The prime minister will go further in defence of the government’s work experience schemes on Thursday. “We see this in the debate on education, put a young person into college for a month’s learning, unpaid – and it’s hailed as a good thing,” he will say.
“Put a young person into a supermarket for a month’s learning, unpaid – and it’s slammed as slave labour.
“Put a child into a great school run by a local authority – cause for celebration.
“Put them into a great school backed by a bank – and that is a cause for suspicion.”
Hmm, well let’s go one at a time:-
“We see this in the debate on education, put a young person into college for a month’s learning, unpaid – and it’s hailed as a good thing,”
Yes, because providing education is a good thing.
“Put a young person into a supermarket for a month’s learning, unpaid – and it’s slammed as slave labour.
Yes, because forcing someone to work for free at a profit making corporation (who may just happen to pay money into your party’s coffers) with the threat of absolute destitution hanging over them is akin to indentured servitude or slave labour.
“Put a child into a great school run by a local authority – cause for celebration.
Yes because again proving education is a good thing.
“Put them into a great school backed by a bank – and that is a cause for suspicion.”
Hmm, gosh why might people be suspicious of a bank running a school? Erm, maybe, just maybe Davey boy because banks have shown by erm, I dunno, centuries of history to be concerned with making money with little regard to the social context of their activities (whoa there bankers crying foul, you may have your business confused with a charity, suck it up chumpos). Therefore providing a social good is at odds with that centuries of behaviour (most recently to be seen by the total global collapse of finance & trust). Therefore, Dave me old clammy faced ex-PR man, it is entirely reasonable to be suspicious that a bank (with hitherto no experience or interest in education whatsoever) is running a school.
So you are either this dumb & blinded by your ideology OR you are laying out some PR schtick in the hope enough rubes buy this shit (hey, works for elections so why not?). Or put another way- you are either stupid or evil, you might even, if a supremely talented neoliberal Prime Minister, be both.
PS. And again I am struck by how the argument for workfare places zero importance on consent, that forcing people into work or face destitution is an approbate thing for anyone, let alone the state to be doing. I do wonder what formative experiences people making this argument had and how much value they place on consent in their interpersonal relationships and how that may alter depending on whether they view person as equals or subordinates and what informs that judgement. I would suppose that they are judging unemployed people to be subordinate, they are making a negative moral judgement and thus abusing them is justified in their thinking. This is a very predictable mechanism for the rationalisation of abuse and domination. Good job they are not in high positions of power with the ability to affect millions of people’s lives down to the tiniest detail, oh, …wait…
pps. for Dave: Why do you think a bank would want to “back” a school?
Have you asked them?