Yet more feckless wasters.

[12gauge]

crazy about cars said:

Abolish ALL benefits unless you have some form of full/part time employment.

Why should someone get free cash because he/she is not willing to work?

Its not about willingness, its practicality

They should recieve benefits..

Because the govt prices 30-40% of the population out of housing through an artificial scarcity of planning permissions.
Because the govt make it illegal for people who arent worth paying the minimum wage to exchange their labour for wages.
Because the govt starts taxing your income well below even their own description of the poverty line.

Im all for no taxes and no spending. But until the govt restores peoples rights to provide for themselves, be it building their own house, or doing labour at £3.50 an hour free of taxes, they must instead pay benefits.

[martin84]

crazy about cars said:

One thing's for certain no amount of money will buy me out from my family.

Well I'm pushing 30 and aside from my parents I have no family. The rest of them are either dead or I never met them and I live alone so my price is probably quite low

[blugnu]

crazy about cars said:

I've seen people on benefits come for interview late and half arsed because they don't want the job but yet have to prove to Job centre that they are actively looking for employment. Not willing to work does exist but I guess you choose to ignore that.

I don't "choose to ignore" anything. I just took exception to your 'I've read it in the Mail' attitude that everyone who is unemployed is unemployed simply because they are lazy. It's a very blinkered, very Southern view. I wasn't joking before - there are bits of the north you would not recognise as being part of the UK - the bits nobody cares about - not politicians, not councils, not the press, and not even the people who live there.

Why not try and live in Goldthorpe or similar for even a fortnight with no car, no luxuries and just dole money - and then imagine that was your life until you found a way out, but every way out cost money you had no way of getting.

It's no wonder people in such places drink and dance and screw, there's nothing else to do, as Jarvis put it.

What is needed is jobs, but no government ever created one that I can recall.

Get work and people will gladly swap 'free money' for money they've earned, some self respect and some hope.

But of course, you'll always get some exceptions.

(Personally I like the Swedish system where your unemployment benefit starts out at 95% of your last salary and decreases over time until it reaches a certain basic level after 2(?) years)

[martin84]

blugnu said:

I don't "choose to ignore" anything. I just took exception to your 'I've read it in the Mail' attitude that everyone who is unemployed is unemployed simply because they are lazy. It's a very blinkered, very Southern view. I wasn't joking before - there are bits of the north you would not recognise as being part of the UK - the bits nobody cares about - not politicians, not councils, not the press, and not even the people who live there.

Having worked in a Job Centre I do get frustrated at the treatment of everybody who is unemployed. From PH to car insurance companies, they all treat the unemployed like criminals. These days theres hundreds of thousands of people being made redundant, some of them after 30 years in work. I met people who were in their 50s, experiencing their first time out of work since they left school and really had no idea what to do.

blugnu said:

(Personally I like the Swedish system where your unemployment benefit starts out at 95% of your last salary and decreases over time until it reaches a certain basic level after 2(?) years)

You wont like the taxation system of Scandinavian countries though.

[blugnu]

blugnu said:

(Personally I like the Swedish system where your unemployment benefit starts out at 95% of your last salary and decreases over time until it reaches a certain basic level after 2(?) years)

martin84 said:

You wont like the taxation system of Scandinavian countries though.

Norway seemed nice enough - not being in the EU or having pretensions of being a super-power seems to save them a fair amount, which they appear to spend on making their towns and cities clean and tidy and their roads lovely and smooth.

I don't mind paying tax at all. It's seeing my tax money urinated up a brick structure that I object to. If it's spent well on things that benefit everyone I have no complaints whatsoever. I didn't even mind paying £5 a pint, or whatever it was, because the bar was nice, everyone around seemed happy and friendly, and I had no qualms at all about walking home on my own in a town I didn't know.

EDIT TO ADD - that said I used to get a lift to my hotel (was there on a contract) from a guy in his late twenties who'd been to prison for what he described as a minor speeding offence. I didn't seem to have slowed him down much.

[martin84]

Thats all well and good as a tourist but if applied to the UK you'd just get the £5 pint without the Norweigan safe town.

[AJS-]

I think "feckless" is over used on PH.

[powerstroke]

Mobile Chicane said:

Or none at all... Why pay people to breed?

Rather invest the money in workplace nurseries for those who:

a. need it
b. contribute something to society.

Good idea!! but who will there be to vote labour in a few
years time ???

[blueg33]

blugnu said:

Why not try and live in Goldthorpe or similar for even a fortnight with no car, no luxuries and just dole money - and then imagine that was your life until you found a way out, but every way out cost money you had no way of getting.

I know Goldthorpe fairly well, we have an office there on a business park paid for entirely through taxes but the business park is mostly empty. Goldthorpe is not near anywhere, you cannot force employers to move there. We are only there because we needed a local base between Doncaster and Barnsley. My business has sunk £millions into infrastructure in the area over the past 7 years and we hardly scratch the surface.

I fear that settlements like that have no chance of getting out of the rut. Its too far to commute to anywhere unless you can afford a car, if you are unemployed how do you afford to move?

But, why should taxpayers pay to perpetuate that rut?

In a "no benefits" system, Goldthorpe and similar would become ghost towns, that's what has always happened historically and in reality its what should happen now. Mining towns grew in areas where the ONLY reason to live there was exploiting the resource, when that resource is gone people should move on.

Perhaps tax ££'s should be spent on relocating people to the work, not trying to falsely create an economy where there is too little critical mass for it to work

[blugnu]

blueg33 said:

Perhaps tax ££'s should be spent on relocating people to the work, not trying to falsely create an economy where there is too little critical mass for it to work

The problem with that is that most of the work is in the south thanks to successive governments ignoring the needs of the primary and secondary sectors (getting stuff from the earth and making stuff) in favour of the tertiary sector (buying and selling stuff) Where are you going to put the population of Goldthorpe and a hundred other towns like it?

If I were the government I'd be spending money on investments. Seeds of what could become new nationalised industries - there are massive opportunities out there. Imagine if the UK were the world leader in making fuel from waste (the bacteria exist) - we could have sites where the old mines were, and these communities could live again - and we could sell the fuel to everyone else. There are many other projects the government could invest in that would produce jobs in the short term and jobs and profit in the long term. All we need is a government that has the courage to look more than five years ahead.

[blueg33]

blugnu said:

The problem with that is that most of the work is in the south thanks to successive governments ignoring the needs of the primary and secondary sectors (getting stuff from the earth and making stuff) in favour of the tertiary sector (buying and selling stuff) Where are you going to put the population of Goldthorpe and a hundred other towns like it?

If I were the government I'd be spending money on investments. Seeds of what could become new nationalised industries - there are massive opportunities out there. Imagine if the UK were the world leader in making fuel from waste (the bacteria exist) - we could have sites where the old mines were, and these communities could live again - and we could sell the fuel to everyone else. There are many other projects the government could invest in that would produce jobs in the short term and jobs and profit in the long term. All we need is a government that has the courage to look more than five years ahead.

Oh I agree with you on the issues of relocation, it needs to be a natural process over time. Benefits prevent this natural process from occuring.

A huge amount of european and uk cash has been dumped into the area, but it hasn't worked. Eg. You do not create jobs just by building an office park and a bypass.

I only want the Government to invest my money into relatively safe ideas, leave the risky stuff for private cash.

As for fuel from waste, as far as I can find out, no one anywhere is making that work on a national scale and I am not convinced it would employ anything like the volume of people the mines did.

Skilled people moved in when the mines opened, so they should move out when they close. If you bring in specialist industry, most of the skill set will be imported too.

[Munter]

blugnu said:

The problem with that is that most of the work is in the south thanks to successive governments ignoring the needs of the primary and secondary sectors (getting stuff from the earth and making stuff) in favour of the tertiary sector (buying and selling stuff) Where are you going to put the population of Goldthorpe and a hundred other towns like it?

If I were the government I'd be spending money on investments. Seeds of what could become new nationalised industries - there are massive opportunities out there. Imagine if the UK were the world leader in making fuel from waste (the bacteria exist) - we could have sites where the old mines were, and these communities could live again - and we could sell the fuel to everyone else. There are many other projects the government could invest in that would produce jobs in the short term and jobs and profit in the long term. All we need is a government that has the courage to look more than five years ahead.

You seem to be suggesting the enterprise zones that the gov have created.

[iphonedyou]

Just give the bloody benefits as vouchers. There's a stigma attached to foodstamps and the like, so few people will want to be on them, and those that are perfectly happy to be on them will at least be forced to 'spend' them on necessities.

[Halb]

blugnu said:

Norway seemed nice enough - not being in the EU or having pretensions of being a super-power seems to save them a fair amount, which they appear to spend on making their towns and cities clean and tidy and their roads lovely and smooth.

It does seem to work really well. Might be a place to move to one day.

Norway said:

Norwegians enjoy the second highest GDP per-capita (after Luxembourg) and fourth highest GDP (PPP) per-capita in the world. Today, Norway ranks as the second wealthiest country in the world in monetary value, with the largest capital reserve per capita of any nation. Norway maintained first place in the world in the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) for six consecutive years (2001–2006), and then reclaimed this position in 2009 and 2010. Cost of living is about 90% higher in Norway than in the United States and 50% higher than the United Kingdom. The standard of living in Norway is among the highest in the world. Foreign Policy Magazine ranks Norway last in its Failed States Index for 2009, judging Norway to be the world's most well-functioning and stable country. Continued oil and gas exports coupled with a healthy economy and substantial accumulated wealth lead to a conclusion that Norway will remain among the richest countries in the world in the foreseeable future.
The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Economy

[Fittster]

Why is unacceptable to rellocate people from areas without work to those with work?

Not got a job up North? Well take a vacancy in the S/E, stay in a dormitory. It's not as if there are huge distances, language or cultural barriers that need to be overcome.

[blugnu]

iphonedyou said:

There's a stigma attached to foodstamps and the like, so few people will want to be on them, and those that are perfectly happy to be on them will at least be forced to 'spend' them on necessities.

Of course - it's binary like that.

There are two types of people

1) those that would rather starve than use foodstamps

2) those that are bone idle and chose to be unemployed, and who spend the fortune they receive for free on luxury items

Do you even know how much benefits amount to? Could you live on it?

[blugnu]

Fittster said:

Why is unacceptable to rellocate people from areas without work to those with work?

Not got a job up North? Well take a vacancy in the S/E, stay in a dormitory. It's not as if there are huge distances, language or cultural barriers that need to be overcome.

Shall I tell you about life in an old mining town?

My former neighbour was born in one. His family weren't miners and so he had a reasonable upbringing as his father worked in a decent 'middle class' job that just happened to mean they lived near the mining town.

So he went to the local schools, which were awful. He used to regularly tell me, with real urgency in his voice, that if I had kids I must never send them to the local schools. Do anything, he said, but makes sure they don't go to the local school.

Despite this he got an apprenticeship as a mechanic. He did well, but there was no job at the end of it as it coincided with a bit of a downturn for the garage. So he bought an old van and used to fix cars on people's drives. There isn't much money in fixing the cars of people who are poor, but he survived, until his tools were stolen. Last I heard he was working in a biscuit factory or something, but there are not enough jobs.

It's all well and good saying 'get a job down south' but how do you do that? Seriously, it cost more than you could afford on benefits to get to Sheffield from where I used to live if you used public transport. To suggest to someone that they might spend half their weekly income or more to get to Sheffield, get a train to 'the South' and then a bus at the other end for an interview for a job they might not get - and then if they did get they'd have to spend money on maintaining two places to live and travelling is lunacy. What sort of jobs do you imagine there are that will pay enough to do that, that are open to people living 150 miles away, with no experience and a handful of poor GCSE's?

Get a grip. It really isn't as easy as saying 'they should make an effort'

[Negative Creep]

blugnu said:

Fittster said:

Why is unacceptable to rellocate people from areas without work to those with work?

Not got a job up North? Well take a vacancy in the S/E, stay in a dormitory. It's not as if there are huge distances, language or cultural barriers that need to be overcome.

Shall I tell you about life in an old mining town?

My former neighbour was born in one. His family weren't miners and so he had a reasonable upbringing as his father worked in a decent 'middle class' job that just happened to mean they lived near the mining town.

So he went to the local schools, which were awful. He used to regularly tell me, with real urgency in his voice, that if I had kids I must never send them to the local schools. Do anything, he said, but makes sure they don't go to the local school.

Despite this he got an apprenticeship as a mechanic. He did well, but there was no job at the end of it as it coincided with a bit of a downturn for the garage. So he bought an old van and used to fix cars on people's drives. There isn't much money in fixing the cars of people who are poor, but he survived, until his tools were stolen. Last I heard he was working in a biscuit factory or something, but there are not enough jobs.

It's all well and good saying 'get a job down south' but how do you do that? Seriously, it cost more than you could afford on benefits to get to Sheffield from where I used to live if you used public transport. To suggest to someone that they might spend half their weekly income or more to get to Sheffield, get a train to 'the South' and then a bus at the other end for an interview for a job they might not get - and then if they did get they'd have to spend money on maintaining two places to live and travelling is lunacy. What sort of jobs do you imagine there are that will pay enough to do that, that are open to people living 150 miles away, with no experience and a handful of poor GCSE's?

Get a grip. It really isn't as easy as saying 'they should make an effort'

Well said. Most people cannot just get up and relocate, especially if they have kids, mortgage, pets, utility contracts etc. Unless it's a well paid job, it's utterly pointless. That's before you even consider the amount of people "down south" trying to get the same job.

[Munter]

blugnu said:

Get a grip. It really isn't as easy as saying 'they should make an effort'

If we genuinely have a problem this problem of people needing jobs in area 1 and jobs needing people in area 2. And I'm not convinced we genuinely have that problem. But if we do. Then the benefits/job centers systems should work to relocate them, to a job. I doubt it does that at the moment. But if we have this problem then it should.

I should be able to walk into a job center, search the system, it says a relevant job exists in Barking. I apply, get an interview, and get the job. I should be packed off to accommodation relevant to working in barking. Better to pay a couple of train tickets for interviews and relocation, than have someone sat on benefits for years.

Though if the problem doesn't actually exist, that would explain why the system doesn't either.

[blugnu]

Munter said:

If we genuinely have a problem this problem of people needing jobs in area 1 and jobs needing people in area 2. And I'm not convinced we genuinely have that problem. But if we do. Then the benefits/job centers systems should work to relocate them, to a job. I doubt it does that at the moment. But if we have this problem then it should.

I should be able to walk into a job center, search the system, it says a relevant job exists in Barking. I apply, get an interview, and get the job. I should be packed off to accommodation relevant to working in barking. Better to pay a couple of train tickets for interviews and relocation, than have someone sat on benefits for years.

Though if the problem doesn't actually exist, that would explain why the system doesn't either.

Well it does work like that, but the chances of their being a job in Barking and the best candidate living in York are fairly remote. Chances are that, unless it's a highly skilled role, there will be someone in Barking, or nearby, who can do it at a much lower cost to the economy as a whole.

Companies tend not to set up in places where there is a shortage of labour locally.

One of my qualifications is that I am a teacher. There are jobs all over the country I could do, but chances are if I apply for a job 100 miles away I won't get it, because they school will worry that I'll be late often, or get bored of the commute and leave or whatever - and there will be people who live nearer who can do the same job.

If I were being recruited as a Head of Education for a council it might be different - they might even pay for me to relocate, as I would have a rarer skill set and it's be worth it.

For the sort of jobs were talking about - normal jobs that pay enough to live on but not enough to make you rich - it's just not going to work.

And that's without considering where you think the accomodation in Barking might be. As I understand it, rental prices in the South are going through the roof at the moment already.