I didn't sat all Liverpool did I although those stats are dire, North Liverpool wards. The scale of the issue Duncs is tacking is immense 19.8% of people of working age workless, 11% on professional welfare, madness in a city that size. How did we get to this state.
I didn't sat all Liverpool did I although those stats are dire, North Liverpool wards. The scale of the issue Duncs is tacking is immense 19.8% of people of working age workless, 11% on professional welfare, madness in a city that size. How did we get to this state.
Credit to Duncs for tacking it head on.
What is the number of applicants per vacancy please? The problem could be the lack of work.
No, I didn't miss that. It's very healthy debate and opinion. You'd think there wasn't already benefit dependency from reading that. The fact is there's been a culture of damaging welfare dependency since the 1960s. I've been one of them.
The TWO comments at the bottom of that piece reflect the feelings in the debate.
So if Frank Field doesn't agree with this government's (or rather, Iain Duncan Smith's) approach to 'welfare reform', why suggest they are taking a leaf out of his book? Or that Labour are so anti-welfare reform as to ditch the man who would have fixed the 'dependency problem'?
My opinion is that they are both wrong in their approach to 'welfare dependency'. If people are dependent upon welfare, it is generally not because they are morally deficient, or scroungers, or work shy. In a country with a government which prides itself on creating and promoting 'the most flexible workforce in Europe', with a minimum wage rather than a living wage, with massive increases in underemployment which will only be exacerbated by their 'slivers of time', they are creating a situation of 'welfare dependancy' while at the same time, blaming those forced to rely on supplementary benefits for their own struggles.
Thatcherism would not have been possible without the North Sea oil dividend. A large chunk of the UK’s oil dividend went on dole payments in the 1980s.
Welfare benefits totalled about 23 billion pounds when the Conservatives came to power in 1979. Unemployment was about a million and a quarter then but had risen to three million people by 1984 – when welfare benefits had risen to 37 billion pounds. Famously, Britain didn’t save any of the 200 billion pounds it has earned in total from the North Sea, in stark contrast to the Norwegians who now have 100,000 euros for every man, woman and child in the country in a Future Generations Fund. What could it ( the North Sea oil dividend ) have achieved in different hands?
That's legendary; however, in 1979 when the welfare bill was £23 billion with unemployment at 1.25 million the costs seemed to be proportionately higher than in 1984 when the welfare bill was £37 billion with unemployment at 3 million. The differences being £14 billion and 1.75 million respectively.
Norway has a very low population ( between 4 and 5 million) and a far easier to control welfare state as a consequence. With the UK's 63 million plus population, North Sea oil was never going to be able to look after its people in the same way as in Norway.
Unfortunately, no proportion of the UK's North Sea oil was nationalised and put into a trust fund as in Norway.
I've been to Norway a couple of times and they're not without their problems; it's not an abundant free-for-all society. Despite their wealth from the proceeds of North Sea oil the cost of petrol is still a lot higher than in the UK and even though it's a "rich oil state" there isn't a lot of infrastructure investment due to the fear of fueling inflation as happened in The Netherlands in the 1970s. The cost of living is high for Norwegians.
Norway has managed to largely avoid the so-called "Dutch disease" (a decline in other exports due to a strong currency) for two reasons: the Government Pension Fund – Global (a sovereign wealth fund), was established for surplus oil revenues. The GPFG wealth fund is largely invested outside Norway by legislation, and the annual maximum withdrawal is 4 per cent. Through these two measures, Norway has avoided hyper-inflation, and has been able to sustain its traditional industries.
I didn't sat all Liverpool did I although those stats are dire, North Liverpool wards. The scale of the issue Duncs is tacking is immense 19.8% of people of working age workless, 11% on professional welfare, madness in a city that size. How did we get to this state.
Credit to Duncs for tacking it head on.
I agree. What would the alternative be to the Coalition's attempts to reform the welfare/benefit system? Most commentators argue that reform is necessary as the bill goes up disproportionately to the wealth created.
You can't escape the fact that welfare above a certain level does discourage independence and entrepreneurial creativity.
That's legendary; however, in 1979 when the welfare bill was £23 billion with unemployment was at 1.25 million the costs seemed to be proportionately higher than in 1984 when the welfare bill was £37 billion with unemployment at 3 million. The differences being £14 billion and 1.75 million respectively.
Norway has a very low population ( between 4 and 5 million) and a far easier to control welfare state as a consequence. With the UK's 63 million plus population North Sea oil was never going to be able to look after its people in the same way.
Unfortunately, no proportion of North Sea oil was nationalised and put into a trust fund as in Norway.
I've been to Norway a couple of times and they're not without their problems and it's not an abundant free-for-all. Despite their wealth from the proceeds of North Sea oil the cost of petrol is still a lot higher than in the UK and even though it's a "rich oil state" there isn't a lot of infrastructure investment due to the fear of fueling inflation as happened in The Netherlands in the 1970s.
Norway has managed to largely avoid the so-called "Dutch disease" (a decline in other exports due to a strong currency) for two reasons: the Government Pension Fund – Global (a sovereign wealth fund), was established for surplus oil revenues. The GPFG wealth fund is largely invested outside Norway by legislation, and the annual maximum withdrawal is 4 per cent. Through these two measures, Norway has avoided hyper-inflation, and has been able to sustain its traditional industries.
LOL. The Globe and Mail, the voice of the Conservative Party of Canada.
My red computer refuses to open any newspaper link with the word "Mail" as part of it's name .
LOL. The Globe and Mail, the voice of the Conservative Party of Canada.
My red computer refuses to open any newspaper link with the word "Mail" as part of it's name .
Well, you're only demonstrating your prejudice by stating that.
Surely you're mature and objective enough to realise that opening a link with the word "mail" in it is not going to brainwash you into becoming a member of the blue rinse brigade, aren't you? Especially when that link appears to support the centre-left policies of Norwegian government.
One could argue that low paid dead end jobs do too.
One could also argue that being in a low paid, dead end job could spur someone on to better themselves by working longer hours and saving more money in order to invest in themselves through either education or other material assets and investment.
Welfare dependency is more likely to lead to stagnation.
Well, you're only demonstrating your prejudice by stating that.
Surely you're mature and objective enough to realise that opening a link with the word "mail" in it is not going to brainwash you into becoming a member of the blue rinse brigade, aren't you? Especially when that link appears to support the centre-left policies of Norwegian government.
Lighten up mate.:rolleyes:
I just don't play by the rules you choose to live by.
IDS has still never been asked to explain himself for telling ATOS staff that they were only allowed to pass 12% of all the claimants yet they denied there was ever any set number. It was proven via the C4 dispatches programme when a 'genuine' doctor joined the ATOS staff with a hidden camera.
heres a short 90 second clip from the hidden camera documentary of the ATOS staff clearly stating that they were given set numbers of which they were allowed to pass.
IDS has still never been asked to explain himself for telling ATOS staff that they were only allowed to pass 12% of all the claimants yet they denied there was ever any set number. It was proven via the C4 dispatches programme when a 'genuine' doctor joined the ATOS staff with a hidden camera.
heres a short 90 second clip from the hidden camera documentary of the ATOS staff clearly stating that they were given set numbers of which they were allowed to pass.
The increased spending on welfare which is potentially unsustainable into the future. It unnecessarily encourages dependency.
I'd hope, and expect, that through reform welfare could be targeted more appropriately and be a hand up rather than a hand out. I'd like to see child benefit abolished and more spent on education both at a higher level and on vocational training.
The increased spending is on in-work benefits or corporate welfare. Companies need to pay realistic wages and stop sponging off the public purse.
One could also argue that being in a low paid, dead end job could spur someone on to better themselves by working longer hours and saving more money in order to invest in themselves through either education or other material assets and investment.
Only if one was clueless about the realities of life.
The problem with right wingers is that they want low wages and no benefits.
They can't have it both ways. You either have employers paying wages that are high enough to provide a fairly high standard of living that allows people to better themselves and provide educational opportunities for their children (tuitition fees will push many away from higher education), or you supplement low-to-medium level incomes with a welfare system, which certainly should protect the long term sick and disabled at least.
Comments
Liverpool Council ward profiles if you want a look. They will be minimums as well.
For Liverpool as a whole the figures looks well short of your figures.
http://liverpool.gov.uk/media/674445/201309septkeystatisticsbulletinissue15update.pdf
I didn't sat all Liverpool did I although those stats are dire, North Liverpool wards. The scale of the issue Duncs is tacking is immense 19.8% of people of working age workless, 11% on professional welfare, madness in a city that size. How did we get to this state.
Credit to Duncs for tacking it head on.
40% are professional benefit claimants and 11% are on professional welfare, that makes sense...
Could you provide a link which shows the 40% please.
What is the number of applicants per vacancy please? The problem could be the lack of work.
So if Frank Field doesn't agree with this government's (or rather, Iain Duncan Smith's) approach to 'welfare reform', why suggest they are taking a leaf out of his book? Or that Labour are so anti-welfare reform as to ditch the man who would have fixed the 'dependency problem'?
My opinion is that they are both wrong in their approach to 'welfare dependency'. If people are dependent upon welfare, it is generally not because they are morally deficient, or scroungers, or work shy. In a country with a government which prides itself on creating and promoting 'the most flexible workforce in Europe', with a minimum wage rather than a living wage, with massive increases in underemployment which will only be exacerbated by their 'slivers of time', they are creating a situation of 'welfare dependancy' while at the same time, blaming those forced to rely on supplementary benefits for their own struggles.
Could we convince them both to leave the country.
That's legendary; however, in 1979 when the welfare bill was £23 billion with unemployment at 1.25 million the costs seemed to be proportionately higher than in 1984 when the welfare bill was £37 billion with unemployment at 3 million. The differences being £14 billion and 1.75 million respectively.
Norway has a very low population ( between 4 and 5 million) and a far easier to control welfare state as a consequence. With the UK's 63 million plus population, North Sea oil was never going to be able to look after its people in the same way as in Norway.
Unfortunately, no proportion of the UK's North Sea oil was nationalised and put into a trust fund as in Norway.
I've been to Norway a couple of times and they're not without their problems; it's not an abundant free-for-all society. Despite their wealth from the proceeds of North Sea oil the cost of petrol is still a lot higher than in the UK and even though it's a "rich oil state" there isn't a lot of infrastructure investment due to the fear of fueling inflation as happened in The Netherlands in the 1970s. The cost of living is high for Norwegians.
Norway has managed to largely avoid the so-called "Dutch disease" (a decline in other exports due to a strong currency) for two reasons: the Government Pension Fund – Global (a sovereign wealth fund), was established for surplus oil revenues. The GPFG wealth fund is largely invested outside Norway by legislation, and the annual maximum withdrawal is 4 per cent. Through these two measures, Norway has avoided hyper-inflation, and has been able to sustain its traditional industries.
source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com
sounds like a good idea
I agree. What would the alternative be to the Coalition's attempts to reform the welfare/benefit system? Most commentators argue that reform is necessary as the bill goes up disproportionately to the wealth created.
You can't escape the fact that welfare above a certain level does discourage independence and entrepreneurial creativity.
One could argue that low paid dead end jobs do too.
LOL. The Globe and Mail, the voice of the Conservative Party of Canada.
My red computer refuses to open any newspaper link with the word "Mail" as part of it's name .
Well, you're only demonstrating your prejudice by stating that.
Surely you're mature and objective enough to realise that opening a link with the word "mail" in it is not going to brainwash you into becoming a member of the blue rinse brigade, aren't you? Especially when that link appears to support the centre-left policies of Norwegian government.
One could also argue that being in a low paid, dead end job could spur someone on to better themselves by working longer hours and saving more money in order to invest in themselves through either education or other material assets and investment.
Welfare dependency is more likely to lead to stagnation.
Lighten up mate.:rolleyes:
I just don't play by the rules you choose to live by.
heres a short 90 second clip from the hidden camera documentary of the ATOS staff clearly stating that they were given set numbers of which they were allowed to pass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkzHxXg0rfQ
why dont posts like this ever get a response. Is it because they are un defendable?
The increased spending is on in-work benefits or corporate welfare. Companies need to pay realistic wages and stop sponging off the public purse.
Being a terrible TV presenter of forgettable time-filling fluff.
Only if one was clueless about the realities of life.
The problem with right wingers is that they want low wages and no benefits.
They can't have it both ways. You either have employers paying wages that are high enough to provide a fairly high standard of living that allows people to better themselves and provide educational opportunities for their children (tuitition fees will push many away from higher education), or you supplement low-to-medium level incomes with a welfare system, which certainly should protect the long term sick and disabled at least.