We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Universal Credit for [merged]
Comments
-
I can't quite see this part of the proposal getting agreed to be honest, as so many will have issues regarding childcare etc. And was not David Cameron himself who said he respected Family life and how children can thrive from having a stable upbringing. I'm sure they would say something if my 2 girls were having to be left on their own for 6hrs a day in the school holidays for me to work. My hubby works every hours godsends for pittance, i totally agree those who just can;t be bothered working should have a size 8 up their rears to get a job though. I see so many outside school with nice cars, nice clothes where neither parent works..and there is me and hubby struggling..its very unfair. I would love to go back to work, but i know there is no company that would give me all the school holidays off, and there would be no way i could afford childcare.0
-
I can't quite see this part of the proposal getting agreed to be honest, as so many will have issues regarding childcare etc. And was not David Cameron himself who said he respected Family life and how children can thrive from having a stable upbringing.
Ha! This the same man who's promised a lot of things in his time to a lot of people and then went back on the deal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348814/Mother-accuses-Cameron-betraying-family-disabled-daughter.html
He said he wouldn't harm the sick and disabled and look how well that worked out, so I trust him and his government about as far as I could throw them.
This UC is a done deal as far as I'm concerned and it will bring untold misery to millions. 'Government by the rich for the rich.'0 -
So those in work, but are not earning the required amounts, will be expected to get another job or get one that pays more, is that right? If so that is ridiculous! People cannot get one job these days, never mind 2! And what about the people who have no aptitude for training or "bettering" themselves, or to put it nastily, are as thick as two short planks, what happens to those? In the past large industries would "take up the slack", but now even the most humble job requires qualifications!
I can see the thinking behind it, but before they implement something like this, then they need to sort out the unemployment problem! If there were plenty of jobs for people to apply for, this would work well as there would be no excuse for not having a job, but expecting people to get 2 jobs, never mind one is unrealistic in the current climate!
If they are going ahead with this, then why don't they raise the NMW as well, because if one person is going to have to look for 2 jobs, then it's going to leave even less jobs available to others! Or either lower the threshold so people don't have to have two jobs to qualify!
Conditionality will mean just that.
It will be conditional that you meet the requirements, if that means you need more hours work, then thats what it means.
Sanctions will be imposed on those workers who do not meet the conditionality, ie the required number of hours.This is an opportunity to raise significant issues about in-work conditionality.
Where a welfare system has to balance rights and responsibilities, under universal credit those in work will be embraced by an in-work conditionality of some complexity which neither they nor their employers will previously have experienced.
From the emerging details of in-work conditionality it is clear that it will give the Government significant discretion over a sizeable section of the workforce, and powers to follow through with sanctions that will affect people's lives very significantly.
Self employed people are not going to be exempt either it seemsI shall pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on self-employment. If a self-employed claimant falls below the threshold, then we will expect them to take steps to increase their earnings and
reduce their dependency on benefits. How we do this will in large part depend on the claimant.
If they want to focus on their self-employed business, we expect to give them an appropriate time to do this; alternatively, we may expect them to look for employment to supplement their earnings. As with all such issues, this is an area we continue to consider and develop.[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
I would not be suprised at all, if when they start imposing conditionality (ie JSA claimaint committment to find a new job / more hours, within a certain time) that if they fail to do so, as well as sanctions, they may impose workfare on workers who are not meeting conditionality longer term.[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
As I understand it, yes.
But quite how they intend to impose "signing on" style conditionality to someone who is working 29 hours, I can't imagine. The capacity to search for work is quite clearly diminished in comparison to someone who isn't working at all.
Not according to the government its not, they claim people on workfare working 30 hours a week can still (and are expected to) still perform their normal jobseeking commitments (or face sanctions).[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
Not according to the government its not, they claim people on workfare working 30 hours a week can still (and are expected to) still perform their normal jobseeking commitments (or face sanctions).
Yes, sounds logical to me.
Those in full time employment use their free time outwith work to apply for their next positions...0 -
Yes, sounds logical to me.
Those in full time employment use their free time outwith work to apply for their next positions...
Its just a shame the politicians dont read the DWP's own research, nor that of the SSAC..Time Available to Seek Work
38. The Committee suggests there is a risk that by requiring customers to carry out 30 hours of activity per week, the Mandatory Work Activity Scheme will reduce the jobsearch activity that customers are able to carry out, and that this will reduce the likelihood of them finding permanent work
source Social Security Advisory Committee.
Of course, as conditionality is expected to be 'personalised' its possible they may mandate training for some workers, to enable them to improve their prospects, but even this mandatory training the DWP love so much is not regarded as beneficialSSAC considers that DWP has failed to present a convincing enough
argument to justify further testing of mandatory training (paragraphs 4.1,
6.1). They refer to evidence showing that
mandatory basic skills training
had a long-term negative impact on employment outcomes (paragraphs
4.2, 4.5, 6.1).
and of course, as this will (as most of their plans these days do) hinge around sanctions, shame they again cant read....4.23 The EM cites a DWP research report (number 313) in putting forward the argument that sanctions change peoples’ behaviour.
However, the report also lists a number of negative impacts on claimants resulting from sanctions,
including depression and the worsening of existing health conditions.
In addition, a more recent DWP report on lone parents concluded that for thelone parents in the study, the sanction regime had negligible effects upon labour market behaviour
source for both above.
Theres more, but I cant recall which report it was in, but suffice to say, the evidence shows that the planned moves are basically going to hinder jobsearching, have at best a negligble effect, at worst a NEGATIVE effect, and also worsen many peoples health.[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
So those in work, but are not earning the required amounts, will be expected to get another job or get one that pays more, is that right? If so that is ridiculous! People cannot get one job these days, never mind 2! And what about the people who have no aptitude for training or "bettering" themselves, or to put it nastily, are as thick as two short planks, what happens to those? In the past large industries would "take up the slack", but now even the most humble job requires qualifications!
I can see the thinking behind it, but before they implement something like this, then they need to sort out the unemployment problem! If there were plenty of jobs for people to apply for, this would work well as there would be no excuse for not having a job, but expecting people to get 2 jobs, never mind one is unrealistic in the current climate!
If they are going ahead with this, then why don't they raise the NMW as well, because if one person is going to have to look for 2 jobs, then it's going to leave even less jobs available to others! Or either lower the threshold so people don't have to have two jobs to qualify!
Of course, with existing workers having to take up second jobs, that leaves LESS jobs available for the currently unemployed... (seeing as employers tend to prefer people currently in work)[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
Not according to the government its not, they claim people on workfare working 30 hours a week can still (and are expected to) still perform their normal jobseeking commitments (or face sanctions).0
-
Sucessive governments have tried the carrot so now they are trying the sick.
Realistically though the majority of jobseekers aren't unemployed for a year, its the long term unemployed that are being specifically targeted and those that do the minimum to maximise their incomes.
So most people shouldn't be effected by workfare, it will be the young (lacking experience), the unskilled/unqualified and those with factors that make holding down employment hard.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards