Corbyn has a history of voting for forced work schemes for example, backed by the benefit sanctions he says he opposes: TheyWorkForYou
Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
some front pages today
Just read the times cover article in a cafe. Absolutely nothing in it. Some stuff from unnamed 'senior sources' and then a bunch of non-attacks from named union leaders. For example, Paul Kenny of the GMB is quoted as saying 'let's see what the voters say, because, at the end of the day they really are the important ones'. Desperate stuff.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
"a compulsory jobs guarantee that would ensure that anyone under 25 who has been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for a year, and anyone over 25 who has been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for two years, would be offered a paid job"
what a cunt
ska invita
back on the other side
its a funny headline - clearly made out of doublespeak
A compulsory job, backed by benefit sanctions, which involves 35 hours work a week for 25 hours pay at the minimum wage. Meaning some claimants after travel costs would have less money, and have to work more hours than under the Tory's workfare scheme. And this is for private companies not charities like currently. 260 hours unpaid work. yes, what a cunt.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
sorry, yes, he is just the same as Hitler.
Sirena
Don't monkey with the buzzsaw
This is fairly positive and it is also fairly amusing and thought-provoking
Prime minister Jeremy Corbyn: the first 100 days
Prime minister Jeremy Corbyn: the first 100 days
Fez909
toilet expert
He does seem to complete evade the question of welfare. See this short interview:
I agree that his solutions are a way to reduce the benefits bill, but benefits are already too low and he makes no indication of looking at that. Maybe he's been advised to keep quiet on it by advisors?
Look forward to hearing what he comes up with.
I take issue with that.
ok, is this how its going to be from now on?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
he doesn't avoid it there, he answers the questions put to him. He's not asked about what level benefits should be paid at, so he doesn't say anything about them.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
dunno, are you going to continue posting like an over-excited 15 year old?
Fez909
toilet expert
He does avoid it. His policy on welfare so far is: I'll minimise the need for it, and its impact on society. That's not a policy on welfare.
So pointing out Corbyn previously voted for workfare and has not any announced any further social security policies makes me an over-excited 15 year old. I guess this is how things are going to be from now on.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I didnt say it was a policy, but it isn't avoiding giving one either. he answers the questions put to him, you cant blame him if he wasn't asked the question you wanted. He talked about reducing the welfare bill by creating decent jobs and stopping private landlords' HB rip off. It's obviously not full communism now, but it is very clearly opposed to any cuts to current levels of benefit. Which is the key thing at the moment
Bollocks to that, take it on directly. Make a moral case for it. Point out the actual scale of the welfare claims compared to the state pension and lost tax revenues. Oppose.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Really?
As the Tories mount an unprecedented attack on welfare that would have had even Thatcher wincing?
I don't see how he can, or should, possibly avoid a discussion about welfare.
And I'm with smokedout on his workfare history. We shouldn't be afraid to call him on his record.
Fez909
toilet expert
No, the key thing isn't holding on to what we have...it's reversing the cuts! They were already set too low, and they need to go up.
Why doesn't he commit to reversing the bedroom tax?
Interviewing: You would cut in work tax credits, would you?
JC: I would raise wages.
Why no explicit denial?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There's an argument there that tax credits are a subsidy to underpaying employers, so I'm with him on that - the solution to in-work poverty is indeed higher wages.
Fez909
toilet expert
I agree with him. But if he raises wages, he won't need to cut tax credits. So why not come out and say it?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
because the key thing is about raising wages, i imagine.
Fez909
toilet expert
And those who face having their tax credits cut...fuck 'em?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
but they wouldn't lose money, because they've now got higher wages
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
because it wouldn't be a move towards a basic income (which I would support, much better than our shitty benefits system), it would simply be a continued subsidy to shit employers
I said at the moment, discussion is fine but don't get bogged down. Get all your policies in place and your argument structured then make your case, fight the battles on your own ground at the time of your choosing. That's what I would do anyway.
Similar threads
- Poll
