Will you be a "Big Society" volunteer?

[spindrift]

David Cameron, a man who forgot exactly how many homes he owned ("Do not make me sound a prat for not knowing how many houses I’ve got")

.

 

Good lord, I'd never heard that, but it's true:

 

Let's start with a tiny story, that points to a bigger untold tale. A few days ago, the Leader of the Opposition was asked how many homes he owns. "I own a house in North Kensington and... in the constituency in Oxfordshire and that is, as far as I know, all I have," he said. He then started to get confused, said he might own four homes after all, and pleaded:

 

"Do not make me sound like a prat for not knowing how many houses I've got."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine if Neil Kinnock said this in 1991. Do you think you might have heard?

 

The fact that David and Samantha Cameron are worth an almost-entirely-inherited £30m, according to financial expert Philip Beresford, isn't in itself damning. Franklin Roosevelt was very rich, but became a great crusader for the poor. But Cameron is advocating policies that will benefit his tiny class of super-rich Trustafarians at the expense of the rest of us. He is committed to spending billions on a massive tax cut for the richest inheritees, paid for by the bottom 94% of us – and now he has announced his enthusiasm for a bogus economic theory that will justify shovelling far more of our money their way.

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-are-we-silent-as-cameron-preaches-voodoo-economics-1691107.html

[espadrille]

Hundreds of thousands of unemployed people will shortly have to 'volunteer' for the Big Society and work for no pay - or lose their benefits. David Cameron, a man who forgot exactly how many homes he owned ("Do not make me sound a prat for not knowing how many houses I’ve got") believes that the vulnerable and disadvantaged should be the foot soldiers of his Big Society dream to encourage a hard day's work for a hard day's no-pay.

 

The green fields of equal opportunity Eton inspired his vision to get Britain working for no financial reward. And it was the many, long hours spent wining and dining in the finest restaurants whilst a member of the Bullingdon Club that led him to concoct his goal to create a Big Society where only the rich get paid for working.

 

~ Never succumb to the temptation of bitterness. ~

Martin Luther King, Jr

[F. Sidebottom]

Hundreds of thousands of unemployed people will shortly have to 'volunteer' for the Big Society and work for no pay - or lose their benefits. David Cameron, a man who forgot exactly how many homes he owned ("Do not make me sound a prat for not knowing how many houses I’ve got") believes that the vulnerable and disadvantaged should be the foot soldiers of his Big Society dream to encourage a hard day's work for a hard day's no-pay.

 

But how is that different from any of us who work?

 

I pay roughly a third in tax, therefore I give up roughly a third of my working time to society for free.

 

Why shouldn't the unemployed?

 

And they aren't getting a hard day's no pay - they are getting their benefits in return.

[INTERVIEWER]

Why shouldn't the unemployed?

 

Because they will be doing jobs (graffiti cleaning, litter picking are two that have been mentioned) that should be done by employee's who receive a wage.

 

And they aren't getting a hard day's no pay - they are getting their benefits in return.

 

The unemployed will be doing a real job that, until the public sector cuts, would have been done for real pay. Now those jobs will be done for an extremely low level of benefits, undermining the minimum wage and threatening similar unskilled manual labour employment.

[Tony]

So to sum up, you are happy that people get other people's money for nothing?

[Mecky]

The goverment seems to be sending out mixed messages about everything. For example, there are too many people are going to university so try to limit people going, which is not fair anyway, by reducing spending, reducing the places available and by increasing fees. Yet they turn around and say it will be cheaper for people to go to university than it did under Labour. It just doesn't make sense, the sums don't add up.

[L00b]

The unemployed will be doing a real job that, until the public sector cuts, would have been done for real pay. Now those jobs will be done for an extremely low level of benefits, undermining the minimum wage and threatening similar unskilled manual labour employment.

It is not dissimilar, in the way of analogy, to a pay cut or wage freeze for benefits recipients.

 

Many taxpayers have had to do with a pay cut or wage freeze in the past 2 years or more, and indirect taxation has gone up.

 

So, under that analogy at least, it appears equitable: they would be doing their bit for the Great Clean Up Act (as suggested by F.Sidebottom).

[F. Sidebottom]

Because they will be doing jobs (graffiti cleaning, litter picking are two that have been mentioned) that should be done by employee's who receive a wage..

 

I disagree. If we are paying for them, then they owe society their time. And if it's society's responsibility to pick litter, then they can do that on behalf of society.

 

It's not about whether we should be making them do work that other could get paid for, it's about why we pay people to do it in the first place when there are other people sat at home doing nothing and receiving money for dong nothing.

 

The unemployed will be doing a real job that, until the public sector cuts, would have been done for real pay.

 

So what?

 

And where would this 'real pay' have come from, a bottomless pit of money?

 

Now those jobs will be done for an extremely low level of benefits, undermining the minimum wage and threatening similar unskilled manual labour employment.

 

So we should carry on spending money we don't have on:

 

1. An overstaffed Public Sector where everyone gets moderate wage and benefits

2. High unemployment where everyone sits round doing nothing

3. Foreign workers who take manual work that our 'youth' won't do, and who choose to sit at home for their dole instead etc.?

 

Or should we make Public Sector cut back on jobs, fill the gaps with the unemployed on a part time basis as compulsory work (which if they refuse to do they lose benefits) as an incentive for them to actually get up and get some work done, and fill some of those jobs currently taken by Eastern Europeans etc.

 

Why pay someone to do a job AND pay someone else to sit at home?

 

We all volunteer our time when we work numerous hours and donate our wages to society, they should too.

[Digsy]

Because they will be doing jobs (graffiti cleaning, litter picking are two that have been mentioned) that should be done by employee's who receive a wage.

 

The unemployed will be doing a real job that, until the public sector cuts, would have been done for real pay. Now those jobs will be done for an extremely low level of benefits, undermining the minimum wage and threatening similar unskilled manual labour employment.

 

Although I like the idea of people being more charitable within the community and actively helping to support the needy a little more, I don't think it is a good idea to start replacing all the paid charity workers with volunteers.

Because in effect all Cameron will be doing will be reducing the minimum wage for charity workers far below the minimum wage for corporate workers, in fact itmight even reduce the minimum wage for charity workers to benefits alone.

[L00b]

I don't think it is a good idea to start replacing all the paid charity workers with volunteers (etc.)

Are many charity workers paid to remove graffitti and pick litter, currently?

 

More to the point: if persons are paid charity workers (therefore, presumably employed or at least contracted), then by definition they are not 'unemployed' (therefore be made to 'volunteer-or-else' under the proposed system).