Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Government drawing up plans to help relocate the unemployed

189 replies

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 27/06/2010 08:22

Does anyone else find this a bit scary? Or is it a good idea?

OP posts:
Mingg · 28/06/2010 12:39

I doubt this policy is aimed at families and I also doubt there would be thousands and thousands wanting to relocate. All the new builds in my area (and there are quite a few) offer social housing.

daphnedill · 28/06/2010 12:44

Mingg, But it's families who need help moving when the breadwinner becomes unemployed...and it's families who are costing so much in benefits. If the proposal isn't aimed at them, it's not going to be effective. Single people or childless couples can't claim that much in benefits anyway and can already be more flexible about where they live.

vesela · 28/06/2010 12:47

prolesworth, I agree that politically, you can't get by for very long on blaming the previous government. After a while it becomes about how the government handles the crap situation it's in. I'm not speaking politically, though, I'm just saying what I think of Labour, and yes, I realise it's not adding a lot to the conversation.

Mingg · 28/06/2010 12:51

I appreciate that families cost more in benefits but surely the aim should be helping all/any unemployed people find work and off benefits whether families or not?

Prolesworth · 28/06/2010 12:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

toccatanfudge · 28/06/2010 12:54

"Sunderland (random place in the North East)"

  • not sure why but that statement made me laugh
daphnedill · 28/06/2010 12:58

Glad I brought a smile to your face. I didn't mean to insult people from Sunderland by suggesting they're random. I just chose a place in the North East, which I know has high unemployment. I'm sure there a places with even lower LHAs.

vesela · 28/06/2010 13:00

Yes. People in the bottom 10% are going to be badly hit by the spending cuts. (How can they entitle it "Don't forget the spending cuts!" As if.)

daphnedill · 28/06/2010 13:01

Mingg, I moved from Merseyside to London in 1978 to find work and I've never moved back from the South East. If I were to do that with this new proposal, I could possibly have taken advantage of it BUT I coped without the money. I didn't need it because I was single, so the government would have wasted its money.

Mingg · 28/06/2010 13:13

Not everyone is like you though Daphne. As the article says there are two and three generations of unemployed people and if this helps them surely it will benefit everyone?

sarah293 · 28/06/2010 14:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

daphnedill · 28/06/2010 14:19

I know they're not and not everybody has a shortage skill like I do. The point I'm trying to make is that, if the proposal is to have any effect and not be a huge waste of money, it needs to encourage the people who are costing the state the most to move. If all it does is make life a bit easier for skilled single people, who would probably have moved anyway, it will leave areas of the country as even worse ghettos than they are now.

daphnedill · 28/06/2010 14:29

What we need to is to build a factory for thousands of workers - maybe a chocolate factory - and then build low costing housing for the workers. Oh yes! I forgot! We tried that and then sold the business to the Americans.

Prolesworth · 28/06/2010 16:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

sarah293 · 28/06/2010 16:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

mumblechum · 28/06/2010 17:36

Prolesworth, tax relief on pensions has gone now. Whereas at one time you could pay your bonus into your pension fund without paying tax on it, you do now.

daphnedill · 28/06/2010 17:43

Are you sure it's gone? I still get tax relief at basic rate on my pension contributions and I thought they were to stay. I thought (or was it just in the manifesto?) that higher rate earners would no longer get relief at 40%, effectively meaning that they used to pay less into their pension funds than the less wealthy.

Prolesworth · 28/06/2010 18:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

daphnedill · 28/06/2010 22:14

Prolesworth,

Thanks for the link. It confirms what I thought. You do get tax relief for pensions and, as far as I'm aware, that hasn't changed. That's why pensions are taxable when they're paid out...because tax wasn't paid in the first place. The system has been advantageous to higher tax payers, because they receive relief at the higher rate (40%), but if they are only eligible for basic tax when they retire, they only pay 20%. I seem to remember that one of the parties (Libdems?) was talking about stopping this loophole for higher tax payers in its manifesto, but I'm not sure that it was part of the budget.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 28/06/2010 23:26

Riven - re 20:46. I feel I should point out that large areas WITHIN the M25 are also NotLondon.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 28/06/2010 23:31

Prolesworth - Illegal tax avoidance is tax evasion which is illegal already. Someone avoiding tax is just taking up incentives the government has created for certain types of beahaviour. Getting married could be seen as tax avoidance due to the silly £150 quid allowance or whatever it is.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 28/06/2010 23:40

Back to the thread....

There are communities around the country with no work and no realistic prospect of work, as there is no longer a geographic reason for an employer to go there. We can PAY companies to move there. But that is a short term measure - they will just move again if they get a better offer.

Ultimatly, these communities will die. But it is going to be a slow and painful death. Measures like the one proposed MIGHT get it over with quicker. Or it could be a total clusterfuck. But we need to take a realistic view of the future of these communities.

toccatanfudge · 29/06/2010 00:04

TheCoalition - you mean like the Welsh mining villages, or parts of the NE of England.........which are still dying a slow painful death years after the work was taken out of the area..........

daphnedill · 29/06/2010 01:20

This proposal might seem like a good idea in theory, but I just don't see how it could work in practice, if the objective is to mend so-called Broken Britain.

There are some people with skills still in demand who can find work in different parts of the country. Employers are willing to pay expenses, which is why there are gangs of engineers from the North East working in parts of Essex and East Anglia, who stay in lodgings during the week and return to their families at weekends.

The problem is that we have ghettos, where few people have skills which anybody wants. We have people with no skills at all, who have never had any experience of work. Who wants to employ them? They will be left in the ghettos when the people with employable skills have moved out. Their communities won't die, because there will still be people living in them. But nobody will care. They will be an underclass, demonised by the Daily Mail, and become the latter day unwashed poor.

The sad fact is that there just aren't enough jobs to go round. What we need is the return of manufacturing, where the unskilled and semi-skilled can earn an honest crust and begin to have respect for their own communities.

It's a stupid proposal, which somehow reminds me of Nulabour social engineering. It seems OK in theory and will cost money, but in the end won't achieve anything.

sarah293 · 29/06/2010 06:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn