Bring back the workhouse Watch

This discussion is closed.
yawn
Badges: 13
#41
Report 8 years ago
#41
(Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
Don't put words in my mouth, love.
Don't attempt to denigrate me by referring to me as 'love.' It's not only patronising but it makes you look very silly.

Where did I say anything about coercion? If council houses were reduced (due to this system being set up) and a family could not sustain themselves or find anywhere to live, they would be free to voluntarily enter the workhouse.
And if they couldn't sustain themselves because they didn't have the monetary means, due to not being able to obtain employment, not could they find anywhere to live...? Would the only option be to enter the 'workhouse' or would accommodation and sustenance be provided to them beyond the walls of the workhouse?

You play with semantics but your proposed system makes it quite clear that coercion is essential if the system is to work.



Not that it would ever happen to me, but I would have no problem with living in university halls-type accommodation, being fed every day, and working in return.
How sure you sound that it would never happen to you...all it takes if for you to be unable to secure employment with a living wage that affords you the option to obtain housing from within the 'free market' which is going to be very expensive in comparison to social housing. If you were not free to reject such a system, you would not be a happy bunny because of the connotations of 'work house' mentality. You could not choose your room mates...you could not choose what you ate...and you could not choose what tasks you were assigned which could range from cleaning out the sh** house to washing the sh**** underwear of your co-workhouse inmates.



Sorry, I don't subscribe to notions such as God or the devil - I'm not a brainwashed, religious zealot.
Your whole demeanour - which may be assumed to gain attention - is pretty devilish...so even if you don't subscribe to the notion of evil, you certainly epitomise it.
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 8 years ago
#42
(Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
That appears to be coercion-they're forced to go into the workhouse if they can't sustain themselves...
No, they're not. Even if the alternative is not to sustain themselves, there is still a choice there. If I should find a village of people starving in Africa, and decide to offer them jobs to support themselves, am I a slave-master? Of course not.

In Britain, of course, the contrast is rarely that stark. There are always other ways of working yourself out of poverty.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#43
Report 8 years ago
#43
(Original post by The_Octopus)
I really don't think that setting up a few of these things will inevitably lead to them appearing all over the country and becoming compulsory in nature.
Neither did anyone evisage that the Abortion Act of 1967 would lead to the wholesale slaughter of unborn human beings which has, in many cases, also become obligatory.

History tells us that exceptions (especially those which save money and effort) eventually become the norm.
The_Octopus
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#44
Report 8 years ago
#44
(Original post by yawn)
Neither did anyone evisage that the Abortion Act of 1967 would lead to the wholesale slaughter of unborn human beings which has, in many cases, also become obligatory.

History tells us that exceptions (especially those which save money and effort) eventually become the norm.
So do you think that were someone to create a "workhouse" as described in the original post, eventually lots of unemployed people would be forced there against their will?
0
diogrwydd
Badges: 0
#45
Report 8 years ago
#45
slightly radical thought here, instead of complaining about people on benefits and how to get rid of them (with neo-fascist ideas such as this modern day workhouse), how about addressing the route of the issue and identify why so many people are out of work in the first place? Lack of a good education provision? Lack of regulation in ensuring a fair wage and working conditions that treats you like a human being and not a disposable asset? Hell, exporting large industries to the far east so the owners can maximise profits can't help the situation can it?
0
Ivan91
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 8 years ago
#46
It wouldn't work because every time a kid asked for more food everyone would burst out into song.
0
Eoin0x
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 8 years ago
#47
I would've guessed that Thatcher wanted a return to the '80s, but the 1880s? really?
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#48
Report 8 years ago
#48
(Original post by The_Octopus)
So do you think that were someone to create a "workhouse" as described in the original post, eventually lots of unemployed people would be forced there against their will?
Not unless the army started marching them there.

Or are you using the left-wing definition of 'force' whereby no force is exerted? In which case, yes, that is indeed foreseeable.
0
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#49
Report 8 years ago
#49
(Original post by CJ99)
Nice concept but It would never work in reality. Best way to cut the number of people on benefits is to cut benefits themselves and use the money saved to cut tax on small businesses and cut the regulations on hiring and firing so people can gets jobs easily and not have loads of people working in black hole jobs achieving nothing.
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.


(Original post by L i b)
No, they're not. Even if the alternative is not to sustain themselves, there is still a choice there. If I should find a village of people starving in Africa, and decide to offer them jobs to support themselves, am I a slave-master? Of course not.

In Britain, of course, the contrast is rarely that stark. There are always other ways of working yourself out of poverty.
and a workhouse is not a way of working your way out. Its existing and barely that, at least as set out the way the OP has it.

On paper its might work but in saying that so does communism. The reality is very different. You made the point i was going to bring up. By introducing cheap labour you undermine current companies who wont be able to compete with a steady supply of people who work 13 hours a day for less money than someone working 8
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#50
Report 8 years ago
#50
(Original post by silverbolt)
and a workhouse is not a way of working your way out. Its existing and barely that, at least as set out the way the OP has it.
Agreed, and to draw out the prison comparison which I previously objected to, the main issue is that people thrown on the care of the state ought to be prepared for reintroduction to normal life as soon as possible.
0
Militantbuthopeful
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#51
Report 8 years ago
#51
(Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
.
I've seen you start quite a few silly threads, but this so far has been my favorite made me lol irl
0
The G Doctor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 8 years ago
#52
(Original post by L i b)
Agreed, and to draw out the prison comparison which I previously objected to, the main issue is that people thrown on the care of the state ought to be prepared for reintroduction to normal life as soon as possible.
can you tell me what normal life is
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#53
Report 8 years ago
#53
(Original post by The G Doctor)
can you tell me what normal life is
Being able to support your own existence and organise your own life.
0
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#54
Report 8 years ago
#54
(Original post by Riderz)
Ah yeah, but by the time you have included free housing, child benefit, tax credits, etc etc it comes to much more than £51 even if most of it is in kind.

For someone with a job, who has to pay for rent, council tax, bus pass/car etc then you need to be earning a lot more than £50 to make it worth while.
Well for the past month and two weeks I've been living off just £10 per week.
0
History-Student
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#55
Report 8 years ago
#55
(Original post by Martyn*)
Well for the past month and two weeks I've been living off just £10 per week.
And how much of that is going on rent, bills, food?

Either that is after all those expenses and you're *****ing about not having SPARE money, or you're lying. Or you're a bum living at your parents house.
0
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#56
Report 8 years ago
#56
(Original post by History-Student)
And how much of that is going on rent, bills, food?

Either that is after all those expenses and you're *****ing about not having SPARE money, or you're lying. Or you're a bum living at your parents house.
Out of that £10 goes £5 of electric and £5 on food. I'm living alone and the government has taken away what should be mine, by law, that is.
0
History-Student
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#57
Report 8 years ago
#57
(Original post by Martyn*)
Out of that £10 goes £5 of electric and £5 on food. I'm living alone and the government has taken away what should be mine, by law, that is.
Taken? Care to explain?
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#58
Report 8 years ago
#58
(Original post by The_Octopus)
So do you think that were someone to create a "workhouse" as described in the original post, eventually lots of unemployed people would be forced there against their will?
I believe that if such a system as envisaged in the OP were to be initiated, then ultimately, despite their will not to have to live in such a manner, the unemployed would be compelled (forced in other words) to become part of such system - and yes, against their will.

Look...I really don't want to indulge in sophistry...suffice to say that if someone is unemployed and all that is on offer by way of the safety net of civic support is that which is detailed in the OP, then there is no alternative...either do as you're told or starve or steal to exist...presuming there is no suitable work or training available to the victims that is appropriate to their aptitude.

I would hope that the OP is excluding the unemployed sick from her pernicious scheme - although her apparent lack of any spark of human kindness makes that questionable.
The_Octopus
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#59
Report 8 years ago
#59
(Original post by yawn)
I believe that if such a system as envisaged in the OP were to be initiated, then ultimately, despite their will not to have to live in such a manner, the unemployed would be compelled (forced in other words) to become part of such system - and yes, against their will.

Look...I really don't want to indulge in sophistry...suffice to say that if someone is unemployed and all that is on offer by way of the safety net of civic support is that which is detailed in the OP, then there is no alternative...either do as you're told or starve or steal to exist...presuming there is no suitable work or training available to the victims that is appropriate to their aptitude.

I would hope that the OP is excluding the unemployed sick from her pernicious scheme - although her apparent lack of any spark of human kindness makes that questionable.
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)?
0
MagneticMeteor
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#60
Report 8 years ago
#60
(Original post by aphilpotts)
Just... what? How can anybody believe that just because people are poor, they deserve to be kept together and given petty work, like farm animals? Every person on this thread would hate the lifestyle you're suggesting, and the only you're in favour of it is because you have the misguided view that poorer people are some lesser class of being.
Tory style of demeaning poor people :rolleyes:
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (109)
19.57%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (227)
40.75%
Nope, not that interesting (221)
39.68%

Watched Threads

View All