Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
effectively the government passing the cost onto the public.
Which means it is administered directly to those who need it without having large chunks siphoned off by useless, incompetent and corrupt public sector workers. It is what Cameron meant by the big society
Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone
Which means it is administered directly to those who need it without having large chunks siphoned off by useless, incompetent and corrupt public sector workers. It is what Cameron meant by the big society
I do think it's actually very commendable to see the public stepping up - it also gives the church an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is - but the PM crowing about saving money by effectively getting us to pay it is a bit hypocritical.
I would agree with you that the issue has primarily been implementation and heavy-handed generalisation, and that the theory of the cuts was good. However the problem is that when you cock up the implementation of something like JSA, the consequences are pretty bad so implementation is pretty crucial
Not sure that the public being willing to rally round and prop up a failing public service should be seen as evidence it was doing OK. If they cut benefits altogether you'd probably see a massive increase in foodbanks, soup kitchens, etc from a whole range of charitable and church groups to take the strain but that's effectively the government passing the cost onto the public.
I think part of the growth in their popularity is the fact that they now exist. Friends I know help with soup kitchens and have done so for decades.
I think both are a good safety net in this world of family breakdown and stops people having to do unpleasant things to feed their kids.
however only some of those were due to sanctions, apparently half of the sanctions are upheld when challenged. so if we can fix those it will only a small portion of the users affected by sanctions unfairly.
It still needs sorting and a weeks sanction for being 10 minutes late on the bus seems harsh.
The Universal credit if properly implemented may solve some of the issues.
lack of knowledge of benefits available, Low pay and delays getting benefits (which have always happened) seem to be the large percentage of the users.
Which means it is administered directly to those who need it without having large chunks siphoned off by useless, incompetent and corrupt public sector workers. It is what Cameron meant by the big society
which means organisations are understanding and measuring the problems then lobbying the government to fix them.
I'm pretty sure EO or PC will tell you how disorganised the benefits organisations are. Those who aren't as Bright as SAS won't be able to negotiate it.
Comment