Iain Duncan Smith calls refusing to take a job you are offered a sin.
I take issue with with religious language being used for politics, it has no place there. But let's follow his thinking for a moment shall we?
It's sinful to be a benefit cheat.
Isn't it then equally sinful to be a tax cheat? Keeping millions in an offshore account to avoid paying tax would be sinful yes?
And isn't it equally 'sinful' to have more homes than you need to live in? To have properties lying empty while other are homeless?
A BBC show starting today says 750,000 home lie empty, while 1.75 million people sit on council waiting lists. How does IDS view this?
I find it extraordinary that with these figures out there, nothing has been said about this. There is much talk about housing benefit cheats, people living in social homes that are too big for them, life long tenures being wrong. But absolutely nothing about so many HOMES sitting empty while people suffer for the lack of one.
Where is Mr Duncan Smith and his 'sinful' talk now?
Showing posts with label IDS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IDS. Show all posts
Monday, 14 March 2011
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
IDS is at it again
After his embarrassing mistake with the source of his statistics, you'd have thought IDS would have learned his lesson. Alas no. In his interview with the Sun, he is caught playing fast and loose with the truth once again as he claims that the huge deficit is made up largely from welfare payments.
Anyone with half a brain and the wherewithal to look things up knows this is not true. The Treasury knows this is not true. The deficit is made up largely from the bailouts made to the banks. Why on earth will he not admit this?
Oh I forgot, because that would mean he had no cause for dismantling the welfare state.
Thankfully we have Left Foot Forward to put the record straight
The figures are there Mr Duncan-Smith. Read them. Stop lying to the public for your own ideological purposes.
Source
Source
Anyone with half a brain and the wherewithal to look things up knows this is not true. The Treasury knows this is not true. The deficit is made up largely from the bailouts made to the banks. Why on earth will he not admit this?
Oh I forgot, because that would mean he had no cause for dismantling the welfare state.
Thankfully we have Left Foot Forward to put the record straight
the increase – due primarily to increasing unemployment – is equivalent to £24.1bn in today’s prices or just 1.64% of GDP – a small proportion of 10.1% deficit.
The figures are there Mr Duncan-Smith. Read them. Stop lying to the public for your own ideological purposes.
The number of people on out-of-work-benefits increased since the start of the recession after falling for a number of years. The rise was due to an increase in unemployment. The total figure of 5.34m in 2009 is lower than the 5.95m who were on out-of-work benefits in 1997 when the Tories were last in power.
Source
Source
IDS devalues our lives
Just when I thought it was impossible to dislike him even more comes his most offensive comment yet, in an interview given to the Sun newspaper:
In fact, IDS has just told a few million people, me included, that they are worthless. Unless you earn money, the country has no use for you.
If you are sick or disabled, you are worthless.
If you are unemployed, you are worthless.
It doesn't matter what you might do to help your community, whether it be caring for a relative or volunteering for a charity, you are not earning money therefore you are worthless. You aren't contributing.
This is the man who stands in government and is in charge of our welfare system. The man who holds our wellbeing in his hands. His attitude is deeply scary.
He makes no distinction between those who can and those who can't work. In fact, he appears to be of the opinion that most people, whatever their medical condition, can work. If you are claiming benefits you are a scrounger.
Many disabled people are terrified by the cuts that have been announced. With this one statement, IDS has shown they are right to be scared.
He has just devalued the lives of the most vulnerable people in Britain. The Sun might be an appalling rag but it has a large readership, most of whom already hold a low opinion of us. Mr Duncan-Smith has just made it worse.
Shame on him.
Source
We have managed to create a block of people in Britain who do not add anything to the greatness of this country. They have become conditioned to be users of services, not providers of money.
In fact, IDS has just told a few million people, me included, that they are worthless. Unless you earn money, the country has no use for you.
If you are sick or disabled, you are worthless.
If you are unemployed, you are worthless.
It doesn't matter what you might do to help your community, whether it be caring for a relative or volunteering for a charity, you are not earning money therefore you are worthless. You aren't contributing.
This is the man who stands in government and is in charge of our welfare system. The man who holds our wellbeing in his hands. His attitude is deeply scary.
He makes no distinction between those who can and those who can't work. In fact, he appears to be of the opinion that most people, whatever their medical condition, can work. If you are claiming benefits you are a scrounger.
Many disabled people are terrified by the cuts that have been announced. With this one statement, IDS has shown they are right to be scared.
He has just devalued the lives of the most vulnerable people in Britain. The Sun might be an appalling rag but it has a large readership, most of whom already hold a low opinion of us. Mr Duncan-Smith has just made it worse.
Shame on him.
Source
Saturday, 20 November 2010
IDS 'clarifies' his mistake
From the BBC:
If this is true then surely it's the landlords they should be demonising, not the claimants?
If this is true, wouldn't it be better, for the public, the renters and the taxpayers, to limit rents, rather than housing benefit?
People complain that claimants are living in hugely expensive properties that no non-claimant could afford to live in - that to me suggests that there is a problem with the rent, not the housing benefit. Kick the housing benefit claimant out and the rent is still too high for those 'hard working' families to afford.
Source
While rents overall were falling in recent years, some landlords were charging top rates to tenants on housing benefit and pushing those rates up, they say.
If this is true then surely it's the landlords they should be demonising, not the claimants?
If this is true, wouldn't it be better, for the public, the renters and the taxpayers, to limit rents, rather than housing benefit?
People complain that claimants are living in hugely expensive properties that no non-claimant could afford to live in - that to me suggests that there is a problem with the rent, not the housing benefit. Kick the housing benefit claimant out and the rent is still too high for those 'hard working' families to afford.
Source
Monday, 15 November 2010
Another punishment?
As if cuts to IB, ESA and DLA weren't weren't enough, Mr Duncan-Smith is at it again. He plans to introduce an initiative called 'slivers of time', an ultra flexible way of working, aimed at disabled people and lone parents.
From the Guardian:
Sounds good right? I mean, I'm sure that I would be capable of doing a few hours each week - so where's the problem?
The problem is that I don't know which hours I would be able to work. The hours would still have to be arranged - say, 2 hours on a Monday, 2 hours on a Wednesday. But what if I'm just not feeling up to it when those days arrive? Would I be able to change those hours? How am I supposed to know when to change them to? Would the employer let me do this all the time? I can't see any employer putting up with that. They need to know they have enough staff and when those staff are working, employing someone who won't know if they'll be able to work or not isn't likely to be high on their list.
Unless an employer is happy for their worker to turn up as and when they are able, I can't see how this will work at all.
And I know that many disabled people will worry that if they don't comply they will be sanctioned. After all, the ConDems seem determined to push people into work whether it is right for them or not, whether they have tried or not, so will we be punished if we can't do this?
And as for people who care for a dependent, are they supposed to know when said adult will be well enough to not need them for a few hours? Or perhaps the Government is expecting them to book a carer for a few set hours so they can work? This would seem a little, no, a lot, ridiculous.
Funnily enough none of these points have been addressed. I wonder if Ms Miller will question them on our behalf. Time will tell. But I'm not holding my breath
Cross posted here
Source
From the Guardian:
Slivers of time, a social enterprise founded by the former BBC producer Wingham Rowan, is designed to tap into the pool of people who cannot work the usual hours expected even of the average part-time employee. It is aimed at parents with young children, disabled people who may not be available for work for most of the week, people who care for a dependent adult or the long-term unemployed who want to ease slowly back into work.
Its proponents claim the reform would mean that a disabled or lone parent would be able to book a few hours of work a week on their terms.
Sounds good right? I mean, I'm sure that I would be capable of doing a few hours each week - so where's the problem?
The problem is that I don't know which hours I would be able to work. The hours would still have to be arranged - say, 2 hours on a Monday, 2 hours on a Wednesday. But what if I'm just not feeling up to it when those days arrive? Would I be able to change those hours? How am I supposed to know when to change them to? Would the employer let me do this all the time? I can't see any employer putting up with that. They need to know they have enough staff and when those staff are working, employing someone who won't know if they'll be able to work or not isn't likely to be high on their list.
Unless an employer is happy for their worker to turn up as and when they are able, I can't see how this will work at all.
And I know that many disabled people will worry that if they don't comply they will be sanctioned. After all, the ConDems seem determined to push people into work whether it is right for them or not, whether they have tried or not, so will we be punished if we can't do this?
And as for people who care for a dependent, are they supposed to know when said adult will be well enough to not need them for a few hours? Or perhaps the Government is expecting them to book a carer for a few set hours so they can work? This would seem a little, no, a lot, ridiculous.
Funnily enough none of these points have been addressed. I wonder if Ms Miller will question them on our behalf. Time will tell. But I'm not holding my breath
Cross posted here
Source
Sunday, 7 November 2010
The work scheme - questions
A couple of comments in the BBC 'Have Your Say' section, really got me thinking
These are very good points. What companies will be able to participate? What jobs will people have to do? Why aren't people already doing them?
I don't believe that commercial companies should be allowed to participate in the scheme IDS is proposing. If there is enough work in Tesco's for a 40 hour week then they shouldn't be allowed to get someone to do it for £40. This is nothing short of slave labour.
Unscrupulous employers will take advantage of this scheme, no doubt about it. Take on a worker for a month, make them work 40 hours, pay them £40, then let them go at the end. Repeat cycle.
This is immoral. And if commercial companies are allowed to take part it will happen.
There are plenty of organisations out there that are crying out for volunteers because they cannot afford to pay someone. These are the places that should be approached to take part in the scheme.
And people should still be paid their regular benefit. According to the Financial Times, the scheme if aimed at those claimants who are suspected of working on the side or who are not fulfilling their jobseeking activities and so are suspected to be the 'work shy'.
Fair enough that these are the ones that are being targeted. But it will be an arbitrary process. Mistakes are bound to be made. Those who are mistakenly targeted should not be punished by having their money reduced. For that matter, £65 is the amount the law says someone needs to be able to live. Cutting this to just £40 is therefore breaking the law surely?
And one thing no one has mentioned - many of the long term claimants are drug addicts. I know a few myself. Are they to be targeted? How are they to be forced into it? And is anyone really expecting them to be finding a job because of it? Somehow I think not. I don't see any employer wanting to employ a drug addict just because they've had 4 weeks 'work experience'.
This is just Tory ideology. Nothing realistic about it. If they want to get realistic, why don't they start listening to people who have been in the system? Or better still, employ some of them? On a full wage of course.
Not only that but if you can create these so called jobs for so called community service, then you can ruddy well create these jobs for a wage and an employment contract, with paid holidays as with everybody elses jobs. I cannot wait to get this government out, you have ruined our lives, you are ruining our kids lives. For gods sake help us please, not punish us!!!
This is already happening in the NE. My friend who is a highly skilled CAD operator was put on one of these schemes working for his JSA which is £65 per week.A4E sent him to Tesco's to work for a month training as a cleaner. ASDA and Morrisons are also supposed to be in on the act. No job at the end. I can see how Tesco's can publish profits of 1.6 billion pounds in the first six months of the year. This is unadulterated EXPLOITATION OF THE UNEMPLOYED!
These are very good points. What companies will be able to participate? What jobs will people have to do? Why aren't people already doing them?
I don't believe that commercial companies should be allowed to participate in the scheme IDS is proposing. If there is enough work in Tesco's for a 40 hour week then they shouldn't be allowed to get someone to do it for £40. This is nothing short of slave labour.
Unscrupulous employers will take advantage of this scheme, no doubt about it. Take on a worker for a month, make them work 40 hours, pay them £40, then let them go at the end. Repeat cycle.
This is immoral. And if commercial companies are allowed to take part it will happen.
There are plenty of organisations out there that are crying out for volunteers because they cannot afford to pay someone. These are the places that should be approached to take part in the scheme.
And people should still be paid their regular benefit. According to the Financial Times, the scheme if aimed at those claimants who are suspected of working on the side or who are not fulfilling their jobseeking activities and so are suspected to be the 'work shy'.
Fair enough that these are the ones that are being targeted. But it will be an arbitrary process. Mistakes are bound to be made. Those who are mistakenly targeted should not be punished by having their money reduced. For that matter, £65 is the amount the law says someone needs to be able to live. Cutting this to just £40 is therefore breaking the law surely?
And one thing no one has mentioned - many of the long term claimants are drug addicts. I know a few myself. Are they to be targeted? How are they to be forced into it? And is anyone really expecting them to be finding a job because of it? Somehow I think not. I don't see any employer wanting to employ a drug addict just because they've had 4 weeks 'work experience'.
This is just Tory ideology. Nothing realistic about it. If they want to get realistic, why don't they start listening to people who have been in the system? Or better still, employ some of them? On a full wage of course.
IDS's latest outrage
This article has me shaking with anger.
How dare they brand everyone who is unemployed as feckless. They have absolutely no idea of what it's like to be unemployed. Or to have to sign on.
There are work shy out there yes. We all know a few. But the majority of claimants are honest people who try as much as they can and still can't find a job.
There a very few jobs out there. And there will soon be even less, with a huge increase in the amount of people chasing them.
Why can't the DM and the ConDems see this? Why are they being so blind?
So if you can't find a job you get your money cut. Yes, this is fair.
Now, I have no problem with unemployed people being asked to do voluntary work. But it should be true voluntary work, not jobs that would usually be paid for like the ConDems proposal of litter picking and gardening. Places like the National trust and various charities are crying out for volunteers. Bet they won't be in IDS's scheme. And they should be allowed to pick what they do.
And it shouldn't be a 40 hour week. How are they supposed to look for work or attend interviews/ training courses if they are forced into doing this? Would any Tory supporter be happy to work a 40 hour week for £40 a week?
And they should certainly not be made to do it for less than their benefit or be forced into it.
It makes me sick that the privileged few who have never been in this position are standing in judgement. They should walk a few miles in the shoes of the unemployed before they dare to make a ruling like this.
As one Labour MP said this is nothing short of slave labour.
The feckless unemployed will be forced to take part in a punishing U.S.-style ‘workfare’ scheme involving gardening, clearing litter and other menial tasks for just £1 an hour in a new crackdown on scroungers.
And if they fail to turn up on time or work hard they will be stripped of their dole for three months.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith will tomorrow unveil ‘compulsory community placements’ in an attempt to stop people living on benefits for years without bothering to look for work.
How dare they brand everyone who is unemployed as feckless. They have absolutely no idea of what it's like to be unemployed. Or to have to sign on.
There are work shy out there yes. We all know a few. But the majority of claimants are honest people who try as much as they can and still can't find a job.
There a very few jobs out there. And there will soon be even less, with a huge increase in the amount of people chasing them.
Why can't the DM and the ConDems see this? Why are they being so blind?
Instead of receiving their usual £65-a-week Jobseeker’s Allowance for sitting at home doing nothing, they will get substantially less – and will have to clock on and off on time and work flat out.
The Government has not decided how much people on ‘community placements’ will be paid but it is understood the figure will be between £30 and £40 a week – the equivalent to £1 an hour, one sixth of the minimum wage.
So if you can't find a job you get your money cut. Yes, this is fair.
Now, I have no problem with unemployed people being asked to do voluntary work. But it should be true voluntary work, not jobs that would usually be paid for like the ConDems proposal of litter picking and gardening. Places like the National trust and various charities are crying out for volunteers. Bet they won't be in IDS's scheme. And they should be allowed to pick what they do.
And it shouldn't be a 40 hour week. How are they supposed to look for work or attend interviews/ training courses if they are forced into doing this? Would any Tory supporter be happy to work a 40 hour week for £40 a week?
And they should certainly not be made to do it for less than their benefit or be forced into it.
It makes me sick that the privileged few who have never been in this position are standing in judgement. They should walk a few miles in the shoes of the unemployed before they dare to make a ruling like this.
As one Labour MP said this is nothing short of slave labour.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Hypocrisy?
Politics.co.uk has posted a new article on the impact the housing benefit cuts will have in London.
We've all seen the reports that Boris Johnson likened them to 'Kosovo style cleansing' which had the ConDems fuming.
They refuse to see what damage the cuts will have, instead coming out with their now standard platitudes about how the cuts are fair and it's not right that people on benefits should be able to live in areas 'hard working' people can't.
The best, or most ridiculous anyway, line to come out of all this is Iain Duncan-Smith's line that 'Labour figures were guilty of "scaremongering"'.
Is he kidding me? For months now we have had to put up with his, and the rest of the party's, calling us 'scroungers'. Listening to George Osborne telling us that these cuts are necessary because Britain is 'on the brink of bankruptcy'.
What is this if not scaremongering?
All of them, aided by the Daily Mail, have made thousands of people think that the cuts, which amount to nothing less than an attempt to abolish the welfare state, are necessary. Not only necessary, but deserved, because everyone on welfare is a scrounger. We are undeserving, work shy and it is our fault that the country is in this state.
If that's not scaremongering I don't know what is.
Remember that line about glass houses and throwing stones? Perhaps someone should remind Mr Duncan-Smith.
We've all seen the reports that Boris Johnson likened them to 'Kosovo style cleansing' which had the ConDems fuming.
They refuse to see what damage the cuts will have, instead coming out with their now standard platitudes about how the cuts are fair and it's not right that people on benefits should be able to live in areas 'hard working' people can't.
The best, or most ridiculous anyway, line to come out of all this is Iain Duncan-Smith's line that 'Labour figures were guilty of "scaremongering"'.
Is he kidding me? For months now we have had to put up with his, and the rest of the party's, calling us 'scroungers'. Listening to George Osborne telling us that these cuts are necessary because Britain is 'on the brink of bankruptcy'.
What is this if not scaremongering?
All of them, aided by the Daily Mail, have made thousands of people think that the cuts, which amount to nothing less than an attempt to abolish the welfare state, are necessary. Not only necessary, but deserved, because everyone on welfare is a scrounger. We are undeserving, work shy and it is our fault that the country is in this state.
If that's not scaremongering I don't know what is.
Remember that line about glass houses and throwing stones? Perhaps someone should remind Mr Duncan-Smith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)