Benefits Crackdown
Discussion
Gerradi said:
119 said:
Considering many councils are operating at minimum levels, i suspect they would very much appreciate the free help.
You'd think, Wifey volunteers Sundays cleaning Parks, childrens playgrounds. 2 weeks ago her group clearing a much needed riverbank of the Feeder river, council man turns up & upset a lot of people with his brusque manner shouting H&S rules etc. She said he spoke to them like dirt...?Joey Deacon said:
crankedup5 said:
One of the problems associated with working as a volunteer is, as has been mentioned, volunteers are subject to exactly the same conditions as those working for pay. one of the modern World facts of life is responsibility and accountability which we all should carry in the work place. Volunteers also have to accept that basic premise, which soon put paid to my days working as a volunteer. Sooner enjoy retirement. 
Spot on, as someone who hates the responsibility, stress and Woke bulls
t that goes with working these days I cannot see why anybody who voluntarily do it for free.The second I have enough cash I am done and I am never going to get out of bed before midday again if I can help it.
There always seems to be a lot of volunteers at National Trust places but I assume to these people it is more like a chance to have a chat with other similarly minded people? Still not doing it though.
sugerbear said:
Joey Deacon said:
crankedup5 said:
One of the problems associated with working as a volunteer is, as has been mentioned, volunteers are subject to exactly the same conditions as those working for pay. one of the modern World facts of life is responsibility and accountability which we all should carry in the work place. Volunteers also have to accept that basic premise, which soon put paid to my days working as a volunteer. Sooner enjoy retirement.
Spot on, as someone who hates the responsibility, stress and Woke bullst that goes with working these days I cannot see why anybody who voluntarily do it for free.The second I have enough cash I am done and I am never going to get out of bed before midday again if I can help it.
There always seems to be a lot of volunteers at National Trust places but I assume to these people it is more like a chance to have a chat with other similarly minded people? Still not doing it though.
The Social welfare state is too complicated now to try and change.
Even for the people or families that 'game' the system a little (or a lot), what quality of life do they really have? The ones near me to that do the bare minimum to get the most don't look like they're living the dream.
Even for the people or families that 'game' the system a little (or a lot), what quality of life do they really have? The ones near me to that do the bare minimum to get the most don't look like they're living the dream.
Randy Winkman said:
sugerbear said:
Joey Deacon said:
crankedup5 said:
One of the problems associated with working as a volunteer is, as has been mentioned, volunteers are subject to exactly the same conditions as those working for pay. one of the modern World facts of life is responsibility and accountability which we all should carry in the work place. Volunteers also have to accept that basic premise, which soon put paid to my days working as a volunteer. Sooner enjoy retirement.
Spot on, as someone who hates the responsibility, stress and Woke bullst that goes with working these days I cannot see why anybody who voluntarily do it for free.The second I have enough cash I am done and I am never going to get out of bed before midday again if I can help it.
There always seems to be a lot of volunteers at National Trust places but I assume to these people it is more like a chance to have a chat with other similarly minded people? Still not doing it though.
BoRED S2upid said:
Gerradi said:
119 said:
Considering many councils are operating at minimum levels, i suspect they would very much appreciate the free help.
You'd think, Wifey volunteers Sundays cleaning Parks, childrens playgrounds. 2 weeks ago her group clearing a much needed riverbank of the Feeder river, council man turns up & upset a lot of people with his brusque manner shouting H&S rules etc. She said he spoke to them like dirt...?There is a lady that goes around the local area one every few months litter picking and once a year organises a group effort.
BOR said:
CrgT16 said:
The last big mistake is too assume we are a rich country… not anymore just look at our roads, NHS, etc. we simply can’t afford this welfare joke anymore. Help who needs but get rid of the career scroungers.
We ARE a rich country, but the country's wealth is corralled by a tiny percentage of people.There was plenty of money suddenly available for business owners who were happy to harvest the magic money tree during the covid period.
Why not use these new found resources to retrieve those funds?
Going after the unemployed yet again will generate the square root of f
k all and is just the latest delivery of red-meat in a last-gasp act of desperation from a government on its last legs.theplayingmantis said:
BOR said:
CrgT16 said:
The last big mistake is too assume we are a rich country… not anymore just look at our roads, NHS, etc. we simply can’t afford this welfare joke anymore. Help who needs but get rid of the career scroungers.
We ARE a rich country, but the country's wealth is corralled by a tiny percentage of people.There was plenty of money suddenly available for business owners who were happy to harvest the magic money tree during the covid period.
Why not use these new found resources to retrieve those funds?
Going after the unemployed yet again will generate the square root of f
k all and is just the latest delivery of red-meat in a last-gasp act of desperation from a government on its last legs.And I'm sure the reader would consider that people who have built their existence around benefits, well, they're likely to have children to maximise the size of the wedge...which means that if we pull the plug on these people, kids are likely to suffer. The parents will have few skills to make themselves employable so there WILL be a gap where the young'uns will suffer through no fault of their own.
And fundamentally that's what benefits should cover first. Kids. They have no say or control in the environment they exist in (hell, it could have just as easily been any of us) so to put them in front of potential real harm or neglect because of questionable decisions their parents made is just not something any civilised society should consider.
Edited by GroundEffect on Tuesday 21st November 20:47
GroundEffect said:
And who is actually putting forward a model that would deliver this? We've only had decades...
And I'm sure the reader would consider that people who have built their existence around benefits, well, they're likely to have children to maximise the size of the wedge...which means that if we pull the plug on these people, kids are likely to suffer. The parents will have few skills to make themselves employable so there WILL be a gap where the young'uns will suffer through no fault of their own.
And fundamentally that's what benefits should cover first. Kids. They have no say or control in the environment they exist in (hell, it could have just as easily been any of us) so to put them in front of potential real harm or neglect because of questionable decisions their parents made is just not something any civilised society should consider.
You are suggesting that zero skill equals a life on benefits and that’s ok. What was your first job mine was flipping burgers and clearing tables very little skill required. I did get promoted to the Mr Wjippy machine which did need some hand eye coordination but I firmly believe if you have the will to work and actually want to get off benefits everyone can find a job nobody’s life should be on benefits. And I'm sure the reader would consider that people who have built their existence around benefits, well, they're likely to have children to maximise the size of the wedge...which means that if we pull the plug on these people, kids are likely to suffer. The parents will have few skills to make themselves employable so there WILL be a gap where the young'uns will suffer through no fault of their own.
And fundamentally that's what benefits should cover first. Kids. They have no say or control in the environment they exist in (hell, it could have just as easily been any of us) so to put them in front of potential real harm or neglect because of questionable decisions their parents made is just not something any civilised society should consider.
Edited by GroundEffect on Tuesday 21st November 20:47
Surely trying to improve a flawed system that penalises the actual needy, disincentives work, and allows it to be played by the malificous is a good thing?
This thread is classis NP&E zealots on both sides with ridiculous whataboutisms deflecting the actual issue...same with most threads on here and ceratin poor driving threads, see the middle lane thread, constant 'there not the biggest problem on the roads etc etc'...yes we know that but the clue is in the title...we are taking about that not all these strawmen.
The benefit systems should be radically reformed, simplified and means tested fairly so those who need it get help and are not worse off by doing an honest living whilst those who are playing it suffer or take the work that is currently beneath them or that they don't fancy.
We have a labour shortage. We have record people on benefits, we have record migration to helps alleviate the labour shortage, yet we have lack of infrastructure and housing to support this population growth. Some of these issues could be helped by changing the attitude of those not willing to work, which is doomed to failure as there is a snobbish attitude to certain types of work in the last 30 years, and or by forcing them into it to an extent to hopefully change attitudes the hard way and change our culture somehow..
I doubt that anyone can actually implement a system that does this as this thread highlights, a lack of will and consensusthat anything should even be attempted.
Yes the current system is crap, and genuine needy people suffer, the epilepsy example that shouldnt happen and sounds horrific, the downs example too, just sums up the terrible system currently, but why cannot a government of any colour make an attempt to try and improve the system for all? Surely its utterly desirable to make it so the genuine are not made to suffer repeated testings whilst the less than genuine folk are encouraged back to work?
Yes there may be bigger issues that exist but that doesn't mean this issue shouldn't be tackled....
The argument by many on here is there are better targets to hit than this, well sure but there not mutually exclusive, no one who wants reform of the benefits system disagrees with that view, unless there moronic...so any plan to tackle the current system should be given a chance be it red or blue rosette led.
It's a huge issue and would ultimately need cross party support to solve and take more than the length of one parliament, so crappy fixes and fiddling will continue to happen.
The majority of issues we face suffer the same...infrastructure, NHS reform, they should be above politics as they are simply too important, yet here we are.
This thread is classis NP&E zealots on both sides with ridiculous whataboutisms deflecting the actual issue...same with most threads on here and ceratin poor driving threads, see the middle lane thread, constant 'there not the biggest problem on the roads etc etc'...yes we know that but the clue is in the title...we are taking about that not all these strawmen.
The benefit systems should be radically reformed, simplified and means tested fairly so those who need it get help and are not worse off by doing an honest living whilst those who are playing it suffer or take the work that is currently beneath them or that they don't fancy.
We have a labour shortage. We have record people on benefits, we have record migration to helps alleviate the labour shortage, yet we have lack of infrastructure and housing to support this population growth. Some of these issues could be helped by changing the attitude of those not willing to work, which is doomed to failure as there is a snobbish attitude to certain types of work in the last 30 years, and or by forcing them into it to an extent to hopefully change attitudes the hard way and change our culture somehow..
I doubt that anyone can actually implement a system that does this as this thread highlights, a lack of will and consensusthat anything should even be attempted.
Yes the current system is crap, and genuine needy people suffer, the epilepsy example that shouldnt happen and sounds horrific, the downs example too, just sums up the terrible system currently, but why cannot a government of any colour make an attempt to try and improve the system for all? Surely its utterly desirable to make it so the genuine are not made to suffer repeated testings whilst the less than genuine folk are encouraged back to work?
Yes there may be bigger issues that exist but that doesn't mean this issue shouldn't be tackled....
The argument by many on here is there are better targets to hit than this, well sure but there not mutually exclusive, no one who wants reform of the benefits system disagrees with that view, unless there moronic...so any plan to tackle the current system should be given a chance be it red or blue rosette led.
It's a huge issue and would ultimately need cross party support to solve and take more than the length of one parliament, so crappy fixes and fiddling will continue to happen.
The majority of issues we face suffer the same...infrastructure, NHS reform, they should be above politics as they are simply too important, yet here we are.
I own a manufacturing company in Australia. Circa 50 employees.
About 5 years ago we took a long term unemployed 'troubled' 22 year old.
The scheme came with government sponsorship which, if I recall, was 50% of his salary for 6 months. I only took him because of the sponsorship funding as I thought he'd be trouble for the business.
He's now worked with us for 5 years and is in his final year on a three year welding apprenticeship.
We also got him nominated for Apprentice of the Year 2023 Hunter Manufacturing Awards (Winner to be announced).
I guess my point is two fold.
If the government offers incentives to companies, we're more likely to give people a chance.
Sometimes people just need a push and CAN succeed if they in the right environment.
About 5 years ago we took a long term unemployed 'troubled' 22 year old.
The scheme came with government sponsorship which, if I recall, was 50% of his salary for 6 months. I only took him because of the sponsorship funding as I thought he'd be trouble for the business.
He's now worked with us for 5 years and is in his final year on a three year welding apprenticeship.
We also got him nominated for Apprentice of the Year 2023 Hunter Manufacturing Awards (Winner to be announced).
I guess my point is two fold.
If the government offers incentives to companies, we're more likely to give people a chance.
Sometimes people just need a push and CAN succeed if they in the right environment.
robm3 said:
I own a manufacturing company in Australia. Circa 50 employees.
About 5 years ago we took a long term unemployed 'troubled' 22 year old.
The scheme came with government sponsorship which, if I recall, was 50% of his salary for 6 months. I only took him because of the sponsorship funding as I thought he'd be trouble for the business.
He's now worked with us for 5 years and is in his final year on a three year welding apprenticeship.
We also got him nominated for Apprentice of the Year 2023 Hunter Manufacturing Awards (Winner to be announced).
I guess my point is two fold.
If the government offers incentives to companies, we're more likely to give people a chance.
Sometimes people just need a push and CAN succeed if they in the right environment.
We have done this in the U.K. many many times but they never last for some reason. About 5 years ago we took a long term unemployed 'troubled' 22 year old.
The scheme came with government sponsorship which, if I recall, was 50% of his salary for 6 months. I only took him because of the sponsorship funding as I thought he'd be trouble for the business.
He's now worked with us for 5 years and is in his final year on a three year welding apprenticeship.
We also got him nominated for Apprentice of the Year 2023 Hunter Manufacturing Awards (Winner to be announced).
I guess my point is two fold.
If the government offers incentives to companies, we're more likely to give people a chance.
Sometimes people just need a push and CAN succeed if they in the right environment.
robm3 said:
I own a manufacturing company in Australia. Circa 50 employees.
About 5 years ago we took a long term unemployed 'troubled' 22 year old.
The scheme came with government sponsorship which, if I recall, was 50% of his salary for 6 months. I only took him because of the sponsorship funding as I thought he'd be trouble for the business.
He's now worked with us for 5 years and is in his final year on a three year welding apprenticeship.
We also got him nominated for Apprentice of the Year 2023 Hunter Manufacturing Awards (Winner to be announced).
I guess my point is two fold.
If the government offers incentives to companies, we're more likely to give people a chance.
Sometimes people just need a push and CAN succeed if they in the right environment.
The big issue for the UK is that the difference between working and not for some is too narrow. This guy clearly wanted to get a job and you gave him the chance to do so. He has rewarded you with how he has turned out and is now a contributor to society.About 5 years ago we took a long term unemployed 'troubled' 22 year old.
The scheme came with government sponsorship which, if I recall, was 50% of his salary for 6 months. I only took him because of the sponsorship funding as I thought he'd be trouble for the business.
He's now worked with us for 5 years and is in his final year on a three year welding apprenticeship.
We also got him nominated for Apprentice of the Year 2023 Hunter Manufacturing Awards (Winner to be announced).
I guess my point is two fold.
If the government offers incentives to companies, we're more likely to give people a chance.
Sometimes people just need a push and CAN succeed if they in the right environment.
Sometimes we have to take a chance, I set on a guy with a criminal record when he got drunk he had run around naked and was punished.
However he lost his job and was struggling so I gave him a chance and he is still working for the company and has never been a bit of bother at all. Again he wanted to work all he needed was a chance
spaximus said:
The big issue for the UK is that the difference between working and not for some is too narrow. This guy clearly wanted to get a job and you gave him the chance to do so. He has rewarded you with how he has turned out and is now a contributor to society.
Sometimes we have to take a chance, I set on a guy with a criminal record when he got drunk he had run around naked and was punished.
However he lost his job and was struggling so I gave him a chance and he is still working for the company and has never been a bit of bother at all. Again he wanted to work all he needed was a chance
I once mentored a young girl to start her own business her main concern coming off benefits and taking the leap in reality it was like 1.5 days work to earn more than benefits but I imagine for some it’s a lot more days work to make it worthwhile coming off them and working a minimum wage job. Sometimes we have to take a chance, I set on a guy with a criminal record when he got drunk he had run around naked and was punished.
However he lost his job and was struggling so I gave him a chance and he is still working for the company and has never been a bit of bother at all. Again he wanted to work all he needed was a chance
BoRED S2upid said:
I once mentored a young girl to start her own business her main concern coming off benefits and taking the leap in reality it was like 1.5 days work to earn more than benefits but I imagine for some it’s a lot more days work to make it worthwhile coming off them and working a minimum wage job.
Phew - I ran out of breath reading that.Eric Mc said:
BoRED S2upid said:
I once mentored a young girl to start her own business her main concern coming off benefits and taking the leap in reality it was like 1.5 days work to earn more than benefits but I imagine for some it’s a lot more days work to make it worthwhile coming off them and working a minimum wage job.
Phew - I ran out of breath reading that.
theplayingmantis said:
The benefit systems should be radically reformed, simplified and means tested fairly so those who need it get help and are not worse off by doing an honest living whilst those who are playing it suffer or take the work that is currently beneath them or that they don't fancy.
I thought the reason Universal Credit was brought in was exactly this, a simplified version of Welfare .I believe IDSmith was the main architect & it probably may have been a good thing but Osbourne saw fit to cut a few million from its design , Smith resigned over Osbourne's move...I don't blame him tbh...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff