What would you cut?

[smokedout]

Nice one.

I'll get back to Agnes later in more detail but some people are workshy and some are not. Some people can be helped back in to work (or useful community activity) by assistance and some cannot and some WILL not and these are the ones who need coercion.

but its way more expensive to run workfare schemes then it is to just keep people on benefit, so it wouldnt be much of a cut would it

 

[Mrs Magpie]

My definition of Workfare would be that if a claimant was fit and well and had no caring responsibilities then they should have to work for their community in order to get enhanced benefits.

The trouble with that is the panels that decide whether you are fit often don't have the expertise to decide. I know plenty of severely disabled people who have had to appeal to get the very basic that they are entitled to.

One example I can think of is someone who nearly died, can now barely walk, has lost most of the function of his right hand, and a fair bit of function in the left hand, is in constant severe pain and requires care who was refused disability benefit. He got it after a lengthy appeal and legal help but it caused him real problems. Just getting him to the appeal was a major hassle.

 

[tbaldwin]

but its way more expensive to run workfare schemes then it is to just keep people on benefit, so it wouldnt be much of a cut would it

Depends on how there run?
A capital building programme could work very well. If you cut all subsidies to rail companies you could use the money to build a new rail line or 3 which would be Labour intensive.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

A capital building programme isn't workfare.

 

[tbaldwin]

A capital building programme isn't workfare.

It could be. The problem with the idea of a lot of work programmes is they end up being a waste of money as they don't produce anything useful.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You could never have that sort of programme as workfare, it wouldn't, well, work. You could train people and give them proper jobs building things, that might be a good idea, but that's not workfare.

 

[tbaldwin]

You could never have that sort of programme as workfare, it wouldn't, well, work. You could train people and give them proper jobs building things, that might be a good idea, but that's not workfare.

I dont really understand why not? Maybe im missing something?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Why not what, why it isn't workfare? Workfare is where you force people to do a job to get benefits; you can't run a construction project like that.

 

[tbaldwin]

Why not what, why it isn't workfare? Workfare is where you force people to do a job to get benefits; you can't run a construction project like that.

I dont see why not? You need Labour. People on workfare can provide that Labour,surely? Whats to stop that happening?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well, because they're only quite rarely construction workers, engineers, electricians etc, and even if they are might not exactly be overly motivated by being forced into low-paid employment? That's all quite apart from the ethical issues.

 

[tbaldwin]

Well, because they're only quite rarely construction workers, engineers, electricians etc, and even if they are might not exactly be overly motivated by being forced into low-paid employment? That's all quite apart from the ethical issues.

Yes. But there is always a need for unskilled semi skilled labour as well.
You would/could have a mixture of people working on a project. Some of it could be subcontracted to a workfare programme,some of it to other people.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Or you could just offer people jobs building stuff. Then you wouldn't even need to pay them benefits either.

 

[audiotech]

As someone on a "Community Programme scheme" in the 80's, which was the tory's temporary solution to high levels of unemployment amongst youth then, it was clear to me that this scheme and initiatives like it are doomed to failure.

They are in part a stop gap measure to an economic crisis and as so lack any serious thought into giving useful training and education.

It's political expediency at it's worst, with corruption and incompetence being an all too familiar by-product.

 

[smokedout]

Yes. But there is always a need for unskilled semi skilled labour as well.
You would/could have a mixture of people working on a project. Some of it could be subcontracted to a workfare programme,some of it to other people.

and they would need to be supervised, and trained, and insured, and that would all need to be administered, then theyd need travel/food expenses, and to be recruited, and given most of them wouldnt want to be there, policed somehow

far more expensive then slinging someone 60 quid a week wouldnt you agree

seen as unemployment seems set to stay quite high for the forseeable lots of people - maybe as many as 2 million would be forced into this kind of unpaid labour at massive cost both to the state (which couldnt afford it - thats why they're currently scrapping the workfare programmes that do exist) and the individuals concerned who are unlikely to be learning any new skills and are likely to end up stuck doing manual unpaid labour for a long time at huge cost to the people who were previously doing that labour fopr a wage and at massive profits for the bosses who would no longer have to pay minimum wage for unskilled labour

it is, in short, a fucking stupid idea

 

[tbaldwin]

and they would need to be supervised, and trained, and insured, and that would all need to be administered, then theyd need travel/food expenses, and to be recruited, and given most of them wouldnt want to be there, policed somehow

far more expensive then slinging someone 60 quid a week wouldnt you agree

seen as unemployment seems set to stay quite high for the forseeable lots of people - maybe as many as 2 million would be forced into this kind of unpaid labour at massive cost both to the state (which couldnt afford it - thats why they're currently scrapping the workfare programmes that do exist) and the individuals concerned who are unlikely to be learning any new skills and are likely to end up stuck doing manual unpaid labour for a long time at huge cost to the people who were previously doing that labour fopr a wage and at massive profits for the bosses who would no longer have to pay minimum wage for unskilled labour

it is, in short, a fucking stupid idea

For me it doesnt have to be about replacing existing jobs with cheap labour.
It could be about the state having a labour force on a proper wage to start new but needed projects.
New rail lines, refurbishing buildings etc

 

[smokedout]

but as fridgey said, thats not workfare is it

 

[FridgeMagnet]

If the government was prepared to start training people to give them the necessary skills, then employ them for decent wages in public works projects, there'd be loads who'd jump at that. Not going to happen though is it - completely against the current ideological consensus. What you might find is people being forced into low-paid low-skilled work for private contractors paid over the odds by the government under some PFI deal, and that project being given some happy-clappy flagwaving name - "Building Britain's Future" or something.

 

[SpookyFrank]

If the government was prepared to start training people to give them the necessary skills, then employ them for decent wages in public works projects, there'd be loads who'd jump at that. Not going to happen though is it - completely against the current ideological consensus. What you might find is people being forced into low-paid low-skilled work for private contractors paid over the odds by the government under some PFI deal, and that project being given some happy-clappy flagwaving name - "Building Britain's Future" or something.

Sad but true. In order to truly rebuild the economy on a long term basis, removing the fundamental flaws that allowed this collapse in the first place, a major ideological rethink is required. Our politicians have shown little signs that they have the courage, the brains or indeed the inclination to do this. What we get instead is deranged and very costly bullshit like the bank bailouts and the car scrappage scheme.

Gordon Brown has been standing up in PMQs every week and making the same argument over and over again, that debating the merits of his ill-thought-out schemes is irrelevant because anything he can think of that might possibly work has to be better than nothing. A pretty shoddy argument when the vague possibility of a temporary improvement in the economy is costing vast sums of money the country simply doesn't have. If you want to lose weight and the only two options you can think of are doing nothing or blowing your leg off with a shotgun, chances are you'd be better off doing nothing. You might still be fat but at least you'll have two legs and you won't have wasted a perfectly good shotgun shell. And let's not forget that it's easier to lose weight in the future if you still have both your legs to excercise with...

 

[Blagsta]

I thought I posted up link re the Gaza thing from the IDF?

Later as probably Sunday night - I've got a life you know.

Oh look, nearly a month!