Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is it fair to say that under Labour... watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ...the wealthfare system has been a complete and utter failure and should be scrapped?

    Obviously it would then have to be replaced, but as it stands, it's been nothing short of a complete disaster.

    Does anyone actually disagree? Perhaps this is one of the few things that voters of all parties can accept?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think the benefits system is a mess, half the time people at the job centre haven't the faintest clue what benefits people are entitled to and what they're not entitled to. There's so many obscure rules, calculations, types of benefits, etc that it's virtually a minefield.

    I see Ian Duncan Smith is proposing changes such as rolling multiple different benefits into one in an effort to reduce bureaucracy and needless paper work though. Wonder if his plans will be successful. As it so happens at the moment the system is an utter mess, it can take upwards of 3 months in some cases for disabled people to claim DLA. That's simply ridiculous.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    No, its not fair and TBH its not true. Yes there are issues with the benefits system but, by and large (And if you ignore a few isolated example of large scale corruption), it doesnt work that badly. The ideas behind the reforms-workfare and the new deal-have been fairly good. TBH the biggest issue is actually finding suitable jobs in the right areas. That is where we failed, rather than the system itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    welfare is another one of these non-issues that people go crazy over, just like immigration. People rage about things they have no clue about
    Offline

    13
    Under capitalism, welfare is the smallest price it can pay to prevent its injustices from generating revolt.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The welfare system as it is has left around one a half million people on benefits for about 10 years. Obviously a success then.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Master Roshi)
    x
    Take a look at the post directly above yours.

    That post alone shows how broken the system is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    Take a look at the post directly above yours.

    That post alone shows how broken the system is.
    Yeah, that's not the fault of welfare. Long-term unemployment is due to people having no qualifications, experience, and feeling alienated from the world of work. Welfare has very little to do with it. If you want to prevent long-term unemployment you need to run schemes to get people into the world of work at a young age. Labour had multiple schemes such as the Young Person's Guarantee, shame the Tories cut them.

    Unemployment benefit for the long-term is an absolute pittance, what are you suggesting we should change with welfare to combat long-term unemployment? Decrease it? Yeah good one, suddenly people find themselves having to resort to crime to get by, that will surely help them get into work.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Master Roshi)
    Yeah, that's not the fault of welfare. Long-term unemployment is due to people having no qualifications, experience, and feeling alienated from the world of work. Welfare has very little to do with it. If you want to prevent long-term unemployment you need to run schemes to get people into the world of work at a young age. Labour had multiple schemes such as the Young Person's Guarantee, shame the Tories cut them.

    Unemployment benefit for the long-term is an absolute pittance, what are you suggesting we should change with welfare to combat long-term unemployment? Decrease it? Yeah good one, suddenly people find themselves having to resort to crime to get by, that will surely help them get into work.
    Are you really suggesting that people being able to sit on their arse collecting dole money instead of working has little to do with the welfare system?

    Really?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    ...the wealthfare system has been a complete and utter failure and should be scrapped?

    Obviously it would then have to be replaced, but as it stands, it's been nothing short of a complete disaster.

    Does anyone actually disagree? Perhaps this is one of the few things that voters of all parties can accept?

    I agree wholly. Of course, the welfare system wasn't entirely a Labour creation in '45. The Liberals, and, believe it or not, the Conservatives, were the really founders of it and introduced things like this before, during, and after the First World War. It seemed to work fine then, although had some teething problems. I utterly accept the argument that Labour have done this country a terrible harm and have left the welfare system in an utter state. Under their socialist views, they seem to leave a legacy of communism almost, handing out everyone else money to anyone who can be bothered to drag their backsides down the jobcentre.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsStupido)
    Are you really suggesting that people being able to sit on their arse collecting dole money instead of working has little to do with the welfare system?

    Really?
    Oh thanks mate I never thought of it that way, you're right.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Master Roshi)
    Yeah, that's not the fault of welfare. Long-term unemployment is due to people having no qualifications, experience, and feeling alienated from the world of work. Welfare has very little to do with it. If you want to prevent long-term unemployment you need to run schemes to get people into the world of work at a young age. Labour had multiple schemes such as the Young Person's Guarantee, shame the Tories cut them.

    Unemployment benefit for the long-term is an absolute pittance, what are you suggesting we should change with welfare to combat long-term unemployment? Decrease it? Yeah good one, suddenly people find themselves having to resort to crime to get by, that will surely help them get into work.
    Come off it, if you wanted to help people in this sort of situation you'd want to tackle welfare just as much - the reason that people have these problems is because of how it's set up.

    A claimant who loses Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and tax credits, at the same time as paying income tax and NICs, faces a withdrawal rate of 95.5 per cent, why would you want to want to go and work when the system is so determined to keep you in your place?

    It is almost impossible to understand, with over 50 different benefits, all with different rules and taper rates and a total of 8,690 pages of guidance for DWP benefits alone, and therefore it's also administratively chaotic, with take-up rates for key tax credits and benefits as low as 57 per cent in some instances, an annual benefit fraud and error bill of £4.5 billion, and over 1 million households affected by tax credit overpayments.

    Asystem that was originally designed to support the poorest in society is now trapping them in the very condition it was supposed to alleviate. Instead of helping, a deeply unfair benefits system just writes people off. That's a failure of Thatcher not to get to grips with it while she still could, and Labour's legacy for letting it go on for thirteen years while claiming they were helping.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I feel the inefficiency of the welfare system is highly over exaggerated by tabloid papers. The NHS especially benefited enormously from Labour's 13 years.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Game, set and match to PoliceStory.

    Let's see what flippant remark Master Yoshi makes next.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welfare is a joke at the moment, and I am extremely enthusiastic about IDS' proposals. You shouldn't be punished for getting a foot on the jobs ladder, as you are currently, and it should be as simple as possible, so a single sliding payment based on your need is a brilliant idea.

    I am encouraged that there seems to be some consensus across all three parties that the system is broken, and that Ed Miliband might even support the government on IDS's ideas. You don't need to be a Conservative to recognise that he's clearly spent a lot of thing thinking about this idea, and that it could the revolution in benefits that we've needed since the 80s.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welfare is a joke at the moment, and I am extremely enthusiastic about IDS' proposals. You shouldn't be punished for getting a foot on the jobs ladder, as you are currently, and it should be as simple as possible, so a single sliding payment based on your need is a brilliant idea.

    I am encouraged that there seems to be some consensus across all three parties that the system is broken, and that Ed Miliband might even support the government on IDS's ideas. You don't need to be a Conservative to recognise that he's clearly spent a lot of thing thinking about this idea, and that it could be the revolution in benefits that we've needed since the 80s. However I think it's unfair to blame Labour for the chronic rot that's crept into the welfare system, it's been around for a lot longer than the last government's tenure and has crept in slowly as more benefits have been introduced without consideration to how they'd impact society as a whole.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The only other alternative to the Welfare State (scenario) is to let everyone starve and make everyone homeless, unless they find a job and they can support themselves with only what they get paid from their wages, of course. Won't be tied anyone who loses their job; there is no Welfare State in this scenario.

    I have not heard of any other alternative but this. You either give them money (or vouchers) for a long or short time, or you don't.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Welfare is a joke at the moment, and I am extremely enthusiastic about IDS' proposals. You shouldn't be punished for getting a foot on the jobs ladder, as you are currently, and it should be as simple as possible, so a single sliding payment based on your need is a brilliant idea.

    I am encouraged that there seems to be some consensus across all three parties that the system is broken, and that Ed Miliband might even support the government on IDS's ideas. You don't need to be a Conservative to recognise that he's clearly spent a lot of thing thinking about this idea, and that it could be the revolution in benefits that we've needed since the 80s. However I think it's unfair to blame Labour for the chronic rot that's crept into the welfare system, it's been around for a lot longer than the last government's tenure and has crept in slowly as more benefits have been introduced without consideration to how they'd impact society as a whole.
    And what about the barriers people face which prevents them getting work?

    There are some people who want to work, go back to study, look for work, but cannot find work. Those people will be punished too, not for attempting or trying to do their best to look for work, and ultimately to get a job, but just because they have been on benefits for too long and they are unable to find a job. How long does it take to get a job, taking into account economic and personal factors? 2 weeks? 2 months? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think you're referring to welfare not "wealthfare".

    I do think it's easy for people to criticise something they don't know much about; fair enough, someone sitting at home drinking, smoking and amounting to nothing in their lives claiming tax payers money is out of the question and unacceptable.

    But for the other majority benefits are essential. Morality would suffer if benefits were abolished - think of the consequences for just one moment.

    This is simply like other "issues" such as immigration which people have no clue about but like to assume they do.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Look at the changes that have just come in. It is pretty much as if they have scrapped it and started a whole new system
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.