IDS is an evil tw @t. His rhetoric of "fairness" is so transparent I just do not understand why it is isn't challenged.



His constant "Why is it fair that some people on benefits end up with more than those working" does my head.



It is the wrong question and he knows it. The question is why does employment not lift people out of poverty or off benefits given (pensioners apart) most people on benefits are actually working? It's low wages and high rents that are the problem. As well as people who would gladly work not being able to find any.



It is deliberately divisive and sadly as witnessed in this thread it works.

You've over-thought that.



The point is that Pickles is a 2@.

Simple.

Everyone who is able should be making a contribution for the monies they receive - there are plenty of public areas that could be enhanced by some physical effort.

Maybe you could explain how all the bods from eastern Europe manage to come here and find work in an economy with no jobs!!



Whilst you are at it you could also explain - given you consider yourself an expert in all matters - how in an economy with less physical jobs and huge advances in medical/drug science we have increasing numbers of those claiming disability?

I'd make successive Governments guarantee full employment for all the electorate of working age at a decent rate of remuneration.

I'd penalise them for not being able to make this provision for all.

Then you could have a decent argument for describing portions of the populi as shirkers.



Simplez.

As you have probably seen, over 200,000 people have signed a petition asking that IDS lives on £53 / week for at least a year. Let's hope he goes for it and does not get supported by his wife of by the State via his minister's salary.

And Spring has finally arrived!

Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise"Maybe you could explain how all the bods from eastern Europe manage to come here and find work in an economy with no jobs!!...'" The jobseekers outnumber the vacancies by a factor of 5 or 6. Some will get lucky and get a job, some of those will be Eastern European. But the number of jobseekers still outweighs the number of vacancies ... which of those without a job are the shirkers? How do we identify them? Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise" ...Whilst you are at it you could also explain - given you consider yourself an expert in all matters - how in an economy with less physical jobs and huge advances in medical/drug science we have increasing numbers of those claiming disability?'" Once again, that word "Thatcher". www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... y-benefits

Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise"Maybe you could explain how all the bods from eastern Europe manage to come here and find work in an economy with no jobs!!...'" The jobseekers outnumber the vacancies by a factor of 5 or 6. Some will get lucky and get a job, some of those will be Eastern European. But the number of jobseekers still outweighs the number of vacancies ... which of those without a job are the shirkers? How do we identify them? Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise" ...Whilst you are at it you could also explain - given you consider yourself an expert in all matters - how in an economy with less physical jobs and huge advances in medical/drug science we have increasing numbers of those claiming disability?'" Once again, that word "Thatcher". www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... y-benefits

And bacon will grow wings.

Areas that are currently not staffed, one assumes?

Or the jobs recently vacated by Osborne's clear-out?

And would they be paid the minimum wage ... or are you envisaging the public sector buying-into the Poundland scenario?



Are you sure you've thought this through?

Then that would require someone to be employed to provide this physical effort because what they would then be doing is in fact, [ua job[/u.



It would also require supervision, organisation and no doubt things like overalls and raw materials. They would probably need some form of insurance that covers employees and whoever it was "employing" them would need some sort of employee liability cover and so on.



In other words given what you suggest looks like a job, requires the same kind of support as job then it IS a job and so the person doing it ought to be paid a wage not benefits.



You don't half live in a simplistic world where you imagine you can give someone a mop and bucket and just tell them to get on with it. And that is being kind.

The irony of a government which by law requires an employer to pay a minimum wage at the same time insisting that a claimant does a job for far less than minimum wage is lost on too many.