Gideon is talking about making unemployment benefits claimants work for free.
He says he wants end the "something for nothing" culture.

I don't think he sees the irony.

He's cleared one thing up for me: unemployment is the fault of the unemployed. Can't believe I never saw it before.

He's talking of up to 200,000 who have been unemployed for more than 3 years to be given jobs "sweeping streets or working with elderly" or alternatively attending a job centre every day for intensive job searching.

All of which is one of those great soundbites that get the party flag bearers standing to applaud, especially the bit about street sweeping which has a long history of being work only fit for the feckless unemployed, that and clearing snow from pavements in a sort of Downton Abbey benevolence stylee.

Its makes great conference TV but like most things that are uttered from politicians mouths its full of bollax when you examine what they are actually suggesting and three minutes consideration bring you to that conclusion.

1. Are there really 200,000 street sweeping jobs going free - its possible that there are given that local authorities have had spending budgets slashed, how ironic if an official council street sweeper who lost his job in 2010 was now sent out to sweep streets as a government employee.

2. Do the politicians believe that this is a no-cost option, do they honestly believe that job centre staff will simply point to a broom cupboard and say "grab yourself a brush and go find some streets to sweep for 30 hours this week and then I'll tick this box and pay you", or do they realise that more civil servants will have to be employed to organise and supervise these work gangs - or is that the whole point ?

If you read the on-line news e.g. The Guardian you will find in virtually all the articles statements similar to "Polling suggests such policies are popular with the general public".

Is this really true? I know its been a deliberate feature of Tory policy to continually repeat various mantras to drive home the message but aren't people tired of hearing about the so called feckless unemployed?

Surely there must be a limit to the number of times you can vilify one section of society such that it no longer has the effect you seek which is clearly to try and win votes?

It certainly won't save any vast sums of money if any at all.

The last time they tried similar despite the so called popularity of workfare, employers who took people on under the scheme were vilified and dropped out pretty quickly for fear of tarnishing their image.

I suppose if the unfortunate victims of this were "employed" by the government not private companies that would solve that but then I would expect once this was seen to be happening the general public would be as about enamoured with the government for doing this as they were with Tesco or Poundland employing cheap labour.

I think part of the problem is that "the government" listen to, as much as produce, the soundbites and they are being fed "opinions" by the news media which suggests that their readers/listeners fully support the vilification of the feckless, disabled and unemployed, hence the "Supporting hardworking families" logo's seen everywhere this week.

In reality of course only a small percentage of the population read newspapers and even fewer of those offer opinions to those newspapers, and those that do tend to be of the "Angry of Surrey" type or "Derek Hatton was an angel", its only when those conference suggestions are put into real life rules and regulations that they get any meaningful feedback and as we saw with commercial retail organisations, the feedback to workfare was huge, quick, and very anti - which took them all by surprise.

Would it not be more beneficial to have the government subsidise their wages with benefits (56 p/w?) and have the employer top it up to minimum wage level for a period of time with a view to being taken on permanently by the employer should they prove their worth?

I know I'm no Ajw who just loves posting useless polls

, but I read the DM's take on it this morning to see what their neutural stance was on the subject (!) and if the comments are anything to go by you are correct, there were more green arrows on the posts berating the government for vilifying the unemployed yet again, turning the unemployed into slave labourers, etc, etc, etc. Obviously this is no Mori poll or anything, but after 3 years of reading these sorts of stories in the DM I can honestly say the tide is turning, the once proud True Bluers are now beginning to stop and think about what is happening to the likes of the unemployed, the sick and disabled and how this goverment are spinning its lies and propaganda through the likes of the DM, The Express and The Sun day after day. Outraged of Tunbridge Wells is getting wise to it now and beginning to question this governments agenda.

Yep, it would. But thats not what this government want is it? They want the unemployed to be the villians in all of this. They want the unemployed to be the disgusting, nasty, lazy people that they think they are. It wouldn't surprise me if this government would make them wear bright orange boiler suits to do the work. And anyway, we already have people who are forced into doing community work, it is called Community Service, being done by people who have broken the law.

Your theory would work perfectly if this is what Gideon wanted to achieve, but it isn't.

Its not a bad idea and its what currently happens with the vast majority of benefit claimants who, strange though it may seem, are "in work" claimants, I tend to think though that what is being proposed isn't just covering JSA (if it was it would be outrageous to suggest that £65 is worth 30 hours work of anyone), but that it will also cover ALL benefits able to be claimed by the long term unemployed which, given the new cap could be £500 per week, in which case I doubt that the employer will be making any contribution at all.

Especially for street sweepers.

Providing the employer doesn't simply use the system to staff-up loads of low-skilled jobs at only the cost of the "top-up", knowing that they only have to offer a job to a fraction of the number of jobless applicants that they take on for work experience.

Call me Mr Sceptical.

You may be one of, or know one of, the unfortunate unemployed. The people who's trade disappeared or who lost their employment through no fault of their own and who actually try to get back into employment.

But there is an awful lot of people who see unemployment benefits as a birthright they need do nothing in return for. Benefits are for those genuinely struggling yet people in this country see it as a route around having to work. My other half's parents are like this, haven't worked a day in their life, nor tried to. They are given a council house, given the money for utilities and food and have enough over for a caravan in Wales, Sky TV and copious amounts of cigarettes. One of the parents at my son's school is the same, stood in the playground last week boasting about how he can play GTA and FIFA all week and get paid to do it by me (As a taxpayer). The benefits system in this country has been far too open for far too long.

Making the unemployed work to earn their benefits is a perfectly reasonably policy. They are getting paid anyway, so why shouldn't the community benefit from that? There are always tons of community projects that never get done due to the cost that could be completed. Sure there are logistical issues and set up costs to all this, but once setup, I can't see how anyone can argue with it?

Two issues:
1) The nature of the job. Once you class a job as a punishment (and if it's compulsory and done by those labelled as feckless, it will be labelled as a punishment), then you demean that job. Road sweeper: you've done something wrong.
2) The phrase in the papers: "Alcoholics, drug addicts and the mentally ill will be forced into a 'mandatory intensive regime' to rebuild their lives." Ooh. Alcoholism is a disease: will other groups be forced into this? Smokers with lung illnesses? But worst :the mentally ill are seen as to be punished if they cannot help themselves!

The vast majority are getting paid what they have paid into, its called the National Insurance. Would you work for 30 hours a week for £71? No I expect, so why expect people who aren't in work to?

How are they supposed to look for work if they have to work 30 hours a week, how are they supposed to turn up for job interview after job interview if they have to "work"??? Why would someone who has been in managerial roles who just happens to be the wrong side of 60 and can't find employment be expected to clean graffitti and sweep street, yeah that will give them real incentive to get off their backside and find a "work ethic".

And if theres a job for 30 hours a week, pay them the minimum wage for a 30 hour week, with the employee paying NI and Income Tax and give them sick pay and holiday pay. I'm sure we have a law in this country that says anyone in employment has to be paid the minimum wage and if they're not its against the law.

You also have another problem that hasn't been thought out by this inept government. There are real people, who are paid real wages to sweep the roads, clean graffitti, cook for the elderly. Will they all have to be sacked, claim JSA for 3 years then go back to doing the job they were doing for £71 a week? Care homes who are in it to make as much money as possible, will quietly "let go" their chefs etc and remember this government has got rid of legal aid and made it virtually impossible for anyone to go to employment tribunal, and "employ" people on JSA for nothing. I know whose laughing all the way to the banks about this one, and its not the JSA claimants!!

The logical outcome of 'care in the community'?

The Nazis thought that the mentally ill and disabled needed dealing with too.

Quote ="Saddened!" But there is an awful lot of people who see unemployment benefits as a birthright they need do nothing in return for. '" No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths [i The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people[/i

Quote ="Saddened!" But there is an awful lot of people who see unemployment benefits as a birthright they need do nothing in return for. '" No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths [i The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people[/i

If these jobs are available and need to be done, there should be a wage paid for doing them. Wage does not equal benefits.

It's called getting stuff done on the cheap.

Quote ="Hull White Star"No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths [i The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people[/i'" The foundation didn't even find the 'three generations without work' – hence the "if they exist". The found families where there had been periods out of work – as well as in work – across generations, but not the sweeping idea that IDS had suggested. But much of the media prefers the fantasy and hence the public believes it to be true. In the case of Mick Philpott, for instance, the [iMail[/i portrayed his crimes as evidence of what living on benefits does – even though both the women in his life worked. It's a grand case of not allowing the reality to get in the way of the propaganda or of anything that might actually tackle the real problems that do exist.

Quote ="Hull White Star"No theres not, you've been reading the DM for far too long. Its actually 1% of benefit claimants who have two or more generations that have not worked according to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths [i The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people[/i'" The foundation didn't even find the 'three generations without work' – hence the "if they exist". The found families where there had been periods out of work – as well as in work – across generations, but not the sweeping idea that IDS had suggested. But much of the media prefers the fantasy and hence the public believes it to be true. In the case of Mick Philpott, for instance, the [iMail[/i portrayed his crimes as evidence of what living on benefits does – even though both the women in his life worked. It's a grand case of not allowing the reality to get in the way of the propaganda or of anything that might actually tackle the real problems that do exist.

O/T but Sky News this morning had a reporter and crew outside his old house as the place was demolished. The infinite facepalm picture sprang to mind. I hope the BBC haven't sent anyone to report it

Since they couldn't get anyone to report yesterday's demo of 50,000 in Manchester – or were barred from it by G4S ...

It's very easy to argue with it if you give it just a moments consideration.

In New York they implemented a similar policy and got the unemployed to work on the parks. The net result was the parks staff employed by the city lost their jobs. The were replaced by the cheap labour the city now had available to it.

That is one kind of side side effect. How would you suggest we avoid a similar outcome here? I mean if we get the unemployed cleaning chewing gum of the streets or picking up litter there really is no need to pay someone a full time wage to do the same is there?

You also seem to be ignoring the fact there aren't any jobs to go to. The number of vacancies is far less than the number of unemployed so what is to be done? If the government can create jobs out of thin air for these people why can't it pay them a proper wage to do it? In a weak labour market such as we have now this scheme will do absolutely nothing to find these people proper paid employment so the only conclusion is that it is some kind of punishment for daring to be unemployed.

If your community projects require labour then they need to be paid a wage for doing it otherwise they simply undercut paid employees resulting who would normally do it being made redundant as well. We can either afford these projects or we can't. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest we can get them done using slave labour which is what your really suggesting even if you think you are not.

If you look and do some research there is plenty of evidence out there that such schemes are counter productive and actually encourages employers to avoid anyone who has been these schemes as it stigmatises those on them.

Finally the maximum community sentence that a judge can hand out is for 300 hours, but claimants on six-month workfare schemes are already being forced to work without pay for 780 hours. The four-week Mandatory Work Activity scheme is already the equivalent of a medium level community service order that a person might receive if they were found guilty of drink driving or assault. In other words being long term unemployed gets you treated as a criminal. What a fantastic country we live in!

Yet they could report on the two Ex Service men who stood up to Philip Hammond but no word on the the NHS demo, crazy, crazy world of reporting.

There is an excellent comment in the Guardian as to why this proposal is basically imorral

[urlhttp://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/27479082[/url

In case the link doesn't work it says this:

[iWhere's your 'morality' in making someone in their 50s, made redundant 2 years ago because of the financial crash, having worked since they were 16, being made to do workfare because employers are loathe to take on older people? Someone in their 50s, having worked since they were 16, paid in all those years, did the 'right thing' and now told they have to clean graffiti to 'earn' the paltry amount they're given on JSA/UC?

Where's your 'morality' when, as with existing workfare programs attached to retail workfare providers, people in paid jobs lose hours/shifts/over time and even jobs, because employers know they don't have to employ people any more than they have to because of now endless conveyor belt of exploited labour from the Job? First it was retail, now it's carers (the people paid to make old people's meals &c) and now it's council staff paid to collect litter and clean graffiti.

Many prisons are already allocated small industry jobs for prisoners. So you now have retail, care work, manual cleaning &c, and light industrial jobs going to people who aren't in proper employment. Yet you can't see the pattern? The overall picture?

PRO-TIP: there's no dignity in working a full time job, under the threat of a random sanction, for £71 a week.[/i


There is also another comment immediately below it which is one of the best put downs for those who claim to be left leaning but can see no problem with this policy.

[urlhttp://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/27479519[/url

Again, here is the text in case the link doesn't work.

[iOnce more your points are hypothetical & therefore irrelevant to the brutalism of the objective situation. The ordained proposal-to-policy is 30 hours a week of unpaid 'community work', accompanied by circa a further 10 hours a week of evidenced job hunting. Failure to fulfil will result in immediate & summary suspension of subsistence level social security net payments, which will lead to rapid destitution for people who are already severely impoverished.

The majority of people longer term unemployed have been prior employed - prior, that is, to the mosts extensive & catastrophic economic downturn since the 1930's. So the contribution of many has been made - via taxation & NI payments. You're perhaps unaffected - not everyone directly has been. Many have, through no direct fault or failing on their own part - & have been catastrophically affected in numerous cases.

You say you are 'left-wing'. I'd consider you to be no other than petite bourgeoisie, according to the standard definition:

"Petite bourgeoisie (French pronunciation: ​[pətit buʁʒwazi), also petty bourgeoisie (literally small bourgeoisie), is a French term (sometimes derogatory) referring to a social class comprising semi-autonomous peasantry and small-scale merchants whose politico-economic ideological stance is determined by reflecting that of a haute (high) bourgeoisie, with which the petite bourgeoisie seeks to identify itself, and whose bourgeois morality it strives to imitate.

The term is politico-economic, and references historical materialism. It originally denoted a sub-stratum of the middle classes in the 18th and early-19th centuries. In the mid-19th century, the pre-eminient theorist of socio-politico-economy, Karl Marx, and other Marxist theorists used the term petite bourgeoisie to identify the socio-economic stratum of the bourgeoisie that comprised small-scale capitalists such as shop-keepers and workers who manage the production, distribution, and/or exchange of commodities and/or services owned by their bourgeois employers."

Osborne & associated scum will be well happy to encounter & to continue to control your kind of non-existent 'left-wing'.[/i

Two of the best comments I have ever seen in relation to why this policy is totally wrong.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-24329092BBC story online[/url, on the front page. So of national importance.

Rather than a peaceful demonstration of 50,000-plus from across the UK, about a national subject, organised by a national organisation, in front of a national political party's national conference.

We're all going to hell in a hand cart