Talk:Jobseeker's Allowance

message: " They must also have to have paid Class 1 National Insurance contributions on earnings of at least twenty five times the Lower Earnings Limit in one of the two complete financial years before the start of the claim year in which the claim is being made. They must also have to have paid Class 1 or Credited Class 1 contributions on earnings of at least fifty times the Lower Earnings Limit in both complete financial years before the start of the claim year in which the claim is being made. " - this bit looks like it needs revising, but I'm not sure what it should say
"Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA(C)) entitlement is based on Class 1 National Insurance contributions in the two complete tax years preceding the benefit year of claim." - This is an abysmal explanation, one that in no way explains how many, or how much, has to have been contributed, and over what timescales. Also it is un-referenced. If the previous statement was accurate, at least it is nearly clear in what it says, i.e. that contributions have to have been made from earnings (> £3825) in one the preceding tax years. And contributions made from earnings and credits(from benefits presumably) (> £7650) in the combined two previous years prior to the current tax year. Whatever the truth of the matter, this needs proper explanation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.27.109 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Class 1 National Insurance contributions

message: An economics teacher at my school said dole stood for Department of Labour and Employment. Any other evidence?
82.21.250.171 18:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I know there has never been a government department called that, so I think it unlikely. It sounds more like reverse engineering to me. MegdalePlace 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: same as "to dole out" = to give a portion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.39.161 (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dole 

message: I have re-reverted some edits in this article that attempted to remove the UK focus of this article.  It is perfectly correct in this instance.  Jobseeker's Allowance is a proper noun for a specific implementation of a generic concept - unemployment benefit.  Since "unemployment benefit" already exists and covers the subject in the round this page can and should be reserved for dealing with this specific scheme.  There are plenty of other examples of this - consider Temporary Assistance for Needy Families which documents a specific US benefit scheme.  That article is not genericised with other similar schemes around the world, nor should it be.  That page documents a specific scheme, not the general concept of supporting families with children, just as this one covers a specific instance of a scheme dealing with the provision of support to the unemployed. There are times when it is valid to remove regional or national perspectives from articles, but when this article is not one of them as it specifically deals with a British subject.  Indeed, the very first words of this article ("In the UK...") make the scope of this article clear. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK focus 

message: I object to the phrasing of this sentence:
"According to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on Dole, the word dole, meaning a charitable distribution of food and money, derives from Old English dal, from which we also get the word deal - New Deal."
It seems to imply that New Deal (UK) is so named because of the 'Old English dal', which is incorrect. It is named New Deal because it gives claimants a new deal. If no one objects, I will reword the sentence, since it is misleading. Any objections or comments? Sky83 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds highly unlikely to me, too, and it surely deserves to go.  If it is true that is something that needs a cite. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it, every time I read through the sentence, it seems even more unlikely. New Deal is just that, getting a new deal, there is no reference to Old English involved. However, if someone can come up with a citation to prove that there is some kind of double meaning to it, and that the Old English had a hand in the naming of the system, it could be added back. I don't think it should though, until there is a reliable source because it's such a strange claim it would need to be backed up to have any credibility. It might not seem like a big deal, but Wikipedia is supposed to be factually correct for the most part! Sky83 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly.  If someone can find a cite then yes, put that material back.  It's just I don't think someone is going to find a good cite for that claim. CrispMuncher (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Deal reference 

message: There seems to be a lack of the numerous ways the state and subcontractors prevent the public from getting what they're entitled to, either by incompetence or outright deception.
Here are some quick links to give a rough idea of the situation.
For jobseekers allowance
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/08/jobcentres-benefits-sanctions-targets
For poor medicals from 2002 and 2010.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/apr/10/disability.socialcare?INTCMP=SRCH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/29/incapacity-benefit-failing?
Subcontractor issues.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/welfaretowork-firm-a4e-knew-of-fraud-risk-in-2009-7582786.html
Pleasetry (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheating the public out of their benefits

message: *The Jobseeker’s Allowance Skills Conditionality Pilot This official report is certainly a good source.  
*DWP: sanctions damaging, unfair, counterproductive. So it does more This is a blog but the author seems to understand things.
Both of these will take some reading. Fighting Poverty (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The DWP found sanctions harmful and ineffective.