Is this likely to happen? Benefit related.

[littlemisssarcastic]

And where would it end?? Is this just the start of a slippery slope ?

Outraged But if they were allowed to withdraw some cash they'd still be able to buy "luxuries"

In which case it would have achieved sweet fuck all. Apart from stigmatising the ones who are trying their hardest.

" I do know a girl who has chosen it because to her, it does seem like an attractive prospect." She'll quickly find out it isn't so attractive!

Why should vasts swathes of people who would desperately love to be in regular employment be penalised because of some silly young girl or people like her?

Please don't forget there are not enough jobs to go round. and we are in a recession!

I've got an idea. How about we focus on job creation, so those who want genuinely want work (i.e. most people on work-related benefits) get it. Rather than punishing everyone at a time of recession for the perceived actions of a few?

Honestly? I don't actually care much if a silly young girl goes on to benefits because she thinks it's a good idea. I'm much more concerned about the vast swathes of unemployed people who want a job. What is being done about creating employment for them?

Nothing as far as I can tell. Issuing cards will punish the poor, it won't help anyone.

We should be talking about job creation. This is a red herring; it's classic divide and rule. The Tories seem to think you create jobs by making life on benefits even more miserable. But it's nonsense! That would only be possible if there were more jobs than people, but the reverse is true.

Here's an idea. How about we embark on a program of building of social housing? It will create jobs, it would be an investment for the tax payer (from the rent) and it would bring down the extortionate cost of housing in this country, cutting the housing benefit bill while actually helping people.

Why are we not hearing about policies like this? All that this government have to offer is more restrictions / misery for people who are already struggling, and policies which will generate profit for large private companies.

I just looked up Universal credit. I didn't know it was going to replace Housing benefit. I am beginning to see now why people are worried.

I'm much more concerned about the vast swathes of unemployed people who want a job

They aren't the people that would have to be targeted with a change like this.

You do know that if this did happen it wouldn't happen before next year when all unemployment and top up benefits will be universal credit, don't you?

But it isn't going to happen, so there is no point in saying that if it does then X will happen. It's a hypothetical policy, so I can be hypothetical about who would be targeted.

You are assuming it would be linked to a benefit, rather then linked to an individuals history, and I don't think you need to do that.

No, Fredo, it is not a separate issue to the OP.

My point is this, people need jobs, jobs are being cut. They need jobs not welfare cards. The state is shrinking. Either we employ people to deal with the attendant social decline created by unemployment and poverty or we use the DWP to restructure society through benefits (cards to prevent spending on drugs etc). Should it be the work of the DWP to decide how people spend their money, yes or no and in what way will this create jobs.

They don't want to bring down the cost of housing because too much of the surplus capital is invested into housing to make greater profits for the wealthy, the bankers, shareholders.

Housing benefit needs to be attacked in a different way. The big problem with housing benefit is private landlords. If social housing was more plentiful, and controlled by governments, then the bill would also be controlled.

As soon as the private housing market is brought in, the bills rocket.

I've already said that its nit all about creating jobs!

Creating jobs is important and much needed, obviously, but I don't see what that has to do with changing the way long term unemployed, troubled families receive their benefits.

Like I said earlier, even when there are jobs, people are choosing not to take them because a life on benefits is equally attractive.

This is about making that choice of lifestyle less attractive so that when there are jobs, people choose to take them.

How do you propose to do that?

"It's a hypothetical policy, so I can be hypothetical about who would be targeted."

It's a proposal. AFAIK it doesn't mention anything about targeting.

You're straying into the realms of fantasy now!

I'm backing out of this argument now, you don't seem to grasp that this government are making very real changes which will affect real people and society as a whole. This proposal has come from someone within that government. It's significant because it shows what their thinking is. This is more than a hypothetical conversation - the government's welfare reforms will be hugely damaging, in reality, not in a hypothetical debate.

I'm delighted this particular policy is unlikely to become policy now, but I can't shake the feeling that they're testing the water. If it seemed popular perhaps it could become policy in a few years.

I agree with building social housing, as long as it is owned by councils. housing associations have turned down repeated FOI requests because it is believed they have huge holes in the balance sheets, because they operate like monopolies borrowing money to buy up smaller associations. Of course they then lobby to increase rents to within a few percent of private LL. Similar to the fiasco with southern cross. I wonder if the banks that are too big to fail would go after them if the Government didn't step in and bail the banks out, they would have to foreclose, not just on the little people but on HA too.

"This is about making that choice of lifestyle less attractive so that when there are jobs, people choose to take them. "

That's a fallacy!

Jobs are not going unfilled because people are choosing to stay on benefits. Do you think they are?

Life on benefits is already unattractive (have you ever done it?)

There are more unemployed than vacancies. You can make life as miserable as you like for those on benefits, it won't make any difference to the fact that the jobs aren't there.

It's basic maths!

It's true that one person (the silly girl you mentioned earlier for example) may choose not to apply for a job, but all that means is that there will be one person fewer applying for that job. The position will be quickly snapped up by someone who does want it.

Making life more miserable for people on benefits won't affect the total number of people on benefits, only job creation can do that - can't you see that?

It' all rather chicken and egg isn't it freddo. How about rather than waiting for these jobs to be created by a private sector that is loathe to employ because it eats their profits, how about WE create jobs. BUT we (the state) are actually laying people off.

Just think about something as simple as the state of the roads. many are full of pot holes, they need fixing. Now you can award a contract or you can employ people. the long term pay back for employing peoples is lower debt to GDP ratio. That;s more people in work, more people spending money which in turn creates more demand and more jobs and no more pot holes.

Its not how much money is in the economy but how quickly and efficiently it moves through many hands.....that is what creates wealth and meets needs. Even people who are pro capitalism can tell you that.....why else deregulate the flow of capital. the problem is it flows in one direction because the state is (or rather was) the only thing that stands between you and corporatism. The job of the state should always be to work in the interests of the people not in the interests of business.

No, I don't think that jobs are going unfilled because people are choosing not to take them. I didn't say that at all.

I know job creation is important. I already said that. But I also already said that even when there are plenty of jobs, there are still people that will choose not to go for them. Government policy needs to look to the future as well as concentrate on the here and now, and we need to be prepared for what may come, even if what my come is overall success.

Hopefully, our economy will recover and there will be enough jobs to go round. When/if that time comes, we need to ensure that everyone who can work does work. We need to ensure that life on benefits is attractive to nobody. And whether you are prepared to admit it or not, at the moment, we have people on benefits who have actively chosen that lifestyle.

The silly girl I mentioned earlier will still exist, there will be more like her come along if something doesn't change.

So what do you think should change? Because doing nothing at all isn't acceptable to many many taxpayers, and they deserve to have their views taken into consideration too.

The state is laying people off because they employed more people than they could afford to. They employed those people on someone else's money. It was unsustainable.

I'd be all for the government employing more people, but we need to stop spending the money we borrow on other countries problems first.

Fredo, do you like reading? I would recommend the Enigma of capital. Jobs are not going to be created in the private sector in a post industrial society, you are living in a fantasy land if you think that full employment is possible or even desirable under capitalism.

I have experience with shared ownership and a housing association.

Its a great concept and one that has a lot of potential. HOWEVER that potential is being massively ignored and not fully exploited. It worked for us but there are a lot of flaws - some schemes are better than others, its poorly regulated to protect home owners, they are complicated and no one knows much about them including mortgage lenders.

And oh my God dealing with our housing association! I think describing them as a chocolate teapot would be kind. We were initially told that our property was valued at £50k less than it was 4 years previously for starters (it wasn't) and the icing on the cake was when they tried to charge us rent on the property AFTER we had bought them out. I don't know a single person who has had a better experience with them.

So I'm inclined to say, that expanding the power of housing associations isn't a good move until you actually start tackling the existing problems with them, and since expanding social housing is being particularly shared ownership this is very important. Until you start making sure its properly regulated and far, far more transparent, you'll just be saving up on another ticking timebomb.

I'd consider us to have an understanding of economics and finance to be way above average. We bought our house anticipating the crash in 2008 (though if you listen to Mr Brown, no one was able to do this though. I find him pretty contemptible for that level of incompetant) and we both feel that we were caught out by certain aspects of shared ownership. So how someone who got less than a C at GCSE maths is supposed to understand stuff like this, I have no idea.

Which brings me back to a really important point. How many of you were taught budgeting and money management at school? And how many people on benefits tend to be more likely to have struggled with maths in the first place? And the solution to the problem being proposed is to once again penalise them for this, make the system more complex, restrictive and difficult when perhaps its the system thats failed them in the first place.

Ridiculous! - next they'll be banning them from buying chocolate as it's not necessary or healthy!

"Hopefully, our economy will recover and there will be enough jobs to go round."

Sorry but PMSL! You really do have a very poor understanding of how things actually work in the real world.

There weren't enough jobs to go round before the recession, and there won't be after!

My point about the silly girl, is that as long as there are not enough jobs to go round, it is irrelevant whether a minority of people are choosing to be on benefits or not as it makes no difference to the overall total of employed, or the cost to the tax payer. When there are not enough jobs to go round, many people will be unemployed. Does it really matter whether some of those unemployed people are choosing to be there or not? It makes no difference to you or me. The numbers will be the same, whatever their motivations are.

Can you understand that?

Or are you really saying that you won't be happy until the system is deliberately designed that people on benefits are living a miserable life - even the majority who don't want to be there?

That's absolutely inhumane and totally short sighted.

I know a small town (I won't name it) where most people are unemployed, and many aren't actively looking for work.

It's my ex's family's town. It's in a beautiful part of the countryside up North, and the major employer used to be the mine. The mine closed in the 80s, it may still be a beautiful little town, but there's fuck all there now. Its geography means it's fairly isolated. The younger generation growing up there don't remember when people were generally employed there. Many of them "choose" to be on the dole as they're not job hunting. However the problems there are complex and deep seated and require creative solutions.

I don't see how penalising those people even more is going to improve their lives or mine! If they "get on their bikes" (as some do) to look for jobs, that's not creating jobs, that's just taking a job from someone else who would have got it.

It's already a truly depressing place and I never want to go there again. The people there are not living a life of riley on the dole! It's a miserable existence, although out of pride I doubt many of them would admit that!

Why don't the bastards just bring back workhouses and be done with it.
The demonising of the poor continues...

Does it really matter whether some of those unemployed people are choosing to be there or not?

Yes, actually. I think it does matter. People who choose not to be part of society are a cost to society in more ways than just what is paid out in benefits. They bring up children to have no aspiration, to become disengaged, who may then turn to drugs and other crimes. They might behave anti socially and have a negative impact on other people who are just going about their ordinary lives. They tend to make unhealthy choices in life because of their lack of aspiration and because they feel they have nothing to live for, and that costs us via the NHS, something that we all rely on.

I understand that there will never be 100% employment and that's fine. People making an active choice to opt out of society is not fine, because it affects other people.

Only just seen this thread as i was out last night but Ghostship theres no way youve seen people cashing giros many times because giros have been phased out so maybe youve seen one ot two but not "many". You are exaggerrating to fit your agenda.

Oh and Ghostship as you are on minimum wage you are one of the "working poor" You are proof that the rhetoric to turn people in different groups against each other.
How about thinking for yourself instead of believing everything you read in the right wing press.
Thinking outside the box is something that is highly prized by decent employers you know! Just saying.

You are proof that the rhetoric to turn people in different groups against each other is working.
(sorry have to type and post quickly as Talk Talk connection is so crap)

Maybe she is thinking for herself, and just happens to disagree with all the leftie socialists on here.

It is very patronising, ignorant, and short sighted to think that anyone who doesn't think the same as you must be being negatively influenced by right wing press.

Maybe Ghost has the opinions she does because of her own experiences? Like I do.