Workhouse Britain

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.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/forced-labour-conservative-party-force-2322499

 

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!

 

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'.

 

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!

 

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

Labour's ideas for the unemployed -

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/tories-help-work-will-do-nothing-solve-jobs-crisis

Always more sticks, no carrots.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

http://www.historyextra.com/workhouse
http://c18thgirl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/part-5-parish-workhouse-in-eighteenth.html

two sides:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-to-quit-human-rights-convention-8849335.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-Convention-on-Human-Rights-says-Cameron.html

 

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

 

There are three options, aren't there? How is it 'one size fits all'?

 

It takes just 5 seconds...... just 5 seconds.... to realize..... that the time is right! to star thinking about...... a little...... REVOLUTION!

 

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.

 

Not much of a choice really.

From Wiki:

"After being assessed the paupers were separated and allocated to the appropriate ward for their category: boys under 14, able-bodied men between 14 and 60, men over 60, girls under 14, able-bodied women between 14 and 60, and women over 60.[e] Children under the age of two were allowed to remain with their mothers,[35] but by entering a workhouse paupers were considered to have forfeited responsibility for their families.[36] Clothing and personal possessions were taken from them and stored, to be returned on their discharge".

That sounds to me like splitting up families

If they are unemployable, how is it going to help? Surely they won't by definition be able to do whatever low level tasks are alloted to them.

Anyway, what the govt are proposing now isn't quite so draconian as the poor law of the 1830's.. On the other hand, it's hardly very progressive either. It would be better to find real jobs for people.

 

I did read that, but I presumed that was the receiving or probationary ward.
The initial process when entering a 'workhouse'.
I was viewing it (separation) as families were not sent to different 'workhouses'.
That's also why I added: 'but they were not family homes per se.'
I grant you that families may have been on different wards and children may have been sent to outside schools...
The 'set-up' and evolution of the 'workhouse' - and peoples use of it (the 'in's and out's') certainly seems to have changed over the hundreds of years they were in use...
I will concede, to a certain degree, families were split up.

One of the options is to help people with their literacy and numeracy.
Perhaps further down the line some I.T skills .
https://nationalcareersservice.dire...ses/typesoflearning/Pages/computerskills.aspx
Basic stuff that they should have learnt at school - but for what ever the reason, didn't.
It's pretty difficult to apply for a job if you can't read or write.
If they have substance abuse issues then help is there.
I meant giving people some 'tools' to help them into some form of work.
I didn't mean they had an obnoxious personality and nobody would want to work with them, or anything like that.

The Job Center has basically told me I have enough 'skills' to find MYSELF employment.
They can't finance me 'up skilling' or 'following my dream'.
I could go to Uni' or enroll on various courses, but the Job Center isn't particularly helpful in finding pathways to do that.
They are basically saying It's not their role to find me a job. It's mine.

 

Another point worth arguing is that we have a National Minimum Wage, which is supposed to be legally enforced. Paying less than that, while not "nothing", could be unlawful.

But in any case - if there are all these jobs, why not solve the unemployment problem by just employing people to do them at a wage that meets the legal minimum ?

What has actually happened, of course, with the Workfare aspect of the current government's Work Programme, is that people are sent to work for their benefits at a number of businesses - Poundland, for example. Cheap labour for the company, so why would they employ someone at a decent wage ?

This is what would inevitably happen if the current plans are carried through. Unending free labour = paid jobs being lost. How does that help anyone (the companies profiting from free labour notwithstanding) ?

 

100 + quite a few more, in many cases !

In my town, the official number of unemployed people for every job vacancy is 42... and we're not even the worst in Britain ! And that's ALL jobs - including jobs that are 10 hours a week, zero contracts, etc - the kind of jobs that are no use to most people. So if you were to recalibrate the figures for the number of unemployed needing full-time employment against full-time vacancies, the number would, I suspect, be far in excess of 42.

In the north east region as a whole (an area stretching from the Scottish border to the River Tees), the Financial Times did a survey a couple of months ago of all jobs advertised online. Only 3.3% of them were in the north east.