Question Time

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

And the differences would appear to be : having a work ethic, having a sense of self responsibility and self respect, being willing and able to get up in the morning and to do something useful within a disciplined environment. What else distinguishes the EE can get a jobs, from most of the UK can't get a job ?

you dont have a clue. assuming everyone is workshy shows this.

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The cuts in disability benefit are aimed at those that Labour called disabled, but who were not really unable to work, in order to mask the true level of unemployment. If genuinely disabled/unable to work people want to demonstrate in order to support that group then they are simply damaging their own cause.

no, everyone claiming a disability benefit will face the cuts whether they are genuine or not.

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The money that will be saved belongs to those of us who do pay tax and do not draw benefits, so that's fine with me. The welfare state was intended to help those unreasonably disadvantaged who cannot help themselves. It's been hijacked over the years by the lefties and do-gooders and bleeding hearts to be an easy way out for the lazy, the f e c k less, and the irresponsible. That's got to stop.

is having no other source of income not disadvantaged and unable to help yourself?
let me ask you this. if there were no workshy people claiming benefits at all would you still support cuts to benefits?

donnajunkie

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't know the circs of his brain operation, but I can do my typing/move my mouse without a left arm.
Also he could work in a call center on the phone with one arm.

I'm not being harsh, in fact I think it's completely wrong to write people off just because they have a disability.
Of course we don't know anything about the brain thing, but physical disabilities should not stop people using computers and phones in a lot of cases.

You aren't doing the disabled any favours by writing them off.

pushing people around threatening them doesnt help either. he has no chance of a job.

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

And why not ? There may well be jobs that he could do. Some people with severe disabilities hold down jobs, and are pleased to do so because it helps them retain independence and self respect. For both the able bodied and for many of the disabled it's all about attitude of mind. There are those who see it necessary and beneficial to pull their weight, and then there are those who will skive, mump off the rest of society, and blame all their own deficiencies on someone else if they can get away with it. The left sees such individuals as victims, and their f e c k lessness as a sort of disablity in itself which has to be compensated by the welfare estate. That point of view is of course damaging garbage, but after 13 years of Labour it has become an entrenched stance which is proving difficult to turn around.

this person obviously has no chance of a job. all it is doing is causing them extra stress and wasting the money it costs to have him on the scheme.

GeorgeHowell

donnajunkie wrote: »

is having no other source of income not disadvantaged and unable to help yourself?
let me ask you this. if there were no workshy people claiming benefits at all would you still support cuts to benefits?

If there were no workshy claiming benefits, and everyone getting them was a genuine safety-net case, and the benefits were not over generous (like paying for 5 bedroom houses in Hampstead) then I would not support cuts. But then nor would most people, and nor would the government, and nor would the public finances be in such a parlous state.

The reality however is very different, and of course every effort must be made to distinguish between the genuine hardship cases and the lazy, f e c k less, and workshy when the cuts are made.

GeorgeHowell

donnajunkie wrote: »

this person obviously has no chance of a job. all it is doing is causing them extra stress and wasting the money it costs to have him on the scheme.

You say that, and maybe the person concerned does too. But presumably someone who is paid to review such cases thinks otherwise. I assume there is a right of appeal if people think they have been unjustly treated. But it can't just be left to people themselves and their friends to decide whether they will work or draw benefits. That's more or less how we got where we are.

GeorgeHowell

donnajunkie wrote: »

no, everyone claiming a disability benefit will face the cuts whether they are genuine or not.

Eveyone claiming a disability benefit will face a review to see whether they are genuine, and that's quite right. People who really have zero ability to do a paid job will have nothng to fear. If you think that nobody claiming benfits should have theircase reviewed in case it causes them stress, then you and people like you are part of the problem

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

and of course every effort must be made to distinguish between the genuine hardship cases and the lazy, f e c k less, and workshy when the cuts are made.

The trouble is it won't and a lot of genuine hardship cases will be hit too. The cost of differentiating will eat up the savings otherwise.

If there was a genuine surfeit of job opportunities evenly distributed, which there isn't, beating up the presumed f e c k less would be more credible.

Not many claimants have the "luxury" of 5 bed homes in Hampstead.

thor

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Does anyone know if there are any reliable figures plotting the number of unemployed v. actual jobs available on a region by region basis.

There seems to be an assumption that if you cut benefit the unemployed will suddenly find work. Is this actually possible?

As nobody apparently wants to answer this question I'll tell you what I believe.
There are far more unemployed out there than jobs available. It is an inconvenient truth which this shower of a government and their apologists have successfully hidden away.