Bring back Workhouses!
Discussion
rhinochopig said:
Soovy said:
A great idea this.
Bandy legged trollops who get pregnant at 16 should be denied council houses and put in secure accomodation like this. They should be put to work for food, and their children educated and brought up properly.
A house full of bandy legged 16 year old trollops Bandy legged trollops who get pregnant at 16 should be denied council houses and put in secure accomodation like this. They should be put to work for food, and their children educated and brought up properly.
Where there's muck there's brass.
To elaborate on my previous post:
I think for those that don't work and are mentally and physically able there should be a place of work that offers training, guidance and childcare. That centre helps remove barriers for those who want to work but can't (for example childcare issues) and counters the excuses of those who just don't want to work. Then the taxpayer receives in return the product of service offered by this work centre. This is not meant as a punishment, just a way of stopping people from stagnating and to increase the productivity of the nation.
Then for criminals there's a totally separate scheme of forcing them to work in dangerous or undesirable situations, such as sewers and mines, as a punishment that again offers a return for the taxpayer in terms of resources mined or services rendered.
I think for those that don't work and are mentally and physically able there should be a place of work that offers training, guidance and childcare. That centre helps remove barriers for those who want to work but can't (for example childcare issues) and counters the excuses of those who just don't want to work. Then the taxpayer receives in return the product of service offered by this work centre. This is not meant as a punishment, just a way of stopping people from stagnating and to increase the productivity of the nation.
Then for criminals there's a totally separate scheme of forcing them to work in dangerous or undesirable situations, such as sewers and mines, as a punishment that again offers a return for the taxpayer in terms of resources mined or services rendered.
Soovy said:
A great idea this.
Bandy legged trollops who get pregnant at 16 should be denied council houses and put in secure accomodation like this. They should be put to work for food, and their children educated and brought up properly.
wasn't this tried in Ireland? With predictably saddening results?Bandy legged trollops who get pregnant at 16 should be denied council houses and put in secure accomodation like this. They should be put to work for food, and their children educated and brought up properly.
Eric Mc said:
90% of people in 19th century workhouses had not committed any crimes.
What are people suggesting here - that new sttle workhouses are -
an alternative to jail for criminals?
a scheme for the unemployed?
What work do you give "unemployed" people?
Who "qualifies" to end up in a workhouse?
Do we make exceptions for those who are ill (mentally or physically)?
If so, how do we differentiate?
Eric, What are people suggesting here - that new sttle workhouses are -
an alternative to jail for criminals?
a scheme for the unemployed?
What work do you give "unemployed" people?
Who "qualifies" to end up in a workhouse?
Do we make exceptions for those who are ill (mentally or physically)?
If so, how do we differentiate?
Good Q's, as usual.
I don't see this as being in any way criminal punishment. (Bar the comment in the original post about "Numerous petty crimes", arising from unemployment, I don't see any connection with crime at all). It is being mooted as a way to combat the massive rise in the benefits underclass we seem to have in the UK. The notion being that if you have no means of supporting yourself, the state will support you in state-created, state-run accomodation, and you will be given work to do by the state to pay for that accomodation. Depending upon how much money your state-provided work produces, you may get to keep some or most of it to spend as you choose (within the limits of the system.) If, at any time, you wish to step outside of this scheme then you may, but you will not be eligible for any form of state support while outside of the system.
It would provide a means by which people who don't currently work can be put to useful employ, and thus raise revenue. This would make the scheme self-financing. If people do well, they can move out (while keeping their jobs, of course), and into the private system. It would end at a stroke the nonsense we currently have whereby people who get pregnant get given a flat to live in, and would (should) dramatically reduce the benefits bill. It would (could) also provide a very useful means by which those released from prison are re-introduced to society (something that is very lacking at the moment.)
Those who are mentally or physically ill would need special care. How this would be handled I don't know, but it could be given some thought. It would need to start with a meaningful assessment of their true disability, of course.
I genuinely think this is a good idea, and something that could benefit the country hugely.
Oli.
Edited by zcacogp on Monday 26th April 11:56
Eric Mc said:
Mazda Baiter said:
P_J_R said:
I've been saying that for years; and whilst we're at it, make everybody have an IQ test before being allowed to breed; no pass, no offspring. Sadly it's all too late, this country is f
ked.
If you can prove that "IQ" (flawed as the test is) is more influenced by genetics than environment then I might agree with you.ked.On the other hand, a high "IQ" score does not make you a responsible parent... Which is where the problem lies, to which you are inferring.
Great plan.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-church...
The original qualifiers for workhouse entry under the old "poor law" system are as below (from wiki):
[i]Impotent poor
The impotent poor could not look after themselves or go to work. They included the ill, the infirm, the elderly, and children with no-one to properly care for them.
Able-bodied
The able-bodied poor normally referred to those who were unable to find work - either due to cyclical or long term unemployment in the area, or a lack of skills.
Idle poor
The idle poor were of able body but were not willing to work.
Vagrants
The 'vagrants' or 'beggars', were deemed those who could work but had refused to.[/i]
I don't think that those classified as "Impotent Poor" should go into a modern day workhouse, however add to the "Idle Poor" category career benefit mums/families and immigrants on benefits into the system somewhere and I think we have a winner.
For criminals, there would still be prison.
[i]Impotent poor
The impotent poor could not look after themselves or go to work. They included the ill, the infirm, the elderly, and children with no-one to properly care for them.
Able-bodied
The able-bodied poor normally referred to those who were unable to find work - either due to cyclical or long term unemployment in the area, or a lack of skills.
Idle poor
The idle poor were of able body but were not willing to work.
Vagrants
The 'vagrants' or 'beggars', were deemed those who could work but had refused to.[/i]
I don't think that those classified as "Impotent Poor" should go into a modern day workhouse, however add to the "Idle Poor" category career benefit mums/families and immigrants on benefits into the system somewhere and I think we have a winner.
For criminals, there would still be prison.
The problem is actually getting them to REALLY work. An unwilling workforce might be worse than no workforce at all.
Who would they work for?
What work would they do?
What impact would it have on genuine hard working workers in, presumably, who already work low paid jobs? I am assuming, of course, that these people would be made to work as labourers or in other non-skilled work. I would hate to be depending on them for anything REALLY important.
You could end up with forced labour costing the country MORE than the current system (for all its faults).
Who would they work for?
What work would they do?
What impact would it have on genuine hard working workers in, presumably, who already work low paid jobs? I am assuming, of course, that these people would be made to work as labourers or in other non-skilled work. I would hate to be depending on them for anything REALLY important.
You could end up with forced labour costing the country MORE than the current system (for all its faults).
KANEIT said:
To elaborate on my previous post:
I think for those that don't work and are mentally and physically able there should be a place of work that offers training, guidance and childcare. That centre helps remove barriers for those who want to work but can't (for example childcare issues) and counters the excuses of those who just don't want to work. Then the taxpayer receives in return the product of service offered by this work centre. This is not meant as a punishment, just a way of stopping people from stagnating and to increase the productivity of the nation.
Then for criminals there's a totally separate scheme of forcing them to work in dangerous or undesirable situations, such as sewers and mines, as a punishment that again offers a return for the taxpayer in terms of resources mined or services rendered.
How does this get paid for though?I think for those that don't work and are mentally and physically able there should be a place of work that offers training, guidance and childcare. That centre helps remove barriers for those who want to work but can't (for example childcare issues) and counters the excuses of those who just don't want to work. Then the taxpayer receives in return the product of service offered by this work centre. This is not meant as a punishment, just a way of stopping people from stagnating and to increase the productivity of the nation.
Then for criminals there's a totally separate scheme of forcing them to work in dangerous or undesirable situations, such as sewers and mines, as a punishment that again offers a return for the taxpayer in terms of resources mined or services rendered.
There's a huge problem with the minimum wage. Despite what people on here believe, I'm pretty sure that the majority of those who get the dole get less than the minimum wage in dole money. In some cases that's not true, and for public sector workers who don't actually offer value for money, it's even more so.
I think that it would be possible for people on the dole to fix our potholed roads, for example. There are huge logistical issues, since you need a pickup truck to do the work, but in principle it's a great idea.
The trouble however, is that those people on the dole who are made to fix the roads, are then working (fixing the roads) for less than the minimum wage. The government have tied themselves in knots with their own legislation. So on balance those that fix the road, not only have to paid the minimum wage, but they also have to be provided with a pickup truck so that they can get to the potholes with a shovel, a drill, a thumper, and the actual asphalt.
You could say that things like fixing the roads, is not actual work. Perhaps it could be called "slave labour". Who knows what the route out is, but the problem is huge and has been growing for years. All this time Labour have been telling you that things are great, and by and large people have believed them. Soon enough we're all going to have to face reality.
The elephant in the room, is the public sector workers, who are well paid, but don't offer value for money. The only thing they are is an expensive bought vote. Then there's the law which has now tied the government in knots.
I don't much like the idea of workhouses, but I do recognise that they are a practical solution to the problem of employment. The minimum wage is a huge problem. The thing we cant afford is the massive, massive, public sector that we have.
Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 12:21
Eric Mc said:
The problem is actually getting them to REALLY work. An unwilling workforce might be worse than no workforce at all.
Who would they work for?
What work would they do?
What impact would it have on genuine hard working workers in, presumably, who already work low paid jobs? I am assuming, of course, that these people would be made to work as labourers or in other non-skilled work. I would hate to be depending on them for anything REALLY important.
You could end up with forced labour costing the country MORE than the current system (for all its faults).
On that basis, how do you get anyone to REALLY work? I'd suggest that jobs handed out to those in the workhouse are assessed in the same way as any other job; you have someone who oversees you and reviews of your performance. If your performance is below-par, something is done about it and you are sacked if it doesn't improve. That of course raises the problem of what do those "sacked" people do, which is a perennial problem. (I guess those are the "Idle Poor" in the list above.) Perhaps they are given enforced jobs in the workhouse, and only allowed minimal amounts of food while in such a situation. Who would they work for?
What work would they do?
What impact would it have on genuine hard working workers in, presumably, who already work low paid jobs? I am assuming, of course, that these people would be made to work as labourers or in other non-skilled work. I would hate to be depending on them for anything REALLY important.
You could end up with forced labour costing the country MORE than the current system (for all its faults).
What work would they do? What work is there to do? Why are we importing immigrants by the thousand to do jobs that our own countrymen refuse to do? Are you really suggesting that in a country the size of the UK employment cannot be found for all our population? Perhaps it may see the resurgence of the UK manufacturing industry; if the workhouses lowered taxes then various industries would quite possibly be able to do a fair bit better, thus generating jobs. And this would then apply to those who are already in low-skilled jobs; their personal tax burden would be reduced and hopefully more jobs opened up to them.
It's not an idea without flaws. But, in my view, it has a whole load less flaws than the current system.
Oli.
Eric Mc said:
The problem is actually getting them to REALLY work. An unwilling workforce might be worse than no workforce at all.
But at the moment they're allowed to do NO work, and get paid for the priviledge. If they're terminally idle, then they stay were they are. It's way cheaper than what they'd get under the current welfare system.zcacogp said:
Eric Mc said:
The problem is actually getting them to REALLY work. An unwilling workforce might be worse than no workforce at all.
Who would they work for?
What work would they do?
What impact would it have on genuine hard working workers in, presumably, who already work low paid jobs? I am assuming, of course, that these people would be made to work as labourers or in other non-skilled work. I would hate to be depending on them for anything REALLY important.
You could end up with forced labour costing the country MORE than the current system (for all its faults).
On that basis, how do you get anyone to REALLY work? I'd suggest that jobs handed out to those in the workhouse are assessed in the same way as any other job; you have someone who oversees you and reviews of your performance. If your performance is below-par, something is done about it and you are sacked if it doesn't improve. That of course raises the problem of what do those "sacked" people do, which is a perennial problem. (I guess those are the "Idle Poor" in the list above.) Perhaps they are given enforced jobs in the workhouse, and only allowed minimal amounts of food while in such a situation. Who would they work for?
What work would they do?
What impact would it have on genuine hard working workers in, presumably, who already work low paid jobs? I am assuming, of course, that these people would be made to work as labourers or in other non-skilled work. I would hate to be depending on them for anything REALLY important.
You could end up with forced labour costing the country MORE than the current system (for all its faults).
What work would they do? What work is there to do? Why are we importing immigrants by the thousand to do jobs that our own countrymen refuse to do? Are you really suggesting that in a country the size of the UK employment cannot be found for all our population? Perhaps it may see the resurgence of the UK manufacturing industry; if the workhouses lowered taxes then various industries would quite possibly be able to do a fair bit better, thus generating jobs. And this would then apply to those who are already in low-skilled jobs; their personal tax burden would be reduced and hopefully more jobs opened up to them.
It's not an idea without flaws. But, in my view, it has a whole load less flaws than the current system.
Oli.
dvs_dave said:
Eric Mc said:
The problem is actually getting them to REALLY work. An unwilling workforce might be worse than no workforce at all.
But at the moment they're allowed to do NO work, and get paid for the priviledge. If they're terminally idle, then they stay were they are. It's way cheaper than what they'd get under the current welfare system.Would having them do work they weren't interested in and probably do badly - at the taxpayer's expense, more than likely - result in a better situation?
I don't think so.
People think of these schemes out of anger - rather than out of logic.
dilbert said:
KANEIT said:
To elaborate on my previous post:
I think for those that don't work and are mentally and physically able there should be a place of work that offers training, guidance and childcare. That centre helps remove barriers for those who want to work but can't (for example childcare issues) and counters the excuses of those who just don't want to work. Then the taxpayer receives in return the product of service offered by this work centre. This is not meant as a punishment, just a way of stopping people from stagnating and to increase the productivity of the nation.
Then for criminals there's a totally separate scheme of forcing them to work in dangerous or undesirable situations, such as sewers and mines, as a punishment that again offers a return for the taxpayer in terms of resources mined or services rendered.
How does this get paid for though?I think for those that don't work and are mentally and physically able there should be a place of work that offers training, guidance and childcare. That centre helps remove barriers for those who want to work but can't (for example childcare issues) and counters the excuses of those who just don't want to work. Then the taxpayer receives in return the product of service offered by this work centre. This is not meant as a punishment, just a way of stopping people from stagnating and to increase the productivity of the nation.
Then for criminals there's a totally separate scheme of forcing them to work in dangerous or undesirable situations, such as sewers and mines, as a punishment that again offers a return for the taxpayer in terms of resources mined or services rendered.
There's a huge problem with the minimum wage. Despite what people on here believe, I'm pretty sure that the majority of those who get the dole get less than the minimum wage in dole money. In some cases that's not true, and for public sector workers who don't actually offer value for money, it's even more so.
I think that it would be possible for people on the dole to fix our potholed roads, for example. There are huge logistical issues, since you need a pickup truck to do the work, but in principle it's a great idea.
The trouble however, is that those people on the dole who are made to fix the roads, are then working (fixing the roads) for less than the minimum wage. The government have tied themselves in knots with their own legislation. So on balance those that fix the road, not only have to paid the minimum wage, but they also have to be provided with a pickup truck so that they can get to the potholes with a shovel, a drill, a thumper, and the actual asphalt.
You could say that things like fixing the roads, is not actual work. Perhaps it could be called "slave labour". Who knows what the route out is, but the problem is huge and has been growing for years. All this time Labour have been telling you that things are great, and by and large people have believed them. Soon enough we're all going to have to face reality.
The elephant in the room, is the public sector workers, who are well paid, but don't offer value for money. The only thing they are is an expensive bought vote. Then there's the law which has now tied the government in knots.
I don't much like the idea of workhouses, but I do recognise that they are a practical solution to the problem of employment. The minimum wage is a huge problem. The thing we cant afford is the massive, massive, public sector that we have.
Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 12:21
I would happily join a work scheme which benefited the community if it paid me at least minimum wage and offered me some training/education to further my wider career aims (such as they are) I would not be happy to 'fix potholes' for the same money as I will soon receive with no prospects.
I have paid tax and NI for 20 years in UK, as well as VAT etc. I am using some of that to live on while I find work.
Pothole said:
dilbert said:
KANEIT said:
To elaborate on my previous post:
I think for those that don't work and are mentally and physically able there should be a place of work that offers training, guidance and childcare. That centre helps remove barriers for those who want to work but can't (for example childcare issues) and counters the excuses of those who just don't want to work. Then the taxpayer receives in return the product of service offered by this work centre. This is not meant as a punishment, just a way of stopping people from stagnating and to increase the productivity of the nation.
Then for criminals there's a totally separate scheme of forcing them to work in dangerous or undesirable situations, such as sewers and mines, as a punishment that again offers a return for the taxpayer in terms of resources mined or services rendered.
How does this get paid for though?I think for those that don't work and are mentally and physically able there should be a place of work that offers training, guidance and childcare. That centre helps remove barriers for those who want to work but can't (for example childcare issues) and counters the excuses of those who just don't want to work. Then the taxpayer receives in return the product of service offered by this work centre. This is not meant as a punishment, just a way of stopping people from stagnating and to increase the productivity of the nation.
Then for criminals there's a totally separate scheme of forcing them to work in dangerous or undesirable situations, such as sewers and mines, as a punishment that again offers a return for the taxpayer in terms of resources mined or services rendered.
There's a huge problem with the minimum wage. Despite what people on here believe, I'm pretty sure that the majority of those who get the dole get less than the minimum wage in dole money. In some cases that's not true, and for public sector workers who don't actually offer value for money, it's even more so.
I think that it would be possible for people on the dole to fix our potholed roads, for example. There are huge logistical issues, since you need a pickup truck to do the work, but in principle it's a great idea.
The trouble however, is that those people on the dole who are made to fix the roads, are then working (fixing the roads) for less than the minimum wage. The government have tied themselves in knots with their own legislation. So on balance those that fix the road, not only have to paid the minimum wage, but they also have to be provided with a pickup truck so that they can get to the potholes with a shovel, a drill, a thumper, and the actual asphalt.
You could say that things like fixing the roads, is not actual work. Perhaps it could be called "slave labour". Who knows what the route out is, but the problem is huge and has been growing for years. All this time Labour have been telling you that things are great, and by and large people have believed them. Soon enough we're all going to have to face reality.
The elephant in the room, is the public sector workers, who are well paid, but don't offer value for money. The only thing they are is an expensive bought vote. Then there's the law which has now tied the government in knots.
I don't much like the idea of workhouses, but I do recognise that they are a practical solution to the problem of employment. The minimum wage is a huge problem. The thing we cant afford is the massive, massive, public sector that we have.
Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 12:21
I would happily join a work scheme which benefited the community if it paid me at least minimum wage and offered me some training/education to further my wider career aims (such as they are) I would not be happy to 'fix potholes' for the same money as I will soon receive with no prospects.
I have paid tax and NI for 20 years in UK, as well as VAT etc. I am using some of that to live on while I find work.
It's not unreasonable for them TBH. If you're a right wing thinker, you've probably never worked in government, or understand the way it looks or works on the inside. If they did, they'd be in for a shock. That's the problem, the right wing outlook is a bit insular.
They can go on all they like about the unemployed, but that's not where the main problem is. Some of the right wing thinkers may believe that cutting the state means cutting the NHS. It's just not true. There may be some waste in the NHS, but there's much more fat elsewhere to trim.
It's difficult for the right to get involved with the state. All you have to do, is look at it, try to understand it, and behold.... You could make massive savings, and impact nothing but the waste. I don't believe it will happen myself, because there are too many people itching to blame it on the majority unemployed.
As an aside, I would suggest that many of those itchers, have voted Labour whilst it suited them.
Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 12:57
Eric Mc said:
dvs_dave said:
Eric Mc said:
The problem is actually getting them to REALLY work. An unwilling workforce might be worse than no workforce at all.
But at the moment they're allowed to do NO work, and get paid for the priviledge. If they're terminally idle, then they stay were they are. It's way cheaper than what they'd get under the current welfare system.Would having them do work they weren't interested in and probably do badly - at the taxpayer's expense, more than likely - result in a better situation?
I don't think so.
People think of these schemes out of anger - rather than out of logic.
The point I'm making is that a workhouse type arrangement would overall be a cheaper solution for the state, whether the "inmates" choose to work or not.
Someone doing sod all in a work house would cost the state a damn site less than that same person claiming full benefits and doing sod all under the current system. You'd also help alleviate the chronic housing shortage this country has by being able to offer the freed up housing to those more deserving*.
Unfortunately you cannot get away from terminally idle/useless people, but you can certainly make life a lot less cushy for them and incentivise their lifes more.
*another discussion all together, as is the size of the public sector.
Edited by dvs_dave on Monday 26th April 14:18
dvs_dave said:
Eric Mc said:
dvs_dave said:
Eric Mc said:
The problem is actually getting them to REALLY work. An unwilling workforce might be worse than no workforce at all.
But at the moment they're allowed to do NO work, and get paid for the priviledge. If they're terminally idle, then they stay were they are. It's way cheaper than what they'd get under the current welfare system.Would having them do work they weren't interested in and probably do badly - at the taxpayer's expense, more than likely - result in a better situation?
I don't think so.
People think of these schemes out of anger - rather than out of logic.
The point I'm making is that a workhouse type arrangement would overall be a cheaper solution for the state, whether the "inmates" choose to work or not.
Someone doing sod all in a work house would cost the state a damn site less than that same person claiming full benefits and doing sod all under the current system. You'd also help alleviate the chronic housing shortage this country has by being able to offer the freed up housing to those more deserving*.
Unfortunately you cannot get away from terminally idle/useless people, but you can certainly make life a lot less cushy for them and incentivise their lifes more.
*another discussion all together, as is the size of the public sector.
The Jews for example, were sent to work camps. Eventually there were too many of them, and so they had a new idea.... Build death camps.
I don't refute the idea that this is the way we are going, but I do refute the idea that it's the right way to deal with it.
You can be "ultra right wing", but the truth is that right wing ideology in the UK saved Europe from the turmoil of the 1000 Year Reich. More significantly the Nazi movement was a socialist movement with extreme right wing tendencies. It followed a period of indirection, poverty, and liberal government.
This is the really worrying aspect of the idea you present. It's formulation and basis has a warning in history.
Edited by dilbert on Monday 26th April 14:29
I don't think you can argue that a workhouse would be cheaper at all.
It would be extremely difficult to cost accurately the financial benefits or otherwise of implementing such a scheme.
The direct cost of running them might be cheaper than the current system, but the downstream costs of putting low paid people out of work or paying people to do work that might not be really needed or rectifying poor workmanship caried out by a non-motivated workforce could very easily outweigh the initial perceived cost savings.
It would be extremely difficult to cost accurately the financial benefits or otherwise of implementing such a scheme.
The direct cost of running them might be cheaper than the current system, but the downstream costs of putting low paid people out of work or paying people to do work that might not be really needed or rectifying poor workmanship caried out by a non-motivated workforce could very easily outweigh the initial perceived cost savings.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff