Are Sheff Forum members gettin worried?

[slimsid2000 10]

The whole thing is unworkable. There are just not enough unfilled jobs out there to give to everyone who is currently unemployed or incapacitated. That is before you even consider wheter or not these people are actually qualified to do the jobs.

 

It seems as though Dave must have been smoking some of his 'special' () cigarettes when he came up with this one.

[Magilla 510]

If you want to vote for a cannabis smoking hypocritical opportunist that is up to you. it doesn't mean he is right on this though or that he has thought it out beyond what headlines it will generate

 

Go on then, please tell us since this is the 5th reference I've seen about cannabis in as many posts, what has cannabis got to do with anything?

 

Do you honestly believe that no polititians from any other party smoked the stuff?

 

You seem to be making a big deal out of someone being honest for a change.

[Grandad.Malky 11]

I think he is targeting the ppl on incapacity benefit, but could work, there are thousands of them.

 

Aren’t there twice as many on IC benefit as job seekers allowance, its millions not thousands

[HarmOKnee 10]

They should bring back the workhouses for those scroungers who won't work.

[jeremyjh1 10]

Yeah but if they are not getting any money and have no job how do they support themselves food etc.......................By robbing so no doubt the crime rate will rocket IMHO.

 

I think, below the headline soundbite the 'meat' of any such policy would take in to account those people who cannot find work (because of a lack of available work), but who do try to find work - those would still be entitled to receive benefit.

 

I think the targets are those who refuse to work but, apart from being work-shy layabouts, there is no other medical or physical reason why they cannot work.

 

But, if you're saying that the layabouts who could work, but choose not to will be compelled to get off their backsides to rob because they will lose their 'state income', then I would ask 'they can find the compulsion to rob, why can they not find the compulsion to do what the majority of us do and got to work?'

 

Addendum - the welfare system should be there for those who deserve it, not those who abuse it.

[slimsid2000 10]

Go on then, please tell us since this is the 5th reference I've seen about cannabis in as many posts, what has cannabis got to do with anything?

 

Do you honestly believe that no polititians from any other party smoked the stuff?

 

You seem to be making a big deal out of someone being honest for a change.

 

I don't know who has and who has not smoked it. Thing is Cameron is asking for people's votes and is not even man enough to come clean about any possible illegal activity he has been engaged in himself. Also how stable is somebody on cannabis? Could he make rash or impropper judgements as PM if he were stoned out of his mind?

[jeremyjh1 10]

I don't know who has and who has not smoked it. Thing is Cameron is asking for people's votes and is not even man enough to come clean about any possible illegal activity he has been engaged in himself. Also how stable is somebody on cannabis? Could he make rash or impropper judgements as PM if he were stoned out of his mind?

 

I thought about commenting on this - I thought 'it's a wind up - it has to be a wind up'.

 

But I'm not so sure. I really do believe you are actually libelling a sitting MP.

 

Do you have proof that he is engaged in such an activity? I mean, right now? Do you know and can prove when requested to do so in a court of law that he is involved in a current and illegal activity?

 

If not, I really think you should watch what you say and the accusations you are making.

 

It's on record - it's written down - and if you cannot prove it, it's libel.

[xXMessedUpXx 10]

The tories want one benefit for all. one benefit which will be equal to JSA and likely to have requirements (like looking for work). This takes no account of the genuine sick and disabled. They will be the ones unable to fulfil the requirements for this new benefit. They will be the ones kicked off and let to stave (or kill themselves). And what do you know-but the tories have reduced the unemployment rates!

 

Anyone with good health won't see a problem, but sickness/disability could strike any of you down. Under tory rules even if you were dying of cancer you'd be fit to work.

[jeremyjh1 10]

The tories want one benefit for all. one benefit which will be equal to JSA and likely to have requirements (like looking for work). This takes no account of the genuine sick and disabled. They will be the ones unable to fulfil the requirements for this new benefit. They will be the ones kicked off and let to stave (or kill themselves). And what do you know-but the tories have reduced the unemployment rates!

 

Anyone with good health won't see a problem, but sickness/disability could strike any of you down. Under tory rules even if you were dying of cancer you'd be fit to work.

 

Where does it say that? Can you provide any evidence for this view or are you just toeing the Labour line? Say it enough times and people will believe it is true.

 

As Brown so often states 'the devil is in the detail' and the detail hasn't been worked out yet.

 

Do you seriously believe any party would advocate, suggest, imply or even demand that a person seriously ill would have any or all benefits removed because they could be deemed able to work?

 

You are deluded and you are a scaremongering liar.

 

I could accuse you of being Gordon, but then he has said, on national tv, he is not in charge of the leaflets his party (his election campaign) are producing.

 

Sounds like another politician - one Richard Nixon who claimed to have had no knowledge of what became Watergate.

 

Still, Gordon is only the PM and the leader of the Labour party - what the heck is he responsible for?

[jeremyjh1 10]

What chance hasd Cameron got of getting votes from the unemployed now or those who fear they may soon become unemployed?

 

He might need those votes before long.

 

By my reckoning, if they're too damned lazy to get off their backsides to try to find a job, they're not likely to do so to find a polling booth to put an x on a piece of paper for nothing in return (i.e. no new benefit).

 

Now, tell them that voting will get them an extra £50 and ther'll be first in the queue!!!!

[xXMessedUpXx 10]

Where does it say that? Can you provide any evidence for this view or are you just toeing the Labour line? Say it enough times and people will believe it is true.

 

As Brown so often states 'the devil is in the detail' and the detail hasn't been worked out yet.

 

Do you seriously believe any party would advocate, suggest, imply or even demand that a person seriously ill would have any or all benefits removed because they could be deemed able to work?

 

You are deluded and you are a scaremongering liar.

 

I could accuse you of being Gordon, but then he has said, on national tv, he is not in charge of the leaflets his party (his election campaign) are producing.

 

Sounds like another politician - one Richard Nixon who claimed to have had no knowledge of what became Watergate.

 

Still, Gordon is only the PM and the leader of the Labour party - what the heck is he responsible for?

 

I looked at the manifesto myself.

 

 

As someone who's on ESA i have a right to be worried.

[jeremyjh1 10]

I looked at the manifesto myself.

 

 

As someone who's on ESA i have a right to be worried.

 

So the manifesto specifically says 'if you're dying of cancer you will be considered able to work and therefore you will lose you entitlement to benefits if you fail to find a job or fail to look for work'?

 

Or words to that effect.