More Please, Faster!

Half of those claiming unemployment benefits would prefer to lose their handouts than do a stint of unpaid work.

Figures show that 20 per cent of those ordered to take part in four-week community projects stop claiming immediately

Then, what the hell do they live on? Unless…


Officials suspect many of those who stop claiming benefits are working in the black economy and would rather lose their welfare than give up their undeclared earnings.

Fertile ground for the tax people, you might think, then?

Government sources say the results of a trial scheme are so striking that ministers are preparing to roll it out nationwide in a programme hitting up to 50,000 unemployed.

Yes please!

A source close to the programme told the Mail that the results so far had been ‘extraordinary’.‘This has started on a relatively small scale, to see how it would work, but nobody expected the results we are seeing,’ he said.

‘More than half of those people referred are coming off benefits. Around a fifth sign off straight away after being referred for mandatory work activity.

‘Another third simply don’t turn up, and then have their benefits stopped unless they are prepared to re-engage with the programme at a later date.

‘They have to spend a month working in a charity shop or with various voluntary organisations. The idea is that they have to get up, go out and come away with some sort of work ethic.

‘Instead, for the majority it is proving to be a push that gets them off benefits. What this demonstrates is that there is really a hardcore of claimants who have absolutely no intention of working come what may.’

Hurrah! At last! Someone is saying the unsayable!

And if it hadn’t been for all the who-ha on Stephen Lawrence last week, this might even have made it into the headlines…

29 comments for “More Please, Faster!

  1. January 9, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Excellent. I love the outrage in the Daily Mail – “It’s slave labour!”, “No one can be forced to work for nothing!”, “Article whatnot of the ECHR!”, etc.
    It’s not slave labour and neither is it working for nothing. It’s working for your benefit payments that we have to fund.

    • January 10, 2012 at 3:05 pm

      But if you’re only getting £1.50 an hour or so, it’s very close to slave labour. Bear in mind that not every unemployed person claims housing benefit.

      • January 10, 2012 at 3:18 pm

        I would like to see the figures on how many don’t claim housing benefit and how many are receiving only the equivilant of £1.50 per hour.

        • January 10, 2012 at 3:21 pm

          Well, I imagine there are a lot of young people living with their parents.

          • January 10, 2012 at 3:41 pm

            True enough but this scheme won’t affect them. If it’s going to target 50,000 people then it will presumably target the long term unemployed.

            • January 10, 2012 at 3:48 pm

              All I can say is, you feel like killing yourself when you’re unemployed and claiming benefits and the Jobcentre staff are quite often evil individuals. It’s not really a lifestyle to enjoy.

              • January 10, 2012 at 3:51 pm

                I would imagine feeling that way if I was out of work and on the dole.

                However I have met many, many people, mostly when I was working in pubs, who are more than happy living their lives on benefits and never seem to be short of cash.

  2. bollixed
    January 9, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Maybe the bigger question is WHY we are developing a Soviet style black economy? Is it because the current system rewards cheating and lies and punishes graft and honesty? Is it because without excessive taxation we wouldn’t have so many bods unable to make ends meet on a basic wage while the super rich get it all? As far as I am concerned let them carry on working in the hidden economy where they aren’t paying taxes. Starve this bloody gubmint and its EU bosses of every penny we can until they start actually listening to us and working for us. That’s the only thing that will get their undivided attention.

    We seem to have forgotten that it wasn’t so long ago that decent hard-working people were tarring and feathering and killing excisemen for trying to collect unfair and unpopular taxes like income tax. That was the days when we weren’t sheep, of course. 🙄

  3. January 9, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    For £67.50 a week someone should be willing to work unpaid? Why? When they were working, they paid taxes to help fund their unemployment benefit.

    I don’t understand the reasoning. It sets a very bad precedent in an already dubious and increasingly unfair economy.

    Meanwhile, we have a load of people, some of whom are new arrivals, on the dole and living in nice houses out of the reach of most middle class people. They don’t have to lift a finger.

    • Tattyfalarr
      January 10, 2012 at 10:38 am

      Why not work for benefits if you are capable ? It’s not as if having a job is only about the benefit that the cash itself brings. Routine, experience, achieving qualifications, social interaction are just some of the “other” benefits regular employment can bring.

      If this scheme were to work on a sliding scale then to “earn” benefit of £67.50 per week…and payable in line with Minimum Wage…someone over 21 would have to put in approx 11 hours per week. Hardly unreasonable.

      Even working 40 hours per week…assuming lunch and breaks are paid…someone over 21 would earn the equivalent of £243.20 in Minimum Wage terms. So anyone receiving Housing Benefit in excess of £175 is still quids in.

    • January 10, 2012 at 10:48 am

      “For £67.50 a week someone should be willing to work unpaid? Why? When they were working, they paid taxes to help fund their unemployment benefit.”

      Churchmouse, they’ll also have their entire Council Tax bill paid at taxpayers’ expense and their rent costs at the ceiling of the 30% of the locally-calculated range for private rentals – or lower if they are living in highly-subsidised Council or Housing Association properties. If they have children there will be Child Benefit (with no ceiling for the number of kids: breed on, Sharona and Chavella, because the sky’s the limit!) plus Child Tax Credit for each child and free school meals and dentistry and bits and bobs.

      “£67.50 a week ” Jobseeker’s Allowance is for groceries and utilities [and they can so often amazingly afford large mobile phone bills for some reason] and so they can live comfortably but not luxuriously] off that if they shop thriftily. Or, as we in the trade know, they are either working on the side or living as husband and wife with a partner and getting more benefits than they are entitled to [or need] but not declaring it and the very low number of fraud investigators are hemmed around with ‘benefit of the doubt’ legal decisions by benefits judges who have SO gone native.
      A sizeable minority of benefits ‘customers’ have claimed since leaving school at 16 [often living off their mothers’ benefits for a year until Jobseekers’ entitlement is more likely ] or since they walked out on their first job in some kind of a huff.

      In between this the males are getting a series of girlfriends pregnant – and whose benfeits sky-rocket the moment they give birth – and who have little or no further need for their babies’ fathers, and who don’t even need to look for work until their youngest child is 7 – they get Income Support instead of JSA. Their fatherless kids cause havoc at school and in the street and ruin many of their classmates’ early educations.
      This is the caste that the legislation is intended to catch and who must be caught and forced to act responsibly.

      As for the out-of-work single and childless NI former taxpayer – the system of Working Tax Credit and Council Tax and Housing Benefit is rigged so that single adult will still be a little bit better of financially than on the dole [ the system needs tweaking to make the gap bigger].

      But to expect no work or practical training experience out of such unfortunate people indefinitely [and I’ve been one of them in the past and hated the inactivity] creates the tempation in them to join the benefit caste indefinitley. I know this because this is what has happened to several erstwhile self-supporting young men and women whom I have advised about their benefit claims. Backbone and planning for a better future is nothing like as widespread as you might hope for to induce people to work their ways out of. It’s just too easy for another sizeable [and corruptible] minority to decide to sit at home and watch TV and be otherwise unambitious.

      And yes, in many cases EU immigrants CAN get benefits without working – but they’ve got to conform to the lifestyle geometry that allows it,which usually takes having children after a stretch of honest paid work in the UK at first and prove thye are doing something pretty chunky to look for work. That’s another reason to leave the EU for sure, but the native British welfare caste is the group that threatens our economy and public order the most.

      • January 10, 2012 at 12:30 pm

        Well, when I was on UI, no one paid my council tax. Didn’t even know it was possible. I would never have asked for it, anyway.

        There seems to be a danger of lumping all the unemployed into the same category.

        I’m surprised to see the number of comment(er)s on here who support the notion that people formerly in work and actively looking for employment should be working for a paltry sum for which they paid.

        At the same time, they give immigrants a pass for demanding better housing (e.g. Hampstead, Ealing). I don’t have the links, but the Mail occasionally profiles these stories as did the Evening Standard in the 1990s. They are not all Europeans. But, that, at least to the majority commenting on this post, doesn’t seem to matter, yet far larger sums of taxpayers’ money are involved with no return from the claimants.

        Again, as I said downthread, I hope that you and the others never find yourselves having to claim UI and being asked to work for £67.50 a week. The detachment and lack of empathy here for one’s own countrymen is staggering. Talk about kicking people when they’re down and adding insult to injury.

        • January 10, 2012 at 3:28 pm

          Don’t forget that we now have an entire class of people who live on benefits and have no intention of looking for work. They milk everything they can. I am totally unsympathetic to these people, and all the immigrants you mention.

          As the article states that this scheme will affect 50,000 people when it is rolled out nationwide, I suspect it will only hit the long term scroungers rather than the genuine cases who you correctly defend.

        • Tattyfalarr
          January 10, 2012 at 3:48 pm

          What, precisely, is “insulting” or “injurious” about being asked to work for a few weeks in exchange for unlimited access (except by means-testing) to a whole host of welfare benefits ?

          You don’t honestly think whatever you paid in “National Insurance” actually covers what you get back, do you ? It’s not actually “insurance” at all it’s merely a contribution to National coffers.

          I’m not totally unsympathetic to anyone who (not “feels” but actually) genuinely IS hard done by but come on…I come from a generation that had to have worked for two years and paid full NI before even getting a sniff at Uemployment benefit and even then it was only payable for two years.

          I’m amazed at just how little time it has taken for welfare benefits to be considered an absolute and never-ending right…even when it is known that such is provided for out of the wages of those working 40+ hours per work on Minimum Wage themselves. 😐

  4. Ed P
    January 9, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    Oh dear, that old immigrant “argument” again.
    There are many who never worked, so paid no taxes before being on benefits.
    One reason for insisting on some activity is to weed out those claiming benefit but actually working for cash.
    Immigrants are not treated any differently – you should read a decent newspaper and stop believing lies.

    • January 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm

      If they never worked, then they are on the dole not unemployment insurance.

      If the Government wishes to weed out fraudsters, why do they tar everyone with the same brush?

      • Ed P
        January 9, 2012 at 7:35 pm

        Yes, dole/UI as you say, but it all comes from the taxpayer.
        The referrals are weeding out claimants unwilling to be reassessed: some of these are suspected of living off work-for-cash. The genuinely needy will still receive state help. I believe it’s really the media, not the government, “tarring everyone with the same brush”.

        • January 10, 2012 at 5:52 am

          Spot on!

          It’s what annoys me with the #spartacusreport stuff. The public are quite well aware and agree that those who NEED help should be given it, but the media focussing on ‘the small number of benefit cheats’ isn’t somehow leading to a wave of ‘disability hate crime’.

          It’s just that benefit cheating and violent crimes are both NEWS, and so the MSM will report both.

    • January 10, 2012 at 5:53 am

      Immigrants are treated differently; first, there’s a duty to house asylum seekers, and secondly, since they always seem to have large families, they will get priority for the best housing.

  5. Monty
    January 9, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    Churchmouse, are you being silly on purpose?

    The scheme is using a good criterion for homing in on claimants who are actually working and earning, and claiming fraudulently. Such folk can not present themselves for full time attendance in the workfare program.

    • January 9, 2012 at 9:01 pm

      Yes, but how many are there in reality or is this all cooked up? I’ve claimed unemployment before and reported faithfully to the Job Centre. It’s no treat.

      Before long, anyone claiming unemployment is going to be denormalised, like a smoker or drinker.

      Hope you don’t fall into one of those three categories at some point.

      • January 10, 2012 at 5:55 am

        “Yes, but how many are there in reality or is this all cooked up?”

        Yes, well, we’ll find out, I suspect, when this small trial rolls out nationwide… 😈

  6. January 9, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    It is not for the £67.50 Jobseekers Allowance, most of them couldn’t give a stuff about that, it’s the housing benefit, Remind them that if JSA is stopped so is the free rent and they shit themselves. what’s the point in earning £500 cash in hand if you have to pay rent out of it, like a mug.

    Although what usually happens is , JSA & HB stopped for non compliance, bloke goes to stay with mate, wife or G/f turns up next day with claim as Lone Parent , HB restarted (can’t see the kiddies out on the street, can we), bloke pops round every day to ‘see his kids innit’ and sometimes stays the night but on the sofa coz was too drunk to drive to his lodgings.

    “But she’s pregnant again ”
    “Yeah, but we’re not getting back together, can I have a social fund claim form we need a cot”

    • January 9, 2012 at 10:07 pm

      If so, that’s not necessarily unemployed. That’s more Dole Story. 😉

  7. Maaarrghk!
    January 10, 2012 at 6:04 am

    I too have been on the dole. And I have worked for the “black economy” too. I’m niether proud nor ashamed of that – it’s just what I had to do to keep the wolves from the door.

    My lifestyle was still basic and the axtra money I earned was to keep a 20 year old small motorbike on the road. Not a luxury, but a necessity if I was to stand a chance of finding a job which might be miles from any bus route.

    Those who tar the unemployed as “scroungers” and “cheats” have obviously not tasted the “delights” of living off state handouts and I would recomend these people try a good dose of it.

    Having said all that though, I can still vouch for the fact that there are a minority that genuinely believe that the state owes them a living. I have seen and met some of them during my own time as a “scumbag theiving scrounger”. The problem with many of them is that they do tend to be unemployable – I certainly would not employ them.

    • January 10, 2012 at 10:17 am

      Those who tar the unemployed as “scroungers” and “cheats” have obviously not tasted the “delights” of living off state handouts and I would recomend these people try a good dose of it.

      Thank you! My thoughts exactly.

      • January 10, 2012 at 3:08 pm

        I second this!

        • Tattyfalarr
          January 10, 2012 at 4:32 pm

          True…and yet you said: “they give immigrants a pass for demanding better housing further up ^^

          Tell that to the family of sri-lankans at the bottom of my road squished into a two bed flat above the shop they’re renting and working at least 12 hours a day to run.

 know the rest. 😆

  8. January 10, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    It is better to work for dole than lose the benefits as the type of thing people are being moved onto by WP firms is temporary low paid work which then sees them back on the dole, having lost their homes and adding to the council’s woes and the taxpayers’ expense.

    In the States, there’ve been incidences of firms in a depressed area being given incentives as a alternative to the workforce going onto the dole as the former is more cost effective and healthier to boot. I have no issue with working for dole. I have every issue with forcing people to take non-jobs specified by work programme tyrants which reduce income by up to 50% and lose them their homes.

Comments are closed.