the return of the workhouse

[eFestivals]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11706545

Cos everyone of the 4 to 5M who don't have a job and who will be forced to look for one will get a job, won't they?

They're fooling no one by sacking council employees and then getting the unemployede to do those same jobs for just dole money.

I wonder if they'll expand the scheme, so that I can get someone on benefits to do my job but so I get the pay?

[sifi]

It's a spectacular bit of legislation which really does create an almost slave-class the likes we've not seen since fuedal times. The years of the bashing of dole scroungers have created an environment where people will just shrug their shoulders and say it's a good thing for people to be paid next to nothing for manual labour.

What form of work will this manual labour take? I see that it might be used to help out charities. Aren't private schools listed as charities? Are we now going to see those out of work having go keep the very likes of Iain Duncan Smith's children's schooling costs down?

If there is a need for jobs to be done, then people should be employed and paid the minimum wage.

[jump]

This is gonna be very one sided without Oafish argueing for it.

[ampersand]

it's all that bloody danny bakers fault!

[sifi]

Neil - I know you have been saying that at least with the LibDems involved in the coalition, they are ensuring things are diluted slightly, and without them things would be very much "worse", but can with this legislation, can you really continue to argue that? What dilution has occured here? IDS was talking about this kind of thing before the election. Maybe he had planned to make these workshy low-lifes wear bright Orange Gitmo jump suits whilst they clear out the gutters at Eton?

[jump]

it's all that bloody danny bakers fault!

[ampersand]

Maybe he had planned to make these workshy low-lifes wear bright Orange Gitmo jump suits whilst they clear out the gutters at Eton?

[eFestivals]

Neil - I know you have been saying that at least with the LibDems involved in the coalition, they are ensuring things are diluted slightly, and without them things would be very much "worse", but can with this legislation, can you really continue to argue that? What dilution has occured here? IDS was talking about this kind of thing before the election. Maybe he had planned to make these workshy low-lifes wear bright Orange Gitmo jump suits whilst they clear out the gutters at Eton?

The LibDems have an agreement that says "on XYZ the tories will move towards the LibDem position, and for everything else the LibDems have to support the tories".

So it would be daft to think that for X, Y & Z the LibDems hasven't moderated the tory position. Unfortunately, they've agreed to something which is far too loose in what it specifies for everything else.

But all the same, if the LibDems hadn't gone into coalition, they'd have soon been another election, and anyone who thinks that wouldn't have resulted in a solid tory majority is daft beyond belief (which of course the electorate also are, to vote for the tories as the better bet).

So it remains the case that the LibDems are holding back the tories from doing their worst - it's just that it's only a few things that they're holding them back over.

[sifi]

Yes, of course I understand that it's not all Tory policy which will be diluted, but with this announcement and the social engineering disguised as housing benefit policy coming out, it just seems the LibDems have utterly sold out for the promise of a very week plebescite on voting reform. Some of the things coming out at the moment wouldn't even been on the agenda under Thatcher.

Seeing the LibDem leadership pulblically defend some of these policies must be utterly galling for the LibDem grass-roots.

[eFestivals]

Yes, of course I understand that it's not all Tory policy which will be diluted, but with this announcement and the social engineering disguised as housing benefit policy coming out, it just seems the LibDems have utterly sold out for the promise of a very week plebescite on voting reform. Some of the things coming out at the moment wouldn't even been on the agenda under Thatcher.

Seeing the LibDem leadership pulblically defend some of these policies must be utterly galling for the LibDem grass-roots.

I don't disagree with any of that at all.

And you're dead right about how Dave Moron is being far more extreme than Thatcher, but of course there's been 30 years of toryism to lay out the ground where he's able to do that. The more that people buy into the idea of the unemployed being scrounging scum the more he's able to attack the unemployed as being that scrounging scum.

[Snufflebutt]

Backing policies like these will finish the Lib Dems off politically. It's a truly horrendous policy. I'm all for getting folk back into work but I struggle to see how this will help.

Forcing people into doing community service for not having a job just ain't on.

[jump]

I did some unpaid volunteer work for my local council for about a month maybe more as I needed to fill my CV to impress agencies and it did helped.

Judging by no one in the goverment stating what kinds of jobs these are means I suspect they're gonna be picking up rubbish which I can't see being much help to them in the long term.

[eFestivals]

Forcing people into doing community service for not having a job just ain't on.

Oh, the suggestion is far worse than that - they'll be doing the jobs that are currently done by public sector employees, the ones who are going to be losing their jobs.

So for some people, they're likely to find themselves doing for dole money the exact same tasks they used to do as a council employee. I'm sure any people in that position will be impressed () by the logic which has them doing that.

[Alcatraz]

So much for a minimum wage, aye

[Snufflebutt]

Oh, the suggestion is far worse than that - they'll be doing the jobs that are currently done by public sector employees, the ones who are going to be losing their jobs.

So for some people, they're likely to find themselves doing for dole money the exact same tasks they used to do as a council employee. I'm sure any people in that position will be impressed () by the logic which has them doing that.

[Alcatraz]

Yeah, the cartoon in the Times sums it up succintly, if anyone has seen it.....

[Snufflebutt]

I did some unpaid volunteer work for my local council for about a month maybe more as I needed to fill my CV to impress agencies and it did helped.

Judging by no one in the goverment stating what kinds of jobs these are means I suspect they're gonna be picking up rubbish which I can't see being much help to them in the long term.

[jump]

And what are they not doing when they are working 30 hours a week? Looking for jobs!

[llcoolphil]

The LibDems have an agreement that says "on XYZ the tories will move towards the LibDem position, and for everything else the LibDems have to support the tories".

So it would be daft to think that for X, Y & Z the LibDems hasven't moderated the tory position. Unfortunately, they've agreed to something which is far too loose in what it specifies for everything else.

But all the same, if the LibDems hadn't gone into coalition, they'd have soon been another election, and anyone who thinks that wouldn't have resulted in a solid tory majority is daft beyond belief (which of course the electorate also are, to vote for the tories as the better bet).

So it remains the case that the LibDems are holding back the tories from doing their worst - it's just that it's only a few things that they're holding them back over.

[rabid]

Of course we don't actually know what the plans are yet do we?

[eFestivals]

It'll be interesting to see the result of the Oldham East by-election that's coming. You'd fancy an overwhelming Labour majority (and certainly hope for)to let Clegg know in real terms just what people think of what he's doing. Anything less than a strong vote for labour and the coalition will see it as vindication of what hey are doing.

The whole by-election is interesting. Labour, I dont think, have been particularly damaged by it because they've been decisive over Woolas and will relish the opportunity to take the fight to the lib dems. Clegg, whose party effectively won the court case must want this by-election like a hole in the head - the pressure from his own party will be immense if their vote collapses

Yep.

What's so weirdly wonderful about that election re-run is that Wollas has lost his seat on the basis of making false claims of the LibDem candidate, yet the whole of the LibDem manifesto is now shown to be completely false by the difference in what they'd claimed they do and what they're actually doing.

So I'm finding it hard to see how it can be justified to re-run that particular seat but not to re-run the whole election.

[eFestivals]

Of course we don't actually know what the plans are yet do we?

the general gist of them isn't being denied by the govt - in fact it's being agreed with as what's going to happen.

[rabid]

the general gist of them isn't being denied by the govt - in fact it's being agreed with as what's going to happen.

[rachbon]

are there any plans for this to actually go ahead? whether it's really happening or not, just the idea of this is horrible and frightening..

if there's work needing done, pay people to do it!

[eFestivals]

are there any plans for this to actually go ahead?

Yep, 100% definitely. It's being formally announced this week.

James Landale

Deputy Political Editor, BBC News

When the government unveils its welfare reforms this week, there will be lots of new support for unemployed people - more help to find work, a new universal benefit to claim.

But amid the carrots, there will also be some sharp sticks. One will be the threat that anyone who has been unemployed for a long time who refuses work could be forced to do community work placements.

The Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith likes to talk of a new contract between the state and the unemployed.

Compulsory community work is clearly part of the bargain.