Welfare Reform after 60yrs?

[Sasaferrato]

How strange. It has gone quiet.

Suddenly realised how much uninformed shit that was being spouted?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It may surprise Urban, which appears to live in a bubble, totally divorced from real life, that the majority of the population want to see welfare tied to responsibility.

Do you have any evidence beyond media reportage that this is actually the case for the "majority of the population"?
If so, please post it. If you have none, then stop being such a gullible goon.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I suggest, rather than pontificating about something that you clearly know little about, you read this.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/universal-credit-full-document.pdf

There is nothing here that any reasonable person could object to.

I'm only partway through the executive summary, and I can already see a major point of objection, which is that your employers will be entrusted with execution. Given what a clusterfuck they've made not only of credits, but of their core work of collecting tax, I predict a shit-storm of errors.

E2A:
I've just finished reading the chapter on conditionality. The "proposed future sanctions" are plain ridiculous, unless the coalition is seeking to criminalise the unemployed (which isn't, unfortunately, inconceivable).

 

[trevhagl]

i think the only good thing about the Govts welfare reforms - if what Sas says is true - is the saving of mindless bureaucracy re-claiming benefits after trying a job that didn't work out or temping...... but hidden behind this small bit of common sense is a raft of evil measures hitting the poorest in society.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Have you read the proposals?

Yes, I have now, although what that has to do with my point about the cuts (as the UC is only a small part of the whole edifice) escapes me.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The proposals are excellent.

Figure 3 on the document shows how benefits will remain in place as income rises, not disappearing completely until net income goes over £600.00 PW.

Other aspects, like allowing someone with periodic employment t earn more without losing any benefit is better than the current system.

A streamlined process where someone can return to the level of benefits tjhey had previously if a job doesn't work out, is better than at present.

as I said, read the document, you can hen talk from fact, not hysterical left wing conjecture.

You miss the point.
As a position paper, it's a great piece of writing. It's full of "Mights", "shoulds" and "mays". It doesn't present facts, it presents ideas and possibilities, many of which, as the paper itself admits, aren't fully-developed. It also relies on a series of assumptions that may not be reflected in future economic circumstances.
That isn't "hysterical left wing conjecture", that's simple analysis of the document you are cyber-waving like Chamberlain with his piece of paper.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes. Absolutely. If you wish to disengage from society, you are perfectly free to do so, however, don't expect society to support you.

As you are well aware, there are no plans to ' destitute ' those who are jobless where there are no jobs.

So, if we're to take the "conditionality proposals seriously, missing an appt (for whatever reason), won't result in a 100% withdrawal of benefits (bearing in mind that the document sets out no discretionary powers for those imposing penalties)?

' We want to ensure that people are encouraged to take jobs of only a few hours
a week if this is all that is possible for them in the short term. To achieve this we will allow some groups to earn significantly more before their benefit starts to be withdrawn. The level of these earnings disregards will reflect the needs of different families to ensure that work pays. '

Which is all very noble, and even quite interesting, but without an idea of the levels of disregards, or of the credit itself, it's so much hot air and good intentions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How strange. It has gone quiet.

Perhaps because it's friday afternoon, you Norbert!

Suddenly realised how much uninformed shit that was being spouted?

No, most posters are fully aware of how much uninformed shit you spout.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i think the only good thing about the Govts welfare reforms - if what Sas says is true - is the saving of mindless bureaucracy re-claiming benefits after trying a job that didn't work out or temping...... but hidden behind this small bit of common sense is a raft of evil measures hitting the poorest in society.

There's not enough hard info in the document Sas posted for people to be able to work out whether there will actually be a system in place that makes life easier for casual workers, occasional workers etc. A return to a system that gave some ability to casual workers to take work as and when offered to them, without compromising their claim, would be welcome, but without knowing the "meat" of what is intended, we can't say definitively whether it's a good or bad idea. The Devil is always in the detail, and there isn't enough detail about delivery (or indeed a host of other factors).

 

[kyser_soze]

I have a modest proposal. It's based on one written by a Mr J Swift, and all you have to do is substitute 'Irish' for 'poor' and you're away.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have a modest proposal. It's based on one written by a Mr J Swift, and all you have to do is substitute 'Irish' for 'poor' and you're away.

Armando Ianucci just rang, he wants to know of he can have his 10-year old joke back?

 

[Blagsta]

Have you read the proposals?

you haven't

 

[The39thStep]

Is it non inconceivable that there should be a system of work fare that allows the unemployed to both make a contribution to society and establish or maintain the relationships that work gives rather than gradually degenerate on the dole queue? My greatest fear if i was unemployed would be to lose the skills/knowledge I have, lose the camaraderie of work and lose the work ethic ( bad phrase possibly but i hope someone knows what I mean) that I have

If there is then what would it look like?

 

[radio_atomica]

Is it non inconceivable that there should be a system of work fare that allows the unemployed to both make a contribution to society and establish or maintain the relationships that work gives rather than gradually degenerate on the dole queue? My greatest fear if i was unemployed would be to lose the skills/knowledge I have, lose the camaraderie of work and lose the work ethic ( bad phrase possibly but i hope someone knows what I mean) that I have

If there is then what would it look like?

Investment in the economy to provide jobs for those able to work with security for those too old, young, ill, disabled or otherwise occupied caring for the old, young, ill or disabled to work in the form of welfare benefits?

 

[ash]

The proposals are excellent.

Figure 3 on the document shows how benefits will remain in place as income rises, not disappearing completely until net income goes over £600.00 PW.

Other aspects, like allowing someone with periodic employment t earn more without losing any benefit is better than the current system.

A streamlined process where someone can return to the level of benefits tjhey had previously if a job doesn't work out, is better than at present.

as I said, read the document, you can hen talk from fact, not hysterical left wing conjecture.

I have read the document and others. I suppose you think that taking incapacity benefit away from people who are Blind and not giving them anything else if they have a partner earning more tha 135/week as they will be means tested is excellent?? This is not hysterical left wing conjucture but peoples lives and dignity that you are banterinig about!!

 

[Blagsta]

sas hasn't read it, he's a billy bullshitter

 

[The39thStep]

Investment in the economy to provide jobs for those able to work with security for those too old, young, ill, disabled or otherwise occupied caring for the old, young, ill or disabled to work in the form of welfare benefits?

That isn't going to happen , I am talking about what might be a realistic alternative to the present govt proposals

 

[tbaldwin]

The proposals are excellent.

Figure 3 on the document shows how benefits will remain in place as income rises, not disappearing completely until net income goes over £600.00 PW.

Other aspects, like allowing someone with periodic employment t earn more without losing any benefit is better than the current system.

A streamlined process where someone can return to the level of benefits tjhey had previously if a job doesn't work out, is better than at present.

as I said, read the document, you can hen talk from fact, not hysterical left wing conjecture.

The proposals are far from excellent sas!!!!!!!
They still propose paying people not to work......CAN YOU MAKE SENSE OF THAT? I can't.
A citizens wage would be a much better idea. It could enable people to have a basic level of security and incentives to top up a flat rate of say £75 or £100 a week to have more of the things they want, without losing any benefit.

Paying people not to work is just plain fucking stupid....

 

[tbaldwin]

There's not enough hard info in the document Sas posted for people to be able to work out whether there will actually be a system in place that makes life easier for casual workers, occasional workers etc. A return to a system that gave some ability to casual workers to take work as and when offered to them, without compromising their claim, would be welcome, but without knowing the "meat" of what is intended, we can't say definitively whether it's a good or bad idea. The Devil is always in the detail, and there isn't enough detail about delivery (or indeed a host of other factors).

The thing is for casual workers a citizens income that doesnt penalise them from working is what is needed. Lots of very intelligent and capable people simply can not fit into 9-5 work, they should not be stopped from working. The IDS proposals have some merit, so did NLs but ultimately they are doomed to failure.
In a hugely rich country like the UK people should have a living income and working on top should be a bonus.

 

[kyser_soze]

This is where the 1mn private sector jobs will come from:

 

[_angel_]

The thing is for casual workers a citizens income that doesnt penalise them from working is what is needed. Lots of very intelligent and capable people simply can not fit into 9-5 work, they should not be stopped from working. The IDS proposals have some merit, so did NLs but ultimately they are doomed to failure.
In a hugely rich country like the UK people should have a living income and working on top should be a bonus.

I agree in principle - altho it's never going to happen - but the devil is in the detail £100 a week is not enough unless you are giving that to each child as well -- but even so for someone incapacitated completely it isn't enough, and that's even before you consider London rents!

Not sure about the IDS proposals having merit, all I see is sanctions for people too ill to work, being chucked into JSA regardless of medical conditions after one year and the worrying prospect of coercing lone parents into leaving their kids with inadequate or worse - no - childcare because the job centre have threatened to starve them to death.

 

[Streathamite]

It may surprise Urban, which appears to live in a bubble, totally divorced from real life, that the majority of the population want to see welfare tied to responsibility.

oh really? what on earth gives you the right to make assumptions about the rest of the nation, or to speak for them? what makes you so sure you are that much more knowledgeable about their beliefs than anyone else here?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I suggest, rather than pontificating about something that you clearly know little about, you read this.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/universal-credit-full-document.pdf

There is nothing here that any reasonable person could object to.

that's a pretty strong runner for silliest post of the year tbh.

 

[ViolentPanda]

oh really? what on earth gives you the right to make assumptions about the rest of the nation, or to speak for them?

A sense of personal probity, and a belief that his moral compass suits the rest of the world too.
Those of us who are of an analytical turn of mind call this sort of thing "the Tory delusion". it's the belief that you know best, and that if only everyone were like you the world would be full of dull, self-righteous cunts the world would be a better place.

what makes you so sure you are that much more knowledgeable about their beliefs than anyone else here?

See above.

 

[ViolentPanda]

that's a pretty strong runner for silliest post of the year tbh.

That's depends upon the perspective of the person defining "reasonable", surely?
"Reasonable" as described by someone who is manifestly sane and rational, will obviously differ markedly from "reasonable" as defined by someone who is manifestly not sane and rational. Someone, for instance, who might be Scots and yet votes Conservative.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

That's depends upon the perspective of the person defining "reasonable", surely?
"Reasonable" as described by someone who is manifestly sane and rational, will obviously differ markedly from "reasonable" as defined by someone who is manifestly not sane and rational. Someone, for instance, who might be Scots and yet votes Conservative.

I'm Cornish, if that helps?!

 

[_angel_]

oh really? what on earth gives you the right to make assumptions about the rest of the nation, or to speak for them? what makes you so sure you are that much more knowledgeable about their beliefs than anyone else here?

Especially in his part of the world ! Where most people actively disagree with him.

 

[audiotech]

In the period following the Industrial Revolution, due to the distribution of wealth in English society, there was a social problem in education:

For those who could afford to pay the fees there was an educational provision leading to the universities, but for the mass of society there was a deficiency of educational opportunities. The rich could buy themselves out of the problems of squalor and ignorance, the poor could not and the state played little role in education. There was indeed only three ways of getting an education, by being a cadet, a felon, or pauper....

The Evolution of the British Welfare State, Derek Fraser, page 72. Macmillan Press, 1973.