Bring back the workhouse?
Discussion
We visited the Workhouse at Southwell yesterday, which is a National Trust museum about life in a workhouse in the 19th century.
I had vaguely thought that workhouses were filthy places where the "work" was for the benefit of evil factory owners - a bit like a sweat shop. But that was not the case.
The workshouse in question was run for the benefit of the poor and needy, who came in and left voluntarily. It was a place where if people HAD NO CHOICE they could find food, clean shelter and medical help.
The inmates were split into three groups. I forget the exact titles, but they were basically:
The innocent poor - people too old and frail to survive outside. They were treated well.
The deserving - Those who were there through little fault of their own. They were treated OK but had a very basic existence to ensure that they moved on quickly.
The feckless - who were there because they were lazy. They had a somewhat tougher regime.
So, the workhouse provided shelter and support for those people that either needed it or thought they needed it. It was no holiday camp, but gave a basic means of survival. It encouraged those who were able to leave and support themselves.
Whilst not being judgemental, the museum at the end provided a contrast between what was available to the poor in the 1800s at the Workhouse and the vast array of benefits and support mechanisms given to them now.
Having seen what the workhouse was actually about - looking after people but ensuring that they only took support if they REALLY needed it, it occurred to me that society has actually regressed in the past 150 years.
While you won't see a return to workhouses in their old form some of their ideas can be adopted.
There already is a hostel system for teenage single mothers. That could be extended to all feckless single mothers (ie excluding the deserving). Instead of a free flat you have a small room and shared facilities.
In terms of the NEETS you could stop paying benefit but give them the option of working for the state at less than minimum wage. If you have to work anyway why not get a job.
At the same time you could use the savings to tackle the shocking lack of support that working people often receive when they enter unemployment. Non means tested jobseekers allowance is a joke when someone has been paying NI for years.
There already is a hostel system for teenage single mothers. That could be extended to all feckless single mothers (ie excluding the deserving). Instead of a free flat you have a small room and shared facilities.
In terms of the NEETS you could stop paying benefit but give them the option of working for the state at less than minimum wage. If you have to work anyway why not get a job.
At the same time you could use the savings to tackle the shocking lack of support that working people often receive when they enter unemployment. Non means tested jobseekers allowance is a joke when someone has been paying NI for years.
JagLover said:
While you won't see a return to workhouses in their old form some of their ideas can be adopted.
There already is a hostel system for teenage single mothers. That could be extended to all feckless single mothers (ie excluding the deserving). Instead of a free flat you have a small room and shared facilities.
In terms of the NEETS you could stop paying benefit but give them the option of working for the state at less than minimum wage. If you have to work anyway why not get a job.
At the same time you could use the savings to tackle the shocking lack of support that working people often receive when they enter unemployment. Non means tested jobseekers allowance is a joke when someone has been paying NI for years.
Be off with you, what with your logical thinking and reasoned argument, this is not the place for such ideas!There already is a hostel system for teenage single mothers. That could be extended to all feckless single mothers (ie excluding the deserving). Instead of a free flat you have a small room and shared facilities.
In terms of the NEETS you could stop paying benefit but give them the option of working for the state at less than minimum wage. If you have to work anyway why not get a job.
At the same time you could use the savings to tackle the shocking lack of support that working people often receive when they enter unemployment. Non means tested jobseekers allowance is a joke when someone has been paying NI for years.
Slightly in the same arena - I'm desperately trying to come up with an idea that sees me employ a lot of people for minimum wage to do something not too strenuous, odious or long hours (with benefits such as pensions, bonuses etc. depending on affordability/feasibility). It will be productive, profitable enough to keep the staff paid, business logistics paid and the work premises open but not be a dividend payer to any shareholders (because there won't be any!!).
The focus, as already alluded to will be to, will be keeping people in work for the long term in tandem with creating a product/service that is 'safe' and will always be required. The 'premises' will be large but cheap to own/maintain much in the same vein as old mills were.
For the sake of the average person we need a shift in mentality from profiteering and capitalism, to a more charitable agenda that gives anyone and everyone a chance. Hopefully this would be pioneering for towns and cities across the land as a solution to getting those that want to back into work and earning money.
Its all very pie in the sky and I'm not too sure if the reality would work as there would be no desire to compete with any other company. Therefore why would the product/ervice be competitive enough to make the business model work?
The focus, as already alluded to will be to, will be keeping people in work for the long term in tandem with creating a product/service that is 'safe' and will always be required. The 'premises' will be large but cheap to own/maintain much in the same vein as old mills were.
For the sake of the average person we need a shift in mentality from profiteering and capitalism, to a more charitable agenda that gives anyone and everyone a chance. Hopefully this would be pioneering for towns and cities across the land as a solution to getting those that want to back into work and earning money.
Its all very pie in the sky and I'm not too sure if the reality would work as there would be no desire to compete with any other company. Therefore why would the product/ervice be competitive enough to make the business model work?
JagLover said:
In terms of the NEETS you could stop paying benefit but give them the option of working for the state at less than minimum wage. If you have to work anyway why not get a job.
Isn't the issue with this that the government sponsored work to get benefits schemes can then undercut every other business by providing cheaper labour? Mind you ... if they were doing council jobs ...
I think people on the dole for a certain amount of time should be made to go and clean the parks. That might seem a bit 'hardline' for some, but I think it is acceptable. If the state is going to support you, then you should do something in return for the time you have free. It wouldn't be quite the chain gang, but cleaning graffiti, parks, etc.
Blue Meanie said:
I think people on the dole for a certain amount of time should be made to go and clean the parks. That might seem a bit 'hardline' for some, but I think it is acceptable. If the state is going to support you, then you should do something in return for the time you have free. It wouldn't be quite the chain gang, but cleaning graffiti, parks, etc.
Or charity work of some sort eg helping old people with their shopping or collecting (not chugging) for charity. If I were in a similar position, I'm sure I could find stuff to do at the local cancer hospice more than once a week.Maybe they should have to register with that volunteer site (I forget the name) if they want to continue receiving benefits.
Edited by ShadownINja on Monday 20th September 18:48
We've had discussions about workhouses on here before, and I am all in favour of them. As said, they provided a means by which those who have no other option can survive - not live in luxury, but can survive and not become victim to the ruthless, the cold or starvation.
As it is, we have a system that allows those who choose not to work to live a very comfortable life, entirely financed by those who have to work ever harder to survive and who often struggle to afford those 'necessities' handed out for free by the state to the idle.
Bring back the workhouses? Excellent idea.
Oli.
As it is, we have a system that allows those who choose not to work to live a very comfortable life, entirely financed by those who have to work ever harder to survive and who often struggle to afford those 'necessities' handed out for free by the state to the idle.
Bring back the workhouses? Excellent idea.
Oli.
But how big would workhouses have to be given the number of people we are discussing? What work will they do? Who will own them and who will manage them?
How about:
Compulsory 9-5 job club. There are plenty of offices and factory units lying empty so the space is there. Secretaries and career advisers will be there. The law will require all jobs to be advertised at the job centre. You will be paid less than the min wage to attend and if you don't attend you don't get paid. If you just stare out of the window fine, no one will mind, you'll just do that until you retire. This isn't intended to be a punishment by the way, it is intended to be help.
A vastly simpler benefits system would help to. I'd suggest one flat rate that everyone over 18 gets plus a top up depending on your situation and how much you have paid in. So if you contribute a lot you get generous help if you need it, but if you skive your whole life you'll get the basic rate for ever. That's it. Nothing else at all with the exception of being paid less than min wage to attend the job club (see above). These replace every benefit from child benefit and maternity pay to incapacity and pensions. You can get a job, get paid a pittance at job club or subsist on the min universal handout. If you do get a job then you'll always be better off as the benefits are related to contributions and are not means tested.
So no one gets nothing, the system is simple, if you work you will always get more or qualify for more.
Sorted.
How about:
Compulsory 9-5 job club. There are plenty of offices and factory units lying empty so the space is there. Secretaries and career advisers will be there. The law will require all jobs to be advertised at the job centre. You will be paid less than the min wage to attend and if you don't attend you don't get paid. If you just stare out of the window fine, no one will mind, you'll just do that until you retire. This isn't intended to be a punishment by the way, it is intended to be help.
A vastly simpler benefits system would help to. I'd suggest one flat rate that everyone over 18 gets plus a top up depending on your situation and how much you have paid in. So if you contribute a lot you get generous help if you need it, but if you skive your whole life you'll get the basic rate for ever. That's it. Nothing else at all with the exception of being paid less than min wage to attend the job club (see above). These replace every benefit from child benefit and maternity pay to incapacity and pensions. You can get a job, get paid a pittance at job club or subsist on the min universal handout. If you do get a job then you'll always be better off as the benefits are related to contributions and are not means tested.
So no one gets nothing, the system is simple, if you work you will always get more or qualify for more.
Sorted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff