Tories pressing the self-destruct button?

[Getragdogleg]

Mojocvh said:

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"] .

See my reply above, An example such as yours highlights the disparity between claimants such as me and you and the long termers who have built up their cushion.

Edited by Getragdogleg on Sunday 17th June 09:21

[98elise]

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 have also recently been unemployed, and the only thing I got was jobseekers. Very sobering when you have two kids and 250k in mortgage. The benefits system is not geared up for people who work, you are simply on your own.

It works best for those that have worked the system for years, and get every benefit under the sun. My father in law hasn't worked a day in the 20+ years I've known him. He lives 2 streets from me in a nice HA house, and has a brand new car.

He is "disabled" and walks with a cane due to chronic back pain. It doesn't stop him walking his dog 3 times a day though. In recent years the house has been double glazed, had a new kitchen, and a new bathroom.

For added irony I was also recently diagnosed with cronic back pain, but somehow this dosen't stop me from working!

[Mojocvh]

Getragdogleg said:

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.

Bit harsh there. Martin comes across as the sort of guy [like myself] who, for want of a better description, were victims of the system, having contributed all my working life to an insurance fund for time of need only to be told to 'eff off.

eg. The mindset of those tasked with accepting people onto the "system"

Got a house, sell it first then we will talk about support to keep your children off the streets. [I didn't have to as I had made private provision but the intent was clear.]

Got a car, sell that as well as it's an asset that can be liquidated and you therefore don't need support. [Bit difficult to travel around anywhere but Londonium or the SE in your quest for employment without one though.]

Come back when you are really destitute and we'll find some nice flat in some sink estate for you and your children, just watch the needles and pushers. [Never got to that stage but it was a close run thing.]

So to those posters who seem to have all the answers [I certainly do not but have a perspective based on experience]I would suggest an extended spell to gain an actual insight into what being unemployed is really like. Then let us know how you got on.



One small personal point, getting the monthly paycheck still feels like an exceptional event for me.

[iphonedyou]

It's amusing that some people, despite detailed explanation, cannot discern the crux of this discussion; which is, generally, that genuine JSA is fine. Supporting a benefits driven lifestyle choice for millions is not.

Ergo fury at some perceived slight of genuine JSA claimants is unnecessary.

[Getragdogleg]

Mojo, Maybe it was a little harsh, but the argument I was making is that there are "benefit cheats" and Martins derision of how fast the phrase turned up in this thread was what I railed against.

The system is wrong, its badly managed and has unfair quirks. I have been in the system and found it weighted against me. yet in the house next door I see the system working becasue of the lack of moral integrity on the part of my neighbours.

So, you, me and martin are not "cheats" and my fking neighbour is. Its our fault as a society its like this, we have not changed it so its more fair. Problem is how the hell do you tackle it ?

[turbobloke]

Since housing benefit has been raised, is there not a cap of £400 per week now in place or proposed...if so this amounts to over £20,000 per year and taken as £1600 per month is equivalent to the payment on a 20 year £300,000 mortgage at 3% - to get that on say a £330,000 house would need a 10% deposit of £33k and an income of about £75k asssuming that house price lending is 4x salary or £100k at 3x salary.

[Getragdogleg]

And, yes. The tories are pushing the self destruct button. They have no real people as advisors, only career politicians and paid up party policy wonks. therefore no real world experience and certainly no empathy for the ordinary working Joe-average who pays for it all.

[heppers75]

iphonedyou said:

It's amusing that some people, despite detailed explanation, cannot discern the crux of this discussion; which is, generally, that genuine JSA is fine. Supporting a benefits driven lifestyle choice for millions is not.

Ergo fury at some perceived slight of genuine JSA claimants is unnecessary.

Spot on, they are however the same people who argue black is white, ignore facts as presented and happily compare apples and oranges on any issue in any thread that involves bankers, executives, tax, welfare etc etc.

It is the age old political divide and it is played out on PH day in and day out and the lengths some folks will go to actually ignore facts is staggering!

[turbobloke]

Getragdogleg said:

They (the Tories) have no real people as advisors, only career politicians and paid up party policy wonks. therefore no real world experience and certainly no empathy for the ordinary working Joe-average who pays for it all.

That's true but the main three Parties are the same, self-serving and out of touch. Unfortunately, of the other two, one is serially incompetent and the other is barking.

[Sticks.]

Getragdogleg said:

And, yes. The tories are pushing the self destruct button. They have no real people as advisors, only career politicians and paid up party policy wonks. therefore no real world experience and certainly no empathy for the ordinary working Joe-average who pays for it all.

Indeed, and some of the prioritising and handling of new policies beggars belief.

[Mojocvh]

Getragdogleg said:

Mojo, Maybe it was a little harsh, but the argument I was making is that there are "benefit cheats" and Martins derision of how fast the phrase turned up in this thread was what I railed against.

The system is wrong, its badly managed and has unfair quirks. I have been in the system and found it weighted against me. yet in the house next door I see the system working becasue of the lack of moral integrity on the part of my neighbours.

So, you, me and martin are not "cheats" and my fking neighbour is. Its our fault as a society its like this, we have not changed it so its more fair. Problem is how the hell do you tackle it ?

Indeed.

For any change there needs to be Employment Opportunities.

[Mojocvh]

turbobloke said:

Since housing benefit has been raised, is there not a cap of £400 per week now in place or proposed...if so this amounts to over £20,000 per year and taken as £1600 per month is equivalent to the payment on a 20 year £300,000 mortgage at 3% - to get that on say a £330,000 house would need a 10% deposit of £33k and an income of about £75k asssuming that house price lending is 4x salary or £100k at 3x salary.

[sic] I'd loved to have know how you get on that ponzy scheme.

[Sticks.]

Mojocvh said:

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

Congrats.

[Getragdogleg]

turbobloke said:

Getragdogleg said:

They (the Tories) have no real people as advisors, only career politicians and paid up party policy wonks. therefore no real world experience and certainly no empathy for the ordinary working Joe-average who pays for it all.

That's true but the main three Parties are the same, self-serving and out of touch. Unfortunately, of the other two, one is serially incompetent and the other is barking.

Oh yes, they are all cast from the same mould, occasionally you get one or two who have climbed up from outside and retained some root integrity but mostly they are of the "we know best becasue we are the government" it's a similar thing to the "more n my jobsworths" you get in other walks of life but much more damaging.

[jaedba2604]

Steffan said:

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, you're wasting your time on here. before long the usual suspects will be all over this thread quoting marxian academics and left wing think tank conclusions.

it is as simple as you say, this country cannot sustain its infrastructure AND support long term dependant claimants, unfortunately, there are adequate people in number who think we should just keep it up, unaware that the national debt is at a fairly critical point. these are quite possibly the same people who are grumbling that £50 a week is inadequate to support them in attending job interviews.

any economy, micro or macro, requires prudence built in. our government cannot keep borrowing and borrowing against a debt in the hope the good times will return, they probably won't, as we face stiff competition from countries whose denizens are prepared to work fking hard. so it can keep borrowing and promising public sector workers generous pensions, the long term unemployed an adequate amount to sustain their lifestyles without moving from their sofa much. or it can tighten the purse strings and build a buffer into the uk economy so we don't end up like other eu countries.

unfortuntely the reason why £50 isn't enough to attend job interviews is the same reason why people think the government should keep spending. if i lost my job tomorrow i have enough saved in the bank to pay my own way to interviews. i say this notwithstanding individuals' personal situations.

the fundamentals of socialism are a redistribution of the means of production. seems somewhere along the 20th century it was decided they were a redistribution of the rewards of production.

Edited by jaedba2604 on Sunday 17th June 10:22

[iphonedyou]

jaedba2604 said:

Steffan, you're wasting your time on here. before long the usual suspects will be all over this thread quoting marxian academics and left wing think tank conclusions.

it is as simple as you say, this country cannot sustain its infrastructure AND support long term dependant claimants, unfortunately, there are adequate people in number who think we should just keep it up, unaware that the national debt is at a fairly critical point. these are quite possibly the same people who are grumbling that £50 a week is inadequate to support them in attending job interviews.

any economy, micro or macro, requires prudence built in. our government cannot keep borrowing and borrowing against a debt in the hope the good times will return, they probably won't, as we face stiff competition from countries whose denizens are prepared to work fking hard. so it can keep borrowing and promising public sector workers generous pensions, the long term unemployed an adequate amount to sustain their lifestyles without moving from their sofa much. or it can tighten the purse strings and build a buffer into the uk economy so we don't end up like other eu countries.

unfortuntely the reason why £50 isn't enough to attend job interviews is the same reason why people think the government should keep spending. if i lost my job tomorrow i have enough saved in the bank to pay my own way to interviews. i say this notwithstanding individuals' personal situations.

the fundamentals of socialism are a redistribution of the means of production. seems somewhere along the 20th century it was decided they were a redistribution of the rewards of production.

Edited by jaedba2604 on Sunday 17th June 10:22

Your last statement is very succinctly put. Made me think!

[jaedba2604]

iphonedyou said:

jaedba2604 said:

Steffan, you're wasting your time on here. before long the usual suspects will be all over this thread quoting marxian academics and left wing think tank conclusions.

it is as simple as you say, this country cannot sustain its infrastructure AND support long term dependant claimants, unfortunately, there are adequate people in number who think we should just keep it up, unaware that the national debt is at a fairly critical point. these are quite possibly the same people who are grumbling that £50 a week is inadequate to support them in attending job interviews.

any economy, micro or macro, requires prudence built in. our government cannot keep borrowing and borrowing against a debt in the hope the good times will return, they probably won't, as we face stiff competition from countries whose denizens are prepared to work fking hard. so it can keep borrowing and promising public sector workers generous pensions, the long term unemployed an adequate amount to sustain their lifestyles without moving from their sofa much. or it can tighten the purse strings and build a buffer into the uk economy so we don't end up like other eu countries.

unfortuntely the reason why £50 isn't enough to attend job interviews is the same reason why people think the government should keep spending. if i lost my job tomorrow i have enough saved in the bank to pay my own way to interviews. i say this notwithstanding individuals' personal situations.

the fundamentals of socialism are a redistribution of the means of production. seems somewhere along the 20th century it was decided they were a redistribution of the rewards of production.

Edited by jaedba2604 on Sunday 17th June 10:22

Your last statement is very succinctly put. Made me think!

won't be long before the backlash starts...

[Mr_B]

Lets be honest here, benefits has only been going one way for a long time, and that's up. More and more people have been given ever more choice not to work if they don't want and the whole system is easier to play.
With the rise in benefits for some being equal to working 40 hours a week, the Government has given them a simple choice and one I can't actually blame people for taking given how weak it is. Why work 40 hours a week when you can get the same for free ?
I saw that most evident where I last worked. Half of the wives of the guys I knew there didn't work and them were happy to admit it came down to that simple choice. They mostly had kids and would otherwise have to work around the kids school time doing mostly unskilled jobs, but the state gives a choice and that's to stay at home and get an equal amount of free money just for pitching up at the Job Centre every two weeks.
Far from being the safety net it is meant to be, it's now a lifestyle choice that's become a fishing net actively encouraging people not to go to work.

[markcoznottz]

To put the icing on the cake they got a 5.2% increase last year. Nice work if you can get it. I thought the Tories were going to clamp down on spongers?, or was that hot air. Still people are off work with bad backs and the like, sort these s out, who signs them off?

[DSM2]

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

You strike me as unbelievably naive and unrealistic. Notwithstanding that a lot of your statements are not true.

Frankly, it's not worth arguing about. The money isn't there to support our benefits society / overblown public sector and both areas will be decimated, whoever is in power.

The purposefully unemployed and unnecessarily employed better get used to it.