Well i aint sticking up for poles or owt but least they do come over and work, come on how many able bodied people you know aint done a days work in 10yr have a car and holidays and go to the pub every Monday. Now i’m not saying working for nowt is the way forward but if it does get these lazy sods out of bed in a ■■■■■■■ morning instead of playing music till all hours drinking cans and staying in bed till 1 in the afternoon, then i say give it a go just for that reason.
stagedriver:
Your not working for free, your working for a wage off the gov - YOUR BENEFITS!
So you’ll have no problem with the idea of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work then which even the minimum wage isn’t exactly and in which case if you’re working for a wage why would you need to pay national insurance and taxes for the privilege.
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that such a scheme will add to the unemployment figures not improve them considering that no sensible employer would employ someone if they can get the job done for nothing and to add insult to injury by someone who’s paying the government to for the privilege of working for sfa.
Maybe the idea won’t seem so good when someone decides that they’d rather drive a truck for zb all than have to do something else. 
djw:
I should start by declaring an interest. I am long-term sick. IÂ am doing my best to overcome substantial medical difficulties that my doctors believe would give me every excuse to be permanently disabled. Whilst IÂ see even the faintest hope of getting back to work, marrying my girlfriend Laurel, offering her what care and support I can, and settling down with her, I’m going to push as hard as I can. This involves an ongoing attempt to recover some physical fitness under physiotherapist supervision despite major muscle problems, bringing my brain back into working order by studying for a law degree, working on pain management with a top team in London and dealing with the consequences when I push too hard and land up with serious infections.If the DVLA agree with my consultants that I do meet the Group 2 medical standards despite my health problems, I hope to learn to drive C, CE and D over the next two or three years, in the hope that I can do some part-time driving work as a run-up to more full-time employment. Learning to drive CE has been a lifelong dream of mine. I’m under no illusion - much of the more readily available driving work would be impossible for me with my health challenges - handball and multi-drop are beyond my abilities, yet I know that everyone has to start at the bottom. If I’m not well enough to take on paid employment, a category D licence may help persuade the local community bus group that I’m fit to drive for them.
As IÂ hope you would agree, motivation isn’t the issue - if anything I’m told that IÂ push myself way too hard. I have every incentive, in truth - Laurel being most important, but also my self-esteem, desire to give back to society and hope to escape the boredom of sometimes endless days shut in ill.
I’ve come a long way over the past three years of intensive effort, and I will keep on going in the hope of further improvement. I will continue to look for the ways I can give back to society from where I am, including being a member of an NHS commissioning board - and posting about legal matters on TruckNet.
The basic idea of helping the long-term unemployed back to work is a good one. People do get stuck in a rut and don’t know where to turn or what to do. Basic employment skills can go rusty or may never have been acquired in the first place - you do have to turn up on time, suitably dressed, ready and fit to work.
Too often, though, the help on these ‘back to work’ schemes is nominal and the work trials involve putting people into minimally-skilled jobs in place of people who would earn minimum wage. There’s often no real training element. The companies that run these schemes on behalf of the government are paid by results - if they don’t get the person back into work, they don’t get paid, so inevitably they go for the easiest targets whilst leaving the more intractable unemployed and those who need more extensive help alone. The more obstructive you are, the more likely the company will realise you aren’t worth bothering with, creating a perverse incentive for the genuinely feckless not to co-operate.
The companies running the ‘back to work’ scheme could potentially maximise their profits by becoming a source of legal cheap labour. It is possible that they could be on (presumably illegal, or at least contrary to their government contracts) kick-backs from employers to provide below minimum wage labour. If evidence emerged that this was happening, it would be the ultimate betrayal of those they are supposedly there to help. If any of these companies was in the position of being able to make more money by providing cheap labour than by getting the government’s payments for getting people into long-term employment, a fresh batch of people on benefits will be brought in to replace those whose benefits entitlement was ending.
Of course, there is also the underlying false assumption that there is a job available for everyone able to work.
Those most likely to get a new job are those who are only just lost the job they had - these people are not affected by the ‘back to work’ schemes, which only kick in after six months of unemployment.
The next easiest tranche of people to deal with are those like me, who have plenty of motivation and know what they need to do to get back into the workplace.
Often these people are frustrated by the rules, which make the leap from benefits to work very difficult. In particular, as soon as you work 16 hours a week, most benefits cease, but 16 hours a week at minimum wage isn’t going to pay as well as benefits by the time you allow for NI, tax (that admittedly you’ll later get back in full if you’re only working 16 hours a week), and those things you have to pay for when you’re no longer on benefits, such as Council Tax.
Those of us who are ill are limited in how much voluntary work we can do - 16 hours a week is usually the ceiling for all forms of work before losing benefit, which can prevent people taking on voluntary work and doing unpaid work experience to try to establish some sort of work history in an environment where there are no sanctions if you can’t turn up on the day. Indeed, attempting voluntary work can lead to a finding that you are fit to work even if you’re struggling to manage a couple of days a week and are spending most of the rest of the time recovering. Whilst I recognise there have to be limits, it seems perverse to penalise those who are trying to find their limits and build themselves up towards genuine employability. Allowing someone to continue to receive sickness benefits whilst undertaking extensive voluntary work for a period is potentially a very cheap stepping-stone to paid employment, also there is the gain to society from the voluntary work the person does.
Meanwhile, many requests for training and support for this group are now refused - free tuition for jobseekers at local colleges is much more restricted than it once was. I’m regarded as too ill to qualify for any college tuition as of right - I would have to apply to the college for discretionary funding towards any courses I wanted to do.
Those remaining tranche of people are more difficult to deal with - the demotivated, those who have never worked and those who are too ill to work but too well to be classed as sick for benefits purposes. For these people, a ‘big stick’ approach is likely to be ineffective at best and actively resisted at worst. What can an employer do with someone who has no work ethic, cannot reliably turn up on time, sometimes turns up drunk (because they have something of an alcohol problem, possibly as an escape from their difficult circumstances) and has few skills?
It is hard to motivate the long-term jobless in areas of high unemployment and deprivation. Even the most open-minded and positive people get worn down by countless ultimately futile job applications and the pervasive sense that no employer will want them.
Meanwhile, the majority of those classed as too sick to work now fall into a group that has to undertake some ‘work related activity’. Amongst other things, this involves periodic interviews with someone from the Department of Work and Pensions about possible steps back to work. One lady I know, a former newspaper journalist, is now so weak that she had to split the interview into three sessions over a six week period, and was left really ill after the whole experience. The DWP refused the evidence of her doctors that she was too weak to go through all this. She’d love to hand in her company pension (she’s classed as permanently disabled by her occupational pension scheme) and go back to work, but knows it is unlikely to happen. She’s had to move to a quiet Cornish cottage, where she lives with her cats as a semi-recluse - she can’t manage any more contact with the outside world.
I’m a great believer in the idea that everyone should do what they can. However, it is important to recognise that not everyone can manage employment, though they may nevertheless manage something that assists the economy (such as caring for a relative’s children a couple of days a week so that the relative can take on work that would be uneconomic if childcare had to be paid for, or caring for an even sicker relative). It is also important to recognise that people’s worth is not a function of their economic output - against that metric, I should be put up against a wall and shot as a burden to society. Is this where we are going to end up - that those with no hope of working are offered a state package consisting of a bullet, the use of a machine that fires it into their head, and a cheap burial in an unmarked grave?
Of course that is a very extreme way of putting things, but it reflects how trapped some people are feeling. If you have minimal qualifications, you live in an area of 25% plus youth unemployment, nobody has worked in your family for three generations and you have nobody offering you any form of personal support, what are you supposed to do?
Fortunately I can keep a sense of perspective, but there are some already feeling so threatened by the government’s reforms and their inability to get into work that they are struggling with severe depression or even are taking their lives.
I know a former long-serving NHS nurse and midwife who is now too ill to work. She does what she can to support her disabled adult daughter. This lady has worked out that if the welfare changes leave her much worse off, she may have to put her cat up for adoption and, if no new home can be found, put her to sleep. Is this really what we want as a society?
I am no believer in free rides. Anyone who is in receipt of state support has obligations towards the state and towards society. I am very thankful for what I get and recognise I am better off than many, even though the system denies me help that I really need and forces me to live apart from Laurel (because the system offers us no hope of the housing or support we’d need to cope together in our current state of health).
Illness took away my academic career at a top university (Imperial College London) and has substantially affected the past 17.5 years of my life. I could easily have died several times - I’ve beaten pneumonia twice in the past few years. I have breathing problems that really need a form of ventilator that the NHS refuses to fund, so I could easily get pneumonia again. I live with constant pain, relieved only partly by morphine which I have been on for the past 13.5 years. I get to see Laurel once a year at best, not least as she is also seriously ill - thank goodness for cheap phone calls! Most of the time I’m far too numb to feel a hug.
Illness has brought me into contact with the most incredible people, who have shared their stories of courage with me with tremendous grace. I wouldn’t swap these experiences for anything and I am not grumbling about my lot in life at all. Compared to many, what I have to put up with is nothing and I was fortunate to fit an awful lot into the 18.5 years of health I enjoyed. It’s just that I would seriously question the sanity of anyone who would willingly swap their life, their health and the relationships they enjoy with family and friends for the measly amount I get in benefits.
I’m not posting about my situation to complain about it and I’m certainly not asking for anyone’s sympathy. It’s just that I am able to give up my own privacy whilst I must respect the privacy of others. Many are worse off than me and I am so fortunate to be in the position that I am.
My fear is that the system we are moving towards is based on increased penalties, not increased help to get people back to work. In our current economic circumstances, I cannot see how piling penalties onto those who may be powerless to get employment will solve the problems of long-term unemployment and of eliminating situations where people are better off on benefits than in work.
There’s nothing wrong with that idea just so long as it’s based on choice not compulsion.There’s been plenty of company executives,train drivers and pilots over the years,like many others with decent income protection cover,who look on that idea as bs and prefer the idea of early retirement.The need for that type of thinking is more a symptom of the zb socialist so called social security system than choice in which many people would choose the early retirement option if the cover provided is good enough.
Something I always wondered, if we have so many unemployed people from all sectors of the workforce why can’t the government setup a state run industry to employ people and train them for future private employment ■■
In my tiny mind this would give the country an access to cheaper labour to produce something they can export at a much more competitive price generating money, plus employing and training people in the process of rekindling an industry which was previously lost, ship building for example.
My father is disabled, a worsening disability over time, for the past 35yrs, and he hasn’t worked a day in those 35yrs, as much I love my father even he would admit that at least 20yrs of that he could and should have worked in some form of job, instead he has a nice car, his own house etc etc all of which he never worked for, having spent the past 20 years working 60 - 80hrs a week to get what I have now can sometimes boil my ■■■■ when I look how easy others achieved so similar without a days graft in sometimes years or decades.
It isn’t right and it needs to change.
Phantom Mark:
Something I always wondered, if we have so many unemployed people from all sectors of the workforce why can’t the government setup a state run industry to employ people and train them for future private employment ■■In my tiny mind this would give the country an access to cheaper labour to produce something they can export at a much more competitive price generating money, plus employing and training people in the process of rekindling an industry which was previously lost, ship building for example.
My father is disabled, a worsening disability over time, for the past 35yrs, and he hasn’t worked a day in those 35yrs, as much I love my father even he would admit that at least 20yrs of that he could and should have worked in some form of job, instead he has a nice car, his own house etc etc all of which he never worked for, having spent the past 20 years working 60 - 80hrs a week to get what I have now can sometimes boil my ■■■■ when I look how easy others achieved so similar without a days graft in sometimes years or decades.
It isn’t right and it needs to change.
How does anyone afford to buy a house and run a decent car etc etc on the so called social security benefits.Sounds like typical Sun reader type bs to me.It’s cheap labour and the fact that no one has any money to spend which is why the economy is in the zb with the resulting unemployment levels.
People on long term unemployment should be doing some form of work, but not for big business. They should have the opportunity to find a voluntary role, ie charity shop. If they wont/can’t then it will be report to your local town hall for public works assignment.
this is getting like the community service punishments. it is taking away real jobs from real people. Slavery.
Sorry Carryfast, are you calling me a liar or just making a generalisation ■■
Just in case you think I am full of crap some facts.
My dad has a nice 55 plate BMW e60 525d, bought for him by mobility (he took cash option instead of a brand new lease car), he also has had an endowment mortgage since the early 80’s for which the government pays (I don’t fully understand those type of Mortgages but they are all about paying interest only or something iirc), his independent living allowance provides everything for free basically, food, clothes, bills, even a holiday once per year ffs.
Anyway, whilst a lot of things are getting much harder to scam the principle of it all still stinks, for years my dad milked it dry I’m sure, now he truly does need that help more than ever and year on year it is proving harder for him to get what he is genuinely entitled to, they are tightening the loop holes believe me, with disability at least, finally, I have no clue how the unemployed fare these days ■■
green456:
madguy:
I was thinking more like, helping OAP’s with decorating, cutting hedges on the side of the road !! painting over graffiti that sort of thing.Madguy
they tried all that with the community service for criminals
all that happened was that the old ladies got burgled later that night and all their possesions dissapeared
they injured themselves cutting hedges and put claims in
they spilt more paint on the floor than the graffiti artists had put on the wallsso if your unemployed by no fault of your own you are treated as a criminal
You seem to know a lot about community service, have we done a stretch.
Or is it MMTM…
Sent from my iPad.
in my area there are jobs done by community service criminals like.
hedge cutting…formerly council employees.
grave digging…formerly council employees.
painting railings…formerly council employees.
street cleaning…formerly council employees.
tending open spaces…formerly council employees.
beach cleaning…formerly council employees.
if they force the unemployed to work for their dole, then there will be a lot of agency workers being told, we don’t need you today. if there is work to be done, then give people the going rate.
if this goes ahead, then the unemployed bloke will do your job, he will still be unemployed after this finishes, and so will the bloke that did the job before him. this scheme will increase unemployment.
limeyphil:
in my area there are jobs done by community service criminals like.hedge cutting…formerly council employees.
grave digging…formerly council employees.
painting railings…formerly council employees.
street cleaning…formerly council employees.
tending open spaces…formerly council employees.
beach cleaning…formerly council employees.if they force the unemployed to work for their dole, then there will be a lot of agency workers being told, we don’t need you today. if there is work to be done, then give people the going rate.
if this goes ahead, then the unemployed bloke will do your job, he will still be unemployed after this finishes, and so will the bloke that did the job before him. this scheme will increase unemployment.
Ok lets get them on exercise bikes rigged up to the grid then! I really don’t see how anyone can advocate allowing people to choose the free ride
brados:
stagedriver:
Your not working for free, your working for a wage off the gov - YOUR BENEFITS!It is also taking the place of a full time - full paid employee, that’s a lot less than min wage, the likes of the big supermarkets will soon take them on, how long before unemployed truck drivers are being taken on by stobbies and the like for NO MONEY or as you call it - Your benefits!
That ■■■ works for peanuts anyway…see what I did there?
Phantom Mark:
My dad has a nice 55 plate BMW e60 525d, bought for him by mobility (he took cash option instead of a brand new lease car)
If your father took the money rather than going through Motability, he made private arrangements to buy that car and takes the risks involved in doing so, including what he will do should he lose his benefits for some reason.
Higher rate mobility component of DLA is around £40 per week. A 5 series BMW, even an older one, either involved putting up a substantial sum in advance, or is going to take an awfully long time to pay off, especially when you take into account running costs.
Unlike in some countries, people with disabilities do not get any subsidised fuel - we pay the same pump prices as everyone else.
By way of contrast, I’m driving a 12 year old heap of a Zafira and am struggling on without a wheelchair hoist, which I have really needed for years. I can’t really afford the loss of income from taking a new Motability car, nor can I afford much diesel to use the car I have. However, the point is coming where the old Zafira is unsustainable - the repair bills are getting to be too high as many components simply wear out, so it will be more cost-effective to replace it with something newer. My family will be supporting me from their earned income to replace it, hopefully later this year.
That said, I am very grateful to have the old Zafira - I recognise that many people do not have a car at all.
The more independent I am, the more I can do for myself, and the less help (potentially at significant cost to the state) I need for basic things.
Phantom Mark:
he also has had an endowment mortgage since the early 80’s for which the government pays (I don’t fully understand those type of Mortgages but they are all about paying interest only or something iirc)
The benefits system stopped helping people with mortgage costs many years ago, even if it would be cheaper to support someone with their mortgage costs than them losing their home and having to be found rented accommodation at public expense.
Endowment mortgages are very much out of fashion now. They involve taking a ‘with profits’ insurance policy which is supposed, on maturity, to cover the costs of the house. Many find that they are a long way short of having enough from the endowment to clear the mortgage debt at maturity - which is why they’ve gone out of fashion.
The system for publicly funded housing is being reformed at present. People are assessed to find the number of bedrooms they need - this change is retrospective, so it affects those who have existing public funding towards housing costs. People with ‘too many’ bedrooms are often desperate to move and are prepared to let go of secure council and housing association tenancies to do so, because they can’t afford the unfunded element of their rent.
The system will pay for no more than the bottom third of rents for that number of bedrooms in the local authority area. There just aren’t enough ‘bottom third of rents’ properties to go around - there’s tremendous competition for properties in or just above that bottom third of rents (any extra rent has to come from the tenant’s other income). With a shortage of rented property in many areas, private landlords often have no problem finding employed tenants so will not look at those on benefits.
Phantom Mark:
his independent living allowance provides everything for free basically, food, clothes, bills, even a holiday once per year ffs.
Independent living allowance? Do you mean Disability Living Allowance?
The cash amount of benefits is relatively modest, not least compared to the extra living costs that often come your way with a disability. I have to run a large car because of my wheelchair or basically I’d never get out anywhere. Were it not for the chair I’d either downsize to a supermini or smaller, or get rid of my car completely and use the bus.
These days, social services only provide essential care and may well not cover even the most fundamental needs in full. The days of social services funding modest holidays (not that I ever got one) are long gone - they haven’t had money for discretionary spending on older and disabled people for many years. Unless there is minimal cost to the council (i.e. charitable funding or donated holidays), social services are only likely to provide holidays in situations involving children in local authority care or when there is a severely disabled child in the family.
Phantom Mark:
Anyway, whilst a lot of things are getting much harder to scam the principle of it all still stinks, for years my dad milked it dry I’m sure, now he truly does need that help more than ever and year on year it is proving harder for him to get what he is genuinely entitled to, they are tightening the loop holes believe me, with disability at least, finally, I have no clue how the unemployed fare these days ■■
At times, sickness benefits were something of a soft touch, especially when it was politically expedient to avoid a lot of older manual workers hitting the dole. The example that is always used is Merthyr Tydfil - at the time that mining and heavy industry was closing down in Wales, the government wanted to avoid all those former workers, many of whom had previously held hard physical jobs and weren’t in the best of health, going on the unemployment figures. Many were therefore moved straight to sickness benefits on grounds such as bad backs. Many more landed up on sickness benefits later on due to stress or depression.
However, the system is being reformed. Claimants are being reassessed to new, higher standards. Even if you meet the higher standards, only those assessed as the least likely to be able to work again or who get through a means test on income and capital will be able to receive sickness benefits for more than a year. This particularly affects the spouses and partners of someone who is still in work - the working partner’s salary will often push the ill partner off of sickness benefits.
Disability benefits were never that easy to get - the investigations are rigorous and the level of detail you have to provide is very invasive, especially for the higher rates. The system is getting tougher still with the latest package of reforms.
It is always easy to judge people based on scanty evidence. “It’s not fair” is so often heard - but nothing in life is truly fair. What would you rather have - my battered old NHS powerchair, Blue Badge and some money towards mobility costs, or legs that work properly?
When you see someone with a Blue Badge or using some sort of mobility aid, they may appear to be moving quite well. What you don’t know is how much pain they’re in, whether the problem is with their legs or elsewhere (people have mobility problems because of breathing or heart problems) and what effect the effort of getting around will have on them later in the day.
Phantom Mark:
My father is disabled, a worsening disability over time, for the past 35yrs, and he hasn’t worked a day in those 35yrs.
Remploy was an option for the disabled.
Saratoga:
Remploy was an option for the disabled.
There’s two sides to the Remploy story.
Remploy provided employment for disabled people who otherwise would have been unemployed. However, it touched the lives of relatively few people, a lot of Remploy employees stayed with Remploy for a long time and were not able to move on to other forms of employment, and the amount of public money per Remploy job was substantial (around £25k per employee per year).
The government felt that they faced a choice between continuing to fund Remploy, which showed very little prospect of ceasing to consume such large amounts of public subsidy, or closing down Remploy and putting much of the freed up money into other forms of support for disabled people in the workplace. The decision was highly controversial, and split the disability community. Some felt that it was wrong to take away the Remploy jobs, noting that long term Remploy employees would often be unable to find any sort of employment without other forms of support and that these people got so much out of their jobs. They also noted that the Remploy employees themselves were often those who have limited opportunities to express their thoughts and wishes. Others felt that Remploy was not rehabilitative, in the sense that long term employment with often a substantial amount of support failed to lead to employability elsewhere, that the work was often menial and increasingly couldn’t compete with cheap imports, and that Remploy was an outdated model with elements of its 1945 institutional roots still about it.
My local council had their own Remploy type operation, which they closed a few years ago. Social Services noted the importance of the workshop to the employees and their families, but felt that continued funding couldn’t be justified. The workshop had lost a lot of its contracts to cheap foreign imports, it needed a lot of investment to upgrade the equipment, many professionals and disability groups felt it was no longer appropriate to place people in that sort of environment and the council felt they couldn’t concentrate that level of support on relatively few people.
On a personal level, I deeply regret the effect that the Remploy closures are having on those who are directly affected, but I believe it is an outdated model. I believe that my views accord with the majority view amongst disabled people.
If we are able to offer supported employment, it should be in smaller grass-roots projects and in specific roles at sympathetic employers, not larger scale ‘out of sight, out of mind’ projects. There should also be a sizeable role for supported voluntary work. However, with so many unemployed people who do not face the same kind of barriers to employment as many Remploy staff, it is going to be hard for many former Remploy workers to find employment elsewhere.
Access to Work is a good scheme, but it tends to concentrate on the less severely disabled who need more modest levels of support to enter the workplace - often a one-off package of equipment and training with subsequent periodic replacement. Though this is a crude stereotype, Access to Work is more likely to support those with physical and sensory impairments, whilst a sizeable proportion of Remploy staff had learning difficulties. As such, the Remploy closures have a significant element of ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ about them. Even supported voluntary work is expensive to provide, and with Social Services struggling to fund basic care needs, few will get funding for supported voluntary work with its potential to greatly enrich lives.
This leads to the more fundamental issue of what role in society should the more severely disabled have, especially those with learning difficulties. For some, there is no way they will ever be able to take a ‘conventional’ job, but they have a lot to offer in their own way. However, when the support that allows people to fulfil their potential is so expensive, what should we fund and how do we decide who receives that funding? Is there scope here for creative engagement with the unemployed - could some unemployed people support disabled people in voluntary work projects, enriching the lives of everyone involved and offering a stepping stone to other forms of employment for some.
OK Thanks 
stagedriver:
Your not working for free, your working for a wage off the gov - YOUR BENEFITS!
so for some of the unfortunate people who end up on benefits through no fault of theyre own has to do full time hours for a ■■■■ income that makes no sense at all if they can find places for the unemployed then surely they can find places for them to be full time employees with pay oh wait no its back to slave labour.
WAY TO GO GOVERNMENT…
what will they ever come up with next
I don’t agree in job seekers allowance, as most in receipt aren’t job seekers. I’ve said it before, pull out of the eu, all the flip flops are unemployable without a visa, cut the benefits and all these skivers with bad backs etc will be back in nmw jobs. The only benefit they should get is housing. After all that’s the one that stops them working, as soon as the go over 16 hrs it stops. The only people who should be working for free are low risk prisoners, fraudsters and the like. Put them on work placements with the plc paying the wages to the government to go towards their keep
As said where is these jobs? more than likely the government will spend money setting up or creating these fake jobs, then as already pointed out, they will be getting sued,for personal injuries and the like, so it will end up costing more than it does for the benefits
Also if someone is expected to work then they surely cannot be classed as unemployed whilst working , and they will not be actively seeking work,(one of the conditions included in the declaration the unemployed sign every 2 weeks ) when they have to sign on
The con dems will live to regret their ill thought through meddling’s as those organised looting sprees in London and a few other cities that were described as riots , will seem insignificant compared to what will ensue as a result of this and their ineptness so far to sort things out , It ain’t rocket science
tommy t:
As said where is these jobs? more than likely the government will spend money setting up or creating these fake jobs, then as already pointed out, they will be getting sued,for personal injuries and the like, so it will end up costing more than it does for the benefitsAlso if someone is expected to work then they surely cannot be classed as unemployed whilst working , and they will not be actively seeking work,(one of the conditions included in the declaration the unemployed sign every 2 weeks ) when they have to sign on
The con dems will live to regret their ill thought through meddling’s as those organised looting sprees in London and a few other cities that were described as riots , will seem insignificant compared to what will ensue as a result of this and their ineptness so far to sort things out , It ain’t rocket science
It does bring into question that if you force someone to work then how can the prospective employer expect them to give 100% to the job, it will not happen. It is like a lot of things gvts do - they are not thought out, they are just headline grabbers in the hope that “normal” working people will agree with and vote them back in at the next free for all, I do think that this lot have got it far worse than the last lot, they spent all the money and then some, these are not spending any money and f**king the country up altogether - and then blaming the unemployed and disabled people. Tories will be tories no matter how they dress their politics up at election time, they will lie and cheat just like any politician and just to line their own pockets and make the “normal” bod in the street pick up the tab, they will not be satisfied until we are all doffing our caps at them and working 20 hours a day in their mill for nothing but tokens only to be spent in their shops, I think they are in for a shock come election time and as for the lib dems - well let’s just see, I think it will be UKIP again for me.