Tough Plans for Young Jobless

andrewb · 26-05-2008, 10:04

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.

AccyLass · 26-05-2008, 10:07

Wonder why it is only aimed at the 18-21 yr olds

andrewb · 26-05-2008, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by AccyLass27

Wonder why it is only aimed at the 18-21 yr olds

There are plans for over 21's, but I guess its 'easier' to work on people not already set in the benefits mindset therefore the under 21's plan is much tougher. Their aim must be to slowly weeding out the mindset as time goes on and the younger generation get older.

Their proposals for over 21's came out last January and included putting people on 12 month work programmes if they were jobless for 2 years. Which would include training but also valuble community work.

garinda · 26-05-2008, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Which would include training but also valuble community work.

Such as?

cashman · 26-05-2008, 10:21

whilst i think theres good mileage in the idea, my reservations are, that as all political parties they will go for the easy touch n penalise the wrong people to a degree, this has always happened in many areas of life, why should this idea be any differant?

AccyLass · 26-05-2008, 10:22

Well it's good they are trying to find ways of getting people into work, hopefully there isn't a "way round it"

andrewb · 26-05-2008, 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

whilst i think theres good mileage in the idea, my reservations are, that as all political parties they will go for the easy touch n penalise the wrong people to a degree, this has always happened in many areas of life, why should this idea be any differant?

Who would be the wrong people in this scenario?

andrewb · 26-05-2008, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Such as?

I presume this would mean community work such as removing graffiti, community improvement projects etc.

garinda · 26-05-2008, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

I presume this would mean community work such as removing graffiti, community improvement projects etc.

So if you had a vast army of people doing this for free, it would mean the people currently employed to do this work would be out of a job?

I'm all for retraining and cutting benefits if people refuse to work, but this idea sounds counterproductive.

Companies, and councils, that currently employ people to do this work would have to lay them off...and I suppose they'd then end up on one of these schemes, doing for free what they were once paid to do.

cashman · 26-05-2008, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Who would be the wrong people in this scenario?

well if ya can't think of any,i must be wrong. its a perfect world.

'erindoors · 26-05-2008, 10:44

I read about this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7419748.stm

andrewb · 26-05-2008, 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

well if ya can't think of any,i must be wrong. its a perfect world.

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.

derekgas · 26-05-2008, 10:47

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

andrewb · 26-05-2008, 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

So if you had a vast army of people doing this for free, it would mean the people currently employed to do this work would be out of a job?

I'm all for retraining and cutting benefits if people refuse to work, but this idea sounds counterproductive.

Companies, and councils, that currently employ people to do this work would have to lay them off...and I suppose they'd then end up on one of these schemes, doing for free what they were once paid to do.

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.

jaysay · 26-05-2008, 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

So if you had a vast army of people doing this for free, it would mean the people currently employed to do this work would be out of a job?

I'm all for retraining and cutting benefits if people refuse to work, but this idea sounds counterproductive.

Companies, and councils, that currently employ people to do this work would have to lay them off...and I suppose they'd then end up on one of these schemes, doing for free what they were once paid to do.

I can see your point Rindi, but when you look around I'm sure you have said more than once "why don't they do something about that" things that never get done. I think its a matter of doing away with the street corner culture which has sprung up over the last 10 to 15 years (and that is not a political comment). Although I'm a little older than you, but it did not happen when we were young, somehow we have to get back on track and at least this is a step in the right direstion, but there is a long way to go.