Conservative plans to use the unemployed as free labour

[DJKillaQueen]

No DJKQ, they'll have condemned themselves to homelessness and starvation by refusing to go to work.

What kind of world do you live in H? DO you understand the maths of an area that has high unemployment? If there are NO jobs for people then what are they supposed to do? If there are jobs, but they can't compete for them because employers are prejudiced against women, the over 50's, the disabled, the LTU (which is a real fact) - what are they suposed to do?

Let's have some answers to that......

[SeanMacGabhann]

And I'm aware that that is childish, losing an argument, throwing toys out of my pram, beneath me, a poor show etc

But by admitting all of that I get to say it again...

[DJKillaQueen]

I also agree that IDS is making an effort to genuinely understand the problems at hand. He recognises it will take sizeable investment but the long term benefit to the country would be worth it. However he has to get that investment out of central government and I think that will be the hardest challenge for him.

[reggie]

If we were brought up with the concept that if you don't have a job you can still get by with government support but you have to put some hours in as part of the deal, that sounds reasonable don't it?

The difficulty is when the government has to justify itself when introducing the ideas as a new concept because it then sounds bullying or patronising.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think it can be done Reggie but it has to flexible to reflect the range of people that are unemployed - for the various reasons they are unemployed. And those reasons are as regional as they are individual. In most of these discussions there is a lack of aknowledgment of 'individual circumstance'.

We need more jobs...that's a given. We need incentives to employers to 'give a chance' to those they might not automatically employ. We need apprenticeships for the unskilled young and we need retraining for others who would benefit from it. And we need work/welfare schemes for those that do sit at home all day watching TV because they DO exist although not in the numbers the Daily Mail would have us believe.

Whatever is done, the unemployed individual should benefit from the process....otherwise it's extra expense down the drain and will achieve nothing.

On punishment...I am opposed to taking away benefits, but would instead favour replacing benefits with vouchers. I think the embarassment of buying food and utilities with vouchers would suffice to have a desired effect. And those vouchers can stay in place for as long as it takes for that person to play ball.

[Brendan]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Option One

>

> Visitor: "Who's that bloke there?"

>

> Resident: "That's Harry Smith. Poor bastard lost

> his job last year, but we all club together and

> pay his rent and his bills. He's a smashing

> feller, to pay us back he cuts the hedges, does

> the shopping for Granny Jones once a week and

> takes the local kids on fishing trips. If he doesn't we take his house away."

Visitor: "Ah so you support him but in exchange he has to do whatever jobs you tell him to. They used to do that quite a lot in the 18th century didn't they??

Or Option Two

Visitor: "Who's that bloke there?"

Resident: "That's Harry Smith. Poor bastard lost his job last year, but cuts the hedges, does the shopping for Granny Jones once a week and takes the local kids on fishing trips we pay him a fair wage and he is able to support himself from that and needs less help from the state.?

Visitor: ?Oh so he has a job then.?

As for your quip about the ?real? world, spare me the patronising bullshit. Do you seriously think you are possessed of powers of observation and deduction somehow more astute just because you?re able to apply your own prejudices to a predicament and come to a conclusion that you believe in without first filtering the reality through objectivity and empathy?

Mamora Man?s points on the welfare state are correct but they're just the old arguments of socialism vs capitalism that anyone who grew up in the latter half of the last century, against the backdrop on the 2 super powers and their cool barney, has had droning as a constant background to any political thought or debate they have had since they first spat their dummy out. Do we really think that turning the Department of Work and Pensions into a workhouse is the solution?

I know Victoriana is quite fashionable at the moment, I?m wearing a waistcoat and a silk scarf as I type, but can we leave it out of politics please.

[????]

As even some commentators in the Guardian/Indie and others on the left (and even our own Ratty) have pointed out IDS may be a bit of a oddity and was a a massive failure as leader of the tories but he has probably spent more actual time in our most strickened and poorest communities in the last 5 years than any other minister or past-minister in any party, you don't have to agree with his conclusions or what he's doing but to say that he's not sincere in his belief that his proposals will make it better for the poor and is rubbing his hands with glee as he cuts away the welfare state is horsehit, as even most Labour MPs acknowledge.

[Brendan]

So you read the Guardian then do you?

[Marmora Man]

Parliament yesterday was unusually co-operative / in agreement when the "Quiet Man" presented his proposals. There was no deep or meaningful opposition and quite a lot of rueful agreement that much of his ideas were not only taking the right (no pun intended) direction but should have been implemented 10 years ago - around the time Frank Field was sacked for thinking the unthinkable.

Just occasionally Parliament can act rationally and rise above party politics - yesterday was, almost, one of those days on this subject.

[????]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> So you read the Guardian then do you?

Yes - sometimes. Pay attention it's reasonably well known.

[Brendan]

Broadly Duncan Smith?s reforms are required. Labour just didn?t have the will and inclination to make them.

That?s not the point.

The issue is forcing long term unemployed to do community work.

You can?t force someone to work for no pay. End of.

Just because the opposition support something that is morally reprehensible doesn?t make it right.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Option One

>

> Visitor: "Who's that bloke there?"

>

> Resident: "That's Harry Smith. Poor bastard lost

> his job last year, but we all club together and

> pay his rent and his bills. He's a smashing

> feller, to pay us back he cuts the hedges, does

> the shopping for Granny Jones once a week and

> takes the local kids on fishing trips."

>

> Option Two

>

> Visitor: "Who's that bloke there?"

>

> Resident: "That's Harry Brown. His parents take

> money from us every week on threats and menaces of

> jail and give it to him. He spends most of the day

> in bed or down the shopping centre. The evenings

> he gets pissed on cheap cider. I caught him

> vomiting in my garden the other day, and when I

> asked him why he didn't get a job he spat on my

> shoe and told me it was his 'rights'"

Huguenot! You forgot Option 3!

Option 3:

Visitor: "Who's that bloke there?"

Resident: "That's Harry Smith. Poor sod, lost his job nearly a a year and a half ago after having worked since the age of 16 and barely taken a day's work off work sick in nearly 40 years. He's in his 50s but cannot for the life of him find a job despite looking in earnest every day, being registered with some over a dozen agencies, and having bunged his CV on the internet for the whole world to gawp at. At first he received just over ?64 a week JSA, on which he had to pay tax at 40% because he used to be a good earner and it was right - then - that he should pay his share of taxation. And for that enormous sum of just over ?64 per week (taxed at 40%) he had to pay fares to visit a job centre and sign on and suffer the indignities of interrogation as to why he hadn't found a job by staff who were unhelpful and barely literate. He is now in his fifties and has become very depressed. He has a wife who earns a low income, but as the pair of them worked hard over the years and were prudent to save for their retirement, his JSA stopped 6 months after first receiving it. He receives not a penny from the State now despite being out of a permanent job for nearly a year and a half. Thankfully, the odd contract job pops up now and again. However, as the jobs are short-terms (some as short as one day) and via agencies, he no longer enjoys holiday pay, sick pay, pension rights etc. All work related expenses are down to him (including flights and accommodation - yes, he goes to most places - including abroad). He remains depressed - his self-esteem at an all time low. But - somehow - he manages - but only because he is eating into his savings - which aren't huge. He isn't complaining.

AS I SAID HUGUENOT - YOU FORGOT OPTION 3!!!!

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

------------------------------------------------ >

> The example of Harry Brown and Harry Smith is a

> good one.

It would have been had it been complete and shown the full picture - it didn't - so it isn't!

[david_carnell]

I don't wish to pick fault LadyM, as ideologically we are on the same side, but there are some flaws with your "option 3".

You do not pay tax on JSA.

Fares to the JobCentre are paid if they are more than one bus fare ride away. And most urban job centres are easily with walking distance for most people.

You only have to visit the job centre once a fortnight. You have to present evidence to show you've applied for a minimum of three jobs in that fortnight. That's not much to ask in return for your benefit.

Costs of getting to job interviews are also paid for by the job centre. That would even include air-fare if it was the cheapest and most efficient means of getting there.

After 3 months all JSA claimants receive half-price bus travel. After 6 they receive half price travel on all public transport.

Not all job centre staff are unhelpful or barely literate. I was one.

I agree the current system is in dire need of reform but the overly simplistic pictures I'm seeing painted by both sides bear no resemblence to what I worked amongst for nearly a year in 2009/10.

[Brendan]

Visitor: ?Who is that??

Resident: ?Oh that chap comes from a wealthy background and went to a public school. He didn?t pay for his university education, went directly into employment and has never worried about being able to pay a bill in his life. Whenever he has had any trouble during his career someone from his lodge or one of his old boys? networks has sorted him out. He has no idea what it is like to be unemployed or have the security of his family threatened but he feels strongly that his opinions on other peoples? realities are correct. He has therefore become a politician. He wants unemployed people to be forced to do work for free.?

Visitor: ?Oh a cunt.?

Resident: ?Alas, yes.?

[????]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[????]

Brendan=Mark Steel

[Brendan]

I'm funnier than him.

[SeanMacGabhann]

"it's as IF...."

[SeanMacGabhann]

You know when you lose your temper and say something you should regret and then revisit it and defend it anyway?

And only subsequently do you realise that actually you REALLY do regret it?

I did that earlier with Huguenot, and I can?t apologise to him or for my own lapse enough

[Jeremy]

In theory I like the idea of giving the long-term unemployed some work to do. But it needs to be thought out properly, make use of their skills (or teach new ones), benefit society, and allow a certain amount of dignity.

It wouldn't be right to force the unemployed to do only the most menial, unpleasant, humiliating jobs which the rest of us choose not to do.

[Brendan]

You can?t make people do unpaid work under duress. It doesn?t matter if it is designing rocket ships or picking up dog poo.

I?d be interested to hear what a court has to say about it.

[david_carnell]

If you sign a contract for benefits that says you have to do unpaid work I would imagine a court wouldn't have much to say about it.

[DaveR]

"It wouldn't be right to force the unemployed to do only the most menial, unpleasant, humiliating jobs which the rest of us choose not to do."

Many of these jobs are currently done in the UK by citizens of recently joined EU states precisely because UK citizens choose not to do them - and claim benefits instead.

[Brendan]

So logically you can take away these peoples? benefits if they refuse to be employed doing these jobs. Fair enough.

But saying that they will only be eligible for unemployment support if they agree to work for free?