CON-DEM misery for jobless oldies !

[Papaumau]

Older people driven onto the jobs market by Con-Dem plans to slash their benefits will struggle to find this work because of ageism, campaigners warned yesterday.

Charity Age-UK, say: "750,000 older people currently on Incapacity Benefit will be hit by chancellor George Osborne's cuts in the next four years.

Director of Age-UK, Michelle Mitchell said: "Hundreds of thousands of them will risk coming up against the invisible wall of ageism. The government must lay the foundations of a better jobs market for older people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course I totally agree with the Age-UK findings here and I wonder where these jobs will come from even IF they were to be made more elderly-friendly ?

After all, in a resticted jobs market during this ongoing recession the young and the fit job-seekers are already having serious trouble trying to find work. What chance does that give the old and the sick to find this non-existent employment ?

Typical Toryism if you ask me !

What say you ?

[Papaumau]

I wonder how long it will be before the right-wingers here have the courage of their convictions to start to criticise the hodge-podge that is the Tory Lib-Dem coalition ?

I will ask this question again in a couple of years shall I ?

[Ivanhoe]

//////////Of course I totally agree with the Age-UK findings here and I wonder where these jobs will come from even IF they were to be made more elderly-friendly ?

After all, in a resticted jobs market during this ongoing recession the young and the fit job-seekers are already having serious trouble trying to find work. What chance does that give the old and the sick to find this non-existent employment ?

Typical Toryism if you ask me !

What say you ?  ///////

I dont give tuppence for this new Age-UK, they are all well paid no doubt, and havent got a clue how it feels to struggle in Britain today, old or young.


 

[Papaumau]

I am surprised at you Ivanhoe as a person who supposedly fights so hard to right the wrongs against the elderly of this country.

To dismiss AGE-UK out of hand when obviously knowing very little of what this vital charity does is surprising when it comes from you in particular. ( I might have expected a response like that from some others here, but not you ! ).

Yes, the nine top executives of this now massive organisation DO get well paid and I am sure if that level was looked at carefully the charity could find some serious savings there, BUT.....the whole organisation does so many good things for the elderly of this country if it was gone there would be a massive gap left.

Just take a look at the home-page of the Age-UK organisation and scroll down to the bottom of the page. There you will see all of the many things that this group does for us.

Maybe you should look at the About us page and then click on the "What we do" link in the left hand margin.

[Ivanhoe]

Papaumau, As I see it charities are springing up all over the country that have huge turnovers, when the very people they are patronising are on a £5000 a year State pension.

I have never believed in charity, or charities, nobody in the so-called civilised world should be a recipient of a "cap in hand" ethos/philosphy", it is a disgrace.

It is a further disgrace, that dissolving the role of the state in favour of charities was Thatcher's mantra, as it was New Labour's mantra, as it is Cameron and Clegg's mantra.

By stealth, charities are replacing the role of the State in this country.

No, I have no time for Age-UK, Age Concern, or Help The Aged, albeit I realise they are a lifeline for pensioners, but pensioners shouldnt need this lifeline, they should be paid a much better State pension.

B

[Papaumau]

I agree, but what you are asking for there is "pie-in-the-sky" as we do not live in that kind of a utopia.

There are charities and then there are charities, some of whom are very effective and who do not have top-heavy administration costs.

I guess that if we are to support charities we have to look at them closely and find out which of them are the most efficient and effective ones.

Some clever punter once said that as we go about our daily tasks we should fight the fights we can win and we should be very careful that we do not enter into fights that we are sure to lose. I agree with that sentiment.

As I see it, the state is the best entity to make services work and services should never be handed over to the private sector as the profit motive always reduces the actual service if it is given the opportunity. On the other hand if money needs to be made then the private sector are always the best at doing this. The two should not mix in these tasks as each entity should do what it does best.

Getting back to "charities"..... As I see it, charities are a bit like insurance as they are there to take up the slack when government fail to do what they are supposed to do. Like with insurance, the people who are able to give to charity are the people who do not need it given back to them as they are in the better-off majority. Also like insurance, the many are able to support the few in this way.

[Ivanhoe]

Papaumau, While we are "looking at them closely", this Tory lead coalition are by way of reducing the deficit, disolving the role of the State before our very eyes.

This is no time for tea party deliberations, this is a time to stand for the Utopia you so casually seerm to dismiss.

[Papaumau]

I admire your ethic Ivanhoe but "utopia" is always only a dream that everybody knows will never exist.

Yes we should fight to try to attain this lofty result but real-life and human nature dictates that it is quite unobtainable.

I agree that the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition are in the process of dismantling what most of the ordinary people of Britain stand for but that is NOT our fault. It is the fault of the thoughtless swing-voters that jump from left to right and back again out of selfish desires.

I would hope that most of us are not like that and that some day a truly "people's" government will be elected.

Naive....? Maybe !

[Ivanhoe]

I could not agree more.