"Benefit cuts: Monday will be the day that defines this government..."

The fact is you lived at home when you were on JSA. Your parents subsidised you and you frankly have no idea how easy or hard it is to get by on benefits.

You didn't actually read that did you.

Of course I've read it.

That article put a negative spin on it. It doesn't matter, it supports all the data assertions I've made and they look decent to me. NYT took an editorial position against it, but it's a program that's still running and has the support of the public.

And if say 6-8% could be expected to find employment without being on workfare?

Were you looking for this?
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep533.pdf

Have fun cherry picking the positives out of that.

+repped

That's what I was looking for.

If 'there aren't any jobs ' why is my current employer struggling to fill entry level roles even though they provide subsidised transport ( that will take you home to your door after a twilight /night ) pay weekly, are responsible with regard to working conditions and PPE ...

Posted from TSR Mobile

If 'there aren't any jobs ' why is my current employer struggling to fill entry level roles even though they provide subsidised transport ( that will take you home to your door after a twilight /night ) pay weekly, are responsible with regard to working conditions and PPE ...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Congratulations. You have just provided an interesting case study into whether or not JSA is sufficiently high to stop people from seeking work.

Again, using an unrepresentative anecdote to characterize millions of people. It's vile.

You won't read that either.

Of course I read it.

I now:
-support the Australian model, because it's fair.
-accept that workfare alone fails to get people into jobs.

I am perfectly happy to change my opinions based on sound cited research.

+1 for changing your mind based on evidence, however what are your reasons for supporting the Australian model? What is "fair" about it?

Participants work for up to six months on community projects run by councils, charities and community organisations and receive a $20 a fortnight supplement on
their unemployment payments. Placements are made in organisations involved in
heritage, the environment, arts, community care, tourism, sport and the provision,
restoration and maintenance of community services and facilities

After six-months the unemployed are asked to undertake a placement in, from what I can gather from the report, in the non-profit sector. I think it's fair that the recipients of support are asked to contribute to the community and make a valuable contribution. There's not a great deal of funding for community projects and this, as far as I can understand, makes them happen, while providing experience to participants. Seems like a good idea to me. They're not placing anyone in Tesco, which I do agree is a questionable idea.

Why not just give people a job? With a wage and employment rights?

Where would we get the money? I'm all for universal employment, but it didn't work out that well for the eastern bloc economically.

Taxes. If there are things needing doing, pay people a wage. Pretty much a basic, otherwise you're only undermining pay and conditions for everyone else. Especially given that this workfare programme makes it harder for participants to find jobs.

As far as I cans see if you follow that logic those community projects wouldn't happen or would be greatly diminished.

They might not be strictly needed, certainly not at the full price, but they're still a valuable contribution to the community and this makes them happen. And I don't see how it would undermining pay and conditions given that it's so strictly limited to a few under-funded areas. I mean it might to an extent in those areas (or it might expand employment a bit due to needed supervision), but not in the whole economy at all.

And as for the suggestion that it makes it harder to find jobs, I don't think the evidence is there. The DWP document doesn't cite any such evidence; It states that in one study these people found more jobs and in another long-term employment prospects were similar.

Anyway, I don't have any more time to procrastinate on TSR. So have a nice evening, I won't be posting here anymore.

So, can we not afford to pay people benefits; but can give higher earners a tax cut?