Families will be told that they should work at least 35 hours a week, rather than rely on state handouts, if they want to avoid their children living in poverty.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, will say that Labour's strategy to spend more than £150 billion in extra benefit payments for poor families had failed to stop child poverty.
Figures to be published today are expected to show that the Government failed to meet its statutory target to halve the problem by 2010 - despite the huge amount of taxpayers' money spent on tackling it.
Mr Duncan Smith will unveil a new analysis which will show that hundreds of thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty if at least one of their parents works 35 hours a week earning the minimum wage.
The introduction of the universal credit, under the Government's welfare reforms, will mean that people returning to work from benefits will continue to receive some state support. Mr Duncan Smith will also set out plans to change the definition of child poverty so that a more sophisticated analysis is used.
Any child living in a household which earns less than 60 per cent of the typical income is defined as living in poverty. This is likely to be changed so that children living in workless households or those with drug-dependent parents are highlighted.
Speaking at the Abbey Community Centre in London, Mr Duncan Smith will accuse Labour of "pouring vast amounts of money" into increased benefit payments to tackle poverty. He is expected to say that the strategy has failed and parents need to be helped back to work rather than simply subsidised by the state.
"For those who are able to work, work has to be seen as the best route out of poverty. For work is not just about more money -- it is transformative. It's about taking responsibility for yourself and your family."
Mr Duncan Smith will indicate that Labour wasted large amounts of public funds as it failed to halve child poverty. "The last Government spoke about the need to tackle poverty, and poured vast amounts of money into the pursuit of this ambition -- £150 billion was spent on tax credits alone between 2004 and 2010.
"Overall, the welfare bill increased by some 40 percent in real terms, even in a decade of rising growth and rising employment," he will say.
Ministers are drawing up plans to introduce a series of measures to gauge whether families are living in poverty, such as whether parents have drug or alcohol problems or whether they are working.
Mr Duncan Smith's call for disadvantaged families to return to work may come at an inopportune time with unemployment rising as the double-dip recession has led to a lack of jobs.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, caused controversy recently by telling Britons they had to work harder to help the UK escape from recession.
#1
"For those who are able to work, work has to be seen as the best route out of poverty. For work is not just about more money -- it is transformative. It's about taking responsibility for yourself and your family."
Personal responsibility, social weaning, working for money.... all very controversial.
#3
A quick calculation on my restaurant napkin:
37 hr week on Minimum Wage = approximately £840 pcm after tax and NI.
Money out on that = £820, (conservative figures of £500 rent, £120 Council Tax, £80 travel to work, £120 essential bills), leaving £20 pcm for everything else. Baked potatos breakfast, lunch and dinner!
Dole money = approximately £256 pcm, rent paid, Council Tax paid, no travel to work costs, that leaves £136 pcm after bills. Maybe some canned tomatoes with the baked tatties.
Why attack the unemployed and further reduce their means, when the real problem is slave labour and poverty anyway under an unrealistic Minimum Wage designed to make the rich richer.
Rant off, lunch time, off to forage for some nuts and berries
#4
Oh dear, not an idiot who believes the minimum wage raises wages! It only creates unemployment. Think of it as compulsory unemployment level. i.e. If you add less value than 120%* of the "minimum wage" per hour, you're not allowed to be employed.
*20% Cost of employment overhead, management costs, Employer NI.
#5
I'll wear my idiot badge alongside my other medal if that's the case.
Interesting factoids you state there. Taxed @ more than 100% of earnings, examples please. The benefits system as a Labour ploy? Don't. You don't think the Tory lack of taxing the rich isn't a ploy in the same style? Goose and gander, boyo. As for means testing, I would have thought that was better for your line of thinking or rather no benefit system at all, which was actually originally a safety net to end the appalling poverty in your land.
Now, rather than resorting to name calling, perhaps you can leave your Dark Side and address my point that it is not worth getting out of bed for a job that pays not even £20 pm compared to benefits. And don't tell me the unemployed are workshy, or that they should all become Engineers off their own backs. Your system is stupid, you are, in fact, stupid and are inviting a whole lot more trouble on your once green and pleasant land with your self-righteous, selfish veiws.
I would advise cutting back on the double G&Ts with your lunch, you may not be enjoying them much longer, and they do not encourage coherency or civility.
#8
Deadeye seems to think that wealth and jobs are a fixed pie, so that the only question is who gets how large a slice.
In reality, wealth can be grown for the entire society if capital is well invested and if it is enhanced not only with natural resources but also with human intellectual value. The latter can be as modest as the pleasant demeanor and organization of a receptionist or as broad as a major technology invention.
BrightPebbles is right to say that the minimum wage limits the number of employed. The question from my perspective is whether a given level of minimum wage does so to the degree that it overshadows some social benefit provided by the wages in the earner's pocket. In the US, applying minimum wage indiscriminately is a major reason that 70% of teenagers do not have any job this summer. That means: no spending money, but also no work experience to draw on in the future.
#10
Oh dear, not an idiot who believes the minimum wage raises wages! It only creates unemployment.
No. It causes inflation as well as unemployment. Every time the minimum wage rises, so does inflation. Think about it: if nobody can afford an item, whoever is selling the item will be forced to lower the price. But if the minimum wage is increased so that people can afford the item, whoever is selling it will keep the price the same or even raise it.
The minimum wage causes unemployment by telling workers and their potential employers that they cannot legally compete against workers in other countries. Then everybody acts surprised when the jobs are shipped offshore. Then the prices for the imported goods are jacked up to whatever those on the dole and minimum wage workers can afford.
Better to cut the dole and let employers pay people what they're worth instead of letting the nanny state determine what the wages will be. The market is smarter than the nanny. It might also help to stop importing dole recipients from Third World countries.
#12
Correct me if I'm wrong, lotp, but what you're trying to say is that people should accept dirt poor wages so that their real wage be wisely invested by some suit? So sorry to tell you, but the trust has evaporated, your assets have been exported and the cheery receptionists smile replaced by the loathing of insecurity. As for your 70% youth unemployment, well, now their parents can't even afford to give them pocket money and, unfortunately, their first language isn't Chinese.
So, yes, let your betters, hell-bent on OWG for their own benefit, degrade your children's. futures. They've really been showing how to do it so well, haven't they?
#14
So, yes, let your betters, hell-bent on OWG for their own benefit, degrade your children's. futures. They've really been showing how to do it so well, haven't they?
By this, who do you mean? Labour in the UK or Democrats in the US?
#15
So Ebang, what caused inflation and unemployment in the pre-Minimum Wage era?
Well, let's see...there was FDR with his socialist policies in the 1930's and then there was LBJ with his socialist policies in the 1960's.
Now, it's true that we had a correction in the stock market in 1929. There were some folks who got caught betting with borrowed money. But at least when they'd jumped out of a window we didn't have to bail them out.
#17
EU, yep, and you forgot the '70's oil crisis which caused a lot of pain. However, I will leave you with the thought that these crises are man-made and occur at predictable intervals for the benefit of very few.
#20
If I remember right, apologies no time for searching, the San Fran Bay area has a local minimum wage of $13, don't quote me, my point is that a popular sandwich place could no longer sell its foot longs for $5 on account of wage costs. I'm sure one of their options was cutting staff therefore working the remainder harder...if layoffs are still legal thereabouts.
I also know that peoples' givashits can rust and break when they find that not working is just the same, only they don't have to go to work. Once anectdote is a fellow whose idea of working is to have a couple cold ones then go into an interview. Auto failure, except for the proof of still looking for work.
"The minimum wage in Nunavut is the highest in the country at $11 an hour, but high living costs mean it doesn't have the same purchasing power. And the unemployment rate is high, at 16%."
#22
Well only an idiot would be looking for a minimum wage job in Nunavut. Anybody with a brain would travel a couple hours south to Ft McMurray (Alberta Oil Sands) where due to extreme labour shortages even a coffee server at Timmys gets to name his/her price.
Britain has opted out of new EU directive on confiscating criminal assets in move described as drawing 'a line in the sand' on interference from Brussels.
Dominic Raab MP, a leading Tory backbencher, said: 'Ministers have drawn an important line in the sand, refusing to give up democratic control over asset freezing because it is not in the British national interest.'
Home Office minister James Brokenshire told MPs that Britain would not accept the proceeds of crime directive because it could undermine domestic rules.
Under the Lisbon treaty, which was formally agreed in December 2009, the UK won the right to opt in or out of any law and order policies by 2014.
The Government's decision to use the opt out is the first time that ministers have used it on one of the 130 new EU measures that the UK must accept or reject by 2014.
In February more than 100 Tory MPs challenged the Prime Minister to take a stand against Europe and particularly the 130 possible opt outs in the Lisbon Treaty.
In the letter to The Daily Telegraph, signed by two former cabinet ministers and several committee chairmen, the MPs warned that if David Cameron failed to act the transfer of powers to Europe will become irreversible.
Mr Brokenshire told MPs Britain has extensive, effective laws governing seizures from organised criminal gangs - much of it on a civil, not criminal, footing.
Mr Brokenshire said Britain would continue to negotiate to try and improve the directive, which he said would be benefit some parts of Europe.
The directive would have created the power to freeze assets without a court order using criminal law, opening the door to legal challenges, Mr Brokenshire said.
He added that "if criminal law procedural protections and a criminal law standard proof were introduced... our law enforcement agencies would find it harder to disrupt the workings of some of the most dangerous organised criminals".
During the debate, Eurosceptic Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg MP said introducing the directive would mean all policies to confiscate assets and tackle money laundering would be dictated by Brussels.
Children are being groomed for sex on a huge scale across Britain but police have only uncovered "the tip of the iceberg", a Government minister has said.
Tim Loughton, the children's minister, said there is a "real problem in this country" with exploitation of children.
The MP spoke out after a series of recent cases in which men have been jailed for grooming young girls for sex.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Loughton said he has long though the grooming of children for sex is "much bigger problem than it may appear now on the radar".
He said recent court cases show the authorities are "at last waking up" to the scandal.
The most high-profile prosecution has been against nine Muslim men found guilty of grooming young white girls for sex in Rochdale.
Following the trial, Baroness Warsi, the Coalition's only Muslim minister, argued that a small minority of Pakistani men see white women as "third-class citizens" and "fair game".
Mr Loughton yesterday said the authorities must not "shy away from difficult issues around culture" when addressing the exploitation of children.
He said the case raised "very troubling questions about the attitude of the perpetrators, all but one of whom were from Pakistani backgrounds, towards white girls".
But he said there were victims and exploiters from "all social and ethnic sets as well".
Continued on Page 47
#3
...well the government could send fathers to good old Texas for some training on dealing with this cause we know they're not going to send the Bobbies.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
