Bring back the workhouse

Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

Bunkd

I like it!

Why bother with leisure money though? That should only come for superlative work. :yep:

Reply 61

SciFiRory

1) no, thats a vile idea, have you no respect for other humans? (stupid question actually, you are using a thatcher avy afterall...)
2) we already have workhouses to an extent, we just shipped them out to China, India, Africa, et al (which im opposed to btw)

Reply 62

The G Doctor

L i b

Being able to support your own existence and organise your own life.

the banks can't support their own existence

Reply 63

L i b

The G Doctor

the banks can't support their own existence

Banks are not alive, nor should they have been bailed out. Any government intervention in them - which is at least done by an arms-length organisation: UK Financial Investments Ltd - should also be over as soon as possible.

Reply 64

CJ99

silverbolt

so just so we're clear, your idea of getting people employed is to make an employed person fired so the previously unemployed person no has work. Those regualtions are in place purposefully so employers cant do that.

I'll rephrase that. Increase labour market flexability. So that employers will create more jobs as many employers are unwilling to take the rick of creating jobs that may in future become redunant if the market changes scared that due to such regulations they will have to keep that person employed when they can no longer afford or need them. That way it will encourage employers to create lots more tempory jobs on top of current ones meaning the unemployed can move into tempory jobs while looking for more permantant jobs.

Look up labour market flexability. also so up flexicurity thats the model we should be following not got everyone in one job and keep them heir for life!!!

Reply 65

blacklight

If you want to get the unemployed to work, all you need to do is provide more jobs, since the amount of jobseekers vastly outnumber the amount of job vacancies available at the moment.

To make this particular scheme work you end up simply shifting work away from the standard avenues into the workhouses for litttle pay. All this effectively accomplishes is a reduction in wages. This is only good for the owners of businesses exploiting this, and bad for everybody else. This is precisely why it is a Victorian idea.

If you really want a proactive government role in creating work, then financing of large-scale projects such as windfarm developments, modernisation of rail infrastructure would be much more suitable.

Reply 66

yawn

The_Octopus

So your fear is that the existence of workhouses would eventually lead to things like the current benefits available to the unemployed disappear, thus "forcing" people into workhouses (or relying on charity)?

The current benefits payable to the unemployed are in the form of money paid into their bank account to cover the cost of food and clothing, in addition to housing benefit which is paid direct to the landlord or the mortgage company (interest only, not capital payments) for maintaing a roof over their head.

If someone like our OP comes along and changes legislation, making these 'workhouses' mandatory for benefit claimants by removing entitlement to benefit if they refuse to move out of the accommodation that is essentially being pad for by the state, the provision will eventually become common-place and the norm.

At one time, beneficiaries could opt for payments of benefit by girocheque, or even cash (provided they called into the benefit office every day to collect their daily entitlement) and did not need to have a bank account...or even if they did, they could still insist on different methods of payment.

Now, one has to have a bank account and if one doesn't, one has to open one otherwise the benefit will not be paid.

You see how time changes things and allows for evolvement? The same would invariably happen with the pernicious suggestion of 'workhouses.'

In reality, the suggestion is primarily one that emanates from contempt for the unemployed and a desire to punish them.

Nasty...

Reply 67

Renner

On the subject of forced work, I fail to see why we don’t get prisoners to do work. Why am I paying for several council workmen to sit in a van all day when I could just pay for a man with a whip…

Reply 68

L i b

Renner

UNISON would never wear it. Plus, you know how council workmen are idle bastards? Imagine what a bunch of convicts would be like.

As a final point: we don't really dig drainage ditches any more. Virtually everything else requires a HND in some **** or other from your local FE college nowadays. Half of these prisoners can't read.

Reply 69

yawn

Renner

On the subject of forced work, I fail to see why we don’t get prisoners to do work.

They do, although not forced but rather voluntarily...within the confines of the prison walls...earning a minimum of £4 a week.

Cash, in the form of notes and coins, is banned in the 139 jails in England and Wales for security reasons. Offenders instead earn credits towards an account which they can then use to buy items such as food, toiletries and cigarettes, from the prison canteen.

The prison service offers work to about 24,000 inmates at any one time, just under one-third of the prison population. About 10,000 are employed in workshops producing clothes, woodwork, metalwork and printed items. Four thousand of them work for external contractors in such tasks as laundry and manufacturing headphone ear-pieces for airlines.

About 25,000 attend educational courses, from programmes designed to address offending behaviour and improve literacy to obtaining vocational and academic qualifications.

Reply 70

jacketpotato

Margaret Thatcher

People who cannot afford to sustain themselves are provided with work (perhaps production work) and in return they are clothed, fed, and sheltered in one large building. The accommodation could be as nice as a council house - like university halls with an en-suite and a shared kitchen, but without the need to provide individual council houses to people which is costly and takes up more land in developing new ones. They would be fed well, and perhaps provided with some pocket money for leisure activities and items.

I had to think to see how this is different from the current situation. We already pack people together in shocking high-rise council flats and provide a little money for food and clothing.

Your idea is better for the unemployed - at least you'd be providing a job!!!!

Reply 71

yawn

jacketpotato

Your idea is better for the unemployed - at least you'd be providing a job!!!!

And denying others jobs in conclusion. There are no enough jobs for all those who are without. It's like paying Peter whilst robbing Paul.

Reply 72

Maker

The OP has admitted the Tory government has failed to provide a country where most people who want to work can work. Its an abject admission of failure.

Reply 73

im so academic

Maker

The OP has admitted the Tory government has failed to provide a country where most people who want to work can work. Its an abject admission of failure.

Oh come on, the ConDem government have just been in government for just under two months. They can't just magically make jobs - it takes time.

OP: I agree on the principle, it sounds like a good plan.

But there are arguments for the fact that it could cost more than for the people to be on benefits, so it makes things worse for the taxpayer.

And that's my only concern really - we end up wasting more money.

I don't really care how people would be treated in the workhouse tbh, what's important is that the workhouses would be cheaper than the welfare system.

If there was some way where workhouses would be cheaper than the welfare state - so be it. Implement them.

Reply 74

Maker

im so academic

I can't take a Beiber lover seriously

Reply 75

The G Doctor

im so academic

you obnoxious weed.

Reply 76

im so academic

The G Doctor

you obnoxious weed.

Why do you say that?

Please explain for me.

Reply 77

Nucky

Lol...wired tae the moon. 8 year old thread regurgitated....when it was a load of turgid nonsense in the 1st place.

Anyone seriously wishing to crack down on the benefits/tax cheats in this country needs to have a look at offshore money transfer tax exclusion rules etc.
Thats where the real scrounging/cheating happens.