Discussion in 'Europe' started by chanel, Nov 11, 2010.
Govt to stop benefits for some unemployed - Yahoo! News
Yep. Why should someone who turns down a job be able to claim taxpayers money instead?
Do you think the "job seekers" will riot CG?
I have two words for you:
Articles such as these make it difficult to understand how such a nation of slackers managed to once control 25% of the world's land and population, doesn't it?
No. For the record, that riot yesterday wasn't students.... it was the usual 'professional rioters' that pitch up at these events to cause trouble. One of them said as much on camera - she was a 'paid activist'. I hadn't realized that 'activist' was a career option but apparently it is. I would still really like to know WHO pays these people, and WHY.
dominance is fleeting, isn't it?
i think this will improve uptake in the job market for the unemployed, particularly the chronic unemployed, once the job market recovers. it is hard to say if it will. i also heard that they are considering mandatory community service for jobseekers. i think that is stupid. then again, i think permanent jobseeker's allowance is shambolic.
The Brit Government is considering making jobseekers 'earn' their allowance - which I think is probably a good thing. Also, there are hoops to jump through to obtain the allowance... you have to prove that you are actively looking for work. They check up on that too, from what I understand.
The Conservative Government appears hellbent on changing attitudes towards their 'benefits culture'. Which is also a really good thing. There are pockets of the country where children are third or fourth generation unemployed. They have no concept of working for a living, have no aspirations to work, and see nothing wrong with getting handouts. Of course, they also have a massive problem with teenage Moms. That's because young girls know that, if they have a baby, the Government will provide them with a house, money, and pretty much everything they require. God Almighty, what have we done to our children?
the problem with earning your JSA is that the 'earners' are displacing real employment. the latter is more important; the former is for the ideological satisfaction of those obsessed with the idea that unemployment is laziness rather than chiefly a result of a smaller job market than the labor market.
while thatcher had some other positives to bring to the table there, multi-generational unemployment (and i argue it does not stem back as far as you've claimed) is the result of her anti-industrial policy in the 1980s. there's no question about that. for some reason (likely opposition to labor) she felt that a strong financial sector was mutually exclusive to jobs for everyone else.
30 years on, england can by characterized as a place for foreigners to come to work in a square-mile in london or canary wharf, while most other people collect benefits or work shit jobs distributing benefits. their monetary policy, trade policies and poor support for industry are the reasons why they use so little of their labor force and burden their financial sector and high-earners so heavily. it comes full circle to tory policy.
reagan and thatcher amassed more brits and americans onto benefits than other leaders through their one-sided policy. it wouldn't matter their rhetorical disdain for the dole. they dropped the ball supporting the wider job market, each.
Separate names with a comma.