• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Get on your Hoe and look for work

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Get on your Hoe and look for work

    Lord Tebbit upsets the lefties again

    Lord Tebbit wants unemployed to work in return for benefits  | Daily Mail Online

    Make young jobless dig up weeds from the roadside, says Tebbit: Tory grandee wants unemployed to work in return for benefits
    Lord Tebbit makes proposal to combat ragwort in letter to insect charity
    Tebbit, 83, says it could be weeded out by 'Neets' and 'low level criminals'
    But Labour MP says comments reflect 'values of the Victorian workhouse'
    Tebbit famously told the jobless to get on their bikes and look for work
    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

    #2
    "But Labour MP says comments reflect 'values of the Victorian workhouse"

    Typical Labour MP. The "values" of the Victorian workhouse were admirable. It was just the implementation of those values that went a bit wonky at times.

    Comment


      #3
      I'd be interested to hear from people who support this idea... do you also support abolishing minimum wage laws?

      Comment


        #4
        I support workfare, done correctly it stops people just settling into a life of benefits.

        It also probably will save the sanity of a few people languishing on benefits.

        I suppose it is easy to drop on to benefits if the alternative is employers screwing you over and working you stupid hours for minimum wage.

        and not sure why you suggest people that feel workfare type schemes are good are likely to want to abolish teh minimum wage?
        Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by vetran View Post
          Lord Tebbit upsets the lefties again

          Lord Tebbit wants unemployed to work in return for benefits*
          Working in return for a cash benefit? Isn't that "Being employed"? Just on in a really poorly paid job.

          Wouldn't it be better to have a policy that limited the number of years of unemployment benefits to the number of years you had worked? So if you worked for 5 years, you could get 5 years out.

          If you hadn't worked at all ... you'd get nothing.

          Comment


            #6
            My main issue with this is that it's work someone could be paid to do.

            We have jobs that need doing and loads of unemployed people. The solution is not to keep folks unemployed and doing that work to maintain their benefits!

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by tomtomagain View Post
              Working in return for a cash benefit? Isn't that "Being employed"? Just on in a really poorly paid job.

              Wouldn't it be better to have a policy that limited the number of years of unemployment benefits to the number of years you had worked? So if you worked for 5 years, you could get 5 years out.

              If you hadn't worked at all ... you'd get nothing.
              If you linked it to previous work and gave none to those that hadn't contributed petty crime would skyrocket. We would have starving children and people begging on the street.

              And for single mums who married had a planned child and were abandoned what do they do?

              I'm quite happy to give them recognition of previous work and an initial holiday of 3-12 months from workfare if they have paid in for a significant time and possibly first pick of workfare jobs.

              Its not a job, its an incentive to get a job so you don't have to get up at stupid O'clock to pull weeds. Don't be so binary.
              Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by NickyBoy View Post
                My main issue with this is that it's work someone could be paid to do.

                We have jobs that need doing and loads of unemployed people. The solution is not to keep folks unemployed and doing that work to maintain their benefits!
                you willing to double your council tax payments so councils can employ more people - thought not.

                there are plenty of jobs councils don't do because they can't afford to but they should, many of them are unskilled.
                Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by vetran View Post
                  If you linked it to previous work and gave none to those that hadn't contributed petty crime would skyrocket. We would have starving children and people begging on the street.

                  And for single mums who married had a planned child and were abandoned what do they do?

                  I'm quite happy to give them recognition of previous work and an initial holiday of 3-12 months from workfare if they have paid in for a significant time and possibly first pick of workfare jobs.

                  Its not a job, its an incentive to get a job so you don't have to get up at stupid O'clock to pull weeds. Don't be so binary.

                  I would never advocate such a change overnight.

                  The issue as I see it is that we started off with a welfare state that was supposed to be a safety net, to protect the most vulnerable in society and to help level the playing field of those born into disadvantage situation.

                  It is supposed to keep people out of grinding poverty and to catch us if we fall.

                  But over the years we have ended up with a welfare state that is a life-style choice for certain sections of society.

                  I am all for the State that protects the disadvantaged and supports, for example, the single mother ( and children ) who were abandoned or had to flee an abusive partner or the brickie who falls on hard times because he injures himself on site or the person who finds herself out of work due to redundancy or sickness.

                  But it is not right that we have a system that actually enables people who are capable of working to avoid it and have the rest of us pay to support them for a prolonged period of time.

                  It's not fair on the majority of the working population and it prevents society supporting those that are really in need. It breeds resentment and increases separation within the population.

                  It's also not good for the mental health and self esteem of the unemployed person and it acts as a disincentive to somebody working hard, in a low paid job ( "Why should I bother, when so-and-so sits at home and gets nearly as much as me" )

                  It is a very hard situation to change. People don't fit neatly into categories of "deserving" and "undeserving" but it has to be tackled as it is not sustainable in the long-term and not compatible with open-borders and free movement of people.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by tomtomagain View Post
                    I would never advocate such a change overnight.

                    The issue as I see it is that we started off with a welfare state that was supposed to be a safety net, to protect the most vulnerable in society and to help level the playing field of those born into disadvantage situation.

                    It is supposed to keep people out of grinding poverty and to catch us if we fall.

                    But over the years we have ended up with a welfare state that is a life-style choice for certain sections of society.

                    I am all for the State that protects the disadvantaged and supports, for example, the single mother ( and children ) who were abandoned or had to flee an abusive partner or the brickie who falls on hard times because he injures himself on site or the person who finds herself out of work due to redundancy or sickness.

                    But it is not right that we have a system that actually enables people who are capable of working to avoid it and have the rest of us pay to support them for a prolonged period of time.

                    It's not fair on the majority of the working population and it prevents society supporting those that are really in need. It breeds resentment and increases separation within the population.

                    It's also not good for the mental health and self esteem of the unemployed person and it acts as a disincentive to somebody working hard, in a low paid job ( "Why should I bother, when so-and-so sits at home and gets nearly as much as me" )

                    It is a very hard situation to change. People don't fit neatly into categories of "deserving" and "undeserving" but it has to be tackled as it is not sustainable in the long-term and not compatible with open-borders and free movement of people.
                    pretty much my feelings, I believe workfare is the fairest system to make it unattractive to remain on benefits. Combining this with capping benefits and slowly driving them down. Workfare should not benefit large multinationals directly undercutting jobs.
                    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X