Is this really unreasonable?

RJP33

globalds wrote: »

It is unreasonable to expect to do something if the alternative is the easy option.

Take away the soft option and you will find people will change there mind quite quickly about what is reasonable.

That reads fairly right wing ..It isn't ,I just think people will quite rightly pick the easy route more often than not.

Bingo, it's got nothing to do with being right wing, if you give people an easy option they'll obviously take it.

It is wrong for us as taxpayers to subsidize people who are able to ean their own living. Benefits should be limited to the truly needy.

Shakethedisease

Benefits should be limited to the truly needy.

When you can come with a way to seperate and define those who are desperately trying to find work and haven't, and those that just won't work. Give the government a call.. it's never been done yet historically. Not since the earliest days of 'alms', parish hand-outs or the very first workhouses for the 'deserving poor'.

Sweeping lovely statements like the above 'sound' just great and morally 'right'. But, solve absolutely nothing until you can define between the two. And that's the problem at it's absolute source.

PasturesNew

mostlycheerful wrote: »

...

I never read long, long postings - they confuse and lose me... except yours.

Brilliant.

lostinrates

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Yes, this is absolutely key. There are not 'lots of people' who relocate for work. Those who do are almost always professionals, the well-qualified, people who move for a significant payrise, or people at the start of a career without ties or children.

I know a lovely Polish woman who left her child with her mother to come here to clean. Through here I've met other people who came her for similarly professional jobs, varying from graduates with good English tuition to people with low skills and learning English here...or not. I know several West Indian origin families who came here originally to be fairly low level nurses...some of whom had families who followed later, some of whom made connections here. my mother arrived here with a young child and husband in the 60s.

We complain about other people doing just this, while exploiting it, yet don't have the gumption to do it ourselves often. amazingly, people from the Valleys of beautiful Wales have the same right to go to Cardiff..or ANYWHERE in the EU they can find work and a quality of life.

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Secondly, Duncan-Smith claims there are 450 000 jobs IIRC. Unemployment is 2.4 million using the ILO figure. And that does not take into account qualifications needed for those jobs. You do the maths.

I heard him saying this, and tackle this exact point. He made the point that the 450 000 jobs were not static, but rather new roles, rotating roles...not a finite 450000 jobs. I have no idea whether he's right or not, but he did tackle this point.

edit: I have also remembered these were just the jobs advertised in the job centre, not all available jobs.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

Correct. A pound spent on employing someone in the public sector is a pound that isn't being spent in the private sector.

Accepted and agreed. The problem is for some of us tax take/money in the pocket is less, so its a pound not being spent anywhere other than I presume debt repayment atm.

RJP33

Shakethedisease wrote: »

When you can come with a way to seperate and define those who are desperately trying to find work and haven't, and those that just won't work. Give the government a call.. it's never been done yet historically. Not since the earliest days of 'alms', parish hand-outs or the very first workhouses for the 'deserving poor'.

Sweeping lovely statements like the above 'sound' just great and morally 'right'. But, solve absolutely nothing until you can define between the two. And that's the problem at it's absolute source.

A way to start this off is to stop benefits to someone who can work if they refuse any reasonable work or don't apply for x number of jobs a month. You could also include not turning up for interviews or meetings without reasonable excuse.

With the exception of those with disabilities the onus should also be on people to prove that they still need the benefit temporarily only - they should prove to the centres what steps they've taken to get work every couple of months.

Shakethedisease

A way to start this off is to stop benefits to someone who can work if they refuse any reasonable work or don't apply for x number of jobs a month. You could also include not turning up for interviews or meetings without reasonable excuse.

Isn't this how the system currently works anyway ?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Isn't this how the system currently works anyway ?

It's how the rules are framed. That's not the same thing as how the system works.

RJP33

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Isn't this how the system currently works anyway ?

I don't think there's currently an automatic cut off as soon as you refuse reasonable work although I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Even if there's no jobs available why can't people do work for the community in exchange for their benefits? Better than just sitting around with nothing to do and they give back.