That is exactly what I am saying - if what is being suggested here that most participants are not interested and are only doing it to keep their JSA that is hardly the best way of building a working relationship. Do these participants really want a job at Poundland?

It should be offered as an option in the job seeking arena - if you want to give it a go in the hope of securing a job then you should have the option it should not be compulsory.

However there still the issue of should you have to do anything for your benefits?

Well then we agree on that.



Given the benefits (i.e. JSA) is so low I would have thought the requirement to be able to prove you are actively seeking work was pretty much what you needed to be doing. Any voluntary work such as that what Cat Reilly did should also not be used as an excuse to say someone wasn't available for work.

The whole problem of any kind of real employment undertaken for JSA is as has been said several times in this thread that it is tax payer funded cheap labour that us a disincentive for employers to take people on and for the employers, not the taxpayer to be paying their wages. I can't really see how you can solve this problem.

As soon as you have people working as in real work for JSA you end up in this situation. It would surely be far better to abandon this notion of working for benefits completely and just accept it is nonsense to suggest people work for £54.25 or £71 a week (depending on age). People just need to go back and think for a minute that these benefits are a safety net and not something to begrudge others even if they are themselves in a low paid job.

If it isn't a wage then by definition it is working for free.
So i'll stick with my comment ta.

Don't feel down though as IDS couldn't get his head around it either.

IDS is clearly an angry little man isn't he.
He is a nasty little toad. When he piped up with 'We let them get work experience' like he is doing them a favour.

I did love O'Brians reply of 'There are more people alive today than at since records began.....What a strange observation' when IDS got on about there being more people in work today then at any time during records.

As usual, you take a simplistic view and reach the wrong conclusion.

There are many factors involved in costing any contract hire agreement and while depreciation is a major factor, what needs to be determined is the sale price from which that depreciation is calculated. The on-road price will be far less than what an individual could expect to pay and becuse the manufacturers have knowledge of how Motability cars are maintained, the residual price will be far higher than would be offered to any individual: the result is a low monthly rental.

But first you need to look at just what Motability does.

Motability does not buy cars and then rent them out, they operate a back-to-back leasing scheme, coupled with a manufacturer-backed warranty and maintenance programme. This offers straight-line accounting, so cost projections are simple with little opportunity for any surprises down the line: a major plus from an accounting point of view.

Of course an individual could pick up a three year old car and run it for the next three years at a lower cost than Motability, providing that everything runs and works to plan. That lower cost would be blown out of the water if there was a failure to a major component: add a blown engine or gearbox and your calculations would be bolloxed. Now multiply that by a nationwide factor and you can see where your "savings" could easily evaporate.

It is for these reasons that Motability operate new vehicles. To depart from the model would leave too many variables for any government accountant to be comfortable with. And before you jump back in, I have previously supplied hundreds of vehicles, large & small on various forms of contract including: cash purchase, HP, simple washout lease, operational lease (with or without maintenance), full contract hire etc. The area of vehicle supply is certainly not alien to me.

Not really. Factor in insurance, servicing, tires, road tax and I would be paying a lot more than the figure you've quoted.

It always amazes me how jealous some people are of what others "extravagances" are and how they begrudge someone an independant life! What you call an extravagance, I call my independance. If you would like my mobility car, then you are welcome to it, but take my disability and illness as well cos I've had enough of it.

It's not jealousy, it's practicality. I'm not questioning your right to independant living or indeed a car. But a brand new car every 3 years is completely unrealistic in the current economic climate, particularly when all other groups are being clobbered left right and centre.

You mention insurance and all the rest of it, but even then it doesn't come close.

Let's say an average of £600 insurance = £1800
Reasonable 3 year old car = £3500
Tyres for 3 years maybe £500
Tax £300
Servicing £210

Thats £6300, so a good 2.4k wasted, per person or £800 a year. Large wastage considering there are people scraping a living on £56.25 a week.

I've told you why we get a new car every three years. We lease it, its no different to every other leasing policy. After 3 years the car needs MOT'ing and the manufacturers warranty finishes. It would cost the Motability Charity a lot of money in MOT's and repairs to lease the cars over a longer period. I don't get what you don't understand about this?

Quote: TrinityIHC "It's not jealousy, it's practicality, particularly when all other groups are being clobbered left right and centre. '" If you'd have read my earlier posts in this thread you will see DLA claimants are being "clobbered". When PIP comes in in April 500,000 Motability customers will lose their cars. This will have a detremental affect on the car industry. This may help explain why:- wearespartacus.org.uk/emergency-stop/

Quote: TrinityIHC "It's not jealousy, it's practicality, particularly when all other groups are being clobbered left right and centre. '" If you'd have read my earlier posts in this thread you will see DLA claimants are being "clobbered". When PIP comes in in April 500,000 Motability customers will lose their cars. This will have a detremental affect on the car industry. This may help explain why:- wearespartacus.org.uk/emergency-stop/

There are cheaper ways of helping people live an independant life than leasing a brand new car for them every three years. I don't get what you don't understand about this?

I bought my car for 2k about 5 years ago, and it still hasn't cost me over the amount that is being paid for these leases for 3 years. Don't get me wrong, I could go out tomorrow and lease a brand new car for 3 years, but it would cost me more than what I'm paying at the moment so I don't see the point.

How exactly? For £55 a week I get a car that suits my needs ie wheelchair accessable, fully comprehensive insurance and for Mr HWS who was under 25 when I became a Motability customer, full road tax, servicing at manufacturers guidelines, tires (just had 4 fitted after having car serviced), full UK breakdown cover and any faults fixed under manufacturers guidlines. I only pay for diesel.

Please show me where I can get all of that done for less than £55 a week! Even paying for taxi fares for my 3 times at GP's and hospital appointments last week would be around that price!

Right for the hard of understanding...

Anyone on the high level of DLA mobility can either have the benefit paid to themselves to make the decision on what they do to aid their mobility OR they can choose to lease a car from Mobility UK there is no extra cost involved to the tax payer, this lease is a standard commercial lease that has operated for as long as I can remember. The reasons why these are three year leases have been explained to you several times.

This lease covers all the running costs apart from fuel, the last thing someone who is disabled needs is a car breaking down on them.

I would have thought brighter minds than those of us who inhabit the Sin Bin would have thought of this before and so for reasons beyond us decided the new car route was the way to go. Just a theory. EDIT - just been explained by BG.

However that isn't the issue. Under the new PIP rules about 500,000 people will no longer qualify for the equivalent higher rate of DLA which is the point at which you qualify for access to the Motability scheme.

So it doesn't really matter if Motability qualified them for a heap of junk or brand new motor. They aren't going to get either when it comes in. [iThat is the issue[/i.

You never bothered reading my response to Sal Paradise then?