Originally Posted by derekgas (Post 581652)

Whos pocket would the 'free' labour be lining? Bet yer life it wont be the taxpayer!

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 581653)

I agree with you these proposals should not be putting people out of jobs that would be completely counter productive. I don't for a second imagine that the Conservatives would be so stupid as to let this happen. Not only do I expect guidelines/restrictions to prevent this, but I also think there is SO MUCH MORE to be done in local areas that currently doesn't because of a lack of funds to employ more people.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 581650)

Why make such a pointless post? I was hoping you'd point out the ones you were thinking of so I could comment, be that defend the proposals or agree with you.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 581659)

To me these measures aren't nearly tough enough, and are just the sort of namby-pamby measures I've come to expect from New Labour...whoops, the New Conservatives.

These schemes were tried before in the eighties under various names, Y.O.P.s being one of them.

All that happened was that unscrupulous employers took advantage of cheap subsidised labour, then got rid of them after twelve months, only to take on the next one.

I think the public would find any party more appealing if they were really intent on being tough over the abuse of the benefits system.

Sadly this doesn't seem the case here.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 581663)

if ya read my post,i said there was good mileage in the idea, so therefore ya have no need to defend the proposals, as for pointing out, i have no intention if ya can't see them, aint getting into any discussion with you, just stating me view.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 581667)

The company gets paid when the person has been in a job for a year. The companies would be providing training and the 'employees' would be doing community work as well. It's not a case of the tax payer subsidising a sweatshop so that private companies can wreak the benifits of free labour.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 581672)

....and therefore unscrupulous employers can take advantage of a subsidised workforce, thus taking away 'real' jobs that people could do to support themselves and their families, and which paid a fair wage.

It's all been tried before.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 581676)

I don't really see what your alternative is, should we not train people?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 581677)

As I said earlier retraining is fine, but the creation of an unpaid workforce, in competition with people who are currently employed, is counterproductive.

I'm afraid this (not) new proposal hasn't made me want to vote for the Conservatives, though a party who actually were tough on this, or other issues, might.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 581613)

Under new Conservative proposals people aged between 18-21 who are capable of working will be placed on an intensive programme of work-related activity provided by a specialist employer. The aim being to get them into work. Refusal to attend would mean a removal of benefits.

If still jobless after a year they would be moved to a full-time 12 month community work programme. The idea being that ‘whilst young people may not always get the job they want immediately, they are better off in a job and looking to move on than languishing outside of the work place.’

I think its a great idea. There is no reason why hard working tax payers should have to support those who cannot be bothered. Doing it whilst young is the best time as it doesn’t give them chance to fall into the benefits cycle.

More details will be released in a speech tomorrow.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 581680)

As has been said It isn't going to create an unpaid workforce competing with other people. Therefore I hope you will support the proposals. :)

Originally Posted by Pendle Red (Post 581681)

Nothing new just a rehash of what has already been tried and failed.