The latest 'smart' idea from the Tories

[Scampi]

It's this ill-thought out headline politics that makes me despair of politicians ( and not just the conservatives, labour went in for this sort of thing when they were in power). Anyone with half a brain can pick this apart in seconds, but the politicians calculate that this will look good on tabloid headlines.
In the meantime the real issues are ignored, creating jobs, protecting jobs and making low paid work worthwhile for those who will lose benefits.

 

[Acker79]

may have to travel up to ninety minutes or an hour and half to be exact

 

[Danny-Boy]

It's tragic that the Tories will win the next election by default thanks to Millibrand being a Labour leader who makes Kinnock look good.

Umm. Labour unlike the Tories (and even the LibDems of late) have been reticent in the past to "remove" their Leader. But if the Tories sense that Mllipede is a loser they will probably play on that and not markedly attack him.

The guy just sounds like a public-school apology for a "working man", someone who has never got dirt under his fingernails. Thatcher managed to have elocution lessons to eradicate her "poshness", will Ed?

No sound of it so far.

 

[Biscuit]

I find their approach to putting those with jobs at the top of the social housing list an odd one. Sure it rewards those with jobs (who can know doubt afford to rent somewhere), but surely those without jobs are the ones that need societies protection the most?

 

[beorhthelm]

criticism seems to be on the assumption the travel cost issue wount be reversed.

i'd say 90 minutes is too long to force people to take a job, but maybe an hour is suitable? why should the jobless be allowed to refuse to commute and still get benefits?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

criticism seems to be on the assumption the travel cost issue wount be reversed.

i'd say 90 minutes is too long to force people to take a job, but maybe an hour is suitable? why should the jobless be allowed to refuse to commute and still get benefits?

I would not bother getting out of bed to spend 3 hours a day commuting. Jesus.

 

[Simster]

This. And if the new job doesnt pay enough to cover the commute they should move closer!

You really need to think about what you've just written there.

 

[Simster]

criticism seems to be on the assumption the travel cost issue wount be reversed.

i'd say 90 minutes is too long to force people to take a job, but maybe an hour is suitable? why should the jobless be allowed to refuse to commute and still get benefits?

I'd have more respect for this idea if they had said "we have decided that it is not unreasonable for you to pick up the tab for up to £x in travel costs for your interview."

It is completely wrong looking at the distance from potential place of work. The distance to work is a misnomer - of course you're more likely to be happy to travel 90 mins if you're being rewarded by a decent salary as opposed to minimum wage, so applying the same law to ALL potential employment seems daft to me.

 

[Geriatric Seagull]

Surely people will be able to pay for their transport with the money they are "saving" from the Council Tax since it's not going up next year! Another Tory myth - it's not actually going down, just like petrol tax. But of course, under the millionaire Tory-boys Cameron and Osborne inflation is running at 5%, pay-rises are frozen and thousands are losing their jobs, so we'll all have to cut back, unlike them. And today they announce that we should all be paying off credit card and other debts? How? What with?

 

[beorhthelm]

I would not bother getting out of bed to spend 3 hours a day commuting. Jesus.

many of us do, and not for great money either.

It is completely wrong looking at the distance from potential place of work. The distance to work is a misnomer - of course you're more likely to be happy to travel 90 mins if you're being rewarded by a decent salary as opposed to minimum wage, so applying the same law to ALL potential employment seems daft to me.

agree its a bit arbitary (and that 90 min is too long). what seems daft to many though, is people being able to refuse to work in the next town or 30 miles away because its "too far".

 

[Gus is god]

I ant being funny but i been ill for years, while my benefits are not to bad at the moment, they are very likely to change due to the reform due to the disability system and the way the benefits work, so im more than likely to be forced to go back to work, even though every single person in my mental health team think i am not ready but its cool a government Dr that meets me once can determine this.

But i have been looking at work, and there is a bit about even locally while it ant the best work in the world its money in your pocket at the end of the day, im more pissed of as i want to train in helping children come through the issues i did, and i had volunteer work lined up and training also but this looks highly likely to be nipped in the bud now.

But on this point if i was made to travel 90mins to get work i would do it, but i do feel if the government are forcing you to do this while still on job seekers then they should help foot the cost at least for the interviews.

 

[Simster]

many of us do, and not for great money either.



agree its a bit arbitary (and that 90 min is too long). what seems daft to many though, is people being able to refuse to work in the next town or 30 miles away because its "too far".

If you are on minimum wage, or indeed have circumstances that massively squeeze your disposable income, then 30 miles CLEARLY is "too far".

You said it yourself - it is arbitary. What is wrong with my alternative cash based proposal, as without much though it seems to blow this crap Tory idea out of the water.

 

[Beach Hut]

For once this actually seems not very good as the cost of the travelling which is now becoming out of hand would probably be more than the earnings

 

[Beach Hut]

I would not bother getting out of bed to spend 3 hours a day commuting. Jesus.

That though depends on what you aspire to earn, if you do the job I do in London you probably get quite a bit more than if I did it in Shoreham-by-Sea where I live.

 

[beorhthelm]

You said it yourself - it is arbitary. What is wrong with my alternative cash based proposal, as without much though it seems to blow this crap Tory idea out of the water.

if you mean cash for travel to interview, then yes the benefits should pay for that. i'd go further and say if required to travel certain distances at certain costs then the benefits should supplement that too.

the point i was making is people are rejecting the principle of a proposal, when the real objection seems down to a technical detail of implementation, shirley? too often perfectly good policy ideas dont go anywhere because of this attitude, though tbf all too often good ideas are f***ed up at implementation because the government didnt consider the delivery.

 

[Simster]

the point i was making is people are rejecting the principle of a proposal, when the real objection seems down to a technical detail of implementation, shirley? too often perfectly good policy ideas dont go anywhere because of this attitude, though tbf all too often good ideas are f***ed up at implementation because the government didnt consider the delivery.

Not really. The "technical detail" here is the time taken to get to work, when the whole principal is flawed. As you agreed, "time taken" is arbitrary, and is the cornerstone of the policy. So in order to get through parliament, this will be watered down so as not to be deemed too unfair, and will end up saving the tax payer no more than a few pence.

It's no bad thing to be looking at procedure and due process like this if you do it properly, but it really isn't going to make a dent in the deficit is it? And is this sort of penny-pinching really going to kick start the economy, which I thought was the main reason behind their election? The Tories are OBSESSED with balancing the books ahead of anything else. There seems to be no recognition that the economy is structured with an inherent deficit problem and that reversing this might mean a 10 or 20 year PLAN instead of rash public sector cost cutting and poorly thought-through gimmicks like this.

 

[beorhthelm]

Simsteer, i think you are making the assumption that there will be no money to cover expenses, which as far as im aware was not anywhere in the policy but our Bhaexpress's observation thats how the current system works. also, i dont see this is a cuts driven policy either, its part of IDS's drive for a better method around welfare payments, some of that policy is going to be incresing cost in the short term.