Comments on: Welfare reform – back to the future?

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:50:36 +0000

I always make a point of looking up your references. This was excellent too. Thank you. The words which ought to be printed above everyone’s computer are these, surely:
“The U.S. dollar is a green piece of paper. The only thing that gives it any value is confidence and trust. Confidence and trust are the only thing that distinguishes a U.S. Buck from a Schrute Buck. The more that we print, the less valuable they become. The government certainly appears to be printing money and distributing it willy-nilly. In 2002, Mr. Bernanke honestly admitted he had no idea what the economic effects of injecting money into the system would be. I guess we will find out.”

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:31:22 +0000

The job in question could lead to a job paying £30k+ ; we trained more than one person to that level.

Why one should pay £20 / hour (about £40,000 a year if you do 7.5 hours a day 5 days a week) to anyone with no qualifications, skills or experience, or indeed why anyone is naive enough to expect that is beyond me.

People who think like this (economic illiteracy) are the reason the country is in such a mess.

By: Bazman

Bazman — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:55:49 +0000

Yes Paul migrants do living five to room going to work for any pay in any conditions five in a car and eating the cheapest food. Often working illegally and living in illegal conditions. Your any age 16-65, no qualifications needed, and chance for training and development. I bet had 'negotiable' wages that where the going rate. The 'going rate' is the market rate, not yours or the workers rate. If you had paid £20 an hour you would have had to many applicants, telling us the problem is that its not a shortage of workers, but a shortage of money. Your business is not anyone else's business. Further leading to the conclusion that your business was not viable on the rates of pay needed for the workers and the country.
Well done that man for lasting two weeks! I would have not even spent two seconds looking at your ad.
British workers are not desperate enough is what you are saying. They may be thick, but not thick enough to work for the likes of you.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:56:09 +0000

Bazman, I used to work in an area with 10% unemployment. I had jobs available, any age 16-65, no qualifications needed, chance for training and development. I put the jobs in the local job centre. In three years I had precisely one applicant via there who gave it up after a fortnight.

The jobs are there. They are too 'fussy'. Odd that migrants, who can't get benefits (I believe), seem to find employment.

By: MT's Pet Piranha

MT's Pet Piranha — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:12:58 +0000

John,

I realise this is a touchy subject politically and I don’t want to get you into trouble, but do you not think re-visiting our support of the minimum wage could not only help the recession but also help alleviate the welfare problem at the same time?

reply: No, the Minimum wage did destroy some low paid jobs when it came in. We have no wish to revisit it now. There are many more important causes that could help get us out of this mess.

By: MT's Pet Piranha

MT's Pet Piranha — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:09:48 +0000

“There is not enough jobs in the areas where the unemployed are. That is why they are unemployed.”

*Important to remember that lack of demand for employment isn’t the only cause of unemployment. (you may not have meant this, but the above sentence gave me that impression)

The answer to the lack of labour mobility, is not to maintain high benefit rates just because it’s too late, but to facilitate the movement of labour so that those who wish to work can do so.

By: marksany

marksany — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:22:43 +0000

Purnell’s white paper is just Spin. They aren’t actually going to take money off people. But it sounds like they are being hard, and giving Tories less space to work in.

“The real point is that welfare claimants’ have no strong motivation to find a job because they lose more in benefits than they can earn in net wages. Until the Powers That Be grasp this simple fact, all this tinkering achieves nothing.” M Wadsworth today.

By: Labour’s cynical welfare reform non-policy « The Wilted Rose

Labour’s cynical welfare reform non-policy « The Wilted Rose — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:14:06 +0000

[...] ‘policy’ is just another Mandelsonian cynical announcement and, as John Redwood highlights the need for, reassurance that severely disabled people are not going to be put under pressure or treated [...]

By: mikestallard

mikestallard — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:05:40 +0000

Just as the banks have absolutely no idea who is lending and borrowing from them – it’s all money and computer figures at the top – so the Social Services have absolutely no idea who is a bludger and who is a genuinely sick/needy person. It is all figures.
By Social Services, I mean everyone who runs the Welfare State in which we live.
I suspect that the people who take the decisions in both banks and Social Services live miles and miles away from the people they support and that they secretly despise the people who still sit, poorly paid, behind their desks at the Dole Offices or in the (fat cat) doctors’ surgeries.

Now they both face the same sort of problem: in the banks’ case it is toxic debt. In the Social Service case it is serial bludgers.

Is there any chance of bringing back welfare stamps? Please do not accuse me of being heartless. With more people over 65 than 16 years old it is imperative that we get to grips with this ASAP.

And, of course, (whisper it softly) the Churches are really in touch with what is going on.

By: Jon Taylor

Jon Taylor — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:58:34 +0000

Gordon Brown / old Lab …. like a hamster running on the wheel … hectic & busy ~ getting nowhere