Yet another wonderful idea from Ian Duncan-Smith?

I remember reading about a JSA pilot scheme where those receiving it had to sign on every day. One woman had an appointment at the hospital, a job interview and a JSA appointment on the same day, and the Jobseeker's interviewer would not let her change the time. That day cost her £20 in taxi fares, which she had to pay as otherwise she would have been sanctioned for four weeks.
I agree with you, GillT.
Bringing back Borstal is surely only for those who have broken the law, not for those who cannot get jobs, or is that to be made illegal now?

I am not sure how this would work without a significant change of regulations as I understand that to receive JSA you have to be available for work? Many people have fallen foul of this as they are already doing some relevant voluntary work; such as the arts graduate who was volunteering at an art project and then had her benefits stopped because she wouldn't take the work experience foisted on her by the job centre ( stacking shelves in Poundland). And how to people get there? If you are receiving under £60 per week JSA then bus fares of £2-3 per day are hefty. I am not dismissing the principle of contributing something to society in return for benefits, but I feel that this is a knee jerk demonising of the young and jobless.

Return to Borstall?

Did anybody see the recent program , I think it was called, Return to Borstall?

It was good to see a couple of the lads gained respect for themselves and were offered jobs at the end of the experiment.

Apart from a few of them being just b-----y bad tempered little children in their 20's, it was a pleasure to see the change in them. Having thrown a total strop, they settled down and did jobs like decorating an old peoples home and a beach front shelter etc., they found they actually enjoyed doing the work, meeting people outside of their usual circle and actually felt proud of what they had achieved!

If you didn't watch it give it a try on catch up. It makes you think.

Jess and I have equally witnessed many good community projects, in fact I've organised several myself. Planned, resourced, monitored and assessed.

I agree apprenticeships are a better idea but the infrastructure isn't in place to do that. Neither of course is well organised work in the community on this scale, but at least that's easier to organise in the short term.

Once the infrastructure is in place it could lead on to more apprenticeships Jen if there was the will and of course the resources, not the least of these being companies and individuals with the time and experience to take on apprentices.

Why can't they just have more apprenticeships? If they are going to be paying benefits anyway, give the kids something useful to work for. Or would that be building up the council workforce again, anathema to the government?

A lot of councils have 'litter picking days' when community-minded people join in and collect litter from beaches, promenades etc.

It may not necessarily have been a community service project, Jess.

Well, I can't talk you through it as I am not organising it; someone else may be able to help.

There is plenty of litter around in some places, not all are pristine. There is not much in our town either because we have a wonderful council employee who is conscientious and works extra hours because he has pride in his work. He got a community award but is due to retire soon and they are having difficulty finding a replacement to train up.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31500763
30 hours a week, starting on day 1

Can anyone talk me through how this could actually be made to work please?

Bearing in mind you have to find them a suitable placement, where there is room for them and something for them to do.

I saw something that was presumably a poor example of compulsory community work the other day. About 20 youngish people wandering along our promenade, wearing high viz waistcoats with plastic sacks and those litter picking grabber things. There wasn't really any litter for them to pick up. There rarely is. If people drop litter other residents would pick it up.(yes I have done this myself once, with chip papers that had not quite made it to the bin.)
Presumably there was at least one paid person amongst their ranks.
So the "community work" was wandering along next to the sea, having a chat.

I don't think it is dotty at all, provided it is organised and managed properly.
It will give them experience of work, a routine and help them gain more permanent employment - and a reference.
Nearly full-time should give them time to apply for jobs and I hope help would be provided to do that.

Perhaps we should go back to handwritten job application forms as online ones can be difficult.

Don't dismiss this idea out of hand. The last thing unemployed youngsters need is to have no reason to get out of bed. Many jobs ask for experience. Many youngster do voluntary work already to gain exoerience and show they have a good work ethic.

There are pluses to this policy if it can be managed effectively.

And that is where this policy is likely to fall down, the lack of effective management. There was a similar scheme in the 1970s or 1980s called Job Creation. In some areas it was very effective in others much less so.

I don't know that the community work IS going to be full time. Does anyone know the details of this? One of the ways that such a scheme ought to be managed is to allow time to look for work and help given to inexperienced youngsters in filling in application forms or construct CVs efficiently.

Some such scheme already exist, that I do know.

And today's dotty notion is that young people will have to do community work from the first day of benefits. how on earth can that be organised? Unless it is a case of : "Sorry you can't have any benefits until we can find you a place on community work" , we'll let you know in a few weeks.
Very sad that young people are being demonised in this way - they would actually like to work and earn some money if there were jobs available where they live.
I did a job application the other day - well it took more than a day really to fill in the online form properly (and survive the various crashes where I lost my amendments etc). So if you are on nearly full time community work, how are you going to find a job?

Yes, pensions are something most of the population have worked hard to save up for in their working lives, not a benefit in the derogatory way that word is now used.

For some reason the last government changed the definition from 'pension' to 'benefit' and I wrote a very angry letter to the then Pensions Minister but got a mealy-mouthed reply.

I get very angry about the demonising of people on benefits, the press ( certain parts) can always trot out someone who hasnt worked/will never work/has large tv/smokes etc., all to inflame public opinion. I dare say there are some people abusing the system, but probably not as many as are abusing the taxation system, and I would like to carve in stone (or on IDS forehead ) that retirement pensions are not benefits.

I worked in the public sector too, so presumably was on benefits

I dislike the fact that the state pension is termed 'a benefit'. Is my extremely meagre gold-plated public sector pension a benefit too?
Will they pay for the gym for me do you think, as I am in receipt of that benefit and could do with losing a bit of weight?
That would probably finish off my knees completely then I would need to have an expensive operation on the NHS.

If the MPs do turn up and work, and spend time listening to their constituents and sorting things out for them, and put thought and consideration into how they vote, then they are being paid for their employment.

If they only turn up to follow the party line when votes are needed, and ignore the constituency that elected them, then yes, they are on benefits.

Me too.

I was a public servant for many years. I went to work, I was paid by my employer and I don't consider I was "on benefits".

I benefitted from being employed, in the ways that all of us do. I had better mental and physical health along with a reliable income, than I would had if I'd been unable/unwilling to work and dependent on state benefits.

I loathe the demonisation of benefit claimants. Linking benefit claiming to earning a living by being a public servant feels wrong to me.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/02/15/tory-obesity-crackdown-would-hit-just-1-780-people

My husband was an architect, soontobe. He worked in both private and public practice at various times. However, we did live off state benefits for 15 years after he fell off a ladder and broke his back, and very pleased we were to get them. He died just six months after he started being paid his state pension which was less than the benefits we got.

durhamjen. You are an ex teacher? And your husband was a doctor?
So you call that state benefits too?

I think they should indeed lead by example!

However, I'm particularly well disposed towards Eric Pickles at the moment

That's right, Anya. All MPs pay comes out of our taxes, just like all other benefits. So shouldn't obese MPs be treated the same way that other obese claimants are? Admittedly MPs are not claiming their benefits because they are obese, but not many benefit claimants are, anyway. It's just another way to demonise benefit claimants and detract from the real problem which is not everyone paying their taxes.

I think that means all MPs.

All public employees are on state benefits?