Is there no end to this madness?

All about money
With a severely disabled daughter who could be miraculously 'cured ' by an Atos WCA and a son currently unemployed I could cry.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... less-costs
I'm sure the madness could go further yet...oakum picking?
I'm sure the madness could go further yet...oakum picking?
Yeah, next the workhouse...
Its stupid idea! If someone is working full time for their benefits then they should be paid a full time wage, all this will do is allow employers to have workers they don't have to pay for so why would they employ someone they have to pay? People will be made redundant to allow the person on benefits to have a job. What planet are they on?
I agree Nilla.
So being long term unemployed in Britain is like being a criminal??
Criminals can be sentenced to short term community service but the long term unemployed are going to be 'sentenced' to continuous community service? Is this what we've come to?
If community jobs are there, pay the unemployed minimum wage - better still a 'living' wage...
Then there's the idea of making the long term unemployed sign on EVERY DAY. In my area, all the local job centres have closed down, and the majority of staff have been made redundant or "redeployed". My best friend now does a 100 mile round trip every day to work at her DWP office! I'm sure they haven't thought this through. Quite apart from the size of the building required, especially in areas of high unemployment, what about people in rural areas without access to a car or public transport?!
What size building will be needed? How will it be staffed and what are the unemployed going to do when they get there? Sounds like a school for the unemployed!
The really worrying thing is that the people coming up with these hare brained schemes are running the country, and a few people must have approved these ideas before they went public!! (I'm not a member of any political party, I don't have faith in any of them).
Hi Bowlingbun
I too have no faith in any of the big 3 parties either. Of course this scheme is madness, as described above.
But common sense doesn’t come into. It’s purely to appeal to the ‘electorate’ in the run-up to the next election. The sad thing is, is that it will probably work; the get tough stance that is, not the scheme itself.

If people were given the facts, as opposed to propaganda, they’d be in a position to make their minds up properly. But facts, fairly and clearly presented, are boring, and don’t pander to peoples preconceived prejudices. Given that a lot of people want their prejudices to be reinforced, not challenged, straight forward facts don’t sell newspapers either!
My parents read the Daily Mail, and I’m amazed at the misinformation printed in this paper. Here’s my fave example; just one of many.

Head line in DM, Aug 12, 2013, page 10: The 4,000 jobless singletons raking in benefits worth £23k
It starts off this article by stating that these 4,000 single people without children are living ‘on easy street,’ and they get more in welfare payments than many who are in work. IDS is going to reign in what he calls ‘out of control’ claims.

The whole implication of this headline and 1st four paragraphs is that 4,000 jobseekers have £23,000 at their disposal to spend how they see fit.
If I were a fulltime worker struggling to raise a family on the median wage (not average, they’re very different) of £18,000 a year, I’d be outraged too.
“For those eyeballing benefits as a one-way ticket to easy street, I have a wake-up call for you: those days are over,” IDS stated.

“Bloody good thing too!” I’d reply, as my hypothetical hard working family man/woman. And probably cease reading the rest of article, as over 80% of people rely on headlines and first few paragraphs for their info.
With my not unreasonable prejudices suitably reinforced, I’d probably go off to read the next article (eye-catchingly advertised in a large black banner at bottom of the page) “Forced to live off 1940’s-style Benefits pages 22-24 >”

The next 5 paragraphs are fairly arcane waffle, probably to put people off reading the full article.
Only by paragraph 10 does the determined reader find out who these 4,000 singletons raking it in actually are: they’re “in temporary accommodation where rents can be higher.”
In other words the homeless, placed in b&b’s as a last resort because of the housing shortage.
Yet, not once throughout this entire article (nearly a full page) was the accurate, and emotive, word ‘homeless’ mentioned, only that euphemistic ‘ in temporary accommodation’ and then only the once.

This article never once mentioned that a homeless person is entitled to no more JSA than anyone else - £71.70 per week, or £3,728.40 per year, to spend on themselves (or about £56 per week if under 25.)
This means that over a period of a year, some landlords must have charging £20,000 + per homeless person per year. A landlord specializing in this kind of accommodation, with room for 10 homeless people say, could be receiving upwards of £200,000 per year.
And what do many of these landlords provide for the taxpayers buck? A room which you’re booted out of during the day, meaning you have to wonder the streets; and scant, if any at all, cooking facilities.
Plus, if the price of a breakfast is included, at say £3.50 per day, then the homeless person has to pay this out of their JSA, regardless of whether they want it or not; they’re not given any choice in the matter. Their JSA, to spend how they see fit, is now reduced from £71.70 to £47.20, and to about £31 if under 25.
To have described the homeless as living on ‘easy street’ is breath-taking inaccurate beyond words, and is just plain down right vicious and vindictive.

So, it turns out that it’s the landlords who are ‘raking it in’ not the homeless themselves.
To try and blame the homeless for the greed of landlords (who never got a mention in this article) borders on the evil, and is a true case of ‘blame the victim.’

But that’s what the Murdoch press specialises in and, credit where credit is due, they’re past masters at it.
The real scandal that needs exposing is how these exploitative landlords rip off the taxpayers by feeding off the homeless. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen form the Murdoch press; it simply isn’t in their DNA to do so. I bet Rachmann would have been defended to the hilt by the Mail, if he were around today.

Also, this is another example of ‘get tough for the electorate’ with a policy that’s doomed to fail regarding saving taxpayer’s money; it’s supposed aim.

For, if I were an exploitative landlord, I’d simply cram in more homeless people to make up the shortfall. There’s never a shortage of the homeless after all, and it’s probably set to increase too.
And with all the government and council cutbacks, health & safety officers are going to be spread thinner than margarine in a pauper’s household, so I’d get away with it too.
All in all, I won’t lose a penny and my homeless ‘customers’ will be in worse conditions than before (but who cares about them!)

“Now let me think…Image if I take this room, rip out the window, put in two smaller ones in, and partition it down the middle, I can cram another homey in.
Hey! I can do that to 3 other rooms as well. Let me see… that’ll cost about £5,000, but then I can charge for 14 homeless instead of just 10. Wow! That’s an extra £80,000 a year, even with this cap, and all for a measly few grand investment.
Thank you Coalition Government!
Image “At first I was gutted about this cap, but now I realise you were just incentivising me. Image
And being housed in even more cramped poorly lit and ventilated rooms than before will incentivise my homeless victims, sorry customers, too. So, not only will I make even more money at the taxpayer’s expense, it’ll be good for the homeless too. You guys are geniuses!”
Slum landlord Image IDS

Image The General Public!

Right, that’s my rant over and done with.
How big will the Job centres be Image or as we call them The Joke Shop .