Tories & Lib Dems propose forced labour

[Mojo]

Demonising the unemployed and using rhetoric that suggests that the majority are just workshy, benefit scroungers who have no job skills and no motivation to find work is utterly deplorable.

And is just what the Tories did last time.

While their Chancellors of the Exchequer were saying things like "Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying."

 

[bit_pattern]

Specious reasoning or direct correlation?

Highly specious.

 

[lionking]

Highly specious.

Oh yeah, and your comment that "nobody participates in it" was gospel truth? That was wrong and I have proven it.

Which party does not support Work for the Dole? Only the Greens. Leftist don't like it. Big deal.

 

[bit_pattern]

It's not a matter of how popular it is as a policy, its a matter of whether the policy actually works, and the fact is that - as a compulsory work scheme as proposed in the UK - it failed miserably, hence why it quickly morphed into a non-compulsory option for fulfilling 'mutual obligation' commitments. And even if it was THE most popular mutual obligations option it wouldn't change the fact that it was a failure as a compulsory scheme. It really doesn't get any more straight forward than that.

 

[bit_pattern]

That was wrong and I have proven it.

Really? What, in another thread? Because I've scoured this one and I sure can't see it. A glib justification from Mark Arbib (of all people!) in a News Ltd attack piece is not proof of anything, as far as I can tell. Feel free to explain exactly what exactly you think you proved and how you think you proved it though!

 

[lionking]

You said "nobody" was on Work for the Dole. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Back on ignore for you. If I said the sky was blue, you would argue the point. A monumental waste of time.

 

[bit_pattern]

That's easier than actually addressing the point, I guess.

/shrugz

Way to prove the point in my sig BTW, nicely done.

 

[JihadJane]

Oh yeah, and your comment that "nobody participates in it" was gospel truth? That was wrong and I have proven it.

Which party does not support Work for the Dole? Only the Greens. Leftist don't like it. Big deal.

I thought you were a leftist, lionking. That's what you told me, anyway, when I accused you of being right-wing.

 

[lionking]

I thought you were a leftist, lionking. That's what you told me, anyway, when I accused you of being right-wing.

Didn't say I wasn't inclined to the left, particularly on social issues. I'm not a Green though.

ETA Everyone's to the right of bit pattern.

 

[MikeMangum]

That's true. Why don't people starve like they used to?

Hyperbole much? Here in the US, we didn't even have people dying of starvation during the Great Depression, and back then they didn't have any of the government social safety nets that exist now.

Of course, you are in a long line of people who have used the exact same hyperbole...and been proven wrong. We heard the same thing here in the US during the debate over welfare reform and those who used that language at the time have been forced to admit that the result was not people starving in the streets or children ending up in orphanages.

From Physorg.com:

"At the time it was signed into law, there were some predictions of dire consequences -- that the loss of the safety net would put many kids out on the streets or into orphanages," said Dunifon, associate professor of policy analysis and management in the College of Human Ecology. "Clearly that hasn't happened."

 

[Francesca R]

Hyperbole much? [ . . . ]

I tried to link to the World Bank database to provide the member with data on starvation in the US, but looking there myself there is no data. The Center for Disease Control reports total deaths in the US with a lag, the latest being 2007. Total deaths recorded with the cause being malnutrition was 2,644 (this is in Table 10 Page 33 of the PDF) with 1,987 of those being over age 75. The US population in 2007 was 301,290,000.

So yes, hyperbole.

 

[Francesca R]

Of course, it's possible that they have been offering rewards to people snitching on tax cheats, like they did for benefit cheats. Don't remember seeing any though.

I think it's already been established that you don't look in the relevant places.

Yep; I just suspect that the government don't.

Contrary to the evidence presented by me and another member, your suspicion isn't holding a lot of water.

 

[JihadJane]

Didn't say I wasn't inclined to the left, particularly on social issues. I'm not a Green though.

I guess it depends where you're inclining from!

ETA Everyone's to the right of bit pattern.

Only when seen through right-wing lenses.

 

[Aitch]

I think it's already been established that you don't look in the relevant places.

Ah yes, hidden on the HMRC web site. As opposed to being shown on TV at regular intervals.

Contrary to the evidence presented by me and another member, your suspicion isn't holding a lot of water.

The Don provided a link to a document produced by HMRC (for which, thanks). However, they are not the government; they can make as many plans as they like, but whether they will be allowed implement them in any meaningful way is another matter entirely.

 

[Francesca R]

Ah yes, hidden on the HMRC web site. As opposed to being shown on TV at regular intervals.

And you think this means that the government "cares more" about stopping benefit fraud than tax and customs fraud, but you have not shown this.

However, [HMRC] are not the government; they can make as many plans as they like, but whether they will be allowed implement them in any meaningful way is another matter entirely.

?? HMRC has more law enforcement powers (being a law enforcement agency) than the DWP has. That is is not headed by a cabinet minister does not affect that.

 

[Francesca R]

From the Annual Fraud Indicator (January 2010), produced by the Attorney General's Office the estimates of the public cost are tax £15.2 billion and benefits £1.1 billion. Those are the two biggest sources of public sector fraud.

It would be good to see some data on the difficulty of preventing/recovering each type, the amount of resources devoted to the prevention/recovery of each, and the return on those resources, but I've not found anything. That would seem to be the appropriate metric of whether or not the government was pursuing one more than the other for reasons of ideology or whatever, rather than the prominence of media campaigns in the public square.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

It is of course entirely possible that the UK government has conducted extensive, scientifically designed, well conducted research which shows that TV adverts calling on people to shop dole scum provide a good return on investment, whereas adverts calling on people to shop tax dodgers don't.

It's also entirely possible that they haven't and just think that they get more votes by demonising welfare scroungers.

Given all colours of UK government's attitude to scientific research driving policy (NICE, drug classification etc) I know which way I'm betting..

 

[oggiesnr]

Problem I have with all this talk of unemployment and jobs' shortages etc is that my experience is somewhat different. In my late forties I had to close my business or go bankrupt (OK I should have bitten the bullet but there were family reasons why no to). I had no entitlement to benefits (the self-employed don't accrue them) so it was work or nowt. For the next two years as I got back on my feet and into business I was never without work, some of it was through agencies, some was minimum wage but money came in. Ok unemployment was not as it is now, I did not get work at my education level (post-grad) but it kept me going. I also learned a lot along the way.

The new regs are aimed at the long-term unemployed, those out of work for a year (and the figure for those out of work for nine out the last ten years is staggering). Yes it is popularist but, living in such an area, there are those who have a nice little earner living on benefits and doing a lot of moonlighting on the side.

The real problem will be catching these people rather than the genuine claimants who through a combination of bad luc, age or circumstances are genuinely unemployable no matter what stick is used.

Steve

 

[Thunder]

Unemployment benefits are not meant to pay for folks' vacation time. We are giving them money to help them pay the bills until they can find a job.

In the USA, you are required to PROVE that you are looking for work, in order to receive unemployment benefits. If you can't prove it, then you lose your benefits.

I have no problem with this. Its meant to motivate folks to look for a damn job.

However, if the Brits think welfare and unemployment benefits are meant to be a free ride for the rest of your life, that is very sad.

I really don't think its fare to all the millions of folks who do work hard and pay their taxes, to have their tax dollars pay folks to NOT look for work.

And if they really can't find work, due to no jobs, then let them pick up garbage or other simple but necessary tasks.

 

[geni]

Unemployment benefits are not meant to pay for folks' vacation time. We are giving them money to help them pay the bills until they can find a job.

In the USA, you are required to PROVE that you are looking for work, in order to receive unemployment benefits. If you can't prove it, then you lose your benefits.

In theory at least that is the case in the UK.

And if they really can't find work, due to no jobs, then let them pick up garbage or other simple but necessary tasks.

Veolia Environmental Services would prefer it if people didn't keep suggesting that they should have to compete with free labour.