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

Labour to force poor to work Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Read as you see fit:

    Labour to give free job to benefit scroungers.
    or
    Labour to force good-for-nothing benefit scum to work.
    or
    Labour to help those who need it most back into work.
    or
    Labour to penalise those who've made the decision to live off benefits.
    or
    Labour to unfairly penalise those struggling for work by forcing them into a short term 6 month contract.
    or
    Labour to curb the benefit crisis by putting them in a 6 month contract at min wage where they would be living off the state through subsidies and tax credits anyway.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20905415
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Very bold claim there. I doubt very much it would work
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wow those are a lot of options to choose from.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I think this is great.

    Rather than giving free money to people for contributing nothing to society, this gets them to do something useful, in return for what should work out to be more money, while also gaining useful skills and experience that should make it easier for them to find a job.

    Lowering unemployment among the able workforce is always a good thing, both for the individual and for society, and a six-month contract is better than nothing.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    And what is bad is that they want to remove benefits for those that don't. What about those who cannot due to medical reasons etc?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    And what is bad is that they want to remove benefits for those that don't. What about those who cannot due to medical reasons etc?
    I was assuming it only applied to those who are able to work. People with medical problems, disabilities, or small children should obviously be excepted.

    But if you can work and refuse the opportunity, you should be penalised in some way. It's not fair to take from society without giving anything back by choice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    And what is bad is that they want to remove benefits for those that don't. What about those who cannot due to medical reasons etc?
    This applies to those of JSA and other out of work benefits rather than those on incapacity benefit, DLA and so forth. In short-their situation continues as it is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    Read as you see fit:

    Labour to give free job to benefit scroungers.
    or
    Labour to force good-for-nothing benefit scum to work.
    or
    Labour to help those who need it most back into work.
    or
    Labour to penalise those who've made the decision to live off benefits.
    or
    Labour to unfairly penalise those struggling for work by forcing them into a short term 6 month contract.
    or
    Labour to curb the benefit crisis by putting them in a 6 month contract at min wage where they would be living off the state through subsidies and tax credits anyway.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20905415
    or

    Labour make a non promise so they can be seen tough on welfare and not out of touch with the voters. And of course the complete opposite is true.



    Ed "No policies" Milliband, still has no polices. Who would have thought that would be possible after 2+ years of so called "leadership".
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The whole benefits system is going through a massive overhaul and this and some of IDS's plans are not right. I am on DLA while studying a Degree, I don't have a clue of how the changes will affect me.

    There should be more to get people back to work, Labour's plan is short term. You do not take people's lifeline away from them. Beveridge would not like some of the reforms, the welfare state is a safety net. Besides, Labour are turning its back on its core demographic.

    The Lib Dem thinking is right, the rich should pay there fair share
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How about : Labour thinks it can magically will jobs into existence.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I hope people vote sensibly rather than a Party with NO POLICIES. We oppose the government but we have no policies
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    The whole benefits system is going through a massive overhaul and this and some of IDS's plans are not right. I am on DLA while studying a Degree, I don't have a clue of how the changes will affect me.

    There should be more to get people back to work, Labour's plan is short term. You do not take people's lifeline away from them. Beveridge would not like some of the reforms, the welfare state is a safety net. Besides, Labour are turning its back on its core demographic.

    The Lib Dem thinking is right, the rich should pay there fair share
    ERRRRRRRRRRR. I hate to be the one who breaks it to you, but.....

    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    ERRRRRRRRRRR. I hate to be the one who breaks it to you, but.....

    The rich should be taxed more, MANSION TAX or something similar. It was Lib Dem's that increased the threshold
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Right so they are going to create jobs which don't exist for a reason and have no reason to exist, and give them to people with likely no skills of any kind or work ethic. So we will end up with a load of useless workers doing unneccessary work, that is inefficient and doomed to fail.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    The rich should be taxed more, MANSION TAX or something similar. It was Lib Dem's that increased the threshold
    You are missing the point some what.....

    The rich already pay their fair share.

    If you want to live in a socialist paradise where wealth creators are the enemy I suggest you move to Norway.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj1015)
    You are missing the point some what.....

    The rich already pay their fair share.

    If you want to live in a socialist paradise where wealth creators are the enemy I suggest you move to Norway.
    I am a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, not a socialist

    It should be based on wealth not income
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    I am a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, not a socialist

    It should be based on wealth not income

    So becuase someone has worked longer hours to get a house with an extra bedroom or two, they should now have to pay more in tax to fund a welfare system to supports the person who cant be bothered to work longer.


    right.........................
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Who would have thought that Labour would be less liberal than the Conservatives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Starting from the top then!

    No, They're not all benefit scrounges, many graduates will be on JSA for example. They will however offer these jobs to those off work for over 2 years which is a bit more scroungery!

    Yes, it will mean if they really are happy on benefits they will either refuse to work, get fired or quit. Either way benefits will presumably be sanctioned.

    Yes, those recently unemployed will have more motivation, references, possibly qualifications and are more likely to be interviewed or pass an interview than someone out of work for 2 years. So although it seems the jobs are being given to those who least "deserve" them it wouldn't work the other way around.

    Yes, sanctions for those who refuse the job of cleaning toilets, perfectly fair if you have found nothing else in 2 years!

    No, how is it a punishment?? I don't see what harm it does them. If you're in a 6 month contract you still only need to give the normal 1 month notice if you find a full time job like everyone else! They get their own income for 6 months, opportunity for a reference, opportunity to meet others who may offer them more work, self esteem, good role model for their kids... What exactly is causing it to be a problem???!!

    No, if they're off work that long they're most likely to have no degree or level 3 qualification or higher anyway so with children will always need additional tax credit support regardless as they're unlikely to earn over £15k! A single person on full time minimum wage under 25 will get NO benefit support.... Just to reiterate, NOTHING. Total misconception. Even up to 35 all they'd get is some working tax credits. Even with a partner they'd get only a little housing benefit. Surely all that is better than £300pcm housing benefit, £50pcm council tax benefit and £280pcm JSA!!?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Work is the best thing for people with no direction and building their self respect, and their children will develop a work ethic to become productive adults. How in the long term can reintroducing people to work be a bad thing?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.