50
Hunt warns of benefit cuts for people who won’t ‘actively look for work’ (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Plenty would happily work "a bit" or "in some way", but there's not a lot in the system to support assisted/flexible/partial working etc.

If you have injuries, ailments, illnesses, they're still asking you to work 40 hours or go fully on sick, rather than supporting a "however many hours you can manage" and a small topup to maintain a basic standard of living.

These used to be part of the system, in the earlier part of the "working tax credits" era.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm sorry to hear that - and I don't doubt they exist, but i don't think it's in the numbers that sometimes get portrayed, more in "statistically irrelevant" sort of numbers - though it will depend vastly on where you live in the country. I'm sure it's a visible problem in some specific areas or communities.

    However, I also think people (and the job centre) should be picky about the work people are applying for, at least for a while. This was also formerly part of the system, where they pretty much gave you a year of looking for relevant work, before enforcing other options.

    When someone better qualified (like when a large employer in an area suddenly closes) is forced to do an entry level job, especially through one of those "supporting you back to work" scams, where you work 40 hours in exchange for your dole & landlord benefit (i.e. working for ~£3 an hour) - you're blocking all the entry level work from people who can currently only apply to it.

    Personally, I'd rather let the handful of gleeful scroungers skip joyously down the road with their £70 in hand and do nothing, than punish millions of genuinely struggling people "just in case".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Unless anything magical has happened in the last few years, I still live in one of the "worst" inner city places to be in the UK for income, employment, crime and reputation etc (i.e. you can still buy a 3 bed terrace on my street for less than £100k) - but, yes, I'm probably only ten minutes walk away from a "nice bit", and the "worst bit" is over a mile away, in a direction I generally don't need to go in - but it's definitely no leafy village :)

    Regardless, I do know what you mean - I think I just look at it more optimistically (or naively) and assume the best in everyone.

    I used to do work with community groups round here (and in the "worst bit") so I was constantly meeting and working with desperate people trying their best, but being shat on by the world/benefits system - so obviously my view is skewed a bit in favour of those who'd turn up to such things - and I'm not going to meet any of those that truly don't care.

    I'll accept my numbers are likely a bit off and biased, but I still feel The "scrounger" number is tiny compared to the genuinely struggling.

    The difference between my time on the dole (~18 years ago) and my partner's time on the dole (~7 years ago) is astonishing. I was respected and supported to set up my own business. She wanted to do the same but was treated like a criminal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent