Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:49 am  

Gideon is talking about making unemployment benefits claimants work for free.
He says he wants end the "something for nothing" culture.

I don't think he sees the irony.

[John_D]

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:09 am  

He's cleared one thing up for me: unemployment is the fault of the unemployed. Can't believe I never saw it before.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:13 am  

He's talking of up to 200,000 who have been unemployed for more than 3 years to be given jobs "sweeping streets or working with elderly" or alternatively attending a job centre every day for intensive job searching.

All of which is one of those great soundbites that get the party flag bearers standing to applaud, especially the bit about street sweeping which has a long history of being work only fit for the feckless unemployed, that and clearing snow from pavements in a sort of Downton Abbey benevolence stylee.

Its makes great conference TV but like most things that are uttered from politicians mouths its full of bollax when you examine what they are actually suggesting and three minutes consideration bring you to that conclusion.

1. Are there really 200,000 street sweeping jobs going free - its possible that there are given that local authorities have had spending budgets slashed, how ironic if an official council street sweeper who lost his job in 2010 was now sent out to sweep streets as a government employee.

2. Do the politicians believe that this is a no-cost option, do they honestly believe that job centre staff will simply point to a broom cupboard and say "grab yourself a brush and go find some streets to sweep for 30 hours this week and then I'll tick this box and pay you", or do they realise that more civil servants will have to be employed to organise and supervise these work gangs - or is that the whole point ?

[DaveO]

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:11 am  

If you read the on-line news e.g. The Guardian you will find in virtually all the articles statements similar to "Polling suggests such policies are popular with the general public".

Is this really true? I know its been a deliberate feature of Tory policy to continually repeat various mantras to drive home the message but aren't people tired of hearing about the so called feckless unemployed?

Surely there must be a limit to the number of times you can vilify one section of society such that it no longer has the effect you seek which is clearly to try and win votes?

It certainly won't save any vast sums of money if any at all.

The last time they tried similar despite the so called popularity of workfare, employers who took people on under the scheme were vilified and dropped out pretty quickly for fear of tarnishing their image.

I suppose if the unfortunate victims of this were "employed" by the government not private companies that would solve that but then I would expect once this was seen to be happening the general public would be as about enamoured with the government for doing this as they were with Tesco or Poundland employing cheap labour.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:32 am  

DaveO wrote:

If you read the on-line news e.g. The Guardian you will find in virtually all the articles statements similar to "Polling suggests such policies are popular with the general public".

Is this really true? I know its been a deliberate feature of Tory policy to continually repeat various mantras to drive home the message but aren't people tired of hearing about the so called feckless unemployed?

Surely there must be a limit to the number of times you can vilify one section of society such that it no longer has the effect you seek which is clearly to try and win votes?

It certainly won't save any vast sums of money if any at all.

The last time they tried similar despite the so called popularity of workfare, employers who took people on under the scheme were vilified and dropped out pretty quickly for fear of tarnishing their image.

I suppose if the unfortunate victims of this were "employed" by the government not private companies that would solve that but then I would expect once this was seen to be happening the general public would be as about enamoured with the government for doing this as they were with Tesco or Poundland employing cheap labour.

I think part of the problem is that "the government" listen to, as much as produce, the soundbites and they are being fed "opinions" by the news media which suggests that their readers/listeners fully support the vilification of the feckless, disabled and unemployed, hence the "Supporting hardworking families" logo's seen everywhere this week.

In reality of course only a small percentage of the population read newspapers and even fewer of those offer opinions to those newspapers, and those that do tend to be of the "Angry of Surrey" type or "Derek Hatton was an angel", its only when those conference suggestions are put into real life rules and regulations that they get any meaningful feedback and as we saw with commercial retail organisations, the feedback to workfare was huge, quick, and very anti - which took them all by surprise.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:38 am  

Would it not be more beneficial to have the government subsidise their wages with benefits (56 p/w?) and have the employer top it up to minimum wage level for a period of time with a view to being taken on permanently by the employer should they prove their worth?

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:41 am  

DaveO wrote:

If you read the on-line news e.g. The Guardian you will find in virtually all the articles statements similar to "Polling suggests such policies are popular with the general public".

Is this really true? I know its been a deliberate feature of Tory policy to continually repeat various mantras to drive home the message but aren't people tired of hearing about the so called feckless unemployed?

Surely there must be a limit to the number of times you can vilify one section of society such that it no longer has the effect you seek which is clearly to try and win votes?

It certainly won't save any vast sums of money if any at all.

The last time they tried similar despite the so called popularity of workfare, employers who took people on under the scheme were vilified and dropped out pretty quickly for fear of tarnishing their image.

I suppose if the unfortunate victims of this were "employed" by the government not private companies that would solve that but then I would expect once this was seen to be happening the general public would be as about enamoured with the government for doing this as they were with Tesco or Poundland employing cheap labour.

I know I'm no Ajw who just loves posting useless polls , but I read the DM's take on it this morning to see what their neutural stance was on the subject (!) and if the comments are anything to go by you are correct, there were more green arrows on the posts berating the government for vilifying the unemployed yet again, turning the unemployed into slave labourers, etc, etc, etc. Obviously this is no Mori poll or anything, but after 3 years of reading these sorts of stories in the DM I can honestly say the tide is turning, the once proud True Bluers are now beginning to stop and think about what is happening to the likes of the unemployed, the sick and disabled and how this goverment are spinning its lies and propaganda through the likes of the DM, The Express and The Sun day after day. Outraged of Tunbridge Wells is getting wise to it now and beginning to question this governments agenda.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:45 am  

post wrote:

Would it not be more beneficial to have the government subsidise their wages with benefits (56 p/w?) and have the employer top it up to minimum wage level for a period of time with a view to being taken on permanently by the employer should they prove their worth?

Yep, it would. But thats not what this government want is it? They want the unemployed to be the villians in all of this. They want the unemployed to be the disgusting, nasty, lazy people that they think they are. It wouldn't surprise me if this government would make them wear bright orange boiler suits to do the work. And anyway, we already have people who are forced into doing community work, it is called Community Service, being done by people who have broken the law.

Your theory would work perfectly if this is what Gideon wanted to achieve, but it isn't.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 9:47 am  

post wrote:

Would it not be more beneficial to have the government subsidise their wages with benefits (56 p/w?) and have the employer top it up to minimum wage level for a period of time with a view to being taken on permanently by the employer should they prove their worth?

Its not a bad idea and its what currently happens with the vast majority of benefit claimants who, strange though it may seem, are "in work" claimants, I tend to think though that what is being proposed isn't just covering JSA (if it was it would be outrageous to suggest that £65 is worth 30 hours work of anyone), but that it will also cover ALL benefits able to be claimed by the long term unemployed which, given the new cap could be £500 per week, in which case I doubt that the employer will be making any contribution at all.

Especially for street sweepers.

Re: Work for benefits : Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:23 am  

post wrote:

Would it not be more beneficial to have the government subsidise their wages with benefits (56 p/w?) and have the employer top it up to minimum wage level for a period of time with a view to being taken on permanently by the employer should they prove their worth?

Providing the employer doesn't simply use the system to staff-up loads of low-skilled jobs at only the cost of the "top-up", knowing that they only have to offer a job to a fraction of the number of jobless applicants that they take on for work experience.

Call me Mr Sceptical.