Brown to continue with radical welfare reform, privatisations

[Roadkill]

totally true about the fear of removing the safety net altogether also once your in work they arent interested that you might need to go back onto benefits if the job dosent work out, once they have you off your books its hard to get back on i believe. Lots of quizzing as to why you left your job?

Yes, but you're the one who was drivelling censoriously about what people on benefits do and don't spend their money on: it's that sort of attitude that's got us to this situation in the first place. So pardon me if I don't take you at all seriously.

 

[heartof gold]

i can still have an opinion i was only asking a question that alot of ppl ask.

dont take me serioulsy if you dont want to.

 

[_angel_]

nor do you have to sell yourself and write a piece on why you are suitable for benefit.

Oh yes you do! *eyes fifty page DLA manual for my son*

I've missed out on literally thousands I've been owed over the years.

 

[ViolentPanda]

NOT POPPING, WOULDNT MATTER HOW YOU ASKED THE QUESTION ON HERE ALWAYS BE SOMEONE WHO WOULDNT LIKE IT.

you do hear this question asked alot only last week i heard someone say how come they have a bigger tv than me when they are on benefits. You cant deny ppl who work do wonder how ppl on benefits afford some things.

You sound like the nice person who phoned the benefits fraud line about me, because they'd seen furniture and "lots of parcels" being delivered to our flat and knew we were both on benefits (my wife is also my carer). We'd just got married, and what was arriving were wedding presents.

See, try to stretch your mind a bit, try to imagine how someone might have something, it's not difficult, you know.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Classic one that is. In fact it's a chesnut. Nobody wonders if the person has scrimped and saved to buy the tv or more likely gone down the loan shark route or 'brighthouse' or a 'vanquis' card that charges way over the odds interest rates for people unable to get credit any other way.

We never buy stuff on credit, we've both deliberately avoided having credit cards. If we want something we literally save our small change until we've got enough to buy it, and we keep a small (very small) "emergency fund" of about £200 in the building society in case the washing machine dies or (like a few months ago) the fridge suicides.
We'd rather go without than line some unscrupulous parasitic cunt's pockets.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i can still have an opinion i was only asking a question that alot of ppl ask.

dont take me serioulsy if you dont want to.

Of course you can have an opinion.

It's also totally up to you whether that opinion is an informed one, or just a load of tabloidesque cant.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh yes you do! *eyes fifty page DLA manual for my son*

I've missed out on literally thousands I've been owed over the years.

Yep.
It's not as if the forms couldn't be simpler, but to make them simpler would encourage more people to claim, and the govt couldn't possibly have that, could it?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

To be frank, they usually ignore most of what people write on the DLA form anyway - sometimes, a report will be obtained from the GP, other times a DWP doctor will carry out an examination, and often the result is a refusal, despite what is on the form as the DWP state they prefer the other evidence.

As I mentioned before, those who appeal against refusals often succeed at appeal, with as many as 65% or more winning their appeal if represented by someone else. And the reason for the majority of successes? Extra evidence supplied at the hearing, either orally from the appellant or in writing from another doctor or medical professional.

Which doesn't really say a great deal for the amount of detail required in the first place. To be fair, the DWP has now introduced a new DLA form for adults that has more guidance, less writing required and more boxes to complete. It's still not as good as it could be (for example, the mobility tick boxes could easily lead to people being refused the mobility component due to one of the qualifying conditions not being mentioned ) They also plan to introduce shorter forms for kids and for AA in due course, but unless the administration is vastly improved, it's still going to be an ordeal getting what is rightfully yours to claim.

 

[_angel_]

You sound like the nice person who phoned the benefits fraud line about me, because they'd seen furniture and "lots of parcels" being delivered to our flat and knew we were both on benefits (my wife is also my carer). We'd just got married, and what was arriving were wedding presents.
.

That just beggars belief really.

 

[audiotech]

What do you mean. It is the central cog that turns the rest of the country's economy.

I mean that the city produces nada, not a sausage.

The 'central cog' of the economy is general taxation, and consequently, government spending.

 

[warren]

Really? Why do you say that?

Because it is a fact.

My opinion ont IB fraudalent claims could be wrong but that is an economic reality.

I do think people should be helped to work and weaned off benefits slowly. I also think that people with real disabilities should have IB raised significantly.

But what do I know where I'm from IB means Investment Banking.

 

[Geoff kerr-morg]

I came across this audio recording by the late Paul Foot on the next Labour Leader this is from I think 1993 or 94.
http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp3/the-next-labour-leader-paul-foot.mp3

 

[ViolentPanda]

Because it is a fact.

Then produce evidence that supports your claim. It's not a lot to ask.

Oh, and by the way, producing reams of facts about financial deals that don't actually produce anything except a figure on a balance sheet that will become subject to minimisation of taxation doesn't count as a "contribution" toward driving the economy, because it doesn't move beyond that balance sheet into productive use as investment capital in real concrete usage.

My opinion ont IB fraudalent claims could be wrong but that is an economic reality.

How could an erroneous opinion be "economic reality"? Are you a citizen of Bizarro-world?

I do think people should be helped to work and weaned off benefits slowly. I also think that people with real disabilities should have IB raised significantly.

And this is where your kind of simplistic quasi-liberal nods to the issue fall down. You think everything reduces to a few simple solutions, and why shouldn't you? After all, the government makes exactly the same mistake of ignoring the torturous complexity of issues around welfare and disability.

But what do I know where I'm from IB means Investment Banking.

That's because you are a vile Capitalist scumbag, obviously.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

My opinion ont IB fraudalent claims could be wrong but that is an economic reality.

That simply doesn't make sense, no matter how many times you read it. Have you been drinking tonight?

But what do I know where I'm from IB means Investment Banking.

Merchant banker is a term of abuse where i knock about. Are you a super one then?

 

[ViolentPanda]

That simply doesn't make sense, no matter how many times you read it. Have you been drinking tonight?

It's a puzzler, isn't it?

Merchant banker is a term of abuse where i knock about. Are you a super one then?

I remember Dennis Waterman coming out with that line in about the second series of "Minder", followed by Arthur's comment about the collective noun being a "wunch", IIRC.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I remember Dennis Waterman coming out with that line in about the second series of "Minder", followed by Arthur's comment about the collective noun being a "wunch", IIRC.

i had to read that twice. first time second time doh!

 

[heartof gold]

You sound like the nice person who phoned the benefits fraud line about me, because they'd seen furniture and "lots of parcels" being delivered to our flat and knew we were both on benefits (my wife is also my carer). We'd just got married, and what was arriving were wedding presents.

See, try to stretch your mind a bit, try to imagine how someone might have something, it's not difficult, you know.

no not me ive never phoned up about anyone.

 

[ViolentPanda]

no not me ive never phoned up about anyone.

I said "you sound like", not that you are.

 

[warren]

That simply doesn't make sense, no matter how many times you read it. Have you been drinking tonight?

That was typo.

 

[warren]

Then produce evidence that supports your claim. It's not a lot to ask.

As you know I do not produce links to support my claims, there was a link on the BBC. I expect you to go out there and expand your knowledge on the World. In the age of the Google this should be easy.

if you had any monetary common sense with the amount of money within the square mile would drive the rest of London which in turn drives the rest of the country

Oh, and by the way, producing reams of facts about financial deals that don't actually produce anything except a figure on a balance sheet that will become subject to minimisation of taxation doesn't count as a "contribution" toward driving the economy, because it doesn't move beyond that balance sheet into productive use as investment capital in real concrete usage.

Whether it goes into taxation or not making money still drives the economy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As you know I do not produce links to support my claims, there was a link on the BBC. I expect you to go out there and expand your knowledge on the World. In the age of the Google this should be easy.

Convention is; you make the claims, you support 'em. What you don't do is make flip comments trying to get you to do your work for you.

if you had any monetary common sense with the amount of money within the square mile would drive the rest of London which in turn drives the rest of the country

The great thing about common sense, is that so very often it's based not on reality, but on wishful thinking.

Whether it goes into taxation or not making money still drives the economy.

You really haven't got a clue, have you?

 

[nino_savatte]

not assumptions know for a fact its happening no lots of ppl who smoke on benefits have seen it, have worked at a benefits advice centre where ppl came in asking for help and advice with benefits but were sat outside in the waiting room smoking. They plead poverty but they smoke so they have the money for what they want yet say they are poor skint or whatever and cant afford things makes no sense. If the benefit rates are so low they cant be that bad to afford a pack of cigarettes every day week in and out.

This is a really weak argument against the benefit system. What would you rather do with claimants? Force them to join the army? Kill them and use them for fertiliser?

Have you ever been on the dole?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Anyway... the Government has published the Green Paper In work, better off: next steps to full employment. Consultation is open until Halloween.

Announcing the reforms, the Prime Minister said:

“In Britain today there is still too much potential untapped, too much talent wasted, too much ability unrealised. Full prosperity for our country can only be delivered – and Britain only properly equipped for the future – if we transform the way we think: using not some of the talents of some of the people, but all of the skills of all of the people.

“And it is because of the scale of our ambitions, that we know this task can not be met by Government on its own or business on its own, but only by individuals, Government and business in partnership together. Government taking responsibility to fund basic skills training and reforms its provision; employees taking responsibility to take up the training on offer; but crucially also employers themselves taking greater responsibility for providing job opportunities and improving the skills of their workforce.

“This new jobs pledge today sees leading employers in Britain stepping up to that responsibility, aiming to help 250,000 more people into jobs within three years.”

The Green Paper also sets out plans for a more personalised, flexible and responsive New Deal matched by new responsibilities for jobseekers to do all they can to help themselves.

There will be a new social contract for lone parents which promotes the value of work as the best route to tackle child poverty. Under our proposals, from October 2008 lone parents whose youngest child has reached the age of 12 will no longer be entitled to Income Support simply because they are a lone parent. Instead they will be eligible to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance, where they will be expected to look for suitable work in return for tailored, personalised help and support that reflects the specific circumstances facing the lone parent.
​

 

[_angel_]

Anyway... the Government has published the Green Paper In work, better off: next steps to full employment. Consultation is open until Halloween.

Announcing the reforms, the Prime Minister said:

“In Britain today there is still too much potential untapped, too much talent wasted, too much ability unrealised. Full prosperity for our country can only be delivered – and Britain only properly equipped for the future – if we transform the way we think: using not some of the talents of some of the people, but all of the skills of all of the people.

“And it is because of the scale of our ambitions, that we know this task can not be met by Government on its own or business on its own, but only by individuals, Government and business in partnership together. Government taking responsibility to fund basic skills training and reforms its provision; employees taking responsibility to take up the training on offer; but crucially also employers themselves taking greater responsibility for providing job opportunities and improving the skills of their workforce.

“This new jobs pledge today sees leading employers in Britain stepping up to that responsibility, aiming to help 250,000 more people into jobs within three years.”

The Green Paper also sets out plans for a more personalised, flexible and responsive New Deal matched by new responsibilities for jobseekers to do all they can to help themselves.

There will be a new social contract for lone parents which promotes the value of work as the best route to tackle child poverty. Under our proposals, from October 2008 lone parents whose youngest child has reached the age of 12 will no longer be entitled to Income Support simply because they are a lone parent. Instead they will be eligible to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance, where they will be expected to look for suitable work in return for tailored, personalised help and support that reflects the specific circumstances facing the lone parent.
​

Fantastic, but where's the child care? My son has access to six days playscheme over six weeks holiday.

The last time I had a chat with a lone parent advisor vis a vis entitlements to benefit if I took a part time job, they couldn't even tell me!

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Also missing from the above is the proposal that, from 2010, lone parents with a youngest child of 7 years will be expected to sign on for JSA and seek work.

There's a shit storm brewing already about this but I'm not convinced that there's an awful lot that can be done to change the minds of Government and civil servants, given the increased political consensus that the perceived problems of welfare can all be solved by making everyone move into work, no matter what their circumstances.

 

[_angel_]

Also missing from the above is the proposal that, from 2010, lone parents with a youngest child of 7 years will be expected to sign on for JSA and seek work.

There's a shit storm brewing already about this but I'm not convinced that there's an awful lot that can be done to change the minds of Government and civil servants, given the increased political consensus that the perceived problems of welfare can all be solved by making everyone move into work, no matter what their circumstances.

Never fear we have the erm daily mirror on our side!!


Seven is awfully young. Kids that age get lots of illnesses and frequently need someone at home with them from school.

Btw twelve, seven.... do they pick these numbers out of a hat or is there some kind of sequence forming??

 

[ViolentPanda]

Also missing from the above is the proposal that, from 2010, lone parents with a youngest child of 7 years will be expected to sign on for JSA and seek work.

There's a shit storm brewing already about this but I'm not convinced that there's an awful lot that can be done to change the minds of Government and civil servants, given the increased political consensus that the perceived problems of welfare can all be solved by making everyone move into work, no matter what their circumstances.

Yet another wholesale buying-in of American policies that have already been proven to have limited efficacy over there. "Workfare" doesn't work, except for those private businesses which, in effect, receive a subsidy for employing cheap labour.

And where are all these jobs to come from, anyway? I see that our beloved and efficient government are having problems getting the private sector to stay on board their workfare "gravy train". Perhaps Carter and Carter have found out what the rest of us already know; the entire thing is a delusion.

 

[Dr_Gonzo]

Anyway... the Government has published the Green Paper In work, better off: next steps to full employment. Consultation is open until Halloween.

Announcing the reforms, the Prime Minister said:

“In Britain today there is still too much potential untapped, too much talent wasted, too much ability unrealised. Full prosperity for our country can only be delivered – and Britain only properly equipped for the future – if we transform the way we think: using not some of the talents of some of the people, but all of the skills of all of the people.

“And it is because of the scale of our ambitions, that we know this task can not be met by Government on its own or business on its own, but only by individuals, Government and business in partnership together. Government taking responsibility to fund basic skills training and reforms its provision; employees taking responsibility to take up the training on offer; but crucially also employers themselves taking greater responsibility for providing job opportunities and improving the skills of their workforce.

“This new jobs pledge today sees leading employers in Britain stepping up to that responsibility, aiming to help 250,000 more people into jobs within three years.”

The Green Paper also sets out plans for a more personalised, flexible and responsive New Deal matched by new responsibilities for jobseekers to do all they can to help themselves.

There will be a new social contract for lone parents which promotes the value of work as the best route to tackle child poverty. Under our proposals, from October 2008 lone parents whose youngest child has reached the age of 12 will no longer be entitled to Income Support simply because they are a lone parent. Instead they will be eligible to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance, where they will be expected to look for suitable work in return for tailored, personalised help and support that reflects the specific circumstances facing the lone parent.
​

where did you get that quote from?

 

[treelover]

Isn't it just Carter now since the crash, anyway a serious point is the unbelievable amount of money such New Deal companies have made, such as Emma Harrison of A4E being worth 60 million.

Perhaps Carter and Carter have found out what the rest of us already know; the entire thing is a delusion.

 

[Fullyplumped]

where did you get that quote from?

From the DWP website.