Benefits Street

[Guest Bilo]

How anyone shagged White Dee I'll never know.

Going to the cashpoint at midnight to buy special brew as your benefit money has just gone in. Classy.

 

Tell me about it.

 

You'd need a plank strapped across your back to stop you falling in.

[MooseBreath]

Mark isn't the sharpest tool in the box but isn't totally useless either. He could easily do plenty of semi-skilled trades and earn an average wage. Certainly you can't blame his failure to apply for a single job in four years on a lack of ability, that's a lack of willpower, plain and simple. And it's telling just how quickly he did get a job (albeit a very shit one) as soon as he started trying. It appears as though he gave up within days, not just on that specific job, but on work in general. Leaving his family continuing to build up rent arrears and facing eviction as they continue to prioritise lazing around smoking fags over providing as much as a stable roof over their children's heads.

I reckon if I had control of him I'd stick him on a brick laying course, direct him towards a speciality within brick laying and have him on a steady £24k within five years.

[Alf Bentley]

Can't agree on smoking being a hobby, it certainly can't be justified that taxpayers should fund people's addictions whatever they are.

Ideally he would be working via manuel labour buy why would he do that when he can knock a couple of kids out and me and you can lose our wages to fund his life?

Fortunately it does now appear the government is getting a grip on these people to some extent.

Next week should be very interesting.

 

I don't think they were smoking as a hobby. It's an addiction, but also something to cheer them up given their crappy lives, I imagine. I've never smoked myself, so basing that on my feelings about boozing. Looking back to 1983, which I spent on and off the dole and in and out of temporary jobs, even when I was unemployed I budgeted to have that little pleasure of 3-4 pints. I was looking for work and took it when I got it. It wasn't my fault that there was little work on offer and I was inexperienced, so like most (not all) unemployed I didn't deserve to be punished for my predicament.

 

The issue of looking for work is a separate one. I agree that people who choose not to work (the minority) should not be given a cushy lifestyle and should be helped, prodded or compelled to find work or training, as appropriate (maybe P/T if they have sole responsibility for pre-school kids or other carer duties). Mark didn't seem work-averse, just clueless. He needs someone to sit down and assess what work potential he has, help him learn some basic inter-personal skills, maybe find him some training or voluntary work etc.

[Bettsj2]

The line 'How do they expect us to live on that?' Is continuously used by everyone on the street.

I wish the guy with the camera would just say, 'you're not expected to live on it. That's the point'

It fills my heart with pity watching these people but it is very watchable.

[Zingari]

How come those out of work and  on benefits are portrayed by the Tories as a sign that "Labour isn't Working" when they are in opposition , but they become feckless layabouts that need a kick up the arse when they are in power  

[Alf Bentley]

If next week is mainly about people looking for work, I'll be very interested to see how Jobcentre Plus comes across.

 

It's 25+ years since I was last unemployed, but my nephew has been on the dole for a couple of months and a mate was long-term unemployed until a year ago. My impression from them is that the Jobcentre is next to useless. Worse, my impression is that its purpose mainly seems to be to kick people when they're down and trip people up into getting sanctioned - instead of helping people get back into work or become more employable.

 

I'm sure that some Jobcentre staff are very helpful - and I don't deny that some unemployed people need a kick up the arse. However, a lot (like my nephew and my mate) really do want to work, but may need guidance as to what to apply for, how to have a chance of making successful applications, how to retrain or to relate better to other people.

 

Through my mate and my nephew, my impression is that the main purpose of Jobcentre Plus is not to help such people (or even to sanction those who deserve it) but to give a kicking to those down on their luck, so as to please the Daily Mail and the sort of sour, resentful people who are so miserable in their own lives that they take pleasure from seeing a kicking handed out to those "doing them down". They should try looking at the structures of Anglo-American capitalism, greedy shareholders and corporate executives, the government as corporate whore and the buy-to-let brigade!

[Strokes]

If next week is mainly about people looking for work, I'll be very interested to see how Jobcentre Plus comes across.

It's 25+ years since I was last unemployed, but my nephew has been on the dole for a couple of months and a mate was long-term unemployed until a year ago. My impression from them is that the Jobcentre is next to useless. Worse, my impression is that its purpose mainly seems to be to kick people when they're down and trip people up into getting sanctioned - instead of helping people get back into work or become more employable.

I'm sure that some Jobcentre staff are very helpful - and I don't deny that some unemployed people need a kick up the arse. However, a lot (like my nephew and my mate) really do want to work, but may need guidance as to what to apply for, how to have a chance of making successful applications, how to retrain or to relate better to other people.

Through my mate and my nephew, my impression is that the main purpose of Jobcentre Plus is not to help such people (or even to sanction those who deserve it) but to give a kicking to those down on their luck, so as to please the Daily Mail and the sort of sour, resentful people who are so miserable in their own lives that they take pleasure from seeing a kicking handed out to those "doing them down". They should try looking at the structures of Anglo-American capitalism, greedy shareholders and corporate executives, the government as corporate whore and the buy-to-let brigade!

I was briefly unemployed when my business collapsed at the end of 2012, the jobcentre were useless and not fit for purpose in my opinion. I never showed up for my meeting after being uninspired by the phone call. All they were interested in was a benifits claim, all i wanted was information on job availability. I found work a few days later, after signing up for a few agencies and got taken on full time after 8 weeks. I can understand why people dont do these agency jobs as they can horrible at first but you soon get moved up if you show some initiative and positivity. I work now work the graveyard shift, so hopefully i can go back to college full time, after the summer and continue to work.

It does make me wonder what would have happend if i had solely relied on the JC but i suppose that is personal responsibilty.

[Alf Bentley]

I was briefly unemployed when my business collapsed at the end of 2012, the jobcentre were useless and not fit for purpose in my opinion. I never showed up for my meeting after being uninspired by the phone call. All they were interested in was a benifits claim, all i wanted was information on job availability. I found work a few days later, after signing up for a few agencies and got taken on full time after 8 weeks. I can understand why people dont do these agency jobs as they can horrible at first but you soon get moved up if you show some initiative and positivity. I work now work the graveyard shift, so hopefully i can go back to college full time, after the summer and continue to work.

It does make me wonder what would have happend if i had solely relied on the JC but i suppose that is personal responsibilty.

 

I suspect that if you slot neatly into a vacancy that they have, then you'll be alright (e.g. if they're looking for bricklayers and you're qualified/experienced in that, you might well get a job). I found work through Jobcentres in the mid-1980s (unskilled & clerical), by which time I was a bit more clued up about work.

 

What they don't seem to do well - and this dates right back to the 80s - is help people who are inexperienced or unworldly to become employable or find work. Back in 1983, I wanted to work, applied for suitable jobs and had potential (hard-working, education to A-levels) but struggled as I lacked experience and worldliness. I don't recall getting any useful help, just suggestions of jobs that I could apply for (was doing that anyway). My nephew seems to be in a similar position now, with added sanctions.

 

You're right that at least some agencies seem to do this better than Jobcentres. When I'd finished my university studies as a mature student in 1997, but had failed to land a career job, it was through an agency that I found work - like you say, 1 month temporary position, then permanent once they'd seen that I was up to the job. Some right-winger will come on now to say that this shows how the private sector is more effective than the public...and in this case, I'd say they're right. Jobcentres seem to show very little flexibility or imagination in dealing with individuals...though it doesn't help if govt/management policy is to punish people for being unemployed rather than to help them, which often seems to be the case these days. 

[breadandcheese]

"12 year old in a man's body" is about right, without meaning it nastily, but I don't think it's to do with a lack of work or even education, just a lack of mental ability. With the best will and upbringing in the world, unless he has some deeply hidden talent, he's just unfortunate enough not to have the potential for anything more than very basic unskilled labour. 

 

It would take proper assessment (and some care and resources - in short supply), but wouldn't it be better if he was given public-funded work cleaning the street or whatever 4 days per week on the minimum wage, while spending 1 day per week getting tuition in parenting and basic skills (budgeting for bills, basic literacy etc)? That wouldn't cost any more than paying him the dole.

 

In fact, given the kids, paid work is the least important bit - more important for him to learn a few basic coping skills, and for the pair of them to be helped with parenting (she did seem to be learning, tbf - a bit of help and she'd be a decent Mum). 

 

He seemed an amiable enough bloke who meant well - and did find work, but only on 100% commission (that was cruel - he was never likely to convince anyone door to door). His missus had a lot more potential - God knows why she and her mate entered into a contest to attract him. Low self-esteem?

 

 

Good post.  I felt sorry for the bloke as he seems to know from nothing, so you can't be surprised at the results.  He's obviously been let down by a lot of people in his life (from his parents to his educations), so he needs someone to set him straight.  Whether that's his wife, a government agency, an arm round his shoulder or a tough sharp shock, I don't know, but he needs advise and being pointed in the right direction.

 

Those charity jobs are a disgrace.  It's basically door to door begging, only if you're able to get a donation, you have to give a large cut to the charity.  It's not a job at all.

[purpleronnie]

Benefits Street: are the stereotypes real?

We take a look at beliefs about benefits and whether or not they are true…

 

 

 

•  
•  

Channel 4

The Channel 4 programme Benefits Street has sparked debate around the country. It’s a documentary following life on a street in Birmingham, where the programme-makers claim the majority of residents rely on benefits.

It has caused fierce debate, not only about welfare, but also about whether the programme is a fair representation of the street and of life on benefits.

And as the government seeks to cut the welfare state back even further, the show has been discussed in parliament. It has even resulted in a new phrase being coined: a Conservative aide has been quoted as saying, “Benefits Street culture must end. Period.â€

Perhaps some politicians see ‘Benefits Street culture’ as the opposite of ‘hard-working families’ and ‘alarm-clock Britain’, two phrases commonly used when MPs discuss fairness in welfare.

So, with the programme apparently having an influence on the politicians forming welfare policy, we’ve been taking a look at some of the stereotypes around benefits… and how many of them are actually true.

1. Most benefits are paid to the unemployed

Channel 4

Do we have 'Shameless' benefit claimants?

Debate about welfare spending almost always focuses on the out-of-work, leading many people to believe that the vast majority of payments are made to the unemployed.

A survey conducted by the TUC and published last year showed that most respondents believed around 41% of benefits were paid to the unemployed.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. The Survey of the UK Benefit System from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) examined all benefits and tax credits and found that the total benefits paid through unemployment schemes was 2.57%.

Compare that to almost 21% paid in benefits for working people on low incomes – far more is spent on workers than so-called shirkers. The biggest welfare outgoing is on pensions and other payments to elderly people, at more than 42% of the total spend.

Despite that, George Osborne recently pledged to protect pensions, while at the same time committing the Conservatives to cutting welfare by a further £12 billion a year if they win the next election.

2. Benefits claimants are workshy

Getty Images

Are benefits claimants lazy?

Politicians, newspapers and commenters often refer to the ‘wilfully unemployed’ and it’s easy to believe that our towns and cities are filled with able-bodied, working-age layabouts who’d rather stay at home watching TV and living off the taxpayer.

There are undeniably some such cases, they occasionally feature in newspaper articles or programmes such as Channel 5’s On Benefits and Proud. But how widespread are they?

Long-term unemployment was the highest in decades in July last year, when official figures showed that around 915,000 Brits had been unemployed for a year or more. Around 474,000 of those had been out of work for at least two years.

Of course, it is harder to assess how many of those are seriously looking for work, but many charities have fiercely derided the notion of a ‘culture of worklessness’. They argue that this is a challenging time for anyone to find a job, particularly those with more complex needs and lower skills.

Analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) shows that five million people have claimed jobseeker’s allowance at least once in the past two years – which is around one in six economically active people. Half of people receiving the benefit stop claiming within six months.

3. There are families that have lived on benefits for generations

Newscom RTR

Is worklessness inherited?

A common myth is that there are families that have relied on benefits for generations, with no one breaking the cycle and finding work.

Despite some politicians referring to such families, researchers have in fact never found a household in which more than three generations have never worked.

The JRF managed to find around 15,000 UK households in which two generations have never worked, but that number represents less than 1% of workless households.

4. Benefits claimants have huge families

Getty Images

Are benefit claimants more likely to have large families?

Newspapers often focus on benefits claimants with large families, creating an impression that the long-term unemployed usually have enormous broods. This can seem particularly unfair when many working people feel unable to afford more than one or two children. So it is true?

Actually, no. In 2011, the Department for Work and Pensions responded to a Freedom of Information request by releasing figures on unemployment benefit and family size. These showed that 77% of those claiming out-of-work benefits had just one or two children.

In fact, just 3% had five or more children. However, at almost 40,000 families, some taxpayers may still feel angry about that.

5. Benefit fraud is rife

Andrew Aitchison In Pictures

Should we be locking up more benefits claimants?

Again, the press often reports on cases of benefit fraud, leading to a widespread belief that such fraud is rife. The TUC’s survey found that on average, people believe 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently.

In fact, government figures show that the real number is just 0.7%. That means benefits cheats are fraudulently claiming around £1.2 billion a year.

That’s a huge number, but to put it in context official figures show that £1.3 billion that people are entitled to goes unclaimed each year.

6. Foreigners come to the UK to abuse our benefits

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Are we being 'flooded' with benefit-hungry migrants?

Whether it’s health tourism or benefits tourism, the government is constantly pledging to crack down on immigrants coming to the UK to exploit our generous state support.

This was debated a lot in December, amid fears that vast numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians would flock to the UK at the start of the year, once they gained full EU rights to live and work here.

Parliament rushed through legislation preventing new arrivals from claiming out-of-work benefits for the first three months. The work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has even argued that EU migrants should be banned from receiving benefits for up to two years – the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, has argued that it should be five years.

However, an EU report showed that on average EU migrants are more likely to be in employment than nationals living in the same country.

And the Office for Budget Responsibility recently claimed that immigration is beneficial to the economy, with new arrivals more likely to be of working age and contribute more in taxes.

That supports a recent study by University College London that shows recent immigrants have made a strong contribution to public finances, and are 45% less likely to receive state benefits than people born in the UK.

[Alf Bentley]

[Lengthy fact check: "Benefits Street: are the stereotypes real?" 

 

Some interesting stats in there, but what is the source, Ronnie?

(Apologies if you've stated it somewhere and I'm too dim to see it)

[Rincewind]

I've been saying this for ages. But the government preaches to the converted.

[Trav Le Bleu]

[Guest MattP]

  MR Cameron should be apologising for not coming down harder on this lot,these tossers are taking money from ME and why,I don't know where to start.One family in episode one admitted they had had their benefits cut for committing fraud by claiming extra and had the bloody cheek to moan that they have had payment cuts.Jail them.work shy,I had a little respect for the ginger one last night for trying to get her husband/ blot on society/ skid solo to get a job,but he was ok not working when they were claiming extra and taking MY money.

The reaction of white Dee when her daughter said she was looking for a job in the trailer for next week.It was as if she had shit in her mouth." Why do you want to work and be different from everybody on the street" bloody disgrace .

 

She's a disgrace, she's actually the female version of Rincewind, not only does she not see anything wrong with living like this she actually deems it commendable. There are rich people out there so why should I do anything? Give me more money, I;m depressed, I have kids, I can't eat, I need some fags.

 

Intolerable. The way she talks about the street like she actually has experience of living in another World, she genuinely seems to think that everyone in the country apart from a small bubble live like they do.

 

The way she "helps" them all she's as culpable as anyone in keeping those people down and out.

 

How come those out of work and  on benefits are portrayed by the Tories as a sign that "Labour isn't Working" when they are in opposition , but they become feckless layabouts that need a kick up the arse when they are in power  

 

I would have though that was quite obvious, because Labour are happy to let them rot like this, shove them a few quid and know they'll keep the area as their own. It's no coincendence these people start moaning when the Tories get in.

 

Even Lamby was forced into work when Osbourne got hold of the economy and IDS the Welfare State, if it was Darling and Balls you can bet your house he'd still be sat on arse picking up his money no questions asked.

 

Some interesting stats in there, but what is the source, Ronnie?

(Apologies if you've stated it somewhere and I'm too dim to see it)

 

Definitely Guardian, can tell by the way it's written.

 

I still have no idea why articles like that are popping up though, people watching this are concentrating on these people on the show, they aren't tarring all claimaints with the same brush but some people from that side of the spectrum have to convince themselves they are as they can't bring themselves to believe the reality that places like this street exist. (And not to mention the people peddling this benefit from these type of people)

[Dan]

If next week is mainly about people looking for work, I'll be very interested to see how Jobcentre Plus comes across.

 

It's 25+ years since I was last unemployed, but my nephew has been on the dole for a couple of months and a mate was long-term unemployed until a year ago. My impression from them is that the Jobcentre is next to useless. Worse, my impression is that its purpose mainly seems to be to kick people when they're down and trip people up into getting sanctioned - instead of helping people get back into work or become more employable.

 

I'm sure that some Jobcentre staff are very helpful - and I don't deny that some unemployed people need a kick up the arse. However, a lot (like my nephew and my mate) really do want to work, but may need guidance as to what to apply for, how to have a chance of making successful applications, how to retrain or to relate better to other people.

 

Through my mate and my nephew, my impression is that the main purpose of Jobcentre Plus is not to help such people (or even to sanction those who deserve it) but to give a kicking to those down on their luck, so as to please the Daily Mail and the sort of sour, resentful people who are so miserable in their own lives that they take pleasure from seeing a kicking handed out to those "doing them down". They should try looking at the structures of Anglo-American capitalism, greedy shareholders and corporate executives, the government as corporate whore and the buy-to-let brigade!

 

The JobCentre is appalling. Absolute piece of piss to con. I was on the dole for a while and decided to make something up as a bit of a test (including the company name, admittedly a bit of a pointless gamble) and they still completely bought it. Didn't even come close to getting a job under them and my adviser at a seperate place was equally as useless although someone else wasn't too bad.

 

One suitable application form my uncle showed me - and here I am. (At work, on Foxestalk )

[MrSpaM]

The line 'How do they expect us to live on that?' Is continuously used by everyone on the street.

I wish the guy with the camera would just say, 'you're not expected to live on it. That's the point'

It fills my heart with pity watching these people but it is very watchable.

 

 

+1'd this

 

This is the problem with the people in this program, they all seem to think they are given that money as 'pocket money', when it's supposed to be being used to pay for them to find a job. Fair enough the people who are on disability, but the only disability the people on this program seem to have is laziness.

[Buce]

The line 'How do they expect us to live on that?' Is continuously used by everyone on the street.

I wish the guy with the camera would just say, 'you're not expected to live on it. That's the point'

It fills my heart with pity watching these people but it is very watchable.

When a claimant receives a notification from the DWP to confirm their benefit award, they are told: "this is the amount that the government says that you need to live on".

I believe JSA is somewhere in the region of £73; out of this, they have to pay water rates, energy bills, a percentage of their council tax, and feed themselves.

It is hardly the life of Riley.

[The God Emperor]

If next week is mainly about people looking for work, I'll be very interested to see how Jobcentre Plus comes across.

 

It's 25+ years since I was last unemployed, but my nephew has been on the dole for a couple of months and a mate was long-term unemployed until a year ago. My impression from them is that the Jobcentre is next to useless. Worse, my impression is that its purpose mainly seems to be to kick people when they're down and trip people up into getting sanctioned - instead of helping people get back into work or become more employable.

 

I'm sure that some Jobcentre staff are very helpful - and I don't deny that some unemployed people need a kick up the arse. However, a lot (like my nephew and my mate) really do want to work, but may need guidance as to what to apply for, how to have a chance of making successful applications, how to retrain or to relate better to other people.

 

Through my mate and my nephew, my impression is that the main purpose of Jobcentre Plus is not to help such people (or even to sanction those who deserve it) but to give a kicking to those down on their luck, so as to please the Daily Mail and the sort of sour, resentful people who are so miserable in their own lives that they take pleasure from seeing a kicking handed out to those "doing them down". They should try looking at the structures of Anglo-American capitalism, greedy shareholders and corporate executives, the government as corporate whore and the buy-to-let brigade!

the purpose of the job centre isnt to get people work. decreasing unemployment is very bad for the welfare state. fewer people claiming benefits means there is less of a justification to expand and have greater amounts of wealth circulating through their system.  

[Merging Cultures]

Can't agree on smoking being a hobby, it certainly can't be justified that taxpayers should fund people's addictions whatever they are.

Ideally he would be working via manuel labour buy why would he do that when he can knock a couple of kids out and me and you can lose our wages to fund his life?

Fortunately it does now appear the government is getting a grip on these people to some extent.

Next week should be very interesting.

 

Agree on the smoking/habit thing. Food stamps are the way to go.

 

Also, he shouldn't be able to opt out of manual labour, unless he finds a job. Which should be a part of the 1 day a week skills training session.

 

By all accounts he is fit and able to work and isn't able to find anything else. So, he should receive his dole money and do something productive for 4 days a week as suggested.

[Merging Cultures]

When a claimant receives a notification from the DWP to confirm their benefit award, they are told: "this is the amount that the government says that you need to live on".

I believe JSA is somewhere in the region of £73; out of this, they have to pay water rates, energy bills, a percentage of their council tax, and feed themselves.

It is hardly the life of Riley.

 

Isn't that the point he is making?

 

It isn't supposed to be the life of Riley, but people expect it to be. They say, how can I live on that. Well, don't buy cigs for a start...

[Buce]

Isn't that the point he is making?

It isn't supposed to be the life of Riley, but people expect it to be. They say, how can I live on that. Well, don't buy cigs for a start...

He wrote: "I want the cameraman to say, 'you're not expected to live on it, that's the point'".

In what way have I misinterpreted what he said?

[Merging Cultures]

Isn't that the point he is making?

It isn't supposed to be the life of Riley, but people expect it to be. They say, how can I live on that. Well, don't buy cigs for a start...

He wrote: "I want the cameraman to say, 'you're not expected to live on it, that's the point'".

In what way have I misinterpreted what he said?

I dont think he is suggesting people should have more money on JSA. Which I believe you are.

I think he is suggesting it is a temporary measure, i.e. not to be lived on, that will require life style adjustments until a job is found.

It may not even cover all bills unfortunately.

This is JSA, not long term disability or pension.

[Harry - LCFC]

the purpose of the job centre isnt to get people work. decreasing unemployment is very bad for the welfare state. fewer people claiming benefits means there is less of a justification to expand and have greater amounts of wealth circulating through their system.  

 

So you're telling us the government want to keep unemployment high?

[Webbo]

So you're telling us the government want to keep unemployment high?

The left will say the right want to keep unemployment high to force wages down, the right will say the left want to keep people on benefit so that they can control them and force them to vote labour to keep their benefit. There's probably a little bit of truth in both.

[The God Emperor]

So you're telling us the government want to keep unemployment high?

yes, it makes a case for their expansion. government is ultimately self serving, everything it does is to facilitate it's expansion and get more wealth circulating through it instead of the market. the bigger it gets, the more self serving it becomes.  no government has ever behaved otherwise.

now I dont believe everyone in government is deliberately plotting this expansion, although government will definatley have corrupt individuals working in it who are. this is more instinctive behaviour of the state. one thing humans are very good at doing is rationalising things, "if it's good for me, then it must be for everyone else".