Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Unemployed With No Crisis Loan or Benefit Sanctions to Get Christian Charity Food Vouchers.

with 48 comments

Ministers consider scheme to hand out food vouchers to unemployed

Charity director says some claimants ‘on the edge’ because they have been refused crisis loan or had benefits halted

The government is considering plans to distribute food vouchers to people on the dole as part of a wider drive to empower charitiess  to supplement the support provided by the welfare state.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has given his provisional backing to JobCentre Plus staff handing out vouchers that can be exchanged for food parcels.

The parcels, which contain enough donated items to keep a family fed for six days, are administered from 65 food banks across the country run by the Trussell Trust, a Christian charity.

The initiative could prove politically controversial, and officials at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are keen the policy is seen as an attempt to bolster the voluntary sector, rather than the state abandoning people who fall through the welfare net.

Ministers see attempts to empower charities as in keeping with the Conservative party’s “big society” theme, and hope Jobcentre Plus advisers, who encounter people in poverty every day, could direct them to a range of locally-based charities.

More Here.

Today’s Independent on Sunday runs the story about Foodbanks  – Here.

A ‘Student’ comments (here),

hm, im not sure what i think about this, on the one hand, it could stop people who live off JSA from spending their money on things they dont need(alcohol, cigarettes etc etc) and making sure they are fed properly, yes i know this isnt true in the majority of cases, but i have seen it first hand how some people dont bother working and use their money to fund their drinking and just eat chinese takeaway all the time.
on the other hand, in this current climate anyone will struggle to get a job, is it fair to cut the JSA for people who really try, but cannot get a job in the field they are qualified for, and what about the social stigma, would people not look down on people paying with food vouchers?
In a different climate where the unemployment rate would be a lot lot lower, i would be all for this tbh, but at this current time, no, bad idea imo.
Or indeed some students might spend more time learning how to spell and write.
 
But I digress.
 
Being dependent on the good-will of Charities for basic necessities is always wrong.
 
Always.
 
This is a step backwards to the days of Lord and Lady Bountiful.
Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

July 4, 2010 at 9:25 am

48 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “hm, im not sure what i think about this, on the one hand, it could stop people who live off JSA from spending their money on things they dont need(alcohol, cigarettes etc etc) and making sure they are fed properly, yes i know this isnt true in the majority of cases, but i have seen it first hand how some people dont bother working and use their money to fund their drinking and just eat chinese takeaway all the time.
    on the other hand, in this current climate anyone will struggle to get a job, is it fair to cut the JSA for people who really try, but cannot get a job in the field they are qualified for, and what about the social stigma, would people not look down on people paying with food vouchers?
    In a different climate where the unemployment rate would be a lot lot lower, i would be all for this tbh, but at this current time, no, bad idea imo.”

    Translation:

    I’m a shitty little stuck-up middle-class Nazi bastard that is all in favour of demeaning an humiliating the unemployed. Only thing is I am a bit worried about my own prospects at the moment, and I’d hate to be the victim of what I would dearly love to inflict on others. So, hold your horses until I have secured a nice, cushy middle-class class job courtesy of mummy and daddy’s contacts, then rest assured I’ll be back on hearing banging the big tin drum to promote my fascist policies. Yours Saddo student that gets up at 2 in the afternoon (just in time for Murder she Wrote), eats out of polystyrene, and who needs a good kick up the arse (and my taxpayer “handouts” axed)

    Big Town

    July 4, 2010 at 10:42 am

    • Big Tom,

      I take it you were slightly less annoyed by it than I was?

      Andrew Coates

      July 4, 2010 at 10:58 am

      • Annoyed, yes… but only slightly, slighty. A good dose of Schadenfreude can’t come quick enough to that arsehole

        Another smartarse: “Originally Posted by favh
        Really? If the unemployed all disappeared tomorrow, what do you believe would change about the operation of ‘capitalism’?”

        The reply is really on the ball:

        Do you think people would work their asses off if they weren’t afraid of being unemployed?

        Do you think anybody would take a low wage if the employer didn’t have another 100 people to choose from?

        The unemployed are essential for society because they scare everybody else into being as productive as they can. We need that fear.

        Big Town

        July 4, 2010 at 11:17 am

      • Too Right Big Town

        Even when Thatcher talked about full employment that figure contained a certain amount of unemployed to keep the workers in their place.

        eg. ” If you don’t want to do this job, their are plenty of people out their who do “.

        Lowestoft's Finest

        July 4, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    • The unemployed are essential for society because they scare everybody else into being as productive as they can – that’s why Job Centres are always on main bus routes in and out of town. ”..

      Skin & Bones

      July 4, 2010 at 11:31 am

      • Skeleton

        It’s you fault, you need to learn to manage your JSA better.

        I can afford enough entire loaves and Fishes to feed 5000 with mine.

        JesuZ H. Christ

        July 4, 2010 at 3:55 pm

  2. All I want is a crust of bread.

    Skeleton

    July 4, 2010 at 11:24 am

  3. And for those who don’t live near a “food bank”, it’s down to the local supermarket to do a bit of shoplifting – provided they are not stuck in a wheelchair…

    Cynic

    July 4, 2010 at 11:39 am

    • Equal Ops. Also, it would probably be less suspecting for a wheelchair user to steal.

      Same goes for a pregnant woman (or one that appears so).

      Then soon as you get near an exit, you have wheels!! haha

      Flexible New Deal

      July 4, 2010 at 12:18 pm

      • Why not Pimp your Ride Lowestoft Style and try the winning Shoplifting Combo of Wheel chair with a double buggy?(comes complete with a bonus “No idea how it got there, my kids must have picked it up when I wasn’t Looking ?” get out of jail free card (otherwise not available to standard wheelchair users).

        As favoured by Lowestoft’s Notorious “Happy Shoppers” to maintain pole position in the Happy Shoppers Grand Prix.

        Lowestoft's Finest

        July 4, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    • You seen how much stash I can conceal under my old granny tartan blanket… that nice young security man in Tesco never suspects me, and why would he, a sweet, innocent old granny in a wheelchair.

      Shoplifting Wheelchair Gran

      July 4, 2010 at 12:29 pm

  4. Its not April 1st.

    Was this delayed news?

    Flexible New Deal

    July 4, 2010 at 11:47 am

  5. If Christians wan’t to make them selves usefull to the unemployed they should try a few crusades aimed at exploititive employers and try preaching up the shamefully low minimum wage…but don’t expect them to do anything that doesn’t benefit themselves after all Tony Blair wouldn’t even give the crumbs from his table to save the Neo-Labour Trimdon Club from going bankrupt.

    Hows food parcels going to work in reality especialy family food parcels, what if one of your kids is diabetic? got bad food allergies etc? Will the Christian Charities do Helal food parcels for Muslims? Kosha Food Parcels for Jews? cater for and no the difference between Vegans and Vegitarians? Also I don’t trust charrities to not rip off the state so I doubt of what ever crap is in these parcels will be any better than what the unemployed could have tracked down on offer in the shops given the money.

    The Other day The Tories slaged off that Chubba Tunged Tw*t Jamie Oliver for the preacheyness of his failed school dinners iniative the next day they bring out this preachey crap themselves. Why don’t they give us the money and get the Christian Wank*rs to give their crappy food parcels to MP’s instead of their food expenses?

    I have a terrible feeling that the charities contracts will also be of the must be localy sourced by small farmers (regardless of Quality) Right On middle class sh*t type contract.

    Politicians need to concentrate on their own affairs instead of trying to open up new diversionary fronts other wise eveything will be a total cock up. So Snouts out of everybody else’s buisness and back in the Westminster Trough

    Lowestoft's Finest

    July 4, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    • Spot on.

      Food parcels are a type of AID.

      Welfare is conditional on entitlement.

      (I assume that unemployed means jobseeker benefit claimants not those not claiming benefits)

      I know its crap…. but why should those with a crisis loan and benefit sanction be denied food?!

      65 food banks are a joke. How many distribution centres are there for the supermarkets etc.?!

      Flexible New Deal

      July 4, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    • It will just mean a lot of waste mate, you know wot I mean mate, the vegetarians will just chuck the meatballs in the bin mate, you know wot I mean mate, yeah, mate the charities will just be off-loading, off-the-back-of-a-lorry, up the elephant and round the castle, past its sell by date, dodgy gear mate, you know wot I mean mate. Result mate: badly nutritionally balanced diet mate, you know wot I mean mate.

      Jamie Oliver

      July 4, 2010 at 12:38 pm

      • Pucka potht mate, Thanth for not takin the pith out of the ole lithp.

        (Her in doorth (Juleth) ith pucka made up en’ all after she clocked it).

        Thee you in Thainthburieth

        The Real Jamie Oliver

        July 4, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    • This is like going back to the Dark Ages. The mercantile system has evolved from an awkward inflexible barter system of one of my chickens for 10 of your oxen to a to a money based system where we use money as an universal means of exchange of goods and capital. This is 2010 not 1510

      Puzzled

      July 4, 2010 at 1:00 pm

  6. Christian charity? All charities should be deprived of their religion.

    People should follow a common aim, cause and objective under humanity, not be motivated by a religion… to make you want to do anything.

    I hope I dont offend anyone but are any Christians here whom wont get up in the morning without some strong belief that God is with them?

    I woke up today because thats routine, cultural I guess you could say… not because of any belief I hold (although I dont believe in any “religion”)

    Flexible New Deal

    July 4, 2010 at 12:39 pm

  7. Looking at the comments, you all have the wrong end of the stick.

    This scheme has been running for a few years, and has given help to to 10s of 1000s who have had their JSA stopped, whilst being investigated or change of circumstance that means requirements are no longer met. This scheme has never been used to provide the basic essentials for life, and hopefully never will.

    The UK will only have to worry, if Ian Duncan Smith decides that JSA will be stopped ouright! That is not, thankfully, what has been suggested. Though a previous suggestion has bean made that after a set period on JSA, if a job is refused then the benefit would be cut.

    DieKaiser

    July 4, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    • But with the Tories you always know that there is more to it than meets the eye. That’s what the Tories really want, for the unemployed to have to go begging cap-in-hand to the local community parish for a “handout” of some stale bread and a few rags.

      Puzzled

      July 4, 2010 at 1:03 pm

  8. Let’s hope IDS hasn’t forgotten to take into consideration the potential bill for repairing half of Britain after its gone up in flames and allowed for this in his cost cutting plans.

    Or The next fire of London will be started at Westminster not Pudding Lane.

    Lowestoft's Finest

    July 4, 2010 at 1:51 pm

  9. Why aren’t these same Christians trying to use their obvious influence with the government to put an end to peoples benefits being stopped in the first place, instead of just handing out parcels afterwards?

    RIP'd Off

    July 4, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    • Rip,

      That’s the best point.

      We should be looking at what the Edinburgh people did to help those who’ve got into trouble and don’t have benefits.

      Andrew Coates

      July 5, 2010 at 10:39 am

  10. “Call that a FOOD parcel” !!!!!?

    Lord Digby "Hungry Hippo" Jones

    July 4, 2010 at 4:05 pm

  11. Different Sunday, same shit. So, let’s re-cap, shall we.

    We have, so far, had the, force ‘them’ to work option, run up the proverbial flag pole, just to ‘test the waters’ followed by get ‘them’ (who are most certainly not ‘us’, well Daily Heil readers :-)) to move to where the jobs are, now we are ‘testing’ lets give ‘them’ vouchers instead of cash. This is all being done to gauge public opinion or to put it another way to test that the public have formed the opinion that they have been given to form. Fuck these Nazi Tory LibDem bastards.

    I predict a separate health system for ‘them’ and perhaps some sort of ‘work camp’ system where ‘they’ could be ‘concentrated’ as a ready source of cheap Labour lol (supporters) and perhaps ‘they’ should have to wear some form of identification mark so that ‘we’ know who ‘they’ are,
    OH I dunno perhaps a red star sewn onto ‘their’ outer clothing with the word “scrounger” written on it?

    But remember citizens, “WE” are all in it together, except SOME are RIGHT ‘in it’ ,
    divide and conquer, create division and mistrust, while “we” still have our limos and land and homes and big fat off shore bank accounts , here, have a cigar boy.

    I wonder what of shit announcement the cunts will be spewing out this Sunday.

    Yeggie Rates

    July 5, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    • These Tory cuts just don’t seem to be adding up to me. Either there is a desperate need for cuts and they then have to come right across the entire board, or there isn’t a need for cuts and instead this is just an excuse for an all out war against the Tories old target groups disguised as cuts,(which is what this is looking more like by the day).

      I think the Tories are floating a lot of this to see how much resistance they get so unless they get a big backlash expect more and more cuts in that secter over following budgets.

      The trouble is for us people at the lowerest end of society with no lobbyists (wasn’t that what the Labour Party and Trade Unions ounce did before they discoverd Neo-Labour?)Ounce any government cuts anything of ours eg. Gordon Brown’s 10p Tax disaster no matter how much the economy recovers we never get our things reinstated.

      Jaym432000@aol.com

      July 6, 2010 at 8:03 am

      • Did you know that the taxpayer has to pay approx £20m a year to protect Tony Blair worldwide?

        He is no longer the Prime Minister and as far as I am aware he has nothing to do with the Governance of this country. Now that we have had an Election (earlier this year) its Gordon Brown who was the previous Prime Minister.

        Tony Blair is loaded with money and no longer is any importance to us (I never felt he was important anyway) so should be paying his own security bill.

        If he gets murdered, he gets murdered – he shouldnt have been such a twat when he was Prime Minister.

        Others would say he is still got membership in the NWO along with Bush.

        I dont want to see Blair specifically hurt, however, its no security or security paid by his own pocket.

        Why has this stupid drain from taxpayers (amongst others) not been stopped yet? Deeper corruption I think. Are we making cut backs or not?

        Flexible New Deal

        July 6, 2010 at 8:52 am

      • Spot On Flexi,

        I heard a program the other week that said we actualy also pay Tony Blair 100 grand a year on top of everything to fullfill his ex priministerial duties.Which I hope he does better than he helped Gordon get elected, or he does better than middle east peace envoy? just how many Mr.Shakey Hand Men at 100Grand a time does this country need as we are already paying the entire royal family including minor Royals to perform the exact same task?

        As he seems to have got minted after he left the job of priminister but undoutably thanks to the fact he held the post of priminister the least he could do is to pay towards his protection.

        Jaym432000@aol.com

        July 6, 2010 at 5:14 pm

  12. “Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has given his provisional backing to JobCentre Plus staff handing out vouchers that can be exchanged for food parcels.”

    this is an utter disgrace and typical of mrs thatcher’s era,is this their idea how to tackle poverty add to it,while trying to involve charitable organisations in useless job schemes’ these people have gone one step further now food parcel distribution and degrading vouchers this is a road to disaster and a irretrievable life reversal.

    ian duncan smith is a complete clueless fool except to cause division and resentment with no ideas how to tackle the problems society faces today caused his cohorts’.

    ken

    July 9, 2010 at 2:02 am

  13. Amongst the doom and gloom of bad news stories here’s a good news story for a change:

    An empty supermarket in central London has been reopened as a cooperative food store by two entrepreneurs seeking to bring quality food to deprived communities.

    The People’s Supermarket in Holborn will sell a mix of brand-named, artisan and organic products to cooperative members and the general public.

    It will keep prices affordable by requiring its members to volunteer to keep staffing costs down.

    More than 100 people have joined the People’s Supermarket, raising £2,500 for the project. Members pay £25 per year and give up four hours a week in return for 10% discounts on stock.

    http://www.newstartmag.co.uk/news/article/peoples-supermarket-opens-for-business/

    Funny A4e Photos

    July 15, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    • Is this not the way the Co-op started out, nowadays their prices don’t half take the biscuit 🙂

      Gary Baldy

      July 15, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    • It will die off soon – give it a year maybe.

      * £2.5k cant be enough – annual membership is for a year…. A supermarket must cost that week at least? Its a community based project they cant expect everyone in Greater London to buy a membership?

      * members volunteering… great! Although there is likely to be a conflict between hours… overstaffed some parts of the day, and understaffed others.

      * 10% discount. How expensive is the place?! Forget tescos etc. and the other huge supermarkets that buy in goods real cheap, as of having just one store and limited distribution, they cannot (unless its really pricey) make much markup let alone break-even? Well, they dont have staffing costs… a saving but all the other overheads still exist (or do they steal electricity?)

      I WISH THEM WELL but I cannot see it working. If they really are deprived then they want goods that are no more than 2-5p over Tescos prices and thats a big challenge

      (Tescos etc. as a group also have advantage of some supermarkets and small stores (express etc.) in the UK or worldwide that rakes in the cash making up for those that make so little profits)

      I guess what they do is stick on 10%… then let the members have a 10% discount so it goes back to normal price… all for £25 a year and 4 hours work a week.

      I love the community spirit of this venture… I really do but people will always go back to the likes of Tesco

      (hours) x (NMW) x (50 weeks*)
      4 x £5.80 x 50 = £1,160

      * I assume it wont be for every week of the year.

      Plus membership…. £25

      Cost £1,185 of indirect expenditure. What for? Does the owners profit from it? I am assuming you will be working hard not clock-watching.

      Divide this amount by 52 (weeks in a year) works out about £22.78 thats more than enough for a weekly shop to Tesco etc by the bus!

      Of course it has a corporate backbone – some staff are paid – some from the Future Jobs Fund. The council has given additional funding, private donations and grants and interest free loans. This is how they can afford to run it.

      I hope its run properly without an “elite” group of up to 5 or so at the top draining the money.

      I love the community concept, I really do and wish we had something like this here where I am but the way I see it is some scam-in-the-making.

      THE PEOPLES’ SUPERMARKET PROPERTIES LIMITED
      72-78 LAMBS CONDUIT STREET
      LONDON
      WC1N 3LP
      Company No. 06937442

      Is a private business with share capital. Any “community” business that should have limited liability should be By Guarantee i.e. no shareholders = no one owns it. This is what charities etc. uses.

      There is nothing stopping profits being diverted away as dividends or other payments/investments including bumper salaries, and letting a community that becomes dependent on a supermarket operating in community spirit, shut down where the owners will just let it hit liquidation and walk away.

      Flexible New Deal

      July 15, 2010 at 2:02 pm

      • Looks all ship shape and Bristol fashion me old china.

        John Bird

        July 15, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    • I’m not sure what the score is with the DWP about volunteering with this COOP if you are claiming JSA?

      If it is a registerd charrity you should be OK, but we had a volunteer sceame up here a few years back in which members would exchange services for credits (no money)between each other but the DWP put a stop to it claiming it wasn’t a registerd charrity, members were doing work, it was effecting the memvbers availability to look for work etc.

      Admittedly the rules seem to change all the time, but I doubt if Cameron’s ideas of what classes as “The Big Society” and DWP eligability regulations are even aware of the existance of each other.

      Lowestoft's Finest

      July 16, 2010 at 9:04 am

      • DWP – as a rule of thumb (varies):

        16+ hours activity of any kind a week (apart from sleeping) makes you unavailable for work (NOT AfW)

        4 hours a week even for a profit making business is OK, however, with this you also have membership and a 10% discount. Whether the DWP understands this, or see the discount as in-kind payments as benefit fraud, its not clean cut.

        Anyone interested in this write to DWP and get it in writing whether they are fine with this or not. Dont cry if they say no.

        Flexible New Deal

        July 16, 2010 at 9:53 am

      • Not to mention the JSA weekly earnings limit of GBP 5 for a single claimant. And it’s been like that for over 20 years despite inflation. Earn anymore and you lose it pound for pound

        They should raise the GBP 5 weekly earnings limit to a more realistic GBP 25 a week. That would have 3 obvious benefits for the jobseeker 1)more incentive to get a part-time job
        2) something current to put on a CV
        3) some much needed extra spending money.

        Funny A4e Photos

        July 16, 2010 at 2:31 pm

      • LF:- I could write about a hundred suggestions (hints: legislation changes, increased amounts, increasing the £5 earning limit etc.) but the Government isn’t interested.

        I wouldn’t make it easy for the jobseeker neither. At current the law only requires you to do a few steps each week to seek employment. For all us genuine claimants this is an INSULT. This isn’t a few jobs applied for – a few steps means ways to seek jobs without even applying.

        You wont be shocked that some claimants (the minority but isnt the point) just read a newspaper that happens to contain a job section and either use the jobpoints when they are in town or use the jobcentre website.

        These people have no intention of applying for anything (perhaps the odd perfect job that pops up) and are getting the same rate as people who are applying for up to (and sometimes over) several jobs a week (obviously depending on supply of the labour market).

        This has to CHANGE!

        Afterall, looking at job adverts isn’t really jobseeking if you arent intending to ever apply.

        As for the limit to be raised. You say GBP 25 – I think 5 hours @ NMW (16+ hours you have to sign off – so around 1/3 of allowed hours to work) which works out at £29.20 (not much over your suggestion 🙂 ) This includes the 4p NMW increase which would be applicable if it was ever made law.

        So £65.45 + £29.20 = £94.65

        This amount is not taxable. No NI needs to be paid. Also, doesn’t affect any housing benefit etc. as far as I am aware.

        It helps the economy in more ways than one and I really cannot see the problem with it.

        I see them every time I search jobpoints or the directgov website… jobs that are for 4-8 hours. No one wants such short hours. I need a job but I cant apply for them…

        a) I lose the majority of my benefit which will now become subsidised by working my arse off

        b) I incur extra costs such as getting the bus to and from the job (this is like £4 day in Ipswich – hours likely to be just one day or max over 2 if unlucky)

        c) I still have to attend the Jobcentre and be stuck on whatever shit they can be bothered to throw me on which means I will still have to attend FND provider appointments and courses

        d) I then have to declare my working hours to some JCP muppet who will either treat me slightly better (btw I am the sort of person who would be offended of this and not turn my back on previous mistreatment) or treat me as if I am defrauding the system by working.

        The Government has:

        1) paid service fees to get unemployed on to sham “training” courses

        2) paid thousands of pounds to providers who typically claiming job outcomes for jobs a client has got themselves (i.e. were of no help)

        3) Set up the FJF to pay the wages of longterm unemployed people who become staff for both businesses and councils

        4) Recruitment Subsidy… paying up to £2500 to get an employer to take someone on

        They cannot, for one second think that raising this threshold of how much you can earn before losing benefit to let people gain employment by their own initiative, which can be measured directly against comparing the costs of schemes set up like the above suggestions versus… either a) the benefits extra paid out now with a higher threshold than before compared with now or b) the savings when that person comes off benefit to do work over 16 hours a week.

        I cannot see how this would be a worse scenario…. lets say the extra threshold for 6 months without any success of either part-time (With the person signing off) or fulltime job being secured would total £759.20 – lets compare this to the £6,000 or so each person under the FJF is costing. Yes, that is a job, for more hours (25 hours) but is capped to 6 months maximum duration. Allowing the extra benefits paid out is a better scheme than all the Governments creations put together (ND,FND,FJF,YPJG etc.)

        I did research under New Deal which shown that most people on New Deal had done it 3+ times which means neither of those found sustainable employment… they either continued with a new claim once it ended or reclaim in a few months after the job finished. At current people are going round and round the system. I think I am one of them and it makes me fucking angry to be able to see this.

        You need to persuade both the unemployed and employers to get into jobs and to recruit. You cannot do this by agreeing with employers to create jobs and pay the wages. It doesn’t solve the problem and for taxpayers those people having a job is costing them more than the benefits were.

        This isn’t a solution – you made it worse. Especially how under New Deal etc. people were getting “work experience” for free.

        You have to rely on people wanting to get into the labour market and not forcing them. To do this you have to remove the chains.

        Many people have commented on the system as follows… “Will I be better off?” most people wont be and the top up tax credits are restricted to most longterm claimants. As for part time jobs, most people see the transition as hard from benefits to working even part time. You work for not much extra then you have travel costs, food and even equipment to buy etc. most people find them worse off…

        It is actually remarkable how people can budget on so little… rearranging your budget after getting a part-time job that pays even less than benefits is a major problem most people cant do it and wont do it – they need to eat and not starve.

        Lets not forget how benefits are paid every 2 weeks, however, many employers pay once a month these days, meaning people might actually be better off on simple EOY calculations, however, have a cash flow problem. The “solution” to this is to try and borrow by a bridging loan from some high rate crappy loan shark… then you are in debt and fucked. Might as well shoot yourself.

        Flexible New Deal

        July 16, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    • Apart from the obvious restrictions with vouchers/coupons instead of money there isn’t much point to this…

      If part of your JSA was vouchers with a face value of £30, instead of £30 cash payment. There would be no financial saving for the Government (unless they struck a deal with Tesco or sth).

      Flexible New Deal

      July 15, 2010 at 8:17 pm

      • Not to mention the additional cost of printing and distributing the vouchers. Not to mention the cost of how retailers will get reimbursed for accepting the vouchers.

        Far from saving money, this stupid idea would cost more.

        Funny A4e Photos

        July 15, 2010 at 8:23 pm

      • The whole idea is idiotic, it realy is a myth about German organisational skills they are simply terrible far worse than even the British can you remember when they unified Germany and went over to both using the West German Deutschmark? Well the West German Clowns clearly didn’t think it through and set the conversion rate at 1 to 1 without even thinking about the consequences.The West German public are still absolutely fumming about it today.

        I don’t think the government here will adopt the voucher idea as Funny A4e Photos rightly says it will additionaly cost them too much to print and immplement, also for years the government has shied away from anything that would require a itemised financial breakdown of precisely what a JSA payment is meant to cover claiming this would be too much of a “Nanny State” intrusion , but we all know the truth is they are terrified of doing this as it will show the press and public just how inadequate JSA is to live on, and will be unfavourably compared with MP’s expences etc.

        Vouchers will also cause problems if we see a huge rise in winter fuel prices as the money set aside for fuel won’t keep up with the fuel price and you can’t then make the difference up with a food voucher like we do with money (the infamous heat or eat senario we unemployed are all too familier with).

        Lowestoft's Finest

        July 16, 2010 at 7:31 am

      • I can see the main supermarkets touting for something like this, but it would mean the death of smaller independent retailers. Then all we would be left with would be the likes of Tesco & Asda, until we reached a point that employers would be cutting a deal with Tesco and Asda to pay salaries directly to the supermarket, hence removing any freedom of choice.

        Corner Shop

        July 16, 2010 at 12:36 pm

  14. Yeah, the cost saving element is questionable, it looks to be another way to stigmatise unemployment and claiming unemployment benefit

    Tommy

    July 15, 2010 at 9:47 pm

  15. there a lot of barriers to vouchers’,however given the attitude towards those unemployed and the all ready money squandered on dubious measures/”back to work” publicity and the idea of making life even more difficult would no doubt appeal to some if digby jones attitude is anything to be judged by.
    the uk has not faced the huge task of reunification,however it is faced with serious underling problems and bailouts have compounded the problem and highlighted that all is not well.

    ken

    July 16, 2010 at 11:11 am

  16. The result would be a monopoly with rocketing food prices. I pity the Daily Heil readers who can’t see beyond stigmatised the unemployed to the wider and hidden agenda.

    Corner Shop

    July 16, 2010 at 12:38 pm

  17. I definitely enjoy when individuals are indicating their judgment and thought. So I really like the way you are composing.

    verpakkingsdozen

    March 15, 2011 at 10:22 am

  18. With havin so much written content do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright infringement?

    My site has a lot of unique content I’ve either written myself or outsourced but it looks like a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my authorization. Do you know any techniques to help stop content from being stolen? I’d definitely
    appreciate it.

    Raul

    September 30, 2012 at 4:55 pm

  19. The Christian Charity Food Vouchers… They Wouldn’t Make Regular Church Attendance To Get These Compulsory Would They ?.

    Philip B

    March 17, 2014 at 12:34 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: