Extra £4bn welfare cut

lynzpower

Yes I agree with you Generali in totality there.

However, are we saying to people they should be childminding in thier homes? Local authotiries already advertise this as a profession and provide training for this, along with the checks on the property and CRB before they can be accredited

Yes, you can work as an unqualified in babysitting, but are we saying that this is what we want "jobseekers " in totality to do? I have done informal babysitting too, for freinds family members.

there are two issues here:

1) if you want mass organised childcare then you need organisation and some level fo accreditation along with insuirances
2) if you want childcare that is fluid and homebased then that is available in that training is available through ewg Childrens Information Services in Councils.

I was making the point that to provide childcare en masse is going to be expensive, and who is going to pay for it.

But long-term unemployment rose again and the number of people deemed economically inactive rose to a record 8.19 million, a staggering 21.5% of the working-age population

ILW

How about everyone that is capable of work, if they turn down any job offer then they have to spend 7 hours a day pedalling a generator which feeds power into the national grid in return for their benefit money. This would make the Greens very happy as it is a renewable source of energy and would reduce the power bills for everybody else.
I cannot see any possible downside to this solution.

tomterm8

People without jobs aren't criminals. I agree with people who want people without jobs to do meaningful things that help the community... at a automatic minimum wage... instead of benefits we'd have a guaranteed minimum job. I'd exclude people who are incapable of work, care for sick/disabled relatives, or very young children from the requirement.

I don't think it is unreasonable that people should work a minimum number of hours at socially useful things. I think as far as possible, they should have the choice of what to do to earn the benefits. It shouldn't be viewed as a punishment. It should be viewed as employing available labour to make society better.

Graham_Devon

lynzpower wrote: »

However, are we saying to people they should be childminding in thier homes? Local authotiries already advertise this as a profession and provide training for this, along with the checks on the property and CRB before they can be accredited

I did say creche for a reason

olly300

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I just see it as a FAR more beneficial service than having people just sat on their bums waiting for their payment.

On thing Scandinavian countries do right is provide free and subsidised child care.

Yes it costs a lot but they have a model where they put more money into education for those under 18 than over it as it's more effective.

Also it makes it clear that if are a woman of any age and have a child you know that once that child reaches a certain age i.e. 2 or 3 you are going to have to go back to work, unless you have a husband or civil partner who will support you.

So while you will see teenage mothers you don't tend to find them with more than one child.

Graham_Devon

olly300 wrote: »

On thing Scandinavian countries do right is provide free and subsidised child care.

Yes it costs a lot but they have a model where they put more money into education for those under 18 than over it as it's more effective.

Also it makes it clear that if are a woman of any age and have a child you know that once that child reaches a certain age i.e. 2 or 3 you are going to have to go back to work, unless you have a husband or civil partner who will support you.

So while you will see teenage mothers you don't tend to find them with more than one child.

In all honesty, on a personal level, I wouldn't be including single parents in the above scheme.

I thought we were talking about the unemployed in terms of available for work, as thats what this thread is about. The childcare thing was just mentioned and I used it as an example of how you could use people on benefits to do some labour in these roles.

Unemployed and available to work is very different to being a carer, disabled, single parents etc who in most cases wouldn't be able to work anyway.

So I wouldn't see the need for a creche anyway, but it can be used as an example of where benefit claimants could do a few hours labour in return for benefits. This is what I meant when I said it always becomes complicated!! Just seperate those available for work to do something useful. I can't honestly see the problem.

Generali

lynzpower wrote: »

I was making the point that to provide childcare en masse is going to be expensive, and who is going to pay for it.

Yes it will be expensive and probably unaffordable as an unskilled or very lightly skilled person is unlikely to be able to generate the income to pay for child care and earn a worthwhile income.

So what to do? The deficit needs to be cut and welfare payments are the biggest area of Government spending.

olly300

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In all honesty, on a personal level, I wouldn't be including single parents in the above scheme.

At the moment I wouldn't in the long term I would, as we aren't going to be in this financial situation for ever.

The reason is to get everyone in society to realise that they have both responsibilities to help provide for themselves as well as rights to state help.

sticky23

I'm from Denmark, and yes, we have subsidized, government-run childcare: Children go to a nursery or childminder from when they are one year old till they are six. After that they go to school, which usually have after-school clubs. The cost of this, as far as I remember, is around £300 a month.. (but remember that the tax is a lot higher..) Low cost or free places are available for those on low incomes.
So any woman, whether she is single or not, is expected to work, if she wants any kind of benefit, apart from child benefit. If you're un-employed, you have to be available for work the following day - this could be cleaning, factory work, or indeed helping out in a nursery. If you turn it down, you loose your benefits... Most people I know, who has been in this situation, got off their back-side and found themselves a job pretty sharpish...
On the other hand, benefits are generous, and help is available for those who are disabled or ill...
Another part of the Danish system is that you have to be resident there for seven out of eight years to receive benefits. That pretty much flushes out immigrants who wants a free ride. Obviously it also hits other people - I couldn't get benefits if I went to live there - but then I don't expect to anyway...

flashnazia

tomterm8 wrote: »

I don't think the computers should be given away free, because most people don't value things that cost them nothing.

Spot on. The same can be said for benefits. 'Free' money has no value which is why it is frittered away by some claimants. Then they complain that they don't get enough to live on!