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?