DWP to get powers of arrest, search and seizure

Maudi

17:31growstuff

Obviously you and Labour/Libs are happy for people to remain for ever on benefits. That's why normal hard working tax paying people will never vote Labour in, you want the hard grafting workers to pay for your benefits.

Wow! What are you drinking Maudi?

Maudi

17:31growstuff

Obviously you and Labour/Libs are happy for people to remain for ever on benefits. That's why normal hard working tax paying people will never vote Labour in, you want the hard grafting workers to pay for your benefits.

Have you any idea whatsoever how many of those people needing benefits already have jobs? Or are retired?
Or will you just continue to 'talk through your backside', as a real gentleman I used to know and love would have put it?

A thuggish policy - what can you expect from zj

I sympathise with that view Maudi. I believe a Labour government would be far too soft where benefits are concerned. Of course there are people wholly deserving of support because they cannot work, or cannot earn enough to support their family. And there are those who will not work. We’ve all seen the exposees on tv of people who fake ill health and generations of families who have never worked. Remember the programme ‘Benefits Street’ a few years ago? It happens.

Would you employ this woman?

Who is she?

The glass of champagne is ok but we have a strict no smoking anywhere on the premises, even in our yards so it’s a no from me.

Thérèse Coffey, Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions.

Well unless she was a qualified lawyer I wouldn’t have been offering her a job anyway. If she chose to smoke cigars outside the office it wouldn’t have been my concern.

I'm drinking French wine actually I'm on a campsite nr Royan

Enjoy. I have a glass of NZ dry white at hand.

Thank you I will and thanks to Tesco unlimited Internet roaming.

Cheers I have just been handed a rather nice dry white by DH, sorry no idea of the grape or country of origin (to lazy to get up and look in fridge)

Unfortunately got to go and wash up at the communal sinks now lol

growstuff

Thérèse Coffey, Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions.

How long did you trawl the internet to find the most unflattering photo of Secretary of State of DWP?

She could get a job as a bouncer? as I said no need for anyone not to have a job

In the space of 15 months, from March 2020, the three main Covid loan schemes – bounce back, CBILS and a scheme for larger loans, CLBILS – handed out nearly £80bn to businesses.

Banks intent on protecting their finances usually apply stringent credit checks to help avoid fraud and ensure customers can repay their loans, but what was eventually agreed for bounce back, amid pressure from the Treasury to speed up loan distribution, was that checks would be dispensed with altogether.

While lenders would have to make reasonable efforts to chase down the debts, a state guarantee put taxpayers on the hook for 100% of losses linked to defaults or fraudulent applications.

Insolvency Service records show some took loans to fund gambling or currency trading – money the government is unlikely to ever recover – while others spent it on things such as home improvements, car raffles or luxury personal items.

Questions remain as to how determinedly the government will be able to chase all fraudulent claims.

Low hanging fruit.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

Thérèse Coffey, Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions.

How long did you trawl the internet to find the most unflattering photo of Secretary of State of DWP?

Two nanoseconds!

I see no reason why people with savings should be denied benefits if they have paid into the system. There are stringent (not to say unreasonably strict) checks to ensure that claimants are looking for work, and that they take jobs if they are offered, which is the important thing, so why should someone who has saved be denied money given to a colleague who hasn't, when the company they both worked for goes under?

Similarly, if someone is unemployed and meets a new partner, why should the unemployed one be assumed to be financially dependent on the other, if they decide to move in together?

It really is time that benefits were more closely linked to contributions, and were paid to individuals instead of households, in the same way as tax is paid.

Germanshepherdsmum

There are a good many unskilled vacancies Daisy.

How many GSM? There doesn't seem to be a plan of any sort or even any stats to work out what needs doing. Just because your coffee shop is finding it difficult to employ does not make that where people want to work. This does not mean that those who can are not working.

I have just been with my daughter; her company is constantly advertising. They cannot get people with the skills and education necessary. It is nothing to do with not wanting to work. How arrogant does someone have to be to assume those who need work are not trying to get it?

Meanwhile, the LP (not a member or a supporter but interested in what they say) are saying the three things we need to get right are Education, Skills and Transport. They have a plan. Where is the Conservative plan (if "Conservative" is still appropriate)?

Maudi

No excuse for not having a job. Some just want to remain on benefits have another child when one reaches school age.

The UK's unemployment rate is the lowest in 50 years. What, in that statistic, gives you the right to be so negative and negative about a group of people who don't seem to exist. What would you think if someone was doing the same to a group defined by their faith, colour, or race? No, the far-right is going for the poor and unemployed this time round.

It is despicable to try and make the minority be the enemy of the majority. But no doubt that thinking makes some feel very comfortable and superior.

What are you talking about, perhaps you need to get out in the real world instead of being on GN day and night.

I do get out when I can Maudi. Unfortunately, it's not always possible. That doesn't stop me from knowing what is going on nor does it stop me from knowing there are some very rude people in the world.

Why because not everyone shares your views.

Maudi

Why because not everyone shares your views.

That too is a personal attack and therefore rude.

I don't come on here to talk to people who share my views; I come on to learn. That means talking to those who have both similar, and vastly different views but are willing to share their thinking and factual knowledge.

It seems you are more ready to attack me than to explain why you are not taking the lowest unemployment for 50 years into account.