The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer.

Ok, so how would you deal with this lot?

I don't for one second think that they have happy, fulfilled lives, but surely a welfare dependency that allows them to do nothing is the worst of all worlds?

I'd start with the 'long' long time unemployed first, there are cases of some going 10-12 years, now that is taking the p*ss.
People moan about the minimum wage being less than benefits, ok let them have a 'top up' to the levels they are at instead of funding the whole lot, surely that would reduce the welfare bill in a steady fair way.
Hammering folk then talking with glee about blowing £50 billion on a useless train set does not sit confortably with most normal thinking people.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer.

Ok, so how would you deal with this lot?

I don't for one second think that they have happy, fulfilled lives, but surely a welfare dependency that allows them to do nothing is the worst of all worlds?

Create actual jobs for them perhaps?

I have no issue in saying "here is a suitable job for you, at a reasonably accessible location and it works around your childcare arrangements etc" take it, or you don't get anymore jobseekers allowance.

But they need to have actually had a reasonable job option presented to them first before we brand them as "workshy layabouts".

I do agree with you on the whole, though they should be trying to get a job rather than having it handed to them on a plate. With some of them it is the having everything handed to them on a plate for the last 10, 20, 30 or however many years that is the problem and put them into a why bother attitude. Make opportunities available and if they don't bother then take their benefits away.

[BWFC_Insane]

Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer.

Ok, so how would you deal with this lot?

I don't for one second think that they have happy, fulfilled lives, but surely a welfare dependency that allows them to do nothing is the worst of all worlds?

I'd start with the 'long' long time unemployed first, there are cases of some going 10-12 years, now that is taking the p*ss.
People moan about the minimum wage being less than benefits, ok let them have a 'top up' to the levels they are at instead of funding the whole lot, surely that would reduce the welfare bill in a steady fair way.
Hammering folk then talking with glee about blowing £50 billion on a useless train set does not sit confortably with most normal thinking folk.

It would be a way of at the very least getting people back into the world of work without them being "out of pocket". Hopefully they would then eventually be off the welfare dependency completely after a while.

Still boils down to the fact that for many there are no employers with jobs suitable for them. Especially across large swathes of the country where the low skilled, industrial and manufacturing jobs have been eroded. Without sorting that issue first, we're chasing our tails.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Il Pirate has identified a group who do not want to work.

What do you say to him?

[BWFC_Insane]

Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer.

Ok, so how would you deal with this lot?

I don't for one second think that they have happy, fulfilled lives, but surely a welfare dependency that allows them to do nothing is the worst of all worlds?

Create actual jobs for them perhaps?

I have no issue in saying "here is a suitable job for you, at a reasonably accessible location and it works around your childcare arrangements etc" take it, or you don't get anymore jobseekers allowance.

But they need to have actually had a reasonable job option presented to them first before we brand them as "workshy layabouts".

I do agree with you on the whole, though they should be trying to get a job rather than having it handed to them on a plate. With some of them it is the having everything handed to them on a plate for the last 10, 20, 30 or however many years that is the problem and put them into a why bother attitude. Make opportunities available and if they don't bother then take their benefits away.

A fair few years back I did voluntary work in a local scheme that worked with mid-long term unemployed people. Whilst there are of course some with little interest in helping themselves, the problems for many run a lot deeper. They may well want a job and be prepared to "get themselves out there" but lack the skills and knowledge to get through the door even if they tried. Even then many employers shy away from someone who hasn't worked for a while, and will fill their roles with graduates who can't find anything better or students on a part time basis etc.

Not downplaying the fact that some are simply "bone idle" at all. But like I say when I started on the scheme my attitude was very much "this will be easy, help them fill in the forms, give them a kick up the ass and they'll be sorted in no time". It was a lot tougher than I expected, I can only imagine how someone who hasn't ever really worked and perhaps left school with modest qualifications feels about it.

[BWFC_Insane]

Il Pirate has identified a group who do not want to work.

What do you say to him?

If people are offered reasonable jobs that they are reasonably able to get to and still fulfill any carers comittments etc, then I think it would be appropriate to say that if they turn things down under those circumstances that their jobseekers benefits are reduced and then cut.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Il Pirate has identified a group who do not want to work.

What do you say to him?

If people are offered reasonable jobs that they are reasonably able to get to and still fulfill any carers comittments etc, then I think it would be appropriate to say that if they turn things down under those circumstances that their jobseekers benefits are reduced and then cut.

No. They should take any job that they can physically/mentally do that is within a commutable distance of their home. If they want to be picky and choosy they can do it with their own money.

[BWFC_Insane]

Il Pirate has identified a group who do not want to work.

What do you say to him?

If people are offered reasonable jobs that they are reasonably able to get to and still fulfill any carers comittments etc, then I think it would be appropriate to say that if they turn things down under those circumstances that their jobseekers benefits are reduced and then cut.

No. They should take any job that they can physically/mentally do that is within a commutable distance of their home. If they want to be picky and choosy they can do it with their own money.

Which may well be the definition of reasonable!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Il Pirate has identified a group who do not want to work.

What do you say to him?

If people are offered reasonable jobs that they are reasonably able to get to and still fulfill any carers comittments etc, then I think it would be appropriate to say that if they turn things down under those circumstances that their jobseekers benefits are reduced and then cut.

But that's not really a satisfactory solution is it, because people can't live off nothing?

[BWFC_Insane]

Il Pirate has identified a group who do not want to work.

What do you say to him?

If people are offered reasonable jobs that they are reasonably able to get to and still fulfill any carers comittments etc, then I think it would be appropriate to say that if they turn things down under those circumstances that their jobseekers benefits are reduced and then cut.

But that's not really a satisfactory solution is it, because people can't live off nothing?

They can't. But they wouldn't have to should they take the job. And if they chose not to, then that is down to them at that point in my view.

[Lord Kangana]

Interesting that no-one has considered the general downward pressure on wages if we've got a state-subsidised slave labour force.

I'd just prefer to pay them he pittance they get already and not have to worry about anything else. Keep it simple if you like.

[thebish]

I can't see the harm in helping to clear out some old dear's garden and having a write up from someone saying the person was punctual and did a good job.

yeah - and that's great and sounds ace - but *practically* how do you go about making that happen? I don't think it is as easy as it sounds... that's the question i am asking... how do you set up a national scheme to match an old lady's garden with a long-term unemployed person without masses of bureaucracy and cost? (not to mention putting loads of local self-employed gardeners and odd-job men out of work...old lady gardens are the bread and butter of self-employed gardeners - they struggle enough as it is without you sending in free gardeners as competiton - and free gardeners who don't know what the feck they are doing and are lazy and workshy....)

[thebish]

Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer.

Ok, so how would you deal with this lot?

I don't for one second think that they have happy, fulfilled lives, but surely a welfare dependency that allows them to do nothing is the worst of all worlds?

i know you are keen to debate summat else with the pirate - but - any tentative answers to the original questions i posed?

[thebish]

if these people are workshy layabouts - who would want to offer them work in their grandma's garden?

also - i suspect quite a few are long-term unemployed because they have long-term mental health problems which make them very difficult to employ... and they have been oiked off sickness benefit/incapacity benefit..

personally - rather than a very clumsy big hammer to hit ALL long-term unemployed which I can't see working anyway (see my original post with questions) - i am happy to accept some swinging of the lead in preference to punishing those who are not evil dole-scrounging layabouts...

either way - i still don't see how this works on a practical basis - on the ground (rather than as a theoretical political points-scoring announcement) without putting other people out of work...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer.

Ok, so how would you deal with this lot?

I don't for one second think that they have happy, fulfilled lives, but surely a welfare dependency that allows them to do nothing is the worst of all worlds?

i know you are keen to debate summat else with the pirate - but - any tentative answers to the original questions i posed?

What were they again? Something like 'how does it work in practice?'?

As Athers says, workfare has been tried in lots of places with varying degrees of success... I assume we would try and copy elements from those places it has worked well?

As it happens, I don't actually enjoy the spectacle of Conservative conferences being full of this stuff, when it's all a stunt, anymore than you do.

[thebish]

Admittedly, there are always going to be folk who do not want to work and have become workshy lazy fecks; maybe they are second/third generation kids whose fathers lost their employment during the last regime of divide and conquer.

Ok, so how would you deal with this lot?

I don't for one second think that they have happy, fulfilled lives, but surely a welfare dependency that allows them to do nothing is the worst of all worlds?

i know you are keen to debate summat else with the pirate - but - any tentative answers to the original questions i posed?

What were they again?

half way down the previous page.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Interesting that no-one has considered the general downward pressure on wages if we've got a state-subsidised slave labour force.

I don't know - what jobs that currently pay more than minimum wage do you think would be dragged down to that level by this?

[Athers]

I can't see the harm in helping to clear out some old dear's garden and having a write up from someone saying the person was punctual and did a good job.

yeah - and that's great and sounds ace - but *practically* how do you go about making that happen? I don't think it is as easy as it sounds... that's the question i am asking... how do you set up a national scheme to match an old lady's garden with a long-term unemployed person without masses of bureaucracy and cost? (not to mention putting loads of local self-employed gardeners and odd-job men out of work...old lady gardens are the bread and butter of self-employed gardeners - they struggle enough as it is without you sending in free gardeners as competiton - and free gardeners who don't know what the feck they are doing and are lazy and workshy....)

Oh yeah it's not easy... but in said example perhaps it may be worth having these guys tag along with already local gardeners to see what it's all about. If it means a 20yo with no qualifications, work history and parents with same, but is mostly getting the lunch, putting stuff in a skip and brushing up (i.e. stuff which wouldn't 'take away' a job), that'd be OK? Cost of setting up the scheme I don't know - but forcing thousands more people to mill about a job centre every day might create jobs as job centre advisors!

It's hard to say it without sounding like looking down on other folk (and the Tories struggle too) but I think there probably is something about showing what a job entails and a decent reference / contact could be what works.

[thebish]

I can't see the harm in helping to clear out some old dear's garden and having a write up from someone saying the person was punctual and did a good job.

yeah - and that's great and sounds ace - but *practically* how do you go about making that happen? I don't think it is as easy as it sounds... that's the question i am asking... how do you set up a national scheme to match an old lady's garden with a long-term unemployed person without masses of bureaucracy and cost? (not to mention putting loads of local self-employed gardeners and odd-job men out of work...old lady gardens are the bread and butter of self-employed gardeners - they struggle enough as it is without you sending in free gardeners as competiton - and free gardeners who don't know what the feck they are doing and are lazy and workshy....)

Oh yeah it's not easy... but in said example perhaps it may be worth having these guys tag along with already local gardeners to see what it's all about. If it means a 20yo with no qualifications, work history and parents with same, but is mostly getting the lunch, putting stuff in a skip and brushing up (i.e. stuff which wouldn't 'take away' a job), that'd be OK? Cost of setting up the scheme I don't know - but forcing thousands more people to mill about a job centre every day might create jobs as job centre advisors!

It's hard to say it without sounding like looking down on other folk (and the Tories struggle too) but I think there probably is something about showing what a job entails and a decent reference / contact could be what works.

that's asking local self employed gardeners to take on an apprentice... i can see that working piecemeal - but not as an enforced national scheme... does the local self-employed gardener basically get a free labourer for all time? how does it work? there's be no incentive to give him a job if there was always another free labourer on offer... and if the idea is for he apprentice to then set up on his own as a gardener - then that's hardly in the interests of the original gardener! i would also imagine the paperwork involved will be a nightmare and easily enough to put off the local self-employed gardener who has enough on his plate with official paperwork anyway...

[William the White]

We should put these spongers in orange jump suits, with chains round their ankles, give them heavy picks and shovels and set them to reducing the coal slags of Wales bit by bit.

Or they could become sedan chair carriers in the City.

Or they could be cooked and eaten on a TV programme - My Favourite Cannibal perhaps?

Problem solved.