Under 25s could lose housing benefit - Cameron

[Webbo]

None of this will happen before the next election so you'll all get a chance to vote against it if you want to. Until then what's the problem?

[Captain...]

AN OPEN AND HONEST QUESTION:

What reforms would people on this forum introduce to help cut our welfare bill?

Regional assessments and welfare based on local costs and standards of living, a partnership with tesco to provide a weekly basic shopping allowance rather than money, tesco basic rice, tesco basic veg, tesco basic potatoes etc. enough nutrition to feed a family of that size for a week, and some credit that can be spent at tesco online on a few other controlled items, no booze no fags no Heat magazine no money. Same with gas and electricity a basic allowance to see them through the day cooking, heating bathing etc but it gets cut off if over used.

You want money you have to earn it, I would also have social "volunteer" schemes such as litter picking, graffiti cleaning or helping out at scouts/football teams etc where you can earn more credits to spend on luxury items.

[absolutelegend]

From the Guardian which sums up Cameron's unworkable idea:

Out of interest, what were the guardians suggestions for cutting the national welfare debt?

[flowwolf]

The post which you refer to was a bit of banter directed to one particular poster and to be fair to you (which goes against the grain) I can't expect that you could have recognised that. However I haven't a clue what your response is about but do find it quite amusing that you feel so obviously bitch-slapped because I disagreed with one of your posts in another thread.

I'm glad that you've picked up the cudgel again. You're easy meat because you're so thick!

Keep up the good work wolfie

Don't flatter yourself your not my target , your small fry. Anyone who can fit so many tired cliches into such a short post deserves nothing but scorn, and here you have it.

[Rincewind]

http://www.ingeus.co...e/0/ingeus.html

Had to sign up for this. This is where the money is going. They help you find and stay in work but its eithewr no or crap pay. The employers signing up for it p;probably just pay the minimum.

I shall wait and see though. They assign you a personal advisor to help with interviews etc. I've had a year of applying for jobs ranging from cleaning to security. I'd do cleaning if a company wants to train a 60 year old but not many do. That applies for all types of work. All I want from these people is find a company willing to take the chance. I dont want to spend hours being told how to act at interviews because that'll waste another few months of applying and being ignored because they have too many apply. If I get a job I can also keep it without their help as I'm not one to walk out after a few days because I'm bored.

[AoWW]

Don't flatter yourself your not my target , your small fry. Anyone who can fit so many tired cliches into such a short post deserves nothing but scorn, and here you have it.

There are just a few cliches in your reply, too.

[flowwolf]

And aren't you a good example of that?

Argue against my opinion by all means but please don't come up with cutting edge satire like that it doesn't suit you.

[flowwolf]

There are just a few cliches in your reply, too.

Yes your absolutely right ! :D :thumbup: but mine are not so tired.

[acooling08]

I could only dream of a house that costs that much, have loads of kids and its easy.

http://www.dailymail...month-rent.html

Hate stories like this, fills me with such rage and racist feeling.

'I am entitled to a 5 bedroom house' - If I was PM, she'd be entitled to a slightly bigger room to hold all of her kids on the boat that was deporting her.

[Captain...]

Hate stories like this, fills me with such rage and racist feeling.

'I am entitled to a 5 bedroom house' - If I was PM, she'd be entitled to a slightly bigger room to hold all of her kids on the boat that was deporting her.

Don't be a tit, this has nothing to do with race, it is about the fact the government will sign off a 1600 a week rental agreement with a private landlord for a single parent with 5 children, regardless of race, it would be equally wrong if it was a white woman called Sharon Smith, but if it is available you can't blame mothers for applying for it to provide the best for their family.

Don't hate the player man hate the game.

[glenny_fox]

Shelter have had the funding stopped at one of their offices in Leicester meaning it has closed down. Good timing but hey as long as the rest of us have a roof over our head why worry about it. Nothing to do with us and probably their own fault if more become homeless.

I work for a homeless charity in the accounts department, and the funding cuts across the board is unreal.

[RobHawk]

Hate stories like this, fills me with such rage and racist feeling.

'I am entitled to a 5 bedroom house' - If I was PM, she'd be entitled to a slightly bigger room to hold all of her kids on the boat that was deporting her.

We know you are a plank but do you have to keep on proving it to us all??

There are plenty of white people doing exactly the same thing. Does that mean you hate all white people as well?

I can guarentee the Daily maildecided to print this example to help feed more stupidity to the stupid people in this country who cannot think for themselves. Surely even you can acknowledge that the Daily Mail prints the majority of its stories with its own biased agenda!!!

[Daggers]

Recent regression analysis has shown that increasing public sector employment is a short-term boost to employment figures. In the longer term, it crowds out private sector employment and can aid the decline of manufacturing.

Here is a summary of the report:

http://www.cps.org.u...private-sector/

The full report:

http://www.spatialec.../sercdp0111.pdf

It says nothing of the sort and I can only presume you haven't read the full report.

Personally I would treat anything coming from the CPS with a pinch of salt due to the source - but the report is interesting, thank you, and states very clearly:

"We have examined the impact of public sector employment on private sector employment.

Our results suggest that over the period 2003-2007 additional public sector employment had

no impact on overall private sector employment. As a result, increases in public sector employment tended to increase total employment one-for-one. Adjustment to this increase in total sector employment can occur through some combination of lower unemployment, greater participation, more commuting and an increase in working age population. With the data available, however, we are unable to distinguish between these different adjustment mechanisms.

When we separate private sector employment in to tradable (manufacturing) and non-tradable

(services and construction) we find a differential effect of increases in public sector

employment. Consistent with our conceptual framework, public sector employment has a

multiplier effect on employment in the non-tradable sector, but crowds out employment in the

tradable sector."

This states very clearly that job creation in the public sector boosts local employment as it doesn't reduce employment in the private sector - it simply alters where people are employed in the private sector.

Even that is arguable seeing as the assumption drawn in 2.2 could be attacked for being untrue due to total demand lessening when the overall job market is depleted.

But, regardless, thanks for proving my point.

[Daggers]

Labour spend all the money, the Tories clean up the mess. It was ever thus.

My point which you again ignored completely was that through tax credits, Brown trapped a whole new swathe of people into thinking they are owed something by the state, simply by giving them back their own money. See also people in work needing housing beneift becuase they can't keep enough of the money they earn as they pay too much tax. It is a vicious circle created by socialists as a means of control. For some reason you seem to have got it into your head that it is there to help people.

No a single fact in your post yet again. Not one single source, not one single supported point. More drab Tory rhetoric and flawed logic.

To be honest, Jon, I can't see why you or most of the others are bothering to write about this topic seeing as you all clearly can't be arsed to think about it.

This, basically.

Labour nonchalantly swaggered out of the parliamentary bog at the last General Election, just as the economic cistern was draining itself out through the shit-stained bowl of society, taking a good portion of the private sector Toilet Duck with it, leaving a massive, stinking floater of a budget deficit behind for the next parliament to deal with.

Unfortunately, the only way to clear this massive turd of economic mismanagement is for some people to get shit on their fingers. Otherwise that floater is going to swell up and block the drain and we'll all end up with shitty water everywhere.

What a load of shit.

[Daggers]

Labour have really f*#cked out country up

- The public sector workforce is so large and powerful its almost impossible to do anything about it, just look at the recent pension reform protests! Servicing the debt on the pension deficit alone is one of our countries biggest outgoings, and for that the previous governments should be asbolutely ashamed

- The welfare state in this country is out of control, millions have no incentive to work their way out of it. For all the people that don't like to see welfare reform, I would ask them, what would they do to cut our countries outgoing in this area?

- The national deficit is so massive that measures like these being proposed aren't anywhere near large enough to make any impact on it - yet any that are preposed are automatically shouted down by our countries "tory haters". I think David Cameron is in an impossible situation to be honest

I'm not a traditional tory voter, but its clear to me that we need a series of drastic, possibly unpopular, but absolutely necessary measures to get ourselves out of this mess. For me this should just be the start

You may not be 'traditional' but I feel you fit right in alongside them.

[Bellend Sebastian]

We know you are a plank but do you have to keep on proving it to us all??

There are plenty of white people doing exactly the same thing. Does that mean you hate all white people as well?

I can guarentee the Daily maildecided to print this example to help feed more stupidity to the stupid people in this country who cannot think for themselves. Surely even you can acknowledge that the Daily Mail prints the majority of its stories with its own biased agenda!!!

Of all the benefit claimants they could have chosen, it just happened to be a Muslim single parent. I bet she was selected entirely at random, to ensure that there was no risk of anyone thinking that the Mail has some sort of agenda.

The real tragedy of this is that readers of the Daily Mail, including my own parents, will thrust articles like this in front of my nose and say something like, what do you think of that then, as if it were some piece of peer reviewed groundbreaking research from a respected Oxford professor and that it proves anything other than that a lot of people have a seemingly unquenchable appetite for absolute shite, and I will look sad and say 'you went to university'

[Daggers]

Of all the benefit claimants they could have chosen, it just happened to be a Muslim single parent. I bet she was selected entirely at random, to ensure that there was no risk of anyone thinking that the Mail has some sort of agenda.

The real tragedy of this is that readers of the Daily Mail, including my own parents, will thrust articles like this in front of my nose and say something like, what do you think of that then, as if it were some piece of peer reviewed groundbreaking research from a respected Oxford professor and that it proves anything other than that a lot of people have a seemingly unquenchable appetite for absolute shite, and I will look sad and say 'you went to university'

[breadandcheese]

It says nothing of the sort and I can only presume you haven't read the full report.

Personally I would treat anything coming from the CPS with a pinch of salt due to the source - but the report is interesting, thank you, and states very clearly:

This states very clearly that job creation in the public sector boosts local employment as it doesn't reduce employment in the private sector - it simply alters where people are employed in the private sector.

Even that is arguable seeing as the assumption drawn in 2.2 could be attacked for being untrue due to total demand lessening when the overall job market is depleted.

But, regardless, thanks for proving my point.

Wow, that is indeed selective and a complete misrepresentation of a report. Don't worry, the report is not by the CPS but by the LSE based Spatial Economics Research Centre.

Here is the abstract at the start of the paper

Abstract

This paper considers the impact of public sector employment on local labour markets. Using

English data at the Local Authority level for 2003 to 2007 we find that public sector

employment has no identifiable effect on total private sector employment. However, public

sector employment does affect the sectoral composition of the private sector. Specifically,

each additional public sector job creates 0.5 jobs in the nontradable sector (construction and

services) while crowding out 0.4 jobs in the tradable sector (manufacturing). When using data

for a longer time period (1999 to 2007) we find no multiplier effect for nontradables, stronger

crowding out for tradables and, consistent with this, crowding out for total private sector

employment.

The point is that over the long term, public sector employment has no multiplier effect for services (non-tradables) and a stronger crowding out effect on manufacturing (tradables). Overall, there is a crowding out of the private sector, so we have an employment picture which is top heavy dependent on public sector employment. As the public sector should always be a proportion of the private sector in order that it be funded viably, this is vitally important. It is simply unsustainable to crowd out private sector employment.

What this effectively proves is that as a government, you can increase public spending to lower unemployment and create a short-term buzz, however over the longer term, this doesn't work and leaves us with a detrimental legacy, such as now, when we have areas of the country that are overdependent on public sector employment, after having crowded out the private sector.

There needs to be an aim of what percentage the state should make up of a country's economy and we should work towards it. At the moment the figure is in the order of 48%. It was interesting that David Laws, though it should be down in the mid 30's, but hardly any politician, right or left actually presents and argues for the vision they believe.

I'm taking the thread in a different direction to the original subject. As it stands, I believe the government should build more social housing, as at least we're borrowing to build a tangible asset. If done correctly, we can produce an asset worth more than the cost of building, which will help out country's balance sheet no-end. This would then help take the pressure off social housing.

[Jon the Hat]

To be honest, Jon, I can't see why you or most of the others are bothering to write about this topic seeing as you all clearly can't be arsed to think about it.

Personally I am just trying to give you something to do. I like the idea of you busily looking stuff up in a vain attempt to convince us all that Labour are brilliant or whatever your point is.

[Jon the Hat]

I'm taking the thread in a different direction to the original subject. As it stands, I believe the government should build more social housing, as at least we're borrowing to build a tangible asset. If done correctly, we can produce an asset worth more than the cost of building, which will help out country's balance sheet no-end. This would then help take the pressure off social housing.

Yeah, as long as they don't build it near me.

[Daggers]

Personally I am just trying to give you something to do. I like the idea of you busily looking stuff up in a vain attempt to convince us all that Labour are brilliant or whatever your point is.

Where do you get the notion that I give a flying fvck about Labour? I'm an agrarian anarchist, I simply enjoy helping Toryboys to look stupid.

[Guest MattP]

I'll skip waiting for your answer Matt because it ought to be obvious I'm simply leading you on.

The total net public sector employment increase in the last ten years has been 307,000, the Tories have shaved 240,000 off what was there. But of course, being a Tory, you'd much rather see all of these people claiming benefits instead of feeding their wages back into an economy and bolstering house prices.

I'd love to know where all these jobs which don't need doing are? In schools all managed loses have been through three routes: a) increased class sizes, b) sacking teaching assistants and c) not using trained staff as cover by giving kids busy work and using non-qualified behaviour monitors. The NHS has cut back staff through an employment embargo - resulting in Trusts having to spend far more on agency staff and consultants in order to meet targets. It's half-arsed Tory dogma causing this madness.

So, obviously the lead on from your misconstrued idea that one party buy votes through creating jobs (despite this not being supported by evidence) is that the Tories must be creating opportunities so people will vote for them? The Tories must be creating opportunities for the under-25s?

Ahh...same shape of graph innit! All the peaks for unemployment in the under-25s comes under Tory governments:

At a time when people are uttering such shite about throwing under-25s on the street or not paying for a roof over their head, this Tory-led administration is presiding over record levels of youth unemployment.

It's wrong to create public sector jobs? Fvck. Right. Off. Anyone claiming this has clearly never lived on the breadline, never suffered a period of unemployment, never been pushed out by society.

I hate party politics, but more than hating party politics I loathe petty-minded, imbecilic, Tory dogma which is the product of selfishness and stupidity.

In this thread, every advocate of Cameron's brain fart has failed to stump up a single piece of supporting fact/statistic - why? Because they can't: it's all about them, their tax, their house, their life. Considering some of them purport to be intelligent I'd have thought they'd have the decency to put their hands up and admit it. This isn't about the economy, superfluous public sector posts or housing - it's about their selfishness.

It wasn't actually but I should have spotted it, after all it's the Tories isn't it, you seem to be absolutely incapable of looking at anything the party does from a neutral viewpoint. If the Tories put forward a policy do you condiser it or automatically hit google and try and find a random graph with any relevance to try and prove it a failure? I think we all know the answer.

You can talk about Public Sector workers "feeding it back in" rather than being on the dole but unfortunately we don't have an everlasting pot of money that just allows us to create jobs the rest of the country have to pay for just to keep some people doing something, your attitude reminds me of the time I spent in China where you had a guy on each corner of a queue in Government pointing you in the direction of the only way you could actually walk for 10 hours a day. Good work if you can get it.

Glad you mentioned schools actually, getting rid of teaching assistants?? Good start, I certainly don't remember having one, the teacher controlled and taught the class, I'm sure that worked??? they didn't need an assitant, they just did the job they were paid to do. Maybe that's too simplistic these days.

I hate party politics as well and it's incredible having to listen to people pursuing policies that have led this country into a financial disaster and actually trying to uphold it as a realistic alternative to continue with now.

Labour fcuked this place, they did it with no care whatsoever and even waltzed out knowing what they had done it enjoying the fact they had put the Tories in the shit, can you imagine if a Tory had left a note like this? http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/8688470.stm O dread to think what your reaction would have been....

Are you in the Public Sector?

[Daggers]

Wow, that is indeed selective and a complete misrepresentation of a report. Don't worry, the report is not by the CPS but by the LSE based Spatial Economics Research Centre.

I appreciate who wrote the report and the quote I placed into the thread was from the conclusion, I'd suggest re-reading it.

During the shorter time period point estimates from our preferred specification

suggest that 100 extra public sector jobs increased employment in the non-tradable sector by

50 jobs while reducing employment in the tradable sector by 40 jobs leaving overall

employment unchanged. In contrast, over the longer time period 100 extra public sector jobs

crowd out jobs in the tradable sector, leaving non-tradable employment and total employment

unchanged.

I don't know how it is possible to misrepresent that.

During a time of recession where the private sector is not creating employment it is essential to increase the public sector provision if the current economic model is to be maintained.

My solution though is to scrap money and abolish ownership of land.

[Daggers]

It wasn't actually but I should have spotted it, after all it's the Tories isn't it, you seem to be absolutely incapable of looking at anything the party does from a neutral viewpoint. If the Tories put forward a policy do you condiser it or automatically hit google and try and find a random graph with any relevance to try and prove it a failure? I think we all know the answer.

Grow up and start doing some research of your own rather than continually spouting party-driven dogma and Daily Mail shite.

Based on your contributions to such threads I do wonder if you ever consider anything at all. You fail to counter a single point with any supporting evidence other than your blinkered personal experience.

You can talk about Public Sector workers "feeding it back in" rather than being on the dole but unfortunately we don't have an everlasting pot of money that just allows us to create jobs the rest of the country have to pay for just to keep some people doing something, your attitude reminds me of the time I spent in China where you had a guy on each corner of a queue in Government pointing you in the direction of the only way you could actually walk for 10 hours a day. Good work if you can get it.

Anyone spot anything there which isn't unsupported conjecture or Jackanory? Nope, me neither.

Glad you mentioned schools actually, getting rid of teaching assistants?? Good start, I certainly don't remember having one, the teacher controlled and taught the class, I'm sure that worked??? they didn't need an assitant, they just did the job they were paid to do. Maybe that's too simplistic these days.

Laughable shite. Your knowledge of education theory & practise simply overwhelms me.

I hate party politics as well and it's incredible having to listen to people pursuing policies that have led this country into a financial disaster and actually trying to uphold it as a realistic alternative to continue with now.

Are you really this thick? Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that employing extra nurses and teaching assistants has led the country into this economic meltdown?

Labour fcuked this place, they did it with no care whatsoever and even waltzed out knowing what they had done it enjoying the fact they had put the Tories in the shit, can you imagine if a Tory had left a note like this? http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/8688470.stm O dread to think what your reaction would have been....

Of course you aren't a little Toryboy. Of course.

Are you in the Public Sector?

No. You have 19 guesses left...

[Captain...]

My solution though is to scrap money and abolish ownership of land.

I'm with you on that one.