tmcd35

Because each time a problem is identified, the scheme gets more complicated to solve the problem spending cash anywhere didn't have. How much power do you want to give central government in your daily life? If you said yes to an ID card, how quickly would someone at GCHQ suggest some form of tracking? How meny times do you acquiese before you wake up living in North Korea? A bit extreme, but as far as I'm concerned central government has no business telling me what to spend the money on. But then simply reducing the amount paid in child benefit might have the same result you are looking for (stopping unemployeed Joe buying his TV) and would be much cheaper/simpler to implement. The fact remains we are judging someone elses finacial situation by peering through the letterbox; we're not in full posession of all the facts. He might have been saving £5 a week for a couple of years. He may be paying Provident 1000% APR on a street door loan. Or he's in recept of benefits he's legitamately entitled to that are not being properly means tested thus we the tax payer are legitametely giving him too much. Is that his fault? Don't look for a complicated solution when a simple one will do.

I'll say it again - vouchers are a red herring. It actually doesn't matter whether you use vouchers, bank transfers or cold hard cash - it's the same amount of money being given to the exact same people, including the benefits cheats. All vouchers do is frustrate the honest users of the system. The real questions are how divide the money. How to decide who gets what. How to decide who is eligable. Think unemployeed Joe down the road is getting too much because he can afford a 100" TV? Then it's the answers to these questions that will adjust that balance. This is why I'm in favour of a single household means tested payout that takes into account the total household income and it's occupancy and compares that to the requirements of an agreed standard of living - whatever that is. The only question for me is, if you are giving everyone enough money to live in handouts, how do you encourage people out to work? I think there's an answer somewhere involving the national minimum wage so that even at it's lowest the wage earned should be worth more then the benefits received. EDIT: Also vouchers are the thin edge of the wedge. In this thread we've already jumped to photo ID's cards and biometrics! Seriously - big brother - 1984.

That's interesting given the last Labour Government's success in rolling out a national ID card... The problem is limiting what is considered essential and where it can be purchased from. Who decides what is essential? Is it the same for everyone? What if I need something that is not on the approved essential list? Or is available form an unapproved source? What about Internet purchases? No there is nothing too it! We give benefits because without them the reciepent would be below the poverty line, can't affor to live. Now if you live in a council house and are on benefits then you have some of that money taken away because the council housed you in a home larger than your needs. Where's the logic in that? Those who live in council houses and not recieving benefits are not paying any extra for uneeded rooms. No only the poor, who need the money, are being targeted and forced below the poverty line. Wrong solution to the wrong problem! So, are you advocating a return to the workouses, slums and homelessness of the past? I'd rather a broken system open to abuse than no system at all. There's nothing wrong with the right to buy. Thatcher was right on that. It's what happened councils where and weren't allowed to do with the money gained from these sales that caused the problem. What we need is a 30's style mass social housing build. Doesn't really matter if it's councils or housing associations in charge of the stock. We just need the stock.

Fascinating Panorama the other night on educating their university students. Worth finding on iPlayer if you've not seen it.

Mmm, with both Bill Gates (taking a more active role) and Steve Ballmer still on the board - Is it a surprise they couldn't find anyone else willing to take on the role?

This'll set the cat amongst the pigeons... Having done factory work. Experienced the working conditions and pay - I'd sooner stay on the dole and wait for something more suitable to come along, personally. True story - I signed up to Uni becuase I couldn't stomach doing any more factory work (lasted barely 2 weeks) and there where no other job opportunities available.

You where very lucky to get two jobs when you hit rock bottom as @nephilim's recent job hunting experiences prove. There will always be people out of work - for whatever reason, most through no fault of their own. As a soicety I believe we have a duty of care to help and support these people - workhouses, slums and homelessness should not be considered options in this day and age. Whatever system you dream up so support those in most need, a minority will find a way to abuse that system for their own gain. Once you accept that the question becomes more about the best ways of allocating the funds available. (And by that I mean amounts allocated to JSA, disability, child benefit, etc - not whether or not vouchers are a good idea). And the fairest way to test eligability. (should child benefit be universal - even for multi millionaires?) There are more injustices in the current system than benefits cheats. The top end tax rate reduced from 50p to 45p? The bedroom tax? If you think someone is a benefit cheat - report them!

You are right! but it doesn't answer two important questions - where are the jobs? and should we punish those who better manage their finances for the crimes of those who don't? It's nothing to do with gender, disability, race, or anything else. It's not even a benefits problem per se. There's not enough jobs to go around - and you shouldn't punish those who want to work but can't becuase of those who could work but won't.

@AlexBillbridgenorth, It's not a case of acceptability, and with respect I've tried to suggest that maybe you've identified the right problem but are looking at the wrong solution. I firmly believe what you are describing is a social services and education issue rather than a benefits issue. Nobody can design a welfare system that can't be cheated in some way. Besides what @Earthling was saying mirrors my very first comment - we have 2.5 million unemployed. 900,000 of those are considered "long term" - they've been unemployed for more than 1 year. While the current benefits system isn't perfect, the problems you are describing are based elsewhere. Seriously the alternative to the Welfare State is Victorian England. A return to the slums. Yes it's wrong they are sitting on the back sides drinking booze all day - but there isn't the jobs for the 1.5 million who do want them, let alone the 900,000 who don't. I'm sure if we needed and could afford an extra 2.5million street cleaners then the jobs market would reflect that. And again, are we suggesting that all 900,000 long term unemployed are feckless? Just how big a problem do you think this is anyway?

Or they are very good at budgeting and saving? I never said the system isn't broke. Just the current suggested fix doesn't sound right either (IMHO).

So suggest a better system. The fact is whatever you come up with there will always be cheats. So do you punish the majority for the crimes of a minority? Or do you look at another way of dealing with the cheats? Again, I suggest it's more likely a social problem than a welfare problem. As someone who pationately believes in the values of the welfare state - you've just successfully described a society I would hate to live in. If ever I fall on hard times I'd like to believe there is a safety net there to keep me from the very worst. Just look at parts of America or pre-War Britain and then tell me that the welfare state, for all it's flaws, isn't the better alternative.

Sorry, just teasing out the argument. It's a fasinating subject. Is that not a thin edge of a large wedge? If you let them get away with that, what next? Interesting example. I'm of the opinion that there should be one single means tested state welfare payment that applies to all. One single payment. It's upto you if you choose to spend a proportion of that income servicing your rent or your drug habit. Of course, if you choose not to pay your rent you'd end up homeless, but it's your choice. But what if you can afford a new telly without the kids going hungry? And if the kids go hungry, again, is that not a social problem?

Honestly, haven't got the fogiest. But then it's not my place to tell you how you should live your life - and the government certainly shouldn't be allowed to wield that much power. I doubt that's true. But then I don't know the guy - who am I to judge? EDIT: re-read the last paragraph, although it appears he might not sacrafice personally - it looks like his wife and kids are. Maybe there is something else to be said/done there? again a social not a (monatory) welfare problem. Now this I do believe. But then I never said the system wasn't broke. But then no system is perfect. Back in my first post I suggested we take the conversation away from the personal (knee-jerk Dailey Mailism) and on to dicussing the system itself. What are the alternatives, and what do they say about us as a society? Will the alternatives result in a country you'd like to live in? A voucher system says thing about a society that isn't representive of where I want to live, personally.

You are right, my apologies. It's interesting that giving government officials that much power over your life doesn't bother you. How much can they dictate before they've gone to far? What of the companies who are not on the approved list? Do they go out of business when they loose custom?

It's interesting that we seem to know so much about the life choices and sacrafices some people make to be able to afford a car or go to a resturant that we can so easilly blame them when our own life choices and sacrafices mean we can't afford such things...

Sorry, tldr; Just had a read of the last paragraph - EEK! Are you seriously suggesting I sit down with a government official and justify my personal spending decisions? And have to go back begging if I want to ever change the ratio's, even as a 1 off (I don't know - buy a birthday present or something)?

But... My bills only come to £90 and there is food I want to buy from $shop[5] for £10. But $shop[5] isn't on the "approved" list and besides that £10 is allocated for bills so I can't use it for food...

Tobacco and alcahol are drugs. People who have been dependant on them for any length of time, most start experimenting as teenagers remember, don't have any real choices. It's a drug dependancy and society should treat it as such. Maybe there's more the medical profession can do to help these people? Maybe there's more that can be done to educate at a younger age so they don't full into this trap. Dictating how the majority must live their lifes based on the poor choices of a minority is wrong. It's big brother. Will you give up your personal freedoms that easily? To my mind what you are describing is a social problem not a welfare problem.

The system is far from perfect, but I think if we're are going to have this discussion (again) we need to disassociate the flaws in the the system with the people. This thread as already got very Daily Mail and is taring alot of people with one brush - "benefits cheats". The problem, I fear, is a lot less prevalent as certain tabloids (and tabloid TV channels (5)) would have us believe. There are about 2.4m unemployed, of which just over 900,000 (less than half) are considered "long term unemployed" (over 1 year). How meny of those 900,000 do we want to class as "scroungers" and how meny are "genuine"? And if the other 1.5m are struggling to get jobs? - Not saying it's right, just putting some perspective on the issue. As for "vouchers" - hell no! I don't believe governments or society should have the right to dictate how I choose to live my life in that level detail. 1984.

I can see this being a real vote winner; only 15 months left to go... This comment from the Beeb's story on this will put the fear of god in to you all... "Gove for PM" *shudders*

"Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."

You mean the whole point of the excersise is to ensure Kim-Un can "hit the hut"?

Soo, they can detect the enemy if they are between 1.2m and 3.5m away? I have a pair of binoculars they can borrow, I'm sure they'd get better results...

This is the bit I was looking for. Curiosity got the better of me, just looked over VMWares website. Accepting edu discount is probably available - just shy of £2k for vCenter Foundation (up to 3 host servers). I must say, at that price I'd stick with Hyper-V whic gives clustering and live migration without the need to buy SCVMM.

Speaking of comparisons, this is one area where I think VMWare has the edge. I found clustering much easier to setup in ESX. Servers shared the same LUN(s) on the SAN and checked each others heartbeat. Most magical thing I've ever seen was a blade being removed from a server cluster and all the running VM's automagically relocating themselves. Not been able to set this up in Hyper-V due to constraints impossed by our current set up. Think I need to convince the boss to splash £10k on a new storage server... But, yep, Hyper-V pretty much does everything (all the important stuff) and is included in the price of Windows Datacenter (which you'll need anyway). Not done the research in a while, but what are the current limitations of the free ESXi product?