Areas that are currently not staffed, one assumes?
Or the jobs recently vacated by Osborne's clear-out?
And would they be paid the minimum wage ... or are you envisaging the public sector buying-into the Poundland scenario?

Are you sure you've thought this through?

Then that would require someone to be employed to provide this physical effort because what they would then be doing is in fact, [ua job[/u.

It would also require supervision, organisation and no doubt things like overalls and raw materials. They would probably need some form of insurance that covers employees and whoever it was "employing" them would need some sort of employee liability cover and so on.

In other words given what you suggest looks like a job, requires the same kind of support as job then it IS a job and so the person doing it ought to be paid a wage not benefits.

You don't half live in a simplistic world where you imagine you can give someone a mop and bucket and just tell them to get on with it. And that is being kind.

The irony of a government which by law requires an employer to pay a minimum wage at the same time insisting that a claimant does a job for far less than minimum wage is lost on too many.

Apparently, he doesn't like people being paid out of public funds for doing nothing.
Except his wife, of course (see [iBetsygate[/i) who was paid out of public funds for, erm, apparently doing nothing ... even IDS's parliamentary agent didn't think she did any actual work, only one group out of sixteen that met IDS recalled ever even meeting her ... but, hey, that was different, no-one had explained to him that you can't pay your wife out of public funds to do nothing, so he couldn't be blamed for it, could he? ... so he was let off.

He says he knows what it's like to be on benefits.
He certainly does.

They are getting a bit jumpy now, seem to have come out fighting, IDS and Osborne insisting that they are right and that everyone who has the temerity to point out inconsistencies or unfairness in their plans is using "depressingly predictive outrage", these of course are men who are more used to, and have been coached since private school, the "debating" tactic of shouting down your opponent rather than constructing a sensible argument.

So when a group of clergy question whether the poor and vulnerable in social housing are the correct targets for comparatively huge cuts to their income he shout them down with "Those who defend the current benefit system are going to complain loudly. These vested interests always complain, with depressingly predictable outrage." rather than asking them which part of his plans do they not agree with and then discussing the alternatives or the plans he has put in place to protect the vulnerable - a human response to a humane question.

And they are still shoveling the bull and propaganda for an eager section of the media to report as disgraceful justification - for instance telling a group of Morrisons workers that when he came to power in 2010 he was shocked to find that some housing benefit claims amounted to £100,000 a year and then used this as a justification for his housing benefit cap of last year and this, and the "bedroom adjustment" plan.

The number of households who received £100,000 a year in 2010 ?

Five.

And the truth is that it wouldn't have been individuals who were handed a wheelbarrow full of ten pound notes but probably private landlords who offered suitable large properties on an emergency basis on behalf of a local council to fulfill their legal duty.

I still haven't decided whether they are the idiots or their PR department are the idiots for believing that we are idiot enough to swallow this outrageous attempted justification for what is clearly a simple political dogma.

I note that IDS doesn't mention that he lives in a whopping big house complete with tennis courts etc ... for free, as it belongs to his father-in-law.
Fair enough, family helping out, nice to see, nowt wrong with that, F-in-Law making sure his daughter is sorted ... all fine and dandy.

IDS does talk about when he was unemployed though and how he looked at his wife aghast and said "What are we going to do for money?".
So, IDS claimed unemployment benefit, as was his right .... maybe back then, his titled and rich old-Etonian father-in-law wouldn't/couldn't help them out like he does now and, as IDS's wife has never had a job (except as IDS's diary secretary (but with no diary) ) maybe they really did get by just on his unemployment benefit.

Maybe, maybe ... yeah, like I'm sure they did.

I don't believe he's ever had to scrape by on just unemployment benefit.
I don't believe he knows what it's like to run out of money for food or fuel.
I do believe he's a lying, hypocritical 2@.

What a shocker. People who get free money for doing diddly squat kick off because they are soon to get less free money for doing diddly squat.

True what someone said in the Sunday Times. It's ever so easy to keep expanding the welfare state and paying out more and more in benefits. It's a lot harder to say enough is enough.

The Welfare state is in desperate need of reform. This is a start.

It actually seems harder for this lot to go after those who caused this problem in the first place, the irresponsible and possibly criminal bankers.

I have no issue with a properly thought through welfare reform, but this is not that. Its a scythe through what exists to protect people, and in particular those who are suffering because of the banks screwing up.

That statement right there - thats the bit that shows that you've swallowed the propaganda, and its not very clever propaganda either, but you believe it.

You believe that the people who are complaining are all people who get "free money" for doing "diddly squat" because thats what the compliant media told you and you turn a blind eye and ear to the non-compliant media that point out that the vast majority, VAST majority of benefits claimants are actually IN WORK and by any fools definition are not doing "diddly squat".

Keep swallowing the stories, and after they've done I've got some stuff I'd like to sell you too, just send me your credit card details ...

Ok, I'll PM you.

Can someone post a link to where it says the vast majority of benefits claimants work and also a link to the fact that there are more people of a working age than there are jobs available? I'm sure someone's posted it before.

Its a fairly simple fact to equate and its also fact that governments of all colours have been keen to move claimants from one benefit to another as one of the biggest benefits is working and child tax credits which as their name suggests you claim when you are in work, I believe that there are also certain disabled benefits that can be claimed even when in work.

It doesn't suit the propaganda to admit this though.

During my (long) working life I have contributed month-in, month-out to the welfare system without complaint despite the fact that my contributions have way, way, exceeded what I have taken out.
Why? ... because I like to think of our society at large and myself in particular as being slightly civilised and maybe a bit compassionate towards people made redundant or unemployed or disabled or needy or old and frail etc etc.
It's called humanity.

The massive majority of people are happy, proud even, to work for their living and I am aware of the sheer god-awful hardship that can occur when people don't have a job any more, especially the low paid who had no chance to save because their wages were so low there was little margin for saving.

Have you ever heard the phrase "There but for fortune go you or I" ?
Have you never wondered what it must be like?
Or do you simply not care?



Oh, and by the way ... it's not just benefits recipients who are "kicking-off", people like me are "kicking off" too, can't you read the threads on which you post?
One last thing, most benefits recipients (see above) are NOT doing diddly-squat, most benefits recipients are in work. So, ask yourself, why do those in work need benefits?
Go on, do your brain a favour and exercise it.

(but you could be waiting a while)

None of this detracts from the case that the welfare state is in need of reform.

Your post seems to suggest that I disagree with the whole idea of a welfare state when this is not the case.

Go on then.

What is your idea of how a welfare state should operate?

Fair with incentives to 'get on'. It shouldn't trap people so that they are better off on benefits than having a job. It should also be simple and less complicated.

a lot of envy on here again

Not that old fanny again.

Any examples of your perpetual "envy" charge?

Well that sounds like a real plan

Can't fault the Tories on consistency when it comes to hammering the poor. They are talking about cutting credits to people on low earnings where they consider they haven't made sufficient effort to earn more! Pretty difficult when they allow employers like Tesco to sign people on part-time 24 hour contracts which oblige them to be on call full time 6 days a week. If they are going to demonise people for not having 2 or 3 jobs at least they should prevent these great "job creators" like Tesco from issuing such contracts.

Maybe if the system wasn't so open to abuse the likes of Philpott might have actually gone out and got a job rather than have a life on benefits based on breeding increasing number of off spring?

You appear to have drifted into the wrong thread

So do you genuinely think there is nothing wrong with the welfare state? Everything is working well?