The Falklands War has been misinterpreted through history. The levels of mineral reserves were based on speculation and in the years leading up to the war, we were trying to find ways of negotiating away the Falklands without losing face.

When Galtieri invaded, the general view from the British government, the military and the establishment was that the Falklands wasn't worth it, the odds of success in a military campaign were slim, any financial benefits from holding the Falklands were uncertain and would be many years away, the country was in the middle of a recession and this was an expense we couldn't afford with very little chance of success and Mrs Thatcher was taking a huge political gamble in taking us into what could be a hugely embarrassing defeat. The Americans were friends with Galtieri just like every right wing dictator who persecuted communists so they were dead against us going to war.

Thatcher fought that war on principle and she was in the minority of her own Government and advisors in going to conflict. With hindsight people say she fought that war to get her popularity up, but at the time the military feared that we couldn't possibly sustain a war against Argentina, fought on such a distance with a limited fleet. In fact had it not been for the Argentinian air force getting the wrong fuses so most of their bombs didn't activate when they hit our ships, they could have destroyed our fleet.

If you read my post i said a proportion.

EDIT and the topic is the modern governments changes and im highlighting whats going on right here right now, not the foundation of extremist muslims, as surely they would date back to when the Koran was written

DERAILTASTIC.
This thread was about IDS's mission (cause that's what he's been doing since he lost the Tory leadership) to get the majority of the unemployed (who can work) back to work, now it's become a morallistic "football" re Ireland/Bin Laden/Maggie-Falklands/Muslim extremists. It's beginning to become as sanctimonious as some of the "debates" the RLFANS "hierarchy" have on The Sin Bin.

Back on subject. Great. Get ALL of the DON'T WORK, WONT WORK (because they DO exist, no matter what the apologists say) back into jobs, menial tasks or not. NO-ONE has the given right to sponge of the state for n number of years.

So who employs them? Would you hire them and pay the minimum wage, plus all the employers national insurance contributions, to do a 'menial task'?

The government can't command private companies to hire these people. They have the pick of the market now, there's hundreds of thousands of recently redundant people who want to work, and have a track record of getting out of bed and working, so when companies need to hire people even for low level jobs, they are going to hire these people not the long term dossers.

The only way you can get the long term unemployed into work is if the state employs them, in socialist societies you get the state making everybody work and providing menial jobs that don't really need doing, for the sake of making people do something with their lives. However even if you paid these people low wages, the costs of this are expensive because you end up paying them more than you are currently paying them on the dole, and you have to hire people to manage them and supervise them, on higher wages, and it becomes a government job creation scheme which the Tory government won't do because it's trying to cut public sector jobs not increase them.

The Tory government is hoping that it can force these people into 'jobs' but it can't force the people hiring, to hire them, they will just hire other people who actually want to work and aren't total losers.

So what do we do then, Sal, with these people. Just because the private sector will have (admitted) reluctance to take the workshy on ( I DO see exactly where you're coming from), do we, as a society, simply allow them to sit on their lazy "bottoms" and watch their equivalents on Jeremy Kyle/Trisha every day, or do we "shake them up" and get them to actually contribute to society, and not take all the time.

I've done some time on the dole, during my time of working age, due to redundancies/site closures/end of contracts, and it aint a nice place to be, yet to SOME, it's a way of life, and it's usually the shell suit wearing "herbert" who just "doen't give one" about working.

I think IDS for all his uselesness, is the nearest thing we'll get to a compassionate Tory, so we better get used to it.

Logging off for the weekend now....ahh Guinness, real ale and Shiraz, but not on the same night....what a hangover that'd be.

The jobs vs candidates available debate is interesting because there will never be enough jobs to get everyone employed and there is a fair argument in your claims Sally.

But let's not forget that this "scheme" is aimed at putting a halt to those people who openly and continously "turn down" offers of employment in an effort to remain state funded. We are not talking about penalising those who genuinely cannot get work because they are under or non-skilled. That's a different issue entirely. This is geared towards the type of people who I mentioned at the start of the topic who refuse to work because they know that JSA plus any additional state benefits will pay more divedends collectively than a full time job on min wage - and the peachy extra on top is that they get to sit on their s all day too. Add a brat or two to the household and your laughing. The whole notion of which is so fundamentally wrong it's not even funny.

Feasability issues aside, and theoretically speaking, it would be interesting if the government could set up free training centres for the non-skilled jobless leading to PROPER industry recognised qualifications, with a view to a university style loan which would be paid back once working and being paid X £p.a. It would at least perhaps give some people who did want to work a sense of belonging and pride. I understand however that cost implications and success rates would almost certainly make this a non starter.

FLFANs at its sweeping generalisation-tastic best.

I've read all of the posts on this topic and responding to the original question -

Fortunately I've never been unemployed, am educated and have a reasonable standard of living.

I do think that there is a strong argument for getting people on benefit to contribute in some way in order to recieve them - especially those who are quite happy with 'a life on the dole' and have no incentive to do anything.
In my view (and supported by independant research) people must have some structure and objective in their lives - and getting them to get up at a decent time for work, do something productive for the community is one way of attempting to do that, or by getting training etc to support them back to work.

One of the things I do have a concern with though is that people who go before the courts and are convicted of a crime are often handed 'community service' as a punishment.

So what then is the difference between a criminal doing community service and an unemployed person doing community service?

I really think this sends out the wrong message.
Unemployed perople are not (generally) criminals and the system shouldn't be set up to put the 2 in the same bracket.

There needs to be a clear differentiation here.

I have no time for criminals. They should face punishment (and in selective cases rehabilitation).
I have no time for people who are work-shy, lazy or think the state owes them a living, but they are not criminals, but they do need to realise that they are not going to be given 'money for nothing'.
I have a lot of time for those made unemployed through no fault of their own and who look to get back into work by actively seeking employment or getting training. They deserve support.

I was discussing this today at work with a few Asians that I employ. Although they are embarrased & disgusted by the actions of the poppy burners none of us could recall see'ing any examples of Muslim Clerics or community leaders condemming them ?

What would happen to a Christian in a Muslim country if they & openly & purposely destroyed the Koran for example as a means of protest against Al'Queda attacks ? I'm pretty confident they wouldn't even get the right to protest, let alone Police protection. They'd more than likely get stoned to death (which would be deemed as legal under Shairia law).

The PC brigade in this country have got it all wrong. Protect the minorities.... screw the majority.

There are 5,000,000 people who do not work in this country and approx 500,000 jobs unfilled. Until that gap dramatically closes, and it ain't going to happen in the next few years, we have to accept a level of mass unemployment. The Tories 'bash the workshy' rhetoric is aimed at trying to introduce popular polices during tough economic times. No more no less. By all means introduce schemes to improve the environment using previously 'unemployable' people, but do this in a way that can be sustained and that can give people skills for the future.

If recent policies are meant to save money then again, don't be fooled. Taxes on financial transactions and [ireal [/iattempts to take more from the rich (and that ain't anybody earning 40 odd grand a year), will save 10 times the amount than under current proposals. The 0.04% ' banking tax' recently introduced was pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. If we really are all in this together, then surely these are acceptable ways to help cut the deficit ??

Well, ramble over. Get the Stella out.

So we should adopt the same policies you are criticising?