Sort-of OT, everyone's talking like the economy's going to keep getting better. But what with the GOP erotically asphixiating the world's largest economy, Italy doing whatever Italy's doing (I didn't follow the details but it doesn't sound good), China's chickens coming home to roost and Robert's CSS going wrong again, isn't there a risk of more trouble in the UK?
EiT - solved the CSS issue. It turned out that the 'minify' function of the Wordpress cache I'm using has a known issue with losing CSS files. So, I've disabled minify...
I am firmly in the camp that thinks it is to the benefit of the long term unemployed to be (re)integrated into the lifestyle of the average working person.
Give them the chance and the requirement to be in attendance for regular hours, that will be a massive confidence boost to any potential employer if they know the applicant who is long term unemployed has spent three months in daily attendance from 9.00 to 4.00. It could help the unemployed to begin to develop self belief. I really don't care if they are engaged to learn, to gain new skills, do charity work, job search in a structured environment or do community work. It is not about minimum wage or pay levels, it is about how we can best help long term unemployed to break the cycle and habit of unemployment and get into work.
The extreme reaction 'Oh! There is a disabled person having to spear litter! Oh! Nasty Tory party!' is palpably pathetic. If you can not help the unemployed to change their habits and lifestyle as a stepping stone towards employment then you are responsible for inflicting a lifetime of poverty and misery on them. It is the attitude of 'Poor darlings, leave them be' that is inflicting the pain on the unemployed in this country.
Sort-of OT, everyone's talking like the economy's going to keep getting better. But what with the GOP erotically asphixiating the world's largest economy, Italy doing whatever Italy's doing (I didn't follow the details but it doesn't sound good), China's chickens coming home to roost and Robert's CSS going wrong again, isn't there a risk of more trouble in the UK?
EiT - solved the CSS issue. It turned out that the 'minify' function of the Wordpress cache I'm using has a known issue with losing CSS files. So, I've disabled minify...
Thanks, could you sort out the government shutdown thing while you're at it?
The Government’s welfare reforms are consistently identified as among their most popular polices.
A YouGov poll commissioned by the right-leaning Policy Exchange think-tank suggested that the public support the introduction for the long-term unemployed by a margin of five to one. More than half of those asked wanted to make people work for their benefits. In contrast, only 17 per cent wanted a jobs guarantee scheme, ensuring a job paid at the minimum wage for the long-term unemployed. Labour has backed such a scheme.
The poll, conducted earlier this month among 1,930 people, also found that only a quarter thought that claimants with mental disabilities who are capable of working should be excluded from any new workfare system. Only 22 per cent thought that people with physical disabilities capable of working should be excluded.
I am sure the sight of disabled people in wheelchairs going around spearing up litter or going to the job centre every day is going to show that Conservatives care . The truth is that the Tories have written off the votes for ever of that section of society and no longer care how much they impoverish them or make their lives harder on a daily basis .
That is wrong on so many levels.
Please provide a link for your hugely unpleasant assertion
I am firmly in the camp that thinks it is to the benefit of the long term unemployed to be (re)integrated into the lifestyle of the average working person.
Give them the chance and the requirement to be in attendance for regular hours, that will be a massive confidence boost to any potential employer if they know the applicant who is long term unemployed has spent three months in daily attendance from 9.00 to 4.00. It could help the unemployed to begin to develop self belief. I really don't care if they are engaged to learn, to gain new skills, do charity work, job search in a structured environment or do community work. It is not about minimum wage or pay levels, it is about how we can best help long term unemployed to break the cycle and habit of unemployment and get into work.
The extreme reaction 'Oh! There is a disabled person having to spear litter! Oh! Nasty Tory party!' is palpably pathetic. If you can not help the unemployed to change their habits and lifestyle as a stepping stone towards employment then you are responsible for inflicting a lifetime of poverty and misery on them. It is the attitude of 'Poor darlings, leave them be' that is inflicting the pain on the unemployed in this country.
Pathetic or not, one important question is its likely electoral impact which imo will be bad for the Conservatives.
There are some very odd sentiments being bandied around today. -Since when has abandoning the’ long term unemployed’ to a life of idleness been an example of a ‘compassionate and civilised society’ ?
There are plenty of schemes to educate, assist and encourage these LTU back to into work, but for those that can’t or won’t help themselves, what exactly is demeaning about contributing something back to the tax payer that is supporting them!
I don't think it will add on any votes never mind a lelluva lot . It will confirm the votes of those like Charles and Plato who do not comprehend how a compassionate and civilised society should be like .
Mark Senior, I don't believe I have ever made an unpleasant comment to you on this board.
Please provide a link to support this vile allegation.
I am sure the sight of disabled people in wheelchairs going around spearing up litter or going to the job centre every day is going to show that Conservatives care . The truth is that the Tories have written off the votes for ever of that section of society and no longer care how much they impoverish them or make their lives harder on a daily basis .
That is wrong on so many levels.
Please provide a link for your hugely unpleasant assertion
Seems Mark is taking the position of tribal smearer-in-chief in tim's absence.
The problem with performance related pay for teaching is that it is near impossible to assess accurately. To get a fair idea of the individual worth of each teacher, you'd need to have them each teach the same class on the same topic for the same amount of time, and then have them sit the same exam. Obviously impractical. By simply "paying by results" you run the risk of results being affected by a particularly above or below average set of students.
Lesson observations are also problematic. A teacher will typically teach about 1500 lessons year. The school will probably only have the resources to conduct observations 4 or 5 lessons a year per teacher. So a teachers salary will depend on observing about 0.3% their total work in a year. Clearly wholly unrepresentative, and again, a particularly well or badly performing class would have an undue impact.
Video all the classes, then jump through the footage at random to get a representative sample.
Lower pay for camera-shy teachers. Will that be the elections slogan?
On that thought, and to be serious for a minute, perhaps Mr Gove should look at whether drama schools could help teachers with presenting and performing skills. There are many online lectures on youtube and elsewhere and (anecdote alert!) the most engaging professors even in dry, technical subjects seem to have the same speech patterns as would be used for telling a story or even in stand-up comedy.
I'd agree. One of the programmes we support quite heavily (both as part of the exhibition cycle and also independently) is "storytelling" in schools - sending professionals into schools to help engage their interest in a new subject in a very compelling way. I've never participated it in myself (although I've watched one performance at the last exhibition and the kids seemed very involved) but the feedback from the schools is incredibly positive.
I paid for a RADA course myself [was about £600] to improve my story telling/presentation skills and its probably the hardest thing I've ever done. I'm generally seen as being good company and a good public speaker but this was a whole other level.
One session involved just standing in front of your group and being inspected without words for 10 minutes - it was dreadful. I wanted to look away, cry, smile uncontrollably, read their minds etc. It was totally unnerving and gave a glimpse into what acting is all about when you had nothing to hide behind.
If anyone wonders if RADA courses are worth it - they really are. Every penny.
The problem with performance related pay for teaching is that it is near impossible to assess accurately. To get a fair idea of the individual worth of each teacher, you'd need to have them each teach the same class on the same topic for the same amount of time, and then have them sit the same exam. Obviously impractical. By simply "paying by results" you run the risk of results being affected by a particularly above or below average set of students.
Lesson observations are also problematic. A teacher will typically teach about 1500 lessons year. The school will probably only have the resources to conduct observations 4 or 5 lessons a year per teacher. So a teachers salary will depend on observing about 0.3% their total work in a year. Clearly wholly unrepresentative, and again, a particularly well or badly performing class would have an undue impact.
Video all the classes, then jump through the footage at random to get a representative sample.
I am sure the sight of disabled people in wheelchairs going around spearing up litter or going to the job centre every day is going to show that Conservatives care . The truth is that the Tories have written off the votes for ever of that section of society and no longer care how much they impoverish them or make their lives harder on a daily basis .
That is wrong on so many levels.
Please provide a link for your hugely unpleasant assertion
Seems Mark is taking the position of tribal smearer-in-chief in tim's absence.
Sure. But I care about this one. It potentially damages my reputation.
A big problem with some long-term unemployed people is a fear of employment, a feeling that they do not have the qualifications or skills to compete in a workplace. Most of us have a reluctance to go outside of our comfort limits, to expand our boundaries. When you are unemployed for a long time, those boundaries can become very small, and it becomes increasingly hard to break out of that comfort zone.
This is a problem with a few people I've known, who either go 'on the sick' or just remain on JSA or similar (this was a few years ago). It is a feeling of not being valued, of worthlessness. Confidence is key.
Hence I can see the advantages of encouraging people out of those comfort zones, to show them an alternate path. I've also known people who did well out of the YTS / MSC in the early 1980s, learning skills that have kept them employed to this say, although I'm unsure if they're the exception rather than the rule.
How do you give the long-term unemployed the skills and confidence they need to face the workplace? If Osborne's plan isn't the answer (and it's far from ideal), then what is?
I am firmly in the camp that thinks it is to the benefit of the long term unemployed to be (re)integrated into the lifestyle of the average working person.
Give them the chance and the requirement to be in attendance for regular hours, that will be a massive confidence boost to any potential employer if they know the applicant who is long term unemployed has spent three months in daily attendance from 9.00 to 4.00. It could help the unemployed to begin to develop self belief. I really don't care if they are engaged to learn, to gain new skills, do charity work, job search in a structured environment or do community work. It is not about minimum wage or pay levels, it is about how we can best help long term unemployed to break the cycle and habit of unemployment and get into work.
The extreme reaction 'Oh! There is a disabled person having to spear litter! Oh! Nasty Tory party!' is palpably pathetic. If you can not help the unemployed to change their habits and lifestyle as a stepping stone towards employment then you are responsible for inflicting a lifetime of poverty and misery on them. It is the attitude of 'Poor darlings, leave them be' that is inflicting the pain on the unemployed in this country.
Idleness was listed as one of the "Five Giant Evils" in society by a Liberal.
Through the period up to 2008 the country added 2 million more jobs but unfortunately 90% were filled through immigration. The previous Govt Tdid not tackle the problem of how to get the long term unemployed to take up jobs when an economy grows. How much the new announcements will improve this situation as we enter a growth phase, is the debate. But they are unlikely to make the problem of idleness worse.
I am firmly in the camp that thinks it is to the benefit of the long term unemployed to be (re)integrated into the lifestyle of the average working person.
Tories are getting really rather smart with their social media stuff. It's very nicely presented to in simple clear format.
I was sent this and spent 30 seconds filling it in - with no mortgage or petrol costs or children
"Here's what we have done to help you and hardworking people in your area:
Helped create 130,000 new private sector jobs in the South East
Reduced crime by 9% in Sussex
We've increased the amount you can earn before you start paying tax. This means lower Income Tax for 25 million people, including 2.4 million of the lowest paid workers (who now pay no Income Tax at all)
Offered councils funding to freeze Council tax, saving an average of £210 a year on a band D home
Capped benefits so no out-of-work household can claim more than the average family earns by working
Cut the national deficit by a third
Reduced net immigration by a third
Created more than a million apprenticeships
Pledged an in-out referendum on Europe by the end of 2017
Forcing energy companies to put customers on the lowest tariff
I for one, am frustrated at the demonisation of those out of work, by both parties. I consider my fortunate, that I've never been unemployed, and don't fancy being scapegoated by successive governments. They'd be better of learning new skills to help them obtain gainful employment.
I'm certain a lot of those on long term unemployed would rather be out working than receiving £72 a week JSA.
Proposals like this are all fart and no follow through, Job Centre plus struggles to see you once a fortnight, can you imagine how they'd struggle to see people daily, and I'm not sure there's enough tasks out there to make the long term unemployed work 30 hrs a week for their JSA.
I mean take this from 2008, a Labour Government, A Labour Government proposed this
The Welfare Green Paper includes plans to scrap Incapacity Benefit and make those jobless for more than two years work full-time in the community.
Why should someone in a wheelchair not work, Mr Senior? Or maybe you should ask the person pushing them - don't want to treat them like normal people, do we?
Idleness was listed as one of the "Five Giant Evils" in society by a Liberal.
Through the period up to 2008 the country added 2 million more jobs but unfortunately 90% were filled through immigration. The previous Govt Tdid not tackle the problem of how to get the long term unemployed to take up jobs when an economy grows. How much the new announcements will improve this situation as we enter a growth phase, is the debate. But they are unlikely to make the problem of idleness worse.
That doesn't seem to square with this claim by Hopi Sen just now:
@HopiSen By the way, reducing long term JSA claims one of New Labour quieter successes. Inherited 350k in 97, left 45k in 2010...
Is he wrong or is there some statistical trickery going on, eg unemployed people getting shoved off JSA and onto something else?
Performance assessment has been in schools for decades. both my parents were teachers, and my wife is one. It's not 'impossible' as some might say, as it already happens on a daily basis.
Yes, there has been ASSESSMENT for decades (wife is also a teacher.) It's horribly flawed as its based on ticking the boxes OFSTED thinks should be ticked rather than anything of actual value. For example, my wife's school mader her create a colour-coded version of every seating chart for every class by whether or not a student was receiving free school meals to fulfil the OFSTED criteria of "ensuring students' backgrounds are taken into consideration."
Only recently has the silly (for the reasons I've outlined below) suggestion it should be linked directly to pay when "performance" is so hard to measure.
I am firmly in the camp that thinks it is to the benefit of the long term unemployed to be (re)integrated into the lifestyle of the average working person.
What are your recommendations for Plato?
Treat her like everyone else?
There are a vast array of people, all with different situations, conditions, requirements and capabilities. Somewhere in the mix there is the right solution for her.
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
The number of unemployed would almost double if people on incapacity benefit were included, new figures show. The statistical fudge is particularly common in Tony Blair's own constituency, as Rajeev Syal reports.
.....However, while Labour has hailed a fall in those claiming unemployment benefit since 1997, the numbers claiming incapacity benefits have gone up.
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
Why should someone in a wheelchair not work, Mr Senior? Or maybe you should ask the person pushing them - don't want to treat them like normal people, do we?
As someone who did have to push someone in a wheelchair for quite a few years , I know the answer , I suspect that you in your ivory tower have not the foggiest .
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
Proposals like this are all fart and no follow through, Job Centre plus struggles to see you once a fortnight, can you imagine how they'd struggle to see people daily, and I'm not sure there's enough tasks out there to make the long term unemployed work 30 hrs a week for their JSA.
I
Precisely. Nothing will come of this "policy." It will be forgotten by next week and the only long-term effect it will have is to give another boost to popular cynicism about politicians who make such announcements in the full knowledge that are completely impractical and there are zero plans for implementation.
Victoria Freeman @make_trouble Labour claim to have "saved the NHS". They didn't. They mortgaged it in PFI deals. The repayments are now due & the NHS can't afford them.
Idleness was listed as one of the "Five Giant Evils" in society by a Liberal.
Through the period up to 2008 the country added 2 million more jobs but unfortunately 90% were filled through immigration. The previous Govt Tdid not tackle the problem of how to get the long term unemployed to take up jobs when an economy grows. How much the new announcements will improve this situation as we enter a growth phase, is the debate. But they are unlikely to make the problem of idleness worse.
That doesn't seem to square with this claim by Hopi Sen just now:
@HopiSen By the way, reducing long term JSA claims one of New Labour quieter successes. Inherited 350k in 97, left 45k in 2010...
Is he wrong or is there some statistical trickery going on, eg unemployed people getting shoved off JSA and onto something else?
Actually, the two claims are not in the least bit contradictory. The reduction in JSA is about 300,000 people, which squares well with 2 million jobs created of which 1.7m (slightly less than 90%, but near enough) went to immigrants.
If you create 2m new jobs when there are only 350k people on JSA, then some of the new jobs are going to have to go to foreigners.
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
Mark, when you say that, are you telling me what I (and others) believe, or are you telling me what I should believe?
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
Have you never watched The Jeremy Kyle show?
Until I saw the Jeremy Kyle Show - I assumed it was an urban legend - then I sat open-mouthed at the Croydon Facelifts, paternity tests, drug addled-parents with kids in care or smashed on tinnies, streams of cursing and threatening behaviour/security called to stop on-stage fights... And none of it seemed staged - these souls really did live lives like this - bloody awful and unhappy as well.
Tories are getting really rather smart with their social media stuff. It's very nicely presented to in simple clear format.
I was sent this and spent 30 seconds filling it in - with no mortgage or petrol costs or children
"Here's what we have done to help you and hardworking people in your area:
Helped create 130,000 new private sector jobs in the South East
Mostly part-time zero hours contracts
Reduced crime by 9% in Sussex
Crime was already falling under Labour.
We've increased the amount you can earn before you start paying tax. This means lower Income Tax for 25 million people, including 2.4 million of the lowest paid workers (who now pay no Income Tax at all)
A Liberal Democrat policy.
Offered councils funding to freeze Council tax, saving an average of £210 a year on a band D home
Which increasing numbers of councils are refusing as it doesn't cover the shortfall.
Capped benefits so no out-of-work household can claim more than the average family earns by working
A policy with minimal savings as contrary to what is written in the Mail et al, very few families were over the limit in the first place.
Cut the national deficit by a third
Wasn't the plan to cut it by 100%? Achieving a third of your target in most occupations is grounds for dismissal.
Reduced net immigration by a third
Mostly due to an increase in emigration, and by cutting international students which deprive universities of much needed income.
Created more than a million apprenticeships
I'll give you that
Pledged an in-out referendum on Europe by the end of 2017
A needless pandering to the Tory right
Forcing energy companies to put customers on the lowest tariff
Idleness was listed as one of the "Five Giant Evils" in society by a Liberal.
Through the period up to 2008 the country added 2 million more jobs but unfortunately 90% were filled through immigration. The previous Govt Tdid not tackle the problem of how to get the long term unemployed to take up jobs when an economy grows. How much the new announcements will improve this situation as we enter a growth phase, is the debate. But they are unlikely to make the problem of idleness worse.
That doesn't seem to square with this claim by Hopi Sen just now:
@HopiSen By the way, reducing long term JSA claims one of New Labour quieter successes. Inherited 350k in 97, left 45k in 2010...
Is he wrong or is there some statistical trickery going on, eg unemployed people getting shoved off JSA and onto something else?
Actually, the two claims are not in the least bit contradictory. The reduction in JSA is about 300,000 people, which squares well with 2 million jobs created of which 1.7m (slightly less than 90%, but near enough) went to immigrants.
If you create 2m new jobs when there are only 350k people on JSA, then some of the new jobs are going to have to go to foreigners.
No you don't, RCS: there are plenty of people not currently in work who are not on JSA.
I am firmly in the camp that thinks it is to the benefit of the long term unemployed to be (re)integrated into the lifestyle of the average working person.
It will be interesting to see how George manages his tone today in relation to welfare. So often the tories get it wrong.
He will add: “For the first time, all long-term unemployed people … who are capable of work will be required to do something in return for their benefits to help them find work.”
Mixed messages. What he in fact seems to be proposing is a modest extension of existing schemes by which the long term unemployed are given work experience to help them become more employable. There are also to be specific programs to attack illiteracy and drug issues. Who could argue with this?
IMO this is both compassionate and right. The way that society abandons so
Will this be the message today or will it be the usual scrounger rubbish? It is all about tone. Osborne is generally socially liberal. I really hope he gets it right.
Would you be happy to work 30 hours for £69 a week? That's less than a third of the minimum wage.
At least it would give you some discipline and self respect , rather than in many cases just sponging off other people for most of their lives. I have to work a lot of hours to pay for the layabouts and despite some on here who live in cloud cuckoo land , lots do not want to work and prefer sponging and being able to lie in bed watching their 60" plasma.
Picking up litter for £2.30 an hour. That's an interesting definition of self-respect.
If they had any self respect , given they are being kept free of charge, they would be out doing voluntary work when not job hunting. This would keep them in habit of a decent routine , getting out of bed in the morning and helping their community. No excuse for people expecting other people to feed and clothe them , it has been bred into them over last 40 years and explains why the country is in permanent decline, people have no principles or self respect and believe it is their right to have their life funded by others.
For all of Electoral Calculus' use of the term "forecast", they are in fact producing essentially a nowcast, or a risk-adjusted variant thereupon: it is asking, at least mostly, what would happen if Lab won 37.46% and 31.02%, rather than predicting some new set of figures and asking what would happen then. I'd be interested to know if "mostly" was true, or "totally".
Either that or according to their prediction there will be no or only a small change (which doesn't accord with the prominence of the graph). If you look at the graph's figure for where we are now, it accords exactly with the numbers put into the projection, whereas if it were a true prediction they'd be different.
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
Have you never watched The Jeremy Kyle show?
Until I saw the Jeremy Kyle Show - I assumed it was an urban legend - then I sat open-mouthed at the Croydon Facelifts, paternity tests, drug addled-parents with kids in care or smashed on tinnies, streams of cursing and threatening behaviour/security called to stop on-stage fights... And none of it seemed staged - these souls really did live lives like this - bloody awful and unhappy as well.
I've been in the audience of the Jeremy Kyle show, it is staged.
When the director shouts, can you storm off to the right this time, so we can get a better camera angle....
Baskerville">Why should someone in a wheelchair not work, Mr Senior? Or maybe you should ask the person pushing them - don't want to treat them like normal people, do we?
As someone who did have to push someone in a wheelchair for quite a few years , I know the answer , I suspect that you in your ivory tower have not the foggiest .
There's no need to be rude. You have no idea what my tower is built of. The point you appear too smart to take in, is that being in a wheelchair does not prevent you working. I assume you have friends, like I have, who travel to work on train and bus regardless of being wheelchair-bound. Billions have been spent making public transport accessible and one of the reasons was to make it easier for the disabled to get around; to the shops, to the leisure centre, and, yes, to work. Conservatives like me do not want to write anyone off because of disability. I am surprised that you do. So, please stop being unpleasant to people you do not know and engage with their arguments.
Idleness was listed as one of the "Five Giant Evils" in society by a Liberal.
Through the period up to 2008 the country added 2 million more jobs but unfortunately 90% were filled through immigration. The previous Govt Tdid not tackle the problem of how to get the long term unemployed to take up jobs when an economy grows. How much the new announcements will improve this situation as we enter a growth phase, is the debate. But they are unlikely to make the problem of idleness worse.
That doesn't seem to square with this claim by Hopi Sen just now:
@HopiSen By the way, reducing long term JSA claims one of New Labour quieter successes. Inherited 350k in 97, left 45k in 2010...
Is he wrong or is there some statistical trickery going on, eg unemployed people getting shoved off JSA and onto something else?
Actually, the two claims are not in the least bit contradictory. The reduction in JSA is about 300,000 people, which squares well with 2 million jobs created of which 1.7m (slightly less than 90%, but near enough) went to immigrants.
If you create 2m new jobs when there are only 350k people on JSA, then some of the new jobs are going to have to go to foreigners.
Sorry, I should have cut the quote better. The bit I didn't think square was:
The previous Govt Tdid not tackle the problem of how to get the long term unemployed to take up jobs when an economy grows.
If they're taking a serious chunk out of the number of long-term unemployment numbers from 1997 then they seem to have done quite well at getting the long-term unemployed to take up jobs when the economy grows, notwithstanding that it may be a statistical scam as suggested by @TheScreamingEagles.
PS The "% of new jobs have gone to foreigners" wording is misleading for different reasons, which become more obvious when it goes over 100%...
If they had any self respect , given they are being kept free of charge, they would be out doing voluntary work when not job hunting. This would keep them in habit of a decent routine , getting out of bed in the morning and helping their community. No excuse for people expecting other people to feed and clothe them , it has been bred into them over last 40 years and explains why the country is in permanent decline, people have no principles or self respect and believe it is their right to have their life fu nded by others.
Where in the UK can you feed and clothe yourself for £69 a week, including paying all your household bills (let's assume there's no rent/mortgage)? Don't forget to factor travel costs into all that voluntary work you'll be doing.
Would you be happy to work 30 hours for £69 a week? That's less than a third of the minimum wage.
If we want people to work for benefits then we should abolish out-of-work benefits for those fit to work and simply offer the unemployed a guaranteed job working for the government at minimum wage, with paid holidays, etc.
I've no idea what you would do with ~16 million hours of labour every day that wouldn't undermine the rest of the labour market, but it would be a damn sight better than the demeaning crap the Tories are coming up with.
They are on 52 weeks paid holidays at present, get them out doing something. There should not be anybody that expects their lifestyle to be funded long term by the sweat and toil of other people. It at least would focus their minds on getting work so that they were really better off. Millions of foreigners manage it , but they are happy to get out of their beds and graft for 8 hours unlike our wasters.
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
Mark, when you say that, are you telling me what I (and others) believe, or are you telling me what I should believe?
Why don't you come out and say outright what you actually believe or has malcolmg summed up your views accurately ?
More importantly, unemployment is not all "the fault of immigrants". If all immigration stopped tomorrow (and all the immigrants went home), this would not transform the c. 7% of the workforce who are unemployed into productive members of society.
Some people are unemployed because they lack the appropriate skills to be competitive in today's globalised workforce. Some are unemployed because they have very specialist skills where job opportunities are rare, and therefore are waiting for something in their field to appear. Some are unemployed because they have antisocial habits. Some have CVs that simply do not look attractive to prospective employers. And some people have made a conscious decision that having only a little money, and not working is more appealing than having more money and less time.
Of course, there are also people who have been outcompeted by a Pole or a Roumanian for a job. But employers are rational people: why would they choose someone whose background they cannot check so easily or whose English would almost certainly be less good unless there was a very good reason?
Remember this:- both employers and immigrants are economically rational people. If the employer is not hiring a Brit, there is probably a good reason for this. Getting rid of the immigrant does not make the Brit any better value an employee, it merely means that the choice of staff available to the employer is smaller.
I always think that immigration is a symptom of other problems. Specifically, it is the problems of poor education/training; and a misguided system of welfare that means that marginal tax rates (once removal of benefits are included) are higher for those at the bottom of the pyramid, than those at the top.
I'm listening to Radio 5, where they've been mentioning Islamist terrorism in Africa. The problem, is whenever Victoria Derbyshire says the name of the terrorist group 'Boko Haram', I hear 'Procol Harum'.
Idleness was listed as one of the "Five Giant Evils" in society by a Liberal.
Through the period up to 2008 the country added 2 million more jobs but unfortunately 90% were filled through immigration. The previous Govt Tdid not tackle the problem of how to get the long term unemployed to take up jobs when an economy grows. How much the new announcements will improve this situation as we enter a growth phase, is the debate. But they are unlikely to make the problem of idleness worse.
That doesn't seem to square with this claim by Hopi Sen just now:
@HopiSen By the way, reducing long term JSA claims one of New Labour quieter successes. Inherited 350k in 97, left 45k in 2010...
Is he wrong or is there some statistical trickery going on, eg unemployed people getting shoved off JSA and onto something else?
Actually, the two claims are not in the least bit contradictory. The reduction in JSA is about 300,000 people, which squares well with 2 million jobs created of which 1.7m (slightly less than 90%, but near enough) went to immigrants.
If you create 2m new jobs when there are only 350k people on JSA, then some of the new jobs are going to have to go to foreigners.
No you don't, RCS: there are plenty of people not currently in work who are not on JSA.
Having looked through the source of the 90% of new jobs going to foreigners, I would like to take back my earlier statement in its entirety. The reasoning, etc, behind the numbers is almost non-existant and involves so much double-counting as to be complety ridiculous.
"Crime was already falling under Labour" is a strange repost. According to the BCS/CSEW it was already falling (if only for a year) under Major. In any case, it hardly takes away from the large fall in almost every type of crime under the present government. (Sexual offences make up the most important exception, but they are subject to the most uncertainty about whether reported crimes reflect the true extent of crime, and so forth.)
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
Mark, when you say that, are you telling me what I (and others) believe, or are you telling me what I should believe?
Why don't you come out and say outright what you actually believe or has malcolmg summed up your views accurately ?
I am happy to work with disabled people, and have employed them in the past. I have no problems with anyone who makes some attempt with their life, or wishes to make some effort with their life.
I have only fired one person to date, offered him a job paying £500 per week near Leicester, he had to travel from Lancashire for one day a week, worked from home the rest of the time. I took him the first two weeks, then asked him to go alone.
Baskerville">Why should someone in a wheelchair not work, Mr Senior? Or maybe you should ask the person pushing them - don't want to treat them like normal people, do we?
As someone who did have to push someone in a wheelchair for quite a few years , I know the answer , I suspect that you in your ivory tower have not the foggiest .
There's no need to be rude. You have no idea what my tower is built of. The point you appear too smart to take in, is that being in a wheelchair does not prevent you working. I assume you have friends, like I have, who travel to work on train and bus regardless of being wheelchair-bound. Billions have been spent making public transport accessible and one of the reasons was to make it easier for the disabled to get around; to the shops, to the leisure centre, and, yes, to work. Conservatives like me do not want to write anyone off because of disability. I am surprised that you do. So, please stop being unpleasant to people you do not know and engage with their arguments.
Conservatives like you may not want to write anyone off because of disability but you want to make them poorer via bedroom tax and then find more money out of thin air to travel to a job centre every day in pursuit of job vacancies that do not exist .
Dear Mark, There seems little point in debating with you, as you appear convinced that anyone who says they are Conservative is related to the Devil Incarnate. Yours, Baskerville
"Crime was already falling under Labour" is a strange repost. According to the BCS/CSEW it was already falling (if only for a year) under Major. In any case, it hardly takes away from the large fall in almost every type of crime under the present government. (Sexual offences make up the most important exception, but they are subject to the most uncertainty about whether reported crimes reflect the true extent of crime, and so forth.)
I would however agree that there were cynics in 2010 who would not believe crime was falling (assisted by the then Opposition) and there will be cynics in 2015 (assisted by the then Opposition). The ones in 2015 will be even more wrong than the ones in 2010.
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
I don't know who your nonsensical phrase 'PBTories' refers to, but sensible people such as George Osborne and IDS realise that the long-term unemployed includes a very large number of people who are either not disabled at all, or who suffer from health problems which are not so severe as to make working impossible, and, amongst those, there are many who have become trapped in a long-term vicious circle of welfare dependency which it turn leads to depression and other problems, who lose confidence, whose skills become outdated, who need help to get back into work for their own good and for the good of society as a whole. Amongst those are certainly a few wasters who fit your description, but the vast majority are more victims of the system than exploiters of it.
Labour, and it seems some LibDems, seem to think that just paying them off and leaving them festering in this cycle of despair is somehow compassionate. It's not.
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
Labour, and it seems some LibDems, seem to think that just paying them off and leaving them festering in this cycle of despair is somehow compassionate. It's not.
Dear Mark, There seems little point in debating with you, as you appear convinced that anyone who says they are Conservative is related to the Devil Incarnate. Yours, Baskerville
Good morning Baskerville
Mark S seems to be having a shocker this morning, not quite in control of his emotions, and misjudging the mood somewhat. Foregive his gaucheness; it is out of character, from what I can recall of his previous posts.
Give him another chance once he has fired up the Nespresso machine.
Universal National Swing came closer to the 2010 results of seats won in England than any of the extra sophisticated systems touted on Political betting pre election. Grim reading for the Lib Dems
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
I don't know who your nonsensical phrase 'PBTories' refers to, but sensible people such as George Osborne and IDS realise that the long-term unemployed includes a very large number of people who are either not disabled at all, or who suffer from health problems which are not so severe as to make working impossible, and, amongst those, there are many who have become trapped in a long-term vicious circle of welfare dependency which it turn leads to depression and other problems, who lose confidence, whose skills become outdated, who need help to get back into work for their own good and for the good of society as a whole. Amongst those are certainly a few wasters who fit your description, but the vast majority are more victims of the system than exploiters of it.
Labour, and it seems some LibDems, seem to think that just paying them off and leaving them festering in this cycle of despair is somehow compassionate. It's not.
Richard, do you think there will come a point where the Tories can say "Now we can be increasingly certain that only the "right" people (*some other word presumably!) are claiming JSA that we're going to increase it"? Bearing in mind people considerably overestimate the extent of JSA and the cost of it compared to housing benefit and so on?
"Crime was already falling under Labour" is a strange repost. According to the BCS/CSEW it was already falling (if only for a year) under Major. In any case, it hardly takes away from the large fall in almost every type of crime under the present government. (Sexual offences make up the most important exception, but they are subject to the most uncertainty about whether reported crimes reflect the true extent of crime, and so forth.)
I would however agree that there were cynics in 2010 who would not believe crime was falling (assisted by the then Opposition) and there will be cynics in 2015 (assisted by the then Opposition). The ones in 2015 will be even more wrong than the ones in 2010.
Dear Mark, There seems little point in debating with you, as you appear convinced that anyone who says they are Conservative is related to the Devil Incarnate. Yours, Baskerville
Good morning Baskerville
Mark S seems to be having a shocker this morning, not quite in control of his emotions, and misjudging the mood somewhat. Foregive his gaucheness; it is out of character, from what I can recall of his previous posts.
Give him another chance once he has fired up the Nespresso machine.
Reading Senior's very non-liberal comments this morning, one could be forgiven for assuming that he's having his own 'nasty party'.
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
I don't know who your nonsensical phrase 'PBTories' refers to, but sensible people such as George Osborne and IDS realise that the long-term unemployed includes a very large number of people who are either not disabled at all, or who suffer from health problems which are not so severe as to make working impossible, and, amongst those, there are many who have become trapped in a long-term vicious circle of welfare dependency which it turn leads to depression and other problems, who lose confidence, whose skills become outdated, who need help to get back into work for their own good and for the good of society as a whole. Amongst those are certainly a few wasters who fit your description, but the vast majority are more victims of the system than exploiters of it.
Labour, and it seems some LibDems, seem to think that just paying them off and leaving them festering in this cycle of despair is somehow compassionate. It's not.
It is possible that George Osborne is a sensible person who realises that the long term unemployed consists of a wide range of people as you describe but sadly he is not being sensible when he seems to want to speak in a soundbite manner to people like malcolmg categorising most of the unemployed as wasters who fit not my description but that of a number of posters on here .
I'm not sure of the value of 30hour a week programmes (if that is what it is), but it's clear to anyone that there should be at least some system of giving the long term unemployed a certain amount of structure to give them any chance of getting back into work. That can be as simple at getting up in the morning at a certain time.
Otherwise, you might as well just write people off, and no-one should be doing that.
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
Have you never watched The Jeremy Kyle show?
Until I saw the Jeremy Kyle Show - I assumed it was an urban legend - then I sat open-mouthed at the Croydon Facelifts, paternity tests, drug addled-parents with kids in care or smashed on tinnies, streams of cursing and threatening behaviour/security called to stop on-stage fights... And none of it seemed staged - these souls really did live lives like this - bloody awful and unhappy as well.
People with politically conservative beliefs are more likely to doubt the reality or seriousness of climate change. Accurate information about climate change is no less readily available to these people than anybody else. But climate policies such as the regulation of industrial emissions often seem to clash with conservative political views. And people work backwards from their values, filtering the facts according to their pre-existing beliefs.
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
I don't know who your nonsensical phrase 'PBTories' refers to, but sensible people such as George Osborne and IDS realise that the long-term unemployed includes a very large number of people who are either not disabled at all, or who suffer from health problems which are not so severe as to make working impossible, and, amongst those, there are many who have become trapped in a long-term vicious circle of welfare dependency which it turn leads to depression and other problems, who lose confidence, whose skills become outdated, who need help to get back into work for their own good and for the good of society as a whole. Amongst those are certainly a few wasters who fit your description, but the vast majority are more victims of the system than exploiters of it.
Labour, and it seems some LibDems, seem to think that just paying them off and leaving them festering in this cycle of despair is somehow compassionate. It's not.
It is possible that George Osborne is a sensible person who realises that the long term unemployed consists of a wide range of people as you describe but sadly he is not being sensible when he seems to want to speak in a soundbite manner to people like malcolmg categorising most of the unemployed as wasters who fit not my description but that of a number of posters on here .
If you don't like people categorising other groups of people in a soundbite manner, perhaps you should not use terms like 'PB Tory' ?
It is particularly perverse as the person who you most appear to be railing against is an SNP supporter.
Richard, do you think there will come a point where the Tories can say "Now we can be increasingly certain that only the "right" people (*some other word presumably!) are claiming JSA that we're going to increase it"? Bearing in mind people considerably overestimate the extent of JSA and the cost of it compared to housing benefit and so on?
Interesting point, but that might run up against the principle of ensuring that it should always pay to take work.
Thanks, Topping. I do despair that people's motives are so maligned. I've worked with many disabled people - deaf, blind, wheelchairs - and none of them was treated any differently, and why should they be? My motivation is to ensure as many people as possible have productive lives. Work is the best guarantor of that. Throw in marriage as well and you are well on the way to sustainability. Does that make me an Evil Conservative, or just a Conservative?
Thanks, Topping. I do despair that people's motives are so maligned. I've worked with many disabled people - deaf, blind, wheelchairs - and none of them was treated any differently, and why should they be? My motivation is to ensure as many people as possible have productive lives. Work is the best guarantor of that. Throw in marriage as well and you are well on the way to sustainability. Does that make me an Evil Conservative, or just a Conservative?
You're only an evil Conservative if you get the horn at such proposals.
Does anyone think the Bullingdon Boys are really the appropriate people to tell the unemployed to get off their backsides and turn up every day at an employment exchange for £69 a week or they'll lose their benefit? Don't you think those born without a silver spoon might find it rather repulsive?
Whatever the merits of workfare, the government needs to be careful. If you read the comments on newspaper threads, the conservatives are in danger of overplaying their hand on welfare./
The assumption that this will be very popular because the last lot of welfare reforms were is a dangerous fallacy.
"Crime was already falling under Labour" is a strange repost. According to the BCS/CSEW it was already falling (if only for a year) under Major. In any case, it hardly takes away from the large fall in almost every type of crime under the present government. (Sexual offences make up the most important exception, but they are subject to the most uncertainty about whether reported crimes reflect the true extent of crime, and so forth.)
I would however agree that there were cynics in 2010 who would not believe crime was falling (assisted by the then Opposition) and there will be cynics in 2015 (assisted by the then Opposition). The ones in 2015 will be even more wrong than the ones in 2010.
It is possible that George Osborne is a sensible person who realises that the long term unemployed consists of a wide range of people as you describe but sadly he is not being sensible when he seems to want to speak in a soundbite manner to people like malcolmg categorising most of the unemployed as wasters who fit not my description but that of a number of posters on here .
But he doesn't. You are reacting to what you want to believe he says, not what he actually says. Listen to his Today interview this morning (and, no doubt, to his speech later today).
you are wasting your time trying to explain the realities of life to a pbtory .
Yes, only you are aware of the reality, which is that the long-term unemployed comprises entirely "disabled people in wheelchairs".
Of course they don't but nor do they consist entirely of wasters lying in bed all day watching 60 inch plasma TVs drinking cans of beer as pbtories seem to believe .
I don't know who your nonsensical phrase 'PBTories' refers to, but sensible people such as George Osborne and IDS realise that the long-term unemployed includes a very large number of people who are either not disabled at all, or who suffer from health problems which are not so severe as to make working impossible, and, amongst those, there are many who have become trapped in a long-term vicious circle of welfare dependency which it turn leads to depression and other problems, who lose confidence, whose skills become outdated, who need help to get back into work for their own good and for the good of society as a whole. Amongst those are certainly a few wasters who fit your description, but the vast majority are more victims of the system than exploiters of it.
Labour, and it seems some LibDems, seem to think that just paying them off and leaving them festering in this cycle of despair is somehow compassionate. It's not.
Richard, do you think there will come a point where the Tories can say "Now we can be increasingly certain that only the "right" people (*some other word presumably!) are claiming JSA that we're going to increase it"? Bearing in mind people considerably overestimate the extent of JSA and the cost of it compared to housing benefit and so on?
IF JSA + invalidity benefit (forget the latest names) claimants were close to 4-5% then I would have thought we would be close-ish to a combination of NAIRU and a reasonable assumption about the level of disability in a mature Western economy.
Re the YouGov in the Sunday Times, sorry if it was mentioned before, but I found this snippet interesting
Another worry for Labour is while people support the policy announcements, there is some doubt about whether they are actually affordable - 52% think Labour are making promises the country can't afford, 23% disagree. In comparison only 35% think the Conservatives are making unaffordable promises, 36% do not.
I always think that immigration is a symptom of other problems. Specifically, it is the problems of poor education/training; and a misguided system of welfare that means that marginal tax rates (once removal of benefits are included) are higher for those at the bottom of the pyramid, than those at the top.
Very good post. I've read Osborne's proposals in detail (not much else to do at the currently quiet Tory conference). It has the two highlighted features - get a job or report to the Job Centre every day - but also a third option of intensive intervention where there is a serious mental health, literacy or other obstacle.
In PRINCIPLE this covers the main issues. I'm positively enthusiastic about the intensive intervention. But we need to be clear that options 2 and 3 require a lot more (paid) people to make them work. Job centres already have queues and struggle to do more than a token chat now and then. If large numbers turn up every day, either they'll need some sort of automated system which does nothing at all to help get work, or they'll need several times as many staff. Similarly, that intensive intervention rquires lots of trainers, medics, advisers, and so on. I've not heard Osborne refer to putting one penny extra into the system for any of that.
An anecdote may be illuminating here. A friend who works in a church charity knows an unemployed person who is largely illiterate, clinically depressed and alcoholic. He says that no sane employer would take him on as things stand (and would prefer any energetic Bulgarian) - certainly encouraging him to serve snacks to pensioners or paint road markings would be entirely unrealistic since the results would be dreadful. It is possible to see a sustained effort with training, advice and rehab making a difference. It would indisputably be wonderful if it could be done, both for him and for society.
The current system doesn't remotely attempt it. Would Osborne's? And by the way, the same applies to Labour's jobs guarantee. Labour would pay the wages for 6 months for someone willing to take the guy on. But who would?
As someone who has lurked here regularly since about three months before the last election, but with little time to get involved, could I just say what a delight this site has been in recent days without the presence of the poster known as Tim. The last I saw, he was challenged to come up with a truly meaningful post for his 10,000th post but either it was of such stupendous moment that it got him instantly banned or he finally realised that he never could produce anything of the required quality and probably never had done so. The result is as if the sun has come out from behind the clouds and this site is immeasurably improved by his absence. I had come to think of Tim and his unhealthy obsessions with horses, Osborne, Cameron, etc as being "The One True FOP", FOP, of course, being an acronym for Frantically Obsessive Poster, though I'm sure others may have their own versions as to what at least the first two letters might stand for. Here's praying for more Tim-free days. Keep up the good work!
I'm not sure of the value of 30hour a week programmes (if that is what it is), but it's clear to anyone that there should be at least some system of giving the long term unemployed a certain amount of structure to give them any chance of getting back into work. That can be as simple at getting up in the morning at a certain time.
Otherwise, you might as well just write people off, and no-one should be doing that.
I think 30hrs a week is a great bit of tough love - if after two yrs of looking for work and being unsuccessful - then you need some serious help [such as becoming literate or numerate] or motivation or give the taxpayer a return for his money if there's nothing locally that suits your skill set.
So whatever the unskilled work is then that's the social side of the contract to be returned by the recipient.
Don't you think those born without a silver spoon might find it rather repulsive?
If the tories show that at the same time as penalising the workless they are prepared to help those who work on low and medium incomes, everything will be OK.
If not, this could be lethal for the conservatives. Workers on low and modest incomes are the key to the election.
Thanks, Topping. I do despair that people's motives are so maligned. I've worked with many disabled people - deaf, blind, wheelchairs - and none of them was treated any differently, and why should they be? My motivation is to ensure as many people as possible have productive lives. Work is the best guarantor of that. Throw in marriage as well and you are well on the way to sustainability. Does that make me an Evil Conservative, or just a Conservative?
Nope , it makes you someone devoid of the realities of the problems and troubles some people have to face day in day out in their lives . As I have posted on here before I had to spend 5 years at the fag end of Major's government and then well into Blair's term fighting for disability benefit for my wife and finally won when the idiot argued at the appeal tribunal that she was fit for work when she had actually died .
Re: the "let's get the unemployed doing something useful debate". My son has learning difficulties and physical disabilities and is in the ESA (work related ) section. He's done a couple of part-time courses at a local college which he enjoyed and he was happier doing something.
However, when he applied to do a course this term which had been recommended by the Job Centre, he was told that he would require a learning support assistant and there was no funding available to provide one. Apparently, several other disabled people had been rejected for the same reason.
Will there be an announcement of increased funding to provide such assistants? I hold my breath.
Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson Classic from BBC News: TUC is "protesting in a good-natured way at the cuts the government has seen fit to introduce". Fair & balanced.
"Crime was already falling under Labour" is a strange repost. According to the BCS/CSEW it was already falling (if only for a year) under Major. In any case, it hardly takes away from the large fall in almost every type of crime under the present government. (Sexual offences make up the most important exception, but they are subject to the most uncertainty about whether reported crimes reflect the true extent of crime, and so forth.)
I would however agree that there were cynics in 2010 who would not believe crime was falling (assisted by the then Opposition) and there will be cynics in 2015 (assisted by the then Opposition). The ones in 2015 will be even more wrong than the ones in 2010.
On reading these debates, I always come back to Mrs Scrap's estranged Uncle up in the midlands.
He is now retired but didn't work from the age of 42 onwards and gets a new car from the state every 10 years or so and likes to show if off to those who he knows do work.
He lives alone in a 3-bed end of terrace housing association home and heads off to Spain with his lady friend a few times a year - she remains in her own private home - they do not move in together as he would lose so much of what he gets now.
Haven't heard whether bedroom tax etc has any impact on them.
An anecdote may be illuminating here. A friend who works in a church charity knows an unemployed person who is largely illiterate, clinically depressed and alcoholic. He says that no sane employer would take him on as things stand (and would prefer any energetic Bulgarian) - certainly encouraging him to serve snacks to pensioners or paint road markings would be entirely unrealistic since the results would be dreadful. It is possible to see a sustained effort with training, advice and rehab making a difference. It would indisputably be wonderful if it could be done, both for him and for society.
You are right of course that such a case is a major challenge, and there will always be some cases where no realistic amount of intervention will get the person back on track. What I think is key here is reducing the number of people who get into that state in the first place. Long-term unemployment is a known cause of many physical and mental health problems, especially depression and alcoholism or similar, and breaking that vicious circle has to be done at an earlier stage. Essentially the thesis of IDS (and I think of many others who have studied the problem in depth, such as Frank Field) is that just giving people money to do nothing drags them into dependency and into the problems you describe.
Stace @stackee Wow. Impressive announcement from Willetts - extending fee loans to part-time students of science/engineering who already have diff degree.
In Scottish seat terms the Electoral Calculus seat breakdown for September is:
Lab 42 (+1) SNP 10 (+4) Con 4 (+3) LD 3 (-8)
This neatly illustrates one of the key problems for the Scottish Liberal Democrats: with no money, decimated ground troops and councillor numbers slashed they are fighting on three very different fronts (four if you include the Greens, who have also been taking significant chunks of the SLD vote).
The Lib Dem losses would be: - East Dunbartonshire, to Labour - Argyll & Bute, to the SNP - Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, to the SNP - Gordon, to the SNP - Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, to the SNP - Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, to the Tories - Edinburgh West, to the Tories - West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, to the Tories
The impending SLD massacre could be so profound that Baxter has them not just being beaten in certain seats, but actually slipping into 3rd or even 4th place (in Argyll & Bute and in Edinburgh West).
Why don't you just recycle your "Michael Moore is a dead man walking" posts from before the 2010 election, to save typing effort.
Please note that these are Martin Baxter's predictions, not mine.
Stace @stackee Wow. Impressive announcement from Willetts - extending fee loans to part-time students of science/engineering who already have diff degree.
Given the recent reforms to (supposedly) make the student loans system much less of a burden, I'm a but surprised it doesn't cover post-graduate study of any type.
Does anyone think the Bullingdon Boys are really the appropriate people to tell the unemployed to get off their backsides and turn up every day at an employment exchange for £69 a week or they'll lose their benefit? Don't you think those born without a silver spoon might find it rather repulsive?
you are right actually - but it must be some form of 'ism' to say that in the first place. It's a double-standard or PC or something. I dare say if wealthy Harriet or the other Shad Cab millionaires made similar demands the 'feeling' wouldn't be the same. So it must just be the 'brand' of Tory or Labour which determines what is fair and reasonable .... funny that.
The other critical element of policy is that, by shifting people off benefits into work frees up resources to provide the intensive help that NickP's case requires.
An anecdote may be illuminating here. A friend who works in a church charity knows an unemployed person who is largely illiterate, clinically depressed and alcoholic. He says that no sane employer would take him on as things stand (and would prefer any energetic Bulgarian) - certainly encouraging him to serve snacks to pensioners or paint road markings would be entirely unrealistic since the results would be dreadful. It is possible to see a sustained effort with training, advice and rehab making a difference. It would indisputably be wonderful if it could be done, both for him and for society.
You are right of course that such a case is a major challenge, and there will always be some cases where no realistic amount of intervention will get the person back on track. What I think is key here is reducing the number of people who get into that state in the first place. Long-term unemployment is a known cause of many physical and mental health problems, especially depression and alcoholism or similar, and breaking that vicious circle has to be done at an earlier stage. Essentially the thesis of IDS (and I think of many others who have studied the problem in depth, such as Frank Field) is that just giving people money to do nothing drags them into dependency and into the problems you describe.
As someone who has lurked here regularly since about three months before the last election, but with little time to get involved, could I just say what a delight this site has been in recent days without the presence of the poster known as Tim. The last I saw, he was challenged to come up with a truly meaningful post for his 10,000th post but either it was of such stupendous moment that it got him instantly banned or he finally realised that he never could produce anything of the required quality and probably never had done so. The result is as if the sun has come out from behind the clouds and this site is immeasurably improved by his absence. I had come to think of Tim and his unhealthy obsessions with horses, Osborne, Cameron, etc as being "The One True FOP", FOP, of course, being an acronym for Frantically Obsessive Poster, though I'm sure others may have their own versions as to what at least the first two letters might stand for. Here's praying for more Tim-free days. Keep up the good work!
Heretic!!!
Well done for posting but watch out for your imminent classification as just another evil pb-tory.
Comments
I've been on the Work Programme 18 months - complete waste of time really.
Give them the chance and the requirement to be in attendance for regular hours, that will be a massive confidence boost to any potential employer if they know the applicant who is long term unemployed has spent three months in daily attendance from 9.00 to 4.00. It could help the unemployed to begin to develop self belief. I really don't care if they are engaged to learn, to gain new skills, do charity work, job search in a structured environment or do community work. It is not about minimum wage or pay levels, it is about how we can best help long term unemployed to break the cycle and habit of unemployment and get into work.
The extreme reaction 'Oh! There is a disabled person having to spear litter! Oh! Nasty Tory party!' is palpably pathetic. If you can not help the unemployed to change their habits and lifestyle as a stepping stone towards employment then you are responsible for inflicting a lifetime of poverty and misery on them. It is the attitude of 'Poor darlings, leave them be' that is inflicting the pain on the unemployed in this country.
The Government’s welfare reforms are consistently identified as among their most popular polices.
A YouGov poll commissioned by the right-leaning Policy Exchange think-tank suggested that the public support the introduction for the long-term unemployed by a margin of five to one. More than half of those asked wanted to make people work for their benefits. In contrast, only 17 per cent wanted a jobs guarantee scheme, ensuring a job paid at the minimum wage for the long-term unemployed. Labour has backed such a scheme.
The poll, conducted earlier this month among 1,930 people, also found that only a quarter thought that claimants with mental disabilities who are capable of working should be excluded from any new workfare system. Only 22 per cent thought that people with physical disabilities capable of working should be excluded.
Please provide a link for your hugely unpleasant assertion
There are plenty of schemes to educate, assist and encourage these LTU back to into work, but for those that can’t or won’t help themselves, what exactly is demeaning about contributing something back to the tax payer that is supporting them!
Please provide a link to support this vile allegation.
Otherwise delete it and apologise.
One session involved just standing in front of your group and being inspected without words for 10 minutes - it was dreadful. I wanted to look away, cry, smile uncontrollably, read their minds etc. It was totally unnerving and gave a glimpse into what acting is all about when you had nothing to hide behind.
If anyone wonders if RADA courses are worth it - they really are. Every penny.
A big problem with some long-term unemployed people is a fear of employment, a feeling that they do not have the qualifications or skills to compete in a workplace. Most of us have a reluctance to go outside of our comfort limits, to expand our boundaries. When you are unemployed for a long time, those boundaries can become very small, and it becomes increasingly hard to break out of that comfort zone.
This is a problem with a few people I've known, who either go 'on the sick' or just remain on JSA or similar (this was a few years ago). It is a feeling of not being valued, of worthlessness. Confidence is key.
Hence I can see the advantages of encouraging people out of those comfort zones, to show them an alternate path. I've also known people who did well out of the YTS / MSC in the early 1980s, learning skills that have kept them employed to this say, although I'm unsure if they're the exception rather than the rule.
How do you give the long-term unemployed the skills and confidence they need to face the workplace? If Osborne's plan isn't the answer (and it's far from ideal), then what is?
Through the period up to 2008 the country added 2 million more jobs but unfortunately 90% were filled through immigration. The previous Govt Tdid not tackle the problem of how to get the long term unemployed to take up jobs when an economy grows. How much the new announcements will improve this situation as we enter a growth phase, is the debate. But they are unlikely to make the problem of idleness worse.
I was sent this and spent 30 seconds filling it in - with no mortgage or petrol costs or children
"Here's what we have done to help you and hardworking people in your area:
Helped create 130,000 new private sector jobs in the South East
Reduced crime by 9% in Sussex
We've increased the amount you can earn before you start paying tax. This means lower Income Tax for 25 million people, including 2.4 million of the lowest paid workers (who now pay no Income Tax at all)
Offered councils funding to freeze Council tax, saving an average of £210 a year on a band D home
Capped benefits so no out-of-work household can claim more than the average family earns by working
Cut the national deficit by a third
Reduced net immigration by a third
Created more than a million apprenticeships
Pledged an in-out referendum on Europe by the end of 2017
Forcing energy companies to put customers on the lowest tariff
http://www.forhardworkingpeople.com/?utm_campaign=FHP+Push&utm_source=emailCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=
I'm certain a lot of those on long term unemployed would rather be out working than receiving £72 a week JSA.
Proposals like this are all fart and no follow through, Job Centre plus struggles to see you once a fortnight, can you imagine how they'd struggle to see people daily, and I'm not sure there's enough tasks out there to make the long term unemployed work 30 hrs a week for their JSA.
I mean take this from 2008, a Labour Government, A Labour Government proposed this
The Welfare Green Paper includes plans to scrap Incapacity Benefit and make those jobless for more than two years work full-time in the community.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7516551.stm
Or maybe you should ask the person pushing them - don't want to treat them like normal people, do we?
Only recently has the silly (for the reasons I've outlined below) suggestion it should be linked directly to pay when "performance" is so hard to measure.
There are a vast array of people, all with different situations, conditions, requirements and capabilities. Somewhere in the mix there is the right solution for her.
From 2004
The number of unemployed would almost double if people on incapacity benefit were included, new figures show. The statistical fudge is particularly common in Tony Blair's own constituency, as Rajeev Syal reports.
.....However, while Labour has hailed a fall in those claiming unemployment benefit since 1997, the numbers claiming incapacity benefits have gone up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1469449/Benefit-exclusions-reducing-unemployment-figures.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24302857
Victoria Freeman @make_trouble
Labour claim to have "saved the NHS". They didn't. They mortgaged it in PFI deals. The repayments are now due & the NHS can't afford them.
Actually, the two claims are not in the least bit contradictory. The reduction in JSA is about 300,000 people, which squares well with 2 million jobs created of which 1.7m (slightly less than 90%, but near enough) went to immigrants.
If you create 2m new jobs when there are only 350k people on JSA, then some of the new jobs are going to have to go to foreigners.
If you create 2m new jobs when there are only 350k people on JSA, then some of the new jobs are going to have to go to foreigners.
No you don't, RCS: there are plenty of people not currently in work who are not on JSA.
Either that or according to their prediction there will be no or only a small change (which doesn't accord with the prominence of the graph). If you look at the graph's figure for where we are now, it accords exactly with the numbers put into the projection, whereas if it were a true prediction they'd be different.
When the director shouts, can you storm off to the right this time, so we can get a better camera angle....
Or maybe you should ask the person pushing them - don't want to treat them like normal people, do we?
As someone who did have to push someone in a wheelchair for quite a few years , I know the answer , I suspect that you in your ivory tower have not the foggiest .
There's no need to be rude. You have no idea what my tower is built of.
The point you appear too smart to take in, is that being in a wheelchair does not prevent you working. I assume you have friends, like I have, who travel to work on train and bus regardless of being wheelchair-bound.
Billions have been spent making public transport accessible and one of the reasons was to make it easier for the disabled to get around; to the shops, to the leisure centre, and, yes, to work.
Conservatives like me do not want to write anyone off because of disability. I am surprised that you do.
So, please stop being unpleasant to people you do not know and engage with their arguments.
If you create 2m new jobs when there are only 350k people on JSA, then some of the new jobs are going to have to go to foreigners.
Sorry, I should have cut the quote better. The bit I didn't think square was: If they're taking a serious chunk out of the number of long-term unemployment numbers from 1997 then they seem to have done quite well at getting the long-term unemployed to take up jobs when the economy grows, notwithstanding that it may be a statistical scam as suggested by @TheScreamingEagles.
PS The "% of new jobs have gone to foreigners" wording is misleading for different reasons, which become more obvious when it goes over 100%...
Some people are unemployed because they lack the appropriate skills to be competitive in today's globalised workforce. Some are unemployed because they have very specialist skills where job opportunities are rare, and therefore are waiting for something in their field to appear. Some are unemployed because they have antisocial habits. Some have CVs that simply do not look attractive to prospective employers. And some people have made a conscious decision that having only a little money, and not working is more appealing than having more money and less time.
Of course, there are also people who have been outcompeted by a Pole or a Roumanian for a job. But employers are rational people: why would they choose someone whose background they cannot check so easily or whose English would almost certainly be less good unless there was a very good reason?
Remember this:- both employers and immigrants are economically rational people. If the employer is not hiring a Brit, there is probably a good reason for this. Getting rid of the immigrant does not make the Brit any better value an employee, it merely means that the choice of staff available to the employer is smaller.
I always think that immigration is a symptom of other problems. Specifically, it is the problems of poor education/training; and a misguided system of welfare that means that marginal tax rates (once removal of benefits are included) are higher for those at the bottom of the pyramid, than those at the top.
I'm listening to Radio 5, where they've been mentioning Islamist terrorism in Africa. The problem, is whenever Victoria Derbyshire says the name of the terrorist group 'Boko Haram', I hear 'Procol Harum'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb3iPP-tHdA
Which rather puts me off my work ...
@Grandiose and @EiT
Having looked through the source of the 90% of new jobs going to foreigners, I would like to take back my earlier statement in its entirety. The reasoning, etc, behind the numbers is almost non-existant and involves so much double-counting as to be complety ridiculous.
I have only fired one person to date, offered him a job paying £500 per week near Leicester, he had to travel from Lancashire for one day a week, worked from home the rest of the time. I took him the first two weeks, then asked him to go alone.
He decided not to bother.
There's no need to be rude. You have no idea what my tower is built of.
The point you appear too smart to take in, is that being in a wheelchair does not prevent you working. I assume you have friends, like I have, who travel to work on train and bus regardless of being wheelchair-bound.
Billions have been spent making public transport accessible and one of the reasons was to make it easier for the disabled to get around; to the shops, to the leisure centre, and, yes, to work.
Conservatives like me do not want to write anyone off because of disability. I am surprised that you do.
So, please stop being unpleasant to people you do not know and engage with their arguments.
Conservatives like you may not want to write anyone off because of disability but you want to make them poorer via bedroom tax and then find more money out of thin air to travel to a job centre every day in pursuit of job vacancies that do not exist .
There seems little point in debating with you, as you appear convinced that anyone who says they are Conservative is related to the Devil Incarnate.
Yours,
Baskerville
Some of the stats are astounding:
http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/2013/06/24/london-gun-crime-offences-per-borough-2006-to-2013/
Labour, and it seems some LibDems, seem to think that just paying them off and leaving them festering in this cycle of despair is somehow compassionate. It's not.
Mark S seems to be having a shocker this morning, not quite in control of his emotions, and misjudging the mood somewhat. Foregive his gaucheness; it is out of character, from what I can recall of his previous posts.
Give him another chance once he has fired up the Nespresso machine.
Grim reading for the Lib Dems
October 24: Debate: Labour has Failed the North-East. Why does the North-East keep voting Labour?
December 2nd: Conference: How do We Stop the Lights Going Out? Polices to deal with Britain's Looming Energy Crisis
I'm already bulk buying candles.
Osborne on the long term unemployed.
"If you are illiterate, we will help you."
Spellbinding stuff.
Even Mark Senior will be impressed.
Otherwise, you might as well just write people off, and no-one should be doing that.
Add in Pakistan softening ties with both Afghanistan and India and I never thought I'd see the day...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929360.200-climate-science-why-the-world-wont-listen.html#.UklL_9JwpyI
It is particularly perverse as the person who you most appear to be railing against is an SNP supporter.
I do despair that people's motives are so maligned.
I've worked with many disabled people - deaf, blind, wheelchairs - and none of them was treated any differently, and why should they be?
My motivation is to ensure as many people as possible have productive lives. Work is the best guarantor of that. Throw in marriage as well and you are well on the way to sustainability.
Does that make me an Evil Conservative, or just a Conservative?
Big challenges there
See pic.twitter.com/ooPlgBzdbK
Is there one for Labour Mike?
The assumption that this will be very popular because the last lot of welfare reforms were is a dangerous fallacy.
Another worry for Labour is while people support the policy announcements, there is some doubt about whether they are actually affordable - 52% think Labour are making promises the country can't afford, 23% disagree. In comparison only 35% think the Conservatives are making unaffordable promises, 36% do not.
In PRINCIPLE this covers the main issues. I'm positively enthusiastic about the intensive intervention. But we need to be clear that options 2 and 3 require a lot more (paid) people to make them work. Job centres already have queues and struggle to do more than a token chat now and then. If large numbers turn up every day, either they'll need some sort of automated system which does nothing at all to help get work, or they'll need several times as many staff. Similarly, that intensive intervention rquires lots of trainers, medics, advisers, and so on. I've not heard Osborne refer to putting one penny extra into the system for any of that.
An anecdote may be illuminating here. A friend who works in a church charity knows an unemployed person who is largely illiterate, clinically depressed and alcoholic. He says that no sane employer would take him on as things stand (and would prefer any energetic Bulgarian) - certainly encouraging him to serve snacks to pensioners or paint road markings would be entirely unrealistic since the results would be dreadful. It is possible to see a sustained effort with training, advice and rehab making a difference. It would indisputably be wonderful if it could be done, both for him and for society.
The current system doesn't remotely attempt it. Would Osborne's? And by the way, the same applies to Labour's jobs guarantee. Labour would pay the wages for 6 months for someone willing to take the guy on. But who would?
I had come to think of Tim and his unhealthy obsessions with horses, Osborne, Cameron, etc as being "The One True FOP", FOP, of course, being an acronym for Frantically Obsessive Poster, though I'm sure others may have their own versions as to what at least the first two letters might stand for. Here's praying for more Tim-free days. Keep up the good work!
So whatever the unskilled work is then that's the social side of the contract to be returned by the recipient.
If the tories show that at the same time as penalising the workless they are prepared to help those who work on low and medium incomes, everything will be OK.
If not, this could be lethal for the conservatives. Workers on low and modest incomes are the key to the election.
However, when he applied to do a course this term which had been recommended by the Job Centre, he was told that he would require a learning support assistant and there was no funding available to provide one. Apparently, several other disabled people had been rejected for the same reason.
Will there be an announcement of increased funding to provide such assistants? I hold my breath.
Classic from BBC News: TUC is "protesting in a good-natured way at the cuts the government has seen fit to introduce". Fair & balanced.
Test yourself.
(accords with the ONS)
He is now retired but didn't work from the age of 42 onwards and gets a new car from the state every 10 years or so and likes to show if off to those who he knows do work.
He lives alone in a 3-bed end of terrace housing association home and heads off to Spain with his lady friend a few times a year - she remains in her own private home - they do not move in together as he would lose so much of what he gets now.
Haven't heard whether bedroom tax etc has any impact on them.
It's not a stereotype, just 1 person we know.
Stace @stackee
Wow. Impressive announcement from Willetts - extending fee loans to part-time students of science/engineering who already have diff degree.
(Liam Byrne, I think)
Labour should try for "actively harmful" wherever they can, it makes for a better line. I'd say there was sufficient latitide to sustain it.
Well done for posting but watch out for your imminent classification as just another evil pb-tory.