Preparing hard workers for a future of tax paying...

[judas]

Twincam16 said:

I'd change that. Make it compulsory to apply for them, check with the employer that they've applied, and if they don't turn up to the interview, the next job they have to apply for, they get driven from door to door and frogmarched into the interviewer's office.

Who in their right mind would want to employ someone who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the interview?

[TonyRPH]

Reload said:

National Service.

It's the only way I can see that will teach kids discipline and the meaning of hard graft whilst doing something beneficial to the country.

I shan't elaborate my views on the effect I also think it would have on immigration levels.

Whilst I don't disagree with this, do you think the government has the funding to sustain it?

And what about all those that end up crying because "it's too hard" and all the other excuses they're likely to come up with?

The current H&S legislation is so limiting, that one wonders if a "hard life in the army" is as hard as some would hope it to be..

That's where the system fails.

Teachers etc. are unable to be hard on kids any more either. All the kids do, is turn around and say "you're not allowed to do that / talk to me like that / say that", because of the obscure laws we have.

When I was at school, we were disciplined with a cane and dare not argue back with people in authority.

That's all changed now.

To summarise - the "I don't do it if I don't want to" attitude is the rule now.

[Timmy35]

TonyRPH said:

Reload said:

National Service.

It's the only way I can see that will teach kids discipline and the meaning of hard graft whilst doing something beneficial to the country.

I shan't elaborate my views on the effect I also think it would have on immigration levels.

Whilst I don't disagree with this, do you think the government has the funding to sustain it?

And what about all those that end up crying because "it's too hard" and all the other excuses they're likely to come up with?

The current H&S legislation is so limiting, that one wonders if a "hard life in the army" is as hard as some would hope it to be..

That's where the system fails.

Teachers etc. are unable to be hard on kids any more either. All the kids do, is turn around and say "you're not allowed to do that / talk to me like that / say that", because of the obscure laws we have.

When I was at school, we were disciplined with a cane and dare not argue back with people in authority.

That's all changed now.

To summarise - the "I don't do it if I don't want to" attitude is the rule now.

Which brings it all back to Grange Hill and the fall of British civilisation.

[heebeegeetee]

elster said:

heebeegeetee said:

Timmy35 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Twincam16 said:

So perfect citizens of the New Labour 'project' then. A life of patronising dependency from cradle to grave and woe betide you if you try and rock the boat.

Let's not forget when the ethos of life on benefits began, that it was ok to do so and who was running the country at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Y4F-UPGHw

I think you'll find that the Welfare state was constructed by a post war Labour Government.

Of course, but it didn't become widely acceptable to spend long terms on the dole until the tories started closing all the factories and mines down, and moved the nations wealth earning capacity to the square mile, thus setting us on the road to where we are now.

When labour created the welfare state, housing was affordable and child benefit wasn't paid for the first born.

I know who would have thought the 6th biggest manufacturer in the world would be us with all 30-odd million people working in the square mile.

No...wait, back on planet earth. The "evil" tories did not close down the mines to force people to work elsewhere. The closed them as their was no money in them, it was cheaper to import and with Arthur Scargill shouting while on a power trip meant they weren't productive. The factories were closed for a similar reasons. Unions on power trips does not make for good business, look at BA at the moment.

I did not realise people were stupid enough to think a strike when a company is having bad times.

I don't think BA is going to bring the country to its knees. A group of workers elsewhere did that.

Every country in europe had problems with unions, it was all part of the post-war growth pangs. We took a unique course of action though, imo.

I think it's odd to to think that there's no money in having 300 years of energy in the ground, but i think it can very safely be said that the full costs of transporting coal around the world is not fully paid by us.

Anyway, the actions taken back in the early eighties are still causing us to whinge about the consequences today, in which case, maybe we didn't get it right.

[elster]

heebeegeetee said:

I don't think BA is going to bring the country to its knees. A group of workers elsewhere did that.

Every country in europe had problems with unions, it was all part of the post-war growth pangs. We took a unique course of action though, imo.

I think it's odd to to think that there's no money in having 300 years of energy in the ground, but i think it can very safely be said that the full costs of transporting coal around the world is not fully paid by us.

Anyway, the actions taken back in the early eighties are still causing us to whinge about the consequences today, in which case, maybe we didn't get it right.

I wasn't comparing BA to the scale of the strikes of the 80s. It was more a point that when a business model isn't working as well, striking to get more money or better circumstances is a rather selfish and stupid point to do that can only hinder the model further.

There is huge amounts of money under the ground still, making it cost effective was the only real issue. Much like you buy your electronics from China or Taiwan.

I see no reason why a business could not reopen some mines and make technology work rather than the expensive manpower that used to be used. It could indeed provide gainful employment for a fair few people. But that is down to those people who own the mines.

[Reload]

TonyRPH said:

Reload said:

National Service.

It's the only way I can see that will teach kids discipline and the meaning of hard graft whilst doing something beneficial to the country.

I shan't elaborate my views on the effect I also think it would have on immigration levels.

Whilst I don't disagree with this, do you think the government has the funding to sustain it?

And what about all those that end up crying because "it's too hard" and all the other excuses they're likely to come up with?

The current H&S legislation is so limiting, that one wonders if a "hard life in the army" is as hard as some would hope it to be..

That's where the system fails.

Teachers etc. are unable to be hard on kids any more either. All the kids do, is turn around and say "you're not allowed to do that / talk to me like that / say that", because of the obscure laws we have.

When I was at school, we were disciplined with a cane and dare not argue back with people in authority.

That's all changed now.

To summarise - the "I don't do it if I don't want to" attitude is the rule now.

I understand your point. But in taking people off the dole and in turn the various benefits that come with it, then you're saving that spend which could be put towards training and keeping the recruits.

Once they've been disciplined they will be more likely to want to work if/when they leave the forces, and therefore generating more tax which is put back into the system.

Children are only like that because they are allowed to get away with it, primarily at home due to lazy parenting and lack of morals. That would change once the kids (who have been disciplined in the forces) then have children as they will teach them the correct way to behave.

It would take a couple of decades, but I think it would work. We've basically become soft. "Oh you can't smack your kids legs if he misbehaves, it's cruel." bks. You only need to look at when this namby pamby attitude came in, and when the current situation with unruly children got out of hand, then put two and two together. It's not rocket science. Those laws need changing, or we're just going to keep sliding downhill.

[Timmy35]

Reload said:

and when the current situation with unruly children got out of hand, then put two and two together. It's not rocket science. Those laws need changing, or we're just going to keep sliding downhill.

I read recently a report that stated that the UK is unique in Europe in terms of the % of adults who would be afraid/unprepared to intervene to admonish a group of youths misbehaving in a public area.

The law and it's application are largely to blame. No one is prepared to intervene because we know dam well what the plod would do and who would end up getting arrested.

[Twincam16]

judas said:

Twincam16 said:

I'd change that. Make it compulsory to apply for them, check with the employer that they've applied, and if they don't turn up to the interview, the next job they have to apply for, they get driven from door to door and frogmarched into the interviewer's office.

Who in their right mind would want to employ someone who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the interview?

They wouldn't, but they'd at least have interview experience and have some idea of what an employer was looking for. Sitting on your arse all day doing nothing to look for work and not even thinking about making yourself employable is half the problem.

[JagLover]

cymtriks said:

Simple solution:

If you're of working age and not employed then you must attend a jobseekers office 9-5 five days a week to get benefits. Don't turn up, don't get paid.

There will be an on site team of secretaries to help with CVs and a creche. You'll be able to practice mock interviews. Reps from local businesses will come to talk about the jobs they offer. The forces will come along as well. It will be illegal not to advertise jobs on their database for any company employing more than five people.

State projects like ditch and footpath clearing will be on offer.

Sit and stare out of the window if you want but you'll do that until you are 65. No one will care if you apply for no jobs, you'll just sit there.

Anyone who wanted to work would probably value all the help on offer, note that this isn't intended to be a punishment unless you make it one.

That or something like it is the future IMO

For too many benefits are not a safety net but a way of life. The only way they will leave them is if living off the state becomes as onerous as getting, a better paid, job.

Why not put the long term unemployed on public works projects at the minumum wage for example.

[Twincam16]

elster said:

heebeegeetee said:

I don't think BA is going to bring the country to its knees. A group of workers elsewhere did that.

Every country in europe had problems with unions, it was all part of the post-war growth pangs. We took a unique course of action though, imo.

I think it's odd to to think that there's no money in having 300 years of energy in the ground, but i think it can very safely be said that the full costs of transporting coal around the world is not fully paid by us.

Anyway, the actions taken back in the early eighties are still causing us to whinge about the consequences today, in which case, maybe we didn't get it right.

I wasn't comparing BA to the scale of the strikes of the 80s. It was more a point that when a business model isn't working as well, striking to get more money or better circumstances is a rather selfish and stupid point to do that can only hinder the model further.

There is huge amounts of money under the ground still, making it cost effective was the only real issue. Much like you buy your electronics from China or Taiwan.

I see no reason why a business could not reopen some mines and make technology work rather than the expensive manpower that used to be used. It could indeed provide gainful employment for a fair few people. But that is down to those people who own the mines.

The truth is, you can't ignore the fact that we're not like Monaco or Liechtenstein. We're not some tiny principality where everyone can get away with being incredibly rich and not paying any taxes because everything is privatised.

We have a large population. By sheer nature, in terms of skillsets, the class system forms itself into a 'pyramid' structure. The highly-educated, professional 'elite' will always be smaller than the moderately-educated, reasonably successful white-collar middle-management, which in term will be dwarfed by the number of people who are naturally best employed in the trades, learning practical, manual skills. It's no point arguing against it or trying to force 50% through university to turn it into more of a 'diamond' shape, it's just the way of the world, always has been, always will be.

So unless you want to constantly keep paying for an ever-expanding base of population unable to find work and incompatible with these streamlined, efficient, minimally-employing industries through sheer natural order, then we need to accept that we need large, mass-employing industries that offer reliable, dependable employment.

Otherwise the cycle of worklessness will merely continue and the workless population will expand rapidly, as each workless person produces more children per head.

I just find it crazy that square-mile monetarists who've done very well out of the huge personal profits made from making industries 'streamlined' and 'efficient' are the ones most vocal in their complaints about the level of taxation they're contributing towards the jobless population.

Didn't happen like this in Germany. Given the far lower profits taken by German chief executives (and Japanese ones for that matter, and just about any country apart from the US and UK), the better-paid the workers are, the more money put into R&D to produce more desirable products in the long run, and the greater culture of trade and technical training embodied in things like the German technical schools, we can see why British industry lunched itself in the '70s when the Germans managed to survive.

It's the usual British disease - get decent world-beating products, get complacent, keep overly large proportion of profits in the chief executives' pockets, watch rest of the world overtake us, watch workers get annoyed, complain, watch industry die, flog it to foreigners.

Happened with the railways too - we invented the things. Nowadays because of cost-cutting we don't even lay the tracks properly, welding the rails together rather than allowing for heat expansion, then they buckle in the heat delaying summer services. Compare our railways to those in France or Japan. It's pathetic.

[chris watton]

JagLover said:

Why not put the long term unemployed on public works projects at the minumum wage for example.

We used to have this! When I left school with zero qualifications, rather than condition me for a lifetime of benefits, I had to go on, what was called a 'Community action program" (CAP). For my £25 per week, I would learn brick laying (which I still remember and have put it to good use since), welding etc, and, when not learning real world manual skills, we painted and decorated local schools and other public projects. They also helped us look for real work, and there wasn't one of us who didn't have a job within a year.

Thatcher eh, what a bh.......

[Gold]

cymtriks said:

Simple solution:

If you're of working age and not employed then you must attend a jobseekers office 9-5 five days a week to get benefits. Don't turn up, don't get paid.

There will be an on site team of secretaries to help with CVs and a creche. You'll be able to practice mock interviews. Reps from local businesses will come to talk about the jobs they offer. The forces will come along as well. It will be illegal not to advertise jobs on their database for any company employing more than five people.

State projects like ditch and footpath clearing will be on offer.

Sit and stare out of the window if you want but you'll do that until you are 65. No one will care if you apply for no jobs, you'll just sit there.

Anyone who wanted to work would probably value all the help on offer, note that this isn't intended to be a punishment unless you make it one.

It would have to be a fking big load of offices.

To fit 1.5 million

Edited by Gold on Tuesday 3rd August 19:27

[Willie Dee]

As long as the school works both ways, as in half the time a handful of really incompetent arrogant kids get A* simply because of who their daddy is where as the rest of the class are restricted to the grade of C+ or below no matter how hard they work because they were not fortunate enough to be born into the right family.

[dilbert]

I'm amazed that people as thick as you lot seem to be, are so hardened because you've never been out of work.

I mean, this is one massive infrastructure project. It's like a small tower block, with a car park or a bus station and a telephone and computer at each desk.... In every sodding town from Penzance to Thurso.

Some actual businesses struggle to make enough to cover their staff and accommodation costs. People say the civil service is too expensive, and you've more or less just described its expansion.

When I phone up more or less any mainstream company, for whatever reason, I seem to find myself talking to retards. Now I know who the retards are! They've always had a job, and no-one cares that they're five planks thick.

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 4th August 01:47

[Willie Dee]

dilbert said:

I'm amazed that people as thick as you lot seem to be, are so hardened because you've never been out of work.

I mean, this is one massive infrastructure project. It's like a small tower block, with a car park or a bus station and a telephone and computer at each desk.... In every sodding town from Penzance to Thurso.

Some actual businesses struggle to make enough to cover their staff and accommodation costs. People say the civil service is too expensive, and you've more or less just described its expansion.

When I phone up more or less any mainstream company, for whatever reason, I seem to find myself talking to retards. Now I know who the retards are! They've always had a job, and no-one cares that they're five planks thick.

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 4th August 01:47

Welcome to PH, im surprised its taken you this long to notice! The political discussion on here is almost reaching renowned levels of terrible on sites that require some kind of intelligence to discuss things.

[dilbert]

Willie Dee said:

dilbert said:

I'm amazed that people as thick as you lot seem to be, are so hardened because you've never been out of work.

I mean, this is one massive infrastructure project. It's like a small tower block, with a car park or a bus station and a telephone and computer at each desk.... In every sodding town from Penzance to Thurso.

Some actual businesses struggle to make enough to cover their staff and accommodation costs. People say the civil service is too expensive, and you've more or less just described its expansion.

When I phone up more or less any mainstream company, for whatever reason, I seem to find myself talking to retards. Now I know who the retards are! They've always had a job, and no-one cares that they're five planks thick.

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 4th August 01:47

Welcome to PH, im surprised its taken you this long to notice! The political discussion on here is almost reaching renowned levels of terrible on sites that require some kind of intelligence to discuss things.

One of the more interesting observations on this site, is that since the election, the standard of the News and Politics section has gone downhill. Less relevant, less reason, less said, less ranting.

On the one hand, you could argue that the change of government has eradicated all of the completely mad initiatives that the old Labour government would regularly promote. I mean, where did all the Pi$$ Boilers go? They lost their impact, that's what happened.

On the other, it's great, I can listen to the radio and not feel angry.

In all of that, I guess there's less posting on news topics now. Is that why the paid postings show up so well?

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 4th August 10:16

[Twincam16]

TonyRPH said:

Reload said:

National Service.

It's the only way I can see that will teach kids discipline and the meaning of hard graft whilst doing something beneficial to the country.

I shan't elaborate my views on the effect I also think it would have on immigration levels.

Whilst I don't disagree with this, do you think the government has the funding to sustain it?

And what about all those that end up crying because "it's too hard" and all the other excuses they're likely to come up with?

The current H&S legislation is so limiting, that one wonders if a "hard life in the army" is as hard as some would hope it to be..

That's where the system fails.

Teachers etc. are unable to be hard on kids any more either. All the kids do, is turn around and say "you're not allowed to do that / talk to me like that / say that", because of the obscure laws we have.

When I was at school, we were disciplined with a cane and dare not argue back with people in authority.

That's all changed now.

To summarise - the "I don't do it if I don't want to" attitude is the rule now.

That's very true. I think the main problem is that we've put kids on a ludicrous pedestal, to the point where they're practically exempt from just about every law, social convention or academic motivation. Good parents provide a strong alternative to this with a fairly structured home setting and a work ethic, but bad parents just leave their kids in the hands of the state - and Labour were all too willing to attempt to bring up your kids for you.

We're facing a major, major problem now. Not only do we have well-documented problems of employment shortages for young people, but it's exacerbated by the attitude of many of them who have been told, whilst up on their pedestal, that they don't really have to work, or be polite, or obey instructions, or put up with occasionally doing things they don't want to do, who believe they're entitled to life on a plate without being so much as grateful in return.

Problem with putting kids on an 'untouchable' pedestal like this is simple - at what point do they come down off the pedestal and realise they're subject to the same pressures and obligations as everyone else?

Labour has raised a generation of divas, with sky-high, football/Cowell/increasingly worrying sex industry-based, completely unrealistic goals and expectations, but thanks to a tick-box, taught-to-the-test curriculum, little to no real-world skills.

We need a serious overhaul along German lines, with grammar and technical schools given equal academic weighting in terms of qualifications gained at the end. We need to bring in businesses and universities to decide what skills these kids need to learn at school to get ahead in life, and we need a major skills assessment, maybe at the age of 14 (11-plus was way too early but by 14 clearly definied skillsets are already in place), to decide where each pupil's strengths are, and get them into the right institution to hone those talents.

I'd structure the school system like so:

-Don't start formally-taught primary school until the age of 5/6. Teach in a primary-style environment (and by that I don't mean 'patronising and babyish', I mean using skills taken from all school disciplines to thoroughly investigate 'topics', effectively gaining holistic, independent research skills) until the age of 13/14.

At 13/14, following annual teacher-led appraisals, each pupil should have a good idea as to where their strengths and weaknesses lie, and what it's worth building on and what it's best to accept aren't things they're fantastic at, and enrol at one of the following colleges for 14-18 year-olds:

-Grammar schools, teaching traditional academic subjects with a view to ultimately taking A-levels and going to a traditional university. In effect, closest to the school system we supposedly have at the moment, but only for the pupils who actually suit that style of learning.

-Technical schools, teaching technological, scientific, electronic and practical skills with a view to ultimately taking trade-recognised qualifications and going either to a traditional university (in the case of science and maths-based subjects), or doing a rigourous apprenticeship, to the point where, when the traditional academics are coming out with degrees, your equivalent student electrician (and I'd use the phrase 'student' rather than 'apprentice' to give the fields equality) could rewire a nuclear submarine.

-Performing arts and sports colleges - these would have very limited places compared with the other two. Yes, so every kid claims they want to be an actor or a pop star or a footballer, but this path would be for the truly gifted only, to reflect the actual numbers of arts professionals in society. There would be links with organisations such as RADA, the RCM, the FA and so on. Obviously kids would learn things like English, maths and science relevant to their discipline, and the rest of the time would be taken turning them into genuine maestros with rigourous practice and theory.

By the time they reached 18, every pupil would have at least one real-life, work-related skill and qualification, and most importantly, a genuine, non-media-generated sense of self-worth and a notion that there was something they were genuinely good at.

Until we do that we'll continue to have massive problems, and they'll only increase with the size of the population.

[otolith]

I've seen the suggestion about sharing exam marks used in the past to try to explain to students why people who work for a living are not quite so groovy about the redistribution of wealth as those who don't. Doesn't usually work, but in any case a little post-graduation exposure to real life usually does.

[prand]

Willie Dee said:

As long as the school works both ways, as in half the time a handful of really incompetent arrogant kids get A* simply because of who their daddy is where as the rest of the class are restricted to the grade of C+ or below no matter how hard they work because they were not fortunate enough to be born into the right family.

How does this work then? Is this streaming in schools where the pushy parents get their kids into classes that will make sure the kids do all the modules to get maximum marks? And the kids with "poor," non-pushy parents don't know/care about this so clever or not they get stuck in streams where maximum grades aren't achievable?

[Twincam16]

prand said:

Willie Dee said:

As long as the school works both ways, as in half the time a handful of really incompetent arrogant kids get A* simply because of who their daddy is where as the rest of the class are restricted to the grade of C+ or below no matter how hard they work because they were not fortunate enough to be born into the right family.

How does this work then? Is this streaming in schools where the pushy parents get their kids into classes that will make sure the kids do all the modules to get maximum marks? And the kids with "poor," non-pushy parents don't know/care about this so clever or not they get stuck in streams where maximum grades aren't achievable?

I think he was making the point of 'it's not what you know, it's who you know'.

It's also, increasingly, 'who can put you up in London free of charge for a year'.

Seriously, there are several jobs out there that you can only get to the top of if you've spent a year doing unpaid work experience, almost invariably in London, and in order to do that you need either very wealthy parents, or friends or relatives willing to take you in, house, feed and clothe you without a single penny in return.

There is also the issue of 'who you went to school with'. I went to a comprehensive school so I don't know the kids of any peers or captains of industry, but I went to university with several people who did. We got comparable degrees. Guess how they got their first jobs?