The state benefits system mega-thread. - Page 95

Gary L · 01-04-2015, 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

Stop telling fibs.
Those sanctioned would be INCLUDED.

Why would they be included as being "Unemployed"?
they're not included in the part you've quoted.

when they're sanctioned (punished by either having a reduction or having no money paid) then they are not included in the "unemployment" figures.
they have no publicly recognised category.

so naturally when you have say 1,000 and you take away say 999 you're left with 1.

so naturally you assume the 999 have found a job.
because they're not on the list anymore.

happy days.

nomadking · 01-04-2015, 18:44

They are STILL "without a job, have been actively seeking work". Simply being in receipt of benefits is NOT the criteria.

Link

Quote:

Unemployment is different from the claimant count, which measures only those people who are claiming unemployment-related benefits (Jobseeker's Allowance since 1996). The claimant count is normally the lower measure because some unemployed people are not entitled to claim unemployment-related benefits, or choose not to do so.

Gary L · 01-04-2015, 19:03

You are correct. they are STILL "without a job".

what do you think happens to the figures when people are no longer signing on when they have been sanctioned?
these people have to officially 'reclaim' when their disallowance period has expired.

01-04-2015, 19:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Why would they be included as being "Unemployed"?
they're not included in the part you've quoted.

when they're sanctioned (punished by either having a reduction or having no money paid) then they are not included in the "unemployment" figures.
they have no publicly recognised category.

so naturally when you have say 1,000 and you take away say 999 you're left with 1.

so naturally you assume the 999 have found a job.
because they're not on the list anymore.

happy days.

That is simply wrong .Both sets of unemployment figures show a fall in unemployment ,also those that are sanctioned would still be classed as unemployed under the LFS figures so your claim that those being sanctioned are being removed from the unemployment figures is simply rubbish .The only truth is that more people are being sanctioned more under a conservative government than a Labour one

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:08 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

You are correct. they are STILL "without a job".

what do you think happens to the figures when people are no longer signing on when they have been sanctioned?
these people have to officially 'reclaim' when their disallowance period has expired.

have a read

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...ood-news/12810

nomadking · 01-04-2015, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

You are correct. they are STILL "without a job".

what do you think happens to the figures when people are no longer signing on when they have been sanctioned?
these people have to officially 'reclaim' when their disallowance period has expired.

They are STILL included in the unemployment figures. They are NOT mysteriously removed from the unemployment figures.

TheDaddy · 03-04-2015, 06:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

That is simply wrong .Both sets of unemployment figures show a fall in unemployment ,also those that are sanctioned would still be classed as unemployed under the LFS figures so your claim that those being sanctioned are being removed from the unemployment figures is simply rubbish .The only truth is that more people are being sanctioned more under a conservative government than a Labour one

---------- Post added at 18:11 ---------- Previous post was at 18:08 ----------

have a read

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...ood-news/12810

You can hardly blame anyone for believing governments massage the statistics, your own link says they don't include people on government training schemes and previous governments of all persuasions have tried to fool us as also detailed in your link.

03-04-2015, 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You can hardly blame anyone for believing governments massage the statistics, your own link says they don't include people on government training schemes and previous governments of all persuasions have tried to fool us as also detailed in your link.

I have no doubt they do massage the figures but the myths should be corrected .The reason why those on training schemes aren't counted in the unemployment figures is because they aren't unemployed in the sense that they are available to look for work .

TheDaddy · 03-04-2015, 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

I have no doubt they do massage the figures but the myths should be corrected .The reason why those on training schemes aren't counted in the unemployment figures is because they aren't unemployed in the sense that they are available to look for work .

You ever been on one of these courses they consist mainly of job searching! I pity any one signing on, the hoops you have to jump through for pittance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866

03-04-2015, 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You ever been on one of these courses they consist mainly of job searching! I pity any one signing on, the hoops you have to jump through for pittance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866

As it should be ,when it's too easy people take advantage .Part of why people are against benefit changes is because they now have to show much more effort in getting a job

TheDaddy · 03-04-2015, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

As it should be ,when it's too easy people take advantage .Part of why people are against benefit changes is because they now have to show much more effort in getting a job

The regime is self defeating and poorly administered, is that as it should be to and they're not my words but the chief of the cab whose organisation has to deal with consequences of the hoop exercise

03-04-2015, 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The regime is self defeating and poorly administered, is that as it should be to and they're not my words but the chief of the cab whose organisation has to deal with consequences of the hoop exercise

So because the chief of the citizens advice bureau doesn't agree with the changes that makes it wrong ? , not the most unbiased source really is she

Gary L · 03-04-2015, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

So because the chief of the citizens advice bureau doesn't agree with the changes that makes it wrong ? , not the most unbiased source really is she

She's the chief of the CAB. she bases her opinion on the workload and cases that come through the door. feedback from her staff up amd down the country.

03-04-2015, 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

She's the chief of the CAB. she bases her opinion on the workload and cases that come through the door. feedback from her staff up amd down the country.

She's also on £100 grand a year and without the people who the CAB, quite a lot of the time tell that there is not a lot can be done because that's the rules she would be out of a job.She just shares the same opinion as you and Daddy

Gary L · 03-04-2015, 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

She's also on £100 grand a year and without the people who the CAB, quite a lot of the time tell that there is not a lot can be done because that's the rules she would be out of a job.She just shares the same opinion as you and Daddy

Rollox.

Arthurgray50@blu · 03-04-2015, 23:23

Well some 6 years ago the Conservative Club is still in Pall Mall. And l should know, l used to deliver really posh wines there