Purnell: more attacks on the unemployed, etc

[ViolentPanda]

1 So so true...er sort of...
2 But what you think is irrelevant surely. What you know and can PROVE is relevant.....

I did.

3 And there was me thinking unemployment was higher in the 80s than the 90s just goes to show i suppose....you cant always trust the bloke down the pub eh....

According to you, they all get put on IB, balders. You can't have it both ways, as I'm sure your missus will tell you one day, as she cuts your cock off.

 

[Urbanblues]

You can't have it both ways, as I'm sure your missus will tell you one day, as she cuts your cock off.

What cock; he's a cuckold.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I'm sorry to break up the Urbanblues hate-fest and post something relevant to the thread, but here's something that Treelover, especially, will be interested in.

Unemployed people could be forced to undertake full-time community service in return for receiving benefit as part of welfare reforms.

Those who refuse to seek jobs or train will be required to tidy parks, clean graffiti or help in old people’s homes in order to qualify for support. The “work for dole” programme will be introduced automatically for anyone who has been out of work for more than two years.

In an interview with The Times, James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said that nobody had a right to benefits. “There will be a very clear expectation that if there is work there people should take it, and sanctions to make sure that if they don’t there are consequences.”​

Personally, I think this is wrong, on the face of it. The work that Mr Purnell proposes for claimants is work that it worth doing, and if it's worth doing then people should do it as part of their job. Unless he's saying "take paid work at the correct rate or you will lose your benefit". But not everyone is right for working in a care home and lots of people are completely unsuitable not to say unqualified for that kind of work - especially after two years on the dole.

He goes on to say that that too many of those claiming benefit are working on the black market. “You have to create a system where people who are working illegally don’t have the time to do that,” he said. That is quite interesting.

 

[The Black Hand]

I'm sorry to break up the Urbanblues hate-fest and post something relevant to the thread, but here's something that Treelover, especially, will be interested in.

Unemployed people could be forced to undertake full-time community service in return for receiving benefit as part of welfare reforms.

Those who refuse to seek jobs or train will be required to tidy parks, clean graffiti or help in old people’s homes in order to qualify for support. The “work for dole” programme will be introduced automatically for anyone who has been out of work for more than two years.

In an interview with The Times, James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said that nobody had a right to benefits. “There will be a very clear expectation that if there is work there people should take it, and sanctions to make sure that if they don’t there are consequences.”​

Personally, I think this is wrong, on the face of it. The work that Mr Purnell proposes for claimants is work that it worth doing, and if it's worth doing then people should do it as part of their job. Unless he's saying "take paid work at the correct rate or you will lose your benefit". But not everyone is right for working in a care home and lots of people are completely unsuitable not to say unqualified for that kind of work - especially after two years on the dole.

He goes on to say that that too many of those claiming benefit are working on the black market. “You have to create a system where people who are working illegally don’t have the time to do that,” he said. That is quite interesting.

It all about work discipline and the official economy - they don't want to recognise that it is because of the capitalist economy that people work informally to provide a better standard of life and welfare than what is offered top down. They really don't like it that the state and capitalism is inadequate.

 

[Urbanblues]

I'm sorry to break up the Urbanblues hate-fest and post something relevant to the thread, but here's something that Treelover, especially, will be interested in.

Unemployed people could be forced to undertake full-time community service in return for receiving benefit as part of welfare reforms.

Those who refuse to seek jobs or train will be required to tidy parks, clean graffiti or help in old people’s homes in order to qualify for support. The “work for dole” programme will be introduced automatically for anyone who has been out of work for more than two years.

In an interview with The Times, James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said that nobody had a right to benefits. “There will be a very clear expectation that if there is work there people should take it, and sanctions to make sure that if they don’t there are consequences.”​

Personally, I think this is wrong, on the face of it. The work that Mr Purnell proposes for claimants is work that it worth doing, and if it's worth doing then people should do it as part of their job. Unless he's saying "take paid work at the correct rate or you will lose your benefit". But not everyone is right for working in a care home and lots of people are completely unsuitable not to say unqualified for that kind of work - especially after two years on the dole.

He goes on to say that that too many of those claiming benefit are working on the black market. “You have to create a system where people who are working illegally don’t have the time to do that,” he said. That is quite interesting.

Hate fest? You are a silly person, aren't you?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I'm sorry to break up the Urbanblues hate-fest and post something relevant to the thread, but here's something that Treelover, especially, will be interested in.

Unemployed people could be forced to undertake full-time community service in return for receiving benefit as part of welfare reforms.

Those who refuse to seek jobs or train will be required to tidy parks, clean graffiti or help in old people’s homes in order to qualify for support. The “work for dole” programme will be introduced automatically for anyone who has been out of work for more than two years.

In an interview with The Times, James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said that nobody had a right to benefits. “There will be a very clear expectation that if there is work there people should take it, and sanctions to make sure that if they don’t there are consequences.”​

Personally, I think this is wrong, on the face of it. The work that Mr Purnell proposes for claimants is work that it worth doing, and if it's worth doing then people should do it as part of their job. Unless he's saying "take paid work at the correct rate or you will lose your benefit". But not everyone is right for working in a care home and lots of people are completely unsuitable not to say unqualified for that kind of work - especially after two years on the dole.

He goes on to say that that too many of those claiming benefit are working on the black market. “You have to create a system where people who are working illegally don’t have the time to do that,” he said. That is quite interesting.

In relation to that last statement, there's a couple of points to consider - one, on what basis is he making that claim, because fraud estimates for jsa are relatively equally balanced between deliberate fraud, and official error and mistake?

Which leads to the second point which is that the essential problem lies with the complex and confused system of welfare support, with inflexibility in the rules that mitigate against people fessing up if they supplement their income by undertaking some casual cash-in-hand work. Further, there is some very interesting research on the grey economy by a community organisation called Community Links. This shows that often informal work is a response to poverty and times of crisis such as family breakdown. Low benefit rates, low wages and rules which limit the hours people can work are why people do this work. And it shows that childcare and health problems also act as barriers to formal work.

'Evidence-based policy making', this government claim. Funny how they don't seem interested in paying attention to any of the evidence that there is.

 

[_angel_]

I'm sorry to break up the Urbanblues hate-fest and post something relevant to the thread, but here's something that Treelover, especially, will be interested in.

Unemployed people could be forced to undertake full-time community service in return for receiving benefit as part of welfare reforms.

Those who refuse to seek jobs or train will be required to tidy parks, clean graffiti or help in old people’s homes in order to qualify for support. The “work for dole” programme will be introduced automatically for anyone who has been out of work for more than two years.
In an interview with The Times, James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said that nobody had a right to benefits. “There will be a very clear expectation that if there is work there people should take it, and sanctions to make sure that if they don’t there are consequences.”​

Personally, I think this is wrong, on the face of it. The work that Mr Purnell proposes for claimants is work that it worth doing, and if it's worth doing then people should do it as part of their job. Unless he's saying "take paid work at the correct rate or you will lose your benefit". But not everyone is right for working in a care home and lots of people are completely unsuitable not to say unqualified for that kind of work - especially after two years on the dole.

He goes on to say that that too many of those claiming benefit are working on the black market. “You have to create a system where people who are working illegally don’t have the time to do that,” he said. That is quite interesting.

Are they saying anybody who has been unemployed for two years automatically is assumed not to have been looking for work?

If they want to give people full time jobs then - great- but pay them the going rate.

I can see a lot of lone parents being expected to do this and being unable to work/ be slaves for fulltime hours around their kids and simply being abandoned. (or being forced to leave their kids alone to do so)

 

[Urbanblues]

I’d be interested in being matched to any job. How about if I list my pluses and minuses?

Pluses:
1. I can use a computer

Minuses:
1. Can’t work more than 16-hours per week
2. Can’t always guarantee I can get into work on a given day
3. Unable to give more than an hour or so notice when absent
4. Unable to make hours up through flexible working as am too physically wrecked on days I come in late
5. Can’t do lifting
6. Can’t do carrying
7. Can’t do standing
8. Can’t work in an environment that depends on the use of stairs
9. Can’t work in loud environments
10. Can’t do tele sales due to speech impairment
11. Need to use the toilet every 40-60 minutes
12. Will need a place to lie down when necessary
13. Can’t drive
14. Can’t operate machinery due to medication
15. Can’t concentrate due to severe pain
16. Can’t concentrate properly due to brain trauma
17. Undergo mood swings, so not suitable for ‘front of shop’ work
18. Not really a team person, see above
19. Would find retraining difficult due to all the above reasons

Apart from that, I’m game for any challenge. Any ideas anyone? Claims of there are hundreds of thousands of jobs out there don’t count as ideas – it’s a vague notion.

Nobody on this thread has come up with anything approximating a solution to my situation. Baldwin’s told me I can be accommodated within the system. Apparently, I could, despite having no qualifications or training, become a fund raiser; or, I could give disability advice over the phone – even though I’m extremely difficult to understand on the phone and have no training in disability advising.

Then, there is the question of earnings. Because I can only work 16-hours per week, I’d need to be paid between £20-25 per hour – which would put me on between £16-20k per annum. However, would my employer also pay me for the disability related time off? There may be an odd week when I could complete the 16-hours; however, on current form I’d struggle to put in 10-hours per week; yet, I could not live on 10-hours pay per week.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Hate fest? You are a silly person, aren't you?

I meant you were being subjected to the hate, and that the actual topic of this thread has been forgotten.

 

[Urbanblues]

I meant you were being subjected to the hate, and that the actual topic of this thread has been forgotten.

Darn, there I go again.

Fullyplumped, please accept my apologies. Of course you're not a illy person; why, only a very silly person would ever think that.

 

[HackneyE9]

Hugely revealing quote from Purnell in an interview with the Times this week:


He is happy for the companies that will be finding jobs for the long-term unemployed to cash in. “It doesn’t matter if they make a fortune doing it, if they get the job done.”

To my mind, that's symptomatic of New Labour's naivety and gullability re the private sectora as a whole. The lawyers drawing up the contracts for the private companies mustn't be able to believe their luck. These PFI guys run rings around local and central govt and then offer the politicians comfortable perches when they step down (viz, Milburn).

 

[_angel_]

Hugely revealing quote from Purnell in an interview with the Times this week:


He is happy for the companies that will be finding jobs for the long-term unemployed to cash in. “It doesn’t matter if they make a fortune doing it, if they get the job done.”

To my mind, that's symptomatic of New Labour's naivety and gullability re the private sectora as a whole. The lawyers drawing up the contracts for the private companies mustn't be able to believe their luck. These PFI guys run rings around local and central govt and then offer the politicians comfortable perches when they step down (viz, Milburn).

Someone needs to work out how much public cash is going to these companies and how much actual 'saving' the public make when doleys lose their £50 a week. If any.

 

[Fruitloop]

Suprisingly good stuff in the guardian from Polly Toynbee, whose reporting usually makes me want to throw grenades at her:

What counts as a socially acceptable standard of living that no one should fall below? Tough question. In bars, blogs or radio phone-ins, people have strong views. Since the beginning of time fear of moral hazard destroying the work ethic has curbed charitable impulses. Look through the minutes of workhouse boards to see how anxiously they limited the number of potatoes, thickness of calico and type of bedding to sustain life without inducing indolence. That remains a very British preoccupation.

For the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's most comprehensive study of what the public thinks, it assembled 40 focus groups of rich and poor, experts and laymen, young and old, right and left, to consider the least a family needs.

They said yes to a modest fitted carpet and a sofa, but no to a car. They even costed in a cheese grater. Leisure is most contentious: yes to a DVD player and a cheap mobile phone; yes to one drink a week (the pub can't be absolutely out of bounds); no smoking but an occasional movie; a five-day self-catering holiday by coach: and presents for children to take to birthday parties. These basics were deemed bare essentials.

It's not much to ask - yet it's more than people earn on the minimum wage, twice as much as on benefits. It is more than the current poverty measure: anyone living under 60% of median income, the OECD scale. People complain that relative poverty is a dubious measurement, but Rowntree finds that an absolute measure - totting up everything people need - creates a higher, not a lower, poverty threshold. That is because in unequal Britain that median point is low, as half the population is so low paid. But however you choose to measure it, the facts remain the same: a lot of people, the majority in work, live below what most regard as a tolerable standard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/05/education.communities

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hugely revealing quote from Purnell in an interview with the Times this week:


He is happy for the companies that will be finding jobs for the long-term unemployed to cash in. “It doesn’t matter if they make a fortune doing it, if they get the job done.”

With an understanding of finance as piss-poor as that, what's the odds that he'll be the next chancellor of the exchequer? The guy is looking like an odds-on bet!

Hasn't it occurred to him that if, in effect, every job created is "subsidised" by paying a private company a "bonus" for each placement, then the scheme is unsustainable in anything but the short-term?
Foolish me, though, for thinking that Purnell and his ilk would even care about improving the medium to long-term prospects of some of their poorer constituents.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Someone needs to work out how much public cash is going to these companies and how much actual 'saving' the public make when doleys lose their £50 a week. If any.

I suspect that, as per usual, we won't find out the details of these arrangements until after the contracts lapse, because both govt and business will claim "commercial sensitivity" and have the data made confidential.

 

[trevhagl]

I think they'll find it's a lot cheaper to leave the sick and disabled alone, but that wouldn't please their tabloid masters

 

[tbaldwin]

With an understanding of finance as piss-poor as that, what's the odds that he'll be the next chancellor of the exchequer? The guy is looking like an odds-on bet!

Hasn't it occurred to him that if, in effect, every job created is "subsidised" by paying a private company a "bonus" for each placement, then the scheme is unsustainable in anything but the short-term?
Foolish me, though, for thinking that Purnell and his ilk would even care about improving the medium to long-term prospects of some of their poorer constituents.

Sorry this is just nonsense. If they did pay private companies bonuses. Then how can you say it would be unsustainable in anything but the SHORT term...
Complete rubbish.

The LONG term effect of this subsidy is going to be what matters...
It could end up being a really good thing or maybe not so good....You may think you have some great ability to see into the future...me im a bit more sceptical.

 

[tbaldwin]

I did.

According to you, they all get put on IB, balders. You can't have it both ways, as I'm sure your missus will tell you one day, as she cuts your cock off.

er yes find me the quote where i say they all get put on IB.......erm

 

[Urbanblues]

er yes find me the quote where i say they all get put on IB.......erm

Baldwin, you have a history of being a cunt, on here. I don't doubt you excel in the realms of cuntishness elsewhere; but, do me a favour and spread your cuntishness more evenly around the world - I'm getting the right arsehole listening to you, cunt.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry this is just nonsense. If they did pay private companies bonuses. Then how can you say it would be unsustainable in anything but the SHORT term...
Complete rubbish.

Because it's really sensible to pay these people public money for running a contract, and then to pay them incentivising bonuses for every client that goes through their books, isn't it?
Maybe you don't think that such a move will incentivise "churning" (although it has done in every previous endeavour where private capital has been given bonuses, after all) but I'm not convinced that such a system won't collapse because of a short-term scramble for profit by the contracting companies. It's not as if they can't just walk away if they don't like the conditions of the contract...

The LONG term effect of this subsidy is going to be what matters...
It could end up being a really good thing or maybe not so good....You may think you have some great ability to see into the future...me im a bit more sceptical.

That, or maybe you've an interest in this going through...?

 

[ViolentPanda]

er yes find me the quote where i say they all get put on IB.......erm

It's a pastiche of your views, balders. The source material being your posting history.

 

[tbaldwin]

Because it's really sensible to pay these people public money for running a contract, and then to pay them incentivising bonuses for every client that goes through their books, isn't it?
Maybe you don't think that such a move will incentivise "churning" (although it has done in every previous endeavour where private capital has been given bonuses, after all) but I'm not convinced that such a system won't collapse because of a short-term scramble for profit by the contracting companies. It's not as if they can't just walk away if they don't like the conditions of the contract...

That, or maybe you've an interest in this going through...?

Churning eh? Yeah to a degree it could lead to some churning. But it could also lead to some really good outcomes for people....Its not a magic wand....so you have to consider are the likely positives likely to outweigh the negatives...I think probably yes...but i cant say for sure....neither can you.

 

[tbaldwin]

It's a pastiche of your views, balders. The source material being your posting history.

Didnt manage to find a quote then? Looks like your wriggling again....

 

[ViolentPanda]

Churning eh? Yeah to a degree it could lead to some churning. But it could also lead to some really good outcomes for people....Its not a magic wand....so you have to consider are the likely positives likely to outweigh the negatives...I think probably yes...but i cant say for sure....neither can you.

Of course not.
What I can do is look at past PFI contracts and extrapolate a possible conclusion from what has happened previously, and on that showing, it's more likely to tank than not.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Didnt manage to find a quote then? Looks like your wriggling again....

I take the fact that no-one has jumped to your defence, saying "balders didn't say that", as indicative that posters on this thread are well aware that it's the sort of thing you might say.
Call it whatever you like, people are well aware of your attitudes.

 

[tbaldwin]

I take the fact that no-one has jumped to your defence, saying "balders didn't say that", as indicative that posters on this thread are well aware that it's the sort of thing you might say.
Call it whatever you like, people are well aware of your attitudes.

This is fairly typical of what you do when caught out lying.. Its the kind of thing i might say eh....In other words i havent said it and your bullshitting again.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is fairly typical of what you do when caught out lying.. Its the kind of thing i might say eh....In other words i havent said it and your bullshitting again.

Whatever you say, balders.
You may not have said "they all get it", but it's clear from your posts that you believe that many IB claimants receive it because they were "passported" onto the benefit to take them off the unemployment figures.
Not "bullshitting", more "poking fun at a crypto-tory twat.

 

[tbaldwin]

Whatever you say, balders.
You may not have said "they all get it", but it's clear from your posts that you believe that many IB claimants receive it because they were "passported" onto the benefit to take them off the unemployment figures.
Not "bullshitting", more "poking fun at a crypto-tory twat.

Fair enough. Its just i dont understand your self deprecating humour at times.

 

[treelover]

look at what Purnell says will be in the new Welfare Green Paper, he really is the NL 80's Portillo

The Government’s Green Paper on welfare reform, to be published this month, will be the test of whether this rising star has really got what it takes. For ten years, Labour has promised to revolutionise the benefits system. The Work and Pensions Secretary must make it happen.

Under his plans, private companies will be brought in to get the long-term unemployed back to work – and will be paid by results. People who refuse to take jobs or go on training courses will be stripped of benefits. There will be no excuses for disabled people or lone parents if they are able to work. Drug addicts will be forced to seek treatment or lose money. “The clear deal we want with people is more support but also more responsibility,” Mr Purnell says. “There will be a very clear expectation that if there is work there people should take it and sanctions to make sure that if they don’t then there are consequences.”

Benefits could be withdrawn almost immediately if people do not cooperate. “It could be earlier than three months. If people refuse a reasonable offer of a job then they start to break their obligations and could lose their benefits . . . We are not paying benefits until you find the perfect job.”

When we ask whether there will be a safety net for those stripped of state support, he replies: “There will be crisis loans but it is about creating a system which gives people the incentive to do the right thing instead of giving them the incentive to be dishonest. There will be no chance to say, I get more on benefits.”

Leftwingers will hate this but Mr Purnell thinks the Parliamentary Labour Party will support it in the end. “A lot of MPs have said to me I voted against changes to lone parent and incapacity benefit in 1998 but I’ve changed my mind. There’s nothing leftwing about being trapped at home.”

By 2015, Mr Purnell wants 80 per cent employment – that includes moving a million people off incapacity benefit into work. “If you had wanted to design a system that would trap people out of work you couldn’t have done better than incapacity benefit. You get more the longer you have been on it, you don’t get any help to get a job, you are just written off,” he says. “Being off work was seen as the best thing when you were ill, now we know that it’s bad for your health. We should have high expectations of those who are disabled.”

There should, he says, be job advisers in GPs’ surgeries. “We want to move from a sick note to a well note. GPs could prescribe job advisers instead of medicine as a way of getting people better.”

His own prescription to prevent fraud is to fill claimants’ days with meetings and courses. The hardest cases, who have been unemployed for more than two years, will be required to do full-time community work in return for benefits. “You have to create a system where people who are working illegally don’t have the time to do that. You don’t want to humiliate them, you want to give them full-time activity that is close to the work market.”

Lone parents will be required to go back to work when their children are 7, rather than 16 – and he insists this is generous. “The Swedish Employment Minister thought I was mad when I asked when lone parents should go back to work,” he says. “He said, ‘We treat them the same as two-parent families: once their maternity leave has elapsed they should work again’. But they have better childcare.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4272890.ece

 

[treelover]

His own prescription to prevent fraud is to fill claimants’ days with meetings and courses. The hardest cases, who have been unemployed for more than two years, will be required to do full-time community work in return for benefits. “You have to create a system where people who are working illegally don’t have the time to do that. You don’t want to humiliate them, you want to give them full-time activity that is close to the work market.”

This sounds very close to the Workhouse