Question Time

ukcarper

lemonjelly wrote: »

Errors by benefits staff costs twice as much as estimated fraud.
How about we recruit, train & pay a decent quality of staff to ensure benefits are appropriately & proportionately paid?

Second, around 50% od DLA appeals are successful. This means that around half the original decisions are wrong. Again, get in high quality well trained staff who are better at the decision making process, & you'll make savings at commissioner appeals levels, as well as reducing numbers of appeals.

However, as I've said before following the tax avoidance palava, where davey boy criticised jimmy carr, but then didn't want to comment on specific cases like lord ashton & his non-dom belize situation, or supporters like gary barlow:

I think I mentioned the appeals in one of my posts and I'd agree with all of the above points. But i still think the system needs overhauling and there is scope for savings to be made in some areas.

donnajunkie

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I don't know whether it's a majority that are not deserving to live on benefits for ever. But I do know that there's a lot of them. And as people keep saying, something must be done to weed out the scroungers. It won't be perfect because nothing ever is, but it will be better then doing nothing until the country is completely bankrupted. All this tosh about it hitting just the most deserving and those at the bottom of the pile is just leftist propaganda. It's put about by those whose agenda is political, and bought into by the gullible and by those who have a vested interest in allowing f e c k less wasters to live free off the rest of us.

i repeat any cut is applied to everyone.

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

the time to target the workshy is when there are plenty of jobs. if everyone who wants a job has got one you can then put those left on a work scheme that is permanent.

I don't agree. I don't think you should be left without a roof over your head and starving if you havent got a job but again I think that benefits should just pay for the basics. I'm sure that some people would not be able to take a cut on thier benefits but that doesnt mean that those who could should be left alone.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

I am not sure why immigrants get the jobs and indigenous people don’t . I’m not that far from Aldershot and there has been a big influx of Nepalese and many of them are now working for large companies in the are and I don’t think they are being exploited.

they are often willing to work for less. they will never say no to an overtime request. they may even do overtime for no pay. they will put up with iffy health and safety. they wont be a member of a trade union. they wont stand up for themselves due to fear of losing the job etc. british workers were perfectly fine for these employers before. have we all just become incompetent and lazy? i dont think so. employers also often complain about the lack of skilled people available. yet the number of proper apprenticeships they offer has decreased massively over the last 30 years. so a lack of skilled people is their own fault.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

I've already said I don't agree with removing lha from under 25s but you can't use that as an argument to do nothing.

yes but you also cant defend what they are doing when so much of it is wrong.

donnajunkie

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't agree. I don't think you should be left without a roof over your head and starving if you havent got a job but again I think that benefits should just pay for the basics. I'm sure that some people would not be able to take a cut on thier benefits but that doesnt mean that those who could should be left alone.

how do you go about just targeting some and not others?

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

they are often willing to work for less. they will never say no to an overtime request. they may even do overtime for no pay. they will put up with iffy health and safety. they wont be a member of a trade union. they wont stand up for themselves due to fear of losing the job etc. british workers were perfectly fine for these employers before. have we all just become incompetent and lazy? i dont think so. employers also often complain about the lack of skilled people available. yet the number of proper apprenticeships they offer has decreased massively over the last 30 years. so a lack of skilled people is their own fault.

That may bee the case but the people I was refering to are working for major companies and none of that would apply to them.

StevieJ

ukcarper wrote: »

I am not sure why immigrants get the jobs and indigenous people don’t . I’m not that far from Aldershot and there has been a big influx of Nepalese and many of them are now working for large companies in the are and I don’t think they are being exploited.

They are different and have cult status, I bet they are in demand for security jobs

ukcarper

donnajunkie wrote: »

how do you go about just targeting some and not others?

Well for a start what about the example I gave. It would be very difficult to tell if someone wanted to work or didn’t so they should be given the minimum regardless. But there are categories of benefits which could be cut without putting people in genuine poverty and they should be looked at. If someone already on benefits has 3 children I don’t think they should be give another £60 a week and possibly the right to a larger house.

ukcarper

StevieJ wrote: »

They are different and have cult status, I bet they are in demand for security jobs

There does seem to be a few doing that but they are driving the buses, delivering groceries etc. I'm not sure why or if they get the jobs in preference to the locals We are in the south east and things are easier than in some other places mind you not as easy as some people would have you believe.