It would seem fair to me for anyone claiming JSA to do the appropriate number of hours work pro rata to the usual wage paid for that job. I find the reference to 'dirty jobs' a little disconcerting as it seems a trifle snobbish and is disrespectful to those already employed full time.
My son was made redundant in 2011. He has managed to get some work on a temporary basis. Had a phone call yesterday to say he had been for another interview and he may be offered another six month contract with the possibility of becoming full time. Only snag is it is in Hinkley and he lives in Kent.
One job he applied for said he was over qualified.
So not all the unemployed want to stay at home.
"And, if you don't have internet access what then?"
Which is one of things being mentioned more, that not everyone can afford or wants computers or internet access for some reason or other. Even public places with internet access are having restrictions placed on them, due to funding and cost cutting. Then there are some who fear security when using these public access places, plus suspicions of a forthcoming Big Brother state?.
I recall a few years ago, when the Post Office services where installing public use computer terminals in Post Offices, as the way forward, especially for obtaining government information. What ever happened to that idea, because it wasn't all that long, for the terminals to be removed and never seen again.
For me one of the key facts in all this is the statement in the Telegraph piece that "most people on benefits are actively looking for jobs"
I imagine that's true, and assuming it is, that's what the benefit system is for, isn't it - to provide people who have no work with some support while they try to find a job?
I have no argument with a government that wants to ensure that public money is being spent properly, and that people who have no intention of working are weeded out and penalised in some way, but surely the main thrust of the government's efforts should be to stimulate job creation.
Sometimes I get the sinking feeling that Ministers have become obsessed with cutting expenditure instead of being obsessed with stimulating the private sector.It's the private sector which will, in the end, be the country's saviour in economic terms.
Perhaps I'm being far too naive, but I believe this apparent policy of snooping and monitoring, and dragging every ounce of flesh from us all is going to weaken our morale to the point where we'll lose our will to fight.
"The state give the unemployed money to help them - is it so bad to expect something in return?"
It can be argued that the State does get something in return,it gets the taxes that the employed person pays, and the taxes that the employer pays on the money that is generated by the employee. We operate a welfare state, and it's a good thing in principle - the idea that society helps those who are unable to help themselves.
In practice it encounters problems because not everyone plays by the rules - people cheat the system. When it happens we need to take steps to tackle the problem. My argument is that we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath-water. Our economic future depends heavily on private sector buoyancy, and that means job creation. More employment will create more wealth, but I don't see how the present government is doing much to encourage the private sector - the focus appears to be on cutting public sector expenditure.
There's a vicious circle here; the exchequer relies heavily on tax income from private sector employers and employees,and at the moment those revenues are falling - the government must borrow to meet public expenditure requirements. Revenues will only rise if the private sector grows and employs more people, and so it goes on, around and around.