Anna B Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Which is not quite what you said is it. The cards purpose is for department expenditure, they aren't supposed to be used as personal cards and they aren't just issued willy nilly. They are unchecked therefore they are abused. The fact that Government mandarins object to them being checked so vociferously suggests that they know they are abused. Quote from the same article: .... 'It led to the disclosure that Nottingham city council had run up a bill of £3.5 million on its procurement cards in the 2009 - 10 financial year alone, including £7,011 at the local wine shop, £1,958 on Aeroflot flights, £580 at Alton Towers, £169 on Domino's Pizza, £263 on a gift website, £523 at a local pub....' One Council, One spot check. Multiply that by all the other councils... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Yeah and pigs might fly:hihi: You'd have to be daft to work for nowt, IMO:suspect: They wouldn't be working for nowt, they would either work for the benefits or take a low paid job that they would otherwise refuse to do, and my guess is they would do the one that paid the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There is lots of work that needs doing and lots of people unemployed who are willing to do it. But it's not enough for this government to even pay them the minimum wage - they want it doing for free. They hope that by stigmatising the unemployed and turning their fellow men against them, thus draining them of any support, to get their own way. How is this different from the Victorian Industrial Barons whose dubious practices led to the formation of the Unions? To those who say we can't afford it let's decrease the gap between the overpaid fat cats and the rest of us. Income inequality has returned to levels not seen since Victorian England with fat cats paid 145 times more than their workers, (and that's assuming the average worker is paid £25,816 which many are not) Reduce the pay at the top, and we will be able to afford more workers to do the necessary jobs that make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strikerPaul Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 You're not making sense, it would cost the country more to make people work. If the idea is to save money then it won't work. How would it cost more? They wouldn't be paying anymore money out than they are now? Instead of giving them £xxxx for doing sod all, they would get the same money for spending 2 hours picking litter or whatever. There although reducing the money spent but certainly helping the community their paid by to be more pleasant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Gobby Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 the government says it is going to make people work, either get proper jobs or work in the community for there benefits, ok lets see,if you commit a crime you get community service, a way of paying back your wrong doings back to the community by working in the community for a court set amount of hours,fair do's. In our area it was announced that for every job vacancy there was 11 people claiming job seekers allowance, so that means that 10 people are going to get community hours? its no crime being out of work!! you might scoff being in full time employment but just remember no job is for life anymore, it might be you!! litter picking at the side of the road, shouldnt our council tax pay for that? Best get a job if you don't have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There is lots of work that needs doing and lots of people unemployed who are willing to do it. But it's not enough for this government to even pay them the minimum wage - they want it doing for free. They hope that by stigmatising the unemployed and turning their fellow men against them, thus draining them of any support, to get their own way. How is this different from the Victorian Industrial Barons whose dubious practices led to the formation of the Unions? To those who say we can't afford it let's decrease the gap between the overpaid fat cats and the rest of us. Income inequality has returned to levels not seen since Victorian England with fat cats paid 145 times more than their workers, (and that's assuming the average worker is paid £25,816 which many are not) Reduce the pay at the top, and we will be able to afford more workers to do the necessary jobs that make a difference. The government could create all these jobs that need doing and pay the minimum wages with a range of working hours from part time to full time. Then assess what each claimant would receive on benefits and give them one of the created jobs that match their skills and pay the same as they would receive on benefits. It would be called working benefits instead of unemployment benefits and wouldn’t cost any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 The government could create all these jobs that need doing and pay the minimum wages with a range of working hours from part time to full time. Then assess what each claimant would receive on benefits and give them one of the created jobs that match their skills and pay the same as they would receive on benefits. It would be called working benefits instead of unemployment benefits and wouldn’t cost any more. But wouldn't that cost the government more than paying them the dole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 How would it cost more? They wouldn't be paying anymore money out than they are now? Instead of giving them £xxxx for doing sod all, they would get the same money for spending 2 hours picking litter or whatever. There although reducing the money spent but certainly helping the community their paid by to be more pleasant. I've worked on schemes like this twice as a supervisor. It's not a new idea. Once for the Community Service Programme way back in the eighties, one of Maggies ideas, and again on a similar scheme. In order to set a scheme like this up there will have to be supervisors, managers, vehicles, office space, office staff, accountants and uncle tom cobley and all.. If the idea is to get long term unemployed into work by learning them new skills that's fine. But it will all cost more than just paying people benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Perhaps you should read the OP's post again? Here...I've quoted it for you. Read what is posted before slagging others off.!! I agree with this Allen, I get sick and tired of all the slagging off and name calling on here at times. It is totaly unnecessary, especialy in this topic where clearly no one here is unemployed as they can afford a computer and access to the internet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I agree with this Allen, I get sick and tired of all the slagging off and name calling on here at times. It is totaly unnecessary, especialy in this topic where clearly no one here is unemployed as they can afford a computer and access to the internet! Yeah hardly worthwhile trying to run an Internet cafe is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.