Grayling’s gonna come after you. You have been hijacked by SWP.
LOL (as they say)…….

Hi, not sure if my browser is not displaying correctly or not but I can only see Boots, Greggs and WHSmith here – I thought there were many others participating? Also your sentence makes no sense:

“Below are companies still part of this slave-labour scheme. And they are continuing to be part of it even though many others such as Tesco, Superdrug and the charity Mind.”

Or is this a draft post accidentally published.. Sorry, confused..!

The other major problem with ALL this, is that it will stop job creation because their is no incentive to create jobs when you get a work force for free.

People do not appear to have noticed this problem yet. Getting people to work for free stops job creation. If I was running a company why employ staff when I can get a steady stream of Free Workers. Great one because I would not have to sort out complicated tax forms, national insurance, holiday pay, pensions and much more. Unemployment will not come down leap and bounds when there is a massive free work force to be forced into work. Even if people did want to work voluntarily it would take away paid employment for others.

The United Kingdom is becoming a slave nation.

Part of the Tory fallacy that you can force people to work in jobs that don’t exist. Instead of traditional ‘job creation’ as in the past when a government boosted the economy and created jobs thus, this is wallpapering over very deep and leaky cracks.

A colleague just pointed out to me that a person working for free may not be covered by insurance should something go wrong. The insurance policies do not cover persons forced by the DWP to work for free. The insurance companies are more likely to argue that the DWP are liable for an accidence or incidences. The injured person may find no recourse to justice or compansation. What if a person became ill as a result of the forced labour or disabled.

We are mindful that insurance companies are good at taking your money and also good at finding excuses not to pay out.

I’ve corrected the grammatical error. Published this half in draft earlier.

Hi Sunny,

Do you have any evidence that Boots are participating in workfare? because I have contacted them and they gave this statement:

“As a company our policy has never been to participate in schemes which compel people to work on a mandatory basis or use people on work placement to replace paid employment. We do offer voluntary placements to individuals who want to gain work experience for periods of up to two weeks as part of our local community stores activities.”

JB @ 7

To be honest with you, this is just corporate bullshit. They are picking a form of words to weasel their way out of bad publicity. The idea that these schemes are ‘voluntary’ is laughable. They may according to the letter of the law be ‘voluntary’, but I have heard a few instances where people who try and turn down a placement are threatened with sanctions.

@8

Jim, I am aware that’s probably the case; but I would still like to see, for journalistic reasons, the evidence to show Boots has participated in workfare.

I don’t doubt it is, Jim. I would like to see some evidence that shows Boots are participating in the scheme though.

Seen this? http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/vulnerable-man-lauds-volunteers-who-'keep-him-going'-201202214918/

Dear Pizza Hut

I applaud your decision not to pay workers in order to give them experience. In order to show my support I will come to your restaurant, have a meal, then leave without paying. Hopefully this will give your company experience in serving food so that if any paying customers come, you’ll know what to do.

No need to thank me, we’re all in this together.

Sunny, you’ve missed quite a fair few names off this list. The health food chain Holland & Barrett certainly partake in these schemes and they’ve made some bold claims as to how ‘successful’ the schemes have been. There’s some irony regarding a firm making such a big committment to ‘Fair Trade’ being involved in this.

@9. James Bloodworth

I think the problem here is that some firms are being a bit ambiguous regarding the nature of ‘voluntary’. Boots seem to be under that impression themselves or are wanting to give others the impression that there was no coercion involved and all these things were done ‘locally’ with no real central policy about workfare.

There’s a lot of confusion, generally, about ‘voluntary’. As was noted by the Tory defence on Paxo, the other night. There’s a lot of defence about short term placements being ‘voluntary’ (which doesn’t seem to be the case with some ‘enthusiastic’ implementers anyway) but a complete avoidance of the issue of Mandatory Work placements (the name is a clue here) or the various programmes being forced onto the sick and disabled which are not only mandatory but potentially endless with no limited to the time they’re imposed.

Obscene.

@ 13. Oliver
on Holland and Barret

Though not surprising that a company selling herbal remedies and vitamin supplements with bold claims of success but lacking real evidence might make similarly bold claims about the success of workfare despite evidence to the contrary.

“In order to show my support I will come to your restaurant, have a meal, then leave without paying. ”

But serving you a meal for free now will provide them will valuable experience that could lead to you considering paying for a meal in the future

James @9:

Technically, there’s no such thing as Workfare. It is a generic term being used to describe different schemes. The Work Experience programme, which I suspect is the one being used by Boots, is not officially compulsory (the Mandatory Work Activity programme is), though benefit is cut if you attend for a week then stop. So Boots can legitimately say what they’ve said. The problem is that lots of people pushed towards the WE programme don’t know it’s not compulsory, simply because they’re either being lied to or not told their rights by their placement officers. So in effect it is compulsory – just in a way that allows Boots to say it’s not.

Proposed further Q to Boots: “Can you confirm that none of the people who have attended your stores for work experience placements under the govt’s Work Programme are aware of the non-compulsory nature of the scheme, and that they are entitled to leave the placement within their first week of their attendance without risk of benefit sanction?” Or s’thing similar

See, this is a useful protest.

You’ve identified the offending parties, you’ve said what they are doing wrong, you’ve given us the option of hitting them financially (through promoting a boycot) and you’ve offered them a way out by drawning a line under those who have pulled out already.

“Exploitative” …”slave-labour scheme”…

Sunny should have a strapline saying: ‘Never Knowingly Understated!’

If you imagine that companies are profiting from these placements, you have little understanding of management or business. The costs of workfare to the companies are large – induction, explaining all relevant corporate policies, Health & Safety, uniforms, CRB checks, insurance, government forms, …and then the difficulty of finding ‘work’ for inexperienced workers, and supervising, instructing, monitoring and managing them..

And if these ‘workers’ are coerced by the state to turn up for their benefits, they will often be uncooperative, have little interest in learning a job, be sullen, angry, disruptive and potentially criminal.

I once worked for a charity that provided two-week placements for the Duke of Edinburgh Award. Even with bright, willing students – and plenty of time to plan what they might do – the students were a cost to us. Their labour, though not without value, never covered the costs the charity incurred by offering the placements.

No, companies are not doing this for profit. They’ll be paying for it out of their corporate social responsibility budgets. Once they believe they don’t earn any good publicity from participating, they’ll back out and save the money.

Jimmy @14:

Applause!

I would distinguish between these programmes for young people and those who are older. I would support some programmes like this for the young who might have never worked. Maybe not university graduates, but the NEETS from places like Tottenham and Hackney who live on estates like the Pembury Estate where unemployment rates touch the 50% mark, whilst hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europans have managed to get jobs from right under their noses.
In the big London hotels for example, where a huge proportion of the workforce is from overseas, and the local unemployed youth have become somewhat unemployable.

Sending a middle aged bricklayer who can’t find work in that job because of the recession to work in a resturant as a dishwasher, might seem like ”workfare” but doing the same thing with a young person who’s never had a job could, could be the best thing for them.

And I really don’t know how much value some of these companies can ”extract” out of people sent along, as they could end up being more trouble than they’re worth if they really resent being there.

If Jamie Oliver was offering short experience courses for young people at his resturant, would you really HAVE to see it as exploitation? It could be a great opportunity.
I’m sure there are plenty of parents who would love their unemployed NEETs to get on such a placement.

TONE @ 18

No, companies are not doing this for profit.

Perish the thought. Imagine accusing upstanding, thoroughly decent organisations like Tesco and MacDonalds of attempting to make money from other people’s misery. Of course they are doing this out of philanthropy.

They’ll be paying for it out of their corporate social responsibility budgets.

Oh, than why is it that we have to dig deep to find out the information? Social responsibility? Pull the other one. Tesco are a money making machine and do give a fuck about ‘responsibility’ one way or another. What they mean by corporate responsibility’ is cover stuff up that may put people off shopping with them.

They did show much responsibility when they hollow out our town centres, do they?

I wrote an email to my Union the CWU to get clarification of Royal Mails position.

The Deputy General Secretary wrote back :

The CWU has not, does not and will not support Workfare. We will oppose by all means necessary any attempt to force unemployed people into extended periods of unpaid work under threat of losing their benefits.

The Royal Mail Work Experience Programme is not ‘Workfare’. It is a completely voluntary 4 week scheme involving up to 80 volunteers. It was on this basis that CWU engaged in discussion with Royal Mail.

The CWU has already been able to build in major safeguards that will not only ensure the scheme is voluntary in practice, but also provides mentoring and real support for volunteers. Crucially, the CWU has already obtained strong commitments that will guarantee permanent jobs arising from the 4 week voluntary placements.

The current situation is that the scheme is not now due to commence until March 2012. The Royal Mail is aware that before CWU confirms our continuing support for the voluntary scheme described above, we will need to conclude ongoing discussions with the company, designed to secure even stronger guarantees.

Rather than a weak position – the CWU has and will continue to take a strong position – based on proper Trade Union principles that will set the benchmark for others to follow.

damon @ 20

In the big London hotels for example, where a huge proportion of the workforce is from overseas, and the local unemployed youth have become somewhat unemployable.

If there are fundamental problems with some of our youth, you are not going to rectify that with a short-term course stacking shelves or flipping burgers. Christ almighty, what is it with you people, there are millions of people already doing these jobs in the Country and there are dozens if not hundreds of people applying for every vacancy.

What these people need is not ‘placements’ in valueless skills, but jobs. Real wage paying, stand on your own two feet jobs. This Country is awash with part time and zero hour contracts, there is no shortage of labour. That is what you need to rectify. You do not do that by giving the corporate elites free labour.

If there are fundamental problems with some of our youth, you are not going to rectify that with a short-term course stacking shelves or flipping burgers.

You will, if the fundamental problem is that they are too lazy or incompetent to get out of bed and report to work on time. Which is indeed the problem with many unemployable British youth.

What these people need is not ‘placements’ in valueless skills, but jobs. Real wage paying, stand on your own two feet jobs. This Country is awash with part time and zero hour contracts, there is no shortage of labour. That is what you need to rectify. You do not do that by giving the corporate elites free labour.

Very true Jim. The Rodent has an interesting take on the whole workfare which you might find good reading. http://flyingrodent.blogspot.com/2012/02/crimefare.html

Butttercup @ 24

How? How will a three week work placement change that person?

Jimmy @12 – just posted that on the Pizza Hut website. I wonder how long it will stay up there?

FB page, I mean.

Jim @ 21:

Tesco and McDonalds don’t want to “make money from other people’s misery”: rather, they want satisfied customers and healthy profits. Providing unpaid work placements is not a profitable activity: if it were, the companies concerned would not be bailing out of the schemes so rapidly – instead, they would be fighting their corner.

The companies signed up to these schemes because they imagined they would get some positive publicity from them – if only in the ‘corporate social responsibility’ section of their annual reports. Faced with an hysterical and mendacious campaign against these work placements, many companies are withdrawing from the schemes, because they can get a better image boost from donating to the arts, or to environmental projects or giving staff paid leave to assist charities…

“They did show much responsibility when they hollow out our town centres, do they?”

First, there is little evidence that the presence of out-of-town supermarkets (as opposed to out-of-town shopping centres) results in lower footfall on high streets. And, second, even if there were such evidence, it is not Tesco et al who are hollowing out town centres but their customers – who, by going to Tesco et al, show that they like what such stores offer and where such stores offer it.

Jim @ 26:

“How will a three week work placement change that person?”

Such placements can help a significant percentage of people, as evidence from Canada, the US and Australia indicates.

TONE @ 29

The companies signed up to these schemes because they imagined they would get some positive publicity from them – if only in the ‘corporate social responsibility’ section of their annual reports.

Hang on though they made no effort whats-so-ever to make any publicity from it. The one thing Tesco and McDonald’s do well is milk good publicity for what it is worth. Yet, I was not even aware of Tesco’s invovlement in this scheme. Until this week I was not aware of any of this these businesses were in this scheme. I could name about half a dozen things off the top of my head that these companies do and I bet I will have heard of most of Social responsibility schemes they are in, but this has been kept quiet.

Such placements can help a significant percentage of people, as evidence from Canada, the US and Australia indicates.

What evidence would that be, because it was not the evidence that DWP found when looking at ‘workfare’ schemes in those very Contries, is it?

There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.

Subsidised (‘transitional’) job schemes that pay a wage can be more effective in raising employment levels than ‘work for benefit’ programmes. Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/02/23/workfare-what-does-the-evidence-show/

I’m surprised that the NHS hasn’t been instructed to take on workfare jobbers as part of the drive to make efficiency savings.

Surely Lansley hasn’t missed out on another opportunity?

The 800,000 people who claim Jobseekers Allowance will be assessed to see what abilities could help them find work, such as better reading, writing or computer skills.

They will then be forced to attend lessons and if they refuse, their benefits will be cut.

Ministers believe that as there are almost 700,000 job vacancies in the economy, unemployed people are only being held back from working by their lack of skills or motivation.

They also want to extend compulsory training to single parents and Incapacity Benefit claimants who are able to carry out some work, in order to reduce the burden of their handouts on taxpayers.

James Purnell, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said: “Signing up for benefits should be a contract for individuals to do whatever they can to get themselves into work – skills training is pivotal in getting people equipped to work.

This was of course before we knew that labour had let in nearly four million immigrants, and not even they had taken one of labours many jobs they had on offer.

I would worry far more about where labour is heading and less about where the Tories are going.

Mr Purnell we are told knows how to fix the unemployed, I suspect he will make a funny hand movement and wear a funny moustache

Jim, I know we don’t always see eye-to-eye, but you’re on fire in this thread. Keep it up.

Gregs? I wouldn’t wanna work there for pay!

3. Mr A James

Getting people to work for free stops job creation. If I was running a company why employ staff when I can get a steady stream of Free Workers. Great one because I would not have to sort out complicated tax forms, national insurance, holiday pay, pensions and much more.

If you only employed unskilled, unmotivated workers you might have a point. But virtually no one does. A worker with experience and skills is worth paying. A yoof with a bad attitude and a drug habit is not. Getting people to work for “free” does not happen, but in so far as it does, it is unlikely to affect job creation.

Unemployment will not come down leap and bounds when there is a massive free work force to be forced into work. Even if people did want to work voluntarily it would take away paid employment for others.

If they are forced into work, then unemployment will come down. There isn’t a fixed number of jobs to hand out. It will not happen over night but it will happen. You pay people to work, new jobs are created. The economy grows – especially once these charmers aren’t out smashing our windows and stealing our DVDs. New jobs are created. Wages rise. Everyone gets a paying job.

The United Kingdom is becoming a slave nation.

It is not slave labour.

I think everyone ought to be ashamed. These companies were actually paying to help the unemployed. They are going to be hounded out of these schemes and the young people they used to help will be back on the dole, no better off. They could have got some experience and something useful to put on their CVs. Instead they will be getting pissed in the street and stealing your mobile phone. Well done.

@ 36 SMFS

“These companies were actually paying to help the unemployed.”

Yes, paying overheads to get workers, whereas usually they’d have to pay minimum wage (or more) AND overheads! What misunderstood saints they are.

Of course you can paint the bullies as the bullied if you’re prepared to declare that up is down and black is white. Doesn’t mean you’re being insightful or clever.

37. Chaise Guevara

Yes, paying overheads to get workers, whereas usually they’d have to pay minimum wage (or more) AND overheads! What misunderstood saints they are.

No, usually they would not employ these people at all.

Of course you can paint the bullies as the bullied if you’re prepared to declare that up is down and black is white. Doesn’t mean you’re being insightful or clever.

As the rest of LC shows every day.

The point is this scheme would have helped people. Because the Left’s traditional dog-in-the-manger attitude that says no benefit to the poor is justifiable if someone rich gets a single identifiable benefit out of it, these people, the lowest on the socio-economic ladder will be left to rot. You have nothing better to offer. Just pure cynical destruction.

@ 38 SMFS

“No, usually they would not employ these people at all.”

In which case, they’re getting labour at a fraction of the usual cost. Either way it’s to their benefit. Companies rarely act out of the goodness of their collective hearts, and to be honest that’s ok: they’re machines for generating profit, not conglomerates of philanthropists. The problem arises when people such as yourself misrepresent their motives.

“As the rest of LC shows every day.”

Sure. Doesn’t justify you doing it, does it?

“The point is this scheme would have helped people.”

Some, sure. Almost any idea has some upsides and some downsides. Generally, though, it would have allowed people to be exploited while killing the very jobs those people are supposed to be getting. Super.

“Because the Left’s traditional dog-in-the-manger attitude that says no benefit to the poor is justifiable if someone rich gets a single identifiable benefit out of it, these people, the lowest on the socio-economic ladder will be left to rot. You have nothing better to offer. Just pure cynical destruction.”

I see your tinfoil hat is on again. Let me know when you’ve got something to offer other than straw men. Cos, y’know, I have no objection to companies making money, and I disagree with those people on the left who think that saying “the greedy capitalists will profit!” is some kind of knock-down argument.

There’s something I’ve been wondering about. Do you genuinely think that you can effectively debate an idea by attacking the worst arguments for it and ignoring all the strong ones? Or are you deliberately trolling when you do this?

39. Chaise Guevara

In which case, they’re getting labour at a fraction of the usual cost. Either way it’s to their benefit. Companies rarely act out of the goodness of their collective hearts, and to be honest that’s ok: they’re machines for generating profit, not conglomerates of philanthropists. The problem arises when people such as yourself misrepresent their motives.

Sorry but no. We have no idea what the costs are but it is unlikely that they were getting anything useful out of these people at all. What little work they were doing was likely off set by the costs they imposed on the companies involved.

In your black and white world companies may be full of evil overlords, but in reality companies often do good out of the goodness of their collective hearts. They may try to dress this up as advertising, or they may openly do it for corporate social responsibility reasons. But they often do it. As you can see every day in the UK if you look to see who funds what. They do generate profits. And they may well think that this will help them in the long run. They may like the publicity. And they may well need to show shareholders they are good citizens.

But what is true is that you have no idea what their motivations are. You are assuming. You are assigning them a part in your own little drama. Unfairly. Or at least without evidence.

Some, sure. Almost any idea has some upsides and some downsides. Generally, though, it would have allowed people to be exploited while killing the very jobs those people are supposed to be getting. Super.

We know it would have helped people. We have no idea if it would have killed jobs or not. It is highly likely that it wouldn’t have. You simply go on assuming what you need to assume to justify your petty attitude to these schemes.

I see your tinfoil hat is on again. Let me know when you’ve got something to offer other than straw men. Cos, y’know, I have no objection to companies making money, and I disagree with those people on the left who think that saying “the greedy capitalists will profit!” is some kind of knock-down argument.

And yet the irony, which you totally do not get, is that your entire argument is that and little else. It is not a strawman. You have just spent some time arguing that Tesco might make money and so it is evil.

There’s something I’ve been wondering about. Do you genuinely think that you can effectively debate an idea by attacking the worst arguments for it and ignoring all the strong ones? Or are you deliberately trolling when you do this?

You have strong arguments? Maybe the problem is you think you do. Maybe I give you too much credit.

21. Jim

Perish the thought. Imagine accusing upstanding, thoroughly decent organisations like Tesco and MacDonalds of attempting to make money from other people’s misery. Of course they are doing this out of philanthropy.

Maybe Jim, maybe. But on the other hand, why is the Royal Mail involved? Are you claiming they are attempting to make money off other people’s misery? Well it is possible I suppose. How about some of those other people doing it? From the original article:

Below are companies still part of this slave-labour scheme. They continue to be part of it even though others such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Superdrug and the charity Mind have pulled out.

The charity Mind? What are they doing in the scheme Jim? Do you think they are attempting to make money from other people’s misery too? Do tell. Explain to us how this scheme provides no benefits to the unemployed at all – and how Mind is ripping them off.

Update 1: RSPCA have been taken out of the list. They backed out.

Really? The RSPCA is ripping off people and making money by exploiting their misery too? Do tell Jim. Explain that one to me.

Or is it just possible that this was a good scheme and that charities recognised that and so got involved?

they do work experience at school nobody bats an eyelid, but if your children are in school and you claim the only reason your not working is no work, or you do not meet the criteria to forfill the job vacancy then then why not,
do some work experience for your money, I see no reason, why people should complain,
mind you the companies could donate money to charities ( equivilent to wages ) to show they not abusing the system to save money,
but trying to support the cause so to speak.

mind you it could be made that its only be actual charities that get this, instead of paying people to raise money, use people on state benefits, and they too must meet targets to gain benefits,
well if people are doing volentry work for their benefits, and gaining work experience, less chance that those whom are committing benefit fraud, will not be able to as easy, but actually choice to re educate themselves re train and find a new job,

@42 I recall my work experience at school, I wouldn’t exactly call it comparable to these schemes which are literal ‘work’. The big irony with the current workfare flap is those who think doing actual work stacking shelves and manning tills etc is ‘work experience’, are the ones calling those who object ‘job snobs’. Methinks they ought to look into a mirror to see what a job snob looks like.

The elephant in the room is the fact that there are not enough jobs to round. There is little point in giving people ‘work experience’ if the ‘experience’ is useless. There are countless people stacking shelves in this Country and countless more who apply for each of these jobs.

Supermarkets have been in business here for fifty years. In all that time, we have seen people who have never stacked a shelf in their entire lives become shelf stackers. Tesco, ASDA and the like have managed to find people to stack shelves who have no experience in that particular field, yet here we are, we have somehow stumbled to the year 2012, half a centaury after the beginning of the industry to find that we will only start people who have experience? Pull the other one, sunshine, it has bells on.

You didn’t bother with that attitude in the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties, so what has changed? I know what has changed, what has changed is we have got millions of people with no work and a hysterical, Right Wing driven panic regarding the unemployed as scapegoats. The same people who clamour for workfare today where the same people who supported workhouses a centaury ago.

We have had unemployment in this Country for centuries and you cunts never bothered an inch about then, because the mass unemployed suffered. It never bothered you because the unemployed suffered. It is not the unemployment the vermin are complaining about, it is the lack of suffering that used to accompany it.

You want to know why so many people don’t work? Look around at the ‘socially responsible’ companies that have moved millions of jobs to the far East, the manufactures and the call centres, the back office staff and yes, the truth be told, the coal mining and ship building. Cameron talks about ‘big business’ being a force for good, well that is great, but there was no force for good when the bastards where closing British factories and throwing people onto the dole. That was not done for ‘social good’, it was done for stonking big profits and to fuck with the social consequences. So, here is a thing you need to consider; Tesco employ Poles and they advertise in Poland for staff. Do these jobs come with a ‘work for nothing’ for a month so we can size you up?

Nope, they are quite happy to give Poles work, even if they have never worked in a supermarket before. So ‘Social responsibility’ there, eh? No reation to the concerns of large scale immigration puts on community relations and pressure on public services, when profits are at stake.

If Tesco, ASDA, ARGOS et al, want to be ‘socially responsible’ why not publish an undertaking to sell only British made goods? Why not move all the production of clothes and electronics to this Country? Why not have British call centres? Take a cut in profits, up the price a bit and sell only British made goods? Nope, because, sure they want to be socially responsible, but only at a huge profit.

These people’s biggest nightmare is full employment. Let’s see Tesco get their shelves stacked when full employment means that no-one wants to work a nightshift in your shops, see how ‘socially responsible’ you are, then.

You are not a proper liberal, Sunny Hundal; you are expressing views that belong to a socialist of the hard left.

Welfare benefits are not an automatic right, and the state is within its rights to demand something in exchange, such as a bit of work.

That we have reached a state where people actually think that workfare is an unjust imposition implies that we as a society have become so blinded by socliasm that we have lost all our sense of individual human dignity.

It’s time people who call themselves liberals threw their Marxian tracts in the shredder and started reading some LIBERAL philosophers (such as Mill) for a change.

I entirely oppose workfare, however I do think Sunny has to be very careful here.

Below are companies still part of this slave-labour scheme.

Are we sure?

As has been pointed out, occasionally, there are, in fact, two schemes being run concurrently- a DWP work experience scheme where participation by job seekers is entirely voluntary and a Mandatory Work Activity scheme, where participation is, as the title suggests, mandatory on job seekers with the threat of the loss of benefits. It is the second scheme that could, reasonably, be described as workfare.

But are we certain that all the companies named were participating in the latter scheme?

Was Tesco?

This is important, because, although the re-tweeters couldn’t care less, if I were the director of a major company which was incorrectly accused of running a “slave labour scheme” (with all the negative goodwill and loss of business that ensues from such a smear) I would undoubtedly be instructing my lawyers to make an example of someone by now.

So, unless we are sure of our ground, I’d strongly suggest it is inadvisable to be too much at the front of the pack with this kind of allegation.

45
The welfare state is a capitalist phenomenon, it is designed to re-distribute resources when markets have not worked. Socialism it aint, in a socialist society, access to resources are distributed within the economic base, the thing that capitalism is suppose to do but doesn’t.

pagar

You are quite right.

Sunny is confusing two schemes.

The Work Experience Scheme is voluntary to join. This is the one supermarkets etc have been part of, but are now dropping out of.

The Mandatory scheme mostly involves being sent to Council or Third Sector projects – and does not involve commercial outfits.

So far, c 50% of those who have completed the Work Experience Scheme have found jobs….. many with the companies they did the scheme with. So Sunny’s campaign is likely to do young people out of jobs.

The WE Scheme is described as

The Work Experience Programme

The Work Experience programme is for people aged 18 years or older. The programme includes work experience, job search skills and job skills. It aims to give people experience of a real working environment and lasts for between two and eight weeks.

Although Work Experience is voluntary to join, it becomes compulsory once you have accepted a place. This means that if you fail to attend without a good reason, or lose your place due to misconduct, your JSA can be stopped.

@ 40 SMFS

“Sorry but no. We have no idea what the costs are but it is unlikely that they were getting anything useful out of these people at all. What little work they were doing was likely off set by the costs they imposed on the companies involved. ”

Weird that. These people would generally be doing the sorts of jobs that companies pay people to do… but give them to the companies as free workers, and their impact on the firm, cost-wise, is neutral at best! Interesting maths.

“In your black and white world companies may be full of evil overlords, but in reality companies often do good out of the goodness of their collective hearts.”

Some companies are founded on worthy principles, some may find at some point they’ve been taken over by an ethical majority of shareholders, still more may have a moral and persuasive CEO.

The problem is that this isn’t always true, and anecdotally I think it’s rarely true. Either way, that means this system can be exploited by companies that aren’t moral.

As for companies making a show of morality for reasons of brand image, the problem with this is if it’s a cost/benefit calculation, they’re likely to find a few relatively cheap but ostentatious projects to crow about, and elsewhere continue with business as usual, whatever “usual” is for that company. For an unethical company, this might mean continuing to source goods from exploited third-world labour, treating your staff like crap and so on.

Giving, say, a million pounds to a rejuvanation project may look like a lot of cash, but for a multinational it’s probably cheaper and has a far bigger ROI than improving working conditions across the firm. You can put a big photo of the project on your website, and it’ll even pay for itself to some extent as you can probably tell the project workers to slap your logo on everything.

Finally, even ethical companies can run into these problems if they’re big enough, which isn’t actually very big. As shareholders and the CEO can’t realistically have direct oversight of ever action made and decision taken by every one of their employees, unpleasant practices can creep in lower down the chain. Sometimes because some of their employees are just arseholes who like to bully underlings, but more likely because the incentives are just set up that way – upper management can say what it likes about proper behaviour, but if your job is to maximise the output of your local store you’ve got a strong incentive to bend or even break the rules to achieve that.

“We know it would have helped people. We have no idea if it would have killed jobs or not. It is highly likely that it wouldn’t have. You simply go on assuming what you need to assume to justify your petty attitude to these schemes.”

Ah, so your rational inferences are allowed but mine aren’t.

If you allow companies to fill entry-level jobs with free workers, at least some of them will do so, hence meaning that these positions will no longer exist as paid roles. Get a clue, seriously. Stop treating arguments like soldiers. It doesn’t actually do any damage to agree to something that’s hugely obvious, just like I agree that the scheme would help some individuals. It just stops our conversation from running into the brick wall of selective stupidity.

“And yet the irony, which you totally do not get, is that your entire argument is that and little else. It is not a strawman. You have just spent some time arguing that Tesco might make money and so it is evil.”

Firstly, that wouldn’t be irony, it would just be me lying. Happily, though, it’s not true. The argument on the table, the one we both agree is bunkum, is that workfare is a bad idea simply because companies would profit from it. I pointed out that companies would profit from it to counter your claim that they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, NOT as a reason in itself that workfare is a bad idea. It appears that you are the one equating profit with evil, not me.

I don’t think profit is a bad thing, but I do think the desire for profit would drive SOME companies to exploit workers under this scheme. And it’s that exploitation, not the making of profit, that is bad. Do you get it now? If not, just reread our conversation paying attention to all of the words, instead of skimming for things to take out of context. Cheers.

“You have strong arguments? Maybe the problem is you think you do.”

As identified above, the problem is that you failed to understand (or, knowing you, more likely deliberately misunderstood) one of the arguments that I’d consider strong. As I already said, you’re now bashing the weak argument that “this leads to profit and profit is bad”, which regardless of whether you failed or refused to understand my point is a straw man when used against me, because I’ve made it clear that I’m not using that argument and don’t agree with it. Again, let me know when you’ve managed to catch up with the conversation.

“Maybe I give you too much credit.”

Despite your famously charitable outlook and desire to see the best in everyone, I somehow doubt this is the case.

@ steveB 47,

“The welfare state is a capitalist phenomenon”

I know what you mean, but not really. The welfare state is imposed, as the name suggests by the state, and was done so by socialistically-minded politicians.

” it is designed to re-distribute resources when markets have not worked.”

The markets work, but not to induce equality or bring about a quasi-socialist society, which would be unnatural. Socialism can only be imposed by force, and markets are concerned with free exchange.

“Socialism it aint, in a socialist society, access to resources are distributed within the economic base, the thing that capitalism is suppose to do but doesn’t.”

In a socialist society, there is no welfare state. Unemployment is illegal. You are allocated a job. You have no freedom of choice in the matter. Capitalism leaves people with freedom, that being the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. You may prefer the socialist society, or you may prefer freedom. If you are a utilitarian, you should chose freedom, as it works better for everyone than central planning and serfdom.

flowerpower @ 48

So far, c 50% of those who have completed the Work Experience Scheme have found jobs….. many with the companies they did the scheme with. So Sunny’s campaign is likely to do young people out of jobs.

That is not strictly true; because not everyone goes on to find work, some go onto further education as well. However, even if we accept that many of these people go on to get work there is not a shred of evidence that workfare played a part in that. Who knows how many of those people who found work would have found work anyway? How many of those employers would have recruited staff, if the scheme never existed? Tesco have reported that three hundred young people have gone from this scheme into long-term work. Assuming that is true, surely Tesco would have employed staff to fill those vacancies anyway? Tesco employ a third of a million people, I cannot believe they have failed to spot the needs of the business until they were given free labour.

I’m finding the idea of ‘training’ and ‘experience’ in context to these schemes baffling. I’ve actually spoken to people on these schemes based in retail and it’s at odds with what most people would think of as training and experience and it’s certainly in line with the purportedly apocryphal examples on various blogs &c.

Grayling et al seems to be under the impression – or purposely giving the impression – that it’s almost a Bauhaus-style training approach where someone does a little bit of everything within an organisation and gains an comprehensive insight into the world of retail.

It’s doesn’t work like this at all. It literally is just shelf-stacking, sorting out rubbish and cleaning floors. The training necessary is very limited and is usually left to people to people unhappy and suspicious as to how and why people are coming and doing their job for free. There’s no real supervision as such and it’s not much more than ‘we get that from there, then place it there’ and ‘that’s where we keep the mop’ and ‘put the cardboard here and the rest there’. It’s not real training and there’s very little skill that’s gained from this.

The idea of ‘soft skills’ is similarly bizarre. A lot of people on workfare schemes already have histories of employment, training etc., where they’re used to getting-up out of bed and having to be in certain places at certain times. A lot of these people have families where people already depend on them, whether it’s kids of elderly parents. Much of the ‘soft skills’ argument is based on the idea that all the unemployed stay in bed until the late afternoon and is a fallacy.

As many of them are stacking shelves and having limited interaction with either other staff members or customers, it’s hardly developing communication skills either. And as for a instilling a work ethic and a desire for work, I’d have thought coercion and trickery would have been the worst ways to actually make someone actually want to do something.

They’re not even comparable to older schemes like the YTS as there’s no certification, there’s no college training or even real structure as in the sense of what a real course does. Yet, I’m seeing a lot of ‘it never did me any harm in the 1980s and now I’m a millionaire’ type defences on the internet.

Workfare, Mandatory Work Programmes, time-unlimited work schemes for the disabled and ‘maid credit’ schemes? This is government that’s determined to turn Downton Abbey and Upstairs Downstairs into documentaries.

Very good point by pager @45. It’s really pissing me off the way that this story is being mangled in the media. As far as I can tell it’s two different schemes, one for the young with work experience and one for everyone else.
And yet everyone is chosing to only talk about the scheme for young people, and the people running the programmes where it’s being discussed, whether it’s Question Time, This Week with Andrew Neil or Stephen Nolan on radio Five Live seem incapable of getting with the detail of what the facts are. The thing about it only being voluntary and being able to pull out in the first week without sanction. This applies to the young people’s scheme I think. Not for older workers who really are facing ”workfare”.

Can we at least get this clarified on Liberal Conspiracy?
Listening to Owen Jones (who sometimes writes on here) and the obnoxious Charlie Wolf, clashing on this last night on Five Live was funny to hear. But even Owen didn’t get this difference nailed, and allowed Woolf to wax on about the need to get ”kids” some work experience so they could then climb up the career ladder.
Fun but frustrating to listen to actually.

Damon @ 53

Neither scheme is voluntary. Once you are conscripted onto the mandatory scheme, that’s you, you have lost your human rights. You become a de facto indenture servant to the State and their benefactors. If you are unable to attend for any reason, you risk losing unemployed benefits.

The youth system is described as ‘voluntary’, but if you do not take up a place offered to you, you risk that decision being used against you at a further hearing. If you are sanctioned for a given reason and it goes to a decision maker, your past file is used against you.

‘So, Mr Smith, it appears that you have turned down a job on the grounds that you cannot get to the place of work on public transport. It says here you turned down a placement at Tesco as well’.

@ 53. damon

Not only are the Mandatory schemes barely getting a mention, the fact that people taken off sickness benefits and then placed on these schemes is not getting touched on at all. A friend of mine, mid-50s, a couple of heart attacks, a stroke which has left him with limited mobility on one side and a variety of other health issues has just been placed onto a Mandatory 6 month placement after being taken off sickness benefits by ATOS. He’s really worried as he’s been told that if he misses any time on his placement he’ll have his benefits removed. However, as his health is a real issue it’s inevitable he’ll have to have time off if the last few years are anything to go off.

An ex-partner of mine is a chronic agoraphobic with fairly severe mental health issues (been sectioned several times) and there’s been times when she’s been genuinely unable to leave the house for months and despite even ATOS saying she’s incapable of working and awarded ESA, she’s now been placed on a similar scheme by the job centre. As there was no way on earth she could attend this, she’s now in the process of having her benefits ‘sanctioned’.

Absolute scum.

damon @ 53

The Mandatory scheme is not really that common.

Here are the per-month figures since it was introduced last May.

May-2011 170
Jun-2011 1,390
Jul-2011 1,910
Aug-2011 2,590
Sep-2011 3,910
Oct-2011 5,940
Nov-2011 8,100

@56 – thats a pretty big rate of increase though.

What I don’t like about this issue is the way that the people opposed to it are (I think) playing with it for political purposes too. Like they did with the student fees issue and talked up the thing about poor students not being able to afford £9,000 a year. When they were not being asked to stump up £9,000 in advance, but pay back modest amounts once they were actually earning a fair wedge.

As the Occupy movement has faded away, this ”workfare” thing just seems to be the latest vehicle for people who can be quite cynical.

I’m oppesed to it myself btw, and when I hear all these people on TV saying how it’s a good thing, I find myself thinking how they would like it. How would Michael Portillo fancy working in a DFDS warehouse loading and unloading Sainsbuy’s lorries for a couple of months?
He wouldn’t, but thinks it shouldn’t apply to him, only others.
Because he has far better options and would never be in that situation.

Jim @ 51

Who knows how many of those people who found work would have found work anyway? How many of those employers would have recruited staff, if the scheme never existed?

But some of the kids who got jobs out of this scheme had been signing on at the Jobcentre for weeks without getting so much as an interview. Yet after a few weeks of experience, they were offered jobs. From the jobseeker’s perspective, the scheme looks more hopeful than just hanging out.

@ Jim

The youth system is described as ‘voluntary’, but if you do not take up a place offered to you, you risk that decision being used against you at a further hearing.

Evidence please?

50
Actually the author of the welfare state was William Beveridge (a liberal) and it is based on utilitarian principles, as was the New Poor Law, which it superceded.
The market doesn’t work, what we do know is that education for the masses in a newly industrial society was not forthcoming from the markets, neither was healthcare.
“socialism can only be imposed by force”
You mean as against liberalism? You obviously haven’t considered Robespierre’s reign of terror. And that is the myth that liberals live under, that liberalism is somehow innocent of imposing its’ will. How about Vietnam and My Lai, ostensibly liberalism fighting communism Indeed, this coming May sees the 41st anniversary of the Kent State massacre, when the USA created its’ own Tiananmen Square.
Socialism and force – stones and glass houses spring to mind.

they do work experience at school nobody bats an eyelid, but if your children are in school and you claim the only reason your not working is no work, or you do not meet the criteria to forfill the job vacancy then then why not,
do some work experience for your money, I see no reason, why people should complain,
mind you the companies could donate money to charities ( equivilent to wages ) to show they not abusing the system to save money,
but trying to support the cause so to speak.

Or they could donate the money to someone doing that job and, you know, call it a ‘wage’ or something.

@58. damon

“What I don’t like about this issue is the way that the people opposed to it are (I think) playing with it for political purposes too. Like they did with the student fees issue and talked up the thing about poor students not being able to afford £9,000 a year. When they were not being asked to stump up £9,000 in advance, but pay back modest amounts once they were actually earning a fair wedge.

As the Occupy movement has faded away, this ”workfare” thing just seems to be the latest vehicle for people who can be quite cynical.”

I’m not so sure that this is a problem. All these issues probably resonated with a hardcore of political activists but, at the same time, I think different issues also attracted different auxilliary protestors. The issue of ‘workfare’ is something that’s enraging a lot of the ‘right wing’ too – the comments sections of a lot of right wing press seem to be against this as much as the Guardian, left wing blogs and social networks. There’s little or no overlap with these people and the Occupy groups.

I think the tuition fees was a thing unto itself. Yes, on paper it might have looked like a good deal for students from poor backgrounds but I think the psychological factors of knowing you’d be saddled with a large long term debt – at a time when it’s inevitable that these same people will be the one suffering in this economic climate the longest – isn’t to be under-estimated.

Flowerpower @ 59

But some of the kids who got jobs out of this scheme had been signing on at the Jobcentre for weeks without getting so much as an interview.

There are peaks and troughs in every market. Sure you can go months without an interview, but is that down to your laziness, a rubbish CV or just the fact that the market is flat.

Yet after a few weeks of experience, they were offered jobs. From the jobseeker’s perspective, the scheme looks more hopeful than just hanging out.

But is this the top half of the unemployment bell curve who would have quickly found a job say, five or ten years ago? How many of these young people have found work anyway, had this scheme never existed, but we had real growth in the economy? Safe to say, those signing up are those with the appropriate levels of motivation? The truly lazy not worth being sent onto a course? Are we paying multi nationals money for taking on the types of people they would have employed anyway? Tesco have been employing school leavers for the last fifty years therefor it is hardly suprising that they have managed to do so now.

The trick is to get those with no chance of finding work into jobs. That is the figure we need to look at.

@60

Evidence please?

Given certain actions the DWP has started getting up to since workfare’s cover was blown, that might be a harder task than you know.

@63

but I think the psychological factors of knowing you’d be saddled with a large long term debt

Not to mention that much of the right in the period afterwards the the start of the crash spent great deals of energy blaming poor families in the states for getting themselves too heavily into debt and thus causing the crash. Then they began singing the prises of indebting yourself beyond your means for an education when the subject of tuition fees came up.

Joined-up ideology it ain’t.

@ 61,

I must ask; have you ever met a liberal or a libertarian who has held up Robbespierre as a hero, or even associated him with liberalism? The same applies to Richard Nixon vis à vis Kent State. As for Vietnam, you will find liberalism has long opposed foreign wars and imperialism. Cobden and Bright were dead against the Crimean War, for the same reasons that their political descendents opposed the Iraq War.

Actually, regarding Robbespierre, I was reading something very much connected only yesterday; an essay by Benjamin Constant who contrasted the concept of Liberty in the ancient and modern senses, which shows how people such as Robbespierre and Rousseau went so woefully astray. You can find a link and a quote on my blog if you care to.

“Actually the author of the welfare state was William Beveridge (a liberal) and it is based on utilitarian principles, as was the New Poor Law”

He may have called himself a liberal, but British liberalism had strayed very far from its original position by that time. Besides, the welfare state he authored was very different from the one we have now. It was conceived as a safety net only. It is a matter for conjecture how he would view these workfare schemes.

“The market doesn’t work, what we do know is that education for the masses in a newly industrial society was not forthcoming from the markets, neither was healthcare.”

We do not know this. We only know that this was claimed by socialists and statists at the time that they imposed it upon the nation. Certainly in the case of the NHS, this was a popular measure, but that doesn’t prove it to be the only way or the best way forward. There were schools and hospitals before the state intervened. The National Health Service was set up by establishing a government-run central planning authority over the existing health services, and by ‘stuffing the doctors’ mouths with gold’, in order to get them on board. It was driven by an ideology which did not doubt the necessity of central planning, whether it be for steel-making, house-building or health services.

66
You are making a perfectly valid point about liberalism, the many examples of brutality and force carried-out in the name of liberalism cannot be held-up to represent it. However, when I make the same distinction about socialism, liberals and libertarians don’t seem to see it that way.
Modern models of socialism are actually far more liberal and libertarian than you may think, for example, the ‘liberal’ part of socialism emphasizes individualism (as against the consumption of mass produced goods) which is a feature of late capitalism.
You are incorrect about markets and education within industrial societies, it wasn’t until some 30 years or so after the UK was fully industrialized that the state eventually stepped-in, so much for the view that markets are quick to respond to an identified need.
The welfare state was absolutely built on utilitarian principles, Beveridge emphasized the necessity of deterring people ‘choosing’ that lifestyle’;. I wonder what he would think about tax-credits?
As for central planning, planning is a feature of late capitalism as the market now relies mainly on mass produced products (which are shielded from competition by the hand of the state), sure markets can produce bread and butter but this would not sustain our economy
And as far as your analogy of serfdom goes, workfare is serfdom by any other name.

Jim @ 31:

“Hang on though they made no effort whats-so-ever to make any publicity from it. The one thing Tesco and McDonald’s do well is milk good publicity for what it is worth. Yet, I was not even aware of Tesco’s invovlement in this scheme. Until this week I was not aware of any of this these businesses were in this scheme. I could name about half a dozen things off the top of my head that these companies do and I bet I will have heard of most of Social responsibility schemes they are in, but this has been kept quiet.”

A facile conspiracy theory. Nobody has kept this quiet, though they have not trumpeted it either (because few would be that interested).

And you are assuming a conspiracy not only because your default setting is to be anti-profit but also because you fondly imagine the companies are profiting from this ‘free’ labour. They couldn’t be: the costs for them are too high, as I’ve explained above.

“There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.

Subsidised (‘transitional’) job schemes that pay a wage can be more effective in raising employment levels than ‘work for benefit’ programmes. Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high.”

Three points:

1. This report was commissioned by the DWP in 2008 from a couple of academics at a fourth-rate university. It is not and never has been the DWP’s official view.

2. The quote is highly selective. I suggest you read the report, which shows small (single figure) increases in compulsory workfare participants finding work and huge drops (up to 50%) in those ceasing to claim benefits when they know they have to do compulsory workfare. (If they cease to claim benefits, where are they going? The black economy? Crime? Or – perish the thought! – their claims were unnecessary or fraudulent? In any event, this represents a significant saving for the taxpayer.)

3. The scheme for young people at Tesco and elsewhere is not compulsory, though once they have started it they must complete it. So the quote from the DWP-commissioned report is not relevant here. We are not talking about compulsory workfare.

@44: “…the fact that there are not enough jobs to round.”
This sounds like the lump of labour/jobs fallacy, Jim. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

steveb @ 47:

“The welfare state is a capitalist phenomenon, it is designed to re-distribute resources when markets have not worked. Socialism it aint, in a socialist society, access to resources are distributed within the economic base, the thing that capitalism is suppose to do but doesn’t.”

But this socialism you refer to is a figment of your befuddled imagination. You and your ilk define it such a way that it has nothing or little in common with historical societies that have claimed to be socialist. Though this insulates you from criticism of socialism’s historical record, it also means that your characterisation of socialism consists of a cloud of vague generalities.

“in a socialist society, access to resources are distributed within the economic base”: what does your grammatically incorrect pontification mean, and where is the evidence for it?

Can I suggest that some people get on the phone tonight and call Stephen Nolan on his Five Live radio programme at midnight, when he’ll have (the horrible) Edwina Curry on as a guest, as well as this useless wishy-washy bishop who is an embarrassment to liberal and left wing causes, Sunny has been on this show a few times, so maybe even himself could get on the phone and tell Nolan to up his game and at least know what he’s talking about. During the week he’s also been talking about this on his radio programme in Northern Ireland, and he’s clueless about it.

You have to ask them do they have any understanding of what the ”Steps to Work” programme is. This is the one that most people on JSA are facing, not the one about ”kids doing a bit of work experience”. The odious Charlie Wolf was able to just blithely talk last night about getting ”youngsters” into any job, as having any job at all is worthwhile for young people, even if it’s unpaid, as (he said) something like 20% of all Americans started out flipping burgers in their first ever jobs. It sounds like such a no-brainer, but that isn’t what Steps to Work is doing.

Steps to Work is forcing people on JSA to take these temporary positions at companies like DFDS, working in large warehouses, loading trucks …. and you will be forced into doing that for JSA plus £15 no matter what you were doing before.
Whatever skills or experience you might have had, if you’re unemployed for six months or more, they’ll be trying to direct you into these JSA plus £15 positions in doing menial labour.

Meanwhile the SWP etc … and some people on LC I think, will just be playing with this issue and deliberately keeping it muddled and refering to it ALL as workfare.
No doubt the dreary Socialist Workers were out on the high streets all over Britain this morning calling out slogans like ”They say workfare – we say welfare” – and inviting people to sign their stupid petition against it.

It’s not good enough. Some clarity please. Hard to employ young people do need some special programmes, but those would probably always be opposed by the cynics. Even good programmes.

you really are the most childish halfwits aren’t you?

How on earth can a scheme be ‘slavery’ when you can walk away from it at any time? All you have to do is stop claiming benefits, and you’re free as a bird.

The Left’s hysterical hyperbole is a joy to behold, and if you think causing this scheme’s collapse will be any kind of victory,wait for the election. Taxpapers – ie, not you lot, on the dole or the public sector tit – don’t like paying for a dole lifestyle. They really don’t. So enjoy your shabby dishonest victory, it won’t be forgotten.

“pagar

You are quite right.

Sunny is confusing two schemes.”

That’s either because Sunny isn’t too bright, or because he isn’t too honest.

Hmm. Tough call.

@ 67 SteveB,

“You are incorrect about markets and education within industrial societies, it wasn’t until some 30 years or so after the UK was fully industrialized that the state eventually stepped-in, so much for the view that markets are quick to respond to an identified need.”

That proves nothing, it’s merely ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ and you are assuming that the state needed to step in, which is only that; an assumption. Or perhaps you’re under the influence of the Whig Theory of History, whereby state-run education happened after non-state education, therefore it must be progress.

What is clearly the case is that any measures of social betterment, whether instituted by government or evolving without such intervention, came about by the increase in prosperity due to industrialisation and capitalism.

“However, when I make the same distinction about socialism, liberals and libertarians don’t seem to see it that way.”

When I talk about socialism I am thinking of it as an economic system contrasted with a market economy. It is essentially the organisation of the economy on military lines. As such, the individual does not have freedom to choose what they do, nor do they have an incentive to work hard, as everyone gets the same from the common storehouse.

This is one of the problems with socialism, which socialists have never been able to deal with, except by claiming they will remodel human nature and create the ‘socialist man’, seen only in the statues of proud and muscular workers which once littered eastern Europe.

Liberalism never required foreign wars or empire, and only defensive violence. If the point you are making is that many of the purported defenders of liberalism have done things which are contrary to the spirit of liberalism, and that people such as Nixon are to be included in this category, then I must of course agree, but would maintain that such acts did not at all defend liberalism, even if they were supposed to do so. As for the violence associated with socialism, I would say that, due to the inherent denial of individual liberty which socialism embodies, the violence is necessary, is it not? Unless, I suppose, everyone agrees.

SOMEONE @ 72:

“That’s either because Sunny isn’t too bright, or because he isn’t too honest.

Hmm. Tough call.”

Not a tough call at all, as the options are not mutually exclusive.

73
IMHO, 30years waiting for the market to respond to a crucial need equates to failure.

You are still making reference to a system that was labelled as ‘socialism’, you see that’s the difference between you and me, I accept that the many examples of governments and movements who called themselves ‘liberal’ were anything but, let’s face it, it was the ‘Liberal government’ who introduced conscription in the UK. It was also the liberal democracy in Germany who voted for a dictatorship. The greatest defender of English imperialism was J.S. MIll, but hey, let’s not get pedantic
.
I am a great believer that industrial capitalism created a better standard of living (Marx is with you on this one) but it doesn’t make it the best system or one that cannot be bettered. No doubt the feudal lords believed that feudalism was the only game in town.

You also continue to propose that within a socialist society there is no choice, I am stating that in liberal/socialist models, choice is greater than the mass production of late capitalism, but you don’t even acknowledge this, being blinkered isn’t usually associated with liberalism.
69
Exactly what do you not understand when I state that ‘access to resources is distributed in the economic base’?

Yeah, I guess this stuff matters, but what matters more is that you do not buy The Sun on Sunday. Please, people. You’re letting your country, your class or whatever you like down by buying this rag. Don’t let Murdoch win.

@75 SteveB

“you see that’s the difference between you and me, I accept that the many examples of governments and movements who called themselves ‘liberal’ were anything but,”

I don’t dispute this at all. Rather, I stress that we are obliged to be clear in our definitions, otherwise we will not understand each other, which is important, even though we may still disagree. Your definition of liberal runs the gamut from Nixon to Robbespierre, so it may be useful to narrow it down somewhat! I have given the definition of socialism as an economic system, that being a centrally-planned economy of the type seen in east Europe, which had its echo in the nationalised industries in this country, and I give my definition of liberal, which is the original definition (peace, free trade, laissez-faire etc). I acknowledge that others have different definitions, which they are at liberty to have, but there’s no point arguing at cross-purposes, which is likely if we are not clear in what we mean with such abused political labels.

“The greatest defender of English imperialism was J.S. MIll, but hey, let’s not get pedantic”

You’re damn well right, and I blame him more than anyone for leading British liberalism astray from its libertarian roots. I’m glad you mentioned him, I almost had myself. He stands at the crossroads, pointing the right way and the wrong way.

“I am a great believer that industrial capitalism created a better standard of living (Marx is with you on this one) but it doesn’t make it the best system or one that cannot be bettered.”

Well, indeed. I would think that we (humanity) will always want to improve on our lot.

“No doubt the feudal lords believed that feudalism was the only game in town.”

Indeed they did, and they were most upset when the peasants pissed off to the factories. The capitalist era replaced feudalism, and brought much greater wealth, evidenced in the growth in population amongst other things. It is certainly the case that living conditions have improved gradually from the end of feudalism to the present time.

The issue here is whether socialism represents or ever did represent a progression from laissez-faire capitalism. I say not, and that there’s no reason ever to think so, due to the fatal flaws in the socialist plan – fatal to individual liberty and, indirectly, to prosperity.

“IMHO, 30years waiting for the market to respond to a crucial need equates to failure.”

A little disingenuous. The market responded. There were many schools (e.g., my nephews go to a state school founded by James I – about the only good thing he ever did). A good number of existing schools were taken over by the state. Others were co-opted, like the church schools. Others still were driven out of business when the state moved in. Liberals were split over such issues. The trendy ones had grown to like state intervention “for the greater good” – damn utilitarians – and could quote JS Mill to justify it, no doubt! The old ones warned of the dire consequences of allowing the state to spread ever-wider, after all the trouble they’d had putting fences in place around it. These Jeremiahs warned of the then coming, now entrenched, welfare-warfare state.

61. steveb

The market doesn’t work, what we do know is that education for the masses in a newly industrial society was not forthcoming from the markets, neither was healthcare.

Neither of those claims is true. Health Care was forthcoming. And the State took over education to make sure that children were taught the right thing, not that they were taught at all.

You mean as against liberalism? You obviously haven’t considered Robespierre’s reign of terror.

Yes, as against liberalism. Since when was the French Revolution about liberalism? Really the Hard Left is bizarre sometimes.

And that is the myth that liberals live under, that liberalism is somehow innocent of imposing its’ will. How about Vietnam and My Lai, ostensibly liberalism fighting communism

Vietnam being a war fought by liberal democracies in self defence, and to save the people of Indochina from genocidal maniacs like Pol Pot. It was and is more moral as wars go than WW2. What about My Lai?

Indeed, this coming May sees the 41st anniversary of the Kent State massacre, when the USA created its’ own Tiananmen Square.

The pathetic fellow travelling of the soft Left can be seen in the fact that they let this comment go unremarked. At Kent State students rioted for days. They attacked policemen and firemen. They cut fire hoses. They looted and burnt stores. They threw bottles. The National Guard was called out and when they were fired on, they fired back. A total of 67 bullets. Which killed 4 – they were not even trying. In Tiananmen students protested peacefully for the rights that idiots like steve have but abuse. And then the government ran them over with tanks. Killing thousands. Nation-wide repression followed. There is no sane comparison – and the silence of the rest of LC says a lot.

Socialism and force – stones and glass houses spring to mind.

Well you need to believe something to keep your faith up. But in reality socialism has killed more people than any other ideology in the history of the human race. Quite probably more than all of the others put together. It has blood on its hands.

Liberalism does not.

damon – I do take your point, up the thread, that it is possible some hard-to-employ young people with zero experience of work might, individually, benefit from this scheme whereas – as you say – for an older person, particularly someone with the health problems another commenter was describing, this seems inappropriate, unhelpful – even a punishment. But even in the cases where the young person might gain something, might use it as the springboard to a real job, I still think the scheme (or some versions of the scheme) is wrong because it subverts the minimum wage and potentially takes away jobs from others. (I understand from some of the other coverage I’ve read on this issue that this makes me a SWP supporter! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9103855/A-retreat-on-workfare-would-fail-our-young.html ) I’m not convinced that the company would lose out through training and induction time – that would be true in the case of an internship in a complex professional environment, but not if you are just stacking shelves. I’ve worked as a temp washing dishes and serving food and the training and induction probably took all of two minutes! In fact – why would companies use expensive temp agencies to find casual staff, if staff on short placements were a net loss to the business, as someone was claiming earlier.

78
I agree, there is as much confusion about liberalism as there is about socialism, but you continue to hold on to the notion that we can judge socialism by either the USSR or China (the planned economy) or by the Keynsian type post-war economy which was really capitalism with a welfare state and a demand economy.
As far as planning is concerned, the conditions of both the USSR and China were totally different to the late capitalism of the west, so we cannot point to this and state that planning per se does not work. Remember, large corporations now have to plan and rely on the state to protect their investments. If a company such as I.B.M. can plan for its’ massive market base, there is no reason why it can’t be done by a government agency.
You and I will never agree about the merits/demerits of socialism/liberalism however, at least it is possible to have a reasonable debate.

79
And we can always rely on SMFS, LC’s resident revisionist historian, where did you get your info about the Kent State massacre and the reason for the Vietnam war? I believe that there is a video on youtube which shows the events preceding the shooting of the students at the Kent State university, I’ll let others judge whether your comments are correct. And I don’t think it’s relevant how many students were killed, it was the the anti-liberal action by the state that was in question.

As far as body count is concerned, I would charge the liberal democracy of Germany,who voted for a dictatorship, for the millions massacred in that country, indeed, prior to this, anti-semitism had spread through this liberal ? society.
I’ve taken a quick look at Mr. Worstall’s blog, who has expressed amusement that, on LC, certain people seem to lump neo-liberals with the nazi regime. Personally I do not, but it is certainly understandable. Those who are aware that liberal societies have got a history of becoming illiberal in times of economic downturn; Germany and Austria, of course, and the struggle for Africa which was the aggressive imperialism of the west, not to mention the protectionism of the USA.

@ 81,

“there is as much confusion about liberalism as there is about socialism”

Yes, but this can be avoided by stating the definition we are using.

“you continue to hold on to the notion that we can judge socialism by either the USSR or China (the planned economy) … Remember, large corporations now have to plan and rely on the state to protect their investments.”

To be fair to myself, I did define what I meant by socialism in this way, to give those who wished it an escape hatch of ‘when I say socialism, I mean…’. The issue is not really planning versus no planning, it is central planning versus everyone planning. It is not that central planning doesn’t work, but that it doesn’t work as well as everyone planning for themselves. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by corporations relying on the state to protect their investments. If this is merely relying on the state to uphold property and contract, then that’s what we all do, is it not? That’s the key function even laissez-faire people concede to the government.

“You and I will never agree about the merits/demerits of socialism/liberalism however, at least it is possible to have a reasonable debate.”

It’s certainly possible to have a reasonable debate. I must confess that I’m not entirely sure what your view of socialism is. You seem to resent my definition of it as central planning and serfdom, but what else could it be?

If the Soviet Union, PR China and various failed states are all discounted as recommended socialist models, we have absolutely no idea about what it is that “socialism” amounts to.

A good starting point is to reflect on why it is that there are no examples of apparently thriving socialist states to be recommended as models whereas there are dozens of states, with regularly elected governments and competitive media, which all have variations of capitalist market economies, many of them them with systems of social security, including national social insurance systems to cover personal healthcare costs. A fruitful point of departure for discussion is Andre Sapir’s paper on: Globalization and the Reform of European Social Models (2006):
http://www.ulb.ac.be/cours/delaet/econ076/docs/sapir.pdf

Denmark has often been identified as the OECD country with the highest tax burden but it sustains relatively high living standards compared with other EU countries. Is that a good model to follow? By reports, one research study found Danish citizens to be happier than the citizens of other countries:

If it is happiness you are seeking a move to Denmark could be in order, according to the first scientist to make a world map of happiness.

Adrian White, from the UK’s University of Leicester, used the responses of 80,000 people worldwide to map out subjective wellbeing.

Denmark came top, followed closely by Switzerland and Austria. The UK ranked 41st. Zimbabwe and Burundi came bottom.
BBC website July 2006

81. steveb

I agree, there is as much confusion about liberalism as there is about socialism, but you continue to hold on to the notion that we can judge socialism by either the USSR or China (the planned economy) or by the Keynsian type post-war economy which was really capitalism with a welfare state and a demand economy.

And yet the real issue is you continue to ignore the real concrete examples we have of socialism in practice. You do not explain why they were not socialist. Nor why the Revolution(s) ended up that way. You continue to insist that your Fairy Land is different without ever bothering to think why.

As far as planning is concerned, the conditions of both the USSR and China were totally different to the late capitalism of the west, so we cannot point to this and state that planning per se does not work.

Yes, they were not wealthy for one thing. Being socialist does that.

Remember, large corporations now have to plan and rely on the state to protect their investments. If a company such as I.B.M. can plan for its’ massive market base, there is no reason why it can’t be done by a government agency.

Yes there is. IBM gets it wrong. All the time. They rejected the PC for instance thinking it would not be important. They went for mainframes. But it does not matter if there is a Microsoft or an Apple as well as an IBM. Government agencies are monopolies. Run by people who want to get re-elected. Not make a profit or make the economy better. Buy votes. It is inevitable that governments cannot plan properly. This is made worse in a socialist economy because they have no markets. A market price saves me working out what something should cost. Millions of people do it for me. The socialist world has no markets and so they do not know what anything costs.

And we can always rely on SMFS, LC’s resident revisionist historian, where did you get your info about the Kent State massacre and the reason for the Vietnam war?

I was unaware anyone disputed it. Let’s start with Wikipedia. The revisionism is not from me.

And I don’t think it’s relevant how many students were killed, it was the the anti-liberal action by the state that was in question.

National Guardsmen were shot at. They fired in confusion in the general direction of the fire. They hit four people. What anti-liberal action? Of course you don’t think it is important. You would have no case if you cared a damn about facts.

As far as body count is concerned, I would charge the liberal democracy of Germany,who voted for a dictatorship, for the millions massacred in that country, indeed, prior to this, anti-semitism had spread through this liberal ? society.

German voters did not vote for the Nazis. Well a third of them did, but no more. They also did not vote for genocide because, unlike the Communists, the Nazis did not tell people what they were going to do.

@ Jim

Evidence please?

Do I take it, from your silence, that you do not bother with such mundane concepts?

84

You’re dead right that German voters didn’t vote for the nazis (full marks for getting something right) Unfortunately, I said that Germany’s liberal democracy voted for a dictatorship. Liberal democracy seems to be another area that you need to read up on, (clue, it means representative governments) that’s why the British people did not vote for a war in Iraq.
I have also given you a reason why the revolution in Russian ended the way it did, remember all those peasants, Now if you believe that attempting to centrally plan in that environment would be anything like central planning in the UK, you really have lost the plot.

82

Ditto as above about central planning, however, modern models of socialism are liberal/socialist, my prefered model comes from Andre Gorz which is a mixture of central-planining for basic needs, much like our current health and educaton system
Shared employment in the public sphere (planned economy) and then freedom of pursuit and exchange in a private economy. You will find a much more detailed outline in ‘The Politics of Time’.

83

There are no thriving models of liberal capitalism either, and especially in times of economic downturn when the so-called ‘liberal’ countries turn to the most illiberal pursuits.
If you are going to make comparisons it needs to be like with like:(1) we have had no capitalist society move to a socialist society (2) Countries which have attempted central-planning have had totally different environments at the onset than any capitalist country (3) There has been no known attempt at a partial planned economy and a private economy (excchange which isn’t part of the public economy)

I think the left still believe that something costs nothing.

@ 87 Freeman

“I think”

I doubt it.

“the left still believe that something costs nothing.”

Pretty sure the left never thought that. I’s not our fault that you’ve bought into a straw man.

@Chaise Guevara

I find it amusing that your name pays homage (although satirically) to a man that has left the Cuban people amongst some of the poorest in the world despite great possibility.

In any event.

“Pretty sure the left never thought that.”

What is the welfare state then? Get over the idea that the government has money. It doesn’t. They have no ability to produce revenue. All of their money comes from collecting it from citizens in the form of tax. Once collected they distribute according to social policies, often inappropriate for the cause they seek to pursue. Benefits are by definition for many “something for nothing” from the perspective of the receiver. They don’t work, or contribute to society yet their living expenses are catered for. This has been given them by the government, who has taken it from other citizens who do produce revenue. So from the point of the person who receives the benefit it is something for nothing (well apart from actually being alive and breathing), yet for society it is a complete loss. Its a selfish idea that somehow simply because you are born, you have a right to other peoples resources.

It is never long before the straw man is wheeled out by the left when they have no retort. The simple fact is that Hong Kong, Singapore, UAE and Switzerland have shown that the free market works. It has also been shown that with even the slightest liberalisation of a market people benefit. Look at Russia after the fall of communism. They introduced liberal policies and low tax rates and their GDP has increased exponentially. China as well, with the slight introduction of free trade in the early 80′s to present has made peoples lives measurably better.

Lunch isn’t free. The government lie has gone on long enough. Get off the couch and go earn it for yourself.

Pagar @ 85

Look at the threads containing Clegg and Grayling: Channel four found out the truth:

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/02/dwp-workfare-letters-compulsory/

The point is, Pagar, the Tories always lie, it happens all the time. When the truth hurts them, they just make up what they want to be true and repeat it.