It's not MY list imbecile

There are nearly 2.5m people unemployed and 536,000 vacancies.
Some Eastern Europeans coming to work for a few months before going back home is a totally different situation to someone trying to live here permanently and bringing up a family.
As mentioned, what are all these people going to do? And how much will it cost?
Job Centre staff are busy enough as it is (an average time with client of 7 minutes). How many more job centre staff need to be hired to either see these people every day or supervise their work?
Will the state refund the extra costs associated with working 30 hours per week?
How many people will be made redundant to allow these jobs to be done and is that legal?

George Osborne had the nerve to moan about "policies drawn up on the back of a fag packet" and then produces this.

They don't have to employ extra people to process the daily checks, barely any of the 200,000 targeted will be asked to attend every day but will instead be shipped off to "training" courses (like the ones that Damo used to describe) run by HM Governments choice of provider at a cost to HM Government.

Quite how that will improve the jobless figures or cut the benefits bill is a mystery but someone somewhere will profit from it of that there is no doubt.

A very simple solution would be to remove the waiting time restriction on re-applying for benefits if the unemployed person is willing to take up a succession of short term vacancies offered by any of the partner work agencies that the job centres now carry advertising for as the fact that taking up temporary work will cause you all sorts of hassle when it ends is the only thing that prevents many from going down that route - a simple rolling unemployment benefits agreement linked to one of their agency partners would suffice - they pay for the days that the person is employed, the universal benefit is paid pro-rata at the end of the month.

Grow up you silly little man - just answer the question if you can - doubtful but there you go.

The point is you are quoting figures as gospel that most reasonably intelligent people know to flawed, I offered you a very simple example of how the figures could be flawed - as usual you were shown to be incapable of rational debate. Resorting to insults as the flaws in your argument were exposed.

You find criticising government data easy when it suits your point but you take affront when the tables are turned - you are a very sad individual.

While I don't buy into the current Tory thinking that all the unemployed are work shy scroungers, I do as part of my job (which involves visiting some of our most deprived areas) often see where a good kick up the arris might be appropriate. Only yesterday I turned up on Leicester Road in Dinnington, South Yorkshire at 8am for a site visit to see about half a dozen people (men & women) sat outside drinking cans of lager, this was the same house where they were doing exactly the same thing on my previous visit. The site manager has had nothing but problems, usually threats and abuse from the locals to his workforce from several properties on the street, along with multiple thefts from the site running into thousands of pounds. I have also, never seen so many mobility scooters in my life ( a lot being driven by relatively young people), I thought it was a convention.

Perhaps these sort of areas need more attention than forcing the people who have worked most their lives (only to find themselves victims of Tory policies) to work cleaning graffiti off walls for under £2 per hour.

All the figures are from the ONS, they have not been manipulated in any way. Only someone of limited intellect could assume otherwise

There will also be vacancies in the stats that are no longer open, skewing the stats in the other direction.
There will be people who are seeking work who are not registered as unemployed.

But, based on those (possibly flawed) figures, there are [ufive times as many[/u registered unemployed as there are reported vacancies.
Are you suggesting that the flawed stats are incorrect by 500% ?

If not, then there [uare[/u more unemployed people than jobs available ... which is the point.

Hence, we cannot say that all unemployed are feckless and workshy.
Hence, punishing all unemployed by reducing their benefit is only an unfair and crude cut in cost rather than the much-trumpeted targetting of the lazy buggers.

Gideon gets better and better.
Yesterday he was bragging that they'll run a surplus by the end of the next parliament.

Anyone remember what he said before the last election?
Yes, that's right, that he'd eliminate the deficit by 2015, a prediction that has been put back each year, by a year ... earlier this year they were predicting 2018.

But now (fanfare of trumpets) they will produce a surplus by, erm, 2020.

Or, to put it another way ... the one parliamentary term of five years required to eliminate the deficit is now going to be TEN YEARS.
Great predictions Gideon old chap.

Also, he warned with a very stern expression that we can't go on mounting up debt ... but, for some reason, he omitted to mention that under his judicious guidance the debt has risen by about half a trillion quid.

At least Alistair Darling bought some banks with his debt, this berk Osborne has nothing to show for it at all.

For a party that is so determinedly against borrowing, they seem to be doing an awful lot of it.

Just as well I have been honing my cooking techniques for all these OAP's I'm shortly gonna be rustling the pots and pans for.
Personally, I've found it more important to spend a couple of years with somebody I cared about who was dying.
Work hasn't been that important since.
Now I should have gone down the carer route but I couldn't really be fooking d.
Just carried on claiming my £70 a week single blokes JSA which is probably a fair bit less than I could have got.

Oh well, I am just going to pay for my sins now.
Best get out in my driveway with a hard brush and get my sweeping technique primed.

So the OFFICIAL figures are wrong, are they?

Care to share the fruits of your own research proving that the OFFICIAL figures are wrong?

The same thoughts crossed my mind when I heard it but that doesn't matter. It [isounds[/i good to the average person and continues the ridiculous analogies used previously such as not maxing out the nations credit card etc.

It's also economically inept. If in future there is another recession that drives the tax take down as unemployment rises ans spending decreases, just what is he going to do when that means the government has to borrow to keep things like the NHS, Police and other services running? Shut them down? The idea he can stash away enough to cope with the crash we just had is nuts. We'd have no roads fit to drive on, no NHS, nothing if he did that. A future government will have to borrow sooner rather than later if there is a major downturn.

There is also absolutely nothing wrong with borrowing if you use it to generate prosperity further down the line. It's only bad if you do as he does which is borrow to fund cuts. Which when you think about it is quite ironic.

He contracts the economy by austerity, has to borrow to keep the country running as a result and now proposes to outlaw borrowing in future. Is he saying he shouldn't be doing [iexactly what he is doing[/i right now?

I'd also like to know how this will affect the funding for HS2. That is going to cost billions so does running a surplus mean we won't have the money for HS2 until the country has enough stashed away in the bank having run a surplus for a few years?

Or will borrowing for that be OK? If it is, then he is actually re-introducing Gordon Browns golden rule of only borrowing to invest. That would be even more ironic.



Exactly.

You always seem to champion the foreigners who find jobs over here but never highlight the ones that do not find jobs because it does not suit your argument.

Let us not forget many eastern Europeans move here due to lack of employment opportunities in their own country. Likewise English people move elsewhere in the world to find work because the reality is there is not jobs for everyone over here. Despite this big hole in your argument, you use it again and again to justify your ill thought out stigmatising towards the unemployed in this country on these boards.

Yet you don't even know how the figures are compiled do you? And as mentioned are easily skewed in the other direction, probably more so when you take into account that the job vacancies figures include part time, temporary, casual and zero hours positions. Which makes it far more likely that instead of it being easier to find a job than the stats show, it's probably much harder.

Yep. It would also encourage people to take up short term vacancies if the amount someone earned wasn't taken off their benefits (or at least on a sliding scale). Otherwise it's easy to see why someone wouldn't bother with a job of say 8 hours a week when they won't actually get any more money for doing that job.

This might also help with people doing or having the chance to do seasonal work.

No it's not. It is entirely right and sensible.

Osborne has won the argument on austerity and now his critics move on and have to find other sticks to beat him with. Too predictable.

A few months ago the likes of you claimed 'there won't be much growth or any at all before the next election'. What constitutes 'not much growth' Dave O, please do tell us? Give us a number so that we can finally determine when you were wrong.

1%
2%
3%
4%

0.7% since your statement.

All 2.5M people will not be subject to the new rules.

They also have three options.

Nobody said they were. Try actually understanding what is written.

Actually the job centre will have 3 options as to what to do with the people who are subject to the rules.

Can you answer the questions in my post? You've been proved time and again as unable to answer questions, so let's give it one last go.

Great. Real help to get these people back into work.

You missed the BBC from your list of propoganda spinning media outlets

Any "win" Gidiot has managed so far is similar to the gains made on the Somme in WW1. To be pushed back 1000 metres and then regain 10 is not a victory, it is a net loss of 990

Can you answer the questions please?
If not we'll assume you can't.

[url=http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdfOver 20% of the total welfare bill goes on people in jobs[/url So we're subsidising employers, not the workshy

Not sure how tyou make that out?

1. That mean's c. 80% are not in work (ie c.4 times the number that you refer to); and
2. Presumably, people have taken jobs in a reasonably free market. If they could earn more elsewhere they are free to move jobs.

Did you not read the figures? 42.3% is spent on Pensions and only 2.57% is spent on out of work benefits. Pensions shouldn't be included in these figures but they are, to exaggerate the "welfare" bill, to make Outraged of Tunbridge Wells even more outraged!