OK - Britain is a small country

[friskyfox]

So why are we taking in more immigrants? We now have an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians coming here. Before anyone calls me racist or the like, I am 100% not. It just annoys me because we are a tiny country. Why are countries like Australia, NZ, USA, and Canada more selective and Britain is not.
thelink

Oh yes there's a cycle of benefit dependence. It goes like this (we've been on benefits when DH was ill, and I've worked with many of the people here reviled)

the cycles vary, here's a few:

You can't get a job or lose yours- you have low self esteem- you get depression - you end up on the sick

You can't get or lose your job- after some time you get another- you won't be paid for six weeks yet you still need food / petrol etc- you can't afford to take job- you're on benefits

You can't get or lose your job- the stess causes your relationship to break down- you're alone at home with with the kids, can't afford to pay the deposit on childcare / or book it six months in advance (the minimum for after school round here)- you can't work- you're on benefits

You can't get a job or you lose yours- everythinga round you has also closed down- there are no jobs (I mentor kids in tredegar, I've seen that A LOT)

yes OK there's lazy bastards out there who oculd work and can't be arsed but to tar everyione with the same brush in such a complex situation is bizarre and wrong. When we were on benefits (six months) DH was too ill to work, I was initially heavily PG then unable to leave kids with him because of his illness. We hated it, there was no alternative though bar not eating

If you wouldn't mind my children and clear litter on my road for the £57 in the brave new world which is workfare in quite a few countries/US states then you'd starve. Faced with that you'd be out with the litter picker.

Part of me thought this but I would never have said it!!

OK, so is there a way to make sure benefits go to those that need it, and not to those that are just lazy?

Either you give them to everyone regardless of income which is simple and you then save all those jobs at benefits agencies etc too and check and lies and cheating. Or you make everyone work for them even if it's just stuffing envelopes at home. This Govenrment was supposed to be calling all single parenst once their children were 5 to an interview to get them back into work but I doubt it's been effective. There seemed to be married women who found however hard it was they had to work to keep the famioyl going once the children go to school and single mothers who thought it easiest not to work even when the children were in school.

Our benefit system is something I'm vaguely proud of. Our local rural economy relies on migrant workers - no-one local wants to pluck turkeys or pick carrots.

I think part of the problem with the benefits cycle is that if you come from a certain area you grow up with no hope. Then when migrant families come in without any pre-conceptions and do well the locals get pissed off. Surely the end to this is to give back communities real hope of sustainable jobs - though if someone can tell me how that'd be good. And it's not just urban areas that suffer.

how did a thread which started with false assumptions about EU enlargment turn into a thread about workfare (forcing people to work for benefits)?

xenia: do you mean we should give benefits to absolutely everyone regardless of income? If so I kind of see your point but it would be a) expensive and b) a really good way to increase the difference between rich and poor even more and therefore a very bad idea. Your second idea is an even worse one: you'd have to either give people completely meaningless work, which is bad for their health, or you'd have to effectively put them on community service, thus treating them like criminals. rather Victorian don't you think?

as it goes though the interview thing Labour talked about - the "new deal" - was never supposed to be about forcing people into work, but rather helping and encouraging them. It has been moderately successful I think.

nearlythree: in my (admitedly fairly limited) experience, the benefit-not working spiral isn't caused by a lack of jobs, but rather by gaps in education. It's about people not seeing other ways to live their lives, and not seeing that jobs can be enjoyable.

I'm not sure that's particularly related to immigration problems though. I think the main problem there is housing - and that affects most workers as well as people on benefits.

I agree, senora. I think that is the point I was trying to make - that there is an attitude that there is no point trying to get good qualifications/go to university etc 'because you come from xxx estate' or 'yyyy district'. And our rubbish education system just perpetuates that. So then the only options are dead end jobs or the sick. My mum comes from such a background but got out thanks to the grammar school system.

I did see an interesting thing with Matthew Parris speculating that the Gov. encourages 'going on the sick' esp. medication for depression b/c it is cheaper than trying to rectify the problems, keeps unemployment down and pacifies people that o/wise have rreasons to be very angry.

our education system does perpetuate it, but imo it only does that because it still has remnants of the old grammar school system. the grammar school system doesn't help the 90% who don't pass the 11+

I think the track of the thread changed when the people who claimed that Britains problems would be solved by halting all immigration had their opinions pointed out as unhelpful .
Not sure that workfare is the answer though

I don't advocate the grammar school system at all, although it allowed my mum to have a very different life from the one her parents had. But I don't advocate the comprehensive system either, having been failed by it myself.

now there's the thing, nearlythree: you don't sound like you've been failed by it to me. You have posted well thought out, well written arguments and could (I'm guessing) get a job doing something fairly rewarding. or did you have extensive private tuition?

Yes, it could be expensive to give everyone £100 or £200 a week. I am not sure how many people are over 18 in the UK but would that sum be higher than the sum total of state pensions, disability allowances, child benefit, tax credits, job seeker's allowance, materntiy pay plus the cost of all those people who administer those benefits? We may need to put up tax to pay for that but I think it would be a price worth paying. It might also help mothers who want to stay home with their children because then they are effectively getting their money regardless of their husband's income. Also helps older people who save and save and then get their pension compared with those who don't save a penny and then get paid money to make up for that by the state.

On workfare bring it on. Why shouldn't people work for benefits? It works fine in other countries. We always appreciate what we have to work for. Obviously if people instead save up money in the bank to cover them if they are not working they would not then have to claim the benefits or do the work fare.

hangover subsided now - here are my circumstances =

double graduate in Biomedical science and then occupational therapy, single mum to one under 2,unable to get work in the last year in the NHS.

I have finally been offered a parttime job as an OT and through my lonep arent advisor I will be "rewarded" for getting into work with a job grant. Lucky me! Surely it would have been better to support me in my previous full time job that I had to leave because I couldn't maintain a flat, bills and childcare costs on my salary?

put up tax to help0 mothers who want to stay at home? - surely while I've been on benefits thats exactly what it has allowed me to do? or would it only allow a double income family to loose one income?

xenia: er, yes. and you'd still need to pay some of those other benefits, or are you saying we should pay the same amount to a single 18 year old as to a single mother of 4?

I haven't offered my services to David Cameron yet so not sat down with my calculatorl... but yes. What is the most a single parent who doesn't work who has say 4 children gets a week including housing benefit, child benefit and state benefits?

something like 400-500 a week (more in some cases), plus council tax benefit and free school meals. so to be really fair you'd have to give everyone 500 a week. not possible. I don't even think 200 a week is possible.

my suggestion was that anyone who got benefits did something to 'earn' it, rather than just take money.
everyone can do something: sahm who can't afford to work beacuse chilcare is more than their salary would be could stuff envelopes at home for charities or something similar. those with physical limitations could read to the blind/ visit with the elderly etc
everyone can do SOMETHING.

not all jobs need a degree. education is not the answer to everything, and the poor education system in the uk is not an excuse not to work.

I've stacked shelves, waited on tables and did endless babysitting: there is always a way to earn money, if you really want to.

It does nobody any good to just accept money if you are in a position to do something to earn it. If you can't work - and there are reasons why some people can't - then that is what the welfare system is for - to give help when it is needed. Not to shore up those who would rather not.

and the system here is fatally flawed when it's more economical not to work.

everyone on mumsnet is reasonably intelligent: we are computer literate, and not so poor that we can't afford both a computer and internet connections. the world does not owe us a living - we are the lucky ones here, we have massive advantages.

Xenia I am quite shocked that you included disabled poeple in here- I have some understanding of the unemployed theories even if I fail to be convinced by them; attacking disability benefits is another things entirely- if someone through no fault of their own can never work (and I realise that people automatically think of the bad back so I won't work brigade but disabled includes people with disabilities sosevere they can barelye xist unaided, or can't cope with the pressures of work for very real reasons). Surely someone who has no chance has a right to a better existence than those who do choose- the current benefits allows (albeit moderately) for this distinction.

'everyone can do SOMETHING.'

not true, some people really cannot do anything. At all. Someone with severe mental health issues, severe disability- yes most people can do something its true (I do wonder how many jobs would be lost to this sort of scheme- many charities employ poeple to do the envelope stuffing for example) but not EVERYONE

Why was I attacking disability benefit? Although loads of people on that are a huge load of lying scroungers by the way as we all know. It's a priority Blair area as well.
I was saying we all get paid the same so the disabled obviously get the money too.

If some on benefits get £400 a week and I'm suggesting £200 then may be my plan wouldn't work. What if we abolished all tax allowances single person allowance, tax relief for pensions etc and all that stupid complication which keeps accountants in work and just said you get your £400 a week if you're over 18 whatever your circumstances and then for every penny you earn over that you pay 25% combined tax and NI up to a maximum of £100k tax/NI a year?

Or if we're going down the workfare line I am sure there are some jobs those at home can do who can't move very well at computers or at desks - envelope stuffing which I do from time to time etc.

sorry I'm multi postig but anyway

'everyone on mumsnet is reasonably intelligent: we are computer literate, and not so poor that we can't afford both a computer and internet connections. the world does not owe us a living - we are the lucky ones here, we have massive advantages. '

Agreed, to an extent. But not everyone here is equal. I am fortunate not to be on benefits (I am on a student income, most of which I will pay back) but I have SN kids, and cannot get childcare. By cannot, I mean social services have banned ds1 from access due to his aggression. If I were to need a job how would you propose I manage that then? That's the thing you see: yes, its possible and I can see huge advantages in schemes offering work experience to claimants and the like, but the infrastructure would have to change massively first. SS would need to make adequate provision for my kids,s omething they cannot do, DS1 doesn't even qualify for help atm and DS3 doesn't even ahve a dx because he's stuck on a waiting list somewhere. Now, as it happens if I came into some money (won't happen) i'd love to set up a childcare famility for SN kids so the Mum's can go back to work, lots would love to work, have some existence of their choosing. But theyc an't they get bogged down and written off.

Yes OK tightern the benefits rules, but with compassiona ndunderstanding that not everyone has a life that is so simple you can just geta carer and work. You have to be able t find a carer, leta lone one that takes SN kids or whatever.

Actually Xenia I diod acknowedge the lyng disability benefits groups in my post. My point is the ones who genuinely cannot do anything. Somone with severe autism who cannot talk or even know whern there is someone in the room for example, someone with terminal illess (they get DLA), someone whose depression is so bad they cannot get out of bed.

Most disabled people want to work, and can of course. Someone with agoraphobia or aspergers might (they of course may) not hold down a job well in an office but at home would be fine. The point I amde is for the most severely disabled- those whose welfare really is the responsinility of all of us.

BTW, DLA is payable from about 3 months old, not 18 years. Without it though we couldn't afford DS1's therapy, special diets, extra clothing, repairs to damage to the house etc. That would ned to be taken into account somehow.

I don't actually agree that the education system in this country is that poor for those who want to learn.
What we need to get to the bottom of is why, in a state run education system, kids from low income areas generally don't achieve as well as kids in state schools from middle class areas, when the opportunities for learning are equal to all.

I believe there is a negative mindset toward learning in this country amongst a growing majority of the population and their kids, who generally believe that you can get what you want without working for it. Being clever is not something kids aspire to. How we go about tackling this is beyond me though.

Did anyone watch 'The Secret Millionaire'? Priceless example of this - a 15yo girl being interviewed and said her idols were Jade Goody and Jordan
Now, i'm not expecting a teenager to look up to Stephen Hawking, but to have picked two idols who are so famous for having done so little is very sad.