In the late 80's I was involved in rolling out the Employment Training scheme - ET as it was known. This was done under Thatcher's Government, It was taken from the German model of that era, an excellent scheme.
It was offered to the long-term unemployed, i.e. over 6 months, and involved an assessment followed by training and work experience. The Government decided to make it voluntary, but said it would become linked to the right to receive benefits if people didn't respond.
We were totally flooded and couldn't cope with the response.
The scheme was scrapped because of the lack of response by employers to offer work experience, not because of any lack of commitment by Benefit claimants.
If you show people opportunity and provide support, they will respond. I've worked in other areas of training with the long-term unemployed, and motivation has never been a problem - 99% of people want to improve their lot in life. Who would want to live on the pittance of welfare benefits? In poverty and treated with contempt by others.
So don't try telling me that the majority of unemployed people don't want to work - that is pure Daily Mail style propaganda.
Getting people with a history of mental illness into work was extremely difficult, and unless IDS is a complete idiot, he will know that, or should do. What he has done to people re IB to ESA is disgusting and immoral.
So go and read your Daily Mail, don't tell me about the propaganda, because I speak from experience, not armchair prejudice.
There are people on here who argue for hours based on what they can find with google and wikipedia, who clearly have very little experience of the real world re the issues they argue over.
I was merely offering the supply side economic critque of welfare spending, the argument did not simply revolve about people not wanting to work. Most welfare is not unemployment benefits, its just what most people associate, so the bulk of cuts will likely be elsewhere
I was merely offering the supply side economic critque of welfare spending, the argument did not simply revolve about people not wanting to work. Most welfare is not unemployment benefits, its just what most people associate, so the bulk of cuts will likely be elsewhere
I find it quite incredible how so many ordinary working people have had their minds turned against the welfare state.
A lot of people who are receiving child benefit, working tax credits and local housing allowance do not realise that they are directly benefiting from the welfare budget. In their minds it is only unemployed 'shirkers' that are.
Come on guys, we all should know that the Tories are not a party for the working man. Never have been, never will.privatising the health service, so the rich pay for their health, whilst the poor will suffer and die.. A caring government who will look after the NHS must be elected ASAP . we have our children's children to think about..
Come on guys, we all should know that the Tories are not a party for the working man. Never have been, never will.privatising the health service, so the rich pay for their health, whilst the poor will suffer and die.. A caring government who will look after the NHS must be elected ASAP . we have our children's children to think about..
Tories want the working man to think he gets urinated on from below, even if it defies logic and reason.
Come on guys, we all should know that the Tories are not a party for the working man. Never have been, never will.privatising the health service, so the rich pay for their health, whilst the poor will suffer and die.. A caring government who will look after the NHS must be elected ASAP . we have our children's children to think about..
The government, any government, has no business being "caring" or not.
Come on guys, we all should know that the Tories are not a party for the working man. Never have been, never will.privatising the health service, so the rich pay for their health, whilst the poor will suffer and die.. A caring government who will look after the NHS must be elected ASAP . we have our children's children to think about..
Funny then how more Left-wing European countries chose not to model their health service on the NHS - but perhaps Left-wingers don't care about their children.
Not every business is going to be sucessful and the fact that the failure can come dowm to the decisons of a few people is why the pay packages and pay offs are so high.
If these people have committed criminal activities then jail them but you can't jail people simply for bad performace.
Well not really, the anti - welfare argument is that welfare
A) Can De-Incentives people to enter employment. Can create a welfare trap
C) The money has to come from somewhere, raising via taxes, moral objections or economic costs of taxation burdens. Borrowing money, moral question, making future generations pay? Furthermore loans incure interest so future revenues are cut for short term gain.
A. No it doesn't.
B. If it does, that's a symptom of a badly run welfare system, not the principle of welfare.
C. If tax and welfare are sensibly structured, no problem.
The government, any government, has no business being "caring" or not.
What a stupid thing to say - the first duty of any government is the safety and well being of its citizens, or at least it should be, where as with the current lot its the safety and well being of those that can fund their parties and/or improve investments.
The problem has been politicians promising more than the opposition to gain power, then leaving the as yet unborn to pick up the bill.
But of course the unborn don't vote.
And yet the unborn themselves won't pay the bill as they will pass it onto the next generation and so on and so on.
We will never pay back the national debt. It has grown too large and we will keep on rolling the debt over, paying back loans by taking out new ones.
All we can hope to do is reduce the amount we are borrowing whilst at the same time trying to ensure the cuts do not have too much of a negative effect on the economy, hoping that the next recession doesn't make us become trapped in system of two steps forward and three steps back and that inflation can devalue the size of the debt against GDP whilst at the same not causing a problem for business and the general public at the same time.
We can chip away at the deficit, and hopefully wisely instead of making spurious claims to win elections, but the debt can only be loosely managed.
excellent online article about Osborne's "austerity" at: newyorker.com
But from an economic perspective, Osborne’s argument is hogwash. His effort to cure the patient by subjecting it to the equivalent of leeching—big cuts in government spending and higher taxes—a return to pre-Keynesian policies watched closely the world over, failed abysmally. Imposed at a time when the U.K.’s economy was recovering from the financial crisis of 2008-09, it subjected his countrymen and countrywomen to three more years of slump-like conditions, and it produced a dearth of public-sector and private-sector investment that will hobble Britain for years to come. It even failed to meet its own targets of drastically reducing the budget deficit and bringing down Britain’s over-all debt burden.http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/12/by-george-britains-austerity-experiment-didnt-work.html
What a stupid thing to say - the first duty of any government is the safety and well being of its citizens, or at least it should be, where as with the current lot its the safety and well being of those that can fund their parties and/or improve investments.
I thought that we paid the governmnet to run the country - the defence forces, make and enforce the laws, run the education and health systems, manage the economy etc
But from an economic perspective, Osborne’s argument is hogwash. His effort to cure the patient by subjecting it to the equivalent of leeching—big cuts in government spending and higher taxes—a return to pre-Keynesian policies watched closely the world over, failed abysmally. Imposed at a time when the U.K.’s economy was recovering from the financial crisis of 2008-09, it subjected his countrymen and countrywomen to three more years of slump-like conditions, and it produced a dearth of public-sector and private-sector investment that will hobble Britain for years to come. It even failed to meet its own targets of drastically reducing the budget deficit and bringing down Britain’s over-all debt burden.http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/12/by-george-britains-austerity-experiment-didnt-work.html
The man's an idiot, the debt burden could have been £2 trillion now instead of £1 trillion. It would not have made a blind bit of difference to the economy as France is demonstrating at the moment.
But from an economic perspective, Osborne’s argument is hogwash. His effort to cure the patient by subjecting it to the equivalent of leeching—big cuts in government spending and higher taxes—a return to pre-Keynesian policies watched closely the world over, failed abysmally.
Comments
I was merely offering the supply side economic critque of welfare spending, the argument did not simply revolve about people not wanting to work. Most welfare is not unemployment benefits, its just what most people associate, so the bulk of cuts will likely be elsewhere
Most welfare is pensions and housing benefit.
A lot of people who are receiving child benefit, working tax credits and local housing allowance do not realise that they are directly benefiting from the welfare budget. In their minds it is only unemployed 'shirkers' that are.
Tories want the working man to think he gets urinated on from below, even if it defies logic and reason.
The government, any government, has no business being "caring" or not.
The ones that do usually are working class who like to think they actually are middle class.
Funny then how more Left-wing European countries chose not to model their health service on the NHS - but perhaps Left-wingers don't care about their children.
ibinflation
But you can link their pay to performance.
A. No it doesn't.
B. If it does, that's a symptom of a badly run welfare system, not the principle of welfare.
C. If tax and welfare are sensibly structured, no problem.
Good way of putting it!:)
What an odd thing to say.
why does the NHS exist then, i will tell you the answer, to care for people, benefits help people survive
What a stupid thing to say - the first duty of any government is the safety and well being of its citizens, or at least it should be, where as with the current lot its the safety and well being of those that can fund their parties and/or improve investments.
But of course the unborn don't vote.
Doesn't work unless there is wage inflation as well.
All it does is make the poor, poorer.
And yet the unborn themselves won't pay the bill as they will pass it onto the next generation and so on and so on.
We will never pay back the national debt. It has grown too large and we will keep on rolling the debt over, paying back loans by taking out new ones.
All we can hope to do is reduce the amount we are borrowing whilst at the same time trying to ensure the cuts do not have too much of a negative effect on the economy, hoping that the next recession doesn't make us become trapped in system of two steps forward and three steps back and that inflation can devalue the size of the debt against GDP whilst at the same not causing a problem for business and the general public at the same time.
We can chip away at the deficit, and hopefully wisely instead of making spurious claims to win elections, but the debt can only be loosely managed.
printing money is just lazy, sly, theft.
But from an economic perspective, Osborne’s argument is hogwash. His effort to cure the patient by subjecting it to the equivalent of leeching—big cuts in government spending and higher taxes—a return to pre-Keynesian policies watched closely the world over, failed abysmally. Imposed at a time when the U.K.’s economy was recovering from the financial crisis of 2008-09, it subjected his countrymen and countrywomen to three more years of slump-like conditions, and it produced a dearth of public-sector and private-sector investment that will hobble Britain for years to come. It even failed to meet its own targets of drastically reducing the budget deficit and bringing down Britain’s over-all debt burden.http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/12/by-george-britains-austerity-experiment-didnt-work.html
I thought that we paid the governmnet to run the country - the defence forces, make and enforce the laws, run the education and health systems, manage the economy etc
Caring for you is what your mother does.
The man's an idiot, the debt burden could have been £2 trillion now instead of £1 trillion. It would not have made a blind bit of difference to the economy as France is demonstrating at the moment.
It worked in the US
US Government spending