The Political Thread

[COMMANDO FORCES]

I'm curious to know what 'some sort of job is'. I mean, would you want to employ the genuinely workshy?

I suspect the only way to really deal with this problem is to restore a sense of shame in unemployment and pride in a job well done, but god knows how you do that.

I agree with your last bit Robin but rather then just keep going the way we are going something needs to be done. It's a work ethic thing, generations have seen their parents live a cushy life on benefits so why should their children bother when mugginns here will pay for it 

As for the jobs, lets get them cleaning the country up and if they don't like it, cut their benefits. Also these jobs would be paid a living wage.

[vzzbux]

Sigh. Listen man, I'm just trying to point out that this government is sponsored by Rupert Murdoch, Sky News, the Daily Mail, The Sun, Simon Cowell and BASICALLY everything that makes modern media disgustingly biased toward intolerance and stupidity. I'm not trying to say that before that this kind of thing wasn't present but now it's more than an ugly minority. Now it's the law.

PUNK!

Murdoch played a big hand in Labour's win in 1996 giving hardly any press backing for the tories, so nothing changes as far as I can see it, seems the media choose who wins. Just sour grapes for labour.







V

[Jim_Campbell]

Murdoch played a big hand in Labour's win in 1996 giving hardly any press backing for the tories, so nothing changes as far as I can see it, seems the media choose who wins. Just sour grapes for labour.

Except that in 1996, Sky was an expanding business -- now Murdoch's business is profitable but flat, and he has his eye very firmly on having the BBC's remit savagely reined in to create space in the market for his expansion plans.

Now, I know you don't care, but I do!

Cheers

Jim

[House of Usher]

Anyway, it looks like our new leaders have many interesting ideas, my favourite is to get the workshy into some sort of job.

The main problem there is, we struggle at the moment to find enough jobs for the 2.5 million who count in the unemployment figures to do, never mind the something like 9 million working-age adults classed as 'economically inactive.' Aside from labour camps, I don't know how you magic up the best part of 10 million jobs overnight.

The problem with creating jobs is someone has to pay wages. I seem to remember Thatcher thinking it was cheaper to put miners on the dole than pay them to mine coal.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

I know, why don't we do nothing then and let the people who do work keep paying for the people who can't be arsed.

If we can pay all this money out in benefits lets get them doing something for it then instead

[Robin Low]

Sorry, this is a tad lupine...

I'm curious to know what 'some sort of job is'. I mean, would you want to employ the genuinely workshy?

I suspect the only way to really deal with this problem is to restore a sense of shame in unemployment and pride in a job well done, but god knows how you do that.

I agree with your last bit Robin but rather then just keep going the way we are going something needs to be done. It's a work ethic thing, generations have seen their parents live a cushy life on benefits so why should their children bother when mugginns here will pay for it 

I think you're right about the generation/work ethic thing, but I'm inclined to blame the 80s Conservatives for creating that generation. For example, closing down the mines may well have been an economic necessity, but as far as I remember they made no effort at all to help set-up and develop new industries. They Conservatives put a good part of a generation on the dole, and their children followed.

Sure, that's a gross simplification, and these things never are simple, but I think there's an essential truth there. I don't think that the Conservatives have ever acknowledged that they had a hand creating this situation, and I think their failure to it recognise doesn't bode well for attempts to fix it.

As for the jobs, lets get them cleaning the country up and if they don't like it, cut their benefits. Also these jobs would be paid a living wage.

I go back to the points I made back thread when you raised this before: how are you going to organise and fund this? It's gonna cost to make it work properly.

Cutting benefits always sounds tempting, and superficially it's hard to see what's wrong with the idea. However, there are always going to be knock-on effects: increased crime, increased domestic violence, more children in poverty and taken into care, more people ending up on the streets, and so.

I'm not advocating throwing our hands up in the air and crying there's nothing to be done, but we have to remember that actions are going to have consequences beyond those we want or we expect.

The politicians, on all sides, spout the things we want to hear, but do the things they believe in ideologically, rarely thinking about the negative consequences and never accepting it when they fuck up. Essentially, I'm just saying be cautious when you hear the things you want to hear, because it won't necessarily work out for the best, for you or the country.



For what it's worth, while I've never been a fan of the idea of military National Service, I'm increasingly interested in a broader concept of National Service. We need to change people's lives and attitudes to work, so we get them into work as soon as they leave school - there's no thinking about looking for work, three years public service becomes a part of life like going to school. We have a huge public sector, so we use it. There are plenty of different sorts of jobs for all sorts of ability - however it does require a complete separation of public sector and private sector, except where the public is making money out of the private.

I don't think we can just take people off the dole now and shove them into hospitals or the services - this has to be something that happens to a new generation, so that it seems natural, expected.

University, well, I'm a smart-arse with three degrees, but I think there are far too-many people going to university right now who simply shouldn't be there. Sorry, we need the smart  and creative ones going there, the ones who are going to contribute to the country's science and technology and, yes, the arts too, because there has to be something outside work. You can apply to university and if you get in fine. However, after you get your degree you have a choice: pay for your degree yourself and you're free to go into the private sector; go into the public sector for three years after it and the state pays for it. You can put off the inevitable with higher degrees. If you're good and industry snaps you up then, maybe they'll pay off the degree for you.

Cost, well I imagine that will be fucking enormous, the administration a nightmare, and it won't be easy. Undoubtedly there will be all the negative consequences I haven't thought of. However, off the top of my head I can't think of another way to restore the idea of a normal working life for all people, create involvement and understanding of the public services, and benefit the country as a whole.


Regards

Robin

[vzzbux]

I know, why don't we do nothing then and let the people who do work keep paying for the people who can't be arsed.

Bring back labour camps and get the work shy scum bramble picking. It's these scum who moan about the Eastern Europeans coming over here to take our jobs but these are the jobs they are doing. If these slack arses did the jobs there wouldn't be any need to look to these countries to do the 'menial jobs'







V

[HOO-HAA]

I know, why don't we do nothing then and let the people who do work keep paying for the people who can't be arsed.

Bring back labour camps and get the work shy scum bramble picking.

Labour had... camps? For bramble picking?

[House of Usher]

You can apply to university and if you get in fine. However, after you get your degree you have a choice: pay for your degree yourself and you're free to go into the private sector; go into the public sector for three years after it and the state pays for it. You can put off the inevitable with higher degrees. If you're good and industry snaps you up then, maybe they'll pay off the degree for you... Undoubtedly there will be all the negative consequences I haven't thought of.

I'm practically a Trot, but even I can see how that plan would stifle enterprise. Also, I think it's very easy to over-estimate the public sector's demand for high achieving graduates in non-technical occupations. There's a lot of Continuous Professional Development for school leavers to work their way up in government jobs, whereas it's seen as an affront to common sense when a graduate expects on-the-job training because they don't already know the ins and outs of an organization they're completely new to.

[House of Usher]

You can apply to university and if you get in fine. However, after you get your degree you have a choice: pay for your degree yourself and you're free to go into the private sector; go into the public sector for three years after it and the state pays for it. You can put off the inevitable with higher degrees. If you're good and industry snaps you up then, maybe they'll pay off the degree for you... Undoubtedly there will be all the negative consequences I haven't thought of.

When it comes to free market economics I'm practically a Trot, but even I can see how that plan would stifle enterprise. Also, I think it's very easy to over-estimate the public sector's demand for high achieving graduates in non-technical occupations. There's a lot of Continuous Professional Development for school leavers to work their way up in government jobs, whereas it's seen as an affront to common sense when a graduate expects on-the-job training because they don't already know the ins and outs of an organization they're completely new to.

[Robin Low]

I'm practically a Trot, but even I can see how that plan would stifle enterprise. Also, I think it's very easy to over-estimate the public sector's demand for high achieving graduates in non-technical occupations. There's a lot of Continuous Professional Development for school leavers to work their way up in government jobs, whereas it's seen as an affront to common sense when a graduate expects on-the-job training because they don't already know the ins and outs of an organization they're completely new to.

That's fine - I certainly didn't expect to be able chuck a lot of stuff onto the screen and have it work perfectly. But you get the broad principles, I'm sure. Now, how do we make it work?

Broadly speaking, we have too many people going to university, a number of whom are just there to avoid work or get drunk - we need to trim the fat. If we introduce this concept of National Service, some people will try to delay it by going to university, but we don't want them thinking they're going to get out of making some sort of practical contribution to society. I'm trying to avoid a situation where some only go to university and some only do a National Service - I want to avoid an us-and-them situation developing, and create a common work and service ethic.

Seriously, ideas? I'm genuinely trying to do something practical, even if only as a mental exercise for us here.

Regards

Robin

[House of Usher]

I'm trying to avoid a situation where some only go to university and some only do a National Service

What you'd do is make university and national service totally independent of one another. You'd still have to do the same as everybody else, but it would be negotiable whether you did it before or after university. It could be a great social leveller. Especially if it slowed down the career progression of toffs whose connections get them a top gig with a newspaper, a merchant bank or the civil service straight out of university.

[Peter Wolf]

Can you explain with a bit more detail ?

No. If you genuinely feel that the tabloids haven't gained any footing at all in this election and all is the same as before then my only words are HURRAY IGNORANCE!

I will accept that certain sections of the media were more shrill in their support of Cameron but thats all you are going to get from me but i am pretty certain that if those same papers had supported Brown instead then you wouldnt have been whining about it especially if Labour won.

Unless of course you are pissed off that they didnt bother to support Nick Clegg then i can kind of see how that influenced the LibDem vote.However if they had really got behind Clegg then that may have influenced the vote and if you had a LibDem win then again i dont think you would have complained.

Its the fact that your point and complaints about the media spin are not impartial that is the weakness in your argument here.

[Robin Low]

I'm trying to avoid a situation where some only go to university and some only do a National Service

What you'd do is make university and national service totally independent of one another. You'd still have to do the same as everybody else, but it would be negotiable whether you did it before or after university. It could be a great social leveller. Especially if it slowed down the career progression of toffs whose connections get them a top gig with a newspaper, a merchant bank or the civil service straight out of university.

I'd thought about that approach, but there's a risk with having a break between school and university, or a break between university and degree-relevant career, that you lose skills and knowledge. In science or technology-based degrees or jobs, I think that's significant.

I wouldn't want university to be seen as a way to get out of Public Service (perhaps a better term than National Service?), though. Your approach may be better, but possibly creates some other issues.

To be honest, through, I think there are bigger problems in terms of finding a place in the public sector for every school leaver. That'll be the real challenge here.


Regards

Robin

[Peter Wolf]

Here we go again just as i predicted :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8684162.stm

Baby faced sellout POS Trash meets ugly Globalist Harridan to discuss the next 5 years of the UKs foreign policy being dictated to by the CFR and the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg.

I mean William fucking Hague.

Just another Poodle.



Heres to the next 5 years !!