Tories pressing the self-destruct button?

[Derek Smith]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacki...

It's odd, isn't it. When Thatcher was in her first term, and was the most unpopular PM up until then (I believe, and hope, Brown has superceded her) the labour party went into self-destruct mode. It gave rise to the social democrats, the gang of four with three very able MPs. Such ability leaving the labour party left them in the doldrums and made Kinnock their best bet as leader.

Now, when labour is showing a helthy lead in the polls, we have the tory back-benchers threatening to, in essence, destroy the coalition. All in the name of tit-for-tat. If the coalition falls it is probable that labour will get in.

The internal bickering in the tory party under Major gave us Blair. If they won't learn then they deserve to be voted out.

Now would be the time to say: 'I cannot believe it.' but it is, unfortunately, only too believable of MPs.

[Halb]

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

[Steffan]

Derek Smith said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacki...

It's odd, isn't it. When Thatcher was in her first term, and was the most unpopular PM up until then (I believe, and hope, Brown has superceded her) the labour party went into self-destruct mode. It gave rise to the social democrats, the gang of four with three very able MPs. Such ability leaving the labour party left them in the doldrums and made Kinnock their best bet as leader.

Now, when labour is showing a helthy lead in the polls, we have the tory back-benchers threatening to, in essence, destroy the coalition. All in the name of tit-for-tat. If the coalition falls it is probable that labour will get in.

The internal bickering in the tory party under Major gave us Blair. If they won't learn then they deserve to be voted out.

Now would be the time to say: 'I cannot believe it.' but it is, unfortunately, only too believable of MPs.

Unfortunately neither party is capable of dealing with the problems of The Benefit Society which is steadily undermining our way of life.

I think the Tories will back off self destruction. Politicians are self preserving in their decisions.

But we simply do not have adequate political leaders. No answer to that.

[martin84]

Steffan said:

The Benefit Society

BOOM! Second reply and it's already been mentioned. Wow that must be a new record even for PH.

[Steffan]

martin84 said:

Steffan said:

The Benefit Society

BOOM! Second reply and it's already been mentioned. Wow that must be a new record even for PH.

Not to me.

It would seem that the inability of our political rulers to face the fact that the UK cannot continue to offer significantly higher non earnings to the huge number of Benefits claimants, than we do to workers on the minimum wage is just staggeringly stupid.

Being unemployed cannot be a reason never to seek a job or control your expenditure or limit the size of a family. Except in the UK where it is.

Pension difficulties do not exist for the unemployed. Redundancy is never a problem. Job security is unimportant. Rush hour traffic has no meaning. They continue to anticipate claiming as they always have done.

Unless this changes, and quickly, the UK will be ruined.

[martin84]

Steffan said:

Pension difficulties do not exist for the unemployed. Redundancy is never a problem. Job security is unimportant. Rush hour traffic has no meaning. They continue to anticipate claiming as they always have done.

I've been unemployed. That £50 a week they give you doesn't go far to be honest. You seem to think the unemployed have this jet setters life of luxury, clearly you've never lived in the real world or get your information from the ranting Daily-Mailers who are barely halfway along that ape-to-man evolutionary chart.

I'd be interested in a proper discussion but when millions are afraid for their jobs and basic typing jobs receive 250 applications it really is something else to make out redundancy is never a problem for anybody and job security is irrelevant. If thats how you view it then there's no point discussing anything with you, way too far gone to help.

[DonkeyApple]

Tories banked on being able to fake cuts in the first 3 years and then have growth appear to allow then to make real cuts into this growth.

The total failure of Europe out largest trading partner to solve any of it's issues have in essence sunk the Tories.

They are in desperate need of Plan B. they know what it is and want to implement it but will never be able to with the Lib Dems.

Sadly, they are a busted flush. Cameron showed promise but he relied on media support and a European recovery. Neither he has and he hasn't the strength of character to recover.

[martin84]

DonkeyApple said:

They are in desperate need of Plan B. they know what it is and want to implement it but will never be able to with the Lib Dems.

Why not? Bit of a cop out to blame the Lib Dems every time a Tory gets something wrong tbh.

[davepoth]

martin84 said:

I've been unemployed. That £50 a week they give you doesn't go far to be honest. You seem to think the unemployed have this jet setters life of luxury, clearly you've never lived in the real world or get your information from the ranting Daily-Mailers who are barely halfway along that ape-to-man evolutionary chart.

I'd be interested in a proper discussion but when millions are afraid for their jobs and basic typing jobs receive 250 applications it really is something else to make out redundancy is never a problem for anybody and job security is irrelevant. If thats how you view it then there's no point discussing anything with you, way too far gone to help.

It's £74 a week at the moment, but that really doesn't go far either - I've spent about half of it attending job interviews this week. It's not really JSA that's at issue though, or even the amount of money we're spending on benefits, but whether the benefits being provided are actually making a positive impact on the lives of the people who receive them.

[Steffan]

martin84 said:

Steffan said:

Pension difficulties do not exist for the unemployed. Redundancy is never a problem. Job security is unimportant. Rush hour traffic has no meaning. They continue to anticipate claiming as they always have done.

I've been unemployed. That £50 a week they give you doesn't go far to be honest. You seem to think the unemployed have this jet setters life of luxury, clearly you've never lived in the real world or get your information from the ranting Daily-Mailers who are barely halfway along that ape-to-man evolutionary chart.

I'd be interested in a proper discussion but when millions are afraid for their jobs and basic typing jobs receive 250 applications it really is something else to make out redundancy is never a problem for anybody and job security is irrelevant. If thats how you view it then there's no point discussing anything with you, way too far gone to help.

I am not criticising the minority of individuals who are temporarily unemployed. Indeed I am not criticising any individuals. I am saying the Benefits Society, we have in the UK, is economically unaffordable.

I accept that there must be a safety net to ensure support, whilst a new job is found. That Redundancy must not become penury and support must be given. Short term. But this cannot become what it has turned into in the UK.

There is a substantial element within our society for whom living on benefits has become a permanent lifestyle choice. That cannot continue.

No society can permanently subsidise whole sections of unemployed people. There must be an economic incentive to work and a significant disincentive to be out of work.

We have individuals in this country who are receiving in excess of £50,000 a year just in housing benefits. With perhaps another £20,000 on top. This is madness. On the minimum wage of £6 an hour working 40 hours each, they would earn less than half that together.

The minimum wage earners must be able to equal unemployment benefits. If this is unaffordable, it is the benefits that must fall, not the minimum wage that must rise.

Childless couples working hard on the minimum wage are no better off than the unemployed single parent of seven children, who has no job, does not want a job, and believes that this is their entitlement.

The governments over the years have cheerfully ignored this fact because politicians seek the votes of the unemployed and will not face the problem.

It needs facing. It is not pleasant but it needs facing. The Benefits Society as we have it in the UK is totally unaffordable and destructive. It must be changed.

I am not seeking to be controversial. The facts seem self evident to me.

Employment has to be the goal for every citizen. No one can remain permanently unemployed and live off the taxpayer. It is simply wrong. And massively open to abuse as countless expose's have shown.

If we go on like this we will be bankrupt as a country. No none can afford to spend more they they earn. This dictum cannot mean that, because the unemployed do not earn, there is no limit to their spending. We have to face reality. The unemployed cannot be better protected than the employed. Or better housed. Or able to be unconcerned with pensions. Or have no interest in finding a job.

That is where the Benefits Society is heading and it cannot go on.

[Steffan]

DonkeyApple said:

Tories banked on being able to fake cuts in the first 3 years and then have growth appear to allow then to make real cuts into this growth.

The total failure of Europe out largest trading partner to solve any of it's issues have in essence sunk the Tories.

They are in desperate need of Plan B. they know what it is and want to implement it but will never be able to with the Lib Dems.

Sadly, they are a busted flush. Cameron showed promise but he relied on media support and a European recovery. Neither he has and he hasn't the strength of character to recover.

I agree Bertie Cameron and Boy George are out of ideas. The Euro collapse/mess will kill all growth.

They will not recover. Bertie will be a one term PM like Major. I do not think they have the time to recover and Millipede (God help us) is recovering as the Tories falter. I just hope someone offers Balls a job in America or the Antarctic. He should fit in there.

[Mr_B]

martin84 said:

I've been unemployed. That £50 a week they give you doesn't go far to be honest. You seem to think the unemployed have this jet setters life of luxury, clearly you've never lived in the real world or get your information from the ranting Daily-Mailers who are barely halfway along that ape-to-man evolutionary chart.

I'd be interested in a proper discussion but when millions are afraid for their jobs and basic typing jobs receive 250 applications it really is something else to make out redundancy is never a problem for anybody and job security is irrelevant. If thats how you view it then there's no point discussing anything with you, way too far gone to help.

If only the average benefits bill were £50 a week, it wouldn't be such a problem. Back in the real world, its way higher.

[martin84]

Steffan said:

I am not criticising the minority of individuals who are temporarily unemployed. Indeed I am not criticising any individuals.

Only on the Daily Mail are honest unemployed in the minority. You are aware literally hundreds of thousands of people have been laid off in the last five years aren't you?

Steffan said:

But this cannot become what it has turned into in the UK.

What has it turned into? Do you have any evidence?

Steffan said:

There is a substantial element within our society for whom living on benefits has become a permanent lifestyle choice. That cannot continue.

There are certainly a few individuals who fit this bill, but to claim it is a 'substantial element' is unsubstantiated in itself. Again, only on the Daily Mail are these people the majority. One family on the front pages is not a majority.

Steffan said:

No society can permanently subsidise whole sections of unemployed people. There must be an economic incentive to work and a significant disincentive to be out of work.

Only someone with a perfect life would think there aren't already disincentive's to be out of work.

Steffan said:

We have individuals in this country who are receiving in excess of £50,000 a year just in housing benefits. With perhaps another £20,000 on top. This is madness. On the minimum wage of £6 an hour working 40 hours each, they would earn less than half that together.

Yes there are some people like that. What I object to is how people like you hold up the odd example which makes the front pages - its obviously not the norm or it wouldn't be newsworthy - as justification for sweeping changes to the entire system. Yes a lottery winner stole £20k or whatever it was in benefits, to win £4m on the lotto already makes you a one in a million shot so to claim he's the norm is quite pathetic. Yes theres some people who get 50k a year odd on it, but in the greater scheme of things thats fk all, thats not why we have a budget deficit, thats not the big problem. I do get fed up of ranting idiots who's justification for changing the entire system is an example of one family which makes the front pages.

Steffan said:

The minimum wage earners must be able to equal unemployment benefits. If this is unaffordable, it is the benefits that must fall, not the minimum wage that must rise.

How do you work that out? Surely the reason for the benefits being high is living costs are high, so the minimum wage isn't high enough. Unless your only solution is to put people on the street, which is really productive I know you'll come back with the odd exceptional example of a foreign asylum seeker living in Kensington but even if you moved all of them to the arse end of Humberside the savings would be minimal at best.

Steffan said:

Childless couples working hard on the minimum wage are no better off than the unemployed single parent of seven children, who has no job, does not want a job, and believes that this is their entitlement.

Maybe so but the former is still the majority, despite your twisted beliefs with no evidence to back them up.

Steffan said:

I am not seeking to be controversial. The facts seem self evident to me.

You're not seeking to be factually correct either. How about some actual evidence instead of self declaring self evidence?

Steffan said:

If we go on like this we will be bankrupt as a country.

Housing benefit will not bankrupt the country, theres about another 74 things to deal with before the numbers actually make this as big an issue as the ranting moralists think it is. For instance from a factual and mathematical point of view I believe the pensions bill is more worthy of discussion, this is a bill which will only rise long term as people live longer and less people pay in at the bottom due to the birth rate dropping. The days of 2.4 children are behind us, its less than that now and even when the baby boomers die we've then got the issue of everyone who's 50 odd now maybe living another 5-10 years longer than those on their way out now. I believe more than half of the social security bill is pensions, this is a big issue. This is a bill we can do little about, housing benefit/JSA etc will go up and down depending on the economy and you can fiddle around with things like that to make a difference, but you can't go and drown everybody at 65. Add into the mix the fact most pensioners vote so every Government has sought to protect them and you've got a massive problem.

You've given a lovely moralistic speech with absolutely zero evidence to back up your self declared claims. You believe you know every unemployed person and can speak with authority when claiming the majority of them are worthless scum, you believe you know how every single unemployed person thinks, feels and views the World. Well thats literally impossible. I prefer to base my opinions on actual fact. Facts such as how the Government's figures show only 3% of benefits paid out last year were fraudulently claimed, so its not as easily abused as many think and contrary to popular belief its not exploited daily by Estonian gangs. I also look at the unemployment figures, the amount of people laid off in the last 5 years, my own experience of working for the DWP and I can tell you the feckless scum are a tiny minority. But hey thats just actual evidence which counts for nothing against a moralistic rant.

You're much more outraged about this than you need to be really, it's a problem which doesn't warrant this level of attention, not while we've got much bigger ones. You seem to think if you cut all the benefits you'll fix the country.

Good luck with that.

Edited by martin84 on Sunday 17th June 01:27

[DonkeyApple]

martin84 said:

Why not? Bit of a cop out to blame the Lib Dems every time a Tory gets something wrong tbh.

Not quite sure how you extrapolate my remark to a claim that all Tort Wors are the result of the Lib Dems. I think, to be honest, you have interpreted my post as you see fit, not as written or intended.

Plan B is always war. War wins votes. War increases productivity. But in our current state 'war' would be internal. Divide and rule. Pick on a section of society and scapegoat them. IDS is doing smart and correct things but Plan B would see an aggressive acceleration of his work which would help no one but gain votes.

The harsh reality is that if you have no money but need to find money to stimulate growth you have to take money from those who do not produce and pass it to those who do. The downside is that those most in need suffer in the short/medium term.

If Europe doesn't recover from its woes then the UK will face a ghastly moral descision and that is whether to collapse with Europe or sacrifice a minority to save the majority.

[Derek Smith]

Steffan said:

No society can permanently subsidise whole sections of unemployed people. There must be an economic incentive to work and a significant disincentive to be out of work.

The minimum wage earners must be able to equal unemployment benefits. If this is unaffordable, it is the benefits that must fall, not the minimum wage that must rise.

I'd like to comment on those two points, if I may.

The 'old style' tory party actively discouraged full employment. Indeed, I remember a speech by Knocker Powell where he stated that the UK could only be economically stable with a pool of 7 million unemployed. A less 'first against the wall' comment from a minister was to the effect that the only way of keeping profits high was to keep unemployment rates high.

As for the second one, keeping the minimum wage at a level where most of those on MW can claim benefits means that the low MW is part of the problem. The benefits system subsidises business. I see no reason for my taxes to subsidise a company that doesn't want to pay a living wage.

If people can't afford to live after working a 40 hour week on MW then the solution is obvious.

[PugwasHDJ80]

martin84 said:

I've been unemployed. That £50 a week they give you doesn't go far to be honest. You seem to think the unemployed have this jet setters life of luxury, clearly you've never lived in the real world or get your information from the ranting Daily-Mailers who are barely halfway along that ape-to-man evolutionary chart.

I'd be interested in a proper discussion but when millions are afraid for their jobs and basic typing jobs receive 250 applications it really is something else to make out redundancy is never a problem for anybody and job security is irrelevant. If thats how you view it then there's no point discussing anything with you, way too far gone to help.

I've been unemployed too (and i HATED it, hated being asked if i was job hunting, hated feeling valueless)

and its amazing how much they try and push on you- would you like free rent? money to get to interviews? no council tax? discounts on just about everything? DLA even if you aren't ill? have you bred with no thought to paying for your children? ahh have loads more money.

its not the £74 is all the others extra you can take should you choose to play the system.

The problem is that people get enough to disincentivise them from working, and they end up feeling worthless.

We have 3m unemployed at the moment (although if yu measure economically inactive its around 8m- very scary) but almost 1.5m in immigrants in the past 10 years- the vst majority of whom work. You have to ask how this is fair.

There ARE jobs out there, and if gave peoplea time limit on support then people WOULD find work.

[heppers75]

martin84 said:

Steffan said:

I am not criticising the minority of individuals who are temporarily unemployed. Indeed I am not criticising any individuals.

Only on the Daily Mail are honest unemployed in the minority. You are aware literally hundreds of thousands of people have been laid off in the last five years aren't you?

Steffan said:

But this cannot become what it has turned into in the UK.

What has it turned into? Do you have any evidence?

Steffan said:

There is a substantial element within our society for whom living on benefits has become a permanent lifestyle choice. That cannot continue.

There are certainly a few individuals who fit this bill, but to claim it is a 'substantial element' is unsubstantiated in itself. Again, only on the Daily Mail are these people the majority. One family on the front pages is not a majority.

Steffan said:

No society can permanently subsidise whole sections of unemployed people. There must be an economic incentive to work and a significant disincentive to be out of work.

Only someone with a perfect life would think there aren't already disincentive's to be out of work.

Steffan said:

We have individuals in this country who are receiving in excess of £50,000 a year just in housing benefits. With perhaps another £20,000 on top. This is madness. On the minimum wage of £6 an hour working 40 hours each, they would earn less than half that together.

Yes there are some people like that. What I object to is how people like you hold up the odd example which makes the front pages - its obviously not the norm or it wouldn't be newsworthy - as justification for sweeping changes to the entire system. Yes a lottery winner stole £20k or whatever it was in benefits, to win £4m on the lotto already makes you a one in a million shot so to claim he's the norm is quite pathetic. Yes theres some people who get 50k a year odd on it, but in the greater scheme of things thats fk all, thats not why we have a budget deficit, thats not the big problem. I do get fed up of ranting idiots who's justification for changing the entire system is an example of one family which makes the front pages.

Steffan said:

The minimum wage earners must be able to equal unemployment benefits. If this is unaffordable, it is the benefits that must fall, not the minimum wage that must rise.

How do you work that out? Surely the reason for the benefits being high is living costs are high, so the minimum wage isn't high enough. Unless your only solution is to put people on the street, which is really productive I know you'll come back with the odd exceptional example of a foreign asylum seeker living in Kensington but even if you moved all of them to the arse end of Humberside the savings would be minimal at best.

Steffan said:

Childless couples working hard on the minimum wage are no better off than the unemployed single parent of seven children, who has no job, does not want a job, and believes that this is their entitlement.

Maybe so but the former is still the majority, despite your twisted beliefs with no evidence to back them up.

Steffan said:

I am not seeking to be controversial. The facts seem self evident to me.

You're not seeking to be factually correct either. How about some actual evidence instead of self declaring self evidence?

Steffan said:

If we go on like this we will be bankrupt as a country.

Housing benefit will not bankrupt the country, theres about another 74 things to deal with before the numbers actually make this as big an issue as the ranting moralists think it is. For instance from a factual and mathematical point of view I believe the pensions bill is more worthy of discussion, this is a bill which will only rise long term as people live longer and less people pay in at the bottom due to the birth rate dropping. The days of 2.4 children are behind us, its less than that now and even when the baby boomers die we've then got the issue of everyone who's 50 odd now maybe living another 5-10 years longer than those on their way out now. I believe more than half of the social security bill is pensions, this is a big issue. This is a bill we can do little about, housing benefit/JSA etc will go up and down depending on the economy and you can fiddle around with things like that to make a difference, but you can't go and drown everybody at 65. Add into the mix the fact most pensioners vote so every Government has sought to protect them and you've got a massive problem.

You've given a lovely moralistic speech with absolutely zero evidence to back up your self declared claims. You believe you know every unemployed person and can speak with authority when claiming the majority of them are worthless scum, you believe you know how every single unemployed person thinks, feels and views the World. Well thats literally impossible. I prefer to base my opinions on actual fact. Facts such as how the Government's figures show only 3% of benefits paid out last year were fraudulently claimed, so its not as easily abused as many think and contrary to popular belief its not exploited daily by Estonian gangs. I also look at the unemployment figures, the amount of people laid off in the last 5 years, my own experience of working for the DWP and I can tell you the feckless scum are a tiny minority. But hey thats just actual evidence which counts for nothing against a moralistic rant.

You're much more outraged about this than you need to be really, it's a problem which doesn't warrant this level of attention, not while we've got much bigger ones. You seem to think if you cut all the benefits you'll fix the country.

Good luck with that.

Edited by martin84 on Sunday 17th June 01:27

Martin you do seem to be moving almost entirely in the opposite direction to that which you accuse Steffan of.

Welfare spending in this country has doubled since the early noughties and to suggest that a majority of claimants being supported by this exponential increase are claiming £50 a week is frankly a bit dense! Where I live, which is not an impoverished part of the country by any means there is an estate about half a mile away which is pretty typical of many around the UK. Semi detached houses a few detached and a few flats. Built circa 1960's in that cookie cutter style. There are approx I would say 600 houses on this estate and they are by vast majority state owned and funded. That is one of four or five similar estates in a town of about 33000 people. Indeed the governments own figures on demography say that there are 35000 dwellings and over 87000 people in the larger district and 16% of them are state funded and that data is a few years old so I would contend that may be greater than 20% now based on what I know to have been built as housing over the past five years.

So for one town in middle England we have over 5000 households state supported i.e. paid for from the welfare bill.

Do you think they are all getting £50 a week and that is it?

Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 17th June 08:54

[Getragdogleg]

martin84 said:

Steffan said:

The Benefit Society

BOOM! Second reply and it's already been mentioned. Wow that must be a new record even for PH.

Why do some posters seem to think that posting a remark like Martin84's somehow negates the truth of the issue and renders all further discussions null and void ?

Later remarks from Martin proclaim that he has been out of work and got "£50" a week, which i can conclude he feels is not much. Well it's £50 for free, so be happy you got that.

The issue here is not martins's £50, nor the £74 quid a later poster claimed JSA is now pegged at, both those examples are taken from a new claimants point of view, someone who has not been within the system for years and knows all the loopholes, hoops to jump through and has got the system sussed.

Two examples prove my point,

Me, a few years ago I was made redundant, after a 14 years of full time employment the company was in trouble and asked for volunteers to take a lump payment and leave, I took it, it was not a massive amount (under £3500) but enough to mean I got nothing from the JSA, two reasons were given, one was the lump sum, two was the fact I took the redundancy, 2 months later the place closed down and the lads who had remained got full JSA but no lump sum. All fair in my opinion, I had money to tide me over till I found work which I did quite quickly.

My neighbours:

I lived in an ex local authority house for a while, the couple next door went to school with me, met at school and when they left at 16 they signed on, stayed together as a couple and used to hang around the town centre chatting and drinking, they were never rowdy or trouble but they were always just sat about in town.
Fast forward a few years and they get housed in the (still LA) house next door to me, rent paid and still signing on, they have a child, and then the man of the house develops a "bad back" suddenly he is blue badged and gets a brand new Astra given to him, then suddenly she is drawing disability as well for soem unknown ailment and he is now a carer, the child grows up and is brought down with a bad case of ADHD and he now needs a lot of extra benefits and holidays away from the stress of his house, once again paid for by soome external fund.

The couple next door have a new car every few years, he has a new motorbike, they sit around the garden all day or do DiY, go out and about and go on holidays/breaks more often than me. They have full mobility and are 100% milking the system, I KNOW there is sod all wrong with them, they knew how the system worked from the start and lined up all the hoops to jump through.

This is the "benefits society" that I can see with my own eyes, telling me it is a "record" because the truth is mentioned a few replies in is just telling me there is a problem and it's not just me who has it on my doorstep.

The problem is with attitudes like Martins, attitudes that legitimise and allow fking lazy s to laze around and get free money. Free money the country cannot afford due to the waste and poor managment in many of the other areas of governmental spending.

The liberal, wishy washy, think of the children, help everyone, give them money brigade who are personified in this instance by Martin84 are blind to the problem and are too busy worrying about imagined poverty lines and social inclusion to see that they are being milked for free money.

But we on PH best not mention it, its not fair don't you know.

[Lost soul]

martin84 said:

Steffan said:

The Benefit Society

BOOM! Second reply and it's already been mentioned. Wow that must be a new record even for PH.

And you do not think the Benefit society is a big part of the problem ?

[Mojocvh]

martin84 said:

I've been unemployed. That £50 a week they give you doesn't go far to be honest. You seem to think the unemployed have this jet setters life of luxury, clearly you've never lived in the real world or get your information from the ranting Daily-Mailers who are barely halfway along that ape-to-man evolutionary chart.

I'd be interested in a proper discussion but when millions are afraid for their jobs and basic typing jobs receive 250 applications it really is something else to make out redundancy is never a problem for anybody and job security is irrelevant. If thats how you view it then there's no point discussing anything with you, way too far gone to help.

Have a big

Steffan, you are really out of touch with the sh|tty realities of unemployment.

Why not give it say 6 months of practical experience THEN report back?

rgds.

Mo [18 months at an average rate of NATIONAL job applications of 11.3 per week before "success"] .