Unemployment Reform in England

[chanel]

SEOUL (AFP) – The government unveiled a radical shake-up of the welfare state Thursday, saying it would withhold benefit payments for up to three years from those who refuse to take jobs.

The coalition wants to introduce a sliding scale of penalties for those who either decline a job offer, fail to apply for a job they are advised to or do not turn up for mandatory four-week work placements.

The weekly 65 pound unemployment benefit will be withheld for three months from those who violate any of the three conditions.

That would rise to six months for a second violation and three years for a third, aides said.

The announcement came as Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith prepared to give details of the universal credit, a single welfare payment which officials say will simplify the current complex benefits system and make two and a half million people better off.

The government describes the plans as the most radical since the wide-ranging welfare state was put in place just after World War II.

Welfare now accounts for roughly a third of government spending.

Govt to stop benefits for some unemployed - Yahoo! News

Good idea?

 

[California Girl]

Yep. Why should someone who turns down a job be able to claim taxpayers money instead?

 

[chanel]

Do you think the "job seekers" will riot CG?

 

[xotoxi]

I have two words for you:

CREEPING SHARIA

 

[editec]

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?

 

[California Girl]

Do you think the "job seekers" will riot CG?

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.

 

[antagon]

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?

dominance is fleeting, isn't it?

 

[antagon]

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.

 

[California Girl]

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?

 

[antagon]

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.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

SEOUL (AFP) – it would withhold benefit payments for up to three years from those who refuse to take jobs.
Good idea?

Indeed, they'll have starved by then

 

[California Girl]

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.

I take the 'third and fourth' generation unemployed from the UK Government's own stats. I'm not claiming it, they are.

 

[syrenn]

SEOUL (AFP) – The government unveiled a radical shake-up of the welfare state Thursday, saying it would withhold benefit payments for up to three years from those who refuse to take jobs.

The coalition wants to introduce a sliding scale of penalties for those who either decline a job offer, fail to apply for a job they are advised to or do not turn up for mandatory four-week work placements.

The weekly 65 pound unemployment benefit will be withheld for three months from those who violate any of the three conditions.

That would rise to six months for a second violation and three years for a third, aides said.

The announcement came as Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith prepared to give details of the universal credit, a single welfare payment which officials say will simplify the current complex benefits system and make two and a half million people better off.

The government describes the plans as the most radical since the wide-ranging welfare state was put in place just after World War II.

Welfare now accounts for roughly a third of government spending.

Govt to stop benefits for some unemployed - Yahoo! News

Good idea?

I think its a great idea and one that should be started here.

 

[Samson]

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?

dominance is fleeting, isn't it?

You think they just got tired of sailing?

 

[antagon]

I take the 'third and fourth' generation unemployed from the UK Government's own stats. I'm not claiming it, they are.

i dont buy it.

for one thing the neverending JSA system is from the 80s as a result of the swelling in unemployment which i've attributed to thatcher.

can you share your source?

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

The coalition wants to introduce a sliding scale of penalties for those who either decline a job offer, fail to apply for a job they are advised to or do not turn up for mandatory four-week work placements.

What I love is the image of these private schooled privileged toffee noses dumping on the poor working class and pretending its for the betterment of the 'nation' - what a great fukkin joke it really is

 

[Blagger]

Do you think the "job seekers" will riot CG?

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.

Nor had I. How bizarre, not to mention pathetic.