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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm from the north east. A place where to be perfectly honest; the amount of people on state benefits is higher compared to the rest of the country.

    There will always be three major problems as far as I'm concerned:

    - Where do you draw the line? As in which level of benefits is acceptable for certain people. So for example disabled people who cannot work. These people need benefits no doubt about it, but how much? £20000 a year is too much in my opinion. I know that these people are disabled but without being harsh and I mean nothing by this, they contribute very little to the state. They need help but not as much as perhaps is given. Also how about for those that don't work. I'll cover that point a bit later on but what I'll say is that it shouldn't be anymore than minimum wage, no matter the circumstance.

    - Who is eligible? As in where does it become acceptable for what they take. There are a lot of people who have never worked in the north east. This needs to stop. I use this as an example all of the time but it stands. There's a family in county durham who have never worked an hour in their lives, yet get about £25000 a year in benefits because they have kids. This takes the absolute piss. I work hard all week and they earn more than me. That annoys me beyond belief and it's all too common around here.

    - Motivation. A lot of people don't have the motivation to simply look for a job. These people need to be tackled and if they can't be motivated to look their benefits should be cut. Simple as that. However this is checked at the moment; it's not ****ing working.

    The last point I'll make is that Labour created this but the Conservatives also helped... The north is neglected by the Conservatives so much that even if voters could get over the fact that the mines were shut up here by them, they still wouldn't vote conservative because there's no point. I agree with what the conservatives are trying to do with social welfare (E.G Cutting benefits for fat people who don't want to exercise). But they don't help themselves up here. Nevertheless I'll never vote Labour due to what they've done to the North. It's a social welfare nightmare.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    I'm from the north east. A place where to be perfectly honest; the amount of people on state benefits is higher compared to the rest of the country.

    There will always be three major problems as far as I'm concerned:

    - Where do you draw the line? As in which level of benefits is acceptable for certain people. So for example disabled people who cannot work. These people need benefits no doubt about it, but how much? £20000 a year is too much in my opinion. I know that these people are disabled but without being harsh and I mean nothing by this, they contribute very little to the state. They need help but not as much as perhaps is given. Also how about for those that don't work. I'll cover that point a bit later on but what I'll say is that it shouldn't be anymore than minimum wage, no matter the circumstance.

    - Who is eligible? As in where does it become acceptable for what they take. There are a lot of people who have never worked in the north east. This needs to stop. I use this as an example all of the time but it stands. There's a family in county durham who have never worked an hour in their lives, yet get about £25000 a year in benefits because they have kids. This takes the absolute piss. I work hard all week and they earn more than me. That annoys me beyond belief and it's all too common around here.

    - Motivation. A lot of people don't have the motivation to simply look for a job. These people need to be tackled and if they can't be motivated to look their benefits should be cut. Simple as that. However this is checked at the moment; it's not ****ing working.

    The last point I'll make is that Labour created this but the Conservatives also helped... The north is neglected by the Conservatives so much that even if voters could get over the fact that the mines were shut up here by them, they still wouldn't vote conservative because there's no point. I agree with what the conservatives are trying to do with social welfare (E.G Cutting benefits for fat people who don't want to exercise). But they don't help themselves up here. Nevertheless I'll never vote Labour due to what they've done to the North. It's a social welfare nightmare.
    I'm from the north west and I agree the north is becoming increasingly neglected.

    I also agree about how difficult it is to tackle all these problems. Accepting that the lines will always be blurred, I can't help but feel that if we have to get it not quite right, we have to have it not quite right with a few more scroungers than desired rather than not quite right with working families and the disabled being punished


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    It's the way they go about it. I know people who go to the assessments and say they can't do this. They get found fit for work and the report says the opposite.

    Why aren't GPs words always enough? My GP has access to my medical records and is medically trained. The people who make the final decision aren't.

    Trouble is, is that people abuse the system.

    So we need a rigorous system to root out the bad eggs, so those who need help can get it.

    This of course has the main benefit of saving the tax payer money. The money saved could go on more useful things like trident replacement and infrastructure development.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by dj1015)
    Trouble is, is that people abuse the system.

    So we need a rigorous system to root out the bad eggs, so those who need help can get it.

    This of course has the main benefit of saving the tax payer money. The money saved could go on more useful things like trident replacement and infrastructure development.
    It hasn't worked like that though. There are people who are found fit for work and can't claim job seekers because they're unfit for work.

    And then there's appeals. 40% of people who don't have a representation have won and 70% who have representation have won. I don't see how that's saved any money at all. In fact, it's cost more money.

    The fraud rate for ESA / incapacity benefit is 0.3% and for DLA it's 0.5%. I don't see how that's grounds for overhauling a system?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    ...Nevertheless I'll never vote Labour due to what they've done to the North. It's a social welfare nightmare.
    Actually, the noticeably high levels of dependency on welfare in the North East came about in the early 1980s when, for ideological reasons (and to punish the North East for being Labour voters), Thatcher decided to abandon the industries which North East populations had relied upon for generations. There was no transition, no alternative-labour development, she just abandoned these industries and generated a legacy of endemic unemployment, underemployment and poverty.

    You may have an argument that Labour did little about it when coming to power at the end of the 1990s but to believe that Labour was the origins of the current situation in the North East is to ignore the historical facts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    But where are the actual references to people being 'work-shy' and 'bone-idle' that you claimed existed? Did you lie or are you just incompetent?

    By all means paste some current full-time minimum-wage jobs available in the Newcastle upon Tyne area that do not require specific qualifications and/or experience. If you can't do that then, again, you're either lying or incompetent - you made the claim so you need to bring the evidence.
    You talk about qualifications making it seem like it's acceptable to have no qualifications. Ofcouse if at school you didn't work hard enough (of course there are exceptions) and you didn't get your qualifications then you're not going to find a job. Jobs asking for qualifications isn't unreasonable.

    Also, regarding specific ones as in constructions what not. If you're unemployed and receiving benefits, surely it would be beneficial to go and get one of those qualifications, then that's a whole new job market you can go for! I wouldn't mind people on benefits if they're education.

    But as per your request to the other guy -

    http://goo.gl/xACVM
    http://goo.gl/F3UuS
    http://goo.gl/g1DBY
    http://goo.gl/AsOUN
    http://goo.gl/YS2tn
    http://goo.gl/MesBl
    http://goo.gl/fNjTU

    There's a few!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Actually, the noticeably high levels of dependency on welfare in the North East came about in the early 1980s when, for ideological reasons (and to punish the North East for being Labour voters), Thatcher decided to abandon the industries which North East populations had relied upon for generations. There was no transition, no alternative-labour development, she just abandoned these industries and generated a legacy of endemic unemployment, underemployment and poverty.

    You may have an argument that Labour did little about it when coming to power at the end of the 1990s but to believe that Labour was the origins of the current situation in the North East is to ignore the historical facts.
    I tend to ignore all of your posts in any political thread because you are so anti thatcher it's unbelievable. How you are a TSR Idol never ceases to amaze.

    The mines needed to be closed. When a business doesn't make a profit, it closes. The mines made no profits and trade unions drove wages through the roof which compounded the problems.

    All Labour do is pan to the fact that Thatcher closed the mines. Up here anyway. Thatcher this, thatcher that. The Labour Party is to blame for the benefits nightmare up here by creating a no work culture.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    I tend to ignore all of your posts in any political thread because you are so anti thatcher it's unbelievable. How you are a TSR Idol never ceases to amaze.

    The mines needed to be closed. When a business doesn't make a profit, it closes. The mines made no profits and trade unions drove wages through the roof which compounded the problems.

    All Labour do is pan to the fact that Thatcher closed the mines. Up here anyway. Thatcher this, thatcher that. The Labour Party is to blame for the benefits nightmare up here by creating a no work culture.
    But even setting aside my utter contempt for Thatcher it's an historical fact that welfare dependency in the North East jumped up in the 1980s after her Conservative government abandoned all the industries that had been vital to employment opportunities, like mining, shipbuilding, steel production and so on. Whether or not such industries should have enjoyed continued support is not the point I'm addressing but that their abandonment by her in the 1980s was the beginning of it.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by rmpr97)
    You talk about qualifications making it seem like it's acceptable to have no qualifications. Ofcouse if at school you didn't work hard enough (of course there are exceptions) and you didn't get your qualifications then you're not going to find a job. Jobs asking for qualifications isn't unreasonable.

    Also, regarding specific ones as in constructions what not. If you're unemployed and receiving benefits, surely it would be beneficial to go and get one of those qualifications, then that's a whole new job market you can go for! I wouldn't mind people on benefits if they're education.

    But as per your request to the other guy -

    http://goo.gl/xACVM
    http://goo.gl/F3UuS
    http://goo.gl/g1DBY
    http://goo.gl/AsOUN
    http://goo.gl/YS2tn
    http://goo.gl/MesBl
    http://goo.gl/fNjTU

    There's a few!
    Heh, I click at one of your links and see this:

    CATALOGUE DISTRIBUTORS
    Job description
    This is a self employed vacancy. The principal duties for this position are delivering and collecting Betterware catalogues and delivering the orders they produce to the customers. No outlay for catalogues or anything else is expected from applicants. Hours are flexible to suit applicants or those needing a second income. This is a Commission only position. To apply phone 0845 5197068 or application form at www.epcrs.co.uk/Betterware The company has given an assurance that this vacancy enables workers to achieve a wage equivalent to the National Minimum Wage rate. Self-employed people are responsible for paying their own National Insurance contributions and Tax. For information on how benefits are affected and whether entitlement may be lost, speak to a Jobcentre Plus Adviser.
    Seriously dude? You expect the thousands of unemployed people across the Newcastle upon Tyne area to become self-employed (i.e. have uncertain income) collecting catalogues?

    That people leave school without the most basic of qualifications says a lot about the quality of our state education system I guess, children are after all only children and blaming them for their academic failure doesn't ring true.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Actually, the noticeably high levels of dependency on welfare in the North East came about in the early 1980s when, for ideological reasons (and to punish the North East for being Labour voters), Thatcher decided to abandon the industries which North East populations had relied upon for generations. There was no transition, no alternative-labour development, she just abandoned these industries and generated a legacy of endemic unemployment, underemployment and poverty.

    You may have an argument that Labour did little about it when coming to power at the end of the 1990s but to believe that Labour was the origins of the current situation in the North East is to ignore the historical facts.
    To punish the area? Now if I was the PM, I'd try to win over those voters, rather than lose voters even more so, so I doubt that.

    The mines were a losing game, they weren't making any money and coal and steel wasn't even worth much and they were at the expense of the tax payer. And if they were making even a small margin of money that wouldn't be for long because they were on strike nearly every other day and cost the economy £1.5bn.

    However, yes, she didn't then help the miners and get them back into employment after. But if dear old Labour cared so much they would have done something right? No, they'd rather play it as a political game.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Heh, I click at one of your links and see this:



    Seriously dude? You expect the thousands of unemployed people across the Newcastle upon Tyne area to become self-employed (i.e. have uncertain income) collecting catalogues?

    That people leave school without the most basic of qualifications says a lot about the quality of our state education system I guess, children are after all only children and blaming them for their academic failure doesn't ring true.
    First of all, it clearly states that it is assured that the workers will at least reach NMW.

    And oh well, beggars can't be choosers and this says alot about the people on benefits. I'm sorry but if you're on benefits you take anything that you get and if you don't its unacceptable and your benefits should be stripped if you can take a job and you wont. But that's just one job. I found what 6 and much more cleaning jobs which require some sort of card which doesn't seem to hard to obtain, and many more with require a car or driving license, of which many have. There are jobs out there.

    Also, 16 year olds aren't kids, they should know that what they do then will impact them throughout life, I can see that, they should. Although yes, state education should improve!
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by rmpr97)
    First of all, it clearly states that it is assured that the workers will at least reach NMW.
    Doesn't mean it won't be enough to live on though.

    If you look on the left hand side, it says commission only - £50 - 300 a week.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by rmpr97)
    To punish the area? Now if I was the PM, I'd try to win over those voters, rather than lose voters even more so, so I doubt that.

    The mines were a losing game, they weren't making any money and coal and steel wasn't even worth much and they were at the expense of the tax payer. And if they were making even a small margin of money that wouldn't be for long because they were on strike nearly every other day and cost the economy £1.5bn.

    However, yes, she didn't then help the miners and get them back into employment after. But if dear old Labour cared so much they would have done something right? No, they'd rather play it as a political game.
    Yes, to punish. Thatcher was a very vindictive politician, even some of her closest colleagues ended up turning on her because of her attitude, her abandonment as leader being pretty well documented. Thatcher hated socialism like her murderous fascist friend Augusto Pinochet (and back then Labour were, even if only a little bit, socialist). There was never going to be a turn from Labour to Tory in the North East, at least not unless there was some kind of radical social and economic transformation over several generations - so she decided to cut and burn the region and thus turning a Labour supporting region partly dependent on financial support to keep people in actual jobs doing actual work to having no jobs and being totally dependent upon welfare. I'm no great defender of Labour, especially not New Labour, so you'll get nothing from me on that score.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OU Student)
    Doesn't mean it won't be enough to live on though.
    Quite frankly a job is a job, and for most people it should be enough. If you have children, you're still entitled to some Child Benefits and other benefits I'd imagine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Yes, to punish. Thatcher was a very vindictive politician, even some of her closest colleagues ended up turning on her because of her attitude, her abandonment as leader being pretty well documented. Thatcher hated socialism like her murderous fascist friend Augusto Pinochet (and back then Labour were, even if only a little bit, socialist). There was never going to be a turn from Labour to Tory in the North East, at least not unless there was some kind of radical social and economic transformation over several generations - so she decided to cut and burn the region and thus turning a Labour supporting region partly dependent on financial support to keep people in actual jobs doing actual work to having no jobs and being totally dependent upon welfare. I'm no great defender of Labour, especially not New Labour, so you'll get nothing from me on that score.
    Do you have sort of proof that she vindictively hates the North East and she has a massive conspiracy to burn that area and condemn it's people to a life time of poverty? Or is that just numb rhetoric because you know the mines were a failure and you hate her and have a differing political ideology.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by rmpr97)
    First of all, it clearly states that it is assured that the workers will at least reach NMW.

    And oh well, beggars can't be choosers and this says alot about the people on benefits. I'm sorry but if you're on benefits you take anything that you get and if you don't its unacceptable and your benefits should be stripped if you can take a job and you wont. But that's just one job. I found what 6 and much more cleaning jobs which require some sort of card which doesn't seem to hard to obtain, and many more with require a car or driving license, of which many have. There are jobs out there.

    Also, 16 year olds aren't kids, they should know that what they do then will impact them throughout life, I can see that, they should. Although yes, state education should improve!
    The employer can 'assure' what it wants and having worked in a few sectors I know, for example, that 'guaranteed sales earnings' in call-centre job adverts is cruel myth. I don't think anyone should be forced to take a job where there's no set minimum income, otherwise people will simply be subject to completely unrealistic targets to secure minimum-wage which they ultimately just won't secure and then no doubt be stuck in a job they can't voluntarily leave for fear of becoming ineligible for a return to welfare - a perfect capitalist trap.

    Did you find some full-time cleaning jobs? If so I'm impressed as they don't usually require experience.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by rmpr97)
    Do you have sort of proof that she vindictively hates the North East and she has a massive conspiracy to burn that area and condemn it's people to a life time of poverty? Or is that just numb rhetoric because you know the mines were a failure and you hate her and have a differing political ideology.
    Well we're unlikely to find a document in which Thatcher admits to "hating those ****ing pinko geordies" so I don't know what level of proof would be acceptable to you. I'm happy to concede that it is my personal view that she had vindictive contempt for socialism, socialists and the North East as something a centre of Labour support and Trade Unionism. I do wonder what exactly Thatcher's supporters thought would happen after so much longstanding industry in urban centres like Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough was left to fail. Generations of welfare dependency and disenfranchisement was the consequence in any event.

    Yes I hate Thatcher but that's hardly pertinent to whether the abandonment of longstanding heavy industry in the region actually happened or not in the 1980s - it happened!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just want the occasional leeches weeded out of the system. You know what I mean. Those benefit stereotypes that have a widescreen television etc. There's this girl I know who is literally the most irritating person ever. She would sit in class, not doing work and copying my answers when she could be arsed to come and sat and *****ed about how difficult it was for her whole family to live on benefits and it was totally unfair because all the polish people took away HER free kitchen that she needed etc. She updates her facebook status frequently showing off her iPad, converse, smartphone, iPod touch, laptop, expensive jewellery etc. It does make me angry. If she hadn't gone on and on about how difficult her life was and she wasn't racist, I wouldn't give a ****.

    People like her and her family should be weeded out. Everybody else needs the help they get and I think we should support them as much as possible so we can help them stand up. Welfare isn't an umbilical cord, it's a pile of wood and tools designed to help people build their own career ladders.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Well we're unlikely to find a document in which Thatcher admits to "hating those f****ing pinko geordies" so I don't know what level of proof would be acceptable to you. I'm happy to concede that it is my personal view that she had vindictive contempt for socialism, socialists and the North East as something a centre of Labour support and Trade Unionism. I do wonder what exactly Thatcher's supporters thought would happen after so much longstanding industry in urban centres like Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough was left to fail. Generations of welfare dependency and disenfranchisement was the consequence in any event.

    Yes I hate Thatcher but that's hardly pertinent to whether the abandonment of longstanding heavy industry in the region actually happened or not in the 1980s - it happened!
    She abandoned them because they weren't making any money and the country was moving from that industry to a financial industry. If a company doesn't make money you don't let it keep going you do something, and seen as it was at cost to the tax payer they were shut down. Not because of some conspiracy that she wanted to burn the North East. What a ridiculous thing to say.

    Hating socialism, does not equal wanting to burn down the North East.

    I hate socialism as a whole, yet I don't wanna do that.

    Although I concede that more could have been done to help those areas. Although we are generations on now, and there is no excuse for benefit scrounger there, 30 years on, a 40 year old who would have been a 10 year old can't say 'Where's my mining jobs?'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It seems to me like 'Cut welfare benefits!' is just a popular bandwagon to jump on and all to often people say without actually knowing a lot about the welfare system. As with all things, there are people who cheat the system but on the other hand there are lots of people who genuinely need the financial support!

    I think support should be there for those who really need it but more should be done to get people into employment and make them less dependent on the tax-payer, especially when people are claiming as an easy get out from the commitment of a job.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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