Best thing since sliced bread or not?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/4rck9e2

After postings upon postings on the subject of benefit scroungers, are we now to see and end to the whole disgusting matter?

Or is this an attack on the least able, just another non-enforceable sound bite or the best thing to come from all Governments since the introduction of the welfare state?

[sandyRoe]

And all this at a time when we're facing rising unemployment numbers.

[redcrx]

it had got to such a state that only a radical change could stop those that do play and sponge off the system.
Sadly, that may mean its tougher for those genuine claimants who cannot work for health reasons, but it should never have been allowed to get to the point where someone is better off on benefits than when working

[Old_Geezer]

There's no joined up policy. One minute we are being told we have to continue working until we are 175 to get a pension, the next there is outcry from the young that they can't get jobs, and now there's a big push to get folk on welfare into work by using the big stick. no one wants to fund those who are deliberately not contributing and relying on the rest of us, but this type of incentive bashes those in despair at being unemployed as much as, if not more, than those not wanting to pull their weight. It's not an easy one to get right, but as Sandy mentioned, the timing is hardly ideal.

[Old_Geezer]

BTW as far as bread is concerned, the best thing since sliced bread was the same thing as before sliced bread. i.e. Unsliced bread.

[TheTruthHere]

Notice how they show you a family with seven children in the article.

Are they going to let the children starve ?

You can put money on this, the cuts will hit those without children the hardest.

This guy is going to make Mad Maggie look like a normal person.

[pa___ul3]

I agree with red, it sounds like an ambitious and positive project, how it works in practice remains to be seen, I'm sure there'll be plenty of controversy surrounding it but we'll only be able to really judge in 10 years time. The way it's going now needs to be changed.

[rov1100]

As there are 500,000 jobs out there for the taking why should somone receiving benefits year after year refuse to take them. Sometimes its not always the wage that is disagreeable to them.

[redcrx]

unemployment is rising, though I havnt seen any of the like in the manufacturing industries that i supply.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of those unemployed are those who have voluntarily left their employment.

[ummmm]

strip benefits from those who repeatedly turn down job offers and introduce new health check-ups for those who claim a disability stops them working.

Repeatedly turn down job offers. Then I can't see the problem.

[New Judge]

The problem is that it should have been tackled years ago. There was an ideal opportunity from about 1999 to 2006 when a large number of jobs were created. There was the opportunity then to get the people already here and unemployed into work. Instead we allowed (and paid them) to sit at home or in the bookies and pubs whilst the country shipped in vast numbers of foreigners to do the work they would not do.

There are not now the job opportunities to tackle the problem easily, but there’s still every reason to reform the ridiculous welfare system.

[sandyRoe]

At a time of rising unemployment where are all these jobs that nobody seems to want?

[redcrx]

a lot of jobs that would normally be at the lower end of pay scale or unsociable hours have now gone to the eastern Europeans, but as they are slowly leaving the UK i think that those vacancies will arise again.
The problem is when a job on minimum wage offers just slightly more that staying at home watching JK
i know of a at least 5 families who have avoided working because they are better off staying home.

[Zeuhl]

When i worked briefly for DHSS in the 70s we gave help sooner or later to the most undeserving cases when there were children involved.

Ultimately we have to decide as a society when push comes to shove are we prepared to sit back and watch children live in poverty because of their parents; or do we remove the children and let the parents stew; indeed are we prepared to let an adult starve on the street just because they are inadequate.

That's the bottom line. The rest is just enforcement of the policy.
.

[B00]

Well i for one read it and thought "yes, yes, YES!!!"

Bout bloody time, lets hope it's not all talk though, I'd really like to see him carry all this out.

[jake-the-peg]

There is no magic insight in the discovery that it can be more profitable being on benefits.

I have seen every government since Margaret Thatcher call this out and say that they were going to address it.

Every Government then finds it much more difficult than they thought - they tinker at the edges - hail a victory and the cycle starts again.

[VHG]

>>>This guy is going to make Mad Maggie look like a normal person.

So you are happy to keep paying out BILLIONS in benefits to people who have never worked, have no intention of working, and "play" the system by having child after chlld, or lying about having a "bad back" or other disability.

And how often do we hear about asylum seekers living in houses worth 1 million and have all sorts of fancy things given to them just because they turned up on our doorstep.

This country has to compete on the world market with other countries and the more we give away in benefits the higher the taxes, the more the products we make cost and the less people around the world can afford them.

More and more companies are leaving thew UK and going to Eastern Europe and China and so on.

In 20 or 30 years time these benefit cuts will seem like nothing when the country is bankrupt and is as poor as Greece or Spain.

[TheTruthHere]

From this mornings Guardian

http://www.guardian.c...0-pound-week-benefits

Sod you Jack i am alright bring back Mad Maggie

[Kerosene]

Forgive me, but isn't this being implemented by many of those embroiled in the expenses scandal? Not that something doesn't need doing, but it smacks a bit of hypocrisy and pot calling the kettle black, doesn't it?

One of the main movers and shakers in the government is the Minister for Work & Pensions, Chris Grayling MP, who, although only living about 15 miles from Parliament, still had a flat in London which he managed to claim over £100K for, plus various other expenses well into the £000s as well. I've heard him pontificating many times on the subject of streamlining the Welfare Benefits system.

I just hate the hypocrisy of people like that who themselves were never averse to lining their own pockets at taxpayers' expense but who are now sanctimoniously preaching the need for this "scandal of benefits scroungers" to be tackled without delay. The irony of it all is totally staggering.