Workhouse Britain

Discussion in 'U.K.' started by Mr. Frankenstein, Sep 30, 2013.

  1. Mr. Frankenstein

    Mr. Frankenstein Sunderland

    A quote from George Orwell's 1984 seems like a pretty good summary of Tory policy... "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

    We are now on the verge of being a slave economy.

    Forced labour: Conservative party to force the jobless to work for nothing or lose their dole

    The long-term unemployed are to be sent out to cook for OAPs or pick up litter in the meanest welfare shake-up ever

    Chancellor George Osborne will today finally destroy his party’s claim to be compassionate Conservatives with a cruel assault on the most needy.

    In one of the meanest shake-ups of the welfare state, the heartless Chancellor is to announce plans to force the jobless to work for nothing or face having their benefit payments slashed.

    And, as his right-hand man revived the days of the workhouse, David Cameron yesterday ruled out tax rises for his rich cronies while ordinary families continue to be hit by rising living costs, a failure to create jobs and cuts to public services.

    Mr Osborne plans to make the 200,000 long-term jobless cook for the elderly, clean up litter or help out in charities for free as part of a 30-hour-a-week *community scheme. The £300million Help to Work project will also target those with drug or literacy problems with Mandatory Intensive Regime to get them off the dole. If they do not comply, they will lose money.

    But critics warned the move was a cynical Tory ploy to exploit the jobless and avoid paying for *dedicated public service staff – while also stigmatising the poor.

    Labour MP Ian Lavery said: “This is an outrage. We have a failed economy and there’s not enough jobs. This is a *throwback to the days of the workhouse of the last century. We should be looking at creating more jobs and paying a living wage. This is the sort of thing the Tories enjoy… baiting people on benefits and baiting the *unemployed. It’s a sport of theirs.”

    Disability campaigner Sue Marsh added: “This is designed to divide and conquer and convince us a problem exists that suits the Tory agenda, when it doesn’t.

    “The out-of-work jobseekers’ *benefits bill makes up just 3% of the total welfare spend and 94% of jobseekers find work within two years. So Osborne’s announcement will address just 0.15% of the total benefit bill.”

    Labour frontbencher Ian Murray added: “This Chancellor scrapped the successful Future Jobs Fund.

    “People want to work but he’s failed to create the jobs required and now wants to blame the unemployed.”

    Millionaire Mr Osborne, who benefits from a trust fund, will tell the Tory *conference in Manchester: “No one will get something for nothing.

    “For the first time, all long-term *unemployed people who are capable of work will be required to do something in return for their benefits to help them find work. They will do useful work to put something back into their community making meals for the elderly, clearing up litter, working for a local charity.

    “Others will be made to attend the job centre every working day. And for those with underlying problems, like drug *addiction and illiteracy, there will be an intensive regime of help. What I offer is an economic plan for hardworking people. That will create jobs. Keep *mortgage rates low. Let people keep more of their income tax free. Our economic plan is the only plan for living standards.”

    Mr Osborne’s harsh US-style workfare programme will begin in April.

    The assault on welfare comes as Mr Cameron again ruled out tax rises for the rich in favour of more public cuts.

    He said taking more money off the wealthy to pay for schools, hospitals and defence was “not sensible for a country if it wants to support wealth creation”.

    On the opening day of the conference he also announced policies that included pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights. And his shift to the right was reinforced by party chairman Grant Shapps who set out plans for new anti-union laws – as his boss appeared to doze off in the audience.
  2. morrow

    morrow Visitor

    The Conservatives have done this befor, 80s, thousands lost their homes..
    Job schemes were brtought in for people on benefits, if they didnt do it, they got no money..

    They wont have finished yet! There is still the NHS...consrvatives have always hated it...

    It will be back to work houses..for all, except the rich...oh, i mean conservatives!
  3. puggybear

    puggybear stars may twinkle-but I shine!

    morrow-remember the last election? They weren't sure they could win,so they changed the constituency boundaries.....and STILL didn't win. But they got in anyway.
    It's SO true that 'It doesn't matter who you vote for,the government always win'.
  4. morrow

    morrow Visitor

    I hate that lot with a passion...But given the chance, who the hell would take their place..?
    The next election, will be another colition...labour conservative...mark my words!
    The final end to this country!
  5. Mr. Frankenstein

    Mr. Frankenstein Sunderland

    Why not ? There's so little difference between their policies anyway.

    Labour's ideas for the unemployed -

    Always more sticks, no carrots.
  6. Willy Blue

    Willy Blue Senior Member

    Thatcherism by the back door. Osborne sounds more like a conservative whip everyday.
  7. Sig

    Sig Senior Member

    Perhaps I am just being too technical here, but they wouldn't be working for nothing....
  8. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    They'd be working for an amount of money which is entirely inadequate, and I doubt they'd get any top up for travel to and from work placements which could easily take up more than half the benefit.
    Also, getting them to cook for pensioners means the govt. don't have to pay others a living wage to do it.
    It's probably cheaper even than slavery would be.

    Myself, if I were a pensioner, I don't think I would want someone cooking for me against their will.

    The reason they abolished the old workhouses was purely on grounds of cost. It costs more to keep people in an institution than to give them benefit money.
    And what happens to those who get their money stopped? Probably in the end it will cost more to lock them up in jail than give them their miserly 70 quid a week, and try to find ways to create real jobs which pay a decent wage.

    Myself I think this is political grandstanding and scapegoating.
  9. Sig

    Sig Senior Member

    ehhh, I am not so sure about that. Granted, my experiences as an American are certainly coloring my thoughts on this, but I think it is a good thing for those on the government dole to have to perform some sort of service/work in exchange for their money.

    To me, the reaction I am seeing (cries of "workhouses!") is dishonest.
  10. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    I think it lies all in the details as BlackBill adequately explained above. But you have a point, technically they wouldn't be doing it for nothing.
  11. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    I don't think it's dishonest...... it seems to me to be an expression of the general frustration a lot of people feel over our present govt.

    But in effect, it isn't quite like the old workhouses because there, families were split up, and you never got out again once you'd gone in. Conditions were very harsh.

    The trouble is that the tories try to give the impression that the unemployed don't want to work, but the plain fact is that in many former industrial areas there are simply no jobs out there for which they can apply. There are many stories of 100+ applicants for one not very great job.

    If they were saying we'll give people on these work placements more money to cover their expenses etc, it might not be so bad. But the truth is that I just can't see how a person could even live on the dole money just in terms of food, heating and so on. And why not instead of calling this scheme 'work placements', actually create proper jobs where people get a real wage for a real day's work.
    If cooks are needed for the elderly, create jobs for cooks, offer people training etc. As for picking up litter, we used to have people employed to do just that.
  12. Tom1

    Tom1 Member

    Im going to get slated for this..... but.... i agree with the vast majority of what the current government in the UK are doing... starting off with cutting the benefit bill.... it's right. There are far too many people who can work but dont want to... why should i work to pay for their sorry arses? Dont get me wrong there are those that TRULY need it and i think more should be done for those people but the government has to start somewhere and its about changing peoples attitudes.

    There are many honest people out there, who like me, struggle to make ends meet every month and then there are those who choose not to work (who are able to work). I see it daily where they go or return from a holiday abroad, have their make up done, nice nails, go out most weekends, have nice clothes then claim 'their' benefit money. All of which is funded by the honest working people of the UK. There are lots of jobs out there... them who are able should be forced to work or loose their benefits. Personally ive worked with guys who have servere disabilities but not once have i heard them complain about how their disabilities make work hard for them. If anything they have been more consistent and harder working than other non disabled colleagues. So if someone, who for instance is completley blind, with one leg and who also has MS can come into work day after day and do a bloody good job can do it why cant someone who has a bit of a bad back (thats not life thereatening and wont get any worse) or someone who has other small health related issues not work? Were living in a culture of people wanting everything for nothing.

    Years ago you wouldnt of seen this.... people worked regardless.... and bloody hard too. Im not saying that work today isnt hard... it is and we have different working pressures than they did years ago too... but society wouldnt of allowed the number people to do nothing that we allow today. Where has peoples ambitions and considerations for others gone?

    It doesnt matter which party gets elected they will all make similar decisions that will always impact on the many. Its all smoke and mirrors. They give with one hand and take with another.

    None of the MPs are like us.... the average man on the street... look at the way they conduct theirselves in the houses of parlament all shouting at each other and pulling theatrical faces.... they need to get off their high horses.

    Right now though i do feel that the conservatives should stay in goverment until this deficit has largley gone. I would feel the same if it was labour who were elected or the liberals.... let the plan take its course. Get the UK back in the black and then hold an election once its been done. If another government gets elected before were back in the black we could be waiting for the deficit to be gone for a lot longer.
  13. Willy Blue

    Willy Blue Senior Member

    Whether you call it workhouses or forced labour is not important and being pedantic about wording is not of any relevance to the original post. What this intended initiative represents is a one size fits / catch all policy which would force people whether able bodied or not to provide labour for what basically would be their room and board, cheap labour. Very similar to a workhouse ethos in my opinion.

    I would also ask what would happen to the people already employed in this type of work, picking up litter, painting over grafitti etc, they would become redundant maybe, placing more people on the dole because obviously that will help.

    While I have no problem with people working for the money they receive they should be paid the minimum wage and given the opportunity progress and have a structured career path, not just stuck in forced labour projects which do nothing for their self esteem or motivate people in anyway.
  14. Sig

    Sig Senior Member

    Pedantic? Get over yourself.

    No one will force these people to work, so you can't even call it forced labor. All it indicates is that those able to work will be expected to work in exchange for government assistance. I admit that calling it forced labor or workhouses is a lot more emotionally charged, regardless of whether they have any basis in reality. But I think appealing to emotion is all the counter argument has.
  15. odonII

    odonII O

    From what I know (and anybody correct me if I'm wrong) 'workhouses' were, generally, places people entered voluntarily, because they had no where else to go.
    If they did not enter the 'workhouse' they would probably starve to death.
    Life in the 'workhouse' was tough, but It wasn't prison.
    There was medical care, education, food and lodging - yes, for work in return.
    I guess we generally do things the other way around (if that makes sense)

    The only thing that forced people into 'workhouses' was abject poverty. Families were split up due to: death, one parent absconding (usually the man) or the man having to leave his family to find work, and not being able to fetch them if he did.
    Geanerally speaking, families were not spit up when entering the 'workhouse' - but they were not family homes per se.

    I'm sure there are some terrible stories about 'workhouses' - but imagine what the stories would have been like if there were not 'workhouses'.

    What's occuring now is three options: community work, signing on everyday or some type of training.
    On Sky News I heard GO say after three years signing on, but I think it is two years.
    Think about it, two years out of work!

    The 'work' aspect is seemingly being bashed by critics and trumpeted by the government. Critics because it plays into people being dragged from their beds to work for nothing. And by the government because it seems like they are being tough.

    I'm not working at the moment, ASKED to go on the 'welfare to work' programme - but they said NO. They would rather I did 6 steps a week (to look for work) and claim benefits for two years. This new scheme seems exactly the same. Fingers crossed, I will be working soon (after not working for 4 months). But I really would not want to be 'signing on' for two LONG years.
    This WILL pick up people who have not found, can not or will not work.

    From what I can gather, you will get a subsidised travel pass (I think half price of a standard pass) - and access back into the labour market. Training. Study. More focused help finding a job.
    Which I believe should be immediately after you start 'signing on' - NOT two years down the line.

    Has anybody got any better solutions for the long-term unemployed - unemployable and those not willing to work?

    Sidenote: I don't think the gov' want to remove themselves from the European Convention on Human Rights unless there isn't a better solution to such issues as being able to kick out people who shouldn't be here.
    At the moment, it isn't upto this country if people stay in this country.

    two sides:
  16. Willy Blue

    Willy Blue Senior Member

    Well over myself thank you and you are being pendantic, the wording is not important the implications of this policy are.

    Any benefits would be stopped if they refuse and its a one size fits all solution which will just cause more suffering and pain for those who can least afford it.
  17. odonII

    odonII O

    Stick around this forum for a while - check out the politics forum. Heck, random thoughts, even.
  18. odonII

    odonII O

    There are three options, aren't there? How is it 'one size fits all'?
  19. It takes just 5 seconds...... just 5 seconds.... to realize..... that the time is right! to star thinking about...... a little...... REVOLUTION!
  20. Sig

    Sig Senior Member

    I can see you didn't actually read anything about the plan. Instead, you stuck with emotion over reason and logic. Wording is important because the wording you are using to attack the plan, and wording that has been used by others, does not reflect reality.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice