Return of the Workhouse. It's now Official

Shakethedisease

Well I just watched the Dispatches thing tonight with people working ( subcontracted out) working under appauling conditions for labels like 'New Look, C+A and Jane Norman. Every single one of their big-wigs, when confronted with the evidence ( Philip Green not too keen on being 'doorstepped')..

All putting out 'heartfelt' and 'ethical' comments about how they didn't know and would never, ever allow these sort of practice's, to take place had they 'known'..

The undercover guy was paid £2.50 an hour. He was there 3 weeks.

But then it's ok for the government to do this sort of thing ? What's the difference ? In a genuine question.. what's the difference between UK sweatshops doing sort of this sort of thing under the table..and possible Uk government approved 'workfare' schemes ?

One's 'unethical' ( and investigations are taking place).. the other is.. what exactly ?

ceridwen

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I think this is true.

I may be a boring old f*a*r*t but I simply cannot pull myself back from understanding basic economics. UK has had (for about 15 years) a severe and growing "Balance of Payments" problem. Ultimately, this is the key issue, since by definition, UK can only be getting poorer (by comparison with other nations).

We see 99.9% of Government focus, and 99.9% of public opinion focussed avidly on 'internal' issues such as who is paying themselves too much (BBC boss and Local Authority CEO's for example). How much are we taxed? To whom does the tax money get paid out? How many new Coffee shops or sandwich shops have opened up to employ a few more people.

But this is simply working hard on how the dwindling resources are distributed amongst all of us. Governments and Free Markets are hugely influential in distributing wealth.

But every day there is less wealth to go round. Full stop.

Confucious he would say "Chinese Ducks attracting the crowds. Pulling more bread in each day. English Ducks not attractive any more. Fewer people throwing them bread. And all they can do is fight over it."

I do agree with you. The "cake" has gotten smaller and we are fighting over crumbs to some extent.

I do think there IS a place for "internal disputes" about how the cake is shared around though - as clearly something is still very wrong where, for instance, Samantha Cameron is using our (taxpayers) money to pay for a personal stylist/diarykeeper:eek:. What message does that send it? To me - it says "Still plenty of money there on the table - as someone has just found a good excuse to help herself to a greedyguts portion" or is this supposed to be something to boost international "confidence" in Britain's finances? (That is - "They must be okay financially - someone is still greedygutting around like that").

ceridwen

sjaypink wrote: »

Problem with paying out sickness benefits is that you can't easily (as a government/ atos medical officer/ decision maker etc) differentiate between mental illnesses.

Ah, but is being greedy and lazy - therefore grossly obese - a mental illness? Well, if you are to assume others that inflict harm on themselves and act in seemingly irrational manners (anorexics, alcoholics, ....dare I suggest depressives?) are mentally unwell then the grossly obese are too.

No agenda here as fortunately I currently do not fall into any of the above catorgories, just interesting how it does seem that the divide and conquer process, as mentioned above, does appear to have filtered into many peoples views, we all seem to have a 'yeah but' steroetype ... mines ADHD kids

joke! :A

I think there is just one small snag there too - there must be very very few people (if anyone) that never acts irrationally. Its just a matter of degree as to HOW irrationally people act - but we all do to some extent at some point (eating unhealthy food, spending money we cant afford, having relationships with people we shouldnt give the time of day to, etc, etc).

So where do we draw the line and say "You are the side of the line thats rational enough enough of the time to hold down a job/workfare - and you arent".?

EDIT: having said that - I can instantly think of people who are grossly obese/greedy/lazy, anorexic, alcoholic that DO hold down jobs - as I have some of them for work colleagues...

ceridwen

Lakelady wrote: »

My daughter, a recent graduate tells me all our attitudes are wrong. If you see a load of youths hanging around a street corner - do you think - there`s a load of layabouts or there`s alot of potential skills and talent?

StevieJ wrote: »

Oh for the optimism of youth

A fair point - but if no-one ever had the "optimism of youth" - then something like the LETS Scheme would never have been invented for instance (as the whole premise behind the LETS Scheme is that very nearly everyone has some skill or something they can offer that other people will want to have and will be willing to "barter" their own services to get).

Llubrevlis

Sorry if it has been said before but what is the big deal about this news?

Most who get these benefits are quite smart.

They will work out the longest time to get the money before they will be forced into work then sign off and do some self employment for the min time before they can start the process again.

Loughton_Monkey

StevieJ wrote: »

Are you saying that a quasi Communist command economy is more efficient than the Capitalist model

"Efficient"?

Not really. I look at it like this. Let's have a tug of war.

You two one end with your super-efficient new Merc. I'll pull the other end with a 10 year old, inefficient 26 ton lorry traction unit.

I think I'll win!

It is remarkable how China stays "officially" a communist country with the thoughts of the old great "Chairman" still revered. And yet to all intents and purposes, it is as capalist as the next country. This is the thing, though. Wait until China does become efficient and look again at which countries are becoming truly "Third World".

StevieJ

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

"Efficient"?

Not really. I look at it like this. Let's have a tug of war.

You two one end with your super-efficient new Merc. I'll pull the other end with a 10 year old, inefficient 26 ton lorry traction unit.

I think I'll win!

It is remarkable how China stays "officially" a communist country with the thoughts of the old great "Chairman" still revered. And yet to all intents and purposes, it is as capalist as the next country. This is the thing, though. Wait until China does become efficient and look again at which countries are becoming truly "Third World".

OK a re-phrase


Are you saying that a quasi Communist command economy will be more efficient than the Capitalist model in the future?

Loughton_Monkey

StevieJ wrote: »

OK a re-phrase


Are you saying that a quasi Communist command economy will be more efficient than the Capitalist model in the future?

Eventually.

As long as it lasts, they really have two things going for them.

1. Their stunning Balance of Payments - getting wealthier every day - by what can only be described as "Capitalist" means.

2. But they don't have the 'baggage' of having to have 'Democracy' or some "Asian Economic Community" passing down rules and regulations to them.

A bit like Thatcherism, really, but not quite in the same way!

Strangely, they do have a sort of Social Security system. It could loosely be described as giving everyone the 'right' to a minimum income - but they simply have to turn up and the Government will give them a job. Grass cutting. Hedge Trimming...... One reason their cities are quite modern and clean.

lemonjelly

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11723501

Oh great news Nick. That'll help 300,000.

What about the 2.4 million on incapacity benefit?
What about the 2.45 million on JSA?
What about all those in receipt of Income Support?

barely skims the surface methinks.

danielanthony

Those on JSA should do some work for their benefits, especially if they're getting £20k pa housing benefit and all the rest on top.