Support NeoGAF

[Maledict]

I recruited so done recently who had been unemployed for some time. The amount of prep work he had done for the post in advance was quite astounding - prep work he wouldn't have been able to do if he was picking litter up in the street. This was a specialised, desk based role as well.

Whether someone was picking up litter to get their benefits just wouldn't concern me an am employer at all - I wouldn't as nor would I care. Forcing someone to do manual labour isn't going interest me at all.

What I would also say is that this program seems designed to target the working class and manual labour as well. Seems punative and more based around 'sending a message to those people the mail always writes about' rather than actually helping people get back to work.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Am I the only one who wouldn't trust anything someone working at a job centre said? I signed on for about 3 weeks right after I finished university, and the people in there were nice enough but they just didn't know what they were talking about. Admittedly I work in a pretty niche industry, but honestly, how many people grew up wanting to work in a job centre? Given that, why would anyone want to listen to these people? I say that because whilst I like the idea of people out of work and with few marketable skills going to a job centre or being put on government plans to get more skills... do they ever work?

 

[Maledict]

Am I the only one who wouldn't trust anything someone working at a job centre said? I signed on for about 3 weeks right after I finished university, and the people in there were nice enough but they just didn't know what they were talking about. Admittedly I work in a pretty niche industry, but honestly, how many people grew up wanting to work in a job centre? Given that, why would anyone want to listen to these people? I say that because whilst I like the idea of people out of work and with few marketable skills going to a job centre or being put on government plans to get more skills... do they ever work?

Job centres are hugely overburdened and are really not suited for graduate's or professional roles. My other half was unemployed for a year after losing his senior post in a government agency and the entire thing was utterly pointless and incredibly humiliating. They just aren't set up to find employment for people at those levels.

I think government plans around re-training and re-skilling can work - I think the Nordic countries have very good examples of these. I just don't think ours are particularly great because all too often they focus on the "punitive" aspect of unemployment. Much like our criminal justice system, we'd get better results if we ignored that completely and just focussed on the end goal of getting people skilled and trained and into jobs, but we always end up taking a wrong turn down this weird side-route which has to include moralising and punishment.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Job centres are hugely overburdened and are really not suited for graduate's or professional roles. My other half was unemployed for a year after losing his senior post in a government agency and the entire thing was utterly pointless and incredibly humiliating. They just aren't set up to find employment for people at those levels.

I think government plans around re-training and re-skilling can work - I think the Nordic countries have very good examples of these. I just don't think ours are particularly great because all too often they focus on the "punitive" aspect of unemployment. Much like our criminal justice system, we'd get better results if we ignored that completely and just focussed on the end goal of getting people skilled and trained and into jobs, but we always end up taking a wrong turn down this weird side-route which has to include moralising and punishment.

I daresay that's all true. The question is, how do you do it? For my industry, as an example, I just can't see how it'd be done well. It's the animation/film/VFX industry - the vast majority of private, and expensive courses out there aren't good enough to get people jobs, I struggle to imagine what a (necessarily cheaper to run) government one would be like. Ditto with engineering, computer science etc. I trust in them to give overall skills, but for real, in demand skills, I think the only way you can really learn this stuff is via placements. The question is, how do you incentivise companies to give people placements and apprenticeships, which typically take lots of time out of their day and drain their resources for very little good.

 

[Jezbollah]

As much as there may be benefit to having some fresh work experience (menial as it may be), you have to address the bigger problems within the job centre which are allowing people to slip through the net and become long term unemployed. That includes their expectations of JSA claimants, their ability to provide training and teaching to these people, CV classes, more frequent 'back to work interviews'.

Combine that with labour markets still being very tight in many areas across the UK, it's unlikely that firms will have enough of these placements to go round, nor be able to take on many of these staff permanently, and use this programme as a way to benefit from cheap labour.

I absolutely 100% agree with you, especially re CV classes, and interview practice.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I absolutely 100% agree with you, especially re CV classes, and interview practice.

Yeah, that too. Because people say "what good is it when there aren't enough jobs?" but having people that are chronically incapable of getting jobs is bad for everyone, not least of whom those specific people. If we're too have unemployment - and realistically, we always will - it would ideally be a constant churn rather than a group that become unemployed and re-employed almost immediately, with others sitting out of work for years at a time.

 

[War Peaceman]

He's a piece of shit, but sometime you are ok Alastair Campbell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-GMTxycAXY

 

[pulsemyne]

He's a piece of shit, but sometime you are ok Alastair Campbell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-GMTxycAXY

A total Tuckering. He destroyed the Daily Mail. Please God let Newsnight get Campbell and Dacre one on one.

 

[Mastadon]

The Mail has posted another piece defending the original article apparently. I don't understand what they're aiming for here. To me it seems like all they have managed to do is overshadow the Tory conference whilst simultaneously eliciting sympathy for Miliband.

That Newsnight clip is amazing. Steafel looks so uncomfortable.

 

[War Peaceman]

Umm what? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nservative-government-David-Cameron-says.html

Am I missing something or is this completely insane and out of touch? Young people are living with their parents more than ever and youth unemployment is still a huge issue. This just exacerbates that. I don't get it. Nagging won't force people to get jobs - most young people actually want a job, it is just hard to find one...

As an aside, it is very difficult for an incumbent to present a vision for the future. It just seems very difficult to talk about how great you will make Britain when you already are in power and aren't doing it... I know it is a Coalition, but it is still a hard sell, in my opinion.

 

[Empty]

The Mail has posted another piece defending the original article apparently. I don't understand what they're aiming for here. To me it seems like all they have managed to do is overshadow the Tory conference whilst simultaneously eliciting sympathy for Miliband.
.

as well as the subtext of helping make an emotional argument for the advantages of press regulation

it's a total misstep. i think they really expected business as usual and have been rattled by miliband calling their bluff and milking them like that.

i mean it's really hard for them to justify their attack in particular because their paper is so based around moralizing and invoking the idea of good traditional british values. ed has switched it right round on them and let them dig their own grave, i thought it was a very clever bit of rhetoric.

 

[Zaph]

Umm what? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nservative-government-David-Cameron-says.html

Am I missing something or is this completely insane and out of touch? Young people are living with their parents more than ever and youth unemployment is still a huge issue. This just exacerbates that. I don't get it. Nagging won't force people to get jobs - most young people actually want a job, it is just hard to find one...

As an aside, it is very difficult for an incumbent to present a vision for the future. It just seems very difficult to talk about how great you will make Britain when you already are in power and aren't doing it... I know it is a Coalition, but it is still a hard sell, in my opinion.

This goes back to Cyclops' post:

I daresay that's all true. The question is, how do you do it? For my industry, as an example, I just can't see how it'd be done well. It's the animation/film/VFX industry - the vast majority of private, and expensive courses out there aren't good enough to get people jobs, I struggle to imagine what a (necessarily cheaper to run) government one would be like. Ditto with engineering, computer science etc. I trust in them to give overall skills, but for real, in demand skills, I think the only way you can really learn this stuff is via placements. The question is, how do you incentivise companies to give people placements and apprenticeships, which typically take lots of time out of their day and drain their resources for very little good.

If they want under 25's to "Earn or Learn", does the government have the ability to to teach them valuable and in-demand skills? Placements and on-the-job training are key, but can the Conservatives convince businesses to take on far more of them? And if so, how will that change full-time, full-pay positions? If you're too lenient on businesses, you'll get Workfare-esqe abuse, too strict and you'll scare them off.

No politician will point out what we're all thinking - the hard truth being the amount of easily/cheaply trainable jobs is rapidly shrinking. And, just like our ageing population problem, there currently isn't a solution.

 

[kmag]

No, it hasn't. As ZOMG said above, we pay the lowest in Europe for our gas and fourth lowest for all energy, one of the reasons we pay as much as we do it because of Labour's green energy taxes. We don't need nationalisation, we need a stronger regulator and for it to be easier to switch suppliers to keep competition more fierce. Milliband's policy is utter bollocks.

ZOMG's table completely ignores tax. UK consumer energy is lightly taxed in comparison to most other European countries. Excluding tax, on the base unit rates, we pay an extremely high rate for electricity and around the average for natural gas.

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/chri..._highest_lowest_european_union_UK_france.2816

The share of taxes and levies (including VAT) within the total price of electricity was lowest in the United Kingdom (4.7 %), resulting from a relatively low VAT rate being applied to the basic price, while no other taxes were added. Malta also reported a relatively low burden from taxation, as this accounted for 5.0 % of the total price of electricity for consumers; these were the only two EU Member States where the share of taxation in the final price was in single digits.

At the other end of the scale, the highest proportion of taxes in the final price of electricity for consumers was recorded in Denmark, where more than half (55.8 %) of the final price was made up of VAT, taxes and levies; Germany (44.9 %) and Portugal (43.2 %) had the next highest shares.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics

 

[War Peaceman]

I'm going to say the solution is not to punish under 25s by denying them the benefits that have been afforded to previous generations. Not only do they have to pay for university education if they want it, have a far worse economic environment in which to start their careers but not the assistance is threatening to be taken away. I'd be willing to bet it is more expensive to take it away than it is to pay it out. The money will have to come from somewhere be it parents or charities, or will end up with expensive illnesses/deaths.

It is incredibly short term thinking.

 

[kmag]

So Tories declare war on single mums? Are we back in the 90's, at least the music was good then.

 

[War Peaceman]

Thinking about it some more. What the hell can an under-25 do if they cannot find a job and their parents refuse to let them stay? Go homeless? I just don't understand. Social security enables people to live and find a job rather than struggle to just survive. It doesn't make any sense in practical terms.

 

[kmag]

Thinking about it some more. What the hell can an under-25 do if they cannot find a job and their parents refuse to let them stay? Go homeless? I just don't understand. Social security enables people to live and find a job rather than struggle to just survive. It doesn't make any sense in practical terms.

Of course not, it's a tory policy on welfare. They approach the issue from such a negative mindset that it's almost impossible for them to come up with a practical policy.

From the briefing notes they've put out they're rowing back from the 'announcement' at a rate of knots. Anytime they start talking about excluding certain types of claimant you can just hear the creaking of oars.

I assume given the age based disparity in benefits than they'll be introducing a lower rate of NI for under 25's?

 

[War Peaceman]

Unemployment benefits and housing benefits for Under-25s as a contribution to overall spending at this moment must be incredibly low as it is. I don't get it one bit. I can fathom arguments I disagree with but have logic behind them - Cyclops Rock often proposes such suggestions - but this just is pure punishment. It isn't tackling a serious problem affecting the country (debt/deficit if you are that way inclined, employment or the moral effects of unemployment); it just makes it more difficult to survive. Young people can't start their own businesses realistically - it is too expensive to do so unless you already have savings, which requires a good paying job to begin with. There will be exceptions to this, no doubt, but realistically how can this be the base expectation?

EDIT: They are rowing back on it, but to even suggest it as a feasible option is worrying for their own competence. I'd expect it of the insane ministers (May, Paterson, Gove, IDS) but not of Osborne and Cameron who I've always seen as a bit more reasonable.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's worth noting that the under-25's policy isn't an outright ban at all, it's the possibility of sanctions (which already exist at any rate). So it's more akin to "go on this training scheme or you lost your benefits". Which is already the case for many things (ie if you don't sign on, you don't get your JSA). The only change here is that there will be specific, more stringent ones for those under 25.

That said, I don't really see the point. It seems arbitrary. What is it about under-25's that means this is more likely to get them a job? and why is this "opportunity" not offered to everyone? I can understand them tightening up requirements, or leaving it as it is - but why have a seemingly arbitrary cut off at 25?

 

[pulsemyne]

Unemployment benefits and housing benefits for Under-25s as a contribution to overall spending at this moment must be incredibly low as it is. I don't get it one bit. I can fathom arguments I disagree with but have logic behind them - Cyclops Rock often proposes such suggestions - but this just is pure punishment. It isn't tackling a serious problem affecting the country (debt/deficit if you are that way inclined, employment or the moral effects of unemployment); it just makes it more difficult to survive. Young people can't start their own businesses realistically - it is too expensive to do so unless you already have savings, which requires a good paying job to begin with. There will be exceptions to this, no doubt, but realistically how can this be the base expectation?

EDIT: They are rowing back on it, but to even suggest it as a feasible option is worrying for their own competence. I'd expect it of the insane ministers (May, Paterson, Gove, IDS) but not of Osborne and Cameron who I've always seen as a bit more reasonable.

It's just another hateful idea from what has been a very hateful conference. Labours conference came out with Ed looking good with an idea that could help people. The tories have come out with policies designed to make people poorer and create another housing bubble. This, combined with the Daily mails catasrafuck, has made the whole right wing look a right bunch of bastards.

 

[CyclopsRock]

ZOMG's table completely ignores tax. UK consumer energy is lightly taxed in comparison to most other European countries. Excluding tax, on the base unit rates, we pay an extremely high rate for electricity and around the average for natural gas.

They must have strange definitions of tax and levies then, because gas has a 6% Green levy and electricity an 11% one. (I have no idea if this is true, which is why I'm parenthesisising (!) it, but we also pay a fee for upkeep of gas pipes and the national grid as a percentage of each bill - I should imagine that in nationalised countries, this comes out of general taxation, but I don't really know).

Furthermore, there's this from a recent BBC article: "The latest statistics, from mid-September, show that the average profit margin made on the £1,315 bill is £65. This was £30 higher than September 2011 and September 2012.

However, it is worth bearing in mind that this is a snapshot and the figure has been volatile. In some months, the profit margin has risen above £100, whereas in others the margin has been negative." For most of 2009, energy companies were making a loss on selling us gas and electricity.

That's not a huge amount of money. Again, even if you took ALL the profit away from energy companies, they contribute less to the bill than the green taxes. I really don't think that private company profits are the problem.

 

[War Peaceman]

It's worth noting that the under-25's policy isn't an outright ban at all, it's the possibility of sanctions (which already exist at any rate). So it's more akin to "go on this training scheme or you lost your benefits". Which is already the case for many things (ie if you don't sign on, you don't get your JSA). The only change here is that there will be specific, more stringent ones for those under 25.

That said, I don't really see the point. It seems arbitrary. What is it about under-25's that means this is more likely to get them a job? and why is this "opportunity" not offered to everyone? I can understand them tightening up requirements, or leaving it as it is - but why have a seemingly arbitrary cut off at 25?

Well, as with all suggestions (and the same applies to Labour's energy price idea) the actual wording of the policy will determine the exact benefits/severity. But as you say, really bizarre. If anything, younger people should be prioritised in jobs, for the good of the future of the economy. Fuck old people. Not literally, well unless that is your preference. Obviously I am not entirely serious, but I do think priorities are wrong due to voter participation.

It's just another hateful idea from what has been a very hateful conference. Labours conference came out with Ed looking good with an idea that could help people. The tories have come out with policies designed to make people poorer and create another housing bubble. This, combined with the Daily mails catasrafuck, has made the whole right wing look a right bunch of bastards.

It is good that there appears to be actual choice developing for the next election. With the Tories and Labour diverging in either direction (not that Labour are 'left wing' but they are improving!) and the Lib Dems being a political party that exist.

That's not a huge amount of money. Again, even if you took ALL the profit away from energy companies, they contribute less to the bill than the green taxes. I really don't think that private company profits are the problem

Don't think so either, it is about living costs vs. income. While I like the idea of energy price freezes out of political principle, if you actually want to reduce the burden of energy on the wage bill, you need to increase income or nationalise. the energy companies can be a bit dodgy but not to the extent of banks or other bigger entities; they need to be nationalised or have better regulation against abuse.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Well, as with all suggestions (and the same applies to Labour's energy price idea) the actual wording of the policy will determine the exact benefits/severity. But as you say, really bizarre. If anything, younger people should be prioritised in jobs, for the good of the future of the economy. Fuck old people. Not literally, well unless that is your preference. Obviously I am not entirely serious, but I do think priorities are wrong due to voter participation.

It would certainly be easier to re-train younger people who haven't already got 25 years of experience in a certain job, but to me that should just be a different response to the problem of unemployment. I have no problem with that - age defining what options you have when unemployed. But it shouldn't be that being older or younger is better, imo.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Don't think so either, it is about living costs vs. income. While I like the idea of energy price freezes out of political principle, if you actually want to reduce the burden of energy on the wage bill, you need to increase income or nationalise. the energy companies can be a bit dodgy but not to the extent of banks or other bigger entities; they need to be nationalised or have better regulation against abuse.

Or secret option # 3 - Frack the balls out of Blackpool. There's only ever going to be so much we can do when wholesale prices keep going up. We have two main sources of fossil fuels in the UK - North Sea Oil (which, whilst obviously dwindling, are still significant) and shale gas. We'd be crazy not to exploit it, since the alternative seems to be us still using gas, just gas from Russia instead. If the government really wants to make a push into renewables, let's use money raised from Fracking to do it - don't leave it off the table, it's a calamity. Plus, it's not like the gas is up to much down there anyway.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Go homeless?

Yes.

Then you find ways to criminalise homelessness and the next thing you know, all your very good chums at G4S et al are making lots and lots of money from those police, probationary and prison services contracts.

 

[TCRS]

Wtf... so far I have been able to support (most) of Cameron's policies, but no JSA for people under 25? Meaning I would have been fucked two years ago and it's not like 200 pounds a month is a lot of money. That was depressing enough.

 

[Jezbollah]

Wtf... so far I have been able to support (most) of Cameron's policies, but no JSA for people under 25? Meaning I would have been fucked two years ago and it's not like 200 pounds a month is a lot of money. That was depressing enough.

I think they said JSA "may" be cut. I dont think it would be a goer - it'll lose them a lot of votes.

 

[Little Old Man]

It's a shame no politicians wish to tackle the elephant in the room when it comes to the benefit bill: the state pension. Ideally, the state pension age would be raised every several years so long as life expectancy increases and national demographics skew towards an aging population; in addition to encouraging households to open private pension funds. This piece from January puts the slice of the benefits pie at around 47%. JSA is not surprisingly small by comparison.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

Alas, politicians want to be reelected.

 

[jimbor]

Am I the only one who wouldn't trust anything someone working at a job centre said? I signed on for about 3 weeks right after I finished university, and the people in there were nice enough but they just didn't know what they were talking about. Admittedly I work in a pretty niche industry, but honestly, how many people grew up wanting to work in a job centre? Given that, why would anyone want to listen to these people? I say that because whilst I like the idea of people out of work and with few marketable skills going to a job centre or being put on government plans to get more skills... do they ever work?

They're fucking useless. I was made redundant from my job as database analyst back in May. Didn't bother to go and sign on until July, just to get some money trickling in. They immediately signed me up to an eleven week course called 'Pathway to employment'. First two days was spent filling in forms, learning that there's a record of your employment history ('We call this a CV'), taught us what a thesaurus was (I would love to see the poor cunt who had never encountered a thesaurus and then went nuts with one's cv). The next session we went through how to create a cv (two whole fucking days, I only went for one). The next week was two days on how to fill in an application form for retail jobs etc etc. This shit was supposed to go on for eleven weeks. I only went to 3 days in total and have since been working for free to get electrical work experience as I'm training to be an electrician.

That kind of shite might be okay for some but the job centre should've looked at my cv and not bothered sending me. I told the advisor it was a complete and utter waste of time when he asked how it was. His response? Well you have to go otherwise you lose your money. They're still busting my balls about not filling in the job search shit properly as I'm too fucking busy doing something that'll actually get me off the dole and into a fucking career.

It's merely a box ticking exercise for the job centre but obviously they take their lead from the government.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Wtf... so far I have been able to support (most) of Cameron's policies, but no JSA for people under 25? Meaning I would have been fucked two years ago and it's not like 200 pounds a month is a lot of money. That was depressing enough.

I think it's no housing benefit, and JSA on the condition of taking some kind of advanced training course or apprenticeship.

Not sure what they will do for single mothers under 25 though. Seems like a poor idea to me since exempting single mothers basically makes the the saving very small. It's an idea that's a decent saving on paper but translates poorly to the real world.

Generally on Cameron's speech. It was forgettable, but then I think that was the intention, not to fuck anything up. They won't waste getting rid of the green subsidy this year, they will save it for next year as it takes around £250 off energy bills overnight. That was the only policy announcement I think they could have announced but 2014 makes more sense as it will put Labour in a fix since Ed will have to defend it, and it's tough to defend putting people into fuel poverty to subsidise wind turbines for billion pound companies.

 

[Little Old Man]

They're fucking useless. I was made redundant from my job as database analyst back in May. Didn't bother to go and sign on until July, just to get some money trickling in. They immediately signed me up to an eleven week course called 'Pathway to employment'. First two days was spent filling in forms, learning that there's a record of your employment history ('We call this a CV'), taught us what a thesaurus was (I would love to see the poor cunt who had never encountered a thesaurus and then went nuts with one's cv). The next session we went through how to create a cv (two whole fucking days, I only went for one). The next week was two days on how to fill in an application form for retail jobs etc etc. This shit was supposed to go on for eleven weeks. I only went to 3 days in total and have since been working for free to get electrical work experience as I'm training to be an electrician.

That kind of shite might be okay for some but the job centre should've looked at my cv and not bothered sending me. I told the advisor it was a complete and utter waste of time when he asked how it was. His response? Well you have to go otherwise you lose your money. They're still busting my balls about not filling in the job search shit properly as I'm too fucking busy doing something that'll actually get me off the dole and into a fucking career.

It's merely a box ticking exercise for the job centre but obviously they take their lead from the government.

Eleven weeks? Christ. The fact that they sent you on an irrelevant course is bad enough, but for so long? How much were you spending to get there each day?

Job centres should aim to model themselves more on university career offices. Tailor their offerings the help to each individual, rather than the blanket approach they have adopted in the past decade in order to meet arbitrary targets.

 

[jimbor]

Eleven weeks? Christ. The fact that they sent you on an irrelevant course is bad enough, but for so long? How much were you spending to get there each day?

Job centres should aim to model themselves more on university career offices. Tailor their offerings the help to each individual, rather than the blanket approach they have adopted in the past decade in order to meet arbitrary targets.

2 days per week for eleven weeks. I stopped going in the second week yet still haven't been busted/had my dole stopped. It was in Euston which is only a 25 minute walk from my house so didn't bother getting a tube or bus. They would've refunded bus fare if I had gone via public transport but not tube.

The blanket approach is a load of old shite. The moment the fucks hear database, they actually hear data entry. When I told them that I was doing work experience, they were more concerned that I shouldn't do it for more than fifteen days.

 

[JonathanEx]

We've got a really odd JSA situation at a place I work/volunteer at. So it's a predominantly volunteer organisation, and we've had the job centre send us people for the long 6 week placements or whatever - yet volunteers who have been with us already have been threatened with big sanctions for doing it?! So they're not supposed to be doing voluntary stuff and it's not good enough for it to count as worthwhile experience... it's worthwhile experience for those they send to us?

 

[CyclopsRock]

I remember going to my job centre and sitting down waiting to be called towards my guy, Primark/Argos style, when a ruckus erupted behind me. I turned around to see a guy with no shirt on, but a bloody rag in his hand, shouting at the security guy - it's a job centre, of course it has a security guard - who was stopping him from entering. "Sorry Sir, you need to put on a shirt if you want to come in." "Let me in, I'll miss my slot!" "Sir, you need to put on a shirt." etc etc. Eventually the guy unfurled his bloody rag to reveal that it was a wife beater vest which he put on and the security guy begrudgingly let him through. He sat down a few seats along from me, in his blood stained (well, not really stained, the blood was still wet. The guy didn't appear to be hurt so I have no idea who the blood belonged to.) After about 45 seconds of him tapping his foot, he just stood up, screamed "FUCK THIS" and walked out again. This all occurred at about 9:45am.

It certainly incentivised me to get a job...

 

[Little Old Man]

I used to refer to my JSA office as the Mos Eisley Cantina- a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Every time I went in I could hear that familiar tune being played on the saxaphone in my head.

 

[kmag]

It's a shame no politicians wish to tackle the elephant in the room when it comes to the benefit bill: the state pension. Ideally, the state pension age would be raised every several years so long as life expectancy increases and national demographics skew towards an aging population; in addition to encouraging households to open private pension funds. This piece from January puts the slice of the benefits pie at around 47%. JSA is not surprisingly small by comparison.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

Alas, politicians want to be reelected.

Not that any political party would ever touch it, but the Tories certainly won't, one look around their conference gives an indication why. The average age of a tory party member is 68. Even if only 35% of their attendees at conference are actually members (the rest are corporate guest, lobbyists and journalists), it's still a sea of grey and blue.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I used to refer to my JSA office as the Mos Eisley Cantina- a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Every time I went in I could hear that familiar tune being played on the saxaphone in my head.

Haha same here, was unemployed 7 years ago for 9 months. To be honest I would see a lot of people sit down with their little cards, the man would look at it and say you haven't looked for any jobs this week? You really need to and then stamp his card. There are a lot of people who genuinely want to work and being unemployed is a nightmare, but there are a LOT of people who are just not interested and are happy to be on dole.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Haha same here, was unemployed 7 years ago for 9 months. To be honest I would see a lot of people sit down with their little cards, the man would look at it and say you haven't looked for any jobs this week? You really need to and then stamp his card. There are a lot of people who genuinely want to work and being unemployed is a nightmare, but there are a LOT of people who are just not interested and are happy to be on dole.

I suspect there aren't too many people that are actually happy there. Whilst it's certainly true that you can survive fine on welfare, I think most people probably aspire to a better quality of life than that - the two questions then are a) can they get a job and b) will the kind of job they can get actually grant them a significantly better quality of life? Thanks to our whacky system of high effective marginal tax rates (that is being reduced thanks to the universal credit, actually) the latter is not always the case even when the former is true. At least, for those with skills in the low end. It's a shame because it's not the people who are at fault in most cases, it's the system that discourages work for all but the skilled. Aside from the economics of it, it's a huge waste of human potential and we owe it to ourselves to fix the system because it really is about saving "lives" rather than money. The solution may involve giving more money - but not just as payments, but rather as continuing payments even after they get a job, which tapers off. So they're always better off working than not, unequivocally. Then the only problem you have to worry about it generating enough jobs - a big problem, to be sure, but that's one we always have, will and do face, unlike the other problem.

 

[kmag]

I think it's no housing benefit, and JSA on the condition of taking some kind of advanced training course or apprenticeship.

Not sure what they will do for single mothers under 25 though. Seems like a poor idea to me since exempting single mothers basically makes the the saving very small. It's an idea that's a decent saving on paper but translates poorly to the real world.

Generally on Cameron's speech. It was forgettable, but then I think that was the intention, not to fuck anything up. They won't waste getting rid of the green subsidy this year, they will save it for next year as it takes around £250 off energy bills overnight. That was the only policy announcement I think they could have announced but 2014 makes more sense as it will put Labour in a fix since Ed will have to defend it, and it's tough to defend putting people into fuel poverty to subsidise wind turbines for billion pound companies.

By the time you start mean-testing it, the money saved would be relatively small.

In 2012, there were 179360 under-25 housing benefit claimants (including couples) without a dependent child out of a total of 383650 under-25 hb claimants. Of that 179360a significant proportion of them will be disabled and, you would assume from the murmuring coming from the Tory briefings yesterday afternoon, also be excluded. Exclusions get expensive to implement relatively quickly, and with the continuing clusterfuck of the universal benefit will only get more expensive.

Both parts of the 'policy' concerning under-25's is misguided. A significant proportion of under-25 JSA applicants are university students and college students who have just finished their course. I'm not exactly sure what sort of centrally mandated training is going to be appropriate for those candidates, and youth unemployment remains high.

It's typical Tory thinking of "you're just not looking hard enough so we'll hit it you with this stick until you do." In certain parts of the country there just aren't that many jobs. Hell in Glasgow we had over 2000 applicants for a position for a entry level data analyst job the other week.

 

[twobear]

I'm fairly certain that the only purpose for the Daily Mail's existence is to annoy people with a brain.

 

[Walshicus]

It's a shame no politicians wish to tackle the elephant in the room when it comes to the benefit bill: the state pension. Ideally, the state pension age would be raised every several years so long as life expectancy increases and national demographics skew towards an aging population; in addition to encouraging households to open private pension funds. This piece from January puts the slice of the benefits pie at around 47%. JSA is not surprisingly small by comparison.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

Alas, politicians want to be reelected.

Shouldn't be tied to increasing life expectancy, but instead tied to some measure of the increasing productive age.

 

[kmag]

So the Daily Mail sent a reporter to gatecrash Miliband's uncles memorial yesterday to dig up dirt.

Dacre should really put down the shovel at this point.

 

[Jezbollah]

So the Daily Mail sent a reporter to gatecrash Miliband's uncles memorial yesterday to dig up dirt.

Dacre should really put down the shovel at this point.

I'm not a big fan of current Labour, or Milliband as a politician, but that is a fucking putrid thing to do by the Daily Mail.

 

[Empty]

it's crazy how the mail have let this story run and run. it's going to be in the headlines again today and it only hurts them and their political agenda.

 

[twobear]

The absurd thing is that by so heavily arguing that things that people related to you said in the past should be held against you in the present they're openly inviting people to point out that the Mail openly supported fascists and drew praise from Hitler.

Someone needs to tell them that mentally disabled monkeys in glass houses shouldn't fling shit.

 

[kmag]

The absurd thing is that by so heavily arguing that things that people related to you said in the past should be held against you in the present they're openly inviting people to point out that the Mail openly supported fascists and drew praise from Hitler.

Someone needs to tell them that mentally disabled monkeys in glass houses shouldn't fling shit.

Not only that as hard as it is to believe now Dacre was a pretty radical left wing student at the University of Leeds. There are plenty of skeletons in the that particular closet with a fair few positions which would turn the stomach of your average Daily Mail reader which can now be flung back in his face with the added attack of being an utter hypocrite.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

The absurd thing is that by so heavily arguing that things that people related to you said in the past should be held against you in the present they're openly inviting people to point out that the Mail openly supported fascists and drew praise from Hitler.

Someone needs to tell them that mentally disabled monkeys in glass houses shouldn't fling shit.

Indeed. Many cheers for the blackshirts in the Daily Mail leading up to WW2.

The piece on Miliband's father was a disgrace, though I expect nothing less from them. Hopefully it loses them a few readers, but honestly, their readership lap this kind of stuff up.

By the time you start mean-testing it, the money saved would be relatively small.

In 2012, there were 179360 under-25 housing benefit claimants (including couples) without a dependent child out of a total of 383650 under-25 hb claimants. Of that 179360a significant proportion of them will be disabled and, you would assume from the murmuring coming from the Tory briefings yesterday afternoon, also be excluded. Exclusions get expensive to implement relatively quickly, and with the continuing clusterfuck of the universal benefit will only get more expensive.

Both parts of the 'policy' concerning under-25's is misguided. A significant proportion of under-25 JSA applicants are university students and college students who have just finished their course. I'm not exactly sure what sort of centrally mandated training is going to be appropriate for those candidates, and youth unemployment remains high.

It's typical Tory thinking of "you're just not looking hard enough so we'll hit it you with this stick until you do." In certain parts of the country there just aren't that many jobs. Hell in Glasgow we had over 2000 applicants for a position for a entry level data analyst job the other week.

Agreed. I don't think it's a good policy. I think two tier benefits are a bit more sensible, but then we already kind of have that anyway.

I also don't think that mandatory work for long term unemployed makes sense either, at least not picking up litter and painting over graffiti. The only benefit policy that made an ounce of sense was the pilot scheme to get long term unemployed into 9-5 "work" as it gets people into some kind of working lifestyle. Waking up at 8am, getting dressed, getting to "work", getting home at 5:30, making dinner and going to bed at a decent hour to wake up for 8am the next day. My only worry is that they need something productive for these people to do, there is only so much time one can spend making a CV look decent. However, getting people to teach productive things is expensive, so I don't see it happening.

 

[pulsemyne]

Apparently the mail on sunday has suspended the two journos who gatecrashed the miliband memorial. Give it a week and they'll be back. What a disgusting repulsive paper they are.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Tbf it's a bit different with Milliband - if he were just his dad, even if he were an academic who wrote political books, then the attacks on his would be unjustified. But it's Milliband himself who keeps invoking his father's philosophies and beliefs. If you're going to point at someone - whether it's your Dad for Milliband, or Thatcher for a Tory etc - and say that they inspired you then an article criticising that person's beliefs is entirely on the table imo. Reading the Mail piece, it was really the headline that was the problem - they couldn't justify it at all in the article. If the headline had been "Ralph was a hardline Marxist" then a) no one would have cared and b) they could still have kept the exact same content and it'd have been entirely uncontroversial.

Incidentally, given how much the Mail makes compared to basically every other media outlet which pretty much all lose money, he's not going anywhere.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Anyone getting involved in the Royal Mail IPO?