howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
a thoughtful piece on what the reds have to do to reverse the current surge in blue popularity.
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/labour-draw-sting-welfare-or-lose-2015[URL]
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Near the end of that piece, is the following:
"Jon Cruddas and the Blue Labour camp have interesting ideas on reviving the contributory principle originally championed by Beveridge, making welfare more like an insurance policy: the more you put in, the more you get out. Some want to demand that benefit recipients have to give if they are to get, doing socially useful tasks, whether visiting the elderly or cleaning up the local park. There are dangers: ensuring that these duties are not seen as punishment and don't block jobseekers finding paid work. But surely few would dispute the value of an element of reciprocity.
Such ideas could draw the sting from welfare, visibly defying the talk of skivers who take but do not give. This is the territory Labour has to aim for, neither vainly seeking to tell people the status quo is fine nor doing the Tories' work for them. Fail to find it, and Osborne's smiling face will haunt them long after 2015."
Labour were "outraged" recently when it was suggested that job-seekers take work-placement at places such as Poundland.
This article seems to suggest that "giving, to receive" is the right approach - which I agree with, doesn't everyone ?
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
"....doing socially useful tasks, whether visiting the elderly or cleaning up the local park."
To put it easier, Roger, these should simply be paid forms of employment, together with many others, such as cutting the blackberry bramble along Folkestone Road and uprooting it with a spade (it won'g grow so easily again), digging up the plot with the owner's permission and planting vegetables there.
There are so many other forms of work one could think of, including cleaning river beds, repairing public railings and the list could go on and on, doing shopping for elderly people and so on....
it could all be paid for as normal employment, I fail to see why half the work that needs doing in our Country is supposed to be voluntary non-paid work.
All one needs is a District Agency that coordinates all the vacant work, carries out the training and does the auditing and central coordination work.
Here is one fine example worthy of mention:
http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Whitstable-green-activist-believes-gardening-beat/story-18596736-detail/story.html?ito=email_newsletter_thisiskent#axzz2PgLnBSxOhoward mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i read that completely differently roger, cruddas and company were talking about giving something back to the community, not to shareholders of major companies looking for slave labour in order to keep employment costs down.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
At least, as can be seen in this case in Whitstable, there is a belief that Community can mean working and getting something in return, even if it is grown food which you then don't need to buy in the shops. This could also be in connection to the Elms Vale thread, how to offer a creative alternative to vandalism. How to involve people in Community participation.
But the idea that everything has to be non-paid work, where you work for nothing and just pick up benefits, is a non-starter.
The fact is, people in general resent working for nothing, I among them!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
You could have put it round another way Alexander; people resent paying their hard earned taxes to people who have no intention of working (but are able to).
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Yep, Roger, but people who would like to do some work cannot, if there is no-one to offer it for them to do.
But I still keep to my statement, that the idea that unemployed people should work for nothing is no good.
My guess is, the Government couldn't care less about how to employ people within the local Community, or about giving Local Government access to more funds in order to offer wages in return for employment, such as you mentioned, cleaning parks, visiting the elderly, or any other task, such as I mentioned.
There would be plenty of work to do locally, but why unpaid and voluntary?
Voluntarily, I simply don't work for nothing. Can't afford it!
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander
and the extra funds are to come from??
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, in that case one may as well suggest that people with over £85,000 savings do 3 months a year unpaid work.
Can anyone seriously suppose it is OK to require young unemployed persons to work for nothing?
Surely this is another trademark of the Nasty Party!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i don't see a problem alex it if is just community work and not taking away a job from someone else. they will gain work experience and learn what it is like to be part of a team.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The biggest problem I see in this, Howard, is lack of motivation.
And then, the risk that it might become a habit to demand that unemployed people work for longer periods unpaid, say 2 months, 3 months... once the idea sets in that there is a working class potentially exploitable free of charge.
Next we'd have the serf class.
So, seriously, I'd suggest that we propose a system where wealthy workers do 1 month or more a year of unpaid work, ie, their wages are paid into a a specific fund that is used to finance training and employment schemes for the unemployed.
It could start with all those with at least £100,000 in savings and who have their own house and needn't pay rent or mortgage.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Or we could just pass a law that says ,you can only employ uk citizens in uk jobs
Then you would see proper benefits reductions
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
our hospitals would close overnight keith, trying to find a british doctor, dentist or pharmacist would prove difficult.
all our take aways would fold, even our chippies are run by people from italy, cyprus, greece sometimes even china.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
nice thought howard,the whole country at a standstill.just what the dynamic duo wants.immigration solved with one stroke of a pen [or just in case of damage a pencil].allso cure obastaty as well,save the the goverment billions.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
You have to look wider as howard says
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Howard
It could be phased in starting at jobs under £20'000
In Thailand they have laws that say if a Thai can do the job a Thai should do that job
They have work permits for professionals and business.
There economy isn't built on debt and they remain part of the world trade and UN
The alternative is mass benefits dependency, and massif youth under employment
What's wrong with British politician looking out for British Workers?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
keith
what you are forgetting is that the 3 main parties are focused only upon the needs of big businesses and ensuring that they have cheap labour.
the indigenous people do not count.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
So how would we run the hospitals, railways, etc etc
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
we wouldnt kieth.