I'm disgusted by Osbourne jumping on the Phillpott bandwagon created by the DM

(374 Posts)
aufaniae Thu 04-Apr-13 14:18:50

So, yesterday there was outrage after the pictures of dead children were used in the most cynical way by the Daily Mail to sell the idea that welfare "scroungers" are evil, with Phillpott branded a "vile product" of the benefit system by the DM.

What's our government's response today?

George Osborne, when asked about the claims, said a debate was needed about whether the state should "subsidise lifestyles like that". link

To add insult to injury, he was visiting Derby when he said this (which is where the children lived and died).

How fucking insensitive can you get? angry

limitedperiodonly Sun 07-Apr-13 17:12:54

It's not clear flamin There was a letter circulated to staff at Walthamstow, NE London I think. It's been downplayed as the actions of one over-enthusiastic manager but the public accounts committee is looking into it.

public accounts committee

it's only someone being a bit keen

limitedperiodonly Sun 07-Apr-13 17:04:10

I'm shocked at that story darkest. I agree, if a Workfarer doesn't fulfil his or her obligations there is an obligation to report, and that's why charities should keep their beaks out, particularly, as you say, a charity that knows all about people who live chaotic, difficult lives.

I contacted the British Heart Foundation, who I've donated to in the past, to ask them to remove me from their mailing list until they'd ended their association with Workfare.

Nevertheless, they kept sending me mailshots which I kept returning in their prepaid envelopes with a note to say why.

One day one caught me in a very bad mood and I scrawled on it which probably made me look unhinged. It seems to have done the trick though.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sun 07-Apr-13 16:53:03

I heard that the Job Centres have actually been given sanction targets...does anyone else know anything about that?

Darkesteyes Sun 07-Apr-13 16:39:41

And the Job Centres and charities should not be able to cause the community worker/workfarer to get sanctioned.
At the moment there are massive conflicts of interest going on like the Salvation Army reporting a claimant to JC for a sanction causing the claimant the very hardship that the Sally Army are suppossed to be against.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sun 07-Apr-13 10:30:42

Oh and the government shouldn't' be allowed to use those on such a scheme in figures for employment - because that's just utter number fiddling bollocks.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sun 07-Apr-13 10:28:28

Limited and Darkest - I completely believe it all. I did say under certain circumstances - those circumstances being that big companies aren't benefitting from it and cutting the hours of the regular employees (or even making them redundant) and that the position is somewhere that really will do some good for society as a whole and the job actually gives the participant a real chance at gaining real skills (or new skills) that are measurable and gives them a real fighting chance at a job at the end. The way the scheme works now is simply rewarding big business - they are the only winners...and the government are also having to pay out more benefits to those who have had their hours dropped. The current incarnation seems to be beyond stupid.

Tortington Sun 07-Apr-13 10:11:02

working for not for profits what is currently called volunteering - but of course it would be compulsory. the charity would get no incentive from govt to take on jobless over others who want to volunteer.

limitedperiodonly Sun 07-Apr-13 09:50:12

What kind of work would that be custardo?

Tortington Sun 07-Apr-13 00:54:37

I actually think that you should work for your unemployment benefit. - but not in a job that you would get money for.

this scheme is not for the benefit of lazy bone idle sofa dwellers.

this scheme is for the benefit of business men. make no mistake about it

large business owners are saving shed loads.

Darkesteyes Sun 07-Apr-13 00:47:58

flamin ive read about people getting made redundant from their job and then getting sent back to same employer being made to do the same job for JSA.

And ESA claimants are being made to do indefinate workfare.

limitedperiodonly Sat 06-Apr-13 23:56:07

Really? I'm vehemently opposed to Workfare. It's not only unfair, it is economic nonsense.

If there's a job to be done, the employer should pay someone to do it. They work the wage out according to the employee's skill, experience and the fair market rate for the job. It is not the business of the government to get involved beyond having set the National Minimum Wage and the strictures of other employment legislation.

That way we take people off Jobseekers' Allowance and get them paying taxes.

Workfare benefits only those employers who want free labour and the government who want to massage unemployment figures.

It does nothing for the unemployed, the employed who may be let go to make way for free labour, the taxpayer, who is still paying the benefit bill in full, and those companies not involved in the scheme who are disadvantaged through having to pay for their labour.

If people would like to volunteer their labour that is entirely up to them. However, I would take a very dim view of any organisation using volunteers when they can and should be using salaried staff.

That includes the pernicious spread of internships which is the exploitation of young people and is largely open only to those whose parents can support them.

flaminhoopsaloolah Sat 06-Apr-13 23:18:23

I'm all for volunteering...and I|'m actually not completely against workfare - but workfare where the company is somewhere like Tescos and all they do is keep the free labour rolling in a cut existing staff hours and rarely offer a job to the "employee" at the end of what is a pointless exercise in learning basically nothing for the most part is a stupid stupid stupid idea. I have read about people who were taken out of the place they were volunteering (usually something worthwhile and where they were actually gaining valuable experience that could help them get a job that, when paying full time, paid enough to live on) and dumped into Poundland, or Argos, or Tescos...they did nothing of any value for future prospects, didn't get a job at the end of it and got rolled straight back on the treadmill. Worthless waste of time for all involved.

Mrsdoyle1 Sat 06-Apr-13 23:15:30

^ ivykaty44 Sat 06-Apr-13 22:25:06

I was reading your post and wondered whether it was the average earners that are actually contributing in real terms far more than high earners - so yes I agree with you and that was my point^

Ah, thank you, ivykaty, now I see ... sorry I didn't grasp this first time round! The figures you posted are interesting, and as there are far more average earners than those who earn above the 50% - er, I mean 45% - tax threshold, it must certainly be the less well off majority that foot a large part of the bill overall. The impact of tax on the less well off is far greater in terms of managing basic living costs, even though the actual percentage taken is smaller. In contrast, the minority of higher-rate tax payers are presumably not going to be struggling to put food on the table at £92 k (for illustration purposes), despite paying a higher tax bill, nor will they ever have to be subjected to that awful woman on 'Superscrimpers' or whatever it's called. Life really isn't fair... sad

Molehillmountain Sat 06-Apr-13 22:28:20

Not that this is about workfare specifically, but ditto, Jenny. Volunteering, community work, brilliant. Workfare? Easy and legal way to bypass n m w.

ivykaty44 Sat 06-Apr-13 22:25:06

I was reading your post and wondered whether it was the average earners that are actually contributing in real terms far more than high earners - so yes I agree with you and that was my point smile

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 21:45:52

Good for you jenny- genuinely meant, in case you think I'm being snarky.

I don't support workfare, which I'm sure won't come as surprise but agree that community and voluntary work is a brilliant way to contribute.

Mrsdoyle1 Sat 06-Apr-13 21:22:11

^ ivykaty44 Sat 06-Apr-13 19:09:22

Mrsdoyle1
The 'wealthy' in this country are currently taxed at 50% - Is it really a large chunk compared to someone earning a lot less - I wasn't sure so did a few calculations^

Apologies, ivykaty, but not quite sure why you're directing this one specifically at me....? I would be the last person to say that the average earner didn't contribute massively to the system! Or am I missing the point here? Sorry, just a bit confused! confused

jennywren45 Sat 06-Apr-13 21:09:59

I know what you mean, it's good to feel engaged rather than apathetic, cause being engaged gives you the energy and motivation to do things.

Absolutely. Which is why I strongly support volunteering, community work and workfare for those long term unemployed.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 21:04:38

I know what you mean, it's good to feel engaged rather than apathetic, cause being engaged gives you the energy and motivation to do things.

I was bought up with the idea it's important to help and to make a difference if you can so am trying to do that (also not rich but hey).

Molehillmountain Sat 06-Apr-13 20:34:29

I really hope the exciting wasn't the wrong word to use. It sounds as if I'm excited by what's happening-I'd rather be content, slightly bored and not be feeling politicised because then perhaps it would mean people weren't having such a crap time.

Molehillmountain Sat 06-Apr-13 20:31:53

It's good to know that flippingada. I feel I'm getting so much clearer in what I fundamentally believe as a direct result of seeing what this government is doing. Actually-not so much what it's doing but the spirit in which it is doing it. It's quite an exciting time fur me and I want to do something useful with the strong feelings I have. I'm not in the position to be a rich philanthropist, sadly, but I do need to do something to at least set my children a good example of how to balance living your life for your family and their immediate needs and doing something to, in some small way, to stand up and be counted. Not accept the status quo and all that.

flippinada Sat 06-Apr-13 19:55:08

Molehill like you I had a big long post typed out then deleted it all because some people will just never "get" it.

Agree with everything you have said.

Molehillmountain Sat 06-Apr-13 19:50:44

Most of the great philanthropists came from privileged backgrounds. Not a problem. People need to be wealthy enough to have time and money to spare. The important thing is they also have to recognise their good fortune and its inherent unfairness for want of a better word. Then, they go and do something about it. I don't think you have to live in sack cloth to prove you care. You just have to wish and work for better for those who have t got as much as you, and crucially,not feel more entitled to what you have than anyone. Yes, it gets more complicated than that. But I feel that the prevailing attitude is shifting from supporting people to achieve more to shaming them into it. With the fallout of many feeling unfairly judged and others feeling completely smug.
Why don't we set up some moral value added system, a bit like the school league tables value added measure, to ask how well we've all done from where we started? There might be some surprisingly low scores from some folk heaped with privilege.

Viviennemary Sat 06-Apr-13 19:36:12

A lot of Labour politicians come from extremely priviledged backgrounds. And champagne socialist types with very left wing pie in the sky views have put me off the Labour party. I don't like Milliband. And I don't like the fact that the only labour policies are to disagree with almost everything the government does. It's not very convincing. I do want to see reform to the welfare state and some sort of cap on benefits to prevent people raking in thousands a month.

Molehillmountain Sat 06-Apr-13 19:26:12

Great link. Made me want to jump up and down and say "exactly". Typed a couple of paragraphs and deleted several times so I obviously can't articulate what I feel about the unfairness of the current view of benefits and poverty. But it seems to be heading back to the idea that the poor are somehow morally inferior to the rich. I can't pin it down exactly. But luck, good and bad, seem to have very little place in it all whereas I think they are critical and central,

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now