[QUOTE=the truth;7767426]I recognise very little of your responses.

PIP is a nightmare, the delays in claiming it are horrendous, I was involved in the assisting of a lady claiming it,it took 7 months to get,also for the greater number of those on DLA,they have not yet been re-assessed for PIP, they are still on DLA.
Mostly PIP is only being dealt with as to new claimants of disability,not existing ones,
So likely no cheat has been weeded out as you try to point out.

You are obsessed with benefit cheats,there are according to the 'official' figures, I know you don't like official figures,less than 1% of claimants doing so wrongly.
What on earth has Stafford to do with cuts to benefits too,or is that your way to get onto the NHS which is another of your hates from Doctors down to especially the Nursing staff.

The NHS will always have things go wrong, and they are now, never mind just when Labour were in power.
The NHS has nothing to do with benefit cuts however and this thread does, so I won't humour your endless criticism and put down of the NHS here.

I can agree Labour should have done more about social care and theyw ere planning to in 2009,in talks with the Lib Dems, talks Andrew Lansley of the Conservative opposition would not take part in as to trying to find the best way to do same.

This govt; has made a mess of social care,over the last 5 years, we have elderly people kept in hospital for months because there is no social care in place to get them back in their homes after 5 years of this govt:
This govt; terms those elderly people, 'bed blockers'.

Really, is that the best you can come up with.
The govt' will save housing benefit from the under 21s, how much will that actually save and how much of that will then reduce the 10 billion of cuts to welfare this govt; is now committed to.
I can tell you not a penny, because these plans today are already accounted for in the 2 billion of specified welfare cuts the Conservatives made in the election.

None of what you list above, will be making up in any way, part of the 'extra 10 billion of cuts they are committed to finding in welfare alone.

If they hit carers allowance now, they will really hit the sick and disabled more than ever before.
Carers allowance has reduced in value over this govts; time in power,due to rising costs, if they hit it now, it will likely mean people ill get less care.
the point is they are hitting the wrong people to scratch a bit of savings here and there while doing nothing about raking in the funds they should from those at the top miking across the system.

So again, I ask you where are the 10 billion pounds of extra welfare cuts going to hit.
All you listed above is already specified in the 2 billion pounds of cuts from welfare, they need to find another 10 billion.
They say not from pensioners, not from child benefit,that then only leaves the sick, disabled and most vulnerable left.

They could of course do one thing,extend the bedroom charge to pensioners living on their own in social housing,that may ease the cuts to the sick and disabled.
Wait again however, no they cannot, they are doing nothing at all as to pensioners so cannot do that.
Back to square one, they are only left with the sick and disabled to find saving of an extra 10 billion pounds from then.

I feel pretty sure that is where they are going, and it is why they would not even indicate what that 10 billion pounds of welfare cuts would be made up from during the election.
If and when they do so, for me it will be the most despicable act and cowardly act of any govt; past or present.

[QUOTE=the truth;7767426]I think Merthyr was the worst possible example you could've picked to make this point.
I think looking back to the things that have happened historically in this and other mining/ steel towns for the reasoning behind the community malaise.

[QUOTE=Kizzy;7767510]I disagree. Merthyr is a heartbreaking place that new labour did nothing about in 13 years.....we are all well aware of the pure evil of Thatcherism.....but what did labour to do turn back Thatcherism in Merthyr and the like? absolutely nothing, in fact they made it worse and enslaved them in welfare dependency for a whole generation

How about typing out sentences on one line? :joker:

[QUOTE=the truth;7767526]I think it's a given that the Blair years were just a taster for the true blue austerity of the last 5yrs and that for the 5 to come.
Has Merthyr had any regeneration over the last 5yrs to predict a favourable move away from what Ed milliband was suggesting, a return to the traditional Labour values which enabled all areas of the UK to thrive not just concentrate the focus on the south?

:nono:

not good for members looking

on their mobile phone devices

To make this possible, first you have to be able to stop thousands of migrant workers from coming to Britain. That's not possible thanks to the bloody EU. Because as long as migrant workers are willing to work for less than the minimum wage, then bosses will continue to employ them.

How can they be employed legally on less than minimum wage, how is it the fault of the employees that employers are exploiting them?

^ Agree, that's a problem of law enforcement not immigration

:clap1:

I don't agree that anyone whose life is at risk in their home Country should be automatically allowed entry into the UK.

When did the UK become a bottomless pit of refuge for the worlds asylum seekers. Maybe Canada would be more suited to this role or Australia as they are vastly larger Countries.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...01_306x423.jpg

Realism is needed here dear. Jenny DID NOT specify 'legally employed', she said; " Because as long as migrant workers are willing to work for less than the minimum wage, then bosses will continue to employ them" which covers the very real FACT that thousands of immigrants are employed in this country by unscrupulous employers for far LESS than the minimum wage because:

A) The employment is illegal and not 'on the books'.
B) The immigrants - unlike our home grown 'unemployed' - willingly undertake such 'employment.

This REALITY is existent in diverse industries, from Construction to 'Winkle Picking' and CANNOT be DENIED - even by extreme Left Wingers.

This being so, then the fact remains, that because our 'Home Grown' UNEMPLOYED are NOT WILLING to SUPPLY this DEMAND for workers on an 'OFF THE BOOKS' paltry wage basis, but immigrants ARE WILLING, then the employers are NOT BEING FORCED to employ genuine workers ON THE BOOKS for at least the MINIMUM WAGE - something which they would be forced to do otherwise.

Therefore, Jenny is CORRECT.

Don't patronise me please. If they are employed legally or illegally it is still not the fault of the employee, if Jenny wishes to clarify I'm sure she will.

Here is a government compiled list of those failing to pay their employees the national minimum wage, they cross many sectors.

'A further 70 employers who failed to pay their workers the National Minimum Wage (NMW) have been named today (24 February 2015) by Business Minister Jo Swinson, bringing the overall total named and shamed to 162.

Between them, these 70 employers owed workers a total of over £157,000 in arrears and have been charged financial penalties totalling over £70,000.

The government has already named 92 employers since the new naming regime came into force in October 2013. They had total arrears of over £316,000 and total penalties of over £111,000.

To support the minimum wage crackdown, the government will also be increasing HMRC’s £9.2 million enforcement budget by a further £3 million, helping to fund more than 70 extra compliance officers.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g...wage-offenders

:laugh: I am no more patronising you Kiz than you do me when you tell me to get 'perspective' (well, perhaps just a smudging so - but teasingly so)

The point is our different perspectives;

to you - it is ALL the fault of the unscrupulous employers.

To me the immigrants ACCEPTING the illegal jobs-On-The-Side are just as culpable - more so, because they have come to a country which has welcomed them in but then blatantly break laws which they know to be wrong in any language.

The end result is that - as Jenny stated - it is damaging to our economy.

Yes I do feel it's the employers at fault as legally it is, so no they are not culpable they are however you dress it up exploited.

Whatever Jenny said it does not make that less of a fact.

For gods sake. Cutting jobseekers allowance is ridiculous, how the hell are people supposed to get by without a job now? :/

edit: I hope they're serious about cracking down on tax avoidance by big companies too. Would save a lot of cuts from having to go ahead.

There are jobs Josh,people cant expect something for nothing all the time,there are agencies that will find you a job.

Yes but there is not a wide range of non-zero hours jobs available for people to just go and do. If there was, the move would be a little more understandable.

Absolutely beyond belief and you really do lose the argument here with respect Kirk.

To blame someone for taking a job and thereby the lowly worker over or as much as the Employer who knows full well the employment law is disgrace from you in my view,a n employer who knows what he/she should be paying too.

I know people who had full time work, whose employer has cut their hours down from over 30 a week to a 16 hour contract,that saves the employer money in guaranteed wages.
The workers accepted that so they still had a job,their other choice would have been to have no job.

No, and it will be no surprise fro me that on this I say you are wrong and Kizzy is right.
Then again from you, that will possibly be us just being near irrelevant left wing militants,who are to blame for everything.

Yes, it's absolutely disgusting to suggest these people are equally to blame. Most of the illegal immigrants you speak of Kirk are fleeing war or persecution, they are beyond desperation and want to start a new life for themselves. They decided not to take benefits but to actually get a job - though you people on the right would demonize them for doing either.

It's such a shame to see xenophobia in modern society on the rise again.

It's tough being an immigrant isn't it :laugh:

I think what is being proposed will help young people to develop a work ethic, everyone has to start somewhere, we can't all expect to walk into full time employment with no skills and no experience, if the government back up this initiative by increasing the number of apprenticeships, and work opportunities to develop skills, then it is all good in my eyes, no able bodied 18 year old should be sat on their arse at home getting benefits. :fist:

Not wishing to be controversial in anyway ... but :hehe:

The area I highlighted in bold is the most telling and relevant section to me.

If I am correct, you are arguing for better conditions for those who have illegally entered our country. The key word here is illegal. They simply shouldn't be here.

Now, if you remove a source of illegal immigrants, employers dont have the same capacity to take advantage of people and pay the illegal wages. Do you see where I am coming from? If there were no illegal people seeking employment, employers would have to pay the correct wages.

How is a zero hr contract going to instill a work ethic if the work is part time and or sporadic?
It instills the worst message for me that you are not a valued member of an organisation, you are temporary and dispensable and that you have no pride or loyalty for or to the company.
Apprenticeships in many areas are a joke and used as cheap disposable labour in many areas, young people are undervalued and exploited by these practices.
If there's a full time position in a sandwich shop give them a job, don't call it apprentice sandwich technician to get away with paying £2 a hour :/

I agree that any job is better than benefits but as the cost of living is so high a fair days work deserves a fair days pay.