"No it won't. We'd still have the 'safety net' in place to avoid the all-out catastrophes.... but the net would be set so it was NOT a comfortable place to be. The 'safety net' should be EXACTLY that..... not a comforatble feather-bed in which to lay about all day..... At the moment, we have the safety net ABOVE the heads of those people who are on the minimum wage and that is plain LUDICROUS!"
Before making these ridiculous & inaccurate statements you need to define who, exactly, you are talking about: JSA/income support/Single/couple/householder/with parents/childless etc. The current levels of support for the childless unemployed are not enough to meet your own "safety net" level!
"Your comment about 'no jobs' is blatantly TRIPE..... " I didn't say NO jobs, I said NOT ENOUGH. By the governments own figures, and you can be sure that they are upwardly fiddled to the max, there are only 475,000 vacancies in the country at the moment, and as I said, a lot of these are not proper jobs. Even if every vacancy was filled, there would still be millions unemployed needing enough to live a reasonable life on.
"when a 'worker' turns DOWN a series of Jobs for which he COULD work. If he doesn't get OFFERED the jobs, he CANNOT get his benefit cut!" This is no different to current rules.
"So..... at what point would YOU 'force' 'workers' to take jobs.....? Is there NO point at which a 'worker' should HAVE to take a job or lose his benefit? Should **I** be allowed to say: 'I am qualified as a psychologist, programmer, car saleman, estate agent, builder and race engineer (tee hee....!) but I'll only accept a job as the head of the BBC or, at a pinch, Channel 4!'........????" There has to be a degree of common-sense exercised here, are you saying it would be fair to stop the benefits of a bloke who has spent 30 years in a steel foundry because he refused a job as a commission only Avon representative? And, yes, such jobs ARE included in the governments 475,000 figure!
|
|