David Cameron calls benefit claimants - welfare scoungers.

[hornofplenty]

I was told by a friend that he had said this but I could not believe it was true

The friendly cover is slipping.

But not to worry he is not going to make "welfare scroungers" or the rich pay, oh no it is up to public sectors to pay us out of recession.

sorry swc I meant the estimated cost of benefit fraud is nowhere near the other costs.

Benefits are a huge burden on the tax payer.

they are - but they also include those paid to people who have contributed in the past (pensions) and those paid to those that are also paying taxes (council tax benefit and housing benefit can both be claimed by people on low incomes).

it is Riven

You have benefit scroungers, and you have those who truly deserve benefits. And you have every shade of grey in between.

Do those who truly deserve benefits really approve of and those who support the scroungers?

That's what reading some of the posts here makes me conclude.

Saying all that, I am glad that I don't have to judge who is a scrounger and someone who is on the 'shade of grey' spectrum. I very firmly believe that we have to have the benefits rules slack enough to make sure that those who deserve them get them. If the rules are tight, then there is going to be a band of people who don't get what they need.

But why is the alternative to benefit scrounging so undesirable an alternative?

Why can't we address that? I'd probably be a benefit scrounger if I'd had a rubbish education, neighbours and parents who were unambitious, high unemployment in my area meaning that the only 'alternative' was a cleaning job in a factory with the minimum wage, unpaid overtime due to others queing for my job, a bully for a manager and no holidays or sick allowed 'unofficially', - with friends who were squatting and drinking well into the evening who didn't get up until the afternoon, with self-esteem so low and life knowledge so scarce I didn't have a clue how to change my life?

Well, I'd lie to the GP and say I had a back injury - probably!

Some people are benefit scroungers/spongers, generations of them! Cameron was right, about time some got off their lazy arses and worked! nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious.

Can't say claimants though. He'd have to say fraudulent claimants.

Must admit, when I saw scroungers I thought he meant the "not justified" claimants, not just "people on benefits".

It's an interesting counterpoint to the Labour party's insistence to refer to everyone (whether employed or not) as 'hard working families'. 'Scrounger' is equally offensive, just in a different way

I cannot see why it was necessary to be so pejorative, given that it was a direct quote. I note that the "rich" didn't get a negative description. People on benefits seem to be a perennial easy target.

Oh I agree about hard working families too.

If people want to work, there are jobs...maybe not well paid, not amazing jobs but jobs nevertheless. There is no excuse for people, especially single people, not to take any job to avoid being on benefits. Afterall if there wasn't, and I bloody glad there is, a welfare state people would do anything. There really is no excuse for kids still living at home not getting a job.

In Bristol there are 1300 jobs paying £6 per hour or more and over 1000 , £10 per hour. Christ we even have over 350 at £20 per hour.

I was told yesterday (reliable close family member source) about a couple in their mid forties who have never worked a day in their lives and who, despite being on incapacity benefit, were not so incapacitated that they couldn't wallpaper their living room last week. (She was furious)

So what do we call these people? A 'hard working family', 'fraudulent benefit claimants' or does 'scrounger' despite being an extremely non-PC and rather Daily-Mail-ish word encapsulate the situation in a less mealy-mouthed fashion reflecting society's viscreal dislike of those taking unfair advantage of everyone else's goodwill?

Yes... Cameron does choose his words carefully, and the indignance on this thread of people wishing to justify to themselves and others that they are not 'a scrounger' is, I'm sure, the approach we're all going to have to take going forward.

People on benefits are an easy target because their survival is dependent upon tax payers.

"f people want to work, there are jobs...maybe not well paid, not amazing jobs but jobs nevertheless. There is no excuse for people, especially single people, not to take any job to avoid being on benefits"

but it's not quite as simple as that is it?

For starters - 21000 unemployed in Bristol, around 11,000 of them claiming JSA.

You have cited 2,650 jobs..........

How many of those are ones where you MUST has specific qualifications, or are only a couple of hours a week

And you're wrong if you believe that people who don't want to work would automatically go and work if there were no Welfare State, if people genuinely don't want to work they'll find a way not to.......

This was aimed at people who think "all we need to do to cut the deficit is stop benefit fraud and put up taxes on the rich. It won't affect us."

However, I agree that using the word "scrounger" instead of talking about "stopping benefit fraud" does play into the perception that benefit fraud is more widespread than it is, and that ending it would cure all our ills. So by using the word "scrounger" he's actually playing into the very perception that he's trying to counter.

I have cited over 2600 jobs on one website. So that's over 10% that could work. I am not thinking for a minute that a single parent should work nights or that someone without transport should walk ten miles to work. I am also very thankful that we support people in need, I think it makes us the sort of people we are. But there are people who claim they can't get a job, when in actual fact they just don't want the one they could get.

As a SAHM am I considered unemployed, according to stats?

I don't think you are posie, which may be why lots of cuts which result in women having to leave the workplace are exactly what the goverment wants.

Cuts made - tick
No effect on unemployment figures - success

afaik SAHM's with working partners and not claiming benfits aren't counted inthe "unemployed" or "seeking work" catergories.

As hornsays - it's great way to manipulate the figres.

Actually next year when DS3 starts school and I start properly looking for work (I am on and off now but for various reasons not actually applying for anything) I won't be counted as unemployed or seeking work.........as I'll still be in Income Support.

You haven't cited what sorts of jobs those are though.

TF, some of those jobs are £6 per hour, some are £20+ an hour.... hardly skilled, some part time....

I'm really not so foolish as to think anyone can get a job, but single people (w/o childcare worries) can and should.

what do you mean "hardly skilled"

There are minimum wage jobs round here I couldn't apply for

I can't drive
I don't can't drive a fork lift truck
I can't drive a HGV
I have no machinery training
I'm not a qualified electrcian/carpeneter/engineer
I don't have a SIA Licence

and the list goes on.

lots and lots of with only a couple of hours as week.

How is a single person with a bedsit/flat/room to pay for,bills to pay (perhaps even outstanding bills from when they worked previously) supposed to support them selves work 10hrs a week at £6.50 an hour in a cleaning job (many of the the cleaning jobs pay more than the factory work).

As someone else (I think on this thread - maybe a different thread?) mentioned - many MANY places now are only recruiting where this a specific skill needed that can't be done by someone in the company, or for temporary/maternity leave cover - where they don't have the time to be training people to do the work they need to be able to hit the floor and "run".

And this website that you looked at - how recent were the jobs? IME lots of websites, unless you refine the search for more recent posts will show up jobs where the application date has long since gone, and also jobs that aren't actually "in" (or even near!) where you're looking for work.

Maybe the thread running in AIBU started by someone who's applied for 250 jobs and been turned down for all of them?