You don't get it do you...I don't agree with your reasoning and I have no need to debate it with you, your entrenched political attitudes would not make for a reasoned debate in any case. I have in a single paragraph expressed my position on this (including the point on minimum wage), nothing more needs to be said. Your incessant reposting of that thread is daft.
Poll: which party are you going to vote in up coming elections?
- Thread starter badcompany
- Start date
- Status
You don't get it do you...I don't agree with your reasoning and I have no need to debate it with you, your entrenched political attitudes would not make for a reasoned debate in any case. I have in a single paragraph expressed my position on this (including the point on minimum wage), nothing more needs to be said. Your incessant reposting of that thread is daft.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
Oh right.
I voted for UKIP this time round, though normally a SNP supporter. I just don't like the direction that "Soapy" Salmond is going with insisting an independent Scotland would automatically join the EU where previously SNP policy was a referendum.
I'm expecting this to happen with the next election. From current votes it looks like Labour/LibDem pact wouldn't have enough to form a majority vs Tory/UKIP. The student vote might be more important than media is giving them credit for.
If, as expected, the SNP lose independence vote by ~20%, we'll have much fun in the next parliament when they start whining against the English vote.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
Hang on a sec, if voluntary community work is to be implemented then isn't that supposed to be voluntary? problem is if unemployed people don't volunteer to work for free then they are punished with sanctions, how the hell is that voluntary? It's forced unpaid labour.
Again go to relevant thread.
Last edited:
Like I said, I don't need to go to any other thread, perhaps you should as you are the one so desperate to debate the subject. The above is simply my opinion on a reasonable implementation...there is no suggestion of forcing anyone to work for free without there being a measurable and practical benefit to them this the term voluntary and the point about having no objection to paying them minimum wage if they forgo the relevant benefits.
As far as the actual system goes, there is no obligation to accept community work, you can visit the job centre each day or take up further training instead. Like I said, your entrenched views would not make a debate worthwhile and your incessant insistence on trying to engage is frankly just embarrassing.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
I think you need a little information.
http://www.boycottworkfare.org/?page_id=663
The fact is that all workfare schemes either threaten benefit sanctions – the removal of welfare – directly or indirectly to compel people to undertake unpaid work. See more information on the sanctions attached to a few of the schemes here.
DWP Work Experience
Although following our campaign’s success, this scheme is now formally ‘voluntary’, sanctions remain for gross misconduct. Not volunteering means you can be sent on a mandatory scheme instead. See more info on your rights here.
George Osborne MP stated for the record that:
“Young people who don’t engage with this offer will be considered for mandatory work activity, and those that drop out without good reason will lose their benefits.”
The Guardian has reported that those who do not “volunteer” for Work Experience have been sent on Mandatory Work Activity instead.
Sector-based work academies
On SBWA, jobseekers lose their benefits if they leave after the first week, or do not attend on the first day. See more info on your rights here.
This widely publicised account of the scheme has resulted in a legal challenge. Cait Reilly claims that she was not informed that there was any option not to take part, which is something that many people report. Her lawyers, Public Interest Lawyers, make ten points about the government’s workfare here.
Mandatory Work Activity
Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) carries a heavy sanction regime:“Customers who fail to complete a placement without good cause will lose their Jobseeker’s Allowance for a minimum of 3 months.” Sanctions imposed will continue to apply regardless of whether the claimant re-engages with workfare. From October 2012, sanctions of three years apply for a “third violation”.
See more info on your rights here.
The Work Programme
This Freedom of Information response shows that people are mandated to work unpaid for private companies on the Work Programme. Note: The DWP appear to have removed this link, so you can find it here instead.
Until the government edited DWP documents when workfare hit the headlines in February 2012, Work Programme provider guidance stated:
“Where you are providing support for JSA participants, which is work experience you must mandate participants to this activity. This is to avoid the National Minimum Wage Regulations, which will apply if JSA participants are not mandated.”
(See the chapter 3, point 14 of the guidance before and after.)
The campaign has had some success in removing sanctions from some of these schemes. See more info on your rights here.
Steps to Work
This scheme operates in Northern Ireland. Participation on Steps to Work is a mandatory requirement for all Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants aged between 18 and 24 who have been claiming JSA for six months, and for all JSA claimants aged 25 and over who have been claiming JSA for 18 months. It includes “work experience”.
More info here.
⇓ People on workfare placements are counted as "employed" in government statistics
⇓ Sanctions have dramatically increased
⇓ Workfare replaces jobs and undermines wages
⇓ The government is rolling out workfare on a massive scale
⇓ Workfare does not work
⇓ Workfare affects everyone
Now you have read our facts about workfare (which are referenced), you may be entertained to see how Chris Grayling’s claims on the Today Programme on Radio 4 on 24 February 2012 compare!
Last edited:
No, I really don't. Like I said I understand the relative arguments, the differing programmes and their merits and criticisms...I have not, nor have any intention of debating their relative points or supporting or opposing them. I set out what I thought was a reasonable solution in a single paragraph, it was concise and easy to understand for most people.
Perhaps you need to post this in the relevant thread and stop trying to engage me in a debate I'm not interested in having with you. Thanks.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
If your not interested in the debate then don't comment on it, it's clearly something you don't understand, you kicked off the debate with your post "forced labour scheme?"
I responded to that.
I responded to that.
Like I said all that time ago, I didn't need to reread your pet thread then, I still don't. I understand the arguments for and against perfectly well, and somewhat more objectively than you it seems. There was no debate to be had other than the exaggerated terminology used. You are the one who has incessantly commented on it, attempting to bring the debate into this thread and even going so far as to post a superfluous copy pasta even when you have been told umpteen times it's not necessary and I'm not interested in your opinion.
So thanks anyway, now leave me alone.
Asked and answered, so long ago...now if you want to discuss your opposition to something we are not discussing with someone interested then go join that thread you are so fond of.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,691
It's not my opinion I care for you to have an interest in, it's the facts, but I will leave you alone as long as you don't continue to post utter rubbish about the work programme.
The only person to post anything about The Work Programme is you. I am already aware of the facts thanks, as I said right at the beginning...you are the one trying to invent a debate where there is none to be had.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
The only thing you could conclusively say is that the percentages show that 27.49% of the people who voted in these elections voted for UKIP. To state that shows 30% of the UK want UKIP is supposition - the percentage of the overall UK that want UKIP may be higher or lower than the percentage shown by the vote but to reach any conclusion other than saying around 30% of those who voted chose to vote UKIP is based on assumption and extrapolation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,309
- Location
- Woking
This is obvious. Pioneer, please think a bit harder.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,614
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
The European elections ARE run under a form of proportional representation - not FPTP.
It's irrelevant either way. If people don't vote then they don't have there say. They don't count at all. If they wanted to be counted then they should vote, end of. UKIP got 27.5% of the vote, it's the only think you or anyone else here can be sure of and speculating on what the rest of the UK wants is a fools errand. If people wanted to stop UKIP then it's there own god damn fault for not turning out. The only thing that's for certain is for those that haven't voted just couldn't care enough to get themselves to the voting booth, so again, they are irrelevant.
spankingtexan, if you are still so vocal about work schemes (and still don't understand why it can't pay minimum wage and become national employment scheme instead of incentive to get full employment), why did you vote for party that wants to introduce much tougher work scheme and used to refer to benefit claimants as "a parasitic underclass of scroungers"?
- Status