Force single parents to work?


M

mart2306

Single parents should be forced to get part-time jobs when their
children are as young as four or face losing benefits, the Tories
said.

(Advertisement)
Shadow work and pensions secretary Chris Grayling said "tougher" US-
style conditions should be imposed to ensure state payments did not
become "a way of life" for anyone.

But his proposals came under fire from lone-parent campaigners who
said "strong arm" measures would harm youngsters, pointing out recent
rises in child poverty levels in America.

In a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank Mr Grayling said: "In
Australia, many parts of the United States, the Netherlands and
elsewhere, a combination of tougher conditionality and well-focused
support programmes to get people back into work have delivered real
reductions to welfare rolls.

"We will provide much better support for people looking to get back
into work. But at the same time, we will be tough on those who are
reluctant to start working to get back into work.

"We will expect people to take part in welfare to work programmes. We
will expect single parents who can work to start doing so as their
children get older.

"A primary school parent should be willing to work part time; a
secondary school parent should be willing to work full time.

"If they won't, then the state cannot be expected to simply continue
to support them through benefit payments. David Cameron called it
tough love.

"It's the right thing for them, and for their children."

He added: "No one's life is enhanced by being paid to sit at home and
do nothing. The welfare state must, for most of us, be a safety net
and not a way of life."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20071212/tuk-force-parents-to-work-say-tories-6323e80_1.html
 
R

Robin T Cox

Shadow work and pensions secretary Chris Grayling said "tougher" US-
style conditions should be imposed to ensure state payments did not
become "a way of life" for anyone.
So when are we going to see the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary
calling for a reduction in the fat pensions paid to Westminster MPs for
doing little of anything very useful except troop through the lobbies as
they are told?

After all, we don't want them getting the idea that their fat pensions,
paid for by the State, should become a 'way of life' for them, do we?
 
Ad

Advertisements

W

we are the robots

(e-mail address removed) wrote:
<snip>
Neither is anyones life enhanced by doing a McJob.
 
M

mart2306

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

<snip>
Neither is anyones life enhanced by doing a McJob.
I'm not so sure about that. I rather like the occasional McMeal - as
do many others.

If no-one did it, we wouldn't have the convenience of cheap, fast, hot
food.

Martin <><
 
R

Robbie

Single parents should be forced to get part-time jobs when their
children are as young as four or face losing benefits, the Tories
said.

(Advertisement)
Shadow work and pensions secretary Chris Grayling said "tougher" US-
style conditions should be imposed to ensure state payments did not
become "a way of life" for anyone.

But his proposals came under fire from lone-parent campaigners who
said "strong arm" measures would harm youngsters, pointing out recent
rises in child poverty levels in America.

In a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank Mr Grayling said: "In
Australia, many parts of the United States, the Netherlands and
elsewhere, a combination of tougher conditionality and well-focused
support programmes to get people back into work have delivered real
reductions to welfare rolls.

"We will provide much better support for people looking to get back
into work. But at the same time, we will be tough on those who are
reluctant to start working to get back into work.

"We will expect people to take part in welfare to work programmes. We
will expect single parents who can work to start doing so as their
children get older.

"A primary school parent should be willing to work part time; a
secondary school parent should be willing to work full time.

"If they won't, then the state cannot be expected to simply continue
to support them through benefit payments. David Cameron called it
tough love.

"It's the right thing for them, and for their children."

He added: "No one's life is enhanced by being paid to sit at home and
do nothing. The welfare state must, for most of us, be a safety net
and not a way of life."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20071212/tuk-force-parents-to-work-say-tories-6323e80_1.html

It's all very well the shadow DWP secretary talking tough but these same
ideas have been floating around for at least two decades and nothing
ever happens. While in power, the Conservatives never had the guts to
tackle the problem despite talking tough at the time.

Grayling seems to have overlooked the fact that from next year the age
of the youngest child which would mean a lone parent having to claim JSA
rather than remain on Income Support is being reduced to 12. So that
would meet his ideas of a secondary school parent having to work full
time as that is what will be expected of them.

Reducing the age of the child which lone parents are expected to work
part-time to 4 may be OK if there are enough childcare places available
and the jobs out there, but I wonder what he means by "part-time" - for
benefit purposes this is below 16 hours and the minimum wage would
probably end any IS entitlement for many of the parents anyway since
child additions are now normally tax credits, not payments of IS, which
is now a benefit paid only for adults. Additionally, when the US
originally tightened up its entitlement rules two decades ago some women
simply became baby machines, to always ensure they had a child below the
age at which they would be expected to seek work. So most States then
tightened the rules again which meant that women having a baby whilst on
welfare wouldn't get any additional money - that's where the increase in
child poverty in the US partly arises from. If a woman goes onto welfare
with one child that is all she will be paid for - one child, even if she
has another, and another... plus in many States, after the baby is 6
months old she has to either return to work or work for her benefit.
Additionally, the US equivalent of Income Support / means tested JSA is,
since 1996, payable only for a maximum of 5 years of the lifetime of a
person. Once those 5 years are gone, then payment is discretionary and
the discretionary payment of welfare can never exceed 2% of the welfare
budget of a State. Most people are turned down and have no option but to
work.
 
N

Niteawk

Single parents should be forced to get part-time jobs when their
children are as young as four or face losing benefits, the Tories
said.

(Advertisement)
Shadow work and pensions secretary Chris Grayling said "tougher" US-
style conditions should be imposed to ensure state payments did not
become "a way of life" for anyone.
Thats all those idle bastards ever do, attack the poor. Its the cost of
living those wasters should be looking at, not people who have nothing.


But his proposals came under fire from lone-parent campaigners who
said "strong arm" measures would harm youngsters, pointing out recent
rises in child poverty levels in America.
He would come under fire from me if I had an AK47.

In a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank Mr Grayling said: "In
Australia, many parts of the United States, the Netherlands and
elsewhere, a combination of tougher conditionality and well-focused
support programmes to get people back into work have delivered real
reductions to welfare rolls.

"We will provide much better support for people looking to get back
into work. But at the same time, we will be tough on those who are
reluctant to start working to get back into work.

"We will expect people to take part in welfare to work programmes. We
will expect single parents who can work to start doing so as their
children get older.

"A primary school parent should be willing to work part time; a
secondary school parent should be willing to work full time.

"If they won't, then the state cannot be expected to simply continue
to support them through benefit payments. David Cameron called it
tough love.

"It's the right thing for them, and for their children."

He added: "No one's life is enhanced by being paid to sit at home and
do nothing. The welfare state must, for most of us, be a safety net
and not a way of life."
And likewise no one's life is enhanced by working for what amounts to little
more than benefits, the problem lies with the cost of living. Thanks to
those idle cunts in parliament, people are now better off on the dole. A NMW
job will not cover the cost of housing let alone buy food and pay bills.

The problem you have with unemployment is caused by the greed of rich
fuckers who sit on their arses all day thinking up more and more ways to
exploit the poor, but the days of exploiting the poor must be coming to an
end if they are having to resort to measures like this in an attempt to get
people off the dole. Wait until the Poles and the rest of our immigrants
start to qualify for JSA. What will they do then. Single parents are only
the tip of the iceberg.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mart2306

It's all very well the shadow DWP secretary talking tough but these same
ideas have been floating around for at least two decades and nothing
ever happens. While in power, the Conservatives never had the guts to
tackle the problem despite talking tough at the time.

Grayling seems to have overlooked the fact that from next year the age
of the youngest child which would mean a lone parent having to claim JSA
rather than remain on Income Support is being reduced to 12. So that
would meet his ideas of a secondary school parent having to work full
time as that is what will be expected of them.

Reducing the age of the child which lone parents are expected to work
part-time to 4 may be OK if there are enough childcare places available
and the jobs out there, but I wonder what he means by "part-time" - for
benefit purposes this is below 16 hours and the minimum wage would
probably end any IS entitlement for many of the parents anyway since
child additions are now normally tax credits, not payments of IS, which
is now a benefit paid only for adults. Additionally, when the US
originally tightened up its entitlement rules two decades ago some women
simply became baby machines, to always ensure they had a child below the
age at which they would be expected to seek work. So most States then
tightened the rules again which meant that women having a baby whilst on
welfare wouldn't get any additional money - that's where the increase in
child poverty in the US partly arises from. If a woman goes onto welfare
with one child that is all she will be paid for - one child, even if she
has another, and another... plus in many States, after the baby is 6
months old she has to either return to work or work for her benefit.
Additionally, the US equivalent of Income Support / means tested JSA is,
since 1996, payable only for a maximum of 5 years of the lifetime of a
person. Once those 5 years are gone, then payment is discretionary and
the discretionary payment of welfare can never exceed 2% of the welfare
budget of a State. Most people are turned down and have no option but to
work.
Here in the Uk we have some baby machines. Every 4 or 5 years, another
child. Just to remain unavailable for work (and maybe something to do
while other kids are at school).
The US system isn't necessarily something that can be exported. And
the problem with taking just some ideas from another country is that
things can be taken out of context.

We have a decent welfare system in this country. People like to
complain, but few are left hungry. We all have a certain minimum
income (though funnily enough, most complaints in the local paper
about lack of income seem to be from pensioners, who are usually on
more than most other benefit claimants). Most have some sort of
housing entitlement, though can mean being put on a list and waiting a
while. Or agreeing to pay mortgage or rent.

Yes, the conservatives are amusing in that many of the issues they
complain about were never handled while we had a conservative
government, or were mishandled.
Next time they get in, Labour will complain about stuff that they
could have done something about. Its the nature of politics. :)

Long term, we do need a large working population to keep the large non-
working population (including non-working pensioners). There are
jobs.
Had something come through with this week's Third Sector news. Saying
80% of part-time workers are women. Though part-time is often seen as
anything less than full time hours being paid for (what is actually
worked can be a different matter).

Martin <><
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top