You may be one of, or know one of, the unfortunate unemployed. The people who's trade disappeared or who lost their employment through no fault of their own and who actually try to get back into employment.

But there is an awful lot of people who see unemployment benefits as a birthright they need do nothing in return for. Benefits are for those genuinely struggling yet people in this country see it as a route around having to work. My other half's parents are like this, haven't worked a day in their life, nor tried to. They are given a council house, given the money for utilities and food and have enough over for a caravan in Wales, Sky TV and copious amounts of cigarettes. One of the parents at my son's school is the same, stood in the playground last week boasting about how he can play GTA and FIFA all week and get paid to do it by me (As a taxpayer). The benefits system in this country has been far too open for far too long.

Making the unemployed work to earn their benefits is a perfectly reasonably policy. They are getting paid anyway, so why shouldn't the community benefit from that? There are always tons of community projects that never get done due to the cost that could be completed. Sure there are logistical issues and set up costs to all this, but once setup, I can't see how anyone can argue with it?

Two issues:
1) The nature of the job. Once you class a job as a punishment (and if it's compulsory and done by those labelled as feckless, it will be labelled as a punishment), then you demean that job. Road sweeper: you've done something wrong.
2) The phrase in the papers: "Alcoholics, drug addicts and the mentally ill will be forced into a 'mandatory intensive regime' to rebuild their lives." Ooh. Alcoholism is a disease: will other groups be forced into this? Smokers with lung illnesses? But worst :the mentally ill are seen as to be punished if they cannot help themselves!

The vast majority are getting paid what they have paid into, its called the National Insurance. Would you work for 30 hours a week for £71? No I expect, so why expect people who aren't in work to?

How are they supposed to look for work if they have to work 30 hours a week, how are they supposed to turn up for job interview after job interview if they have to "work"??? Why would someone who has been in managerial roles who just happens to be the wrong side of 60 and can't find employment be expected to clean graffitti and sweep street, yeah that will give them real incentive to get off their backside and find a "work ethic".

And if theres a job for 30 hours a week, pay them the minimum wage for a 30 hour week, with the employee paying NI and Income Tax and give them sick pay and holiday pay. I'm sure we have a law in this country that says anyone in employment has to be paid the minimum wage and if they're not its against the law.

You also have another problem that hasn't been thought out by this inept government. There are real people, who are paid real wages to sweep the roads, clean graffitti, cook for the elderly. Will they all have to be sacked, claim JSA for 3 years then go back to doing the job they were doing for £71 a week? Care homes who are in it to make as much money as possible, will quietly "let go" their chefs etc and remember this government has got rid of legal aid and made it virtually impossible for anyone to go to employment tribunal, and "employ" people on JSA for nothing. I know whose laughing all the way to the banks about this one, and its not the JSA claimants!!

The logical outcome of 'care in the community'?

The Nazis thought that the mentally ill and disabled needed dealing with too.

Saddened! wrote: But there is an awful lot of people who see unemployment benefits as a birthright they need do nothing in return for. No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people

Saddened! wrote: But there is an awful lot of people who see unemployment benefits as a birthright they need do nothing in return for. No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people

If these jobs are available and need to be done, there should be a wage paid for doing them. Wage does not equal benefits.

It's called getting stuff done on the cheap.

Hull White Star wrote:No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people The foundation didn't even find the 'three generations without work' – hence the "if they exist". The found families where there had been periods out of work – as well as in work – across generations, but not the sweeping idea that IDS had suggested. But much of the media prefers the fantasy and hence the public believes it to be true. In the case of Mick Philpott, for instance, the Mail portrayed his crimes as evidence of what living on benefits does – even though both the women in his life worked. It's a grand case of not allowing the reality to get in the way of the propaganda or of anything that might actually tackle the real problems that do exist.

Hull White Star wrote:No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people The foundation didn't even find the 'three generations without work' – hence the "if they exist". The found families where there had been periods out of work – as well as in work – across generations, but not the sweeping idea that IDS had suggested. But much of the media prefers the fantasy and hence the public believes it to be true. In the case of Mick Philpott, for instance, the Mail portrayed his crimes as evidence of what living on benefits does – even though both the women in his life worked. It's a grand case of not allowing the reality to get in the way of the propaganda or of anything that might actually tackle the real problems that do exist.

O/T but Sky News this morning had a reporter and crew outside his old house as the place was demolished. The infinite facepalm picture sprang to mind. I hope the BBC haven't sent anyone to report it

Since they couldn't get anyone to report yesterday's demo of 50,000 in Manchester – or were barred from it by G4S ...