The gathering storm ...

[DoubleD]

Human beings have an innate value. They are inherently deserving simply by 'being'. That's what sets us as different to much of the rest of the animal kingdom. The alternative is barbarism. Do you genuinely believe that there are people who are willingly sitting at home having a good life on 70 quid a week?

 

It's a lot more than that when you factor in housing and child benefit.

 

And you have not responded to any of the questions I raised.

[Wolford6]

Indeed. Can happen and has happened to the best of us. Warning of Redundancy

 

As of the 4th January I am one of those "spongers", claiming the grand sum of £73.10 per week (though still waiting to received a single penny).

 

And if you were an immigrant with no skills, no home  and no English, you'd probably get a shedload more.

[WearyRhino]

And if you were an immigrant with no skills, no home  and no English, you'd probably get a shedload more.

 

No you would not.

[JohnM]

Indeed. Can happen and has happened to the best of us. Warning of Redundancy

 

As of the 4th January I am one of those "spongers", claiming the grand sum of £73.10 per week (though still waiting to received a single penny).

 

How's it going?

 

http://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php/topic/275961-warning-of-redundancy/?p=3250123

[Roughyhead true]

Why shouldn't people be allowed to dip into their pension pots? If grown adults can't be responsible for managing their own money then I really worry what the world is coming to

Must be so difficult being perfect. Where do you keep the axe you have to constantly grind

[Roughyhead true]

How's it going?

http://www.totalrl.com/forums/index.php/topic/275961-warning-of-redundancy/?p=3250123

It can happen to anyone and so quickly. I hope things get better for you.

[Roughyhead true]

And if you were an immigrant with no skills, no home and no English, you'd probably get a shedload more.

Here we go stand by people he"a revving up.

The worlds problems are all to do with those damn foreigners.

[JohnM]

that is NOTwhat he is saying, as you well know.

[Saintslass]

Human beings have an innate value. They are inherently deserving simply by 'being'. That's what sets us as different to much of the rest of the animal kingdom. The alternative is barbarism. Do you genuinely believe that there are people who are willingly sitting at home having a good life on 70 quid a week?

Of course there aren't.  There is a thriving black economy and families get far more than '70 quid a week'.  Here in St helens there are third generation - THIRD generation - unemployed families.  That isn't me making stuff up; that is a recognised problem in the town, and indeed in towns up and down the land, who have passed down the dependency on benefits to their children.  I have a cousin who is now in his forties and he has held down one job in his entire life, and not for that long.  Meanwhile he has fathered four children by four different mothers and all but one of those mothers has been on benefits throughout the upbringing of their children.  Two of the mothers have multiple children by different fathers and the state has paid for all of them to go through their childhood.  How is that a good thing?  And that is just one family example (my cousin stands out in my wider family as everyone else has held down employment for most if not all of their working lives).

[WearyRhino]

Of course there aren't.  There is a thriving black economy and families get far more than '70 quid a week'.  Here in St helens there are third generation - THIRD generation - unemployed families.  That isn't me making stuff up; that is a recognised problem in the town, and indeed in towns up and down the land, who have passed down the dependency on benefits to their children.  I have a cousin who is now in his forties and he has held down one job in his entire life, and not for that long.  Meanwhile he has fathered four children by four different mothers and all but one of those mothers has been on benefits throughout the upbringing of their children.  Two of the mothers have multiple children by different fathers and the state has paid for all of them to go through their childhood.  How is that a good thing?  And that is just one family example (my cousin stands out in my wider family as everyone else has held down employment for most if not all of their working lives).

 

Absolute rubbish.

[Saintslass]

Absolute rubbish.

I don't live in Glasgow or Middlesborough.  However, I have worked for Social Services in St Helens and Warrington and so having worked with families who are third generation unemployed, I actually know for a fact that what I said is not 'absolute rubbish'.  It is a reality.  It isn't a common reality; but it is a reality.

[Griff9of13]

I don't live in Glasgow or Middlesborough. However, I have worked for Social Services in St Helens and Warrington and so having worked with families who are third generation unemployed, I actually know for a fact that what I said is not 'absolute rubbish'. It is a reality. It isn't a common reality; but it is a reality.

From everything I've seen that is probably the best description of the situation; it does happen, but it's pretty rare.

[bowes]

I think the German welfare model is better as it looks after people who've contributed to the system well but on the flip side anyone who hasn't contributed gets the bare minimum to survive and given a job to do at the first opportunity (often through government receuitment agencies) which means you can't be long term unemployed

[ckn]

I think the German welfare model is better as it looks after people who've contributed to the system well but on the flip side anyone who hasn't contributed gets the bare minimum to survive and given a job to do at the first opportunity (often through government receuitment agencies) which means you can't be long term unemployed

The problem with much of our current system is that genuine job seekers are lumped in with those who are clearly trying not to work.  My view is quite clear, if you've paid enough to fit into the old style contributions based benefit then you should be able to reject roles and be fussy until your contributions run out, there was one story I read a couple of months ago (can't find it now!) where someone was sanctioned in his second week of claiming benefits after decades of full employment because he refused to go interview for a wildly unsuitable job.  Picking on those who WON'T work is completely different from those who have years of experience in one trade and want to continue in it.

[MattSantos]

Why should my taxes go towards someone who hasn't contributed to society?

 

If i earn more money than you, should my taxes be spent on you?

 

There's certain sections who would love another crash so they can blame Osborne, the same section who get all het up and scream GLOBAL RECESSION whenever it's pointed out that it was "no more boom and bust" Brown who drove this country over a cliff.

 

The bear market we're in is not the fault of Osbourne, neither was 2008 the fault of Brown. How we are structured in regards to our fiscal plan is. 

[Griff9of13]

The problem with much of our current system is that genuine job seekers are lumped in with those who are clearly trying not to work. My view is quite clear, if you've paid enough to fit into the old style contributions based benefit then you should be able to reject roles and be fussy until your contributions run out, there was one story I read a couple of months ago (can't find it now!) where someone was sanctioned in his second week of claiming benefits after decades of full employment because he refused to go interview for a wildly unsuitable job. Picking on those who WON'T work is completely different from those who have years of experience in one trade and want to continue in it.

Thus far my experience couldn't be further from the one you describe. I have been "signing on" for 3 weeks now and I have to say everyone I've been in contact with at Southport Job Centre have been very supportive and even empathetic. I suppose, like many of these things, it is something of a lottery as to where you end up and the way they behave.

[Saint Toppy]

The problem with much of our current system is that genuine job seekers are lumped in with those who are clearly trying not to work.  My view is quite clear, if you've paid enough to fit into the old style contributions based benefit then you should be able to reject roles and be fussy until your contributions run out, there was one story I read a couple of months ago (can't find it now!) where someone was sanctioned in his second week of claiming benefits after decades of full employment because he refused to go interview for a wildly unsuitable job.  Picking on those who WON'T work is completely different from those who have years of experience in one trade and want to continue in it.

I pretty much agree with you that those who have paid in should get a bit more leeway when it comes to finding another suitable job where as those that haven't should be forced to take work regardless of whether its exactly what they want or not. The system i'd like to see for all UK citizens is that for every full year of employment you've had and been contributing to the system you should be allowed 1 week extra over and above the bottom threshold to find other suitable work and be able to claim benefits. So if you've worked for say 10 years, whether that be in a £15K job or a £50K job you should be entitled to an extra 10 weeks of unemployment benefits over and above someone who has never contributed.

 

Without wanting to get into the whole immigration debate I actually partially agree with the Tories on restricting non-British citizen benefits until they've contributed a certain amount into the system to start with.

[DoubleD]

Just saving that one for posterity.

 

On 20th January 2005, the FTSE 100 index closed at 5672, it's currently at 5692.  That's down from a high of 7103 just before the general election last year.

 

The FTSE100 was overbought at 7103, in part due to the low interest environment, which made people look for more attractive returns such as in housing or shares. In reality the FTSE100 shouldn't really rise significantly over the long term. If it does then it shows there's a significant lack of competition in the economy and the top 100 companies have monopolies in their markets whereby they can make continuingly excessive profits.

 

The media are so thick and clueless they continue focusing on the FTSE100 when in reality it is a poor representation of the wider stock market. A better overview would be to look at the AIM market. Even the FTSE 350 would be better.

 

The stock market of course though is not a true representation of how the economy is performing, it is merely a representation of confidence of investors

[bowes]

The problem with much of our current system is that genuine job seekers are lumped in with those who are clearly trying not to work.  My view is quite clear, if you've paid enough to fit into the old style contributions based benefit then you should be able to reject roles and be fussy until your contributions run out, there was one story I read a couple of months ago (can't find it now!) where someone was sanctioned in his second week of claiming benefits after decades of full employment because he refused to go interview for a wildly unsuitable job.  Picking on those who WON'T work is completely different from those who have years of experience in one trade and want to continue in it.

In Germany whilst you're on contributory benefit you're only expected to apply for jobs that pay more than a certain percentage of your old salary (this percentage goes down over time until you run out of contributions).

 

But yeah there is a big problem here with lack of a differential that exists in most other countries. Universal Credit has a tougher sanctions regime than contribution based JSA, although that doesn't change the fact they're too tough on people who've worked and lost their job. It's even worse than that actually, people on income based benefits can gets lots of hand outs that people on contribution based benefits are denied.

[Derwent]

From everything I've seen that is probably the best description of the situation; it does happen, but it's pretty rare.

 

I think it probably occurs in clusters and in certain specific areas. It'd be rare in some towns/areas but fairly common in others. My mother in law lives on one of the roughest estates in Newcastle (Byker Wall) and there are loads of extended families there who are welfare dependent and quite happy to be so. In fact many see the benefits as being their drink money and make their living by other less legal means. The estate is awash with cheap counterfeit cigarettes and booze, stolen goods etc and that's before you get into the drug dealing. Yet go a couple of miles up the road and there probably wouldn't be such a welfare dependent culture. So while its true to say it is not a widespread problem I also think it is true to say it is a problem in specific areas.

[Just Browny]

I think it probably occurs in clusters and in certain specific areas. It'd be rare in some towns/areas but fairly common in others. My mother in law lives on one of the roughest estates in Newcastle (Byker Wall) and there are loads of extended families there who are welfare dependent and quite happy to be so. In fact many see the benefits as being their drink money and make their living by other less legal means. The estate is awash with cheap counterfeit cigarettes and booze, stolen goods etc and that's before you get into the drug dealing. Yet go a couple of miles up the road and there probably wouldn't be such a welfare dependent culture. So while its true to say it is not a widespread problem I also think it is true to say it is a problem in specific areas.

 

The rot set in once Geoff died.

 

I think most people are agreeing in general, and the reality is that the more sensible, pragmatic Jobcentre+ staff have been able to draw the distinction between real jobseekers and dependents for a long time. Government crackdowns probably alienate those experienced staff - who leave - and the negative effect is felt on those people who do want to find a job.

 

Sadly, The Sun and co are able to draw out the worst examples and give the impression that the problem is far more widespread than it is.

[ckn]

Thus far my experience couldn't be further from the one you describe. I have been "signing on" for 3 weeks now and I have to say everyone I've been in contact with at Southport Job Centre have been very supportive and even empathetic. I suppose, like many of these things, it is something of a lottery as to where you end up and the way they behave.

Undoubtedly there are still plenty of places where they do their damnedest to actually help people, but, as others have noted, they're becoming harder to find.

[Saintslass]

Thus far my experience couldn't be further from the one you describe. I have been "signing on" for 3 weeks now and I have to say everyone I've been in contact with at Southport Job Centre have been very supportive and even empathetic. I suppose, like many of these things, it is something of a lottery as to where you end up and the way they behave.

The staff at St Helens Jobcentre have been equally supportive whenever I have had a spell of unemployment. 

[Saintslass]

In Germany whilst you're on contributory benefit you're only expected to apply for jobs that pay more than a certain percentage of your old salary (this percentage goes down over time until you run out of contributions).

 

But yeah there is a big problem here with lack of a differential that exists in most other countries. Universal Credit has a tougher sanctions regime than contribution based JSA, although that doesn't change the fact they're too tough on people who've worked and lost their job. It's even worse than that actually, people on income based benefits can gets lots of hand outs that people on contribution based benefits are denied.

UC has made my Jobcentre a far more pleasant environment as people no longer formally sign on but attend 'intervention' chats (they can hardly be called interviews!).  The key to UC is to remember always to let them know whether you are working or not working so that the amendments can be made to UC payments in good time.  Turning up for interventions is equally important and sickness aside, there is no excuse not to.

[Trojan]

UC has made my Jobcentre a far more pleasant environment as people no longer formally sign on but attend 'intervention' chats (they can hardly be called interviews!).  The key to UC is to remember always to let them know whether you are working or not working so that the amendments can be made to UC payments in good time.  Turning up for interventions is equally important and sickness aside, there is no excuse not to.

I was unemployed very briefly in 1996 and for three months in 2009/10. On both occasions I found that the Jobcentre staff seemed to see their job as to threaten you with loss of your benefit if you didn't do exactly as they wanted.

In 1996 for example on my first visit to the Jobcentre, I was asked what I had done about finding a job, I had been knowingly unemployed for less than 24 hours. As it happened I was meeting colleagues later that week to discuss a management buyout of our former employer. The Jobcentre response?  What are you going to do between now and then to find a job.  Basically just bullying.