Tories plan to lower Benefits cap

Originally Posted by Osem

Was watching a BBC documentary on housing issues. They highlighted the longstanding problems (health and financial) of a couple with 5 children (aged 12-1) who're living on benefits and were stuck in a home which is clearly too small for them. Their youngest child is only one year old so why did they choose to have that 5th child given all the problems they were already experiencing? I have every sympathy for people suffering problems beyond their control but adding at least one other child (maybe more) into what were already highly unsatisfactory living conditions seems highly irresponsible. They were moved into a bigger house but I can't help wondering whether they'll choose to outgrow it...

I see it every day .Young women with 2-3 kids never had a job and never likely to.I had occasion in the summer to fit the windows in 2 houses that had been knocked into one to accommodate a family of about 8 kids .Guessing at the age of the mother she has never worked and just kept popping sprogs out so she never does.
What is needed imo is an attitude change in society

[Osem]

Originally Posted by martyh

I see it every day .Young women with 2-3 kids never had a job and never likely to.I had occasion in the summer to fit the windows in 2 houses that had been knocked into one to accommodate a family of about 8 kids .Guessing at the age of the mother she has never worked and just kept popping sprogs out so she never does.
What is needed imo is an attitude change in society

No you don't mate. That's just a prejudice induced illusion and not at all real. If you weren't such a mean spirited victim of right wing brainwashing you wouldn't see any such illusions. We really don't need to tackle state sponsored benefit dependence at all, we should just give everyone what they say they want and accommodate whatever choices they make. After all that's a basic human right and you've exercised your choice to work and pay tax...

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by martyh

I see it every day .Young women with 2-3 kids never had a job and never likely to.I had occasion in the summer to fit the windows in 2 houses that had been knocked into one to accommodate a family of about 8 kids .Guessing at the age of the mother she has never worked and just kept popping sprogs out so she never does.
What is needed imo is an attitude change in society

Bringing up 8 kids must be a job and a half. I don't think many people would want that job.

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

Bringing up 8 kids must be a job and a half. I don't think many people would want that job.

Bringing up kids? That's the social worker's job.

Society doesn't need an attitude change because we have the right attitude we just need politicians to follow societies wish and implement proper reform that actually creates a fairer more targeted system but they are scared of losing their scapegoat/bribe mechanism. Whatever end of the political spectrum you go to they have their own vested interest in keeping the system as it is so any meaningful change is highly unlikely and the problem rolls on and on. It may surprise some but many claimants want the system changed its not just non claimants and I've seen abuse in all forms of the system and its annoying as hell.

Now we have a Tory minister who says some disabled don't deserve minimum wage yes I know he's issued an apology but what he did was slip up and express an opinion that not only he believes in but quite a few others that's what this country is turning into it enjoy .

[Gary L]

He's your typical wife beater type person when they threaten the woman behind closed doors. and when confronted about it on the outside of that door. he says with a nervous laugh "I was only joking! I love women!"

[deadite66]

Labour doesn't think the disabled deserve the minimum wage either.
http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/la...ally-disabled/

[denphone]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Now we have a Tory minister who says some disabled don't deserve minimum wage yes I know he's issued an apology but what he did was slip up and express an opinion that not only he believes in but quite a few others that's what this country is turning into it enjoy .

What else can you expect from the increasingly "nasty party" and those who secretly support those same views.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Now we have a Tory minister who says some disabled don't deserve minimum wage yes I know he's issued an apology but what he did was slip up and express an opinion that not only he believes in but quite a few others that's what this country is turning into it enjoy .

Originally Posted by denphone

What else can you expect from the increasingly "nasty party" and those who secretly support those same views.

I hope you both realise that this policy was floated by New Liebour in 2003 for disabled doing "Theraputic work"?

But in 2003, whilst Labour were in power, the government published an "Information Note" entitled "The Minimum Wage and Therapeutic Work" (opens PDF).

The document seeks to clarify the legal status of certain groups of people such as those who are disabled with reference to the minimum wage.

With reference to potential therapeutic work it states: "There may be no employment contract if there is no mutual obligation between the parties i.e. the individual is genuinely not obliged to perform duties and the employer is genuinely not obliged to provide the activity or pay the individual."

It then goes on to give a number of examples where it considers the minimum wage would probably not apply.

Linky

[Osem]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I hope you both realise that this policy was floated by New Liebour in 2003 for disabled doing "Theraputic work"?



Linky

Yup there's nowt quite like a bit of hypocrisy is there. It's a good job everyone doesn't suffer from 'short term & selective memory syndrome'...

[denphone]

And that makes those who held those views inside the Labour party just as bad as the unelected welfare minister Lord Freud.

Late last year, they closed the last of the Remploy factories, one of the great progressive ideas of the Welfare State of the late 1940s and frankly whoever made that decision should be ashamed as it was a great idea that should have been continued in my opinion.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by denphone

And that makes those who held those views inside the Labour party just as bad as the unelected welfare minister Lord Freud.

Late last year, they closed the last of the Remploy factories, one of the great progressive ideas of the Welfare State of the late 1940s and frankly whoever made that decision should be ashamed as it was a great idea that should have been continued in my opinion.

The difference being that Lord Freud wasn't saying that the disabled should not take home the minimum wage, just that employers should not need to provide all of it if the disabled employee was sufficiently impaired so as not to be able to make a full units of work contribution and that govenment should subsidise employment of said person.

But as usual the disability charities and Labour have jumped on the bandwagon just reading the lurid headlines in the tabloids without ACTUALLY looking at the proposal which might allow severly disabled to actually so some usefull work, especially to them, instead of languishing at home.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by denphone

And that makes those who held those views inside the Labour party just as bad as the unelected welfare minister Lord Freud.

Late last year, they closed the last of the Remploy factories, one of the great progressive ideas of the Welfare State of the late 1940s and frankly whoever made that decision should be ashamed as it was a great idea that should have been continued in my opinion.

In which case a) Miliband's cronies and the rest of the baying wolves ought to acknowledge that fact and b) presenting the notion as a trait of the 'nasty party' is disingenuous.

---------- Post added at 10:27 ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

The difference being that Lord Freud wasn't saying that the disabled should not take home the minimum wage, just that employers should not need to provide all of it if the disabled employee was sufficiently impaired so as not to be able to make a full units of work contribution and that govenment should subsidise employment of said person.

But as usual the disability charities and Labour have jumped on the bandwagon just reading the lurid headlines in the tabloids without ACTUALLY looking at the proposal which might allow severly disabled to actually so some usefull work, especially to them, instead of languishing at home.

Let's not have facts spoil a good political rant eh?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

The difference being that Lord Freud wasn't saying that the disabled should not take home the minimum wage, just that employers should not need to provide all of it if the disabled employee was sufficiently impaired so as not to be able to make a full units of work contribution and that govenment should subsidise employment of said person.

The trouble with that is they have just announced that if they win the next election outright, they'll be reducing in-work benefits as it is, so what guarantee would someone have taking a job lower than the minimum wage that any government top up wouldn't be pulled at some unspecified date in the future.

The only way currently to guarantee what you earn, is to earn the minimum wage. Anything else is reliant on political whim.

I'd also point out that this government closed down Remploy factories, which put a lot of people out of work that were contributing successfully, without a proper plan to find them alternatives.