Jobseekers in Weymouth and Portland in scrap for jobs (From Dorset Echo)

"Get a job you spongers"...

Obviously you can't read properly the article says there are not enough jobs to go round.

whatever66 wrote:
Obviously you can't read properly the article says there are not enough jobs to go round.

haha!

oh bless :)

sarcasm not understood by all, I know. but i thought the qoute symbols may have helped, but clearly not for you.

Go back indoors, enjoy some coco ;)

I wonder how many of these people are “professional” job seekers. Income based Jobseekers allowance for example a lone parent eighteen or over can get up to £71.00 a week. A couple gets up to £112.00. Both parties may well be on other benefits. All employment figures can be massaged and should viewed with caution. To those genuine jobseekers do not be disheartened by this one in five figure. I wish you luck in these hard times.

shy talk wrote:
I wonder how many of these people are “professional” job seekers. Income based Jobseekers allowance for example a lone parent eighteen or over can get up to £71.00 a week. A couple gets up to £112.00. Both parties may well be on other benefits. All employment figures can be massaged and should viewed with caution. To those genuine jobseekers do not be disheartened by this one in five figure. I wish you luck in these hard times.

a 'professional' job seeker, wouldnt require the service of the job centre, nor choose to use them for anything but claiming financial help in hard times...

shy talk wrote:
I wonder how many of these people are “professional” job seekers. Income based Jobseekers allowance for example a lone parent eighteen or over can get up to £71.00 a week. A couple gets up to £112.00. Both parties may well be on other benefits. All employment figures can be massaged and should viewed with caution. To those genuine jobseekers do not be disheartened by this one in five figure. I wish you luck in these hard times.

How bad does the recession have to get before you accept that it ISN'T caused by a huge upsurge in workshy spongers living high on the hog ???

So is Unison proposing to accept revised terms and conditions for its members, thus reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses and encouraging growth in the jobs market?

Or is it arguing that there should be no more cuts to public sector jobs because there aren't any private sector jobs because there have been no cuts to public sector jobs?

Or do these Union morons with their fat cat salaries and pensions not really understand economics one little bit?

shy talk wrote:
I wonder how many of these people are “professional” job seekers. Income based Jobseekers allowance for example a lone parent eighteen or over can get up to £71.00 a week. A couple gets up to £112.00. Both parties may well be on other benefits. All employment figures can be massaged and should viewed with caution. To those genuine jobseekers do not be disheartened by this one in five figure. I wish you luck in these hard times.

£71 a week? That's not even close :-)

£71 a week income support
£62.09 a week child tax credit
£24.93 council tax benefit
£137 a week housing benefit
£20.30 child benefit

Total £315 a week / £16396 a year rising to £19776 a year with performance bonus (push out another one).

JamesYoung wrote:

shy talk wrote: I wonder how many of these people are “professional” job seekers. Income based Jobseekers allowance for example a lone parent eighteen or over can get up to £71.00 a week. A couple gets up to £112.00. Both parties may well be on other benefits. All employment figures can be massaged and should viewed with caution. To those genuine jobseekers do not be disheartened by this one in five figure. I wish you luck in these hard times.

£71 a week? That's not even close :-) £71 a week income support £62.09 a week child tax credit £24.93 council tax benefit £137 a week housing benefit £20.30 child benefit Total £315 a week / £16396 a year rising to £19776 a year with performance bonus (push out another one).

hahahaha, made me spit out me tea :)

WORKERS WANTED:

5 large men with baseball bats
2 medium men with books of parking tickets
1 small woman to make tea for above

Report to the Park 'N' Ride where the gypsies are camped

Must be able to do what the police and local authorities are unable to do

If task completed satisfactorily could be a job for life - must be able to travel throughout our green and pleasant

EtaoinShrdlu wrote:
WORKERS WANTED:

5 large men with baseball bats
2 medium men with books of parking tickets
1 small woman to make tea for above

Report to the Park 'N' Ride where the gypsies are camped

Must be able to do what the police and local authorities are unable to do

If task completed satisfactorily could be a job for life - must be able to travel throughout our green and pleasant

If you advertise on the Moor you might be better asking for five large women and one small man.

JamesYoung wrote:
So is Unison proposing to accept revised terms and conditions for its members, thus reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses and encouraging growth in the jobs market?

Or is it arguing that there should be no more cuts to public sector jobs because there aren't any private sector jobs because there have been no cuts to public sector jobs?

Or do these Union morons with their fat cat salaries and pensions not really understand economics one little bit?

When all employers pay a fair share of their profits to their staff in a co operative and not the least amount they can get away with by way of absolute minimum wage, then there will be economic growth by means of an upsurge in consumer spending. At the moment the banks and corporations have all the money and the government want only to blame the poor as to divide and rule. It won't last.

Artstudent wrote:

JamesYoung wrote: So is Unison proposing to accept revised terms and conditions for its members, thus reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses and encouraging growth in the jobs market? Or is it arguing that there should be no more cuts to public sector jobs because there aren't any private sector jobs because there have been no cuts to public sector jobs? Or do these Union morons with their fat cat salaries and pensions not really understand economics one little bit?

When all employers pay a fair share of their profits to their staff in a co operative and not the least amount they can get away with by way of absolute minimum wage, then there will be economic growth by means of an upsurge in consumer spending. At the moment the banks and corporations have all the money and the government want only to blame the poor as to divide and rule. It won't last.

haha... do you stand by all you said?

I believe in perfomance related pay, and not everyone deserves a share of profits, just simply a wage.

However, the minimum wage shoule be equal or greater than the living wage. but then the UK becomes less competitve to other countries to send business our way.

And the banks have no money, we bailed them out. they could potentially make money available for people to borrow (like a few years back), but they have many lessons to learn (I am against the new credit scoring system though).

China has all the money! Even America looks to them for borrowing. A country, like Briatain 100 years ago, proving that when you export many goods, you receive revenue above any need for borrowing of other countries.

But i suppose you'll just suggest we print more money ;)

Oh, and hats off if the name is a joke. but if you're an art student, you are as much to blame for the country going down...

Artstudent wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:
So is Unison proposing to accept revised terms and conditions for its members, thus reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses and encouraging growth in the jobs market?

Or is it arguing that there should be no more cuts to public sector jobs because there aren't any private sector jobs because there have been no cuts to public sector jobs?

Or do these Union morons with their fat cat salaries and pensions not really understand economics one little bit?

When all employers pay a fair share of their profits to their staff in a co operative and not the least amount they can get away with by way of absolute minimum wage, then there will be economic growth by means of an upsurge in consumer spending. At the moment the banks and corporations have all the money and the government want only to blame the poor as to divide and rule. It won't last.

I have my doubts about this actually. I don't think this model would lead to economic growth as by definition it would need to be more sustainable (ie not based on debt). That wouldn't be a bad thing as we all need to consume less, not more, but the problem is how to get there.
It would be nice to think that it won't last but i don't think there is any credible way to move from capitalism to social enterprise at a global level.
Art classroom dreams (however commendable) aside, the problem is that the country owes over £1,000,000,000,000 and is paying £1500 per taxpayer in interest per year. In that situation, you either have to act against rich corporations globally (you can't do it a country at a time for obvious reasons) or you have to take a longer term view on that issue and in the short term cut back your spending. What most people don't seem to understand is that the public sector is entirely paid for either by the private sector or by debt. Economically (only), public sector workers are "net takers" from the system.
The best way to stimulate growth is to reduce the tax burden on small businesses to allow them to employ more staff. That can only be done by either increasing debt (suicidal, as the PIIGS have shown) or by intelligently cutting the public sector.
It has grown by 800,000 since 2007. If you accept that it should grow on a linear basis in parallel with population growth, then it should only have grown by 300-400,000. That's a cost of £8bn per year that should never have been added into the equation.
How we get rid of them is a challenge, but Unison and the other Unions don't care about the realities. History is littered with examples of how Unions would rather kill a business stone dead than accept that costs have to be cut.

stench wrote:

Artstudent wrote:

JamesYoung wrote: So is Unison proposing to accept revised terms and conditions for its members, thus reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses and encouraging growth in the jobs market? Or is it arguing that there should be no more cuts to public sector jobs because there aren't any private sector jobs because there have been no cuts to public sector jobs? Or do these Union morons with their fat cat salaries and pensions not really understand economics one little bit?

When all employers pay a fair share of their profits to their staff in a co operative and not the least amount they can get away with by way of absolute minimum wage, then there will be economic growth by means of an upsurge in consumer spending. At the moment the banks and corporations have all the money and the government want only to blame the poor as to divide and rule. It won't last.

haha... do you stand by all you said?

I believe in perfomance related pay, and not everyone deserves a share of profits, just simply a wage.

However, the minimum wage shoule be equal or greater than the living wage. but then the UK becomes less competitve to other countries to send business our way.

And the banks have no money, we bailed them out. they could potentially make money available for people to borrow (like a few years back), but they have many lessons to learn (I am against the new credit scoring system though).

China has all the money! Even America looks to them for borrowing. A country, like Briatain 100 years ago, proving that when you export many goods, you receive revenue above any need for borrowing of other countries.

But i suppose you'll just suggest we print more money ;)

Oh, and hats off if the name is a joke. but if you're an art student, you are as much to blame for the country going down...

If the fellow also studies economics, he'll learn that inflation is caused either by:

(i) an excess of demand over supply ("scarcity"; or
(ii) an excess of money

Given that there is no demand for anything at the moment (seen in retail sales and manufacturing figures) the conclusion is that the inflation that we are currently seeing is caused entirely by the government printing money.

Nowhere is that seen more clearly than in the housing market. The government is printing money to give to banks to lend to borrowers to buy houses.

What's worse is that all of the lending done by banks is also money creation.
I've said it before, but consider fractional reserve banking. All money flows to banks. I deposit £100 in a bank. Under reserve requirements, the bank only has to hold 10% in reserve, so can then lend £90 to Fred, who buys a bike. The bike seller pays £90 back into his bank. The bank keeps back 10%, lends £81 to Joe. From that initial £100 liability (the money the bank owes me), it has recorded £19 of reserves and assets of £171 (the loans to Fred and Joe). By the time this cycle has repeated twenty times, the bank has created reserves of £90 and loans of £811. All from a £100 deposit. Of course, banks know that they are going to receive that money back, so these days they don't even wait for the deposit, they just create the loan out of thin air.

The point being that we have created a debt based system where the poor mortgagee is in hock to a bank for 25 years for the loan of some money that never actually existed in the first place.

Not a lot of people know that.

JamesYoung wrote:

stench wrote:

Artstudent wrote:

JamesYoung wrote: So is Unison proposing to accept revised terms and conditions for its members, thus reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses and encouraging growth in the jobs market? Or is it arguing that there should be no more cuts to public sector jobs because there aren't any private sector jobs because there have been no cuts to public sector jobs? Or do these Union morons with their fat cat salaries and pensions not really understand economics one little bit?

When all employers pay a fair share of their profits to their staff in a co operative and not the least amount they can get away with by way of absolute minimum wage, then there will be economic growth by means of an upsurge in consumer spending. At the moment the banks and corporations have all the money and the government want only to blame the poor as to divide and rule. It won't last.

haha... do you stand by all you said?

I believe in perfomance related pay, and not everyone deserves a share of profits, just simply a wage.

However, the minimum wage shoule be equal or greater than the living wage. but then the UK becomes less competitve to other countries to send business our way.

And the banks have no money, we bailed them out. they could potentially make money available for people to borrow (like a few years back), but they have many lessons to learn (I am against the new credit scoring system though).

China has all the money! Even America looks to them for borrowing. A country, like Briatain 100 years ago, proving that when you export many goods, you receive revenue above any need for borrowing of other countries.

But i suppose you'll just suggest we print more money ;)

Oh, and hats off if the name is a joke. but if you're an art student, you are as much to blame for the country going down...

If the fellow also studies economics, he'll learn that inflation is caused either by:

(i) an excess of demand over supply ("scarcity"; or
(ii) an excess of money

Given that there is no demand for anything at the moment (seen in retail sales and manufacturing figures) the conclusion is that the inflation that we are currently seeing is caused entirely by the government printing money.

Nowhere is that seen more clearly than in the housing market. The government is printing money to give to banks to lend to borrowers to buy houses.

What's worse is that all of the lending done by banks is also money creation.
I've said it before, but consider fractional reserve banking. All money flows to banks. I deposit £100 in a bank. Under reserve requirements, the bank only has to hold 10% in reserve, so can then lend £90 to Fred, who buys a bike. The bike seller pays £90 back into his bank. The bank keeps back 10%, lends £81 to Joe. From that initial £100 liability (the money the bank owes me), it has recorded £19 of reserves and assets of £171 (the loans to Fred and Joe). By the time this cycle has repeated twenty times, the bank has created reserves of £90 and loans of £811. All from a £100 deposit. Of course, banks know that they are going to receive that money back, so these days they don't even wait for the deposit, they just create the loan out of thin air.

The point being that we have created a debt based system where the poor mortgagee is in hock to a bank for 25 years for the loan of some money that never actually existed in the first place.

Not a lot of people know that.

When I first came across this i didn't believe it. The only way back is onto the Gold Standard, where the money in circulation matches the worth of the gold in the government coffers. But this is a limit to economic growth.
The only other way around it is to have 100% reserve requirements. But then banks couldnt lend so you'd get the same effect.

The root of the problem goes back to one of the first banking crises - it was in the 1840s. Prior to that you put your money in an account with your local bank, and they wrote you a receipt. Those receipts came to have a value of their own and were used as a currency ("i promise to pay the bearer, on demand...." anyone). The banks got wise to this and realised that if they could issue more of these "bank notes" then they could create more wealth for themselves. Robert Peel (he of Bobby fame) intervened and in 1844 an act was passed that said only the Bank of England could print money.
The problem was that it referred to coins and promissory notes (bank notes). It didn't cover cheques. And as we've moved to debit cards, etc, it hasn't covered those either. So the bank of England is the only org able to print cash but every other bank is creating other forms of money out of thin air.

James, I think you may have watched the multi part 'crash course' by Chris Martenson on YouTube. If not, it is a good watch. It mirrors your posts above about creating money from thin air.

https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=XnXZzx9p
AmQ

localclimber2 wrote:
James, I think you may have watched the multi part 'crash course' by Chris Martenson on YouTube. If not, it is a good watch. It mirrors your posts above about creating money from thin air.

https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=XnXZzx9p

AmQ

I hadn't, but i will :-)

stench wrote:

Artstudent wrote:

JamesYoung wrote: So is Unison proposing to accept revised terms and conditions for its members, thus reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses and encouraging growth in the jobs market? Or is it arguing that there should be no more cuts to public sector jobs because there aren't any private sector jobs because there have been no cuts to public sector jobs? Or do these Union morons with their fat cat salaries and pensions not really understand economics one little bit?

When all employers pay a fair share of their profits to their staff in a co operative and not the least amount they can get away with by way of absolute minimum wage, then there will be economic growth by means of an upsurge in consumer spending. At the moment the banks and corporations have all the money and the government want only to blame the poor as to divide and rule. It won't last.

haha... do you stand by all you said?

I believe in perfomance related pay, and not everyone deserves a share of profits, just simply a wage.

However, the minimum wage shoule be equal or greater than the living wage. but then the UK becomes less competitve to other countries to send business our way.

And the banks have no money, we bailed them out. they could potentially make money available for people to borrow (like a few years back), but they have many lessons to learn (I am against the new credit scoring system though).

China has all the money! Even America looks to them for borrowing. A country, like Briatain 100 years ago, proving that when you export many goods, you receive revenue above any need for borrowing of other countries.

But i suppose you'll just suggest we print more money ;)

Oh, and hats off if the name is a joke. but if you're an art student, you are as much to blame for the country going down...

I'm as much to blame? How exactly? The clever chancellor and his mate Lying Nick increased uni fees to £9000 per year actually costing the British tax payer and students more while coincidentally making a larger profit for the banks. Art brings in a large income for the treasury and is at the core of our society not some form of entertainment or decoration.

Artstudent wrote:

stench wrote:

Artstudent wrote:

JamesYoung wrote: So is Unison proposing to accept revised terms and conditions for its members, thus reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses and encouraging growth in the jobs market? Or is it arguing that there should be no more cuts to public sector jobs because there aren't any private sector jobs because there have been no cuts to public sector jobs? Or do these Union morons with their fat cat salaries and pensions not really understand economics one little bit?

When all employers pay a fair share of their profits to their staff in a co operative and not the least amount they can get away with by way of absolute minimum wage, then there will be economic growth by means of an upsurge in consumer spending. At the moment the banks and corporations have all the money and the government want only to blame the poor as to divide and rule. It won't last.

haha... do you stand by all you said?

I believe in perfomance related pay, and not everyone deserves a share of profits, just simply a wage.

However, the minimum wage shoule be equal or greater than the living wage. but then the UK becomes less competitve to other countries to send business our way.

And the banks have no money, we bailed them out. they could potentially make money available for people to borrow (like a few years back), but they have many lessons to learn (I am against the new credit scoring system though).

China has all the money! Even America looks to them for borrowing. A country, like Briatain 100 years ago, proving that when you export many goods, you receive revenue above any need for borrowing of other countries.

But i suppose you'll just suggest we print more money ;)

Oh, and hats off if the name is a joke. but if you're an art student, you are as much to blame for the country going down...

I'm as much to blame? How exactly? The clever chancellor and his mate Lying Nick increased uni fees to £9000 per year actually costing the British tax payer and students more while coincidentally making a larger profit for the banks. Art brings in a large income for the treasury and is at the core of our society not some form of entertainment or decoration.

How exactly did increasing Uni fees cost the taxpayer more?

JamesYoung wrote:

Artstudent wrote:

stench wrote:

Artstudent wrote:

JamesYoung wrote: So is Unison proposing to accept revised terms and conditions for its members, thus reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses and encouraging growth in the jobs market? Or is it arguing that there should be no more cuts to public sector jobs because there aren't any private sector jobs because there have been no cuts to public sector jobs? Or do these Union morons with their fat cat salaries and pensions not really understand economics one little bit?

When all employers pay a fair share of their profits to their staff in a co operative and not the least amount they can get away with by way of absolute minimum wage, then there will be economic growth by means of an upsurge in consumer spending. At the moment the banks and corporations have all the money and the government want only to blame the poor as to divide and rule. It won't last.

haha... do you stand by all you said?

I believe in perfomance related pay, and not everyone deserves a share of profits, just simply a wage.

However, the minimum wage shoule be equal or greater than the living wage. but then the UK becomes less competitve to other countries to send business our way.

And the banks have no money, we bailed them out. they could potentially make money available for people to borrow (like a few years back), but they have many lessons to learn (I am against the new credit scoring system though).

China has all the money! Even America looks to them for borrowing. A country, like Briatain 100 years ago, proving that when you export many goods, you receive revenue above any need for borrowing of other countries.

But i suppose you'll just suggest we print more money ;)

Oh, and hats off if the name is a joke. but if you're an art student, you are as much to blame for the country going down...

I'm as much to blame? How exactly? The clever chancellor and his mate Lying Nick increased uni fees to £9000 per year actually costing the British tax payer and students more while coincidentally making a larger profit for the banks. Art brings in a large income for the treasury and is at the core of our society not some form of entertainment or decoration.

How exactly did increasing Uni fees cost the taxpayer more?

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/higher-educati
on-network/blog/2012
/oct/15/tuition-fees
-government-taxpayer
-savings

Artstudent wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:

Artstudent wrote:

stench wrote:

Artstudent wrote:

JamesYoung wrote: So is Unison proposing to accept revised terms and conditions for its members, thus reducing the burden of taxation on small businesses and encouraging growth in the jobs market? Or is it arguing that there should be no more cuts to public sector jobs because there aren't any private sector jobs because there have been no cuts to public sector jobs? Or do these Union morons with their fat cat salaries and pensions not really understand economics one little bit?

When all employers pay a fair share of their profits to their staff in a co operative and not the least amount they can get away with by way of absolute minimum wage, then there will be economic growth by means of an upsurge in consumer spending. At the moment the banks and corporations have all the money and the government want only to blame the poor as to divide and rule. It won't last.

haha... do you stand by all you said?

I believe in perfomance related pay, and not everyone deserves a share of profits, just simply a wage.

However, the minimum wage shoule be equal or greater than the living wage. but then the UK becomes less competitve to other countries to send business our way.

And the banks have no money, we bailed them out. they could potentially make money available for people to borrow (like a few years back), but they have many lessons to learn (I am against the new credit scoring system though).

China has all the money! Even America looks to them for borrowing. A country, like Briatain 100 years ago, proving that when you export many goods, you receive revenue above any need for borrowing of other countries.

But i suppose you'll just suggest we print more money ;)

Oh, and hats off if the name is a joke. but if you're an art student, you are as much to blame for the country going down...

I'm as much to blame? How exactly? The clever chancellor and his mate Lying Nick increased uni fees to £9000 per year actually costing the British tax payer and students more while coincidentally making a larger profit for the banks. Art brings in a large income for the treasury and is at the core of our society not some form of entertainment or decoration.

How exactly did increasing Uni fees cost the taxpayer more?

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/higher-educati

on-network/blog/2012

/oct/15/tuition-fees

-government-taxpayer

-savings

That's not actually what the article says, though, is it:

"In fact, recently published IFS figures estimate the total saving to the taxpayer of the reforms was around £760m. While that is a substantial amount of money, this represents just a 12% taxpayer saving on the previous system."

So the new system SAVES MORE money, not COSTS MORE.

And of course from the student's point of view, it's a bloody good deal.

If i borrow £36,000 (4 years of tuition fees) as a normal loan over 30 years i'd pay £323.67 a month. If i ended up out of work for a year, i'd still be expected to pay that (unless i'd taken insurance, which would add a fair bit more onto the monthly payment).

In your case, if you earn a fairly average £25,000 a year, you'd only have to repay £30 a month.
If you get a good payrise to £40,000 a year, you'd only pay £142 a month.
And if you manage to earn less than £21,000 a year, you don't have to pay anything back, ever.

Most people would consider this a pretty good deal.

Before you tell me different, let me say that i didn't get a degree until i was 35, and it cost me £15500, half of which i had to borrow on a normal bank loan.

I think some people simply don't understand the concept of no work available. If you cannot get a job, you cannot contribute. It's not a crime to make a claim, and inferring that there is will only make those that legitimately are out of work more miserable. Why should they be so? They haven't done anything wrong, except be unfortunate by chance.
Please nobody write saying you make your own luck, or the harder I worked the luckier I got, or will ask you to explain why Africa is not a nation of billionaires as opposed to the poorest nation on earth. Working hard does not explain why some are wealthy and some have nothing. Chance does. If you have a job, you may have worked hard, you may not. The chances are that you have a good job more because this is a wealthy country and you know the right people, not because you are virtuous in some way - hard working, clever, honest and decent. But this is a hard reality for most to accept, so we perpetuate this myth of struggle that forges us when in reality, just like all life - it's by chance.
Unfortunately there are those with the view, basically projected by moronic gutter press like The Daily Mail and The Express, that perpetuate the myth that everyone claiming benefit is either a nigerian voodoo practicing child murderer come drug baron that lives in a mansion in park lane at the tax payers expense or something akin to the mother in the alien films, laying eggs all day, ultimately to produce hoodied teenagers that hang around in gangs waiting to mug frail old ladies.
The hard reality is that any one of us could easily be having to claim benefit. The person stood in that que will likely be your neighbour, your school friend, your sister, your son. There was a time under the last government - and I say this as someone that hates our entire political system, where laziness was rewarded. Those days have long gone.
We need to support and encourage those that are trying to find work. The lions share of the national debt is benefit, therefore it makes sense to get these people working, not demoralise and mistreat them. This ' I'm alright jack attitude ' is just dragging us all down.

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
I think some people simply don't understand the concept of no work available. If you cannot get a job, you cannot contribute. It's not a crime to make a claim, and inferring that there is will only make those that legitimately are out of work more miserable. Why should they be so? They haven't done anything wrong, except be unfortunate by chance.
Please nobody write saying you make your own luck, or the harder I worked the luckier I got, or will ask you to explain why Africa is not a nation of billionaires as opposed to the poorest nation on earth. Working hard does not explain why some are wealthy and some have nothing. Chance does. If you have a job, you may have worked hard, you may not. The chances are that you have a good job more because this is a wealthy country and you know the right people, not because you are virtuous in some way - hard working, clever, honest and decent. But this is a hard reality for most to accept, so we perpetuate this myth of struggle that forges us when in reality, just like all life - it's by chance.
Unfortunately there are those with the view, basically projected by moronic gutter press like The Daily Mail and The Express, that perpetuate the myth that everyone claiming benefit is either a nigerian voodoo practicing child murderer come drug baron that lives in a mansion in park lane at the tax payers expense or something akin to the mother in the alien films, laying eggs all day, ultimately to produce hoodied teenagers that hang around in gangs waiting to mug frail old ladies.
The hard reality is that any one of us could easily be having to claim benefit. The person stood in that que will likely be your neighbour, your school friend, your sister, your son. There was a time under the last government - and I say this as someone that hates our entire political system, where laziness was rewarded. Those days have long gone.
We need to support and encourage those that are trying to find work. The lions share of the national debt is benefit, therefore it makes sense to get these people working, not demoralise and mistreat them. This ' I'm alright jack attitude ' is just dragging us all down.

You're not wrong, but the FACT is that the same lazy benefit claimants that existed under the last government still exist today. Do you think they all thought "uhoh, Tories coming, we'll go and get a job"? No. They are still there, robbing from all of us. You are right, any one of us is a pay packet away from the dole queue. But thanks to these people there is less in the pot for those that genuinely need it.
I've said it before and i've said it again. There is a workforce of 2.5 million people in this country who are costing the taxpayer and contributing nothing. For many of them, that's because the benefits system doesn't accept that there isn't work available - its ok to work for free in Tesco, but if you do voluntary work, we'll stop your benefits. That needs to change. But do you ever wonder why Contribution Based JSA stops after 6 months? It's because the people that you are talking about - people who have worked all their lives and have suddenly become unlucky - generally have found work in six months, unless they are infirm or older.
These people deserve more support and they deserve to walk down the road with their heads held high.
These petty debates we have on here are mirrored nationally.
For every person that says "people on the dole should be forced to work" there is another person saying its against their human rights, or some such nonsense. No government will seriously support the introduction of a welfare to work type scheme, because they know it will cost them the election.
Wishy washy liberalism has paralyzed the nation. And so we blame the rich. And make no progress at all.

No JamesYoung, you are wrong - and you are part of the problem, not the solution.
If you think that a discussion here is worthless then go elsewhere. My life and what I have to say is as pertinent here as if I live in London and walk through parliament square and meet the priminister on his way to work. If you don't feel the same then you really don't value yourself or your neighbours. Judging by your comments regarding the stupid comment on the travellers and Littlemoor you made, I'm guessing that's the case anyway.
It's quite clear that you have not understood the current situation or the article you are reading. Even for the dullest, it's obvious the employment situation has got much worse.
When the fires start to catch, who's the easiest to chase over benefit fraud? Is it the honest guy who's lost his job because the company he worked for went bust? Or the useless heroin addict that stares at his shoes all day? No brainer then isn't it. When those people are ousted what your left with is the hard line criminals and the honest who are just unlucky enough to be out of work during a recession.
Lets not kid ourselves that the recession has occurred because a load of money or assets have evaporated. There are very wealthy people in this country and other wealthy countries that have contributed to the state of affairs. The recession hasn't been caused by the poor.

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
No JamesYoung, you are wrong - and you are part of the problem, not the solution.
If you think that a discussion here is worthless then go elsewhere. My life and what I have to say is as pertinent here as if I live in London and walk through parliament square and meet the priminister on his way to work. If you don't feel the same then you really don't value yourself or your neighbours. Judging by your comments regarding the stupid comment on the travellers and Littlemoor you made, I'm guessing that's the case anyway.
It's quite clear that you have not understood the current situation or the article you are reading. Even for the dullest, it's obvious the employment situation has got much worse.
When the fires start to catch, who's the easiest to chase over benefit fraud? Is it the honest guy who's lost his job because the company he worked for went bust? Or the useless heroin addict that stares at his shoes all day? No brainer then isn't it. When those people are ousted what your left with is the hard line criminals and the honest who are just unlucky enough to be out of work during a recession.
Lets not kid ourselves that the recession has occurred because a load of money or assets have evaporated. There are very wealthy people in this country and other wealthy countries that have contributed to the state of affairs. The recession hasn't been caused by the poor.

On the contrary, I think I have a fairly good grip on what has happened.

You are correct, the poor didn't cause this recession and neither did (most of) the rich.

If you run a successful business in Weymouth and earn four times more than your neighbour, does that imply that you are somehow more responsible for the recession than he is?

No.

Some rich people (bankers) did cause or at least contribute to the recession, but the real cause was human nature and a lack of effective regulation (ie politicians).

But all this is to miss the point. We are in a recession. There is no money. What we do have needs to be spent wisely. It is not wise to keep giving it to people who haven't earned it.

As for discussion being pointless, remember that a government gets its mandate from the people. While the people are divided a strong government is not possible. We need a strong government to get through this mess.

What this country needs is a government that listens - not one that carries on regardless. Even worse one that has overtones of authoritarianism.
I think it's pretty obvious that heavy fiscal restraints are crippling the economy, it's been years and all we hear is 'it was like this when we got here'. Judging by the discussions going on with the heads of European state I'm not the only one that thinks so. Like in so many instances the French people have it right whilst we capitulate to the part time shoe shines that seem to be running our country.
You try and make liberal sound like a dirty word.
Liberal values are the lifeblood of democracy. Liberal values separate us from Brasil where the police take it upon themselves to execute people during the night.
Saudi Arabia for example has the temerity to pretend they have a democracy. Barely has the dust settled after a state execution of alleged criminals, and Charles Windsor is headed there with his current lay, Camila Bowles. In an act of supreme hippocracy they previously went to the press to say how awful it was that Syria and Assad have caused destitution and suffering. I wonder how the children of those executed in Saudi will view their parents being murdered. I certainly know how it makes me feel about the alleged non political nature of our monarchy, and just how flimsy the democracy is in this country.
A stronger government? I think the Austrians want a stronger government. They have serious concerns about the rise of neo nazism.
What we need is to take a deep breath, and realise that if we want to carry on playing cricket on the green, we need to reject hard line. I'd rather have no job than lay in bed waiting for the old bill to take me away for political re-education...

Liberal values are doing us no favours presently. Liberal voices are the ones that condone travellers breaking the law, that argue women prisoners should not go to prison, that it is racist to complain about (uncontrolled) immigration, that parents should not be able to discipline children and so on.
I know the liberal/left like to take credit for all of the progress in society, but thats a myth. William Wilberforce was a Tory, for a start.
When you inherit a £1 trillion problem (nearing £4tn when you include unfunded pension liabilities and off balance sheet PFI schemes) you cannot sort it out overnight. It will take years.
As for Charles and Camilla, its worthwhile remembering that diplomacy sometimes involves maintaining relations rather than severing them. My honest view - if the Queen genuinely ran the country, we'd be far better off than we are under a load of greedy self serving elites who claim to have legitimacy because people voted for them. In China, you have to vote for one party. In Britain, you basically have to vote for one of three. All of them are crooks with flawed policies. That's nt what i call a functioning democracy.

Wait till the Romanians arrive, estimates reckon about 2 million (the govt have denied this so it must be true) so say about 100,000 end up in sunny Dorset. And they will work for peanuts. All good fuel for a civil war if you look at history.

JamesYoung wrote:
Liberal values are doing us no favours presently. Liberal voices are the ones that condone travellers breaking the law, that argue women prisoners should not go to prison, that it is racist to complain about (uncontrolled) immigration, that parents should not be able to discipline children and so on.
I know the liberal/left like to take credit for all of the progress in society, but thats a myth. William Wilberforce was a Tory, for a start.
When you inherit a £1 trillion problem (nearing £4tn when you include unfunded pension liabilities and off balance sheet PFI schemes) you cannot sort it out overnight. It will take years.
As for Charles and Camilla, its worthwhile remembering that diplomacy sometimes involves maintaining relations rather than severing them. My honest view - if the Queen genuinely ran the country, we'd be far better off than we are under a load of greedy self serving elites who claim to have legitimacy because people voted for them. In China, you have to vote for one party. In Britain, you basically have to vote for one of three. All of them are crooks with flawed policies. That's nt what i call a functioning democracy.

Personally I believe a huge contributing factor to the modern problem of families living on benefits for life, is when Thatcher introduced the "Right to Buy" scheme giving millions of those receiving benefits, the option of buying their home at a massively discounted price; up to 70% or £75,000.

This scheme is still alive and kicking today under the current government. This has the potential to bring those who have never worked a day in their lives up to the same economical status of couples who have worked all their lives paying into a mortgage. Not only that, the council does not receive the full value of the home and then has to fund further housing because the pool of available housing is diminishing.

IBelieveItIsButter wrote:

JamesYoung wrote:
Liberal values are doing us no favours presently. Liberal voices are the ones that condone travellers breaking the law, that argue women prisoners should not go to prison, that it is racist to complain about (uncontrolled) immigration, that parents should not be able to discipline children and so on.
I know the liberal/left like to take credit for all of the progress in society, but thats a myth. William Wilberforce was a Tory, for a start.
When you inherit a £1 trillion problem (nearing £4tn when you include unfunded pension liabilities and off balance sheet PFI schemes) you cannot sort it out overnight. It will take years.
As for Charles and Camilla, its worthwhile remembering that diplomacy sometimes involves maintaining relations rather than severing them. My honest view - if the Queen genuinely ran the country, we'd be far better off than we are under a load of greedy self serving elites who claim to have legitimacy because people voted for them. In China, you have to vote for one party. In Britain, you basically have to vote for one of three. All of them are crooks with flawed policies. That's nt what i call a functioning democracy.

Personally I believe a huge contributing factor to the modern problem of families living on benefits for life, is when Thatcher introduced the "Right to Buy" scheme giving millions of those receiving benefits, the option of buying their home at a massively discounted price; up to 70% or £75,000.

This scheme is still alive and kicking today under the current government. This has the potential to bring those who have never worked a day in their lives up to the same economical status of couples who have worked all their lives paying into a mortgage. Not only that, the council does not receive the full value of the home and then has to fund further housing because the pool of available housing is diminishing.

I think it's certainly a problem in terms of housing availability, but as you wouldn't get a mortgage for the remaining 30% (incidentally, the 70% limit is only for people who were once council tenants - housing associations don't offer anywhere near this) then you'd have to come off benefits to get this.
All of this said, you can either afford a house or you can't. It isn't fair that council tenants can buy when people who are renting in the private sector cannot buy for the same price.

If this story is true then why are there still jobs, week in - week out in this newspaper? If people WANTED to work they would and quite easily could.

sandman223 wrote:
If this story is true then why are there still jobs, week in - week out in this newspaper? If people WANTED to work they would and quite easily could.

A lot of these jobs are already taken but for some reason he ads hav'nt been cancelled, also some of the jobs are only for a few hours a week

radiator wrote:

sandman223 wrote:
If this story is true then why are there still jobs, week in - week out in this newspaper? If people WANTED to work they would and quite easily could.

A lot of these jobs are already taken but for some reason he ads hav'nt been cancelled, also some of the jobs are only for a few hours a week

Ok well go to the jobcentre plus job search webpage, type in weymouth in the location and search!! You will get 9900+ jobs. Admittedly, some of these will be taken, incorrectly listed and some a few hours a week, but u cant tell me that there are NO jobs out there.

sandman223 wrote:

radiator wrote:

sandman223 wrote:
If this story is true then why are there still jobs, week in - week out in this newspaper? If people WANTED to work they would and quite easily could.

A lot of these jobs are already taken but for some reason he ads hav'nt been cancelled, also some of the jobs are only for a few hours a week

Ok well go to the jobcentre plus job search webpage, type in weymouth in the location and search!! You will get 9900+ jobs. Admittedly, some of these will be taken, incorrectly listed and some a few hours a week, but u cant tell me that there are NO jobs out there.

This is a problem with the benefits system.
If there were no benefits (or if you had any pride) you'd clammer for a few hours work a week as a step back into employment.
Unfortunately the system drives that change.
My ex wife and i used to run a cleaning business. It was very, very difficult to find staff. We paid about £7 an hour, but competition means that we made only about £1 an hour profit per person. For every 20 people we offered a job to, we'd get one that would turn up. For every 20 that turned up, one would last a week.
But most interesting of all was the Job Centre. Every second week, we'd get tonnes of applications. We'd offer people interviews and most people would turn up. Then we'd offer jobs, and we'd get excuses like "i've got a hairdressing appointment". Ok, well start the day after. "Oh, i can't, i'm away for a few days".
I eventually spoke to a Job Centre agent about it and was told i should expect this as people need to provide proof of applying for jobs. I offered to provide a list of names to which we'd offered jobs but who turned them down - no interest at all in that.

I worked in the catering industry for years - which has notoriously low wages and is often gruellingly hard work. In France, waiting on tables is a career. In this country you are treated like a second class citizen.
The only way you could keep staff on at such comparatively low wages was to treat them really well, and offer inducements to do better, perks of the job such as free food, sociable environment and generally give them a sense of being important even if the wages didn't quite match that.
When you are offering minimum wage or thereabouts, market forces dictate that there are many jobs of similar pay so why should you stick with or show any loyalty to an employer that's not going to do this for you?
You can't just run a business and bemoan the fact that English people won't work because they have to grind out and existence. That's as bad as saying you won't work in a particular job because its beneath you.

The whole tax system needs a shake up for a start but HMRC will never let that happen! The idea that a person pays income tax on earnings over £8k a year and is then given back benefits in some form or other is the economics of Alice in Wonderland! £20k per year without paying any income tax would make working seem worth doing but in a system when you can be worse off working than you can be by staying on benefits, well where is the incentive to work? As for Joanne Kay of Unison who said we've had 3 years of cuts? Really? Where are these cuts? Give it a rest dear, this is union propaganda which while some people might fall for it, people such as myself don't! utter baloney!