General Great British Politics Thread!

[Skepticemea]

I fear you have misunderstood...I am talking about the expectations which the Job Centre place on the jobseeker i.e. what you have to do to meet our expectations, rather than the expectations which individual jobseekers have for themselves.

The requirements placed on me were to read the newspaper once a week and to check 2 job websites during the fortnight for example.

That pretty much matches my experience in 2008/9. However, as a degree-educated compliance manager, my chances of finding a job through the services offered by the job centre were laughable.

I don't know what you do but I do know that my ex-wife, who is/was a "ghostbuster" for the DHSS (or whatever they call it now), spent many an hour directing their attention to individuals with few qualifications, as the likelihood of an individual with a good education and who previously held a well paid job being a benefit cheat is lower than someone who's never held a job or has been in intermittant, low-skilled work. I ain't agreeing with the profiling, but it is what it is.

 

[JihadJane]

I fear you have misunderstood...I am talking about the expectations which the Job Centre place on the jobseeker i.e. what you have to do to meet our expectations, rather than the expectations which individual jobseekers have for themselves.

That may have been what you meant but it wasn't what you wrote:

The expectations of people on Jobseekers are laughably minimal.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

That pretty much matches my experience in 2008/9. However, as a degree-educated compliance manager, my chances of finding a job through the services offered by the job centre were laughable.

I don't know what you do but I do know that my ex-wife, who is/was a "ghostbuster" for the DHSS (or whatever they call it now), spent many an hour directing their attention to individuals with few qualifications, as the likelihood of an individual with a good education and who previously held a well paid job being a benefit cheat is lower than someone who's never held a job or has been in intermittant, low-skilled work. I ain't agreeing with the profiling, but it is what it is.

Unfortunately I don't think the bit in bold applies only to well educated types. I doubt the job center helps many get back to work. Even the 'workshop' I was forced to attend after a while was laughably bad. The advice more or less consisted of 'try phoning some companies and see if they are hiring'. There was also quite a lot of 'I'm a warehouse worker from Newcastle and nobody is hiring warehouse workers in Newcastle so I can't work. That job's no good that's for a factory worker in Gateshead, I'm a warehouse worker from Newcastle'

That may have been what you meant but it wasn't what you wrote:

Well it is what I wrote although I agree reading back it is ambiguous.

 

[Skepticemea]

Now, after his idiotic comment regarding his insistence the British public pay down debt (but the banks still aren't lending enough, dontchaknow). Except now he didn't mean that, after paying attention to news sites' comments pages which have gone ballastic.

Moron.

 

[Darat]

And this is one for a kicking by the Balls: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15181547

 

[richardm]

Surely there comes a point though where if you can't find a job in Birmingham you have to broaden your search and look at other areas? Just like if you can;t find a job as a plumber you might need to eventually look at other lines of work.

That is true, but it's not necessarily as easy as it sounds. Moving house is an expensive pastime. Commuting is an expensive pastime. I understand that sometimes it is necessary and even desirable to have to do so, where my problem comes in is with the element of compulsion that you must do it or else. We are potentially talking about very destructive forces being brought to bear on families.

 

[Skepticemea]

Heard it all before:

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

That is true, but it's not necessarily as easy as it sounds. Moving house is an expensive pastime. Commuting is an expensive pastime. I understand that sometimes it is necessary and even desirable to have to do so, where my problem comes in is with the element of compulsion that you must do it or else. We are potentially talking about very destructive forces being brought to bear on families.

It certainly isn't easy but honestly without some element of compulsion I can't see much changing. Hopefully the compulsion is mixed with some common sense though.

I'd like to see the benefits system more focused on properly getting people into work and supporting them while they make that transition; at the moment it seems to be too much about just managing the unemployed.

I'm not proposing someone should have to commute 50 miles to clean toilets, but if there are say welding jobs available in Doncaster then at some point we have to say to the unemployed welder in Dundee that we can't keep supporting his preference to live there with state funds.

 

[Skepticemea]

I'm not proposing someone should have to commute 50 miles to clean toilets, but if there are say welding jobs available in Doncaster then at some point we have to say to the unemployed welder in Dundee that we can't keep supporting his preference to live there with state funds.

A skilled worker will move for a skilled job as there is a skilled job sized wage at the end of it. Getting someone to commute 90 minutes when that will entail a large percentage of their wages is going to be a problem.

 

[Darat]

The problem (if you regard it as a problem) is that it will usually mean the family will be split up, the father will be of working somewhere and dossing down in a multiple-occupancy room and rarely coming home, just sending money home. I have to admit I did hope that we had become more prosperous so that such arrangements wouldn't become the norm (again) for low income families.

 

[Skepticemea]

Considering that most families require two working parents these days (if the family is lucky enough to have both parents in the relationship) should the government start forcing primary schools to teach home economics from 5 yrs up?

 

[JihadJane]

It certainly isn't easy but honestly without some element of compulsion I can't see much changing. Hopefully the compulsion is mixed with some common sense though.

I'd like to see the benefits system more focused on properly getting people into work and supporting them while they make that transition; at the moment it seems to be too much about just managing the unemployed.

Maybe because full employment isn't part of the UK's current economic system. Structural unemployment is useful for disciplining the in-work workforce, to the advantage of those who profit from other people's labour.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

A skilled worker will move for a skilled job as there is a skilled job sized wage at the end of it. Getting someone to commute 90 minutes when that will entail a large percentage of their wages is going to be a problem.

I'm not sure if skilled workers would move in every case, regardless, there will be a number of marginal cases where the choice would be different.

As for the latter example, I'd rather look at a system where say commuting costs were subsidised in lieu of benefits for some period to get people working again.

 

[richardm]

It certainly isn't easy but honestly without some element of compulsion I can't see much changing. Hopefully the compulsion is mixed with some common sense though.

I'd like to see the benefits system more focused on properly getting people into work and supporting them while they make that transition; at the moment it seems to be too much about just managing the unemployed.

Well yes, that sounds good. Helping people getting back to work using sensible strategies is what is needed.

I'm not proposing someone should have to commute 50 miles to clean toilets, but if there are say welding jobs available in Doncaster then at some point we have to say to the unemployed welder in Dundee that we can't keep supporting his preference to live there with state funds.

You might not be proposing it but unfortunately that is pretty much what it boils down to. Funny that you should pick on welders for your example, since there's actually a national shortage of skilled welders currently, and they can expect to earn £20-30000 pa. Not exactly riches beyond your wildest dreams, but not a bad screw and you can probably hope to cover the costs of moving halfway down the country for earnings like that.

Compare that to your unskilled worker, who can expect to make minimum wage, and their partner ditto. So one of them loses their toilet cleaning job in Chesham but gets offered a new job packing leaflets into newspapers in Wapping, but that's a 90 minute tube ride away. They have to take this job or else they'll lose their benefits. What are they supposed to do? My then girlfriend's commute into London took about 90 minutes on the tube and cost her something like £3000 a year; how would that be covered by a minimum wage job (assuming that minimum wage is still actually going to be available by the time this policy gets put into effect), considering that's something like 13 weeks' worth of money (assuming you work 7 and a half hours per day, 5 days a week)?

Of course the answer is "It wouldn't" and you simply couldn't take the job, but that's okay because the most important thing is to cut the benefits bill and that is going to happen whether you take this damned job or you don't. Yes, London prices are particularly usurious but the problem exists on a slightly less hysterical scale everywhere else in the country.

Actually has anyone defined what this "90 minutes commute time" actually is? Is that 90 minutes on foot? By car? By Bus? Train? Private Helicopter? Black-draped carriage towed by Raven-hair'd horses striking sparks as their hooves trample the heads of the peasants as they bow before it?

 

[Skepticemea]

Actually has anyone defined what this "90 minutes commute time" actually is? Is that 90 minutes on foot? By car? By Bus? Train? Private Helicopter? Black-draped carriage towed by Raven-hair'd horses striking sparks as their hooves trample the heads of the peasants as they bow before it?

Blucher!

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

The problem (if you regard it as a problem) is that it will usually mean the family will be split up, the father will be of working somewhere and dossing down in a multiple-occupancy room and rarely coming home, just sending money home. I have to admit I did hope that we had become more prosperous so that such arrangements wouldn't become the norm (again) for low income families.

I don't see necessarily why that would be the case. I'm talking about relocation and/or commuting. If someone gets a 'decent' job 200 miles away from their current home I would expect them to take their family with them.

Of course a lot of jobs aren't 'decent', and I don't think people should be forced into those as it would be counterproductive.

Mind you, in a lot of places fathers do end up working away from home and making sacrifices to provide for their families because it's what they need to do and they don't have the option of sitting at home picking up benefits. I don't think it's self evident that one solution is better than the other.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Of course the answer is "It wouldn't" and you simply couldn't take the job, but that's okay because the most important thing is to cut the benefits bill and that is going to happen whether you take this damned job or you don't. Yes, London prices are particularly usurious but the problem exists on a slightly less hysterical scale everywhere else in the country.

?

Well indeed. Which is where I and the Tories probably part company because my aim is to get people working (even if it ended up costing more) rather than just saving money on the benefits bill. Ideally I'd like to see people getting more for shorter periods of time.

Now you're treading dangerously close to my hot button with the London prices thing. I come over all right wing when these get mentioned. If you are on benefits, you can't afford to live in London...move! (yes yes I know...it's not that easy....I'm only half serious)

 

[Darat]

I don't see necessarily why that would be the case. I'm talking about relocation and/or commuting. If someone gets a 'decent' job 200 miles away from their current home I would expect them to take their family with them.

...snip...

We are talking about low income families aren't we - if so that option of relocation is very unlikely to be a possible option.

Of course a lot of jobs aren't 'decent', and I don't think people should be forced into those as it would be counterproductive.

...snip...

Bah - we'll never make a tory out of you with that attitude!

 

[Skepticemea]

Well indeed. Which is where I and the Tories probably part company because my aim is to get people working (even if it ended up costing more) rather than just saving money on the benefits bill. Ideally I'd like to see people getting more for shorter periods of time.

Now you're treading dangerously close to my hot button with the London prices thing. I come over all right wing when these get mentioned. If you are on benefits, you can't afford to live in London...move! (yes yes I know...it's not that easy....I'm only half serious)

I only half-reacted with an semi-accusation of your approving of the ghettoisation of Britain.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I only half-reacted with an semi-accusation of your approving of the ghettoisation of Britain.

No, that would only be the case if I was asking the unemployed to move INTO London. You couldn't pay me enough to live in that place!