# Proposed Benefits Reform for UK Youths



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

All 18- to 21-year-olds who have failed to find a job or a place in training would no longer be able to claim jobseekers allowance under a Tory government, but would instead be forced to undertake community work, David Cameron will say on Tuesday as he continues his drive to put stricter curbs on welfare at the heart of his partys election appeal.

Under the plans those aged between 18 and 21 who have not had a job for six months will be barred from claiming benefit unless they agree to start an apprenticeship or complete community work.

The plan is designed to ensure that the 50,000 young people most at risk of starting a life on benefits find that their first contact with the benefit system is a requirement to undertake community work and search for jobs. The claimant will be expected typically to undertake at least 30 hours community work a week and 10 hours looking for jobs.

Anyone required to undertake community work would be paid a youth allowance equivalent to the jobseekers allowance rate for young people.

In a speech defending the governments changes to welfare, the prime minister will say he is in effect abolishing youth unemployment, and wants to get rid of that well-worn path from the school gate, down to the Job Centre, and on to a life on benefits.

Cameron will also praise the extension of universal credit, even though it is not yet available to families with children. He is also expected to set out how some benefits would be made conditional on drug addicts and the obese seeking treatment

Unemployed will have to do community work under Tories, says Cameron | Politics | The Guardian


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*What a surprise. Cameron just can't go a day without picking on benefits. The sooner he goes the better.*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Personally, I don't have a problem with this. In fact, it is a suggestion I voiced quite some years ago and I don't think it should be restricted to just young people.

Anyone who is claiming Jobseekers should do some form of work for it. The minimum 'wage' hours should be met so, for an adult claiming £57 jobseekers each week, they should work 8.5 hrs in the community. That is only one day. This still leaves plenty of time to attend interviews.

I don't see why the able-bodied should be given money for doing nothing..... 

.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I don't see why the able-bodied should be given money for doing nothing.....


I agree as long as they are not used as a cheap workforce by commercial interests. True community work is fine, being forced to subsidise Tesco isn't.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I don't know any charity shops that will take enforced staff - they work on a basis of volunteering.
Not many shop managers would want to deal with someone who doesn't want to be there and it goes against most charities policies and ethos.

If they are spending 30 hours a week - core working hours - it doesn't leave a lot of time to go looking for work does it? 

Apprenticeships would be great if the actually existed  
Invest in real skills based training and apprenticeships get that in place first and work with the young people to help them find paid work.


When my kids left education they knew they needed to find work, return to education, or get an apprenticeship and if they couldn't do that they would volunteer until they could can. They all took any job they could - they have all worked hard, they have all spent time volunteering to build up their CV and develop their skills at one point my oldest daughter had 3 part time jobs (couldn't find any full time work) and volunteered (she was 20) - they have all worked hard and have all done pretty well for themselves, 1 is now working full time whilst completing an OU degree, 1 is returning to education in September and the other is considering returning to education next year but is getting some savings behind him first. (they are 24, 20 and 18 so are the target age for these proposals)


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> Personally, I don't have a problem with this. In fact, it is a suggestion I voiced quite some years ago and I don't think it should be restricted to just young people.
> 
> Anyone who is claiming Jobseekers should do some form of work for it. The minimum 'wage' hours should be met so, for an adult claiming £57 jobseekers each week, they should work 8.5 hrs in the community. That is only one day. This still leaves plenty of time to attend interviews.
> 
> ...


Got to agree, too many are leaving school and relying on the state to fund their lifestyle and older people not bothering when they can get something for nothing.
Help those who need it but don't pander to the workshy


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

havoc said:


> I agree as long as they are not used as a cheap workforce by commercial interests. True community work is fine, being forced to subsidise Tesco isn't.


Hence why I clearly stated they should work only the hours that would make up the minimum wage. And I would be very annoyed if they did end up in Tescos as the whole point should be that they are benefiting the community who are paying for their services, not subsidising private businesses.

ETA: I think expecting youngsters to do a 30hr week is out of order. I believe they do not receive the full Jobseekers allowance under 21 (please correct me if I am wrong here...) so their hours should be calculated on what the minimum wage is for their age, and how much JS they are paid. I expect it should still even out to be approx 8.5 to 10'ish hours???

Doing 30hrs is slave labour!!!

.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*This is just another way to fiddle the unemployment figures. I can't see how it will help anyone.
Maggie Thatcher did something similar with her youth training schemes.*


----------



## Poundingpaws (Nov 28, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> Hence why I clearly stated they should work only the hours that would make up the minimum wage. And I would be very annoyed if they did end up in Tescos as the whole point should be that they are benefiting the community who are paying for their services, not subsidising private businesses.
> 
> ETA: I think expecting youngsters to do a 30hr week is out of order. I believe they do not receive the full Jobseekers allowance under 21 (please correct me if I am wrong here...) so their hours should be calculated on what the minimum wage is for their age, and how much JS they are paid. I expect it should still even out to be approx 8.5 to 10'ish hours???
> 
> ...


This exactly. If they are expected to do 30 hours a week in the community, then offer them a job and pay a wage for it!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I really can not see how this is such a huge issue.

They'll do a day a week, gain experience, and maybe even learn something instead of being handed job seekers on a plate. If nothing else it might push them to find a job they actually want to do if they hate the community work enough..... If it is 30 hours they will simply have to pay them more, although one could argue that experience, and gaining skills is actually payment enough in itself, as these things are invaluable.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

MoggyBaby said:


> Personally, I don't have a problem with this. In fact, it is a suggestion I voiced quite some years ago and I don't think it should be restricted to just young people.
> 
> Anyone who is claiming Jobseekers should do some form of work for it. The minimum 'wage' hours should be met so, for an adult claiming £57 jobseekers each week, they should work 8.5 hrs in the community. That is only one day. This still leaves plenty of time to attend interviews.
> 
> ...


This.

I thought you have to do work experience when you're on job seekers anyway. When I was on it years ago I had to. My neighbour was made to do charity work but got sanctioned because she didn't bother going.

I, however, wouldn't work in retail as work experience. Why work for free like that giving the company owner even more money to buy themselves nice things. Which is why I choose charity work when I had to do work experience.

There's so much work experience you can do. Do-it.org have loads of different job roles too choose from.

And when people apply for jobs and get interviews it looks good when they are doing work experience whilst looking for a paid job. Not to mention experience and skills.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

At first glance, the idea of making youths work for money rather than just being paid jobseekers allowance seems good.

However, if there are jobs to be done in the community, then surely someone should be employed to do them? Why are these positions vacant in the first place? Why isn't someone being employed to do them, given that there are people on jobseekers allowance and these supposed vacancies existing? Wouldn't it be better to give people proper jobs and get them off jobseekers allowance completely? 

This is one of those ideas that sound good when you first hear it but, when you analyse it properly and begin to realise the implications, it quickly becomes clear that it's merely another way for Cameron and the Tories to put the boot in the working class. If this were to happen, other people are going to be out of full-time work because their jobs will now being done by youngsters for no cost to the local councils or government.

You've got to hand it to Cameron - he knows that by putting in a load of rhetoric about "closing the the path to to long-term benefit claiming", he will divert attention from what he's really doing - which is actually creating MORE unemplyment by getting the unemployed to do work for no extra cost that people at present either are, or could be, being paid for.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> At first glance, the idea of making youths work for money rather than just being paid jobseekers allowance seems good.
> 
> However, if there are jobs to be done in the community, then surely someone should be employed to do them? Why are these positions vacant in the first place? Why isn't someone being employed to do them, given that there are people on jobseekers allowance and these supposed vacancies existing? Wouldn't it be better to give people proper jobs and get them off jobseekers allowance completely?
> 
> ...


....because the youth dont want these particular jobs?They dont aspire to clean graffitti, or road sweep, or litter pick. They do not have the "we'll do anything to keep a roof over our heads" ethic


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> ....because the youth dont want these particular jobs?They dont aspire to clean graffitti, or road sweep, or litter pick. They do not have the "we'll do anything to keep a roof over our heads" ethic


*But the local councils are paid via council tax to do the jobs you mention.*


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *But the local councils are paid via council tax to do the jobs you mention.*


There are a whole lotta community jobs out there, maybe they'll pay these kids extra from the councils they help, who knows...... Im fairly sure no government will get away with slave labour


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lexiedhb said:


> ....because the youth dont want these particular jobs?They dont aspire to clean graffitti, or road sweep, or litter pick. They do not have the "we'll do anything to keep a roof over our heads" ethic


Well if they won't take the job then stop their allowance - simples!

And if youths won't take these sort of jobs, I dare bet there's plenty who will.

The bottom line is that in the UK there are not enough paid jobs for everyone who wants to work. Those who want to work will, or will spend their time looking for and applying for every vacancy they come across until they do. And we have a duty to look after these people and support them with a decent allowance until they manage to find work.

Sadly, however, there will always be those who don't want to work - and, much as it pains me to say it, in an economy where there are not enough jobs to go round I would rather the jobs went to the people who want to work rather than those who don't.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Well if they won't take the job then stop their allowance - simples!
> 
> And if youths won't take these sort of jobs, I dare bet there's plenty who will.
> 
> ...


Doesn't happen though does it? People purposefully mess up in interviews (but they are still job seeking), because they simply do not want the jobs on offer, and seem to think they should walk into some high flying job, so they'll wait until that becomes available.

I believe if you want to work, there is a job out there for you somewhere.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> However, if there are jobs to be done in the community, then surely someone should be employed to do them?


There are loads of things which would make life just that bit better. It really wouldn't hurt a youngster to cut the grass in an old person's garden, to paint a room, to just help make things that bit easier, a bit nicer for people who can't do it for themselves. They're the sort of things ordinary people used to do for the sake of 'community'. There's a lovely young volunteer at a local sheltered housing scheme who went in and set up a gardening club. The management are happy and the residents love it and are so proud of being able to improve their environment themselves. Nobody has been put out of work, the normal 'heavy' groundskeeping is still done by paid contractors. There's no hurt in making things better.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> At first glance, the idea of making youths work for money rather than just being paid jobseekers allowance seems good.
> 
> However, if there are jobs to be done in the community, then surely someone should be employed to do them? Why are these positions vacant in the first place? Why isn't someone being employed to do them, given that there are people on jobseekers allowance and these supposed vacancies existing? Wouldn't it be better to give people proper jobs and get them off jobseekers allowance completely?
> 
> ...





JANICE199 said:


> *But the local councils are paid via council tax to do the jobs you mention.*


All councils have had their money cut from central government and have also been told to cap their charges to the council tax payer. This results in not enough bin men, park keepers, street cleaners etc. To 'employ' people to do these jobs means putting up the monthly charges to people who are already being lumbered by a plethora of other taxes.

Those on JS are already 'being paid' to some degree so why should they not do a few hours work to earn that money. One day is not going to harm them in any way, it is not slave labour but it could make a difference to the communities they live in.

Maybe the youngesters would be less inclined to graffiti & demolish the swings in the park, or chuck their empty beer / pop bottles in the bushes or leave a ton of *** ends lying about if they had to back the next day to clean it all up.

Managed correctly, it is not exploitation. It is getting some bang for your buck!

.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

when my son, who is now on ESA, was on JSA, he managed to get some voluntary unpaid work, 21 hrs, with a local small animal place, working with everything from rats to raptors, goats to reindeer
He loved every minute and the 'employer' was looking to getting funding for an apprenticeship for him [he was 19 then]
Although he got 'permission' from JSA to do the work, after 4 weeks he was told that if he didnt give it up then he would be sanctioned and the 'employer' was given an official visit and some sort of official warning regarding the voluntary work

My son gave it up
The employer gave up seeking an apprenticeship due to visit and warning

My son is now on ESA with depression and mild bipolar, yet when working with animals hes a different person

All the DWP is there for is to get everyone and everyone *OFF of benefits, **NOT back to work*, thats far too problamatic for them


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

I think it's a great idea to have people work doing local community jobs while on benefits. It may stop the culture of just being on benefits for life purely because it works out better money wise.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lexiedhb said:


> Doesn't happen though does it? People purposefully mess up in interviews (but they are still job seeking), because they simply do not want the jobs on offer, and seem to think they should walk into some high flying job, so they'll wait until that becomes available.
> 
> I believe if you want to work, there is a job out there for you somewhere.


I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, I know lots of people who want to work - people who have worked all their lives and suddenly been made redundant and would do something - anything - if only they could. People who are applying to twenty or thirty adverts a week. People who have been on courses to hone their interview techniques. Try telling them there is a job out there for you if you want to work and the answer you'll get is, "Lead me to it!"

And for these people, making youths work for nothing when they could be doing the job and being paid for it is rubbing salt into the wounds.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, I know lots of people who want to work - people who have worked all their lives and suddenly been made redundant and would do something - anything - if only they could. People who are applying to twenty or thirty adverts a week. People who have been on courses to hone their interview techniques. Try telling them there is a job out there for you if you want to work and the answer you'll get is, "Lead me to it!"
> 
> And for these people, making youths work for nothing when they could be doing the job and being paid for it is rubbing salt into the wounds.


Maybe its a difference in area etc, willingness to relocate, age thing, skill set, industry in area thing? I have no idea all I know is anyone I have known to be made redundant, in all sorts of areas, and those leaving school/ college, accidentally retired early without really thinking (well done mum) without knowing really what they have wanted to do have found a job within months of looking, and usually not stop gap jobs either.......


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Well it wouldn't be such an easy way of life if they had to actually work to earn that JSA. Which I think is a huge part of the problem to be honest. And I say that as someone who's currently looking to claim it. I know it's not aimed at my age group but personally I would have no problems doing community work in order to get my unemployment benefit provided it wasn't slave labour. If you want me to work 40 hours a week then you can pay me a proper wage for it, especially as it would leave me very little time to look for a paid job. Which I have to do to be entitled to claim JSA.

That said, I'm not sure how practical it would be to implement something like this. In theory yeah, it sounds great and really simple. In reality though I think it would be anything but.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Loads of community projects they could be involved in. Give them some self respect instead of the stigma of living off benefits.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> All councils have had their money cut from central government and have also been told to cap their charges to the council tax payer. This results in not enough bin men, park keepers, street cleaners etc. To 'employ' people to do these jobs means putting up the monthly charges to people who are already being lumbered by a plethora of other taxes.
> 
> Those on JS are already 'being paid' to some degree so why should they not do a few hours work to earn that money. One day is not going to harm them in any way, it is not slave labour but it could make a difference to the communities they live in.
> 
> ...


Hmmm - it is a bit of a fait accompli by the government - first of all cut payments to councils so they have to make people redundant, then tell them to get the work done for nothing by kids on jobseeker's allowance.

And in the meantime, ignore the fact that this plan has made thousands redundant - thousands more on jobseeker's allowance; thousands more for the taxpayer to keep on benefits.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Maybe its a difference in area etc, willingness to relocate, age thing, skill set, industry in area thing? I have no idea all I know is anyone I have known to be made redundant, in all sorts of areas, and those leaving school/ college, accidentally retired early without really thinking (well done mum) without knowing really what they have wanted to do have found a job within months of looking, and usually not stop gap jobs either.......


Lucky them. I'm one of those people who wants to work and am passed over time and time again. I don't even make it to the interview stage for the most part, apparently something in the basic application form rules me out at first glance.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

JANICE199 said:


> *But the local councils are paid via council tax to do the jobs you mention.*


I volunteer for RiverCare (one of the Keep Britain Tidy schemes) & everyone who particpates is a volunteer. We manage to clear so much from the section of rivers we target but can't do every section, the rubbish that is accumulating in some areas is disgusting - why can't people who are looking for work also be part of this scheme?


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

It won't only be 8.5 hours. 

A large number of charities do use forced workers, many stopped after pressure but a few restarted on the sly. Most of your high street chains use them. Marks and Spencer, Tescos, Asda, McDonalds, councils, housing associations and the list goes on.... Workfare is taking real jobs away, workfare is just fudging the figures.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

I don't think it is a bad ideal for the long term unemployed but NOT just for young people but all long term unemployed. Why just target young people? but I disagree with the 30 hours bit - that is just short of working full time. If there are enough 30 hour placements for the thousands of long term unemployed then these should be paid positions not voluntary. I completely disagree with making people work almost full time for very little.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

northnsouth said:


> Loads of community projects they could be involved in. Give them some self respect instead of the stigma of living off benefits.


When my son was unemployed he asked about volunteering at a local hospice, he was told he couldn't as it wasn't on their list of approved placements. Why do placements have to be organised through them?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Polski said:


> When my son was unemployed he asked about volunteering at a local hospice, he was told he couldn't as it wasn't on their list of approved placements. *Why do placements have to be organised through them?*


Now that makes no sense at all...

What alternatives did they offer, then?


----------



## CANOLOGY (Feb 10, 2015)

I like this idea.
Its good if they learn something of perform civic work
Obviously there needs too be suitable training and they should do stuff like clean litter from woods and streams, to help the environment


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

It's a bit like conscription without the military slant or the compulsion if they have a career path already in place 

I'm not too averse to this idea except the breaking of the minimum wage law and I'm hoping that the people who actually don't want to work are not forced on a person that hasn't signed up to deal with them


----------



## soulful dog (Nov 6, 2011)

In theory there could be positives to this. However, in practise all we'll end up with is a bunch of un-motivated youngsters doing 'jobs' they don't really want to do (does anyone honestly think they'll put much effort into matching people up to jobs/skills they are interested in?), and those forced to take on these tasks will feel even more alienated and picked-on than they do already.

How about the politicians stop trying to make things worse for people and instead of punitive measures they tackle job creation and most important of all - make working life pay. For all, not just for the people in 'good' jobs.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

soulful dog said:


> In theory there could be positives to this. However, in practise all we'll end up with is a bunch of un-motivated youngsters doing 'jobs' they don't really want to do (does anyone honestly think they'll put much effort into matching people up to jobs/skills they are interested in?), and those forced to take on these tasks will feel even more alienated and picked-on than they do already.
> 
> How about the politicians stop trying to make things worse for people and instead of punitive measures they tackle job creation and most important of all - *make working life pay*. For all, not just for the people in 'good' jobs.


That's what they are doing isn't it, by removing the safety net of benefits


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> When my son was unemployed he asked about volunteering at a local hospice, he was told he couldn't as it wasn't on their list of approved placements. Why do placements have to be organised through them?


I think you have put your finger on it there. Placements organised through official channels are exactly how we ended up with large companies getting a free workforce. Somehow volunteering will have to be approved as safe, attendance checked but it shouldn't be up to officialdom to decide what's 'worthy'.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Sarah1983 said:


> Lucky them. I'm one of those people who wants to work and am passed over time and time again. I don't even make it to the interview stage for the most part, apparently something in the basic application form rules me out at first glance.


Like i said a million reasons for my experience being different from others.....


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> Now that makes no sense at all...
> 
> What alternatives did they offer, then?


They didn't offer anything, he hadn't been unemployed long enough at that point. They said when he had been unemployed for long enough (after 12 months) they would sort out a placement, a work placement not a helping in the community placement. Kind of proving its not about getting them skills to aid them in to work.

An asda opened by me a couple of years ago, my friend got a job there, she was on an 8 hour contract, many were on 0 hours contracts...the workers that got the most hours were workfare workers, 36 hours for £57 quid a week jsa AND they still had to prove they were doing 10-40* actions to help them in to paid work each week

*10-40 actions...The number seemed on whether your JCP advisor liked you it seems, actions could be applying for jobs online, handing out your cv in shops, ringing for jobs, (you had to be able to prove it if required) Signing up to job sites


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Polski said:


> They didn't offer anything, he hadn't been unemployed long enough at that point. They said when he had been unemployed for long enough (after 12 months) they would sort out a placement, a work placement not a helping in the community placement. Kind of proving its not about getting them skills to aid them in to work.
> 
> An asda opened by me a couple of years ago, my friend got a job there, she was on an 8 hour contract, many were on 0 hours contracts...the workers that got the most hours were workfare workers, 36 hours for £57 quid a week jsa AND they still had to prove they were doing 10-40* actions to help them in to paid work each week
> 
> *10-40 actions...The number seemed on whether your JCP advisor liked you it seems, actions could be applying for jobs online, handing out your cv in shops, ringing for jobs, (you had to be able to prove it if required) Signing up to job sites


So, hang on, if I'm reading this right you're not allowed to do ANYTHING voluntary related until the 12 month period (even if they want to and have found something), and then you have to do whatever slave labour they assign you to as well as meet all their other requirements? That's nuts!ut:

And Zero hours contracts should be banned...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sez it all really ...


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Sez it all really ...


I am not sure why people keep thinking that jobs will be lost, there are plenty of projects running that are purely voluntary already & always have been.

Same for litter picking, there are many schemes around already, it's not as if there isn't much rubbish around, everywhere seems to be covered in crap that people are too lazy to dispose of properly.

As I posted earlier why can't claimants be involved with them? Why is is assumed they will 'take' jobs? I know loads of voluntary schemes that people could be involved in.

Why is it that people with jobs can get involved in community work but those who haven't can't?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Sez it all really ...


Brilliant post Noush. Says so simply and eloquently what I've been trying to say in my long winded posts :thumbsup:


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> So, hang on, if I'm reading this right you're not allowed to do ANYTHING voluntary related until the 12 month period (even if they want to and have found something), and then you have to do whatever slave labour they assign you to as well as meet all their other requirements? That's nuts!ut:
> 
> And Zero hours contracts should be banned...


Someone on here (apologies, I can't remember who) told me the JCP were wrong and that you can volunteer but a kid fresh out of college isn't going to know that and even if they did how many would challenge it for fear of being sanctioned.

As it happens when his 12 months came, his placement wasn't a work placement, it was at a recruitment company where he had to make yet another cv, attend practise interviews, do work trials (for a company that only requested trial applicants when they had a major function on, like the tory party conference, (strange that) In the 12 months he was with this recruitment company he had 3 trials at this convention place, they never took anyone on.

The recruitment company did get him a job after 12 months but i'm half expecting my son to be coming home unemployed any time around now. Ok, they may not, his place likes him but...his bosses get 2.5k from the government for taking him on if he's still there after 6 months. Nice little earner taking someone on for 6 months, paying minimum wage and then getting 2.5k. I hope i'm wrong, he hated being unemployed. Oh and the recruitment company also got a nice fee from the JCP for getting my son into work within the 12 months. The whole damn system is corrupt!


----------



## catpud (Nov 9, 2013)

Polski said:


> Someone on here (apologies, I can't remember who) told me the JCP were wrong and that you can volunteer but a kid fresh out of college isn't going to know that and even if they did how many would challenge it for fear of being sanctioned.
> 
> I think that was me  Half of the people working in the job centre don't seem to know what they are on about - they don't even know their own rules, the job centre themselves never gave a clear answer until I went and found myself a placement. I volunteered for a charity, informed the job centre, and had to give the manager of the place the form to confirm that there was no payment of any kind (including expenses) and of course you still have to do any training courses, work placements and so on that the job centre send you too, as well as looking for paid work (that's obvious though, the majority of the youngsters I came into contact with in the job centre wanted to work and tried really hard to get a job), so the people you volunteer for may only have 24 hours notice that you cannot attend on your usual day - lots of red tape to work around, and to be honest I am not too surprised that people find it hard to navigate.
> 
> ...


It is, despite all of the dodgy work trials, interrupting volunteering where you were actually gaining experience, and three courses that didn't much use in this area, I managed to get a job, the job centre have a surprising amount of schemes running - all great ideas, would be less of a waste of money if they actually worked or the staff knew what they were talking about though


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I think it's a good idea but definitely NOT 30 hours - that works out at less than £2 an hour and can only be seen as exploitation, IMO. Especially as people would still be expected to devote 10 hours a week to job seeking.

I don't think there is any harm in anyone who claims benefits, and is fit for work, to be asked to put in a small number of hours during the working week. There are many things that need to be done in every community - things that cash strapped councils are having to leave - which could be incorporated into such a scheme.

I don't think that it should include litter picking - which people see as demeaning and for someone who has been through the courts and given Community Service as a punishment. 

Having said that, I litter pick - almost on a daily basis, off my own bat, and for nothing - I don't feel demeaned


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Meanwhile, how many manual agricultural jobs across the UK have gone (without press ganging claimants at all) to EU migrant workers?

Visit Evesham in summer and you wont hear English spoken!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> Meanwhile, how many manual agricultural jobs across the UK have gone (without press ganging claimants at all) to EU migrant workers?
> 
> Visit Evesham in summer and you wont hear English spoken!


Reason? They are willing to work long hard hours! For little pay


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Lurcherlad said:


> I think it's a good idea but definitely NOT 30 hours - that works out at less than £2 an hour and can only be seen as exploitation, IMO. Especially as people would still be expected to devote 10 hours a week to job seeking.
> 
> I don't think there is any harm in anyone who claims benefits, and is fit for work, to be asked to put in a small number of hours during the working week. There are many things that need to be done in every community - things that cash strapped councils are having to leave - which could be incorporated into such a scheme.
> 
> ...


I'm willing to put money on it that the vast majority on JSA would be more than happy to work 8-10 hours for their JSA, providing it was something discussed and agreed on not demanded with threat of sanction (you catch more with honey than vinegar)

My son was bored, dejected and pretty damn lonely and isolated when he was unemployed and the longer it went on the more despondent he became, the difference since hes been working is amazing, I have my son back.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Lexiedhb said:


> Reason? They are willing to work long hard hours! For little pay


Exactly. I don't think it fair to expect anyone to work 8 hours a day, doing back breaking work for less than a living wage.

There is far too much exploitation going on in my view.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Polski said:


> I'm willing to put money on it that the vast majority on JSA would be more than happy to work 8-10 hours for their JSA, providing it was something discussed and agreed on not demanded with threat of sanction (you catch more with honey than vinegar)
> 
> *My son was bored, dejected and pretty damn lonely and isolated when he was unemployed and the longer it went on the more despondent he became, the difference since hes been working is amazing, I have my son back.*


This is the biggest benefit of getting people out and doing something - especially if it helps others IMO

It does no one any favours to feel they are alone and on the scrap heap.

So glad your son has found something to give him some focus and a positive attitude


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Lurcherlad said:


> This is the biggest benefit of getting people out and doing something - especially if it helps others IMO
> 
> It does no one any favours to feel they are alone and on the scrap heap.
> 
> So glad your son has found something to give him some focus and a positive attitude


Totally agree, but it should never, ever be for companies than could and should pay.

My son wanted to volunteer at a hospice for those receiving end of life care, they would have been glad of the help, my son would have felt a sense of achievement every day and would have been giving to the community instead of languishing on the dole for 2 years before finally landing a job. Too many people believe the red top rags saying folk choose to sit on the dole...The only ones I know that choose that have fiddles going on elsewhere, and even then they are in the minority.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> Meanwhile, how many manual agricultural jobs across the UK have gone (without press ganging claimants at all) to EU migrant workers?
> 
> Visit Evesham in summer and you wont hear English spoken!


Doh of course that's where it all went wrong.... All those migrant 'workers' paying there taxes INTO the system 

Sorry but how on earth does migrant workers relate to people actually having to possibly work to get benefits!?!

** must remind my hubby later to appreciate his job more as he has prevented a uk worker from being employed**


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

Polski said:


> I'm willing to put money on it that the vast majority on JSA would be more than happy to work 8-10 hours for their JSA, providing it was something discussed and agreed on not demanded with threat of sanction (you catch more with honey than vinegar)
> 
> My son was bored, dejected and pretty damn lonely and isolated when he was unemployed and the longer it went on the more despondent he became, the difference since hes been working is amazing, I have my son back.


Agree completely.

Managed correctly I think it sounds good.

I know in those few weeks after uni whilst applying for jobs I quickly found it lonely and disheartening applying for jobs and not hearing back. I ended up forcing myself into a routine of gym / swimming around applying for jobs to keep sane. I imagine it's very easy to feel despondent.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Reason? They are willing to work long hard hours! For little pay


I dont disagree BUT shouldnt our own feckless native claimants be kicked out the house to do it? dont make em pick litter, make em pick a job!


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Colliebarmy said:


> I dont disagree BUT shouldnt our own feckless native claimants be kicked out the house to do it? dont make em pick litter, make em pick a job!


Many (notice I said many, not all) of the migrant workers in Evesham work for gangmasters, they are on below minimum wage, live crammed into bunk houses and are transported there and back each night. Many to Redditch, Plymouth Road Redditch to be more accurate, where old houses are rented out and bunks built in each room...floor to ceiling, nice high ceilings those houses have, can easily get 4 bunks high. Most rooms sleep 12-16. And when those houses are reported (only one lot of council tax for the whole house, overcrowded to a dangerous level) the police shrug and turn a blind eye...I wouldn't fancy storming a house with 60 blokes in it either!

Those Evesham jobs are never advertised, they go straight to gangmasters, "feckless native claimants" don't even get a chance.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> Those Evesham jobs are never advertised, they go straight to gangmasters, "feckless native claimants" don't even get a chance.


I have a relative to has an agency, mixed clients with factory work, packing work, admin work, events staff and some agricultural (admittedly the gangmasters have most of that side sewn up but not all). He and I along with other family members have spent days packing veg to make up the numbers so as not to lose the client because 'native' workers won't do it.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

havoc said:


> I have a relative to has an agency, mixed clients with factory work, packing work, admin work, events staff and some agricultural (admittedly the gangmasters have most of that side sewn up but not all). He and I along with other family members have spent days packing veg to make up the numbers so as not to lose the client because 'native' workers won't do it.


The native workers that wouldn't do it...were they offering to transport them there or would they have to get there on their own because that was the other thing...no where to park but no way to get there otherwise. My ex did a stint in Evesham, him and 4 others used to go down together, there was nowhere to park so they had to walk the last mile in (no biggie) but it was pretty remote so unless you could car share you couldn't do it as no public transport there. My ex and his pals were warned not to talk to the migrant workers, were told they were trouble but it was probably more to stop the migrant workers finding out they were on less money. This was 20 odd years ago. However the bunk houses are recent, builder mate has done a few then reported them!

There are legit set ups, I'm not sure they're in the majority though.

There are some lazy feckless people too...just not as many as the red top rags will have folk believe


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> were they offering to transport them


Oh yes, from a number of pickup points. Much better mollycoddling than most workers who manage to find their own way from home to work every day.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

havoc said:


> Oh yes, from a number of pickup points. Much better mollycoddling than most workers who manage to find their own way from home to work every day.


Most places arent so remote and provide parking. But in this case with offering pick up then yes, lazy b's.

Where do/did they advertise, never seen any like that on the usual jobs pages...I used to look through them all to help/encourage him.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Milliepoochie said:


> Doh of course that's where it all went wrong.... All those migrant 'workers' paying there taxes INTO the system
> 
> Sorry but how on earth does migrant workers relate to people actually having to possibly work to get benefits!?!
> 
> ** must remind my hubby later to appreciate his job more as he has prevented a uk worker from being employed**


I think the point being made is that many UK citizens believe they are above these kind of labour-intensive jobs. I believe CB is stating that those on JS should be doing this work before it is given to migrant workers.

Interestingly, there was a programme on tv a few years which showed this exact scenario where the farmer employed a large number of Eastern European workers. They followed a British bloke doing the same job - he was quite hopeless. He hated doing the work, he moaned the whole time and the quality of his work was way below the migrants. The farmer stated he would hav given him a full time job had he been any good but his performance was the same as every other UK citizen he'd taken on in the past - shoddy & lacklustre.

But that digresses from the thread. There are many roles within communities currently lying empty because there simply is not the money to fill them but the communities would benefit from any form of input from those on JS.

I find it astonishing - again - that so many people seem to think that asking those on JS to do a few hours work to earn this money as disgraceful!!

.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Employment agencies advertise in their own windows. If you don't put yourself on their books they can't put you forward for jobs.


----------



## northnsouth (Nov 17, 2009)

Polski said:


> When my son was unemployed he asked about volunteering at a local hospice, he was told he couldn't as it wasn't on their list of approved placements. Why do placements have to be organised through them?


I know I had the same when I was made redundant, To volunteer where I choose technically made me unavailable for work, so I would not be entitled to the JSA, thankfully I found a job straight away each time.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> I find it astonishing - again - that so many people seem to think that asking those on JS to do a few hours work to earn this money as disgraceful!!
> 
> .


If there were no people around who needed paid work then I would agree with you - but with unemployment levels the way they are, I find it equally as astonishing that so many people seem to find it acceptable to make young people work for nothing instead of realising that the work they are doing should, in fact, be a paid job - maybe for someone on JSA who is desperate to work and support his/her family.

(Heh heh - MB and SW are back to disagreeing - the world suddenly rights itself on its axis and hums contentedly as it spins )


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

I can see both sides with the argument that work experience will take paid work away.

This is my argument about doing work experience for such places like Newlook, Topshop, Monsoon, etc. What, you work there for three months straight for free and your job advisor tells you there is a chance you can get a job at the end of it. Yeah right. Aside from you helping the big fat cat get more money to go towards a porsche, the chances of you getting a paid job at the end are slim. Why? Because why would they offer you a paid job at the end when in their eyes they can take someone else on to do another three months and then the next and the next....

It's a horrible cycle but companies love making huge profits and if they can get away with taking on workers for free, they will.

However, such placements like volunteer work have always been and always will be volunteer work so there is no chance of a paid job at the end so it doesn't take work away from people. And there are thousands to be filled. Lots to go around.

I don't believe in people claiming benefits and not doing anything. I have no objection to people claiming benefits. I never have. I would rather my taxes go towards a family than have them cold and starving on the streets. But if they are on benefits and looking for work I see no issue in them doing some volunteer work whilst they look for a paid job.


----------



## emzybabe (Jun 30, 2009)

I think it's a great idea, I finished uni at 23 with a construction related degree in the middle of a resession. I couldn't find a job related to my degree. I asked for support to help find a job and was told I couldn't have any from the job centre unless I claimed job seekers allowance. The Unis careers department were useless. I got an allowance of £50 a week, told I couldn't have any help with rent cost because my partner although a full time student was working. I was then asked to pay council tax at £15 a week! 

When I asked the job centre if I could volenteer while I was looking for a job I was told no I had to be actively looking for a job all the time. 

I would have happily worked in a factory, volunteered, litter picked for assistance to find a better job let alone for money. 

I the end I took a job working in a bank as I foud the whole experience of going to the job centre every 2 weeks quiet stressful.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> If there were no people around who needed paid work then I would agree with you - but with unemployment levels the way they are, *I find it equally as astonishing that so many people seem to find it acceptable to make young people work for nothing* instead of realising that the work they are doing should, in fact, be a paid job - maybe for someone on JSA who is desperate to work and support his/her family.
> 
> (Heh heh - MB and SW are back to disagreeing - the world suddenly rights itself on its axis and hums contentedly as it spins )


But they are NOT working for nothing - they will be getting approx £57 a week. Thats over £200 a month!! I wish someone would give me £200 a month for NOT working!!!

I totally disagree with the 30hrs a week that has been put forward - I've said that enough times today - but I really fail to see why a few hours to earn this money is considered such a bad thing.

There will never be enough people to cover all the voluntary, community roles that are out there so it's hardly preventing someone else from getting a job.

_*MB is enjoying the feeling of rightness that she and SW are back in their rightful places in the world...... *_

.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

MoggyBaby said:


> But they are NOT working for nothing - they will be getting approx £57 a week. Thats over £200 a month!!* I wish someone would give me £200 a month for NOT working!!! *


Me too! But let's face it £57.35 isn't living in the lap of luxury is it?

What I would like to know is has this been costed? How much is the taxpayer going to be paying to set up & administer this scheme?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> *But they are NOT working for nothing - they will be getting approx £57 a week.* Thats over £200 a month!! I wish someone would give me £200 a month for NOT working!!!
> 
> I totally disagree with the 30hrs a week that has been put forward - I've said that enough times today - but I really fail to see why a few hours to earn this money is considered such a bad thing.
> 
> ...


The fact that we pay someone £57 a week whilst they are looking for a job is a bit of a red herring. If there are jobs to do, then there are job vacancies. If there are job vacancies, then people on JSA should be filling those vacancies, coming off JSA, and becoming permanent workers on whatever wage the job attracts. Doing the jobs "on the cheap" by forcing people on JSA to do them "voluntarily" has only has one effect - it takes away the job vacancies. Less vacancies around means people stay on JSA longer. More people staying on JSA longer means it's going to cost us poor old tax-payers more in the long run.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

emzybabe said:


> When I asked the job centre if I could volenteer while I was looking for a job I was told no I had to be actively looking for a job all the time.


It's stupid isn't it? You can sit at home watching daytime television, surfing the internet, doing whatever you damn well please as long as you get the required number of applications in but god forbid you actually want to fill your days productively by volunteering somewhere.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

seems like a good idea so long as they pay national mimimun wage for it. else its pretty much just slavery.


----------



## astro2011 (Dec 13, 2011)

Surely it's discrimination for this to only be young people!? There are lots of older people on benefits who are also on them because they don't want to work. I don't understand how it can only be young people?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

porps said:


> seems like a good idea so long as they pay national mimimun wage for it. else its pretty much just slavery.


Slavery? Hardly, they are already geting benefits so are receiving money

For some this may be an opportunity for getting back in to a routine of having a job, getting out of the house, being more active, gaining skills & meeting new people.

It will also look much better when applying for jobs. If I was interviewing somone who had been unemployed for a long period but had volunteerd during this time I would be more incined to look more favourably on their CV than someone who hadn't done anything

Volunteering shouldn't take away from jobs & it doesn't have to. Plenty of people do voluntary work already & some sectors are always desperately in need of more volunteers.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> The fact that we pay someone £57 a week whilst they are looking for a job is a bit of a red herring. If there are jobs to do, then there are job vacancies. If there are job vacancies, then people on JSA should be filling those vacancies, coming off JSA, and becoming permanent workers on whatever wage the job attracts. Doing the jobs "on the cheap" by forcing people on JSA to do them "voluntarily" has only has one effect - it takes away the job vacancies. Less vacancies around means people stay on JSA longer. More people staying on JSA longer means it's going to cost us poor old tax-payers more in the long run.


*I totally agree with this post. I'm confused as to why people cannot see the logic here. Cameron and his lot have done a good job on the people.*


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> The fact that we pay someone £57 a week whilst they are looking for a job is a bit of a red herring. If there are jobs to do, then there are job vacancies. *If there are job vacancies, then people on JSA should be filling those vacancies, coming off JSA, and becoming permanent workers on whatever wage the job attracts. Doing the jobs "on the cheap" by forcing people on JSA to do them "voluntarily" has only has one effect - it takes away the job vacancies*. Less vacancies around means people stay on JSA longer. More people staying on JSA longer means it's going to cost us poor old tax-payers more in the long run.


My mum (in her 70's) does voluntary work in her local hospital; sitting with patients, talking to them, helping them eat their meals, getting them books/magazines, etc .... should that be a paid job? Probably ..... is it going to happen? No!

So should she stop doing it & campain that this should be a paid job instead? Would this be more beneficial? I dont think so. If this deemed a necessary voluntary job why couldn't someone who is on benefits help out here?

As I said, I take part in voluntary work (clearing litter) - am I taking away from a job? Again, I don't think so. Maybe the council should employ more people to do this but the amount of rubbish that is around they are never going to be able to afford to employ enough people to do this. I would rather help in this area than sit around moaning about the state of communal areas.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

There are many "jobs" that need doing around local areas - which cash strapped councils have had to let slide.

These are the type of things that could be incorporated into such a scheme.

The council don't have the money to employ people to do these jobs - most tax payers probably don't want to pay more council tax to pay for them.

I don't see any harm in expecting a fit and healthy person to put in up to 8 hours a week to do some of these tasks. 

Some people seem to be completely ignoring ANY of the benefits of getting up in the morning and having something worthwhile to do, mixing with other people, possibly learning a skill, having a positive thing to add to a CV, feeling useful...............


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Lurcherlad said:


> There are many "jobs" that need doing around local areas - which cash strapped councils have had to let slide.
> 
> These are the type of things that could be incorporated into such a scheme.
> 
> ...


*But if you ( not you personally ), get people doing all of these jobs for jobseekers money, then the councils will have no reason to tackle the problem.*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I totally agree with this post. I'm confused as to why people cannot see the logic here. Cameron and his lot have done a good job on the people.*


Nice try Oh Purple One but I have held this opinion for a very long time - way before Camerons Cronies stumbled into government. 

.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *But if you ( not you personally ), get people doing all of these jobs for jobseekers money, then the councils will have no reason to tackle the problem.*


Alternatively, the 'extra' money the council save from these schemes can be put towards providing better facilities elsewhere - more home helps for older people, more community centres which are properly staffed (oh, there's some employment right there) and are a decent quality, not falling apart.

Unless the UK suddenly morphs into Utopia, there will always be people claiming JS so giving 8 hours of their time to earn it is not a bad thing.

.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I totally agree with this post. I'm confused as to why people cannot see the logic here. Cameron and his lot have done a good job on the people.*


They certainly have, Janice. They lower tax rates for the rich and allow the rich to dodge paying taxes. Then to make up the deficit their schemes left in the treasury, they cut money to councils, leaving councils with no choice other than to sack workers. That's goodness knows how many thousands of people out of work and on JSA and other benefits. Then they propose that youngsters on JSA do the work instead. That lessens the available jobs even more and makes it even harder for all the people on JSA and benefits to get work.

But instead of seeing the injustice of all that, instead of railing against such immoral practices, we actually get people applauding them:



Lurcherlad said:


> There are many "jobs" that need doing around local areas - which cash strapped councils have had to let slide.
> 
> These are the type of things that could be incorporated into such a scheme.





Cleo38 said:


> As I sad, I take part in voluntary work (clearing litter) - am I taking away from a job? Again, I don't think so.


We should be questioning *why* councils are cash strapped, and looking at putting that right, rather than accepting this as a "quick fix". We should be admitting that we *are* taking jobs away from people if we allow this sort of thing to happen.

And then, instead of calling it what it is - ie an excuse to put yet another sanction on JSA if people don't comply - they call it "volunteering". So now it gets the seal of approval from people who do proper voluntary work, plus it gets people thinking it is a good idea because there are already lots of volunteers doing lots of things:



Cleo38 said:


> My mum (in her 70's) does voluntary wok in her local hospital; sitting with patients, talking to them, helping them eat their meals, getting them books/magazines, etc .... should that be a paid job? Probably ..... is it going to happen? No!


....................

But there is something even more insidious going on here. As a result of all this, we now have another set of people to blame for the state of the economy. It's been the fault of immigrants, the unemployed, the disabled, the sick, the increasing number of elderly people, the overweight putting strain on the NHS - and now all young people are being looked on as layabouts who don't want to work. That isn't the case at all; most youngsters on JSA are desperate for work, for a career. But how many people are now thinking of young people as layabouts who don't want to work? Cameron has made young people on JSA the latest diversionary tactic - get people talking about that and they will forget all about the tax evasion scandal.

As you said Jan, they have done a very good job on the people indeed ...

(apologies to Cleo and Lurcherlad - I wasn't singling you out for any particular reason. Other people have said similar things to you two but I used your posts because they were nearest!)

...............................................................



Lurcherlad said:


> Some people seem to be completely ignoring ANY of the benefits of getting up in the morning and having something worthwhile to do, mixing with other people, possibly learning a skill, having a positive thing to add to a CV, feeling useful...............


And some people seem to be completely ignoring the difference between the people who WANT the above benefits, and who in that case will be doing them anyway, and people who DON'T WANT the above benefits, and will do them only because forced.

If I ran a business or service that needed voluntary workers in order to function properly, I would not want someone forced to work doing the job.

And as a prospective employer reading through CVs, I would be more impressed by people who actually do volunteer than people who "volunteer" only because their money will be stopped if they don't. The former will stand out from the latter by a mile, both in types of work volunteered for and amount of volunteer work done.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> Slavery? Hardly, they are already geting benefits so are receiving money
> 
> For some this may be an opportunity for getting back in to a routine of having a job, getting out of the house, being more active, gaining skills & meeting new people.
> 
> ...


what else would you call it...

theres a national minimum wage for a reason but now they want to force people into working a full time job for just a fraction of that. Are you so naive that you think they're doing this to help people into work? wake up. its cheap labour is all it is- they don't care about getting people into work all the care about is gettin them off benefits and the easiest way to do that is sanctions, not jobs.

but the more they take the more poverty they inflict, the quicker revolution will arrive.

ps - volunteering is necessarily not something you're forced into doing so please dont pretend this anything like voluntary work.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

porps said:


> what else would you call it...
> 
> theres a national minimum wage for a reason but now they want to force people into working a full time job for just a fraction of that. Are you so naive that you think they're doing this to help people into work? wake up. its cheap labour is all it is- they don't care about getting people into work all the care about is gettin them off benefits and the easiest way to do that is sanctions, not jobs.
> 
> ...


Slavery is a insult to be honest, if you understood exactly what slavery meant that is  

Yes, I do believe it is an incentive to get people back to work, I also think it will prevent some people from taking the easy route of benefits ... & I also think that yes, it may be used to fudge figures .... but all governments do that in all sectors anyway.

When I was in my 20's & moved back to my home town I was out of work. I chose to do voluntary work (full time) iinitially in a care home then in a charity shop. Through the charity shop who had links with local businesses (they donated equipment & display stands, etc) I went on work experience & then attended training with a local branch of Next (I assisted with their Christmas window display in a major London branch). Although I only gained an extra £10 in my benefit it was more than worth it, it was a fantastic opportunity which resulted in an offer of a full time job ...... how is that not a good thing?

Haha, revolution??? Maybe if some people realised how easy they have it doing b*gger all & getting money for it they might understand that being asked to put something back in to their community isn't much to ask


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> Haha, revolution??? Maybe if some people realised how easy they have it doing b*gger all & getting money for it they might understand that being asked to put something back in to their community isn't much to ask


I believe the point being made is that asking someone to work 30hrs a week for the grand total of £57 *IS* bang out of order!

Working one day - or 8.5 hrs - for £57 (which is roughly what 8.5 hrs on minimum wage adds up to) is prefectly reasonable.

.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

MoggyBaby said:


> I believe the point being made is that asking someone to work 30hrs a week for the grand total of £57 *IS* bang out of order!
> 
> Working one day - or 8.5 hrs - for £57 (which is roughly what 8.5 hrs on minimum wage adds up to) is prefectly reasonable.
> 
> .


I worked full time for an extra £10 a fortnight .... I didn't think I was being hard done by .... I just wanted a job, which I then got


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> I worked full time for an extra £10 a fortnight .... I didn't think I was being hard done by .... I just wanted a job, which I then got


3rd time you've told that story, so what? i can tell how i volunteer and its never led to a job... but a sample size of 1 is too small for either anecdote to be useful. besides were not talking about volunteering were talking about being forced to work full time for a pittance. it has nothing to do with volunteering.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

porps said:


> 3rd time you've told that story, so what? i can tell how i volunteer and its never led to a job... but a sample size of 1 is too small for either anecdote to be useful. besides were not talking about volunteering were talking about being forced to work full time for a pittance. it has nothing to do with volunteering.


Actually it was the first, the other posts regarded my involvement in the RiverCare scheme .... keep up!!

So, it demonstrates that these schemes aren't as useless as you seem to imply ... but then you probably only want to hear negative stories, am sure if only one of those were posted it would be worthwhile


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

porps said:


> what else would you call it...
> 
> theres a national minimum wage for a reason but now they want to force people into working a full time job for just a fraction of that. Are you so naive that you think they're doing this to help people into work? wake up. its cheap labour is all it is- they don't care about getting people into work all the care about is gettin them off benefits and the easiest way to do that is sanctions, not jobs.
> 
> ...


Totally agree with this, this Government just want to have the statistics say the unemployment is down, anyone *having * to work as a volunteer will not have their heart in it,because its forced, if there was a chance of a job and real money at the end of it i would think differently
I also think crime will increase
Not all young people are layabouts or lazy, i have seen ads in my local paper asking for jobs, but a lot of jobs are only part time, and if housing benefit and counil tax benefits are stopped, how can anyone live to pay bills rent and food on a few hours a week


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

How about the government using the few brain cells they have between them and getting them to learn a trade that will be useful in getting people into work and give people a sense of achievement , education for the unemployed is free anyway....and they wouldn't be creating glorified slaves...what is it about kicking a person when they're down that they find so chuffing entertaining...most people on benefits feel like crap at the best of times, they they see headlines like this and feel even worse


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Lexiedhb said:


> ....because the youth dont want these particular jobs?They dont aspire to clean graffitti, or road sweep, or litter pick. They do not have the "we'll do anything to keep a roof over our heads" ethic


I would do that job, as would many others I know, I am always looking for other work and if they get young kids to do this for free it makes my chances of getting an extra job even slimmer and others who would work these jobs who are currently unemployed are even less likely to find work


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I think Slave was quite a good analogy 
slave - definition of slave in English from the Oxford dictionary


----------



## DirtyGertie (Mar 12, 2011)

I haven't read all of the thread but will say that for the first time ever there are people in my family on benefits. One is my 19 year old grandson. We live in a small seaside town in Wales and jobs are few and far between. Jobs at the "big" retailers (Co-op and Factory Shop are the only big retailers we have) are only offering 12 hour contracts. Most of the jobs here are seasonal and many people are on benefits. There's no job snobbery here, people are just glad to have a job whatever it is.

There is one family who own about three businesses and every year most of their jobs go to eastern European workers, the same ones seem to come back each year. That's about 8 full time jobs that could go to local people (maybe more if they could be job-shared) but they're not given the opportunity. In a small community that really does stick in one's craw.

My grandson applied (unsuccessfully) for a Renault apprenticeship last year and for his age the wage would have been £2.73 per hour. I'm not sure how people can say that asking people on benefits to do some community work for their benefit is slave labour (£1.90 per hour if they do 30 hours work, £2.85 per hour if they do 20 hours work, for £57 benefit per week) when compared to the apprentice wage.

I think people should do something in return for their benefits, my grandson included because he's beginning to develop the mentality of a lot of claimants, i.e. I don't have to bother because they'll pay my rent and give me my JSA (or whatever benefit). Like every council, ours has had to make cuts to services. There are many things that could be done by people receiving benefits, it wouldn't be taking jobs away from people because there's nobody doing them now anyway, they're just getting left or being done at much longer intervals.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> Actually it was the first, the other posts regarded my involvement in the RiverCare scheme .... keep up!!
> 
> So, it demonstrates that these schemes aren't as useless as you seem to imply ... but then you probably only want to hear negative stories, am sure if only one of those were posted it would be worthwhile


im not implying that they are useless, im stating that the intention behind them has nothing to do with helping people find work. It's all about money, and taking as much as possible from those who already have the least.

I'm pleased that you got something out of it. But please dont assume that just because it was good for you it's the same for everyone.

I was pretty surprised to discover last year that they wont offer any assistance with travel costs to voluntary work. If they truely beleived that it was a stepping stone into paid employment and truely wanted people in paid employment they would offer assistance to people who manage to find some voluntary work for themselves. Instead they tell you that if it interferes with your job search they will sanction you. Instead they want to make voluntary work mandatory under threat of sanctions (not sure how mandatory volunteering isnt a contradiction in terms) so that they can get cheap labour and kick more people off benefits, to save money.

They dont care if you have a job, or can afford to live, they only care about the figures. They only care that the trickle of money from poor to rich keeps flowing into their pockets.

I totally agree with jaycee too.. crime will obviously increase when it's the only option they leave people.

I'm all for them finding jobs for people on benefits, but they should be subject to the same minimum wage as everywhere else.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> *But if you ( not you personally ), get people doing all of these jobs for jobseekers money, then the councils will have no reason to tackle the problem.*


But the councils won't be tackling "these things" - because they have no money to spend on "these things".

Surely, we are all talking about non-essential or extra services here?

Not things that HAVE to be done - but are desirable?

I can think of a number of small, one-off jobs that need doing around my local area that could be done on an ad hoc basis - but which if left to the normal workforce, will take months before they can be scheduled into the rota - but would be of benefit to the local community.

Not to replace employed staff.

These schemes should not be classed as volunteering - as they clearly are not that.

They should not affect the figures for those claiming JSA - because they will still be on JSA - just doing a few hours a week of being useful in order to qualify for it.

As for all the other references made by others on all the many points that have been raised - nobody has said it's a perfect solution. It's not ok that businesses and the rich avoid tax, it's not ok that councils have had their funding reduced, it's not ok that there aren't enough jobs to go round, it's not ok that hardworking taxpayers feel hard done by, it's not ok that some people think society owes them a living ....................

But it's better than sitting at home all day, thinking there is no future.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> They should not affect the figures for those claiming JSA - because they will still be on JSA - just doing a few hours a week of being useful in order to qualify for it.


It will adversely affect the figures of those claiming JSA. Instead of paying someone to do a job - ie getting them off JSA - they will still be on JSA and expected to do the work anyway.



Lurcherlad said:


> As for all the other references made by others on all the many points that have been raised - nobody has said it's a perfect solution. It's not ok that businesses and the rich avoid tax, it's not ok that councils have had their funding reduced, it's not ok that there aren't enough jobs to go round, it's not ok that hardworking taxpayers feel hard done by, it's not ok that some people think society owes them a living


You're right; it's not - but while ever people are happy to accept a "quick fix" instead of tackling the above problems then they are sactioning the government's policies - ie they are giving their blessing to all the above and allowing it to happen.

...................



Lurcherlad said:


> But it's better than sitting at home all day, thinking there is no future.


You mean like the people who used to be employed to do these jobs, but have been made redundant by the councils, will be doing/thinking?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Haven't read all this thread yet, but....

If this government had concentrated more on growth, and less on austerity, there would have been more jobs by now - real jobs; not jobs made up to get people off the unemployment figures.

Plus, very few parents would want to see their son or daughter leave school and go straight onto JSA and most will encourage their children either to find work, or to go into further and higher education.

But this government appears to think that isn't the case and that some families are into breeding generations of layabouts.
Yet families who are like this are a _very_ small minority, despite what this government would have us believe.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> I am not sure why people keep thinking that jobs will be lost, there are plenty of projects running that are purely voluntary already & always have been.
> 
> Same for litter picking, there are many schemes around already, it's not as if there isn't much rubbish around, everywhere seems to be covered in crap that people are too lazy to dispose of properly.
> 
> ...






Cleo38 said:


> Slavery? Hardly, they are already geting benefits so are receiving money
> 
> For some this may be an opportunity for getting back in to a routine of having a job, getting out of the house, being more active, gaining skills & meeting new people.
> 
> ...


I have two Sons, one graduated from uni a few years ago, the other is in his final year doing a masters degree, & like all their friends they want REAL jobs. Most youngsters do, making them work for £1.91 an hour is slave labour.

My eldest graduated from uni with a BA in macroeconomics, he was signing on for almost a year before he found a job. And no one tried harder than he did to find one. Even though hundreds had applied for the jobs he applied for, he did manage to get lots of interviews. He got to the second interview stage on quite a few occasions before rejection - it was totally demoralising, but he never gave up. All the interviews were in cities all over the place, he had to drive down sit lengthy exams - he studied hard for those exams. If he had had to do an enforced job he possibly wouldn't be where he is today, all his hard work through school & uni would have been for nothing. I'm being hypothetical, because we would never allow either of them be exploited in that way, but other youngsters might not have that support.

And the government has already introduced one form of slavery, its called - workfare.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> I have two Sons, one graduated from uni a few years ago, the other is in his final year doing a masters degree, & like all their friends they want REAL jobs. Most youngsters do, making them work for £1.91 an hour is slave labour.
> 
> My eldest graduate from uni with a BA in macroeconomics, he was signing on for almost a year before he found a job. And no one tried harder than he did to find one. Even though hundreds had applied for the jobs he applied for, he did manage to get lots of interviews. He got to the second interview stage on quite a few occasions before rejection - it was totally demoralising, but he never gave up. All the interviews were in cities all over the place, he had to drive down sit lengthy exams - he studied hard for those exams. If he had had to do an enforced job he possibly wouldn't be where he is today, all his hard work through school & uni would have been for nothing. I'm being hypothetical, because we would never allow either of them be exploited in that way, but other youngsters might not have that support.
> 
> And the government has already introduced one form of slavery, its called - workfare.


I understand how hard it is to get a decent job, I am not disputing that. I alos recognse that interviews for certain jobs are far mor rigerous tha they were years ago. I have just been through a process at my current work where we had to reapply for our jobs, it was very nerve wracking.

But ... I do not think it unreasonable that people in receipt of benefits (not just young people IMO) should have to give something back to their community, I think everyone should tbh those working as well but obviously those who aren't working will have more time

This doesn't have to take away from job, people volunteer all the time, certain sectors are desperate for help ... why can't those who have time contribute?

Is there any real evidence to suggest that people will be working in the private sector (as your second image suggests) & filling 'proper' jobs? If that is happening then of course I don't support that but I do think that people should be helping in other areas (not private sectors) to 'earn' their benefits


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> I understand how hard it is to get a decent job, I am not disputing that. I alos recognse that interviews for certain jobs are far mor rigerous tha they were years ago. I have just been through a process at my current work where we had to reapply for our jobs, it was very nerve wracking.
> 
> But ... I do not think it unreasonable that people in receipt of benefits (not just young people IMO) should have to give something back to their community, I think everyone should tbh those working as well but obviously those who aren't working will have more time
> 
> ...


Heres one example - DWP orders man to work without pay for company that let him go | Society | The Guardian

,


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Heres one example - DWP orders man to work without pay for company that let him go | Society | The Guardian
> 
> ,


That's not acceptable & that shoudn't happen ... but as I was told earlier for my story one example is 'too small for either anecdote to be useful' 

For every one story like this there could be one story such as mine where I was in a charity sector, volunteering where I wasn't 'taking' a paid job & wa actuatlly offered full time employment because of my unpaid work


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

I'd love to know where all these happy volunteers are. We have a charity shop to help fund our young peoples services, and we are desperate for volunteers!

We'd be happy with a commitment of 1 morning or afternoon per week - it all helps!

We have had a few placements from the job centre - and they have all been lovely and happy to help, and _we_ pay their travel expenses for them.

But you would think, if soooo many people are out of work and desperate for job, and it would do their CV the world of good to volunteer a couple of hours a week, we would have them queuing up - but we don't.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Maybe because they are told they can't volunteer...like my son was, like so many others are even though apparently they can and its a case of jpc staff having arse and elbow disease. 

My friend was in the work related group of ESA with MH problems, she wanted to get back to work but needed to ease in to it so asked about volunteering at a local charity shop, they said no and sent her on a rather intense training course instead, the inevitable happened, she ended up freaking out, totally overwhelmed, set her right back, she wasn't ready to try again for 18 months. If she had been in the support group she could have undertaken voluntary work...strange thing is the support group is for those that wont be in work for the foreseeable future or ever again, the work related group is for those that a move back into work is possible in the near future...surely those in the work related group should be the ones encouraged to try a few hours voluntarily, especially when they have MH problems, it has to be at their pace or its just going to get worse.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

MCWillow said:


> I'd love to know where all these happy volunteers are. We have a charity shop to help fund our young peoples services, and we are desperate for volunteers!
> 
> We'd be happy with a commitment of 1 morning or afternoon per week - it all helps!
> 
> ...


Completely agree!!

This is why I volunteered for work in a care home then in a charity shop .... not out of being a selfless person (although I did actually enjoy the work & still did a bit when I was in full time employment) but because I knew it would look good on my CV .... & it worked


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> That's not acceptable & that shoudn't happen ... but as I was told earlier for my story one example is 'too small for either anecdote to be useful'


You're right - it *is* unaceptable, but it *is* happening.

Lots of examples on this link - plus lots of examples of people on workfare doing jobs that should have been paid jobs. Boycott Workfare » People?s stories (follow all the links on this page for more examples)

And while ever people smile benignly and say that it's a good thing that people on JSA should be made to work, the government and its rich cronies are laughing all the way to the bank. Not only are they exploiting the unemployed, not only are they getting labour for far less than the minimum wage, _they have actually fooled people into believing it's a good thing_.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> You're right - it *is* unaceptable, but it *is* happening.
> 
> Lots of examples on this link - plus lots of examples of people on workfare doing jobs that should have been paid jobs. Boycott Workfare » People?s stories
> 
> And while ever people smile benignly and say that it's a good thing that people on JSA should be made to work, the government and its rich cronies are laughing all the way to the bank. Not only are they exploiting the unemployed, not only are they getting labour for far less than the minimum wage, _they have actually fooled people into believing it's a good thing_.


*And all the time this is happening they try and fool us by saying the unemployment figures are down. *


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I took a year out before university. Some of it I spent with Community Service Volunteers in a residential school for children with CP. As well as enjoying it-it will always look good on my CV and helped me get in to a very good university. It also meant I had the skills to be a home help for a couple of months to gain savings before going. 

I think volunteering is miles better than the current option. I do think that time should also be allocated to provide additional support for any that don't have basic qualifications.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *And all the time this is happening they try and fool us by saying the unemployment figures are down. *


Yep - because someone on JSA who is in a workfare placement is counted as being employed - even though they are paid nothing other than the JSA allowance.

"_⇑ People on workfare placements are counted as employed in government statistics
The Office of National Statistics confirmed this in response to a parliamentary question._"
Boycott Workfare » Facts


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Jobeth said:


> I took a year out before university. Some of it I spent with Community Service Volunteers in a residential school for children with CP. As well as enjoying it-it will always look good on my CV and helped me get in to a very good university. It also meant I had the skills to be a home help for a couple of months to gain savings before going.
> 
> I think volunteering is miles better than the current option. I do think that time should also be allocated to provide additional support for any that don't have basic qualifications.


*But if you are made to do it, it isn't voluntary.*


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Yep - because someone on JSA who is in a workfare placement is counted as being employed - even though they are paid nothing other than the JSA allowance.
> 
> "_⇑ People on workfare placements are counted as employed in government statistics
> The Office of National Statistics confirmed this in response to a parliamentary question._"
> Boycott Workfare » Facts


People on sanctions also arent counted as unemployed


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

Not to forget the people stuck on zero hour contracts


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> You're right - it *is* unaceptable, but it *is* happening.
> 
> Lots of examples on this link - plus lots of examples of people on workfare doing jobs that should have been paid jobs. Boycott Workfare » People?s stories (follow all the links on this page for more examples)
> 
> And while ever people smile benignly and say that it's a good thing that people on JSA should be made to work, the government and its rich cronies are laughing all the way to the bank. Not only are they exploiting the unemployed, not only are they getting labour for far less than the minimum wage, _they have actually fooled people into believing it's a good thing_.


I don't think 'they' have 'fooled' people ... I certainly am not 'fooled' by anyone but I do not believe that allowing people to sit around & do nothing is acceptable

Some of the stories in the link are terrible, but some not so. Karina worked in Heart Foundation charity shop 'from 9 or 9.30am to 4.30pm with a half hour break'. ..... why is that unusual? Same as I when I worked in a charity shop & the clothes were so 'dusty' .... really???? Not sure where the clothes in her shop came from  And she wants lunch provided? 

Whilst I do agree that people should have to work I don't believe private companies such as Tesco or Primark should be allowed to 'hire' people for free unless they are providing a specific training course with the aim of helping people .... which of course wouldn't be the case! But as has been pointed out, there are plenty of volunteers required in certain sectors & no one is filling these!

In my one specific experience (sorry Porps am bringing it up again! ), I did work at a few branches of Next in various depts purely for my work experience, it was a long time ago & I realise things have changed but they were great & gave me some really good experiences which helped massively.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Who is going to be overseeing these forced volunteers as they carry out their community service type work?

A few years back, I was a volunteer (a proper one, I wanted to be there  ) on a nursery committee. We desperately needed some decorating doing but didn't have the funds or enough volunteers to get it done ourselves. So someone suggested we approached the people who ran the community service scheme for help. They agreed and half a dozen youths showed up one Sunday with their single handler. We weren't allowed to oversee it ourselves.

I returned later at the agreed time to find the painting just about done but the handler was incredibly stressed. They all bogged off as soon as I arrived and I went to look over the place. I found both clocks had been broken by someone firing staples into them, the children's sandpit was full of staples and sharp bits of plastic and cups had been smashed. When we complained, we were told sorry but there wasn't much they could do about it as there was no proof it was their youths that had done it  Apparently the handler hadn't been watching them the whole time as one of the youths had nicked her car keys and she'd had to chase him around the housing estate to get them back.

I know this is a single anecdote but it's just one of the reasons why forcing people to volunteer to earn their benefits isn't the amazing feat of financial fairness and ingenuity some would have us believe.


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

Mulish said:


> Who is going to be overseeing these forced volunteers as they carry out their community service type work?
> 
> A few years back, I was a volunteer (a proper one, I wanted to be there  ) on a nursery committee. We desperately needed some decorating doing but didn't have the funds or enough volunteers to get it done ourselves. So someone suggested we approached the people who ran the community service scheme for help. They agreed and half a dozen youths showed up one Sunday with their single handler. We weren't allowed to oversee it ourselves.
> 
> ...


What a depressing story - and it just shows what an uphill battle any future government has when dealing with such bad attitudes. It sounds like these youngsters had no wish to help others and in the process help thenselves to hopefully a more positive future. Sad.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> I don't think 'they' have 'fooled' people ... I certainly am not 'fooled' by anyone but I do not believe that allowing people to sit around & do nothing is acceptable


But JSA is not given to people to "sit around and do nothing". You have to be actively looking for a job and keep proof of your applications, interviews etc. You have to attend job centres, work programs, and training sessions. If you don't your JSA is stopped. The very fact that you are saying people on JSA are "sitting around and doing nothing" shows that you have, in fact, been fooled by the government into believing that this is true, despite many people on here (including you  )giving examples from real life about folk they know who have moved heaven and earth to get off JSA and into a career.  There will always be some who try to abuse the system - but they are in the minority and we should not let the government trick us into classing all people on JSA by the attitude of a minority.



Cleo38 said:


> Whilst I do agree that people should have to work I don't believe private companies such as Tesco or Primark should be allowed to 'hire' people for free unless they are providing a specific training course with the aim of helping people .... which of course wouldn't be the case! But as has been pointed out, *there are plenty of volunteers required in certain sectors & no one is filling these*!


Which only goes to prove the point that these are not the placements given to people on JSA - instead, they ae sent to the likes of Tesco, Primark, Asda et al.

And that is what is wrong with all this. I began my first post in this thread by saying that at first glance asking people on JSA to do some voluntary work seemd like a good idea. It's only when you look into it further, and see just how this is being abused, that you realise it's never going to work.

IF people on JSA were sent to "volunteer" in accepted voluntary sectors that would be one thing. But that is not what is happening; and while ever people look at the situation with rose coloured glaasses and think the former will happen and not the latter, then the government are going to be able to exploit the unemployed in favour if their rich cronies. Young people on JSA will continue to be sent to work at the likes of Tesco, Primark and Asda for nothing more than their JSA and with no prospects of proper employment at the end of it, because the copanies will just take on the next batch of youngtsers on JSA.

So who will benefit from such a scheme? Not the voluntary sector if the youngsters are being sent to large chain stores. Not the youngsters, who will have done a 30 hr week for six months for their JSA with no job prospect at the end of it. (Don't forget, had they not been forced to do this, they might have been able to find a proper job with proper pay and no longer be claiming JSA). Not the taxpayer, who will be paying for the JSA and benefits not only for these youngsters, but also for the people made redundant by the stores taking on these youngsters.

The only winners are the private companies and the government.

The private companies win because they save money by using these youngsters on JSA instead of paying someone the minimum wage to do the job.

The government wins several times over:
a) they secure the votes of their friends who own these companies
b) they secure the votes of the ordinary people who thnk "Oh, making lazy layabouts on JSA do something for thier money is a good idea: nice one, Tories!" without going on to realise ramifications of it all
c) they succeed in making people think that all people on JSA are lazy layabouts who are getting money for nothing - ie they have created another "under class" for people to blame when government policy goes @rse over t"t
d) they introduce yet another scheme to get the working class disagreeing amongst themselves and, by doing so, divert their attention away from the more serious misdemeanours of this government, such as allowing tax avoidance by the rich.



Cleo38 said:


> In my one specific experience (sorry Porps am bringing it up again! ), I did work at a few branches of Next in various depts purely for my work experience, it was a long time ago & I realise things have changed but they were great & gave me some really good experiences which helped massively.


And just as you did, there will be many, many, many people on JSA already doing the same. That's far different from making someone "volunteer". That's not volunteering - that's conscription.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Laurac said:


> What a depressing story - and it just shows what an uphill battle any future government has when dealing with such bad attitudes. It sounds like these youngsters had no wish to help others and in the process help thenselves to hopefully a more positive future. Sad.


You have to wonder where the bad attitudes come from, though. I was accused of having one myself when I was younger, when really I was just frustrated beyond belief. My problem was an idiot supervisor and the system set up to reward her. As I was growing up I was continually told that "people like us" don't go to university, don't get the good jobs and there's nothing we can do about it. I didn't want that to be true so I worked hard but the companies I worked for just kept reinforcing it.

Makes me sympathise with anyone forced into any kind of system with arbitrary rules and no real sense of fairness. There will always be bad apples who are lazy and dishonest, they aren't limited to a particular social class or age group, though. They aren't always easily distinguished from the temporarily demotivated, either.

I think the best we can hope for in any future government is that they are a bit more precise with their tar and brush and a whole lot fairer in the application.


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

Mulish said:


> You have to wonder where the bad attitudes come from, though. I was accused of having one myself when I was younger, when really I was just frustrated beyond belief. My problem was an idiot supervisor and the system set up to reward her. As I was growing up I was continually told that "people like us" don't go to university, don't get the good jobs and there's nothing we can do about it. I didn't want that to be true so I worked hard but the companies I worked for just kept reinforcing it.
> 
> Makes me sympathise with anyone forced into any kind of system with arbitrary rules and no real sense of fairness. There will always be bad apples who are lazy and dishonest, they aren't limited to a particular social class or age group, though. They aren't always easily distinguished from the temporarily demotivated, either.
> 
> I think the best we can hope for in any future government is that they are a bit more precise with their tar and brush and a whole lot fairer in the application.


Can all bad attitudes be blamed on the system though - at what point do parents have to take responsibility for the way they bring their children up and the values they instil in them. 
What is the justification for the vandalism in the story above?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> But JSA is not given to people to "sit around and do nothing". Y*ou have to be actively looking for a job and keep proof of your applications, interviews etc. You have to attend job centres, work programs, and training sessions. If you don't your JSA is stopped.* The very fact that you are saying people on JSA are "sitting around and doing nothing" shows that you have, in fact, been fooled by the government into believing that this is true, despite many people on here (including you  )giving examples from real life about folk they know who have moved heaven and earth to get off JSA and into a career.  There will always be some who try to abuse the system - but they are in the minority and we should not let the government trick us into classing all people on JSA by the attitude of a minority.
> 
> Which only goes to prove the point that these are not the placements given to people on JSA - instead, they ae sent to the likes of Tesco, Primark, Asda et al.
> 
> ...


But I do know several people who do sit around doing nothing (I am not saying they represent all people on JSA but then neither do I think they are unique). The amount of 'proof' they have to give is something I could drum up in a couple of hours .... which it seems is exactly what they do. Am sure others put alot of effort in to finding a job, I know peopl on here who have posted of constantly looking then having to deal with rejection .... but then they are also the sort of people that would probably be the first to try & find ways of improving their CV's by doing voluntary work anyway

IMO it has nothing to do with which government is in power but expecting us, all of us, as a society to put more in to our communities. I do not agree with forced labour for private firms but maybe if people were already doing vonuteer work that they had found themsleves they wouldn't have the job centre on their case so much ... I really don't know, maybe they would.

We have a scheme at work where people offer help to local school, community centres, etc (I am not part of this), creating vegetable gardens, sensory gardens, clearing play areas, etc. They are constantly advertising for others in the local community to help & have ads up in the local job centre .... no one has volunteered


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Laurac said:


> Can all bad attitudes be blamed on the system though - at what point do parents have to take responsibility for the way they bring their children up and the values they instil in them.
> What is the justification for the vandalism in the story above?


No, not all bad attitudes are caused by outside forces, whether that be a particular system or parental influence. As I said there are always going to be bad apples, just that they aren't all limited to certain groups. Unlike the measures to tackle them, which always seem to focus on the same few types (generally the ones who have little in the way of money or power, funnily enough).

There was no justification for the vandalism in my story. My point was if you are going to start forcing people to 'volunteer' then you are going to have to make sure they are suitably supervised. Where are these supervisors coming from? Will they be paid or will that be a voluntary position, too? Or are unwilling 'volunteers' going to be foisted off onto overstretched group leaders of community projects?

Or are they in fact just going to carry on being used by large corporations in place of actual paid workers which will just feed into any feelings of resentment and frustration they may already have?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> That's not acceptable & that shoudn't happen ... but as I was told earlier for my story one example is 'too small for either anecdote to be useful'
> 
> For every one story like this there could be one story such as mine where I was in a charity sector, volunteering where I wasn't 'taking' a paid job & wa actuatlly offered full time employment because of my unpaid work


If corporations can get free labour why pay for it? All they care about is profit. Workfare is yet another tory scam to subsidise corporations at tax payers expense. Many people cant afford to work for nothing, they need money to survive. And the evaluation of workfare scheme found people are actually less likely to find a real job than those who weren't sanctioned. Failure of government workfare scheme revealed

_In most cases, dropping out turned out to be the better option. Overall those who failed to make it through the 13 weeks did much better than those who stayed. Of those who made it to the end, just 26% ended up in paid employment. This compares to 60% of those who dropped out midway through the scheme and around half of those who refused to take part at all.

The DWP's impact assessment is even more damning for workfare supporters _



Cleo38 said:


> Completely agree!!
> 
> This is why I volunteered for work in a care home then in a charity shop .... not out of being a selfless person (although I did actually enjoy the work & still did a bit when I was in full time employment) but because I knew it would look good on my CV .... & it worked


This young girl was working as a volunteer when she was sanctioned to work for nothing in poundland. She took the government to court & won when the judges deemed the back to work schemes ILLEGAL. This corrupt government simply changed the law to make them legal.

[youtube_browser]/fw_2Y97kekI[/youtube_browser]

This is well worth listening to. Its James O'Brian nailing IDS.

[youtube_browser]/eZ231M7fCNo[/youtube_browser]



Cleo38 said:


> I don't think 'they' have 'fooled' people ... I certainly am not 'fooled' by anyone but I do not believe that allowing people to sit around & do nothing is acceptable
> 
> Some of the stories in the link are terrible, but some not so. Karina worked in Heart Foundation charity shop 'from 9 or 9.30am to 4.30pm with a half hour break'. ..... why is that unusual? Same as I when I worked in a charity shop & the clothes were so 'dusty' .... really???? Not sure where the clothes in her shop came from  And she wants lunch provided?
> 
> ...


But giant corporations are signed up to the scheme & our taxes are going straight into those shareholders pockets. The welfare state including our NHS is being carved up and plundered, anyone of us may need to fall back on that safety net - and it wont be there.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

going back to what i was saying about them not giving a damn about you finding work or not... last week they told me at the jobcentre that i will be sanctioned if i apply for jobs which i dont have experience of. Even though i also apply for 100s of jobs for which i do have experience each week (basically every one i can find). But i have to record 35 hours of job search a week.

So when i've applied for everything relevant i can find and it's taken me an hour or 2, i start applying for other stuff on the off chance of success... and apparently thats a sanctionable offense... so instead this week i'll just have to fabricate most of my job search, i have to pretend that it takes me longer than it does, and whatever i do i better not apply for anything better than what i've already done in the past.

This is what people are up against. The whole purpose of the jobcentre these days is to kick people off benefits. they really should rename it cos it has f all to do with jobs.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

porps said:


> going back to what i was saying about them not giving a damn about you finding work or not... last week they told me at the jobcentre that i will be sanctioned if i apply for jobs which i dont have experience of. Even though i also apply for 100s of jobs for which i do have experience each week (basically every one i can find). But i have to record 35 hours of job search a week.
> 
> So when i've applied for everything relevant i can find and it's taken me an hour or 2, i start applying for other stuff on the off chance of success... and apparently thats a sanctionable offense... so instead this week i'll just have to fabricate most of my job search, i have to pretend that it takes me longer than it does, and whatever i do i better not apply for anything better than what i've already done in the past.
> 
> This is what people are up against. The whole purpose of the jobcentre these days is to kick people off benefits. they really should rename it cos it has f all to do with jobs.


Oh but you must be making it up, they can't _*really*_ be that bad.

Yeah, that was sarcasm. They are that bad and worse. There have been folk sanctioned for applying for too many jobs (because apparently this would mean there would be nothing to apply for the next week) Sanctions for not applying for jobs because they had successfully landed a job (you're paid in arrears so they basically take your last 2 weeks money off you) They really are an inhumane bunch of jobsworths in the main.


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Polski said:


> Oh but you must be making it up, they can't _*really*_ be that bad.
> 
> Yeah, that was sarcasm. They are that bad and worse. There have been folk sanctioned for applying for too many jobs (because apparently this would mean there would be nothing to apply for the next week) Sanctions for not applying for jobs because they had successfully landed a job (you're paid in arrears so they basically take your last 2 weeks money off you) They really are an inhumane bunch of jobsworths in the main.


When my hubby got made redundant just before our daughter was born he said the Job Centre visits were the most soul destroying part of the whole process.

You know when you try and call a company and it's an automated system and you are limited to certain options but your problem or query doesn't really fit? You hang on thinking, "if only I could talk to a real person and explain!" In his experience, the Job Centre was staffed entirely by people who were programmed to think just like an automated system. No explanations, no extenuating circumstances, no common sense. Just rules that no-one really understood but by god where they going to make you follow them!

So I suppose at least being unemployed is better than having to work in a Job Centre. Especially if you do actually want to help people. That must be horribly frustrating.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

porps said:


> going back to what i was saying about them not giving a damn about you finding work or not... last week they told me at the jobcentre that i will be sanctioned if i apply for jobs which i dont have experience of. Even though i also apply for 100s of jobs for which i do have experience each week (basically every one i can find). But i have to record 35 hours of job search a week.
> 
> So when i've applied for everything relevant i can find and it's taken me an hour or 2, i start applying for other stuff on the off chance of success... and apparently thats a sanctionable offense... so instead this week i'll just have to fabricate most of my job search, i have to pretend that it takes me longer than it does, and whatever i do i better not apply for anything better than what i've already done in the past.
> 
> This is what people are up against. The whole purpose of the jobcentre these days is to kick people off benefits. they really should rename it cos it has f all to do with jobs.


Be careful Porps, they are looking for any little reason to sanction people. Its obvious they want people to drop off the radar. Just look at this case of someone sanctioned for making a spelling mistake:cursing:

Northern Voices: Ashton jobseeker sanctioned for three-months for making a spelling mistake!

Just found this pic summing workfare up perfectly.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I was sent this, but i can't find an actual link.
*
" Section 4 :2 of the Human rights Act 1998:
'No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.'
And taken from the DWP website
'Entitlement to Jobseekers Allowance may be affected when someone wishes to undertake unpaid work for a non charitable organisation. If a volunteer is doing what someone would normally be paid for, this may be classed as unpaid work, not volunteering, and could affect their benefit. There are a number of reasons for this; firstly the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has a duty to those people receiving benefit to ensure they are not being treated as cheap, or free labour by employers. Secondly, DWP has a duty to taxpayers to ensure that it is not paying benefits to those who should be receiving payment for work they are undertaking.'


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

No one will be required to perform forced labour. Everyone will be perfectly entitled to refuse without fear of being killed, tortured or incarcerated.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

havoc said:


> No one will be required to perform forced labour. Everyone will be perfectly entitled to refuse without fear of being killed, tortured or incarcerated.


yeah, just starved...


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm expected to work if I want to eat. I'm also expected to contribute a high percentage of what I earn to the general good. Why should that idea of contributing what you can to society not hold good for everyone?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Be careful Porps, they are looking for any little reason to sanction people. Its obvious they want people to drop off the radar. Just look at this case of someone sanctioned for making a spelling mistake:cursing:
> 
> Northern Voices: Ashton jobseeker sanctioned for three-months for making a spelling mistake!


My first reaction was   

But then I realised that it was just another way for the Tories to stop paying JSA and thus massage the unemployment figures, and then I wasn't that surprised at all.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

havoc said:


> I'm expected to work if I want to eat. I'm also expected to contribute a high percentage of what I earn to the general good. Why should that idea of contributing what you can to society not hold good for everyone?


I haven't seen a single person saying those claiming JSA shouldn't do _anything_ in return for their benefits, not one.

Most are against forced slave labour though. 8-9 hours a week is acceptable, that equates to minimum wage. Don't allow companies that should pay to have workfare workers because that does take jobs away. So charities should really be the only ones to be taking on volunteers.

Work with the people, do not dictate where they have to go, thats not volunteering and no one is going to see the claimants best if they are only there under threat of sanction. Getting people to come up with their own placements would be far more beneficial to them and society (obviously some vetting would be needed to ensure the placement is genuine)

An extra allowance should also be given if costs are incurred, workwear, extra travel. £56 pw does not stretch to safety footwear, overalls or £6 a day travel. A certain large charities workfare folks were told to wear steel toe cap boots (moving furniture) but they weren't provided, no financial allowance was given. They were told that those turning up without would be sent away and as they then couldn't complete their workfare they may be sanctioned.


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Be careful Porps, they are looking for any little reason to sanction people. Its obvious they want people to drop off the radar. Just look at this case of someone sanctioned for making a spelling mistake:cursing:
> 
> Northern Voices: Ashton jobseeker sanctioned for three-months for making a spelling mistake!
> 
> Just found this pic summing workfare up perfectly.


This is my worry too Noush! My friends son, aged 23, has autism and only just been assessed and diagnosed. He cant even tell the time, and they gave him such a hard time when he kept turning up at the wrong time (sometimes three hours early). His advisor would tell him to come back in three hours and he would ask "how long is three hours"? They sanctioned him so many times, and it is clear to anyone that he has a disability.

There has to be some middle ground. And sanctioning for spelling - disgusting!


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Ang2 said:


> This is my worry too Noush! My friends son, aged 23, has autism and only just been assessed and diagnosed. He cant even tell the time, and they gave him such a hard time when he kept turning up at the wrong time (sometimes three hours early). His advisor would tell him to come back in three hours and he would ask "how long is three hours"? They sanctioned him so many times, and it is clear to anyone that he has a disability.
> 
> There has to be some middle ground. And sanctioning for spelling - disgusting!


Tell your friend to get their MP on board (hopefully not conservative) Someone with learning difficulties should not be sanctioned, I'd question whether someone that struggles that much should be on JSA anyway.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Interesting reading


> The bedroom tax, the overall benefit cap, the local housing allowance cap and the shared accommodation rate cap, the 4 policies that aimed to reduce the HB bill have in fact INCREASED the HB bill by some £230 million or so per year.


https://speye.wordpress.com/2015/02...fare-reform-costs-more-and-not-a-penny-saved/

.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> No one will be required to perform forced labour. Everyone will be perfectly entitled to refuse without fear of being killed, tortured or incarcerated.


What are they suppose to survive on?



havoc said:


> I'm expected to work if I want to eat. I'm also expected to contribute a high percentage of what I earn to the general good. Why should that idea of contributing what you can to society not hold good for everyone?


But by taking unpaid jobs they aren't contributing to society. They are taking the jobs that could be someones paid work. The welfare reforms are costing tax payers more & now instead of going to those who have the least our taxes are going to those who have the most. Do you really want your taxes going straight in to the pockets of corporate parasites?

This is a tragic list of some of the thousands of welfare-related deaths of UK's sick and disabled. Is this the kind of society you want?

*Conor Cribbin*, 25. The student suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and his medical card was stopped in the period leading up to his suicide. He had also learned just days prior that he had failed to secure a college grant. According to his father, Conor was in low spirits in the days beforehand. He added: "He couldn't get his medication for his ADHD."

*Mark Cotton,* 54. Lost both his legs due to a medical condition. Died in an apparent suicide fewer than 48 hours after being told an allowance to pay his carer was being cut from nine hours a week to only three.

*Terry McGarvey*, 48. Dangerously ill from polycytheamia, Terry asked for an ambulance to be called during his Work Capability Assessment. He knew that he wasn't well enough to attend his WCA but feared that his benefits would be stopped if he did not.
He died the following day.

*Elaine Lowe*, 53. Suffering from COPD and fearful of losing her benefits. In desperation, Elaine chose to commit suicide.

*Mark Wood*, 44. Found fit for work by Atos, against his Doctors advice and assertions that he had complex mental health problems. Starved to death after benefits stopped, weighing only 5st 8lb when he died.

*Paul Reekie*, 48, the Leith based Poet and Author. Suffered from severe depression. Committed suicide after DWP stopped his benefits due to an Atos 'fit for work' decision.

*Leanne Chambers*, 30. Suffered depression for many years which took a turn for the worst when she was called in for a WCA. Leanne committed suicide soon after.

*Karen Sherlock*, 44. Multiple health issues. Found fit for work by Atos and denied benefits. Fought a long battle to get placed into the support group of ESA. Karen died the following month of a heart attack.

*Carl Payne*, 42. Fears of losing his lifeline benefits due to welfare reform led this Father of two to take his own life.

*Tim Salter*, 53. Blind and suffering from Agoraphobia. Tim hanged himself after Atos found him fit for work and stopped his benefits.

*Edward Jacques*, 47 years old and suffering from HIV and Hepatitis C. Edward had a history of severe depression and self-harm. He took a fatal overdose after Atos found him fit for work and stopped his benefits.

*Linda Wootton*, 49 years old. A double heart and lung transplant patient. Died just nine days after the government found her fit for work, their refusal letter arriving as she lay desperately ill in her hospital bed.

*Steven Cawthra*, 55. His benefits stopped by the DWP and with rising debts, he saw suicide as the only way out of a desperate situation

*Elenore Tatton*, 39 years old. Died just weeks after the government found her fit for work.

*John Walker*, 57, saddled with debt because of the bedroom tax, John took his own life.

*Brian McArdle*, 57 years old. Suffered a fatal heart attack the day after his disability benefits were stopped.

*Stephen Hill*, 53. Died of a heart attack one month after being found fit for work, even though he was waiting for major heart surgery.

*Jacqueline Harris*, 53. A former Nurse who could hardly walk was found fit for work by Atos and her benefits withdrawn. in desperation, she took her own life.

*David Barr*, 28. Suffering from severe mental difficulties. Threw himself from a bridge after being found fit for work by Atos and failing his appeal.

*David Groves*, 56. Died of a heart attack the night before taking his work capability assessment. His widow claimed that it was the stress that killed him.

*Nicholas Peter Barker*, 51. Shot himself after being told his benefits were being stopped. He was unable to work after a brain haemorrhage left him paralysed down one side.

*Mark and Helen Mullins*, 48 and 59 years old. Forced to live on £57.50 a week and make 12 mile trips each week to get free vegetables to make soup. Mark and Helen both committed suicide.

*Richard Sanderson*, 44. Unable to find a job and with his housing benefit cut forcing him to move, but with nowhere to go. Richard committed suicide.

*Martin Rust*, 36 years old. A schizophrenic man who killed himself two months after the government found him fit to work.

*Craig Monk*, 43. A vulnerable gentleman and a partial amputee who slipped so far into poverty that he hanged himself.

*Colin Traynor*, 29, and suffering from epilepsy was stripped of his benefits. He appealed. Five weeks after his death his family found he had won his appeal.

*Elaine Christian*, 57 years old. Worried about her work capability assessment, she was subsequently found at Holderness drain, drowned and with ten self inflicted wrist wounds.

*Christelle and Kayjah Pardoe,* 32 years and 5 month old. Pregnant, her benefits stopped, Christelle, clutching her baby son jumped from a third floor balcony.

*Mark Scott*, 46. His DLA and housing benefit stopped and sinking into deep depression, Mark died six weeks later.

*Cecilia Burns*, 51. Found fit for work while undergoing treatment for breast cancer. She died just a few weeks after she won her appeal against the Atos decision.

*Chris Cann*, 57 years old. Found dead in his home just months after being told he had to undergo a medical assessment to prove he could not work.

*Peter Hodgson*, 49. Called to JCP to see if he was suitable for volunteer work. Peter had suffered a stroke, a brain haemorrhage and had a fused leg. His appointment letter arrived a few days after he took his own life.

*Paul Willcoxsin*, 33 years old. Suffered with mental health problems and worried about government cuts. Paul committed suicide by hanging himself.

*Stephanie Bottrill*, 53. After paying £80 a month for bedroom tax, Stephanie could not afford heating in the winter, and lived on tinned custard. In desperation, she chose to walk in front of a lorry.

*Larry Newman* suffered from a degenerative lung condition, his weight dropping from 10 to 7 stone. Atos awarded him zero points, he died just three months after submitting his appeal.

*Paul Turner*, 52 years old. After suffering a heart attack, he was ordered to find a job in February. In April Paul died from ischaemic heart disease.

*Christopher Charles Harkness*, 39. After finding out that the funding for his care home was being withdrawn, this man who suffered with mental health issues, took his own life.

*Sandra Louise Moon*, 57. Suffering from a degenerative back condition, depression and increasingly worried about losing her incapacity benefit. Sandra committed suicide by taking an overdose.

*Lee Robinson,* 39 years old. Took his own life after his housing benefit and council tax were taken away from him.
*David Coupe* , 57. A Cancer sufferer found fit for work by Atos in 2012. David lost his sight, then his hearing, then his mobility, and then his life.

*Michael McNicholas*, 34. Severely depressed and a recovering alcoholic. Michael committed suicide after being called in for a Work Capability Assessment by Atos.

*Victor Cuff*, 59 and suffering from severe depression. Victor hanged himself after the DWP stopped his benefits.

*Charles Barden*, 74. Charles committed suicide by hanging due to fears that the Bedroom Tax would leave him destitute and unable to cope.

*Ian Caress*, 43. Suffered multiple health issues and deteriorating eyesight. Ian was found fit for work by Atos, he died ten months later having lost so much weight that his family said that he resembled a concentration camp victim.

*Iain Hodge*, 30. Suffered from the life threatening illness, Hughes Syndrome. Found fit for work by Atos and benefits stopped, Iain took his own life.

*Wayne Grew*, 37. Severely depressed due to government cuts and the fear of losing his job, Wayne committed suicide by hanging.

*Kevin Bennett*, 40. Kevin a sufferer of schizophrenia and mental illness became so depressed after his JSA was stopped that he became a virtual recluse. Kevin was found dead in his flat several months later.

*David Elwyn Hughs Harries*, 48. A disabled man who could no longer cope after his parents died, could find no help from the government via benefits. David took an overdose as a way out of his solitude.

*Denis Jones*, 58. A disabled man crushed by the pressures of government cuts, in particular the Bedroom Tax, and unable to survive by himself. Denis was found dead in his flat.

*Shaun Pilkington*, 58. Unable to cope any more, Shaun shot himself dead after receiving a letter from the DWP informing him that his ESA was being stopped.

*Paul ?, *51. Died in a freezing cold flat after his ESA was stopped. Paul appealed the decision and won on the day that he lost his battle to live.
*Chris MaGuire*, 61. Deeply depressed and incapable of work, Chris was summonsed by Atos for a Work Capability Assessment and deemed fit for work. On appeal, a judge overturned the Atos decision and ordered them to leave him alone for at least a year, which they did not do. In desperation, Chris took his own life, unable to cope anymore.

*Peter Duut*, a Dutch national with terminal cancer living in the UK for many years found that he was not entitled to benefits unless he was active in the labour market. Peter died leaving his wife destitute, and unable to pay for his funeral.

*George Scollen*, age unknown. Took his own life after the government closed the Remploy factory he had worked in for 40 years.

*Julian Little*, 47. Wheelchair bound and suffering from kidney failure, Julian faced the harsh restrictions of the Bedroom Tax and the loss of his essential dialysis room. He died shortly after being ordered to downgrade.

*Miss DE*, Early 50's. Suffering from mental illness, this lady committed suicide less than a month after an Atos assessor gave her zero points and declared her fit for work.

*Robert Barlow*, 47. Suffering from a brain tumour, a heart defect and awaiting a transplant, Robert was deemed fit for work by Atos and his benefits were withdrawn. He died penniless less than two years later.

*Carl Joseph Foster-Brown*, 58. As a direct consequence of the wholly unjustifiable actions of the Job centre and DWP, this man took his own life.

*Martin Hadfield*, 20 years old. Disillusioned with the lack of jobs available in this country but too proud to claim benefits. Utterly demoralised, Martin took his own life by hanging himself.

*Annette Francis*, 30. A mum-of-one suffering from severe mental illness, found dead after her disability benefits were ceased.

*Ian Jordan*, 60. His benefits slashed after Atos and the DWP declared Ian, a sufferer of Barratt's Oesophagus, fit for work, caused him to run up massive debts in order to survive. Ian was found dead in his flat after taking an overdose.

*Janet McCall*, 53. Terminally ill with pulmonary fibrosis and declared 'Fit for Work' by Atos and the DWP, this lady died 5 months after her benefits were stopped.

*Stuart Holley*, 23. A man driven to suicide by the DWP's incessant pressure and threat of sanctions for not being able to find a job.

*Graham Shawcross*, 63. A sufferer of the debilitating disease, Addison's. Died of a heart attack due to the stress of an Atos 'Fit for Work' decision.

*David Clapson*, 59 years old. A diabetic ex-soldier deprived of the means to survive by the DWP and the governments harsh welfare reforms, David died all but penniless, starving and alone, his electricity run out.

*Chris Smith*, 59. Declared 'Fit for Work' by Atos as he lay dying of Cancer in his hospital bed.

*Nathan Hartwell*, 36, died of heart failure after an 18-month battle with the *Department for Works and Pensions.

*Michael Connolly*, 60. A Father of One, increasingly worried about finances after his benefits were cut. Committed suicide by taking 13 times the fatal dose of prescription medicine on the 30th October - His Birthday.

*Jan Mandeville*, 52, A lady suffering from Fibromyalgia, driven to the point of mental and physical breakdown by this governments welfare reforms. Jan was found dead in her home after battling the DWP for ESA and DLA.

*Trevor Drakard*, 50 years old. A shy and reserved, severe epileptic who suffered regular and terrifying fits almost his entire life, hounded to suicide by the DWP who threatened to stop his life-line benefits.
Death of a severely disabled Dorset resident, unnamed, who took her own life while battling the bedroom tax



Ang2 said:


> This is my worry too Noush! My friends son, aged 23, has autism and only just been assessed and diagnosed. He cant even tell the time, and they gave him such a hard time when he kept turning up at the wrong time (sometimes three hours early). His advisor would tell him to come back in three hours and he would ask "how long is three hours"? They sanctioned him so many times, and it is clear to anyone that he has a disability.
> 
> There has to be some middle ground. And sanctioning for spelling - disgusting!


That is awful, but its exactly what is happening to vulnerable people all across the country. Have a look at this Ang - http://www.welfareweekly.com/100-si...-mental-health-problems-sanctioned-every-day/


----------



## sarybeagle (Nov 4, 2009)

Noushka that list is truely heartbreaking to read :'(

That really doesn't dill me with confidence for my Health Assessment I am to have to see if I can claim PIP.

I can't claim ESA as DH works more than 24 hours and CAB helped me fill in an online calculator which came back as my only entitlement it child benefit, £20 a week. Yet I am disabled by this illness and declared unfit for work by gp and consultant and now jobless through it. Its an incredibly daunting task dealing with the DWP.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I was sent this, but i can't find an actual link.
> *
> " Section 4 :2 of the Human rights Act 1998:
> 'No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.'
> ...


Human Rights Act 1998

This is the first time I've ever really read much of this drivel, as it hasn't been part of my life 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...070/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-dwpf15.pdf

Seems these Work Coaches have an awful lot of power over a persons life.
Does anyone know what kind of training they have to have to become one?

A little worrying just how much power all these individuals have and where they are recruited from


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> What are they suppose to survive on?
> 
> But by taking unpaid jobs they aren't contributing to society. They are taking the jobs that could be someones paid work. The welfare reforms are costing tax payers more & now instead of going to those who have the least our taxes are going to those who have the most. Do you really want your taxes going straight in to the pockets of corporate parasites?
> 
> ...


*Absolutely heartbreaking. And to think these poor souls were on the list that people class as lazy layabouts.
Also these people didn't make the front pages of our news papers or were mentioned on our news.*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

After hated Atos quits, will Maximus make work assessments less arduous? | Society | The Guardian 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ents-for-the-department-for-work-and-pensions


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rona said:


> After hated Atos quits, will Maximus make work assessments less arduous? | Society | The Guardian
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ents-for-the-department-for-work-and-pensions


*So more money is going to be wasted. Going from the what the link says, many of the people that worked for ATOS are going to be working for Maximus.*


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

sarybeagle said:


> That really doesn't dill me with confidence for my Health Assessment I am to have to see if I can claim PIP.
> 
> I can't claim ESA as DH works more than 24 hours


Not strictly true. Have you worked? If so you've made contributions you are entitled to claim, this claim would last for 12 months (contribution based ESA) after the 12 months you could be moved to income related but this would depend on what group you were placed in. If placed in support group you can continue to claim regardless of your partners hours but your partners pay would be taken into consideration. Its complicated and not all CAB workers are created equal, especially since the cuts to their funding. Search "turn2us" or i'll find a link when I'm on pc (pita trying to post links when on phone) and good luck with your pip assessment. Do you have capita, atos or maximus for it?


----------



## sarybeagle (Nov 4, 2009)

Polski said:


> Not strictly true. Have you worked? If so you've made contributions you are entitled to claim, this claim would last for 12 months (contribution based ESA) after the 12 months you could be moved to income related but this would depend on what group you were placed in. If placed in support group you can continue to claim regardless of your partners hours but your partners pay would be taken into consideration. Its complicated and not all CAB workers are created equal, especially since the cuts to their funding. Search "turn2us" or i'll find a link when I'm on pc (pita trying to post links when on phone) and good luck with your pip assessment. Do you have capita, atos or maximus for it?


Ive worked the last 14 years. I went thru the turn2us link with the CAB and all we qualify for is child benefit. I have lot over £8000 in earnings since sept but DH got a payrise in sept which has cancelled my loss out. They allow for £5000 more in a tax year.

The ESA I can get is the contributions one. The other says not if partner works more than 24 hours.

I only started my pip claim last week so I'm waiting on the how I'm affected forma to fill in then she said I'd attend a health assessment after that. She said it would be in around 12 weeks time.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

sarybeagle said:


> The ESA I can get is the contributions one. The other says not if partner works more than 24 hours.


So try. You have nothing to lose by trying. If you succeed you will get it for 12 months, if you succeed and are placed in the support group of contribution based esa there are no restrictions on how long you can have it (apart from passing the assessment!) Seriously, you have nothing to lose. See quoted piece below


TURN2US said:


> ESA if your partner works
> 
> Will I get ESA if my partner works 36 hours a week? I am now in the WRAG and not sure if I should be getting ESA? Ken
> Alban HawksworthAlban Hawksworth: You may be receiving contributory ESA which is based on your national insurance contributions.
> ...





sarybeagle said:


> I only started my pip claim last week so I'm waiting on the how I'm affected forma to fill in then she said I'd attend a health assessment after that. She said it would be in around 12 weeks time.


The wait before assessment is actually more like 8-10 months at present (for most), if you're successful you get it backdated to the date of your claim.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

My oldest best mate was injured in a pit accident when he was about 19, he was in a wheelchair for the rest of his life, he passed away about 8 years ago, he was never still while awake, he was a cobbler, he grew plants in poly tunnels, he cast concrete fence posts, he made and sold hanging baskets, i ask myself he was so active how come so many able bodied folk sit on their a55e5 all day, smoking, drinking and eating McDonalds?....


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Colliebarmy said:


> how come so many able bodied folk sit on their a55e5 all day, smoking, drinking and eating McDonalds?....


Because anything is possible in your imagination....


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> how come so many able bodied folk sit on their a55e5 all day, smoking, drinking and eating McDonalds?....


Seriously; because they can.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> What are they suppose to survive on?
> 
> But by taking unpaid jobs they aren't contributing to society. They are taking the jobs that could be someones paid work. The welfare reforms are costing tax payers more & now instead of going to those who have the least our taxes are going to those who have the most. Do you really want your taxes going straight in to the pockets of corporate parasites?
> 
> ...


How can anyone read this list and not be moved? How can anyone read this list and still pretend to themselves that all people on benefits are lazy layabouts? How can anyone read this list and still say that they will vote for a political party that has deliberately done this to people? How can anyone still think they will vote Tory? :nonod:


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

*And how many soldiers and civilians are dead because of Blairs policies? THEY ALL STINK!*


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> How can anyone read this list and not be moved? How can anyone read this list and still pretend to themselves that all people on benefits are lazy layabouts? How can anyone read this list and still say that they will vote for a political party that has deliberately done this to people? How can anyone still think they will vote Tory? :nonod:


so none of that ever happened under any other government, is that what your saying?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Polski said:


> Because anything is possible in your imagination....


it doesnt wear blinkers though does it


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

The thing is, like it or not, not everyone is as mentally resilient as anyone else.

Some people can overcome anything an thrive, some people struggle with the basics.... it's all brain chemistry at the end of the day. 

We need to shake off this old fashioned idea that capability is a moral choice.... some people need more help than others. 

UK is a wealthy country, nobody needs to go without IMHO.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Colliebarmy said:


> it doesnt wear blinkers though does it


You sure about that because it sounds like a rather blinkered view on benefit claimants to me.

The vast majority of people on benefits do not sit around smoking and eating macdonalds, the vast majority on JSA want to work, the vast majority on ESA wish they didn't have to be. What you see in the press are, half the time, made up stories, actors have been used on several occasions, they stupidly forget to remove their linkedin or actors guild profile.

The genuine feckless idiots milking the system are few and far between but the red top rags run those stories repeatedly and its what people remember more. I've known a couple playing the system and you know they will never get caught because they know how to play it but they are in the tiniest minority.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Polski said:


> You sure about that because it sounds like a rather blinkered view on benefit claimants to me.
> 
> The vast majority of people on benefits do not sit around smoking and eating macdonalds, the vast majority on JSA want to work, the vast majority on ESA wish they didn't have to be. What you see in the press are, half the time, made up stories, actors have been used on several occasions, they stupidly forget to remove their linkedin or actors guild profile.
> 
> The genuine feckless idiots milking the system are few and far between but the red top rags run those stories repeatedly and its what people remember more. I've known a couple playing the system and you know they will never get caught because they know how to play it but they are in the tiniest minority.


Unfortunately some of us have actually known more of the latter 

That's even with 2 sisters that briefly claimed due to redundancies and inlaws that are disabled

Not all opinions come from the press!


----------



## sarybeagle (Nov 4, 2009)

rona said:


> Unfortunately some of us have actually known more of the latter
> 
> That's even with 2 sisters that briefly claimed due to redundancies and inlaws that are disabled
> 
> Not all opinions come from the press!


Indeed this is true. Ive cared for drug and alcohol dependants who embellish their abilities, or lack of in order to claim higher rates of DLA.

I've known people to claim for a DLA mobility car (which they pay for BTW) and then give it may to family members as they don't need or want it. Not exactly devious as such but not entirely truthful either.

I've known people to claim they live alone or with a lodger when in fact they are a couple. I'm sure many of us have had similar at one point.

Yet when it comes to being genuinely unwell and disabled as a part of that, it is like jumping through rings of fire to get help. 
I gave up being a stay at home mum when my son was 2 and have worked full time ever since, some weeks up to and over 70hours. 
Now I need a little help back, it seems like climbing Everest! 
Mentally ive gone through ALOT in the last 17 years but this is the first thing to finally push me over the edge. I can actually look at that list and understand how they felt that desperation of no way out. (With a step brother who committed suicide I never ever understood suicide or how someone can feel that is the only option.)
Especially those who've paid in and then find themselves needing help.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

sarybeagle said:


> Indeed this is true. Ive cared for drug and alcohol dependants who embellish their abilities, or lack of in order to claim higher rates of DLA.
> 
> I've known people to claim for a DLA mobility car (which they pay for BTW) and then give it may to family members as they don't need or want it. Not exactly devious as such but not entirely truthful either.
> 
> ...


I know that frustration from when I was homeless. Luckily I had some very good friends to help until I was back on my feet because help wasn't forthcoming elsewhere, even though I'd worked all my adult life.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

sarybeagle said:


> Noushka that list is truely heartbreaking to read :'(
> 
> That really doesn't dill me with confidence for my Health Assessment I am to have to see if I can claim PIP.
> 
> I can't claim ESA as DH works more than 24 hours and CAB helped me fill in an online calculator which came back as my only entitlement it child benefit, £20 a week. Yet I am disabled by this illness and declared unfit for work by gp and consultant and now jobless through it. Its an incredibly daunting task dealing with the DWP.





JANICE199 said:


> *Absolutely heartbreaking. And to think these poor souls were on the list that people class as lazy layabouts.
> Also these people didn't make the front pages of our news papers or were mentioned on our news.*





Spellweaver said:


> How can anyone read this list and not be moved? How can anyone read this list and still pretend to themselves that all people on benefits are lazy layabouts? How can anyone read this list and still say that they will vote for a political party that has deliberately done this to people? How can anyone still think they will vote Tory? :nonod:


When I first read through that list I was choked up. Its hard to believe a government could be so inhumane. But this is one of the principles of neoliberalism, remove the safety net for the poor by shrinking the welfare state, while giving tax breaks & subsidies to the wealthiest.

I really hope you get the help you need SB, our welfare state is suppose to be there for people like you. ((hugs)))

In April the Tories will abolish the Independent Living Fund. Please watch this truly heartbreaking video.

[youtube_browser]/7hJxgzCU7Ig[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> so none of that ever happened under any other government, is that what your saying?


And how did you infer that from my post? ut: I have bemoaned the fact repeatedly on here that we no longer have a socialist party in this country.

And whilst I would not even try to argue that other parties are out for anything other than themsleves, the facts clearly show that the Tories are the worst of a bad bunch.

Who introduced the policies that caused all the deaths? The Tories. Who employed the _private_ firm who implemented the policies that caused all the deaths? The Tories.

Who could ever vote Tory in the next election? Only someone who doesn't care about anyone (or any animal for that matter, but that's a whole other thread)



Colliebarmy said:


> it doesnt wear blinkers though does it


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh deary deary me - that is sooooooooooo funny coming from you. Thank you! It's a good way to start a Sunday with such a huge belly laugh!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> *Unfortunately some of us have actually known more of the latter
> *
> That's even with 2 sisters that briefly claimed due to redundancies and inlaws that are disabled
> 
> Not all opinions come from the press!


How could you possibly know this?

Unless you have a crystal ball, it is impossible for you to tell the financial welfare of people you pass when you are out. You have probably passed thousands of people who are on benefits and who are hard-wroking people. Just because you know a few who abuse the system does NOT mean that you don't know (without realising it) many, many more who don't.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> When I first read through that list I was choked up. Its hard to believe a government could be so inhumane. But this is one of the principles of neoliberalism, remove the safety net for the poor by shrinking the welfare state, while giving tax breaks & subsidies to the wealthiest.
> 
> I really hope you get the help you need SB, our welfare state is suppose to be there for people like you. ((hugs)))
> 
> ...


*I have just watched the video noushka and i, once again would question David Camerons mental health state. 
How can he see people with the same illness as his son, struggle in life, and yet he still wants to go ahead with this cruel idea? 
It makes me feel sick to the stomach that he is so damn heartless.*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *I have just watched the video noushka and i, once again would question David Camerons mental health state.
> How can he see people with the same illness as his son, struggle in life, and yet he still wants to go ahead with this cruel idea?
> It makes me feel sick to the stomach that he is so damn heartless.*


I can only echo Jan's sentiments


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> i ask myself he was so active how come so many able bodied folk sit on their a55e5 all day, smoking, drinking and eating McDonalds?....






poohdog said:


> *And how many soldiers and civilians are dead because of Blairs policies? THEY ALL STINK!*


There is no denying Blair is totally & utterly morally bankrupt, and its very telling that Thatcher said he was her greatest achievement. Cameron & most of the tories voted in favour of going to war with Iraq as well - while there was a revolt in the labour cabinet over the policy - not all labour mps are unprincipled.

No modern day government has caused misery at home on such an epic scale as this one has, and I lived through the miners strike. My dad & my hubby (then boyfriend), his dad, family members & friends were on strike for a year without pay. As was most of my community. But this government is the cruellest most toxic by far. (And the Green Party doesn't stink either ! lol)



Colliebarmy said:


> it doesnt wear blinkers though does it


Hilarious coming from you



rona said:


> Unfortunately some of us have actually known more of the latter
> 
> That's even with 2 sisters that briefly claimed due to redundancies and inlaws that are disabled
> 
> Not all opinions come from the press!


But people like that are the minority Rona & while ever we keep focusing on this minority the government will keep on chipping away at our welfare state until it is gone for EVERYBODY. Is that really what you want??

People are dying Rona, 90,000 kids are homeless, I think its a million people now relying on food banks just to survive, while the wealthiest have never had it so good.

How did we let this happen? Have we become blind or just uncaring



,


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Independent Living Fund ILF Â» DPAC


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Independent Living Fund ILF Â» DPAC


That is disgusting & little wonder they are hemorrhaging votes to the Greens (who would definitely reinstate the ILF!). Labour are 'tory light' as Caroline Lucas calls them. Its time Labour got back to their core values of a fair & just society & give people a clear alternative to the worst government in modern history.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rona said:


> Independent Living Fund ILF Â» DPAC


*I found this rona, it states the Ed Miliband will save IFL.*

https://storify.com/CllrPaul4Cowick/26-01-15-saveilf


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


>


Very nice and emotive, but do you have any evidence for that? Did anyone actually say it's possible to live entirely off JSA? I work full time for barely above minimum wage, am entitled to no state assistance whatsoever and can't afford any of those things. Yet we have generations of families who've never worked, know that having a kid as young as possible will get them on the fast track to a nice new council house and somehow do afford most of those things. Considering the crippling debt Labour left us in we need to do something to cut the welfare bill


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *I was sent this, but i can't find an actual link.
> *
> " Section 4 :2 of the Human rights Act 1998:
> 'No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.'
> ...


Cameron has pledged to scrap the Human Rights Act if he gets another term Cameronâs pledge to scrap Human Rights Act angers civil rights groups | Politics | The Guardian

I wonder why


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I found this rona, it states the Ed Miliband will save IFL.*
> 
> https://storify.com/CllrPaul4Cowick/26-01-15-saveilf


Bit close to an election now though aren't we?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rona said:


> Bit close to an election now though aren't we?


*To be fair rona, as long as they change their minds, does it matter when? I would be over the moon if Cameron had the balls to do the same.*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *To be fair rona, as long as they change their minds, does it matter when? I would be over the moon if Cameron had the balls to do the same.*


I just don't believe a word they say, they are virtually all a load of self serving pricks who play with other peoples lives


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rona said:


> I just don't believe a word they say, they are virtually all a load of self serving pricks who play with other peoples lives


*Oh i agree with you on that rona. That's why i have never voted.......... as yet.*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

negative creep said:


> Very nice and emotive, but do you have any evidence for that? *Did anyone actually say it's possible to live entirely off JSA?* I work full time for barely above minimum wage, am entitled to no state assistance whatsoever and can't afford any of those things. *Yet we have generations of families who've never worked, know that having a kid as young as possible will get them on the fast track to a nice new council house and somehow do afford most of those things.*


Think you've answered your own question there!



negative creep said:


> Considering the crippling debt Labour left us in we need to do something to cut the welfare bill


Do we really need to make the least well off in the country foot the bill for the whole of the country? No, of course we don't - that's just pandering to Tory propaganda. There are several other measures we could take to bring down the defecit.

We could take back the tax relief given to the richest people and ask the richest people to actually pay some more tax for their country.

We could close down the tax avoidance loopholes so that the large conglomorates pay their tax.

With the money from the above we could start a program of building houses. Besides the obvious benefit of more housing, that would generate work not only for builders, but for those in allied trades (eg suppliers of white goods). More goods used means more goods needed. More goods needed means more production needed. More production needed means more people employed. More people employed means more spending on all gooods. More spending on all goods means more production. More production means more people employed. More people employed means more spending. More spending means more productoni needed ....

As you can see, instead of the rich getting richer, the money revives the whole country - even the rich conglomrates!

And all done without making the most vulnerable people - ie the poorest - pay for it.


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Think you've answered your own question there!


Not really, because the claim was the Tories think people can live entirely off £65 a week JSA. It's the raft of other benefits that allow people to live off the state with no need to find a job. We had a temp with us not too long ago who already had 2 kids by 2 different women at 18 and spent most of the time complaining what a joke it was that the council wouldn't give him a bigger house. He was only there because his JSA was in danger of being stopped and soon managed to get himself sacked as he said he'd be able to claim it again and be better off.



Spellweaver said:


> Do we really need to make the least well off in the country foot the bill for the whole of the country? No, of course we don't - that's just pandering to Tory propaganda. There are several other measures we could take to bring down the defecit.
> 
> We could take back the tax relief given to the richest people and ask the richest people to actually pay some more tax for their country.
> 
> ...


France tried the 75% tax rate on the rich and they all promptly left the country. The government knows very well that if they come down on big companies too hard they'll leave as well which will hurt our economy. Saying we could build new houses is all well and good, but who is going to be able to afford to live in them? Certainly not those stuck on low income jobs, so it would end up as social housing or renting.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with tax avoidance or that more couldn't be done, but the "it's all the fault of the bankers and big companies" is no different than saying it's all the fault of poor people - it's scapegoating and cheap political points scoring which ignores the fact the problems come from all areas of society


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Independent Living Fund ILF Â» DPAC


It's not real. It's pretend.

Just like the TV progam about UKIP's first 100 days last week 'Ukip: the First 100 Days': Channel 4 docudrama attracts more than 700 Ofcom complaints - UK Politics - UK - The Independent


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

negative creep said:


> Not really, because the claim was the Tories think people can live entirely off £65 a week JSA. It's the raft of other benefits that allow people to live off the state with no need to find a job. We had a temp with us not too long ago who already had 2 kids by 2 different women at 18 and spent most of the time complaining what a joke it was that the council wouldn't give him a bigger house. He was only there because his JSA was in danger of being stopped and soon managed to get himself sacked as he said he'd be able to claim it again and be better off.
> 
> France tried the 75% tax rate on the rich and they all promptly left the country. The government knows very well that if they come down on big companies too hard they'll leave as well which will hurt our economy. Saying we could build new houses is all well and good, but who is going to be able to afford to live in them? Certainly not those stuck on low income jobs, so it would end up as social housing or renting.
> 
> I'm not saying there isn't a problem with tax avoidance or that more couldn't be done, but the "it's all the fault of the bankers and big companies" is no different than saying it's all the fault of poor people - it's scapegoating and cheap political points scoring which ignores the fact the problems come from all areas of society


*But would it be such a bad thing if the big companies left?
I was listening to this being debated on the radio the other day. And more than 1 person said, if the big companies did leave it would give all of the small people a chance. Fair point, don't you think?*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

negative creep said:


> Not really, because the claim was the Tories think people can live entirely off £65 a week JSA. It's the raft of other benefits that allow people to live off the state with no need to find a job. We had a temp with us not too long ago who already had 2 kids by 2 different women at 18 and spent most of the time complaining what a joke it was that the council wouldn't give him a bigger house. He was only there because his JSA was in danger of being stopped and soon managed to get himself sacked as he said he'd be able to claim it again and be better off.


And yet this supposed "raft of benefits" that this *one* person obviously convinced you he had, did not seem to be there for the *10,600* people menitoned by Noush:



noushka05 said:


> People are dying Rona, 90,000 kids are homeless, I think its a million people now relying on food banks just to survive, while the wealthiest have never had it so good.
> 
> How did we let this happen? Have we become blind or just uncaring
> 
> ...





negative creep said:


> France tried the 75% tax rate on the rich and they all promptly left the country. The government knows very well that if they come down on big companies too hard they'll leave as well which will hurt our economy.


Will it really, or is that just more Tory propaganda? Where will they go to? Other countries have a higher rate of tax than we do. And what if they do leave? Why won't we be better off getting rid of huge corporations who have all the benefits of trading in the country without paying their taxes? What about all the smaller businesses that could flourish if it were not for these cronies of the tories being looked upon so favourably?

Saying that raising taxes for the rich will have people and companies leaving in droves is as big a myth as saying that the only way to get rid of the deficit is to cut the welfare bill.



negative creep said:


> Saying we could build new houses is all well and good, but who is going to be able to afford to live in them? Certainly not those stuck on low income jobs, so it would end up as social housing or renting.


But I'm not just saying we could build houses. I gave an example of how it would raise our manufacturing base, how that in turn would lead to more employment, and how that in turn would increase the manufacturing base and lead to more employement .. it's an upwards spiral towards prosperity. And of course, the people buying the new houses will be people who will now be able to be employed on living wages rather than trying to exist on jSA.



negative creep said:


> I'm not saying there isn't a problem with tax avoidance or that more couldn't be done, but the "it's all the fault of the bankers and big companies" is no different than saying it's all the fault of poor people - it's scapegoating and cheap political points scoring which ignores the fact the problems come from all areas of society


I'm not saying that it's all the fault of the bankers and big companies. I'm saying it's the fault of a government who panders to the rich, the bankers and the big copanies at the expense of the poorest in the nation. I'm saying that *cutting the welfare bill is not the only way of getting out of the deficit.* I'm saying that to expect the very poorest in the nation to foot the bill for the deficit and not to expect the richest in the country to do their share is unrealistic at best and downright disgusting at worst.

That's not scapegoating - that's looking at the problem realistically to find a workable solution, rather than meekly accepting the propaganda and being brainwashed into thinking we have no choice other than to continue to penalise the poorest and most vulnerable people of our country..


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *But would it be such a bad thing if the big companies left?
> I was listening to this being debated on the radio the other day. And more than 1 person said, if the big companies did leave it would give all of the small people a chance. Fair point, don't you think?*


It would be a bad thing for everyone employed by those companies! Is today's society one where small businesses can flourish? Could they compete on a technological and price level with companies such as Apple or Google?

I did an experiment a while back to see if I was entitled to anything (just above minimum wage, live by myself in a rented house, no additional income) and found I was entitled to nothing, even Working Tax Credits. So I then tried it as being unemployed, and what I'd be entitled to worked out about £50 a week less than I'm currently on once you take away the cost of commuting. It's no wonder people don't bother.

Regarding this 10,600 deaths statistic, Clearly it's far too high, but I've been reading the government documents and it states they do not keep data on people who died after being declared fit for work. It's confusingly written, but it's people who've come off ESA, not necessarily those who've had their benefits stopped.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/223050/incap_decd_recips_0712.pdf

No one should ever be made work if they aren't physically or mentally capable of doing so, and they should receive all the support they need from the state to have a good standard of living. Clearly the ATOS system was a disaster and made many wrong decisions. But there are also plenty of people quite capable of working that exaggerate their problems to avoid doing so, thus giving the legitimately disabled a bad name. In my office alone we have one woman with a false leg, one who can't walk unaided, one who is completely deaf and one with some form of dyslexia. They all work hard and fully deserve the additional benefits they receive for their conditions. There are however plenty of people who claim they can't work for far less


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

negative creep said:


> Regarding this 10,600 deaths statistic, Clearly it's far too high, but I've been reading the government documents and it states they do not keep data on people who died after being declared fit for work. It's confusingly written, but it's people who've come off ESA, not necessarily those who've had their benefits stopped.


Is there a difference betewen coming of ESA and having your benefits stopped? Would a disabled person _voluntarily_ come off ESA if they were so ill that they then died?



negative creep said:


> No one should ever be made work if they aren't physically or mentally capable of doing so, and they should receive all the support they need from the state to have a good standard of living.


They shouldn't be made to work and they should be supported. But the thinig is, many of them are not. And they keep being ignored by people who prefer to say how things_ should_ be rather than tell it how it _really is_



negative creep said:


> But there are also plenty of people quite capable of working that exaggerate their problems to avoid doing so, thus giving the legitimately disabled a bad name. In my office alone we have one woman with a false leg, one who can't walk unaided, one who is completely deaf and one with some form of dyslexia. They all work hard and fully deserve the additional benefits they receive for their conditions. There are however plenty of people who claim they can't work for far less


And there we go. Despite your being able to name three disabled people in your office alone who "deserve" their additional benefits, you are quite assured that *plenty* of other disabled people are milking the system - these 10,600 who "voluntarily" came off ESA and then died, one presumes?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

> *negative creep;1064072451* Very nice and emotive, but do you have any evidence for that? Did anyone actually say it's possible to live entirely off JSA? I work full time for barely above minimum wage, am entitled to no state assistance whatsoever and can't afford any of those things. Yet we have generations of families who've never worked, know that having a kid as young as possible will get them on the fast track to a nice new council house and somehow do afford most of those things. Considering the crippling debt Labour left us in we need to do something to cut the welfare bill


Here's some evidence for you.

_ Conclusion

The research was unable to uncover evidence of a culture of worklessness among families. The key conclusion, therefore, is that politicians and policy-makers need to abandon theories - and policies flowing from them - that see worklessness as primarily the outcome of a culture of worklessness, held in families and passed down the generations. If these cultures cannot be found in the extreme cases studied here, they are unlikely to explain more general patterns of worklessness in the 
_

Are 'cultures of worklessness' passed down the generations? | Joseph Rowntree Foundation

And did labour really leave us with 'crippling debt'? could our imposed austerity be based on a lie? 

Uploaded in 2010. This is the moment that the corporate mainstream media held back from being widely publicised, as George Osborne is nailed over the truth about the UK economy, forced to admit that the UK is least in debt, as the coalition consistently blames the last government for a non-existent deficit.

[youtube_browser]/AQYfPhtWpy8[/youtube_browser]

UK's National debt clock is truly terrifying The United Kingdom National Debt Clock 2015 Counter >> nationaldebtclock.co.uk

Even right wing Spectator says Cameron is telling porkies.

From David Cameron tells porkies about Britain's national debt Â» Spectator Blogs

And legend Dennis Skinner nails the PM on the national debt.

[youtube_browser]/watch?v=EIcWjWnx-SY[/youtube_browser]


----------



## CANOLOGY (Feb 10, 2015)

if the community work isnt what people have jobs for, whats the problem?
they should get paid a bit more though


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> I just don't believe a word they say, they are virtually all a load of self serving pricks who play with other peoples lives


and yet I notice you only 'like' the posts defending the tories


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

CANOLOGY said:


> if the community work isnt what people have jobs for, whats the problem?
> they should get paid a bit more though


Well the fact that they're not getting paid more is the problem.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

negative creep said:


> It would be a bad thing for everyone employed by those companies! Is today's society one where small businesses can flourish? Could they compete on a technological and price level with companies such as Apple or Google?
> 
> How can small businesses compete when they have to pay their fair share of tax & giant corporations don't?
> 
> ...


The welfare 'reforms' are a disaster full stop! Excellent article in this weeks Guardian on the shambles The Guardian view on welfare reform: In Dire Straits | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

*Benefits claimants are subjected to an 'amateurish, secret penal system which is more severe than the mainstream judicial system', writes Dr David Webster of the University of Glasgow - See more at: Benefit sanctions: Britain's secret penal system | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies *

Benefit sanctions: Britain's secret penal system | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

There have been numerous requests for the government to have an Independent review into the welfare deaths - don't you find it appalling & rather suspicious that they wont?

Debbie Abrahams v Esther McVile
[youtube_browser]/SbcIfD60gP0[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

rona said:


> Unfortunately some of us have actually known more of the latter
> 
> That's even with 2 sisters that briefly claimed due to redundancies and inlaws that are disabled
> 
> Not all opinions come from the press!


I'm not denying they exist but for every six fiddling there are a thousand NOT fiddling (its at 0.6) ...that is, as i stated, a tiny percentage. And all these cuts and clamp downs are because of ******s abusing the system but they will rarely get caught because they know how to do it. You know someone fiddling report them, turning a blind eye just makes it harder for genuine claimants. I would rather a higher percentage fiddle rate than one person in need going without.

Next time they want to order a clampdown on fiddles they should look in the mirror or at the person sitting next to them at 'work'


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *But would it be such a bad thing if the big companies left?
> I was listening to this being debated on the radio the other day. And more than 1 person said, if the big companies did leave it would give all of the small people a chance. Fair point, don't you think?*


oh my days........so you want the biggest employers to close down in the UK?

smart thinking

not

:mad2:


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

The top uk *private company* employers are probably NOT who you thought they were


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> oh my days........so you want the biggest employers to close down in the UK?
> 
> smart thinking
> 
> ...


The biggest employer in the UK is the NHS - and just remind me, who is it who wants to close down the NHS and privatise it? Ah yes, the Tories! So on one hand you argue that we can't possibly let companies who employ large numbers of people leave the UK, and on the other hand you argue that it's fine to get rid of the largest employer of people.

Sensible? Not!

As for private companies - this is a list of the top 100 employers. How many of these do you think will never leave/we can't do without/cannot be replaced by smaller local firms?

Top 100 UK Employers


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Top 100 UK Employers


Ooh! Look who is at number 2


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Here's some evidence for you.
> 
> _ Conclusion
> 
> ...


Nothing in your first link says anything about anyone in Government saying it's possible to live a decent life entirely off JSA, which the picture you posted claims. If anything the debt timebomb link just proves my point as to how screwed we really are. So if Labour get into power they're still going to have to find a way to reduce it, which will mean public spending cuts and stealth taxes - even their own manifesto states they will "balance the books". All that ever changes is the colour of their ties


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Dont forget the mess and austerity we live in now is due to Labours time in office, dont let them back in again


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Colliebarmy said:


> Dont forget the mess and austerity we live in now is due to Labours time in office, dont let them back in again


LOL!!!

https://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/the-myth-of-the-inherited-mess-52/



Bank of England Governor said:


> there was a shared intellectual responsibility across the political parties and financial institutions for failing to foresee the problems


Labour not responsible for crash, says former Bank of England governor | Business | The Guardian

Stop believing everything you see in the gutter press


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Erm, so we believe a guy that made his own website on wordpress instead?

I could just as easily make a website on wordpress disputing every single comment made on the link you posted.

It wouldnt make me correct, but its a weblink, so why not?

if ya gonna post links in support of _any_ party, at least make them a link worth clicking on.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Polski said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> https://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/the-myth-of-the-inherited-mess-52/
> 
> ...


Good links :thumbsup:

Negative Creep, did you see that the last paragraph of graph 1 in the first link mirrored what I was saying earlier - ie that stimulating growth, rather than cutting welfare payments, would be the best way out of the deficit? This is what it says:

_But heres another thing  without being in the same kind of sudden meltdown, the misguided austerity policies of the coalition government have kept the debt growth-line steep! Thats because those policies are shrinking the national income far further and faster than spending could or should ever be cut. The way out of the current problems is to stimulate growth  and thats not compatible with austerity budget-slashing_


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

MCWillow said:


> Erm, so we believe a guy that made his own website on wordpress instead?
> 
> I could just as easily make a website on wordpress disputing every single comment made on the link you posted.
> 
> ...


No, if you bother to read...you will see some graphs, those graphs have their sources cited... unlike some, I don't believe _*anything*_ I read, I check things out and in this case I think the source of the stats is pretty reliable.

And the other link was an interview with the former governor of the Bank of England, although to be fair i'm not sure i'd believe what most banks had to say usually


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

If anyone went looking on the net, they could find stats and graphs to agree with they are trying to say.

I am not saying I disagree with you, or saying I agree with you - I am saying anyone can make a website, and find the graphics or quotes they need to make it seem like what they are saying is right.

And I did bother to read - it doesnt change the fact that anyone with a little bit of internet knowledge knows how to make a website, and how to make the 'facts and figures' suit what they want them to say.


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

MCWillow said:


> If anyone went looking on the net, they could find stats and graphs to agree with they are trying to say.
> 
> I am not saying I disagree with you, or saying I agree with you - I am saying anyone can make a website, and find the graphics or quotes they need to make it seem like what they are saying is right.
> 
> And I did bother to read - it doesnt change the fact that anyone with a little bit of internet knowledge knows how to make a website, and how to make the 'facts and figures' suit what they want them to say.


Well you could say that about just about everything couldn't you... But the sources cited are about as trustworthy as you're going to get.

What the former BofE governor said was true though, anyone with any modicum of sense could see that the growth couldn't carry on, that it was going to crash, the banks were at fault, the politicians should have stepped in well before, but ultimately the banks knew what they were doing...WHY has no one ever been bought to task. Why have there been no charges. Why have the poorest in society had to face all the consequences while the bankers get bonuses. That is what the people need to be asking instead of laying blame on benefit claimants. The 0.6% of fraudsters did not bring this country to its knees, neither did labour or the conservatives...but the conservatives sure have let those responsible get away with it.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

OK thats fine.

I will stick to matters I can actually do something about, closer to home.

I dont actually care who gets their info from where - unless its directly from the horses mouth, it just chinese whipsers.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> oh my days........so you want the biggest employers to close down in the UK?
> 
> smart thinking
> 
> ...


Yes. Corporations that don't pay their fair share of taxes are not only a drain on the economy, they take money out of the economy - plus have an unfair advantage on competition that has to pay taxes.



negative creep said:


> Nothing in your first link says anything about anyone in Government saying it's possible to live a decent life entirely off JSA, which the picture you posted claims. If anything the debt timebomb link just proves my point as to how screwed we really are. So if Labour get into power they're still going to have to find a way to reduce it, which will mean public spending cuts and stealth taxes - even their own manifesto states they will "balance the books". All that ever changes is the colour of their ties


That meme was suppose to be a joke, its not meant to be taken literally - its sending up the constant right wing demonization of people on benefits & the tories crap management of the economy. I thought people would realise that.:/

That link was countering your claim that generations of families had never worked. Its more tory propaganda to ensure their dismantling of our welfare state appears justifiable to voters.

Well of course labour will have to find a way reduce it again - if they have any sense they will sort out the REAL parasites destroying this country - the tax evaders & avoiders & the banksters.

The Green Party isn't the same. Labour might not be much cop anymore but lets face they couldn't be any worse or as cruel as the current government.

/

.
.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> Dont forget the mess and austerity we live in now is due to Labours time in office, dont let them back in again


You really are brainwashed.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


>


So despite all the cuts in benefits the deficit has *increased by 434.9 billion* under the Tories?

What a surprise - not.

So much for the "We need to cut the welfare bill in order to get rid of the deficit" propaganda.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> So despite all the cuts in benefits the deficit has *increased by 434.9 billion* under the Tories?
> 
> What a surprise - not.
> 
> So much for the "We need to cut the welfare bill in order to get rid of the deficit" propaganda.


*I would love to know where all the money has gone.*


----------



## CANOLOGY (Feb 10, 2015)

the deficit has gone down, the debt has gone up

Also, the government is not running an austerity programme.
It is cuts, but not austerity 

Labour and tories both call it austerity for opposite political reasons
Austerity is what is run in Greece
Cameron opposes the austerity programme the EU imposed upon Greece as he thinks it is preventing growth

I'm not giving my opinion, I learnt these facts from a documentary 

I learnt this from a documentary


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

CANOLOGY said:


> the deficit has gone down, the debt has gone up
> 
> Also, the government is not running an austerity programme.
> It is cuts, but not austerity
> ...


Oh well if it was on TV it must be true then


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> So despite all the cuts in benefits the deficit has *increased by 434.9 billion* under the Tories?


No it hasn't. Obviously the debt has increased and will do so until we run a surplus. Deficit and Debt are not synonyms.


----------



## CANOLOGY (Feb 10, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh well if it was on TV it must be true then


Likewise just because it was on TV doesn't mean it wasn't true
I have read it and heard this couple times over time
It's just about-face pointing out some facts
It's true labour and tories both use the term austerity, even though it's incorrect
Greece is austerity, uk is cuts
Also it is factual that deficit and debt mean different things and deficit has gone down in the UK under coalition cuts programme, whilst debt has gone up

Interestingly, America implements the opposite programme of borrowing and investment spending. This is called Keynesianism
And the deficit has gone down in America and the debt up

And despite Cameron and Obama taking opposite approaches, they both urge the EU to ease up on Greek deficit programme as neither leader operates an austerity programme as they agree it suppresses growth, and America and uk have the same debt increase\deficit reduction results even though one cuts spending and the other increased spending


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Polski said:


> What the former BofE governor said was true though, anyone with any modicum of sense could see that the growth couldn't carry on, that it was going to crash, the banks were at fault, the politicians should have stepped in well before, but ultimately the banks knew what they were doing...


Nobody could seriously suggest that last Labour government caused the crash; that would be just idiotic. There's a strong case to be made though that the Tory government have been the best option for digging us out.

I think you left a guilty party out of the blame equation; the millions of people who took on mortgage debt knowing that they couldn't ever pay it back and many not caring either. Ultimately most of them knew what they were doing too...


----------



## CANOLOGY (Feb 10, 2015)

The world crashed due to the credit crunch caused by bad practice as a result of countries over the years' removing checks and balances, such as the firewall between investment and street banking, and making everyone so interdependent

The crash then wrecked each country according to prevailing conditions and policies in that country
For example, America had over borrowed under George Bush for military spending and Iraq
Blair borrowed too much to invest in NHS etc to reverse Thatcher cuts
Ireland borrowed massively to for a massive construction boom, as did Dubai
Iceland let all its banks offer too high interest rates far in excess of its GDP
GREECE had years of tax avoidance

So on so forth. All these countries did this things based upon the continuing functioning economic system which allows for economic growth
This even allowed for normal cycles of boom and bust
No one anticipated the entire system crashing via all the banks running out of money
So obviously that was the cause, but if all these countries didn't run these policies they wouldn't have been hit as bad

Prior to the crash, the only country that didn't have debt was Denmark
They got debt after the global crash, but that was all, so didn't add to their own pre-existing debt
They ran a sensible system of a mixture of easy hiring and firing and higher taxes coupled with a strong welfare state. So there was barely poverty and they had the most wealth distribution in the west. As the social attitude across the board is civic. They had good growth and many successful exporting industries 
Australia also didn't suffer much either


----------



## Polski (Mar 16, 2014)

Satori said:


> Nobody could seriously suggest that last Labour government caused the crash; that would be just idiotic. There's a strong case to be made though that the Tory government have been the best option for digging us out.
> 
> I think you left a guilty party out of the blame equation; the millions of people who took on mortgage debt knowing that they couldn't ever pay it back and many not caring either. Ultimately most of them knew what they were doing too...


A certain person is always blaming labour for the problems the coalition "inherited"

Irresponsible lending or irresponsible borrowing...banks surely must take most of the blame. It is their job to ensure that the people they are lending to can afford to pay it back before lending money that is not theirs.... irresponsible lending is why the financial conduct authority made wonga write off £220m worth of loans. Were the people who took out these wonga loans in the wrong...probably, but the ultimate burden is put on the lender.

Having never had a loan or credit of any kind I have no idea how hard it is to obtain one but surely stringent checks on finances should be made. I do however know that overdrafts were given willy nilly, I argued the toss with Halifax over a free £1000 overdraft that I was given, I said I didn't want it, they refused to remove it, when I threatened to close my account (credit scares the crap out of me!) they reduced the overdraft limit to £300...this was my child benefit account, thats all that ever went in that account (and was promptly drawn out) so the bank was irresponsible in giving one so large to me. I'm pretty savvy but not everyone is...free overdraft might make someone less savvy think they won't be charged for going into it or people might be tempted to use it in an "emergency" and then find themselves in trouble...that IS on the banks.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Satori said:


> Nobody could seriously suggest that last Labour government caused the crash; that would be just idiotic. There's a strong case to be made though that the Tory government have been the best option for digging us out.


I am sixty next month and through the years I have lived through several different governments, each with their own policies all desgined to do the same thing. And the thing is, despite each successive government saying that their way was the only way, ALL the different ways worked. The only difference between them was which sector of the comminity was made to tighten its belt for the betterment of the rest of society.

So yes, a good case can be made for the Tories' method working. But whether or not it's the *best* option is subjective, because *that* idepends upon your financial status and moral conscience.

If you are wealthy; if you are part of the old boys network; if you are fortunate enough not to have been amongst those who were made redundant by the policies; if you are not unemployed; if you have no moral qualms that the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country are being adversely affected by the policies to the extent that thousands are dying whilst the rich get richer, then you probably *will *think their method was the best option.

However, if you are poor; if you are old; if you are ill; if you are disabled; if you have been made redundant; if you are unemployed; if your wages have been forzen, if you have lost your home; or if your moral conscience will not let you stand by whilst the most vulnerable people in the country are being adversely affected by the policies to the extent that thousands are dying whilst the rich get richer, then you will probably think their method was the worst option.

The Tories' way is merely *one* way. An equally strong case can - and has - been made for other options that would work equally as well.



Polski said:


> Irresponsible lending or irresponsible borrowing...banks surely must take most of the blame. It is their job to ensure that the people they are lending to can afford to pay it back before lending money that is not theirs.... irresponsible lending is why the financial conduct authority made wonga write off £220m worth of loans. Were the people who took out these wonga loans in the wrong...probably, but the ultimate burden is put on the lender.
> 
> Having never had a loan or credit of any kind I have no idea how hard it is to obtain one but surely stringent checks on finances should be made. I do however know that overdrafts were given willy nilly, I argued the toss with Halifax over a free £1000 overdraft that I was given, I said I didn't want it, they refused to remove it, when I threatened to close my account (credit scares the crap out of me!) they reduced the overdraft limit to £300...this was my child benefit account, thats all that ever went in that account (and was promptly drawn out) so the bank was irresponsible in giving one so large to me. I'm pretty savvy but not everyone is...free overdraft might make someone less savvy think they won't be charged for going into it or people might be tempted to use it in an "emergency" and then find themselves in trouble...that IS on the banks.


Yes, it's an easy let out for the conscience to blame the people themsleves rather than blame the banks.

Whilst I am a great advocator of personal responsibility, we do live in a time when borrowing and living on credit is the norm. I remember a time when it was not that way at all.

I remember when credit was tightly controlled, when loans and credit cards weren't handed out willy-nilly, when a borrower's credentials were checked, when the whole loan wasn't given (eg for a loan to buy a car you had to provide a third of the money as a deposit, and 100% mortgages were unheard of).

Now, however, adverts abound everywhere, coercing people to use credit - the ads for credit cards such as the "priceless" ones and the "just say yes" ones. Yes, people have to take personal responsibility for their own finances, but ads are designed by experts to sell products to the public, and the loan ads are no different.

If the banks and credit companies went back to tightly controlling credit and loans, instead of advertising living on credit as an acceptable lifestyle, then so many people would not be persuaded to borrow beyond their means.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Satori said:


> Nobody could seriously suggest that last Labour government caused the crash; that would be just idiotic. There's a strong case to be made though that the Tory government have been the best option for digging us out.
> 
> I think you left a guilty party out of the blame equation; the millions of people who took on mortgage debt knowing that they couldn't ever pay it back and many not caring either. Ultimately most of them knew what they were doing too...


*If my memory serves me well, it was when Maggie Thatcher encouraged us all to buy our own homes and start small businesses the trouble started. And why, because once the people did this, her government hiked up the interest rates to an all time high. The government were to blame, not the people.*


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *If my memory serves me well, it was when Maggie Thatcher encouraged us all to buy our own homes and start small businesses the trouble started. And why, because once the people did this, her government hiked up the interest rates to an all time high. The government were to blame, not the people.*


And council houses were sold off at ridiculously low prices - hence most people thinking they could afford them...until interest rates went through the roof.
You then got ex council tenants having their mortgaged homes re-possessed and ex council homes being bought up cheap by private landlords to rent at much higher rates than under social housing.

Her idea of 'a nation of homeowners' turned people out of their communities, put up rents on ex council stock, and was the start of a national housing crisis.

And now we have 'social cleansing' - people being offered housing far away from their communities, their families and their social life-lines.

So overall, not the best way to encourage people to 'better themselves', but a way to build communities you can then assign the 'scrounger' label.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

silvi said:


> And council houses were sold off at ridiculously low prices - hence most people thinking they could afford them...until interest rates went through the roof.
> You then got ex council tenants having their mortgaged homes re-possessed and ex council homes being bought up cheap by private landlords to rent at much higher rates than under social housing.
> 
> Her idea of 'a nation of homeowners' turned people out of their communities, put up rents on ex council stock, and was the start of a national housing crisis.
> ...


*We purchased our council house, but with our eyes wide open. The interest rates went through the roof.
It was a very sad time for a lot of people unfortunately. And i do worry the same thing will happen again.*


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *We purchased our council house, but with our eyes wide open. The interest rates went through the roof.
> It was a very sad time for a lot of people unfortunately. And i do worry the same thing will happen again.*


Our neighbours purchased their council house and immediately spent a fortune doing it up so it wouldn't look like a council house. They thought they had done really well and were so proud of themselves.
And then the interest rates rocketed and they really struggled.

They didn't lose their house though (just - I remember them hiding from the bailiffs though), but I know quite a few people who did. 

The council estate I used to live on probably has more private houses than council-owned now. But I would say that at least half of those are rented by private landlords at pretty high rates.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

yawn @ the tory vs labour crap. theyre both the same, and they most likely both answer to the same masters. Neither of them give a crap about any of us. The only good government is no goverment


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *If my memory serves me well, it was when Maggie Thatcher encouraged us all to buy our own homes and start small businesses the trouble started. And why, because once the people did this, her government hiked up the interest rates to an all time high. The government were to blame, not the people.*


Not governments fault. There were plenty of fixed rate mortgages around at the time. If people don't want to protect themselves or live within their means, you can't blame someone else.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Not governments fault. There were plenty of fixed rate mortgages around at the time. If people don't want to protect themselves or live within their means, you can't blame someone else.


I beg to differ. People were actively encouraged to buy instead of rent, and furthermore they were encouraged to buy endowment mortgages rather than fixed-rate mortgages because the repayments were so low - it was the brave new Thatcher World where any Joe Bloggs could afford to buy a house. It's no coincidence that many of those endowment mortgages were were mis-sold and people have had to be reimbursed.

When people bought into the brave new Thatcher World and bought those mortgages, they could *never* have predicted that the interest rate would soar to soar to *over 17%. * It's never been anywhere near that either before or after - and that 17% was directly due to Thatcher's policies on reducing inflation.

So it was entirely the government's fault that people lost their homes and reposessions soared.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I beg to differ. People were actively encouraged to buy instead of rent, and furthermore they were encouraged to buy endowment mortgages rather than fixed-rate mortgages because the repayments were so low - it was the brave new Thatcher World where any Joe Bloggs could afford to buy a house. It's no coincidence that many of those endowment mortgages were were mis-sold and people have had to be reimbursed.
> 
> When people bought into the brave new Thatcher World and bought those mortgages, they could *never* have predicted that the interest rate would soar to soar to *over 17%. * It's never been anywhere near that either before or after - and that 17% was directly due to Thatcher's policies on reducing inflation.
> 
> So it was entirely the government's fault that people lost their homes and reposessions soared.


What about Thatchers tenants right to buy with 30% or more off the value, was that wrong too?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

rona said:


> Not governments fault. There were plenty of fixed rate mortgages around at the time. If people don't want to protect themselves or live within their means, you can't blame someone else.


some can and always will.....no names, no pack drill


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spose it's the governments fault that people get into debt on cards, by gambling, or buying drugs too :laugh:


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

rona said:


> Spose it's the governments fault that people get into debt on cards, by gambling, or buying drugs too :laugh:


not THE government, just THIS government, according to some....

under Labour everything was rosy

Blair didnt invade Iraq, Brown didnt sell the gold off cheap, or start the recession by subbing the banks, it was all an illusion


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> not THE government, just THIS government, according to some....
> 
> under Labour everything was rosy
> 
> Blair didnt invade Iraq, Brown didnt sell the gold off cheap, or start the recession by subbing the banks, it was all an illusion


What, you mean those poor war criminals? 

Full-steam ahead for a whitewash of Tony Blair's Iraq lies as Chilcot surrenders - Stop the War Coalition


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

/facepalm

If your only arguement FOR the tories is to bash labour, or vice versa, doesnt that prove that they are both indefensible?

We need to take the power back off these heartless idiots. But no, lets just fight amongst ourselves instead, while they strip ever more of it from us. 

F the system, F the government, F the bankers, F the politicians. break the system down


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

porps said:


> /facepalm
> 
> If your only arguement FOR the tories is to bash labour, or vice versa, doesnt that prove that they are both indefensible?
> 
> ...


Totally agree with you, just redressing the balance of the indefensible


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> What about Thatchers tenants right to buy with 30% or more off the value, was that wrong too?


Yes of course it was - it caused a massive council housing shortage that still hasn't been made up today ut:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

porps said:


> /facepalm
> 
> If your only arguement FOR the tories is to bash labour, or vice versa, doesnt that prove that they are both indefensible?
> 
> ...


Yeah, but a certain couple of posters on here think that every answer to "What is happening is wrong" is to say, "well, under Labour blah de blah de blah". As you so rightly say, that only goes to show that both are indefensible.

I've said until I'm sick of saying it - we no longer have a socialist party in this country - a sad fact but true.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Spose it's the governments fault that people get into debt on cards, by gambling, or buying drugs too :laugh:


You and old barmy collie might not be able to tell the difference between the above and the government urging people to buy houses and then deliberately introducibg policies to raise the interest rate to unprecedented levels, but thank goodness not everyone is so blind and uncaring.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> You and old barmy collie might not be able to tell the difference between the above and the government *urging* people to buy houses and then deliberately introducing policies to raise the interest rate to unprecedented levels, but thank goodness not everyone is so blind and uncaring.


Nobody was FORCED to buy houses were they?

or did i miss the "Tories march folk into estate agents to buy houses" headlines?

and if they spent beyond thier means well......tough


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

BTW, high inflation was partly fuelled by high pay demands......der.....


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> Nobody was FORCED to buy houses were they?
> 
> or did i miss the "Tories march folk into estate agents to buy houses" headlines?
> 
> and if they spent beyond thier means well......tough


Maybe we need that Nanny state after all :laugh:


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

rona said:


> Maybe we need that Nanny state after all :laugh:


Millions wanted to become homeowners, and more wanted to buy shares, and many did, not under Labour though....they wont help the working class become middle class


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> Millions wanted to become homeowners, and more wanted to buy shares, and many did, not under Labour though....they wont help the working class become middle class


That's part of the trouble. People thinking they are somehow better because they own more................ 

Class....PAH!!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rona said:


> Not governments fault. There were plenty of fixed rate mortgages around at the time. If people don't want to protect themselves or live within their means, you can't blame someone else.





Colliebarmy said:


> What about Thatchers tenants right to buy with 30% or more off the value, was that wrong too?





rona said:


> Spose it's the governments fault that people get into debt on cards, by gambling, or buying drugs too :laugh:





Colliebarmy said:


> not THE government, just THIS government, according to some....
> 
> under Labour everything was rosy
> 
> Blair didnt invade Iraq, Brown didnt sell the gold off cheap, or start the recession by subbing the banks, it was all an illusion


*LMFAO Ignorance is bliss as these posts show. The government sure did their job well by blinding some. But thankfully not all of us.
My morgage was the only debt i had, i don't believe in having what you can't pay outright for.
As for Blaire, lol, i wonder why he still walks a free man. Lets face it, under the tories you can no longer speak your mind without being accused of being a terriorist.(sp):laugh:
Bring back old labour, perhaps we will see some changes,,,,,,,,For the better.*


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> *Nobody was FORCED to buy houses were they?*
> 
> or did i miss the "Tories march folk into estate agents to buy houses" headlines?
> 
> and if they spent beyond thier means well......tough


Weren't they? With existing council houses being sold and no more being allowed to be built, the only choice was buy your home or don't have a home:

"_Fundamental to her idea was that government, which had built between a third and a half of all homes for the previous three decades, should step back. Councils could no longer build council housing. The market would provide. Houses would be built by housebuilders, to use the standard term for the companies that buy land, win planning permission and then (sometimes) put homes on it._"
Margaret Thatcher began Britain's obsession with property. It's time to end it | Society | The Guardian


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *
> Bring back old labour, perhaps we will see some changes,,,,,,,,For the better.*


But you're not going to GET 'Old Labour' back, are you? Not now they've found the gravy train option...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> But you're not going to GET 'Old Labour' back, are you? Not now they've found the gravy train option...


I don't think anyone would deny that, new labour are tory light so hardly a radical alternative to what we have at the moment. But I cant see how its possible even they could be as incompetent, corrupt or inhumane as what we have now. You only need to look at the statistics for homelessness, foodbanks, welfare related deaths (while the wealthiest fill their boots), fracking, the badger cull, HSBC & so on to see how bad the tories are. If they get another term its game over for our NHS. Look at the damage they have done to it in 4 years? they are intent on signing the TTIP agreement & refuse to exempt the NHS from it. The environment? - what hope is there of combatting climate change when they are 'getting rid of all the 'green crap'?? Do you trust a government that has pledged to scrap the Human Rights act?

We KNOW what to expect if the tories get another term. - more misery, more cruelty & the industrialisation of our countryside Just to add, over 50% of tory funding comes from the banking & finance sector, much of the rest from the private health industry & corporations - & this is who they represent & why democracy is a sham. Personally I wish people would vote for real change & vote Green.

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *LMFAO Ignorance is bliss as these posts show. The government sure did their job well by blinding some. But thankfully not all of us.
> My morgage was the only debt i had, i don't believe in having what you can't pay outright for.
> As for Blaire, lol, i wonder why he still walks a free man. Lets face it, under the tories you can no longer speak your mind without being accused of being a terriorist.(sp):laugh:
> Bring back old labour, perhaps we will see some changes,,,,,,,,For the better.*


:lol::lol::lol:

It sure is.......wasn't it you that took up the Tory option of buying your council house at rock bottom prices so others could never have a home?
Are you middle class now Jan? 


Jesthar said:


> But you're not going to GET 'Old Labour' back, are you? Not now they've found the gravy train option...


My point exactly 

They are just all the same these days......................


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rona said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> It sure is.......wasn't it you that took up the Tory option of buying your council house at rock bottom prices so others could never have a home?
> Are you middle class now Jan?
> ...


*lmao Oh not that old chestnut again. As i stated in my post, yes we did purchase our house, and at a damn cheap price. Thank you Maggie.
Now, having said that, i will ask, how many given the same chance would not do the same?
I will also ask, how the hell would we have known that MT would not be putting the money back into building new homes?
Again, the blame is with the tory government.
Oh just to add, i'm far from middle class, working class and proud of it.*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Not governments fault. There were plenty of fixed rate mortgages around at the time. If people don't want to protect themselves or live within their means, you can't blame someone else.





Colliebarmy said:


> What about tenants right to buy with 30% or more off the value, was that wrong too?


It is governments fault & the crisis we have today stems directly from Thatchers neoliberal economics of greed.

I've seen you say people should 'live within their means' a lot Rona. Its a pretty heartless thing to say because its not that black & white .

Thatcher sold off social housing stock & didn't replace them. Created a housing bubble. All rents are now inflated with the housing benefit subsidies going straight into the pockets of greedy landlords. Half of people IN work are in poverty struggling to get by. http://classonline.org.uk/docs/GBRO_booklet_(final)_Sept_2014.pdf

We bought our 1st house in the late 1980's for £12,000 - a repossession. Our bargain was someone else's wrecked dream. We know the couple, he was made redundant when Thatcher destroyed the manufacturing industry, the steel works, the pits up here. Thousands upon thousands of homes were repossessed when buyers couldn't find employment & keep up with mortgage repayments.

Thatcher's legacy: her role in today's housing crisis | Housing Network | The Guardian

Thatcher deregulated the financial sector. Gave power to corporations. She sold off public companies, paving the way for privatisation & now the entire public sector is being gifted to private hands. Thatchers neoliberalism is a legacy of unsustainable greed & it is destroying this finite planet of ours.



Colliebarmy said:


> not THE government, just THIS government, according to some....
> 
> under Labour everything was rosy
> 
> Blair didnt invade Iraq, Brown didnt sell the gold off cheap, or start the recession by subbing the banks, it was all an illusion





rona said:


> What, you mean those poor war criminals?
> 
> Full-steam ahead for a whitewash of Tony Blair's Iraq lies as Chilcot surrenders - Stop the War Coalition





rona said:


> Totally agree with you, just redressing the balance of the indefensible


'redressing the balance of the indefensible'? Are you saying people disgusted at this current governments policies have defended the despicable Blair et al?? Because I've seen quite the opposite.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Personally I wish people would vote for real change & vote Green.
> 
> .


And then we get to watch as they

a) realise being in power doesn't actually mean you get to do most of what you want (or promised) to do
b) discover the joys of the gravy train for themselves...

Nope, I don't trust *ANY* government as far as I could throw them...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> And then we get to watch as they
> 
> a) realise being in power doesn't actually mean you get to do most of what you want (or promised) to do
> b) discover the joys of the gravy train for themselves...
> ...


Only the Green Party are governed by grass roots not corporate hegemony. They represent the people & democracy NOT corporate lobbiests & the bankers. I don't think you'll find more principled politicians than Natalie Bennet & Caroline Lucas, Caroline has even protested against her own council decisions.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Only the Green Party are governed by grass roots not corporate hegemony. They represent the people & democracy NOT corporate lobbiests & the bankers. I don't think you'll find a more principled politicians than Natalie Bennet & Caroline Lucas, Caroline has even protested against her own council decisions.


Makes no difference in Whitehall, noush. Not these days. Not for years now. Surely you know that?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> And then we get to watch as they
> 
> a) realise being in power doesn't actually mean you get to do most of what you want (or promised) to do
> b) discover the joys of the gravy train for themselves...
> ...


Are you for an uprising then Jesthar? Because if we do get more of the same, I'm with you in that!

,


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> Are you for an uprising then Jesthar? Because if we do get more of the same, I'm with you in that!
> 
> ,


*lol Just admit it, you are hoping the uprise will be lead by Russell Brand.*


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Makes no difference in Whitehall, noush. Not these days. Not for years now. Surely you know that?


I disagree where the Greens are concerned - look at their record in Europe, they have fought tooth & nail for the environment & animal welfare. And are battling to stop TTIP - it only we had more Green MEP's. The Green Party want to take money right out of politics so theres no conflict of interest. Its the only way to grab our democracy back.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol Just admit it, you are hoping the uprise will be lead by Russell Brand.*


:lol: Yes, come the revolution, Russell can count me in!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Makes no difference in Whitehall, noush. Not these days. Not for years now. Surely you know that?





JANICE199 said:


> *lol Just admit it, you are hoping the uprise will be lead by Russell Brand.*


Talking of Russell Brand lol - this episode of the trews (with my fave George Monbiot lol) is extremely relevant. (I know it'll make Colliebarmys DAY when he sees this!)

[youtube_browser]G147wJsI7dk[/youtube_browser]


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I disagree where the Greens are concerned - look at their record in Europe, they have fought tooth & nail for the environment & animal welfare. And are battling to stop TTIP - it only we had more Green MEP's. The Green Party want to take money right out of politics so theres no conflict of interest. Its the only way to grab our democracy back.


Europe is one thing. Whitehall is quite another animal.

No, I'm not for an uprising. Historically speaking they generally solve nothing, and frequently make things worse. More positive change has come from individual example, quiet persistance and patient investment than uprisings.

Of course, that's much harder work and a lot less spectacular than 'smash the system!', so it's not a method for the impatient. Nor does it tend to be spotlight material, so it's no good for the glory-hounds either. But if you want lasting change, then that's the way to go.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I disagree where the Greens are concerned - look at their record in Europe, they have fought tooth & nail for the environment & animal welfare. And are battling to stop TTIP - it only we had more Green MEP's. The Green Party want to take money right out of politics so theres no conflict of interest. Its the only way to grab our democracy back.


politicians are politicans are politicians, and aboslute power corrupts absolutely. Apart from the fact that the greeens have NO chance of getting into power, so its a wasted vote (well all votes are a waste since theyre all they same and all answer to the same puppet masters) even if they were originally genuine they would soon become corrupt once they got power.

We've tried democracy (or at least this facade of it which is what democracy will always become).. it didnt work. It DOESnt work. It's time we tried anarchy, got rid of currency and centralised state control. It's our fkn planet not theirs, we can take it back.... We got the numbers..


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

The problem with voting Green is that in many constituencies you could be going for a wasted vote and risk letting the Tories in again.
If I lived in Brighton, then I would definitely be voting Green, as I would be in some other constituencies where they stand a reasonable chance of success.
But where I live, I'm pretty sure that the struggle will be against UKIP and The Greens won't get a look in. Labour, with a good candidate, stands more chance there than for some time, given that UKIP will split the Tory vote and that the standing (ex)lib-dem candidate was a little bit disgraced recently.... So at the moment Labour will be getting my vote.

My heart (and my political roots head) is with The Greens and their policies, but my rational mind says that a vote for the Greens in some constituencies will harm the Labour vote.
(Same as SNP wins will harm the Labour Party in Scotland and thus add to the likelihood of the Tories getting in again).

I've never been one for tactical voting. After all, just see where those tactics got left-of-centre, lib-dem voters the last time around. But I dread another Tory 'victory'.

And yes, New Labour is only marginally to the left of The Tories (and Old Labour, come to that, weren't as left wing in their policies as I would have liked them to be), but Labour must get in, otherwise we can wave goodbye to The NHS and most of our Social Welfare system.

I know that this way of feeling is just what a party like The Greens doesn't want, and I don't know the answer to that one, apart from that somehow (and despite a media that is more hostile than friendly) The Greens must make more working people aware of their policies and ensure that they know that The Greens are a credible political option.
And they will have to fight within the realm of the 'soundbite' and the 'smart retort' even if they don't want to, otherwise they will be left at the starting post.


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

Did anyone hear the interview Natalie Bennet fave to LBC? Can't work out how to post the link from my phone Its possiblly the most awkward thing I've ever heard, and she clearly doesn't have a clue what she's even doing


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

negative creep said:


> Did anyone hear the interview Natalie Bennet fave to LBC? Can't work out how to post the link from my phone Its possiblly the most awkward thing I've ever heard, and she clearly doesn't have a clue what she's even doing


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

negative creep said:


> Did anyone hear the interview Natalie Bennet fave to LBC? Can't work out how to post the link from my phone Its possiblly the most awkward thing I've ever heard, and she clearly doesn't have a clue what she's even doing


plus she's not British, should she be allowed to sit as an MP (should she win a seat)?


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> plus she's not British, should she be allowed to sit as an MP (should she win a seat)?


Did you watch The Romanians Are Coming, on Channel 4? Just starting on Channel 4 plus 1. A heart-breaking documentary about hard working Romanians, who came here to make a better life. One works in a car wash, sends all his money home to feed his mother and syblings, and lives under a bridge because he cant afford to rent. Another, a very caring nurse in the NHS. These are the kind of people we need and want.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Europe is one thing. Whitehall is quite another animal.
> 
> No, I'm not for an uprising. Historically speaking they generally solve nothing, and frequently make things worse. More positive change has come from individual example, quiet persistance and patient investment than uprisings.
> 
> Of course, that's much harder work and a lot less spectacular than 'smash the system!', so it's not a method for the impatient. Nor does it tend to be spotlight material, so it's no good for the glory-hounds either. But if you want lasting change, then that's the way to go.


Caroline Lucas's ethics in Whithall & in the community are exemplary.

She has fought in Parliament to ban fracking, campaigned up & down the country, protested & even got herself arrested doing so.





She is desperately trying to stop Cameron signing the TTIP agreement. The list goes on! - can you imagine how good things would be if we had more principled MP's like her?



Here is what shes done for animal welfare

_Caroline Lucas 
GREEN, Brighton Pavilion

Majority at last election 2.42% 
First became an MP 2010 
Nearest rival at last election Labour 
Twitter @CarolineLucas 
Caroline Lucas supports the Hunting Act (to keep hunting illegal) and voted against the badger cull. She has tabled and signed many animal-friendly EDMs, including: calling for mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses; calling for a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses (she was a sponsor); calling for a ban on snares (she was a sponsor); calling for a reduction in the number of animals used in vivisection (she was a sponsor); calling for more resources to reduce animal experiments; calling for a scientific debate on the misleading results of animal experiments; ending the use of wild-caught primates for vivisection (she was its primary sponsor); ending the use of cats and dogs in vivisection (she was a sponsor); calling for a ban on the use of animals for household product testing; opposing the shooting of birds for 'sport'; calling for the government to deal with over-breeding of race horses; calling for a ban on the use of the whip in horse racing; calling for government action on live exports; and in support of meat-free Mondays in Parliament. The Green Party has the best policies on animal protection of all the main parties. 
_

When you said you didn't trust any government Jesther, I assumed you were suggesting none of them were worth voting for? - and took from that that you wouldn't be voting for any of them? Have I misunderstood?

You didn't watch the video then? How can we force change when the those in power only represent the people/corporations with the money?

From the Chartists to the Suffragettes & the Trade Unionists, historical proof that battles aren't won by quite persistence & patience but by disobedience & struggle..

The welfare state, the NHS, workers' rights were born out of the culmination of generations of struggle by the labour movement that had set up the Labour party - a party set up to give workers a voice - a party that increasingly seems to have forgotten that!



porps said:


> politicians are politicans are politicians, and aboslute power corrupts absolutely. Apart from the fact that the greeens have NO chance of getting into power, so its a wasted vote (well all votes are a waste since theyre all they same and all answer to the same puppet masters) even if they were originally genuine they would soon become corrupt once they got power.
> 
> We've tried democracy (or at least this facade of it which is what democracy will always become).. it didnt work. It DOESnt work. It's time we tried anarchy, got rid of currency and centralised state control. It's our fkn planet not theirs, we can take it back.... We got the numbers..


Power doesn't corrupt people who have integrity & principles Porps - so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point

Found this for you though





silvi said:


> The problem with voting Green is that in many constituencies you could be going for a wasted vote and risk letting the Tories in again.
> If I lived in Brighton, then I would definitely be voting Green, as I would be in some other constituencies where they stand a reasonable chance of success.
> But where I live, I'm pretty sure that the struggle will be against UKIP and The Greens won't get a look in. Labour, with a good candidate, stands more chance there than for some time, given that UKIP will split the Tory vote and that the standing (ex)lib-dem candidate was a little bit disgraced recently.... So at the moment Labour will be getting my vote.
> 
> ...


I cant disagee with anything you have said Silvi. I want to follow my convictions and vote for the Greens but on the otherhand, like you, for everything I hold dear, I am terrified the tories will get back in power to finish off what they have started. I saw this tweet by Andy Burnham yesterday & it scared the life out of me.

Alliance now sub-contracting service back to NHS bidder for £80M - creaming off £7M - & using scanner bought with public donations. Scandal. 

We've never had a Green candidate for the general election before, so unlikely my decision will be a hard one.



negative creep said:


> Did anyone hear the interview Natalie Bennet fave to LBC? Can't work out how to post the link from my phone Its possiblly the most awkward thing I've ever heard, and she clearly doesn't have a clue what she's even doing


She was really bad. But that shouldn't detract from the fact that the Green Party has excellent policies and has costed them.

I bet shes feeling gutted by her performance, shes had a lot of support though. Like this from London Fire Brigade Union. I thought that was so nice of them.

Bad day at the office for @natalieben. But firefighters won't forget her support in campaign against station closures


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

it's like i've said before.. if we really must keep this ridiculous democracy system which clearly doesnt work, then they should at least let us vote AGAINST a party rather than for a party if we choose to.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Agree with your post noushka,
but re Natalie Bennet:



noushka05 said:


> She was really bad. But that shouldn't detract from the fact that the Green Party has excellent policies and has costed them.
> 
> I bet shes feeling gutted by her performance, shes had a lot of support though. Like this from London Fire Brigade Union. I thought that was so nice of them.
> 
> Bad day at the office for @natalieben. But firefighters won't forget her support in campaign against station closures


That was nice of the firefighters and anyone else who supported Natalie.
And I'm pretty sure that she has her heart and her campaigning head in the right place. But this isn't the first time she's messed up an interview (two in almost as many weeks, and others before that if I remember rightly). So perhaps the Greens need to take this into account.

Either she needs help in her political interview technique and quickly.
Or, 
I'm sorry to say this, and with Natalie Bennet being the leader of the Greens this might get even more negative press, but perhaps she should be replaced as front person by Caroline Lucas, who usually manages interviews in a calm, assured and convincing manner.

It is very difficult at the moment to try to convince anyone new to Green politics that they actually have a pretty good system worked out, but it would definitely be easier if their policies were argued well in the media.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> She was really bad. But that shouldn't detract from the fact that the Green Party has excellent policies and has costed them.
> 
> I bet shes feeling gutted by her performance, shes had a lot of support though. Like this from London Fire Brigade Union. I thought that was so nice of them.
> 
> Bad day at the office for @natalieben. But firefighters won't forget her support in campaign against station closures


She was bad, but I felt really sorry for her. Some people are just not cut out for public speaking, but that does not mean that they do not know what they are doing or what their policies are. Trouble is, we are so used to slick politicians who are not only trained in public speaking, but also employ voice coaches and psychologists to analyse body movements that, when we don't see it we think, "Ey up, this person can't be a politician!"

I'd much rather have an honest person who is really committed to the cause but who gets flustered in public, than the smarm of N.E. Politician who speaks nicely, talks a lot yet doesn't say anything, and tricks you with voice and body language into thinking he's answered your question..


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Just seen this tweet from Diane Abbot:


> Want all erstwhile green voters to vote @UKLabour of course. But getting a bit tired of journos sneering at @natalieben


Good on her!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> She was bad, but I felt really sorry for her. Some people are just not cut out for public speaking, but that does not mean that they do not know what they are doing or what their policies are. Trouble is, we are so used to slick politicians who are not only trained in public speaking, but also employ voice coaches and psychologists to analyse body movements that, when we don't see it we think, "Ey up, this person can't be a politician!"
> 
> I'd much rather have an honest person who is really committed to the cause but who gets flustered in public, than the smarm of N.E. Politician who speaks nicely, talks a lot yet doesn't say anything, and tricks you with voice and body language into thinking he's answered your question..


So would I.
But it leaves people like Natalie Bennet wide open to attacks from sharp journalists. And what gets put on YouTube? The section of an interview where the kind, honest person stumbles.
Hardly ever do we see a nice video of a politician going viral.
We live in this world of voice coaches and political psychologists, so, sadly, politicians have to deal with it.

In a society where the vast majority of the media is in the hands of big business and their political backers, those who cannot fight the media's way are lost and ultimately shamed .

When Blair was elected as leader of the Labour Party in the 90s, I remember my mum saying "Oh No! That's the end of Labour as we know it". But then she said that at least the left of centre stood a chance with Blair, because he could fight The Tories in their own language.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> When you said you didn't trust any government Jesther, I assumed you were suggesting none of them were worth voting for? - and took from that that you wouldn't be voting for any of them? Have I misunderstood?
> 
> You didn't watch the video then? How can we force change when the those in power only represent the people/corporations with the money?
> 
> ...


Given that I AM a trade union rep... 

You seem to be contradicting yourself - generations of struggle IS persistance and patience. It takes time - and often major events - to change attitudes. Take suffrage - the main reason women got the vote when they did wasn't because of suffragettes chaining themselves to railings and throwing themselves under horses (etc.), but because during WW1 women successfully took over the jobs that the men away fighting would have done, jobs that were traditionally 'no job for a woman'.

That's not to say everything else in the suffrage movement didn't play its part, particularly the suffrag_ists_ (the intellectual and moderate campaigners) - at the time, the millitant suffrag_ette_ branch of the movement mainly had the effect of generating _negative_ opinions of womans suffrage, but with the rose tinted lens of 100+ years in place, that tends to get forgotten.

At the the time of the outbreak of WW1, only 60% of men had the vote. The government realise that this meant millions of men coming back from fighting for their country would still have no say in the way it was run, and that was unfair. At the same time, they realised that the role women had played meant that continuing to deny them the vote was also unfair. OK, it took a while longer and a few more acts of Parliament to get an equal vote for women, but if WW1 hadn't happened, votes for non-property owning men and votes for any women at all also wouldn't have happened anywhere near as soon.

I believe the bill was introduced to the house by the Conservative Home Secretary, and got pretty much cross party unanimity.

No, I didn't watch the video - I gave up on trying to watch Russel Brand in any way, shape or form years ago after trying several times to understand why people raved about him as a comedian.  Quite frankly, after about 30 second of Brand I want to find a nice blackboard to scrape my nails down for some light relief! 

Not sure how I'm going to vote, but our area is a rock solid Conservative seat so it won't really make any difference anyway. Might go randomly for one of the independent candidates and hope it helps them get their deposit back.

And no, it's not entirely that none of them are worth voting for. But very few of them are going to be able to follow through on even the majority of their election promises anyway, even if they want to, due to forces beyond their control - even when they meant them in the first place.


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> She was really bad. But that shouldn't detract from the fact that the Green Party has excellent policies and has costed them.
> 
> I bet shes feeling gutted by her performance, shes had a lot of support though. Like this from London Fire Brigade Union. I thought that was so nice of them.


A handful of Green policies I would agree with (scrap HS2, legalise assisted suicide, keep hunting with dogs illegal) but most of the rest range from hilarious to terrifying. For example they want to:

- All but scrap our armed forces and turn military bases into nature reserves

- remove all immigration controls

- legalise drugs and prostitution yet advertising alcohol or tobacco would be banned

- membership of terrorist organisations would be legal

- move to zero or negative economic growth

- 55mph limit on motorways and massive taxation on powerful cars or motorbikes

- abolish the monarchy

- massively reduce the prison population, give them the vote and improved facilities

- drastically and rapidly reduce livestock farming

- oppose all forms of media censorship (but ban Page 3 advertising aimed at children of primary school age?)

- end free trade with the EU and introduce a tax based on their ecological impact

Thank God they will never get into power


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

negative creep said:


> A handful of Green policies I would agree with (scrap HS2, legalise assisted suicide, keep hunting with dogs illegal) but most of the rest range from hilarious to terrifying. For example they want to:
> 
> - All but scrap our armed forces and turn military bases into nature reserves
> 
> ...


Many extremely good ideas there, despite the obviously biased and sometimes downright misleading way you decided to present them.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> She was bad, but I felt really sorry for her. Some people are just not cut out for public speaking, but that does not mean that they do not know what they are doing or what their policies are. Trouble is,* we are so used to slick politicians who are not only trained in public speaking, but also employ voice coaches and psychologists to analyse body movements that, when we don't see it we think, "Ey up, this person can't be a politician!"*
> 
> I'd much rather have an honest person who is really committed to the cause but who gets flustered in public, than the smarm of N.E. Politician who speaks nicely, talks a lot yet doesn't say anything, and tricks you with voice and body language into thinking he's answered your question..


Never a truer word spoken.

These days it is all about appearance and glib soundbites - the actual quality of the individual doesn't matter - seems you can be bloody lousy at the job but if you photograph well and can spout a load of slick meaningless garbage at the drop of a hat, then you will do well.

We need to get away from electing people because they wear flash suits or look like matinee idols. TBH, I think that anyone who can talk their way out of anything the way most of our politicians seem to, can't be trusted about anything either - there is no sincerity and no thought behind their words - everything is "topshow".

They are "all fur coat and nae knickers".

We need honesty in politics (if that isn't an oxymoron) - we've seen what happens when you buy into parties on the strength of surface appearance.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

porps said:


> Many extremely good ideas there, despite the obviously biased and sometimes downright misleading way you decided to present them.


I think zero/negative economic growth (depending how it was achieved) would be very good for the country and the planet.

There is a constant battle to get more, more, more - how is this sustainable? there is only so much to get, and what we take comes out of the mouth of someone somewhere else.

Perhaps we should all be satisfied with a little less (or in some cases, a LOT less).


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Can't find anything on their party website about their policies 

Welcome to the Green Party

If they don't publicize them then people can only believe what they read in the papers unless they are going to sit and listen to their whole party conference 

2015 - 016 The Green Party 'manifesto' | The Euro Probe


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Given that I AM a trade union rep...
> 
> You seem to be contradicting yourself - generations of struggle IS persistance and patience. It takes time - and often major events - to change attitudes. Take suffrage - the main reason women got the vote when they did wasn't because of suffragettes chaining themselves to railings and throwing themselves under horses (etc.), but because during WW1 women successfully took over the jobs that the men away fighting would have done, jobs that were traditionally 'no job for a woman'.
> 
> ...


I didn't want to know who you'd be voting for , just if you would be.

If you had watched the video you'd have seen George Monbiot explain why being patient & persistent when a government is so corrupted is futile.

And we simply don't have the time to be patient if we want to stop badger cull, fracking, TTIP & the most important issue facing the very existence of all life on earth - _climate change_. If we don't address it _today _tomorrow will be too late Jesthar. The government knows this but its neoliberal ideology means unrestrained capitalism is all that matters.

Civil disobedience is always a last resort, borne out of sheer desperation & disillusionment. When people don't have a voice its often the only way to force change. I fear this is going to be our only hope of salvation if people wont put their trust in a political party that still has social values & a determination to change our corrupted system from within.

On Tuesday night there was a program on the BBC about the Chartists & the problems we face today - well worth watching on catch up if you didn't see it. BBC iPlayer - Michael Sheen's Valleys Rebellion

Also last night on BBC2 the first of a 3 part series on the Suffragettes - what a coincidence lol

The passionate words of Owen Jones ~

_ "When you stand up for the bottom 70% they call you a class warrior; stand up for the top 1% and they call you a moderate...All the gains we have, all the rights, they weren't given to us by the goodwill and generosity of those above, they were won by the struggle and sacrifice of those below. It was our mothers and fathers, our grandmothers and grandfathers and our ancestors before them who built this country, who built the welfare state, who built the NHS, who won workers' rights. We stand on the shoulders of giants and we owe it to them...after they struggled and fought at such cost...to fight to make sure nothing that they fought for is stripped away from us. That is our responsibility and our duty...As a labour movement...if we stand together, we fight together, we will win this battle together." The Coalition is waging class war against communities across the country. We need to pressurise the Labour leadership to implement the "mainstream, common-sense ideas" _



negative creep said:


> A handful of Green policies I would agree with (scrap HS2, legalise assisted suicide, keep hunting with dogs illegal) but most of the rest range from hilarious to terrifying. For example they want to:
> 
> - All but scrap our armed forces and turn military bases into nature reserves
> 
> ...


Perhaps you ought to read their manifesto & understand their policies in context? 

The Green Party would certainly make a refreshing change from the bunch of empathy free sociopaths we currently have in government.

'Patronising' Tory MP Mark Spencer Accused Of Wanting The Poor To Starve In The Dark

And just read this for a psychopathic perspective. What an utterly disturbing mindset! Andrew Lilico | Conservative Home

MONEY V's LIFE !!

*Andrew Lilico: On the ethics of adapting to climate change*

*Andrew Lilico is a Director and Principal of Europe Economics.*

Along with many other economists, my view on global warming-associated climate change is that the world is most unlikely to be able to agree and coordinate globally, and then sustain for the centuries required, the growth-denying policies that would be needed if we were to limit human-induced global warming to any material effect beyond the limits that natural economic development will generate automatically via market forces.

Furthermore  again along with many other economists  I consider it very doubtful that, even if we could coordinate on policies that would materially limit climate change, the costs of doing so would be less than the benefits. Adaptation is almost certainly what, in practice, the world will do, almost certainly all it can do, and very probably what it would be economically best to do.

However, when making this case one commonly faces the objection that, regardless of whether adapting to climate change would be economically advantageous, it would be unethical not to make all the efforts we can to prevent or limit climate change. Certainly some adaptation will be required (the argument goes) and perhaps the pessimistic account of humanitys capacity for global coordination will prove right, but we must at least try. Not even to try would (it is said) be wrong, regardless of the economics.

That is the case I want to counter here. To lay my cards on the table from the start, I believe it to be completely wrong, from the bottom up.

To focus the discussion on the key ethical points, I shall take as given for our purposes here that human-induced climate change will be significant, absent material mitigation, and that adapting to climate change would be economically superior to attempting to prevent or mitigate it.

(I am of course aware that that each of those views is challenged in some quarters, but I dont want to replay either of those debates here. Instead, lets focus on the ethical argument that says if there will be significant climate change the economics dont matter.)

I identify four components to the ethical case for mitigating as much as we can, even if it is economically disadvantageous to do so, namely the claims that:

Humanity should seek to avoid having a transformative impact on the environment
It would be wrong to allow the deaths  perhaps even extinctions  of huge numbers of animals and plants
It is wrong to leave environmental damage for our children to clean up
The places in the world where adaptation would be most necessary are where people are least able to adapt
Let us take these in turn. First the claim that humans should seek to avoid having a transformative impact on the environment. That boat sailed thousands of years ago. Look across the English countryside with its green fields. Its virtually all a human-induced environment (and none the worse for that). Absent mans influence it would almost all be trees. Instead we have grass or crops or roads or hedges or stone walls or other human-created environments.

The same is true across that vast bulk of the earth where humans live. The ground is made by us. Similarly, much of the fauna is ours. Think of an enormously abundant large mammal, such as the American bison at its peak of some 30-100 million beasts. Then compare that to the 1.3 billion cattle or 24 billion chickens humans keep for their convenience.

Of the total mass of mammals, some 98 per cent or so are humans or human-used.

Obviously there are huge numbers of bacteria and insects and plankton and other creatures we do not so directly control. But the point remains that the earth  at least on the land  is a human-created environment moulded for our convenience  as is only right and proper. After all, the model attitude humans have adopted to the environment since ancient times was that of the steward of the Garden of Eden. Note that: a garden  a designed environment, not a wilderness.

Next, the question of whether it would be wrong to allow the deaths of huge numbers of plants and animals merely for our convenience. In a world of meat and leather and city-building and anti-biotic medicines the idea there is something unethical about allowing the deaths of large numbers of plants and animals simply for human convenience is a bit strained. But lets try to spice it up a bit by supposing climate change might lead to extinctions in the wild of many species.

(Obviously adaptation need not mean actual extinctions of any species we can identify and preserve samples or DNA of. That also means objections like some animal that might go extinct might carry the cure to cancer never really get off the ground even were they not so trivially countered by some animal that might go extinct might otherwise have carried and communicated tomorrows deadly plague.)

Mightnt extinctions in the wild be an important consideration?

Obviously Im all in favour of avoiding hunting or driving creatures to extinction as a general principle. But I see that in aesthetic terms, as something related to the creatures we humans like (e.g. I have no great sorrow about smallpox becoming extinct in the wild but dont see why a rhino has any superior fundamental ethical claim to exist over a pox).

More generally, it is a classic policy error to believe one has stronger duties to preserve the things one can see today than to facilitate the things an alternative policy might create. That is well understood when it comes to companies or jobs or competition. We do not believe we should favour existing companies over new companies that might arise tomorrow.

Well, much the same applies to the environment. If the earth heats up by 4 degrees then many species that flourish at todays temperatures and weather patterns will cease to be best-suited and will die out to be replaced by current species that are better suited or new species that will evolve.

There is no reason at all for us to believe it ethical to favour the interests of todays creatures over the interests of tomorrows other than some creatures being more convenient or interesting or useful for humans.

Next the issue of leaving things to our children. First, our children will be unimaginably wealthier than we are, partly as a result of our innovations and infrastructure investments and capital accumulation. Our children will not be compensating us for our gifts to them other than by making the most of those gifts. Why should we be concerned if, alongside these huge gifts, they have a few challenges?

Perhaps they will never see the tropics as we can, but we shall never see the primordial forests of England as prehistoric man did. Do you feel your forebears let you down?

Last the claim that those that will need to adapt most are those least able to adapt. The idea here is that adaptation will be most required in poorer parts of the world. First we should note that, by the time folk in those poorer regions would be adapting, they are actually expected to be richer, per head, than those in todays rich regions. But, at least as importantly, the adaptation in question will be over an extended period.

Suppose that, in 150 years time, climate change means the tropics have such frequent storms that almost no-one could live there. Why is that a problem? Almost no-one lives in Antarctica or the Sahara today. Is that a problem? If the tropics became uninhabitable overnight, that might require a significant and rapid movement of peoples. But if the great grandchildren of folk that today live in the tropics live instead in Canada or Russia why is that, per se, an ethical issue?

Its not worse living in Canada than in Haiti. Its merely different. (And remember, whilst there might be a debate to be had about the costs of relocating the population of the tropics elsewhere, we are assuming throughout that adaptation is economically superior.)

The earths environment is largely human-moulded on land already. Insofar as there are ethical considerations about changes to the environment (and there are indeed many such issues) they concern how changes to the environment reflect human tastes and needs and convenience.

If it is more convenient for humans that we allow significant climate change and adapt to it, there is nothing whatever unethical about our doing precisely that 

Whatâs the link between this great rail disaster and 2014âs floods? Killing trees | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Can't find anything on their party website about their policies
> 
> Welcome to the Green Party
> 
> ...


It was online, the fully costed manifesto is to be released next month anyhow.

Here is Natalie Bennetts heartfelt apology.

Life is a learning process, and I've much still to learn | Politics | The Guardian

This piece is simply an apology.

Its never easy being a politician in the limelight, and it shouldnt be. We are asked all sorts of questions, from our taste in breakfast cereal to our thoughts on macroeconomic policy, and were always expected to have a well-informed and thought-through opinion.

On Tuesday morning I gave a terrible interview on LBC  lets not pretend it was anything else. If you cringed listening to the show, than Im sure you can imagine what I felt like.

We launched one aspect of our housing policy in early February. I was on top of the figures then, but I hadnt looked at them since.

When asked about the figures, my mind simply went blank.

Its easy to say that it happens to everyone but, on the day of our election launch, I should have made damn sure it didnt happen to me. Listening back (which Ive forced myself to do) Ive found myself shouting at the radio.

Illness didnt help, but it isnt any kind of excuse. The policy area in question was housing. We want to build half a million more homes, available at social rent levels, funded both by a change in tax-relief for landlords, and by fully lifting the artificial restrictions on councils borrowing against their assets.

Green party leader Natalie Bennett came unstuck by trying to be honest
Letters: The way the establishment has rallied to vilify Bennett is typically the behaviour of an elite unprepared to accept any change to its preferred social order

We estimate it will cost an extra £4.5bn a year. This would be a major investment in a national asset, which would create jobs and stabilise the economy. The policy is radical, it is different, but it is fully costed  and I failed to get that across.

Ive been the leader of the Green party for two and half years now. In that time our membership has soared, and in 2015 well be standing more candidates than ever before.

I can only apologise to party members, and indeed the many thousands of people up and down the country who are desperate to see a real alternative to the business-as-usual politics offered by the other parties.

At the end of March well be releasing our fully-costed manifesto. It will contain bold policies on transport, education and our economy. It will set out plans to redistribute the wealth and power in this country from those at the top to everyone else and it will explain how were going to pay for them.

Yesterday morning reminded me that life is a learning process and that I have much still to learn. Unlike many other party leaders I havent been a politician for all that long. Im willing to admit that this level of attention is a challenge, but its one that I can and will rise to. Never before in my lifetime have I seen such appetite for change in this country, and I have a duty to my party and to our 509 candidates in England and Wales to lead from the front.

Im not going to pretend Im not upset about my performance, I am. But Im also more determined than ever that the Green partys policies get a fair hearing"


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Any politician prepared to apologise and admit an error has got my vote.

That poor lass - it's happened to us all at one time or another - mind a complete blank - it just happened to her at the wrong time.

And it happened because she is sincere and not slick; honest, and not jus prepared to waffle; has integrity and not just an eye for the main chance.

Go for it Natalie - we need you and others like you, and we need you NOW!


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Perhaps you ought to read their manifesto & understand their policies in context?


I did, everything I stated was taken directly from here  The Green Party | Home


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

Interesting how Andrew Lilico on the one hand argues that ethically* a rhino has no more right to life than a virus and yet on the other he's saying the world is for humans and we can do what suits as best (and sod the rhinos and viruses and everything inbetween).

It was also interesting to compare his wordy-blah-blah style of defending the indefensible against the honest and easily understood apology and statement from Natalie Bennett. You have to wonder about people who try and make themselves seem too clever for us average Joes to get. Surely, if your ideas are good, you want to make sure everyone understands them?

_*in fairness, he probably doesn't actually fully understand the meaning of that word._


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

negative creep said:


> I did, everything I stated was taken directly from here  The Green Party | Home


Then you have cherrypicked bits lol

I'm not going to go through all your points, but i'll just take this one for an example.

_"drastically and rapidly reduce livestock farming"
_

*

Farmed Animals

Background

FA650 Extensive grazing, free-range units and mixed rotational farming can support soil health, habitats and biodiversity, improve animal welfare and conserve agricultural resources.

FA651 However, high levels of consumption of meat, dairy and other animal products in richer countries and rising demand in poorer countries threaten global food security and lead to deforestation, pollution and other environmental problems, in addition to many of the diseases of affluence.

FA652 The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation reported in 2006 that 70% of land globally is devoted to farmed animal production, yet this contributed only 15% of all human food. About 40% of cropped land in the UK is used to produce animal feed, using large quantities of synthetic fertiliser, depleting water resources and increasing soil erosion. This land could be used more efficiently to feed humans directly.

FA653 Green Party policy aims to rebalance farming in favour of food production for direct human consumption and to reverse the present market-driven trend towards the production of feed for animals. With a growing population and increasing malnutrition, a transition towards diets based on plant foods is necessary, particularly in richer countries, to address increasing pressures on land. Such a rebalancing would also enable more extensive and sustainable food production methods to be employed.

FA654 High-input intensive farming of animals lowers the farm-gate price of meat and other animal products at the cost of creating many environmental, social, health and animal welfare problems. Farmers using extensive, low-input and free-range systems find it hard to compete with the artificially low price of products from intensive farming.

FA655 A significant proportion of the emissions of the three major greenhouse gases are directly and indirectly attributable to animal farming. Use of arable crops for feed results in carbon losses from soil cultivation, whilst use of artificial fertilisers and inappropriate disposal and application of manures result in nitrous oxide emissions. Ruminant animals, including cattle and sheep, are responsible for a significant proportion of methane emissions. In addition, pollution from artificial fertilisers and animal manure poses a growing threat to wildlife and habitats. A transition towards plant-based diets would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and could free large areas of land for other uses, particularly carbon sequestration. (See also CC280-281)

FA656 In the UK, close to a billion animals are slaughtered for food every year. Many of these animals are farmed intensively, kept in unhygienic and cramped conditions, with high levels of distress and injury. Antibiotics are used routinely to prevent outbreak of disease, resulting in antibiotic resistance and threats to human and animal health. Intensive farming techniques and, in some cases, the associated long-distance transport of animals, have been associated with the outbreak and spread of diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), foot and mouth disease, avian flu and swine flu.

FA657 Intensive fish farming (aquaculture) is not the answer to global food shortages and dwindling fish stocks in the oceans. Intensively farmed fish are fed on fish from unsustainable fishing and on land crops that compete with food for direct human consumption. Intensive aquaculture causes widespread pollution of inland and coastal waters and spreads disease to wild fish. However, small-scale farming of herbivorous fish in freshwater ponds can provide a useful and sustainable source of food.

Policies

FA660 The Green Party will phase out all forms of 'factory farming', including intensive poultry, dairy, pig and fish farms, which involve overstocking, inhumane conditions, pollution or excessive use of imported feed, fertiliser, pesticide or fossil fuel inputs. (See also AR403, AR406)

FA661 The Green Party will shift support towards small free-range units, the use of crop residues and food wastes for feed, mixed rotational farming and extensive grazing. We will restrict the use of fishmeal and imported crops for animal feed and discourage the excessive use of arable crops for feed. (See also AR403, AR406, CY525, FA635)

FA662 The Green Party will support a progressive change from diets dominated by meat, dairy and other animal products to healthier diets based mainly on plant foods, through the use of economic measures, research and education, coupled with support for more sustainable methods of production such as organic and stockfree farming. (See AR403-404)

FA663 We will encourage appropriate uses of land, including orchards, woods and wildlife habitats, of land not needed to produce feed for farm animals. Such land would also sequester carbon and help to tackle climate change. (See also FA634)

FA664 The Green Party supports the highest levels of animal welfare in farming. We will ensure that the Five Freedoms of the Animal Welfare Act are applied to all farm animals and will ban painful mutilations such as beak trimming of poultry and tail docking of pigs. We will prioritise small, local abattoirs, minimise live transport of animals and ban live exports, except for breeding stock. We will press for EU and international rules permitting restrictions on imports based on animal welfare considerations. (See AR406, FA502(c))

FA665 We will maintain a ban on the use of growth hormones and imports of food from animals treated with growth hormones. We will phase out routine and prophylactic use of antibiotics in farm animals.

FA666 Cloning of farm animals has major animal welfare implications and there are related threats from reduced genetic diversity. We will maintain a ban on the use of cloned animals or their offspring and on importation of products from cloned animals or their offspring
*


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

They have some good policies Noush, but others that I would seriously worry about


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Sorry, I'm going to show my Marxist roots here....

We are at a point in this country where we badly need a change in the political system and there are, each day, more and more people willing to stand up and say so. Many of these people will be prepared to take action if called upon.

However, we haven't yet reached the stage where _the majority_ of people are prepared to actually revolt, and to be honest, I hope we never get to the state where they will be willing to do so, because that state would be abject poverty, pain and hardship for the majority of people.

But what we can do is use the means at hand to change peoples' minds and make them realise that change is necessary. It probably won't be radical, but it will be slow moving in the right direction.
And I know that *noushka* and others will argue that we do not have time for this, and I feel your frustration, but I think that slower and surer is the most viable option.

I remember reading Marx's writings on The English Working Class and other odd texts, and although he said that a highly, industrially-evolved nation like England should be ideal for a socialist revolution, England wasn't the right place, because of the highly-developed relationship between politics and society and politics and capital/the means of production.

Can't remember which work, or group of letters, I read it in (and the internet isn't helping), but Marx also argued that changes in society are not achieved overnight, but through working through different stages of development within a specific society. And for England (don't remember what he said about _Britain_ as a whole), that would most likely be through political means (rather than by seizing the means of production directly). He predicted that there would be a 'peaceful revolution' in England, with workers using the political means available to them (hence how this way of thinking is partly reflected within the development of the trade union movement and ideas that you can negotiate for changes with the owners of the means of production).

As *Jesthar* said, values like that were a strong influence behind the Suffragist movement - rather than the more radical 'bull at a gate' approach made by middle and upper class Suffragettes.
These women (and men) _Suffragists_ understood the system and knew that their aims would be achieved by struggle alongside change, and by knowing that persistent struggle also had to take onboard that achieving change could take a long time.

Marx also talked about 'false consciousness' linked to 'commodity fetishism' as Capitalist Society developed and how this would lead to a huge problem in getting ordinary people to rise up and and revolt against the system. And this is exactly what is happening today.

Let's face it, we all like our home comforts and there are things we value which we wouldn't even have considered a few decades ago.
How would we contact each other, all over the world, to discuss politics without the internet? (Or even pay our bills for that matter). Would we be prepared to give up our laptops?  Probably not. How do we get the time to go on forums? Because we have modern appliances to help us at home and at work, giving us more time. Would we want to give that up? No.

It is not until something happens to us as individuals or family members that the truth hits home - that our families and friends are important - much more important than material possessions. And then many of us will rally on behalf of a particular movement (a charity, protecting the NHS, etc).

The only way to convince enough people that we need to change the system for the better is to appeal to them through understanding their needs and their fears for themselves and their families.
We won't get them on our side by extreme action, especially action against something they think doesn't affect them directly.
Education and empathy has to come first.

(and sorry for the overlong post, but I didn't want to leave anything out )


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Then you have cherrypicked bits lol
> 
> I'm not going to go through all your points, but i'll just take this one for an example.
> 
> ...


It's from the climate change section

C9. Livestock Farming

CC280 The substantial contribution of livestock farming to greenhouse gas emissions (see AG206, AG102, CC208) makes it evident that, to achieve our climate objectives and emissions targets, such farming will need to be drastically and rapidly reduced.

CC281 A reduction in livestock farming will have implications for land use, agriculture and human diets. Our policies for sustainable agriculture (see Agriculture chapter as well as EU542, EC952, CY524, FD302) will achieve a transition away from the production of animal products towards production for predominantly plant-based diets and bring other opportunities for farmers to diversify. The Green Party will manage this transition sensitively, so as well as reducing direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation, it will bring benefits for farmers, consumers, the environment and animal welfare (see AR403).


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

negative creep said:


> I did, everything I stated was taken directly from here  The Green Party | Home


Where did you find that?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> Sorry, I'm going to show my Marxist roots here....
> 
> We are at a point in this country where we badly need a change in the political system and there are, each day, more and more people willing to stand up and say so. Many of these people will be prepared to take action if called upon.
> 
> ...


I do agree with you on pretty much everything Silvi. I don't think we're at the revolt stage yet either, I certainly hope it never comes to that. I don't think it has to come to that if enough people get out on the streets and protest. Imo, civil disobedience on a massive scale is going to be the best chance we have of forcing change & no one needs to get hurt. And yes I will argue that we don't have time for patience. Should the tories get another term, we wont save our badgers, NHS, environment & so on - nor prevent them accelerating runaway climate change with their policies - its as simple as that. How can we educate people when most of the mainstream media is bias to the right of politics?. Even the BBC is now a mouthpiece for government propaganda.

I found this really interesting article a while a go, in the Telegraph surprisingly:eek6:.

Why aren't the British middle-classes staging a revolution? - Telegraph



negative creep said:


> It's from the climate change section
> 
> C9. Livestock Farming
> 
> ...


It looks a lot different put into context don't you think? The UN have said livestock production is one of the biggest contributors to global warming. And experts have warned if we don't take IMMEDIATE action on climate change we will face a catastrophic, unstoppable chain of events that will destroy the world as we know it.

Personally I find _this_,and a government that cares more about money than lives, truly terrifying.

.


Ang2 said:


> They have some good policies Noush, but others that I would seriously worry about


Theres a lot of media spin on their policies Ang. That said, I doubt many people agree with every one of their chosen partys policies. I guess people have to decide the issues that are most important to them & then go with the party whos policies reflect them most.

For me: animal welfare, the environment, the NHS, social justice & democracy are my priorities so I could never vote for any party that seeks to destroy these things that mean so much to me.

,.

.
.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I found this really interesting article a while a go, in the Telegraph surprisingly:eek6:.
> 
> Why aren't the British middle-classes staging a revolution? - Telegraph


Surprisingly is right.I never would have expected to find an article like that in The Telegraph!

And thanks for the link. 
Despite his 'Gladstonian Liberal' political roots, the writer, Alex Proud, hit the nail mostly on the head with that article, and expressed my feelings too.

I agree that we desperately need to do something NOW before it's too late and get people to understand the crisis _and how it is beginning to affect them_, before it's too late.
It's just that I'm also aware that making the wrong move will damage our chances of success .
(And that's a worry too because now is not the time for procrastination!)

Maybe a few more articles like that in The Telegraph and the rest of the Tory Press would help.... Articles like that can appear in The Guardian, but they only reach those who will probably agree with them from the start. 
(Doubt that DM readers would understand them though.....)


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> It looks a lot different put into context don't you think? The UN have said livestock production is one of the biggest contributors to global warming. And experts have warned if we don't take IMMEDIATE action on climate change we will face a catastrophic, unstoppable chain of events that will destroy the world as we know it.
> 
> Personally I find _this_,and a government that cares more about money than lives, truly terrifying.


Not really no, it was exactly how I quoted it. To be fair the Greens do have a different policy on solving climate change - the mainstream ones will raise taxes whereas they want to take us back to the 17th century when the climate was far colder anyway (must have been all those SUVs they drove around in)


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

I see Labour are going to reduce Uni fees and rob pensioners to pay for it...

oh, and did i see 16 years olds might get the vote?.....lord save us


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> I see Labour are going to reduce Uni fees and rob pensioners to pay for it...
> 
> oh, and did i see 16 years olds might get the vote?.....lord save us


If a 16 or 17 year old can work full time and pay take on their earning, then they are entitled to have a say, and a vote - in my opinion.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> I see Labour are going to reduce Uni fees and rob pensioners to pay for it...
> 
> oh, and did i see 16 years olds might get the vote?.....lord save us


What a load of codswallop!

Labour are not proposing to "rob pensioners." They are cutting the tax relief on pension contributions for anyone earning over £150,000 per annum from 45% to 20%. This is while they are working - it's the tax relief they get on their pension contributions, not the actual pensions of those who are retired. ut:

"_Ed Miliband also confirmed a previously announced plan to axe pension tax relief for those earning over £150,000, cutting it from 45% to 20%. Around 300,000 earn above £150,000, so the cost will fall on them. _"
Proposed pension tax relief changes: how they affect you | Money | The Guardian

And you snigger at 16 year olds being given the vote? I know many 16 year old who have a greater grasp on reality than you do. :lol:


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

> Labour are not proposing to "rob pensioners." They are cutting the tax relief on pension contributions for anyone earning over £150,000 per annum from 45% to 20%


so that not taking of pensioners? ok.....



> And you snigger at 16 year olds being given the vote? I know many 16 year old who have a greater grasp on reality than you do


I didnt actually snigger, but what life skills do most UK 16 years olds have? most still live with mummy and daddy!

Labour seem to be grasping at straws despite the current government being so unpopular (or so many would have us believe)


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Of course Labours first act when back in power will be to scrap the bedroom tax wont it

wont it?

lets see

:devil:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Colliebarmy said:


> so that not taking of pensioners? ok.....


No, it's lowering the tax relief for a working person earning over £150K a year and paying into a private pension. The pension will remain the same, the government - ie we taxpayers - will just not be giving them quite as much of their monthly contribution towards their pension as we were before.



Colliebarmy said:


> I didnt actually snigger, but what life skills do most UK 16 years olds have? most still live with mummy and daddy!


I didn't say they were particularly skilled - I just said they were more skilled than you 



Colliebarmy said:


> Labour seem to be grasping at straws despite the current government being so unpopular (or so many would have us believe)


Oh I dunno - taking money from the rich in order to cut fees for students seems to be a good move to me.


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

I remember going to a talk by the labour mp when I was at uni - the main thrust of her argument was that labour wouldn't bring in tuition fees. Most of the students voted labour - what was one of the first things they did when they won the election?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Laurac said:


> I remember going to a talk by the labour mp when I was at uni - the main thrust of her argument was that labour wouldn't bring in tuition fees. Most of the students voted labour - what was one of the first things they did when they won the election?


yep they are all completely incapable of telling the truth. every single politician in every single political party. pedos and liars the lot of em.

No matter who you vote for, all you are doing is consenting to be governed. f__k that, i do not consent.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

You can always tell when a politician is lying


their mouth is open


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> I didnt actually snigger, but what life skills do most UK 16 years olds have? most still live with mummy and daddy!


Considering the current house prices most 26 year olds still live there as well!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> Surprisingly is right.I never would have expected to find an article like that in The Telegraph!
> 
> And thanks for the link.
> Despite his 'Gladstonian Liberal' political roots, the writer, Alex Proud, hit the nail mostly on the head with that article, and expressed my feelings too.
> ...


You're welcome Silvi 

I 100% agree with you.



negative creep said:


> Not really no, it was exactly how I quoted it. To be fair the Greens do have a different policy on solving climate change - the mainstream ones will raise taxes whereas they want to take us back to the 17th century when the climate was far colder anyway (must have been all those SUVs they drove around in)


You took one line lol

Taxes? how are taxes going to solve climate change exactly??

Labour is at least committed to the environment agenda Climate change is more than an environmental issue | Ed Miliband | Comment is free | The Guardian , whereas the tories are getting rid of all the 'green crap' & UKIP are plain out & out climate change deniers

Not sure what you are getting at re 17th century climate and SUVs? All the Greens are saying is we need to make a few sacrifices to save the planet.

What could possibly be more terrifying than this? Andrew Lilico: On the ethics of adapting to climate change | Conservative Home the vision of our not too distant future if we don't tackle climate change (seen as something to embrace by this empathy dead sociopath)

Andrew Lilico: On the ethics of adapting to climate change | Conservative Home


----------



## negative creep (Dec 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> You're welcome Silvi
> 
> You took one line lol
> 
> Taxes? how are taxes going to solve climate change exactly??


That's exactly my point - they won't but it's a great excuse to raise them under the name of saving the planet. The reason I mentioned the 17th century was that it shows our climate has been drastically changing long before the industrial revolution and will always continue to do so no matter what mankind does


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

negative creep said:


> Considering the current house prices most 26 year olds still live there as well!


Just watching the news. The government have announced a 20% discount for first time buyers under the age of 40.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Ang2 said:


> Just watching the news. The government have announced a 20% discount for first time buyers under the age of 40.


*The downside to that is, what will all the new buyers do if the interest rates rise like they did under Thatcher?
Whilst interest rates are low i wouldn't be thinking of buying a home.*


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Colliebarmy said:


> Of course Labours first act when back in power will be to scrap the bedroom tax wont it
> 
> wont it?
> 
> ...


I agree with your scepticism on this. Miliband has been pretty silent on the bedroom tax recently. But I don't think that silence will last much longer, as he has to fight the SNP in Scotland and make it plain that Labour is anti-bedroom tax just like they are. Because they will not let him remain silent on this issue.

But this statement was made towards the end of 2013:
We will scrap David Camerons bedroom tax by closing his tax loopholes for the privileged few  Ed Miliband
That statement is from the Labour press office.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

negative creep said:


> That's exactly my point - they won't but it's a great excuse to raise them under the name of saving the planet. The reason I mentioned the 17th century was that it shows our climate has been drastically changing long before the industrial revolution and will always continue to do so no matter what mankind does


Seriously? The effects humans have on climate change has been proven. Humans are EXACERBATING it. Yes, climate has always changed but NOT AT THIS RATE. Even Lilico isn't a denier, he just doesn't care about the mass extinctions of the amazing species we share the Earth with, nor the millions of human lives destroyed. Sociopaths like him are destroying the planet with their insatiable greed.

And regarding taxes - How much do you think its going to cost taxpayers for dealing with the consequences of NOT tackling climate change? Droughts & flooding will get ever more frequent & rising sea levels all cause untold devastation - we will have to foot the bill!.

Climate change isn't any 'excuse' its a FACT but one we could address it if only corrupt politicians weren't in bed with the fossil fuel industry.

,


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Seriously? The effects humans have on climate change has been proven. Humans are EXACERBATING it. Yes, climate has always changed but NOT AT THIS RATE. Even Lilico isn't a denier, he just doesn't care about the mass extinctions of the amazing species we share the Earth with, nor the millions of human lives destroyed. Sociopaths like him are destroying the planet with their insatiable greed.
> 
> And regarding taxes - How much do you think its going to cost taxpayers for dealing with the consequences of NOT tackling climate change? Droughts & flooding will get ever more frequent & rising sea levels all cause untold devastation - we will have to foot the bill!.
> 
> ...


didnt the planet have Ice Ages several times many 1000's of years before the petrol engine was invented?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> didnt the planet have Ice Ages several times many 1000's of years before the petrol engine was invented?


Of course, caused by the Earths natural orbital cycle. But WE KNOW these orbital changes are not behind todays global warming. And infact our orbit dictates we should be cooling NOW, not warming. But the warming is because we are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere disrupting the natural carbon cycle & changing the climate.

The last time when we had a naturally occurring mass release of greenhouse gasses, 90% of species went extinct! So if we don't start reducing our green houses gases IMMEDIATELY in a few short years it will be too late. We will go over the tipping point of 2 degrees pre industrial levels - runaway climate change is irreversible CB, most life on earth will be wiped out.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> didnt the planet have Ice Ages several times many 1000's of years before the petrol engine was invented?


We did but we didn't then have a ruddy great hole in the ozone


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> We did but we didn't then have a ruddy great hole in the ozone


Because the worldleaders at the time took swift action to ban CFC's the ozone layer is actually repairing. Unfortunately some of the CFC replacements are also contributing to climate change.

Ozone layer is healing - but we are now contributing to climate change more than ever - Science - News - The Independent


----------

