UK Politics Thread

[Thursday Next]

Scotland only think they can support themselves (and their free university places and free prescriptions and such) because they believe that if they fully devolved they would get the oil and gas in the north sea.

 

If you look at table 7 on: http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/Free/pdfs/regcont.pdf and http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/Free/pdfs/ukmpubfinfeat(jul).pdf you'll see that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all take out more than they put in. In fact, the East, South East and Greater London are the only areas of the country that actually turn a profit. It would be (financially) flipping brilliant if we could tell everyone North of the Watford Gap and West of Oxford to fend for themselves.

[deanb]

http://www.guardian....eople-need-jobs

 

This has been doing the rounds lately.

 

I'm of the "schemes a somewhat good idea, but really really badly implemented" camp. If the gov't is wanting to put people into work (which technically this isn't..let's go with work experience at best), then surely there's better companies than Tesco and Poundland? As folks have suggested what about council work? charities? start-ups? Provide relevant training and putting work power in places that need it. Tesco and the like are multi-billion pound companies, they shouldn't be getting subsidised work force from the gov't. All it does it make less employment positions available for those looking for work while bolstering company profits at the tax payer expense. It's bollocks. The better alternative would be to actually get these companies to provide actual paying positions. If I was to get Job Centre on the line saying "Dean you want to work at poundland for minimum wage" I will be there like a shot. As it stands the Job Centre do nothing of the sort, just file paper work and make you sign a scrap of paper every fortnight. Stupid and pointless organisation.

 

edit: saw this gem:

To be fair, there's not much to learn in Poundland. Most of the tricky bits in retail involve pricing, . . .

[excel_excel]

That's just stupid. Christ its great for Tesco and Poundland, as they don't have to do ANYTHING. And of course stupid celebrities criticize her. Shove it up your arse Vanessa Feltz.

Edited January 16, 2012 by excel_excel

[Thursday Next]

I disagree. She's getting free money, my money as it happens. She's boohooing about having to stack shelves at Poundland for two weeks or she can't have any more free money. Well fuck her and the horse she rode in on.

 

I worked at Sainsbury's for a month after I had completed my law degree because I would rather do any job than claim benefits, after that I got another slightly less crap job, and after that I started on my career in the games industry and about 3 years after that I finally got a role in legal.

 

If I had been "jobseeking" that entire time I would have had no chance at being in the position I'm in now.

 

As for "unpaid labour", what a load of shit. If I'm living at my parent's for free and my mum asks me to take the bins out I don't bleat about my human rights or not being paid for my work. I do the job and remain grateful for having a roof over my head and food on my plate.

[excel_excel]

The difference is you got paid by Sainsbury's to work there. She's getting paid by the government....to work in Poundland for free.

[Hot Heart]

T-Next, I'm sure you'll appreciate that not everyone is in the same position as you. Hell, in your own case you're talking about 3+ years ago; I'm assuming pre-recession. She even says she has always sought paid work and was already doing relevant work experience. I know my sister has been looking for exactly the same kind of job but it's tough to find anything. She has found work with my mum in the meantime; not everyone is that fortunate.

 

Beyond that, Cait is making a much bigger point: the scheme is a complete fuck-up. These are not the companies to which labour should be going and this is not the right way to go about it. I'm not sure what her overall working hours were but £53 a week sounds low. It's like Dean says, at the very least, minimum wage should be in effect.

 

I'd encourage you to read the entire thing again because you're a smart guy and it just seems odd to dismiss the overall argument based on the same misconceptions as Jan Moir and Vanessa Feltz. Quite frankly, I'm surprised at the vitriol.

[Thursday Next]

Ok, there's two strands to this:

 

1. Should Poundland or whoever get free labour and make a half arsed attempt to dress it up as "experience"?

- No, they should pay the DWP minimum wage for the hours unemployed people work for them. This money should then (a) be used to fund any benefits the unemployed person is on, be it reduced council tax, cash in hand, whatever and (B) the balance if any should be paid to the person who did the work.

 

2. Should people who are on benefits be made to do "unpaid" work in order to retain their benefits?

- Yes absolutely. If you are taking free money under the claim that there is nothing for you to do to make money, then you should be obliged to do something.

 

Taking Cait specifically. I am vitriolic because I find her incredulous. Officially, she is not claiming her human rights are breached because of where she was made to work, (in fact she makes it quite plain in her statements to the press that she would jump at the chance to work in Poundland), but because she was made to work. Of course I think we all know that if she had been told she had to work at the Museum of Natural History then that would have been just fine and dandy and being made to work would be just fine.

 

Just as Poundland are dressing up work as experience, she is dressing up her annoyance at having to work in Poundland for a fortnight as a campaign for human rights and some sort of stand against the tyranny of a government who had the audacity to ask that she actually do something to continue getting benefits from the state.

 

Rather than dragging the entire system through judicial review why not get these places where she volunteers to sign up to the same scheme as Poundland? That way she can jump through the benefit hoops while doing what she wants, and paving the way for people after her to do the same.

[Hot Heart]

I see what you're saying, but she already states that she had a relevant work experience placement with which it would interfere and that she was always seeking paid work. She says quite clearly: "I would grab a paid job in Poundland with both hands". I don't see it as her saying that people shouldn't be made to work, it's more why these available positions aren't being treated as actual employment. Isn't that what the system is for?

 

EDIT: Meant to add a little more but was interrupted by work.

 

One does get the sense of 'righteous indignation' from the piece but, regardless of personal circumstances, it sounds very much like the scheme needs looking at.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Hot Heart

[Thursday Next]

it sounds very much like the scheme needs looking at.

 

Completely agree there. The sort of work that is required for example, could be limited to working on behalf of the council. Of course then you run the risk of getting mixed up with community service and criminalising people on benefits.

 

However broken the system is though, people shouldn't complain that the "work experience", "unpaid labour" or whatever is not relevant to their chosen career. The benefits system is not there to prop you up until something you fancy comes along, it's to help those who cannot work not those who will not work.

 

Personally, I don't buy that there are not any jobs. I see plenty of advertisements in shop windows, outside McDonalds restaurants, in pubs and bars. There is work out there if you want it and you are willing to do something "beneath you". I take her claims that she has been "seeking paid work" and "would grab a job at Poundland with both hands" with a pinch of salt. I'd love for Poundland to call her bluff and offer her a full time job.

[Hot Heart]

Oh, I agree that it's not there as a bit of money while you're doing nothing more than applying to 'dream' jobs (if that is indeed the case) and I never got the sense she felt it was irrelevant. I'm going to have to plead ignorance to a lot of the JSA stuff since I've never used the scheme, but surely if there are these available jobs out there, then it should be putting these people in work. That's what I think needs an overhaul.

[deanb]

Funny thing about this "beneath them" talk is most of the jobs going at the moment at "above me". I'm not a manager, which writes off well over half the jobs right away. Nor do I have any care worker NVQs n such which knocks off another fifth or so(seriously, care work seems to have a major deficit in the workforce from where I'm standing), 10% disappear with the lack of a drivers license, leaving about 1/5th of jobs for probably about 80%+ of the unemployed. Not helped when the gov't are actively subsidising most employers with free labour. Asda are the only big supermarket employing locally and I can't apply with them again until March due to some crazy fucked up scheme. I'm currently signed up with a bunch of "market research" type sites just to potentially scrape in a few extra pence, but I don't see it going anywhere atm. Was actually checking out one of those medical science type stuff the other day but never bothered due to the two fold of needing someone healthy and it seemed a bit like a scam. I've got on my little "Looking for work" slip Adecco, office admin, xmas temp work, royal mail, telesales, IT apprenticeship (not heard anything back on :/), customer assistant, even got an application in months ago with one of the local steel mill places.

 

I may not be the biggest fan of the company you work for, but I do like you Thursday. Please do not tar all unemployed with the same brush. As you've said yourself you've not been through the benefits system, dealing the uselessness that is the Job Centre. You were able to get work. This is the only scheme I've heard of them running and it's fucking pants on head retarded. If they're able to work with these big companies why not work with them to get long-term unemployed actual paying positions instead of just giving then subsidies labour and making it even harder for those looking for work?

[Thursday Next]

Funny thing about this "beneath them" talk is most of the jobs going at the moment at "above me". I'm not a manager, which writes off well over half the jobs right away. Nor do I have any care worker NVQs n such which knocks off another fifth or so(seriously, care work seems to have a major deficit in the workforce from where I'm standing), 10% disappear with the lack of a drivers license, leaving about 1/5th of jobs for probably about 80%+ of the unemployed. Not helped when the gov't are actively subsidising most employers with free labour. Asda are the only big supermarket employing locally and I can't apply with them again until March due to some crazy fucked up scheme. I'm currently signed up with a bunch of "market research" type sites just to potentially scrape in a few extra pence, but I don't see it going anywhere atm. Was actually checking out one of those medical science type stuff the other day but never bothered due to the two fold of needing someone healthy and it seemed a bit like a scam. I've got on my little "Looking for work" slip Adecco, office admin, xmas temp work, royal mail, telesales, IT apprenticeship (not heard anything back on :/), customer assistant, even got an application in months ago with one of the local steel mill places.

 

I may not be the biggest fan of the company you work for, but I do like you Thursday. Please do not tar all unemployed with the same brush. As you've said yourself you've not been through the benefits system, dealing the uselessness that is the Job Centre. You were able to get work. This is the only scheme I've heard of them running and it's fucking pants on head retarded. If they're able to work with these big companies why not work with them to get long-term unemployed actual paying positions instead of just giving then subsidies labour and making it even harder for those looking for work?

 

Apologies if you felt that my comments were directed to the unemployed in general. I know a lot of people are genuinely looking for work and I'm not blind to the fact that it is a tough market. We've closed an entire studio here so it's something I'm acutely aware of. I do stand by my comment that there are jobs available (in Guildford at least) but I can't pretend to know the situations in other towns.

 

My comments were really intended to reflect my anger toward Cait and any other people like her. They are quite willing to take the free handout, but when they're asked to do something they don't like to continue receiving it, they kick up a fuss.

 

I completely agree that this system needs tweaking. The placements should at the very least be paid for by the employer, if only for the psychological boost to the employee that comes with receiving a wage packet.

 

I appreciate you taking the time out to fully describe your situation and I understand that everyone's situation is different, but I certainly don't feel that you, or indeed anyone else owes me an explanation and I'm sincerely sorry if what I've said offended anyone here. Unless Cait is a commenter here, in which case she can seriously fuck off.

[Johnny]

If you agree that the system needs tweaking, why then are you so angry towards Cait for her article in which she explains what her frustrations with it are?

As far as I can tell, you have two main reasons for disliking her article:

 

The first is what you believe is her reason for not wanting to work at poundland for free. I quote you:

Taking Cait specifically. I am vitriolic because I find her incredulous. Officially, she is not claiming her human rights are breached because of where she was made to work, (in fact she makes it quite plain in her statements to the press that she would jump at the chance to work in Poundland), but because she was made to work. Of course I think we all know that if she had been told she had to work at the Museum of Natural History then that would have been just fine and dandy and being made to work would be just fine.

 

If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to be implying that the reason she is pissed off is solely down to where she was forced to work. I strongly disagree.

 

Reading her article, I got the sense that her reasons were multiple. First, she cites that she went to the open day under the impression that she had a chance to undergo a week's optional training from an unknown company. She later found out that the training was in reality unpaid (apart from the jobseeker's allowance she was already receiving) work that could last up to six weeks, doing tasks she already had experience in. She was also told that if she declined, she could have her jobseeker's allowance taken away from here. She also mentions that she had already organized a work experience placement for herself. She was not sitting on her ass doing nothing.

If I were to put myself in her shoes at this point, I would have felt conned. Tricked to walk into a trap where she had to do up to six weeks of work for no additional benefits.

 

Yes, it is probably reasonable to assume that if she would have been given the opportunity to work for free at a museum she would jump on it in the interest of gaining experience doing tasks she had not done before and, even better, tasks related to the career she wants to pursue. That does not make it her sole reason for being angry.

 

 

Your second reason seems to be that you think she's lying about applying for jobs outside of her favored career path and that she in reality sees all those other paths as being beneath her.

I find this a ridiculous accusation to make. Just because you found job swiftly that does not mean that everyone who tries to find work does so easily. Furthermore, as someone who has been in the cross-hair of your accusations regarding honesty before, to me it just seems like a crutch you fall back on whenever you need a cheap reason to spit venom. I find it disgusting, if not surprising, that you choose to do so in this case as well.

 

Yes, I must concede that it's possible that she's inventing parts of her story. I can not prove that she does not, but neither have you proved that she does. So let's drop the venomous accusations at least until we have something solid to base them on.

[Thursday Next]

First, she cites that she went to the open day under the impression that she had a chance to undergo a week's optional training from an unknown company.

 

It's her fault that she did not know that she would have to do this work experience to continue getting her state benefits, it is also her fault that she did not know there is a cooling off period where you can exit the programme without penalty. If you sign up to anything then the onus is on you to understand what you are signing up to.

 

She later found out that the training was in reality unpaid (apart from the jobseeker's allowance she was already receiving) work that could last up to six weeks, doing tasks she already had experience in. She was also told that if she declined, she could have her jobseeker's allowance taken away from here.

 

It is not unpaid work. Just because you are in the habit of getting money from the government without having to do anything does not mean that you remain entitled to that money forever. Work experience is not just about learning a new skill. It's as much about having something to put on your CV that says "This person can turn up on time and properly turned out when required to." rather than having a massive blank space spanning years.

 

Another point (mentioned in the November 2011 article referenced below) is that "As part of her placement Reilly has been given training at another company, which will gives her a City and Guilds qualification in retail."

 

She also mentions that she had already organized a work experience placement for herself. She was not sitting on her ass doing nothing.

 

No, she was not doing nothing, she was doing her hobby. I don't like the idea of around 1/3 of my wages disappearing every month while someone else gets money to toss about doing something for fun. Further, if you read the article in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/16/young-jobseekers-work-pay-unemployment?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 dated 16th November you'll see that there is no mention of her already having some other experience lined up for herself so I am well within my rights to infer that she has subsequently contrived this excuse.

 

If I were to put myself in her shoes at this point, I would have felt conned. Tricked to walk into a trap where she had to do up to six weeks of work for no additional benefits.

 

There was no trap, she was not tricked except by her own ignorance. The details of the scheme are in the public domain. Including a clause that jobseekers are entitled to pull out of the scheme within the first week.

 

Much as I don't particularly like you (since we're getting personal - I have never to my recollection directly accused you of dishonesty before, I merely stated in the piracy thread that a self serving justification should be viewed as being potentially spurious) I don't think you are stupid. I'm pretty sure that you would have been aware of the "work for your benefits" scheme and so would not have been surprised by this and would have pulled out within the first week when you decided that the scheme did not suit you.

[Johnny]

It's her fault that she did not know that she would have to do this work experience to continue getting her state benefits, it is also her fault that she did not know there is a cooling off period where you can exit the programme without penalty. If you sign up to anything then the onus is on you to understand what you are signing up to.

 

 

Legally, perhaps. I wouldn't know. Morally, from my perspective, it depends. If the information isn't being misrepresented (as it seems Cait believes it is), then I'd agree it's her responsibility.

 

It is not unpaid work. Just because you are in the habit of getting money from the government without having to do anything does not mean that you remain entitled to that money forever. Work experience is not just about learning a new skill. It's as much about having something to put on your CV that says "This person can turn up on time and properly turned out when required to." rather than having a massive blank space spanning years.

 

I didn't say it was unpaid work. It is unpaid apart from what she was already receiving. It is also, crucially, below minimum wage (based on my limited knowledge of Brittain,) which I find disgraceful. I am aware that work experience is about more than learning new skills. I assume that Cait is aware of this as well and takes that into account when she says she's already got experience in retail.

 

Another point (mentioned in the November 2011 article referenced below) is that "As part of her placement Reilly has been given training at another company, which will gives her a City and Guilds qualification in retail."

This, however, is a fair point.

 

No, she was not doing nothing, she was doing her hobby. I don't like the idea of around 1/3 of my wages disappearing every month while someone else gets money to toss about doing something for fun. Further, if you read the article in the Guardian http://www.guardian....P=ILCNETTXT3487 dated 16th November you'll see that there is no mention of her already having some other experience lined up for herself so I am well within my rights to infer that she has subsequently contrived this excuse.

 

That something is fun does not disqualify it from being valid work placement. If the work placement she has arranged is something she finds fun, then all the more power to her, I say!

Maybe there is an argument to be made that what she calls work placement really doesn't give her any relevant experience. I don't know. In any case, I think it should be valued on the value of the experience, not discredited because it's something she finds fun.

 

Whether she invented the excuse later or not, I can not say. While the Guardian article does not mention it, I can not see that on it's own as proof that it was invented out of thin air.

 

Additionally, I can't help but roll my eyes at the "my tax moneys!!" appeal. You sound like a stereotype of an American hillbilly.

 

There was no trap, she was not tricked except by her own ignorance. The details of the scheme are in the public domain. Including a clause that jobseekers are entitled to pull out of the scheme within the first week.

The guardian article you linked above mentions that she's not the only one who feels misinformed about this. To me, that speaks that there is likely a problem with how the information is presented to the jobseekers. Yes, it is in the end up to the individual to make sure they know what's up, but that doesn't make it any less of a trap. And it still sounds like one to me.

 

Much as I don't particularly like you (since we're getting personal - I have never to my recollection directly accused you of dishonesty before, I merely stated in the piracy thread that a self serving justification should be viewed as being potentially spurious) I don't think you are stupid. I'm pretty sure that you would have been aware of the "work for your benefits" scheme and so would not have been surprised by this and would have pulled out within the first week when you decided that the scheme did not suit you.

 

Perhaps I would have been aware. I can not say. I will however say that at least here in Sweden, trying to find a job is for many a highly confusing affair where sorting out the irrelevant and false information from the useful parts is far from an exact science. I do not see it as impossible that many actually quite smart people would be mislead, whether it's on purpose or by a flaw in the system.

[TheMightyEthan]

Without getting into whatever problems this specific program might have, I will say that in general terms I am very much okay with the idea of requiring people receiving unemployment benefits to do work to retain them.

[Johnny]

I'm an unemployed person and I'm perfectly fine with it in theory.

[Thursday Next]

I'm an unemployed person and I'm perfectly fine with it in theory.

 

That's my problem with this. In theory it's a good idea, and given the huge numbers of people involved in the scheme, it seems to be absolutely fine for the majority. Most likely because the majority of people are not looking for a career quite so niche as "Museum Curator". It doesn't exactly take a lot to get students marching about things so if this were a majorly broken system I'd expect the streets to be teeming with hipster student wankers.

 

Cait throwing around emotive little snippets like "Unpaid Labour Scheme" and trying to get the whole system torn down by the High Court is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The scheme needs fixing for sure. Work could be restricted to public works such as maintaining parks, temping in council offices or what have you or private businesses could be made to pay in to the scheme, for example by plugging the gap between the government provided benefits and minimum wage.

 

I also hate students, so there.

 

Oh, and as for the "My tax moneys thing." Firstly I was going more for right of centre snobbish rather than hillbilly, and secondly, when you do have a job and you see exactly how much a month is whisked away into the aether it's very difficult not to care about where it goes. (In one bumper month when I received a bonus on top of my salary I paid ~£2,500 in tax. It nearly made me cry).

Edited January 19, 2012 by Thursday Next

[Johnny]

I also hate students, so there.

 

This seems rather hilarious coming from someone working for a videogames publisher and developer. Are not a significant portion of those who buys games students?

 

 

Oh, and as for the "My tax moneys thing." Firstly I was going more for right of centre snobbish rather than hillbilly, and secondly, when you do have a job and you see exactly how much a month is whisked away into the aether it's very difficult not to care about where it goes. (In one bumper month when I received a bonus on top of my salary I paid ~£2,500 in tax. It nearly made me cry).

 

You may care, but acting like every cent of tax money spent on something is your money is ridiculous. How many people pay taxes in Brittain? It is entirely fine if some tax money goes to things you aren't in support of. God knows, it'd be a disaster if the people who don't care about libraries got to decide that we can't have public libraries anymore.

[Thursday Next]

I also hate students, so there.

 

This seems rather hilarious coming from someone working for a videogames publisher and developer. Are not a significant portion of those who buys games students?

 

 

Oh, and as for the "My tax moneys thing." Firstly I was going more for right of centre snobbish rather than hillbilly, and secondly, when you do have a job and you see exactly how much a month is whisked away into the aether it's very difficult not to care about where it goes. (In one bumper month when I received a bonus on top of my salary I paid ~£2,500 in tax. It nearly made me cry).

 

You may care, but acting like every cent of tax money spent on something is your money is ridiculous. How many people pay taxes in Brittain? It is entirely fine if some tax money goes to things you aren't in support of. God knows, it'd be a disaster if the people who don't care about libraries got to decide that we can't have public libraries anymore.

 

The worst bit is I'm studying for my LPC at the moment too. I have an NUS card and everything. Fucking students.

 

Yeah I know, thing is I never use the public health services, I had a student loan not a grant and my state pension isn't going to be worth fuck all by the time I'm old enough to collect it, so I don't really feel like I get anything for the income tax I fork out all the time. On the other hand, I see plenty of people, for example in the public sector, complaining that they aren't going to be getting final salary pensions, or people complaining about having to do "unpaid labour" to get their JSA, or other gripes about people not getting what they feel the State owes them that it gets my back up from time to time and so, my anger (perhaps on occasion unfairly) gets directed toward the most recent / high profile individual / group that has moaned.

 

For a purely anecdotal example of this, when I was at uni in Leeds I knew through a friend this bloke who had been in and out of care, young offenders institutes and prison all his life. He had just got out of prison for a GBH charge (having smashed his then girlfriend's face in for giving him lip) and had been put up by the council in a flat. Now don't get me wrong, this was in Leeds and it was a shitty tower block, the flat had a bed and a chair and that was about it for furniture it was a bit of a dive, but it was clean and it was free. This guy, was complaining that the government were "taking the piss" because they had not yet given him the £3,000 furniture allowance that he was "owed".

 

I'm not saying that all unemployed people, all ex-offenders or even all northerners are like that. But whenever I hear about people complaining about the level of support the state gives them all I hear is that scumbag saying "Where's my cheque for three grand? I'm owed it." and sometimes I just have to vent.

[TheMightyEthan]

I don't really feel like I get anything for the income tax I fork out all the time.

What about police, fire service, public roads, etc?

[Yantelope V2]

Man, that story just seems like one of the tiniest violins in the world.

 

I think the most amusing part of the story to me is how she wants a career in museums. That sounds like an extremely limited profession and one that you'd probably be holding out on for quite some time. Wouldn't you get a temporary job whilest trying to get into your chosen career? Are things so bad in the UK that you can't find any work right now? Right out of college I took a job working at Office Depot while trying to get my first engineering job.

[Thursday Next]

I don't really feel like I get anything for the income tax I fork out all the time.

What about police, fire service, public roads, etc?

 

I've never used the fire service, and haven't had any need for the police in the last decade, besides which these are both funded by Council Tax, not Income Tax. I pay road tax and fuel duty (about 60-80% of the price at the pump is tax) for the roads. So, my income tax just sort of disappears.

[TheMightyEthan]

Even though you may not have used the services recently, you have to admit you'd rather live in a society with police and fire services than one without them.

[Thursday Next]

Yeah, of course, which is why I pay my Council Tax. All I'm saying is that the UK Treasury is not exactly transparent. I'd love to know where my money went cos they take rather a large sum every year.