or just not working. It should cover everyone from the unemployed, the dissabled and students. Give everyone not working a minimum amount of cash (comparable to the student loan ammount, so ~£6k, or whatever JSA ammounts to), then in return yo have to demonstrate you're doing something productive with your time, e.g. full time education, voulentary work, if you've got a skill set that a charity copuld use then pro bono publico work, or menial council work litter picking, painting fences etc.

There's a ridiculous catch22 situation in the system at the moment where the unemployed can't afford to get qualifications which might help them get a job as as soon as they enroll on a course for more than a few hours a week they're "unavailable for work". Source: housemate who did admin for a collage over the summer breaks, the first question anyone asked was "how many hours/can I keep my JSA" not "will this help me find a job".

I don't think they'll be taking jobs off anyone, they'll either have to attend the job centre every day or do some sort of community work. & if that's litter picking there's plenty of litter about this fair isle. They could always get Jeremy Kyle streamed to their phone while they pick up litter!

As they're effectively giving them a job shouldn't they have to pay them minimum wage? Or are they only going to have to work enough hours to cover their dole at minimum wage?

If so it doesn't seem unreasonable to say if you've been unemployed for 2 years we'll guarantee you 10 hours/week of minimum wage work instead of your dole. If you don't do the work obviously you won't get paid anything. If we can't find anything for you to do that week you get paid anyway

does spending the week litter picking mean that you're not available for work and therefore they'll stop your benefits?

wwaswas - Member
middle classes didn't like poor getting better health care than them for "free"

ironically, this is what the Republicans in the US are riled about with the whole ObhamaCare thing.

and what the private sector have done to public sector workers pensions etc

For me the sad/frustrating thing is we are now at the end of the party conference season and 18-24 months (?) from the next election and the main parties seem bereft of either conviction or proper policies.

So the Tories lead with "propping up" the housing market followed by this while Labour focused on intervening in the energy market and b'fast clubs. The politics of focus groups - sad and depressing and FA use to most of us. I cant recall what the Lib Dems were saying other than, "we will get into bed with anyone, so dont worry what we say as independents."

(Having said that, I can see some merit is parts of this proposal! 😉 but its a red herring in terms of tackling the UK economic issues).

Fine, if the Tories can find them full time work, then it can pay then a full time wage, right? With employment rights, annual leave.....all that shit

I won't hold my breath

Surely if there's work needing done (even if it's litter picking) then the council should employ people to do it (thereby offering jobs to the unemployed).

Otherwise, this is just a cover for employing folk below the minimum wage and with no benefits.

I don't think it's about making them do full-time voluntary work, it's about doing _something_ every day. I'd heard (possibly on the Home Service) that it was suggested that either voluntary work, _or_ attending a job centre every day.

To be honest, that doesn't sound like a huge amount of hassle. I mean, if you are looking for work, surely you'll be looking for work every day, right? Would a few hours of picking litter or working in a charity shop, or _something_ not be preferable to being subjected to Jeremy Kyle? If this is only targeted at those long term unemployed, then getting back into the mindset of doing something might be a good thing, but I agree that finding out why they have been out of work for that length of time might be a better idea.

This policy is also on shaky ground because if they're actually going to stop someone's money they won't be able to buy food, pay the water/lecky/gas/sky bill. I'm all for getting people back to work but denying them food? I dunno. If these people have kids how are they gonna feed them? the child allowance won't cover a kids meals 3 times a day for a week.

Making them do volountary work? This already happens. You see that sounds great, doesn't it? In the alternatiev universe that is the Daily Mail editorial. There's a slight problem. Mrs Binners is a charity fundraiser and has seen this first hand.

What happens is that if they're your proper hardcore layabout popularly portayed in the Mail/Tory press? They turn up (possibly drunk, or off their heads) because they have too. They are more trouble than they're worth, and somebody (a paid member of staff) then has to babysit them to stop them making off with the laptops.

Ask any charities if they fancy having the long term unemployed forced to come and 'volounteer' for them? I can tell you what answer you'll get

Oh... and while we're debunking rabid scaremongering,right-wing myths. The best, most willing (genuine) volounteers are asylum seekers who come and make themselves useful while they await their claim results, and are legally barred from working

They could get the unemployed to help Royal Mail deliver the post!

This policy is also on shaky ground because if they're actually going to stop someone's money they won't be able to buy food, pay the water/lecky/gas/sky bill. I'm all for getting people back to work but denying them food? I dunno. If these people have kids how are they gonna feed them? the child allowance won't cover a kids meals 3 times a day for a week.

They're asking them to do something productive every day, it's not exactly a moral dillema is it? It's focusing on a subset of a minority, they're not saying they're going to take away everyones benifits, just giving a kick up the arse to the (hopefully I'd assume) minority of the long term unemployed who are in that situation because they are lazy scroungers, not the rest who are (again I assume hopefully) already actively looking for work and getting a bad name as a result of the minority.

I'm not sure about this one.

1)Workplace ethos.

As binners says: sad to say, but I know a few people who you would never want working beside you. They aren't interested, are only there because they are told to be there and will get benefits docked otherwise, and can turn a fairly happy, positive workplace into a slough of despond. I have seen this happen first-hand. What's surprising is how smart some of these folk are; you'd think it might be "lower-class" (yes, I know) layabouts, but the ones I've encountered are the smarter, lower-middle class ones, who are a)cheesed-off and disappointed in how life has turned out for them and b)clever. It takes brains to really work the system, not just low cunning.

2)Too much scope for YTS-style job stuffing, where genuine but low-paid workers get turfed out and the jobless 'employed' instead. The genuine and hard-working lose out and end up on the dole- we all lose out as the indolent do the 'job' instead, with scant regard or pride.

3)Money. You know, I've never seen a single number of jut how many are up to this, and hence how much it will all save us. In actual fact, these schemes need monitored and policed, and we've seen how this can be abused- viz A4E, etc. I don't think there's money to be saved, somehow.

As others have said, interesting to note how many column-inches this is getting, versus the 300M lost in cocked-up IT programs. Hardly gets a mention.

Karen Brady;

says the Chancellor is "the only man I would be an Apprentice for".

during warm up speech for him.

Well she's just gone down in my estimation. By some distance.

Pathetic demonising of the most vulnerable in society yet again. This will achieve nothing except win a few more votes from vindictive Daily Mail readers. If they really want to tackle the benefits bill they could make hugely profitable companies pay their staff a living wage, seeing as the majority of benefits go to those in work.

But no let's pick on the poor again and pretend we want to help them. Maybe hand out some more contracts to our buddies to not deliver on their promises, yet again.

GO - now on BBC with the little boy haircut. As I said on the Labour thread, he is sounding more Keynesian that ED Balls. Funny how positions swap around and end up so far from the rhetoric.

glupton1976 - Member
It's a short term politically minded solution to a long term social problem. The Toerags are just trying to win votes and don't really care what it does to people who wouldn't vote for them if their life depended on it.

thekingisdead - Member
Chap on R4 this morning saying that studies on these style schemes in other countries show almost know benefit in helping the long term unemployed back to work.
This is about idealogy / vindication / vote winning, IMO.

^^ this

Gideon has said he want to get rid of the "something for nothing" culture. Well if I've paid into NI it's not something for nothing is it Gideon... Most people on Jobseeker's Allowance have worked! Gideon you are the worst kind of cretin.

It is, basically, this simple.

We have tons of people who want jobs, and don't have them. We also have tons of people who have part-time jobs, who want full time jobs. We also have tons of people on zero-hours jobs who want real jobs.

So the focus is on getting people who [i]don't[/i] want jobs into work? I don't care what end of the political spectrum you're on, this is obviously idiocy. Oh, they're going to work for free? Better still, that'll help the people who want to do it for money.

****s ****s ****s.

*****

Gideon has said he want to get rid of the "something for nothing" culture

But doesn't propose to do anything about corporate parasites avoiding paying any tax, the big, massively profitable companies paying such low wages that the taxpayer has to subsidise them (which is what the majority of the benefits bill actually is!), and business as usual in the still unregulated City, with the snouts well and truly back in the trough, like nothing ever happened

It boils my piss!!!!

Unregulated City - are you sure about that binners?

The budget surplus stuff was quite a revelation IMO - dont expect a relaxation of gov spending any time soon.

genuine question THM

how come we have to rely on the americans to prosecute dodgy bankers fixing LIBOR even i it was done in the UK?

Northwind has a pretty good point, concentrate on the 2.5 million or so who would get back into work faster with some help and have less disruption or concentrate on the 200k at the bottom who are basically unemployable at a time when we don't have anything like full employment.

Much as I think we social attitudes have shifted too far towards a culture of 'the vulnerable' and 'the poor', doing anything with the real dole scum will actually cost us more with little benefit (zero) benefit.

Going back to the social attitudes, being poor shouldn't be stigmatised, being prepared to live off others and feeling entitled to housing etc. when you've never contributed to society (economically) should. There's a lot of people on low incomes who work very hard, earn little and still don't make many demands on the state. I'd rather see the minimum wage rise properly so those in work can afford to live, maybe reduce business tax but force up wages?

Anyway it's conference season and the policies trotted out are getting more transparent, populist and less useful each year.

Thm - do you think that the present regulatory framework, such as it is, could prevent another crash, without the need for another enormous taxpayer bailout? Or we could remove the taxpayer funded life support machine the banking system is presently on? From what I can see, not an awful lot has changed. The banks are all still 'too big to fail'. And though they're expected to keep more capital, they still look massively over-leveraged. Yet the culture hasn't changed one bit, as other than 'Sir' Fred having to give his knighthood back, not one person has faced even the slightest sanction

Not to worry though. We can keep blaming the poor, the unemployed and the disabled.

I really dont know Kimbers. I think they should have the book thrown at them and anyone else who broke the law. Its absurd that no one (to my knowledge) has faced criminal charges in terms of market manipulation, inaccurate documentation, misleading information etc. The the head of the FSA ends up with a top job at a bank that sailed so close to wind it was amazing that it didnt capsize.

But that is still different from saying that the city is still unregulated.

Binners - there was a X-post there. Another banking crisis is possible for sure and banks ARE still to big to fail. That is a consequence of the grotesque levels of debt in the UK among other things and the very high levels of leverage that are a feature of how banks work. But again that is not the same thing as saying that the city is unregulated.

Indeed the challenge at the moment is to introduce counter-cyclical regulation (eg higher capital regulation) and a time when you want banks to do exactly the opposite ie, lend. Its a complete buggers muddle.

Unregulated City - are you sure about that binners?

They're currently fighting hard to prevent a cap on the ludicrously vast bonuses that were widely cited as a factor in encouraging reckless gambling by the banks.

.

.....yes grum, and replace a system of low fixed costs (ok, in relative terms) and (potentially) high variable costs dependent on performance (?!?) with a high fixed cost model instead. Hmmm, and that makes banks better??????

The bonus culture was much abused for sure but the basic concept (when applied correctly) of low fixed costs and flexible variable costs based on performance is much better than where they are going now.

But regulation and indeed macro-economic policy are pretty much all the complete opposite of what is actually required, albeit for understandable reasons.

I think whatever George and chums have to say this week, the fact that they're taking legal action in Europe (which we're paying for) to [url= http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/25/taxpayers-foot-legal-bill-as-osborne-takes-on-europe-over-bankers-bonuses-4113431/ ]defend bankers bonuses[/url] tells anyone with half a brain all they need to know about where the Tory Parties true priorities lie

.....yes grum, and replace a system of low fixed costs (ok, in relative terms) and (potentially) high variable costs dependent on performance (?!?) with a high fixed cost model instead. Hmmm, and that makes banks better??????

The bonus culture was much abused for sure but the basic concept (when applied correctly) of low fixed costs and flexible variable costs based on performance is much better than where they are going now.

Or they could just pay them a bit (or even a lot) less in both fixed costs and variable costs - seeing as they were clearly doing a shit job, and most statistics show that even the most lauded amongst them generally do no better than you would by flipping a coin to make your trading decisions.

And because most other people in the country have taken a pay cut/freeze for the last few years due to the banks' incompetence/greed/recklessness.

But obviously that's not an option for some reason.

The bonus culture was much abused for sure but the basic concept (when applied correctly) of low fixed costs and flexible variable costs based on performance is much better than where they are going now.

'Performance' means you get a massive bonus because you got lucky at gambling.

The bonus culture was much abused for sure but the basic concept (when applied correctly) of low fixed costs and flexible variable costs based on performance is much better than where they are going now.

If that was truly the case then I don't think people would have an issue. The problem with that is that the 'flexible variable costs' seemed to have no connection whatsoever with the actual performance. The banks performance was ultimately disastrous for the whole country, yet the people responsible for it did, and continue to, trouser billions in bonuses.

Just as senior company management, even at the likes of the BBC, unashamedly trouser millions for appalling performances. And their interests will be staunchly represented in Manchester (oh the ironing), to the almost complete exclusion of everybody else!

Like I said though... we can continue to blame the poor, the unemployed and the disabled instead. Its easier

Agree 100% of failures in application, Binners. But to "regulate" against the principle is absurd headline grabbing IMO and shows little understanding of basic business sense.

Grum - don't believe everything that Uncle Vince says. There are large parts of finance that have nothing to do with gambling or a casino. To suggest otherwise is like calling all unepmployed people work shy!

Grum - don't believe everything that Uncle Vince says.

What does 'Uncle Vince' say? I have no idea.

There are large parts of finance that have nothing to do with gambling or a casino.

True, but very, very few if any of them deserve the kind of ludicrous bonuses that our government is fighting so hard to protect.

Is there a single scrap of evidence that having a vastly inflated bonus scheme attracts the brightest and best? It just appears to attract the greediest.

He is our Business Secretary who thinks it is both accurate and appropriate to refer to the financial sector (a key part of the UK economy) as a casino. If he believes that then he is an idiot and not fit for the job, if he doesn't, then he should shut and is even more of an idiot and not fit for the job.

I am sure that high pay levels and other factors are considerable reasons why many graduates from Oxbridge, LSE etc still look for careers in finance.

Anyway this is a side show. I am still looking for how GO is going to deliver a budget surplus while keeping an eye in the storm clouds gathering again in Europe and Washington today.

Is there a single scrap of evidence that having a vastly inflated bonus scheme attracts the brightest and best? It just appears to attract the greediest.

Hmm well these institutions try to get the best people from around the world and are competing with similar places. So they offer lots of cash to attract them. Easiest for them with generous bonuses as said before - more flexible. I'd have thought a better approach would be to limit bonuses based on company performance rather than a multiple of salary - of course they'll just put up the salary so they still get the people they want.

That said, I'm sure the City could fund their own legal challenge.

But to "regulate" against the principle is absurd headline grabbing IMO and shows little understanding of basic business sense.

THM that right wing capitalistic rhetoric masquerading as fact.
Your contempt for vince is something i dont understand [ please dont try and explain again it just seemed to be to be venom - though of course you are impartial and neutral]IIRC when he compared them to that it was in relation to the huge and phenomenal levels of [bad] debt they have dumped on our doorstep along with a load of pay freezes and redundancy. PS i want to work in a an industry so important everyone bales you out when you **** up, the rules of capitalism re failure dont apply and you continue to get your bonuses whilst everyone else takes the shit for your mistakes. Whats more the govt will defend you in europe and turn a blind eye to the city being the centre of tax evasion/avoidance.

Calm down JY. Where have I backed/forgiven bankers errors or crimes? I agree with the arguments abiut why none have been bought to justice. I am also well aware of the direct financial impact on the economy and the indirect, well actually still very direct, problem that the banking system here and elsewhere is still not functioning properly.

Still I am able to also step back and see that a banking system remains vital in any economy, that a pay system that includes low fixed costs is preferable to the opposite, that imposing tighter capital requirements on banks (=> shrinking balance sheets (not such a bad idea)) is problematic when your main instrument of policy requires banks to lend more.. I would expect an ex-economist and a Business Secretary to be able to do the same. It's business common sense, nothing more.

My comments on bashing the poor and the lack of policy substance today and last week were in my OP.

Given the desire of many for extra government spending/ wider role in the economy and therefore the obvious need for a liquid and functioning primary and secondary market for government borrowing/debt it is equally absurd for people to question the need for a fully functioning financial sector. Again that's failing to use common sense. Rather like, we want to raise more tax revenue but do not want companies to make profit?!?! Folk should be careful what they wish for.

I dont think i accused you of anything tbh- your not right wing are you so the meme could not have been directed at you 😉 FWIW it was not aimed at you so sorry if it reads like that.

I would expect an ex-economist and a Business Secretary to be able to do the same. It's business common sense, nothing more.

* i would imagine that bankers could easily be motivated by their short term personal final gain via bonuses than the long term business/economic success - its hardly a radical though rather more just business common sense.

I agree on hitting the poor and the slightly bizarre thing about the US model is that it actually costs more to implement than to just keep writing checks. So the Tories won't make any budget gains with this policy and even if they did its largely an irrelevance in terms of the impact on the budget. Like energy caps its headlines and spin and focus group politics.

Buy JY you are correct, I am definitely not neutral on Uncle Vince - I hold my hand up there.

To have people who may not want a job turn up a job centres on a daily basis will take resources away from trying to find work for the shorter term unemployed.

you are under the mistaken belief that the JC help you fond work rather than they are the custodians of the benefit money who ask you if you have complied with the rules

Go in and ask for some help - see what happens.
They dont have the time to do anything anyway its 8 mins per standard signing interview at present iirc

Aye THM it is about sounding tough rather than it being meaningful or helpful
Personally i fail to see how , when you look at the collection of reprobates and amoral egomaniacs that make up this govt, you would decide Vince requires the scorn. He is fairly low down my list even amongst the Lib dems

I am sure that high pay levels and other factors are considerable reasons why many graduates from Oxbridge, LSE etc still look for careers in finance

Maybe, but the "brightest & the best" rhetoric that has been used (repeatedly) to defend City culture over the last decade or so is looking very, very thin.

There is one inconvenient truth in all this. That there are plenty of jobs out there. Immigrants from Poland don't have any problem strolling into this country and finding work immediately. The problem is that there are some people who have either cottoned on that they're better off on benefits especially if they have a few kids, or seem to think that the jobs that are available are somehow beneath them. Sorry, but if you're unemployed you don't have the luxury to pick and choose to work. Just get a job then you can at least start looking for something better.

I think getting the long term unemployed out to do some form of work or training is a great idea. What's the alternative? Just let them continue to sponge off the system? This notion that everyone on benefits are somehow victims of the system is just tripe. There are plenty of people out there playing the system and taking those of us who work for a ride. The best thing the government can do for the unemployed is to create an environment where business can thrive and compete on the world stage, and the jobs will come. The government can't create jobs out of thin air. The last Labour government did that with disastrous consequences creating a lost generation and stripping millions of any sense of worth and embedded them into a life on benefits. As a country we cannot afford to keep people on benefits.

At least Osborne is being honest and telling us that austerity is here for at least the next terms, in order to properly deal with the mess the last government left the public finances in, and not trying to spin us the trip that red Ed is spinning in order to win power.

People need to get a grip and realise that we're not as rich as we thought we were - not as a country and not individually. In fact, we never were - it was all an illusion created by Brown and his addiction to borrowing.

I was made redundant in April and had to visit the job centre. One lady went through my financial paperwork with fine tooth comb and bad attitude, before I was passed to a far more pleasant lady who went through some of the jobs gov stuff I had to fill in on the website.
I was thankfully not out of work long enough to use their service for a prolonged time. It did seem like a tick box exercise, and a degrading experience I hope not to have to repeat. I assumed they may have provided more help if you had been out of work for longer.

There is one inconvenient truth in all this. That there are plenty of jobs out there.

There are jobs for all the unemployed people? I seem to remember there's about 400,000 job vacancies and several million unemployed who are eligible for work. Never mind the numbers of underemployed.

The last Labour government did that with disastrous consequences creating a lost generation and stripping millions of any sense of worth and embedded them into a life on benefits. As a country we cannot afford to keep people on benefits.

Evidence for the 'lost generation'? And as already pointed out only a small proportion of the benefits bill goes to the unemployed anyway. You really have swallowed the Sun/Express/Daily Mail hate-mongering wholesale haven't you.

Might be worth reading up on some actual facts to go with your unbridled prejudices.

The best thing the government can do for the unemployed is to create an environment where business can thrive and compete on the world stage, and the jobs will come.

What they're trying to create is a race to the bottom, which we will never win.

Hmm well these institutions try to get the best people from around the world and are competing with similar places. So they offer lots of cash to attract them. Easiest for them with generous bonuses as said before - more flexible.

Yup, I know the theory - just wondering if there is actually any evidence for it. If there was presumably the financial institutions paying the best salaries and bonuses would be the best-performing ones, as they would have attracted the 'brightest and best'. Is this the case?

There is one inconvenient truth in all this. That there are plenty of jobs out there

What's the alternative? Just let them continue to sponge off the system?

The best thing the government can do for the unemployed is to create an environment where business can thrive and compete on the world stage, and the jobs will come.

The last Labour government did that with disastrous consequences creating a lost generation and stripping millions of any sense of worth and embedded them into a life on benefits.

As a country we cannot afford to keep people on benefits.

Its costs us less than what we loose from tax avoidance and evasion.
We can easily afford it and it is a measure of your morality not your wallet.

red Ed

People need to get a grip

wobbliscott - Member

There is one inconvenient truth in all this. That there are plenty of jobs out there.

Yes, there are 2.487 million jobs unfilled right now, and also 1.45 full time jobs waiting for the part-timers who want to be full time.

You can't actually believe this horseflops, can you? It'd be like believing the moon is made of cream cheese, or richmtbguru is a real bike coach.

meanwhile

Pensioners...when are those idle buggers gonna do some work instead of standing around insisting their kids keep them in murray mints and lavendar pot pourri....the pensions bill is 240,000,000 times bigger than the unemployment bill

arbeit macht frei

But on serious note, what is moral about keeping people on benefits? It is degrading, humiliating and strips people ultimately of their self esteem. That seems pretty immoral to me - and is something that normally enjoys a consensus of views.

The inconvenient truth wobbliscot overlooks, and has already been mentioned, is the majority of benefits being paid to people in work, thru tax credits. Would wobbliscot, who I'm guessing is gonna be towards the right of the political spectrum, care to comment on the Millions (billions?) spent on the state subsidised (two words that should put the fear of god into any self respecting right winger) wages of private enterprise?

[url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100023849/minimum-wage-should-be-substantially-raised-not-cut/ ]Telegraph Link, the bastion of left wing socialism [/url]

just a small aside--i regularly look for jobs --daily--apply for many--yet continually many 'vacancies' do not actually exist--found one job advertised by four different agencies--all given different ref numbers--so by govt stats--thats four jobs--reality was four agencies fishing' in case there may be a 'vacancy'--this is repeated many times-as for something for notjhing--that would be the silver spoons that osbourne/cameron and their ilk enjoy as an accident of birth--for now.....

Wobbliscot gets the Paul dacre prize for cramming the most Tory bulshit bingo phrases into one statement yet not stating a single fact

you right there kimbers-- i bet even the tories cant beleive people swallow their bulls hit-- bet they have a laugh about it--see how outrageous they can be--and people listen to these cretins....

The Tories need to understand that many people end up in long term unemployment because of circumstances beyond their control, for example needing to act as a carer, or suffering from a mental or physical disability. Extortionate transport costs will prevent people in isolated locations from attending a Jobcentre every day or possibly travelling to a suitable voluntary position.

The current rules on volunteering for unemployed people seem to discourage many people from getting the maximum benefit from volunteering opportunities - remember the graduate archeologist who was told to stop volunteering on a historical dig to stack shelves in Poundland or similar.

There is alot of evidence from Citizens Advice Bureaux around the country that the existing punative benefit sanctions imposed by the Government have led to a rise in the number of people being referred to food banks.