Politics v economics

A new word for the English language then - predemonisation.

There is nothing new about people who are out of work for whatever reason being categorised as social security scroungers when unemployment is at an unacceptably high level. Doing so before it reaches that point seems to be little more than stigmatising people who are at risk of the consequences of an economic downturn.

Community service has been a mechanism for law breakers to pay their dues without recourse to custody. Making the unemployed do community service will not only make life very difficult for the probation service but it comes dangerously close to criminalising the out of work.

These proposals are frankly disgraceful!

#1 therenodio, I agree, the proposals (New Labour) or ideas (Conservatives - they don't come up with anything concrete) are effectively sentencing long-term claimants to community service. The big difference is that those meting out the sentences will be those working for the benefits agency.

Once again, the government has taken the 'Daily Mail/Daily Express' ground because they're obviously desperate for voters.

They've lost the plot!

"IB claimants who might be able to work sometimes prefer, quite naturally, to be on a higher level of benefit long-term to the indignity and insecurity of moving between low-paid jobs and lower benefit levels "

Are you serious Nick?

Who gives a stuff what these people 'prefer!' If they can work, they damn well should.

Isn't that the point of the whole minimum wage debacle?

With all due respect to these people, their dignity is irrelevant to the debate. IB is a benefit for those who cannot work, not those who can, but choose not to.

No wonder we have so many people on IB if this is the sort of attitude that prevails.

- and whoever came up with the idea of floating this plan three days before the Glasgow East by election needs to sign up for Incapacity Benefit to cover his period of psychiatric treatment.

Whatever plans are made, laws and regulatios outlined, when it comes to crunch nothing much will happen and the status quo will continue. This idea will provide lots of make-work for those officially already in employment - the managers, the delegators, the line-managers, the clerks, all the way down to the little guys and gals interviewing Jo and Jill Public. Lord protect us from 'orrible yobs on community service work coming along to paint our railings and drop even more litter than their mates will ever be able to pick up!

We could just say 'Welcome to the Welfare State'.

However that would be too trite.

We have to have a safety net but not for the feckless and lazy.

That is where, in my opinion, the balance is wrong and is belatedly being addressed by these politicians.

Consequently, as these ideas come from the US, lets have a look at how successful they appear to be:

- 2.7 million of the population in prison (more than China and Russia who the next biggest put together)

- The vast majority of this prison population is made up of the poor, unemployed population

The US has some of the World's most dangerous cities (in areas where there is large unemployed population):

- Flint, Michigan
- Detroit, Michigan
- Cleveland, Ohio
- Oakland, California
- St Louis, Missouri

The common factor relating to all of the above-mentioned cities is that they used to industrial cities.

Looks like they're on to a real winner in the States.

By the way, Nick, all of your points make sense.

Well, I suppose there will be quite a few openings for Prison Officers when these proposals are voted in (as they preumably will be).

#1 threnodio

I agree.

Community service won't lead to work but a work related assignment would be useful. But that won't happen.

It might have been a vote winner when everybody expected their position to be secure. But today when everybody is worried about the economy .....

I was on incapacity benefit due to a heart bypass.

It cannot make sense to make people who have had serious hospital treatment attend a doctor (mine was an ATOS doctor) to prove that they are in fact ill. What a surprise I was found to be ill - thats why the surgeon cut me open I suppose.

So if you interview largely legitimate people you are losing a lot of money before you even start trying to save. More to the point if I understand it correctly even a terminally ill person would have to attend. The idea is sick.

You have missed one key aspect of the persistent core of IB claimants who are difficult to 'remove'. Namely that, whatever the original reason for an IB claim, once someone has been sitting on benefit for a number of years they are very likely to have additional problems.
The 'old' IB system concentrated entirely on what people could NOT do and those that 'passed' the test of their incapacity where 'awarded' their IB. If claimants volunteered, even for a few hours, or studied they risked losing their benefit.
This approach to IB meant that people were effectively encouraged to do very little for themselves or their community. This resulted in the situation were after someone had been on IB for over two years the most common reason for leaving benefit was reaching retirement age or dying! I'm unusual in leaving IB after 8 years to do p/t work - but it has been hard and I'm financially not much better off.
The IB system does need reforming, not in a punitive way, but so that it actually helps people. It must be accompanied by greater provision through the Access to Work scheme (which supports disabled people in work) and a policing of the Disability Discrimination Act in relation to employment.
It should also be accepted that the disabling focus of the IB system (under both Tory and Labour Govts) has been responsible for creating this problem and that those who have been further disabled by this system need time and help to adjust.

Nick,

I was a bit confused by the interview on Radio 4 today. To the question as to what happens if people don't work and who just prefer to stay in bed Mr Purnell singularly failed to answer.

Isn't the truth that whilst Auntie Beeb is talking about a revolutionary policy - it's all spin ?

If I don't want to work then payments will continue regardless.

True or false ?

I'm in favour of reducing the number of work capable people claiming benefits as a lifestyle of choice, but I seriously doubt that these proposals will amount to very much by the time they reach the "point of delivery".

3.7 million (apparently) is a massive number of people to deal with, the problem has simply been allowed to grow an extent it is difficult to see what can be done practically to address it. Perhaps that was intentional..........But if they don't start attempting reform, then they won't finish....

I agree that the timing of doing this is less than ideal economy wise. Even Alistair Darling has realised that the country is finding it increasingly difficult to fund this level of benefits, and has effectively ran out of money. I'd never heard of James Purnell until yesterday either ! Interesting that both AD and JP made these statements when Gordon Brown was out of the country - perhaps I've seen to many episodes of the X-Files.

The recent 10p tax fiasco has effectively reduced the lowest wages in the job market, effectively reducing the gap between benefits and possible earnings.

This can hardly help or encourage the people who can work to move from benefits into employment.

The repeated failure of this government to deal with the problem of the long term unemployed, the sick and the work-shy is just another example of its disasterous inability to manage its way out of a paper bag.

Who cares if it the new ideas are difficult to implement? I thought that was Gordon Brown's promise to us that he would take the difficult long term decisions.

There is no popular support for a benefits system that favours the able bodied sitting at home watching day-time TV. This is the legacy of eleven years of NewLabour (and why so many ministers take the trouble to appear on day time TV)

There is no greater indignity than someone sitting at home doing nothing when they could be usefully employed and they have to be made to understand that whether they like it or not.

Three cheers for a bit of consensus from both sides of the house that this long overdue problem will now be dealt with.

It's a good way to save some money at a time the country can't afford persistent benefits claims.

Three cheers to NewLabour cuts.

There are broadly speaking three categories of people who are out of work. There are those who are unable to work because of health issues, those who are unemployed for economic reasons beyond their control and those who are working the system because it suits them to be out of work.

As regards the first, I am with Frank Field. DLA (Disability Living Allowance) removes any stigma because being unfit on medical grounds is a perfectly legitimate reason for not working. On the other hand, it is not income related so there is a genuine incentive for those minded to do so to develop home based businesses or use their talents in an appropriate way without fear of being deprived of a basic living. Many successful small businesses have come on stream in this way.

The second should, in the best of circumstances, be a temporary situation. Looking back to the mass closures in steel, mining and ship building in the latter part of the last century, it is clear that the only solution is large scale investment in alternative skills and industries. Simply demonising people for not having relevant skills is totally non-productive.

The third are committing offenses. We should be clear about this but understand that it is an enforcement issue not an administrative one. Changing the name of the benefit is an exercise in futility.

The real problem is IB. IB is a catch all for people who are not well enough to work but not sick enough to qualify for DLA. It is in all but name Unemployment Benefit but without entering a JSA agreement and sending in a sick note instead of signing on.

Basically, it is a mechanism which enables the government to massage statistics. If unemployment reaches a level which is politically unacceptable, eligibility for IB is relaxed. When the Social Security spend is too high, people on IB myteriously recover and are required to sign on. (Remember Peter Lilly - 1997-8?). It is an artificial benefit because it embraces everything from the flu to the Black Death and it gives government the scope to make the figures say anything they want them to.

Measures to ensure that people who do not work for reasons which are entirely legitimate are treated with due respect and dignity would make it far easier to distinguish them from those who are manipulating the system and ensure that any stigma attaches only to those who deserve it.

The government - by which I mean Brussels - won't allow even the most recidivist waster to starve, so the result will simply be yet another tier of benefits.

So we'll have Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Support and now... Basic Subsistence Allowance?

On the 'bright' side, at least it will require 'employing' more people in the DSS (or whatever it's branded as these days) in order to shuffle the extra forms.

Will the proposed 'work-fair' system put graffiti and street cleaners out of a job?

We should be told!

If a job needs to be done should it not be paid for at the proper rate?

Measures to take people out of benefit dependency need to be accompanied by reform of taxation to ensure that those on low incomes do not pay income tax. It is immoral that recipients of the statutory minimum wage are liable to pay income tax.

I am the mother of a now adult who has struggled with mental illness for over 8 years. She is currently attempting to get herself into the world of work but faces enormous hurdles along the way. Firstly, employers don't appear to want to "take the risk" of employing someone with a history of mental illness and secondly as soon as she is offered even temporary employment she looses the security of her benefits and has to start all over again.
These new proposals are causing her (and me) a lot of additional stress - she doesn't deserve to be made to pick up litter or to do the menial type of job that she keeps being offered by the job centre.
She would love not to have to rely on benefits - perhaps those making the decisions should be required to suffer a mental illness and then make these decisions.
By all means screen those receiving benefits more closely, and yest there are a lot of poeple who could and should be working but please don't treat them all the same.

I'm what is now called a 'disabled' guy after a year on IB and thence transferred to DLA. This government has lost the plot. All this is doing is worrying people like myself and making us feel like criminals and thence making us more ill through stress and worry . I would love to be back at work and mixing with colleagues and feeling part of a team again but my health doesn't allow this. What with being 'mothered' by a nanny state, our personal freedoms being curbed and now criminalised for being ill no wonder the nation is feeling depressed.

While most people are trying not to spend what they don't have, the government seems to look everywhere else but not themselves.
MP's - Stop spending on increasing your own salary(our money) is going on wage rise bonus and furnishing their properties.
Cut back on Politicians salary
Abolish the mortgage and furnishing payments.
Learn to live with what you have, that would help the UK more than spending like there is no tomorrow.

This sort of proposal always plays well in the headlines and the polls but the devil will be in the detail. On balance it appears to be a common sense proposal but I have doubts that the bloated civil service will implement this properly at a national or local level. In particular I can see local government unions being a real block to this as it will make anyone administering benefits at the coalface's job much more difficult and confrontational.

I think the government have come up with a winner idea here but I just wonder if they have the stomach to actually implement it. In the past they have all too often gone for the easy headline rather than getting this sort of proposal to work.

I think it is a mistake for some of the people I would normally agree with on here to imagine that there is no problem that needs sorting out. I have two pieces of evidence that persuades me that there are significant numbers of people who exploit the system:

1. the very large variation in the proportions of people drawing IB from one part of the country to another. Some of his difference is I think explicable in terms of the type of industry traditionally associated with some areas, and historically high levels of unemployment with consequential deprivation and ill-health. However, I don't think those factors go close to explaining the problem altogether.

2. My brother is physically severely disabled. He gets a pension from the RAF, after being invalided out many years ago, and he could be quite comfortably off if he simply drew the benefit he would undoubtedly be entitled to and forgot all about work. Instead he had a number of jobs, and was never unemployed. His last job was working for his local Benefits Office, where he found himself authorising IB payments to people who were much more capable of work than he was, but who thought they had better things to do with their time. In some cases, because this was in a relatively small town, what they did was work in the 'black economy'.

Of course in trying to deal with the problem it is important not to make things even worse for those who are genuinely in trouble, and there is no magic wand solution that I can see. However, the proposals just outlined do seem to me to be relatively sensible and sensitive.

Can I also say that I thought #10 bfoandc makes some excellent points.

Now GB constantly goes on about record levels of employment.

I'm with #15 on this one this government recategorised many that were on UB40 and put them on this IB.

The total number not working is 4.5 million a very similar number to the supposed bad old days when the tories had 4 million not gainfully employed. The only diference is the category they sit in.

I return to a post I made in another blog and say again a socialist government NEVER delivers on the promises it gives to the poor it claims to support! NuLabour have failed this group particularly badly as their policies have increased the gap between haves and have nots reduced social mobility and increased poverty.

Surely this initiative should have been a day one policy for Labour rather than thier vote buying qango job creation scheme which costs more to the tax payer than leaving those 2 million signing on.

#14 RobinJD, you mention the long term unemployed, sick and the work shy.

Attempting to read between the lines I've established that you've probably ticked-off the long term unemployed and the work shy in your attack, however, what about the sick?

Do you propose that they just get shoved to one side without any clear means to support themselves?

I haven't found incapacity benefit easy to claim. In fact, I was summoned to see a doctor shortly after major surgery and had to take the various pieces of equipment that sustain my life with me. They employ systems and targets not thinking individuals to determine who gets what. Oh, they did relucantly allow to wait until I'd left hospital.

Whilst I'm sure there are some who don't really need it, I find the rhetoric, or sometimes lack of it, insulting.

This to me is just going to be another stress in an already very challenging life.

NB - Yes, you're probably right, the worst part of it is not being able to work.

This proposal has proved popular on the Have Your Say page.

Given the demographic which normally holds sway there, I think I have to oppose it on principle...

Ten doctors in a room. Nine of them think a person should remain on Incapacity Benefit. One of them doesnt. guess who gets the job screening people for the dwp.

People are going to lose their lives over this and I am worried I might be one of them.

This is designed to please the Mail and Express, and is just the latest example to this government wanting to appear to be busy rather than quietly getting one with improving UK plc.

It won't work if tried, and I suspect it will never even make the statute book - we are only at the pre-Green Paper stage, after this there will have to be a White Paper, a Bill and then this will have to get through both Houses.

I predict that if (when?) they are the government in under two years' time the Tories will quietly drop the worst elements of this, or water it down so that it doesn't involve treating the unemployed and disabled like criminals.

Whether or not it's fair all hinges on the amount of hours worked and the amount of benefits claimed.

If you receive 20 quid benefit for working 30 hours then obviously it's not fair; it needs to be pegged to the minimum wage as a safety net so that people on benefits don't end up being, effectively, slave labour for the councils/government.

Brown has been pushing for slave labour for years; he did it with children (under various guises such as unpaid "apprenticeships" where schoolchildren are forced to work in factories/shops for no money), he plans to introduce slavery for immigrants ("compulsory voluntary" work to get a visa), so we all need to be extremely careful/worried about this latest wheeze from a man who's been actively pushing for slavery in the uk for certain sections of society.

Be very wary/cynical about the small print on this one; it's potentially horrific.

It must really stick in the craw of the staunch labourites on here that this latest initiative is almost identical to the solutions offered up by the Tories in January

It looks good in headlines but the fact is this government already pay a private company to do medicals for DLA a contract that was worth £400 million at the time.

Are they now saying this hasn't worked ???

I have no trouble with people having to attend a medical if it is done fairly but how can some one meet targets for getting people off benefits without some people being wrongly refused.

Anybody could set up a firm to do that but heres the catch....at some point someone is going to have an accident at work through their medical condition who's going to pick up the bill then ??? its all lawyer fodder.

Firms quite rightly dont want to take the chance with disabled people because of increased insurance costs to employ them.

What the government should concentrate on is catching those who are claiming while working and removing foreign workers from the country who are working illegally this will free up work and rates of pay for workers will rise in jobs that people tend to shun.
The introduction of a minimum wage is seen as a maximum to hide behind by most employers, instead of supply and demand dictating wage rates.

People on benefits should be nowhere near the minimum wage levels , it is a damning indictment of failed policies if they are.

These Ideas have been floating around for decades but have never actually happened.


I think it very unlikely they will this time why?

Well it seems to me that the public sector unions on whom brown is dependant on for funding will not like the idea

If skilled people are spending all day painting fences, when are they supposed to find the time to actually look for the proper work that the job centre is supposed to help them find?

Is this just a one size fits all solution or more to the point a one size fits nobody. It they are going to make say an IT professional do minimum wage work, why not find them an IT company to take them on.

Won't paying the minimum wage actually cost the taxpayer much more than paying job seekers allowance?

#23 jimbrant, I take both of your points on board, however, my I refer you to my posting at #25 - that's my personal experience and when attending 'that' appointment the doctor was embaressed.

I really don't see the need the for new legislation. I just think that more people should be reviewing any information provided by claimants rather the systems provided by CapGemini/Capita/Accenture or whoever as they clearly don't work.

I'm again very disappointed that the government have been drawn into a 'tough on benefits' battle with the Conservatives.

Well, I'm on invalidity benefit due to degenerative disk disease at three different locations in my spine, plus heart disease. Could I do *some* work? Yes, but in the area where I'm qualified to work (I have a Ph.D.) the chances of getting an employer to take on someone working by telecommuting, on flexible hours, and part-time are a big, fat ZERO. I CAN'T guarantee to be fit to work to a pre-ordained schedule. All the work experience stuff might be relevant to the new school leaver on unemployment benefit, but I worked for 20 years before my back gave out to the extent that I could no longer manage to work full time, and was (effectively) shown the door.

The bottom line is that for a significant percentage of invalidity benefit claimants, it's not that they need to be "encouraged" to go back to work, it's that employers need to be "encouraged" to make accomodations for their disabilities so that they CAN work. I switched from a high-paid job to living on IB, and if anyone thinks I would do that voluntarily, they've got to be crazy. Living off benefits (at least the ones I get) is NO FUN WHATSOEVER. If I could only find a job which I could do GIVEN my limitations, I'd be back to work tomorrow.

#34, #35 - But you and people like you are not the problem, and there has to be some system in place to distinguish you from those who are the problem.

I think a lot of people posting on here are missing the point, this change is designed to safeguard the benefits of the truly needy. The economy is heading into recession and we just can't continue to fund a bloated welfare system that is paying out to the undeserving. If you want examples of the state's largesse to the unworthy just pop down to the benefits office on Lisson Grove London and marvel at the numerous IB and welfare recepients having a quick can of super T before heading in to sign on.

#36 - jimbrant

Exactly, Jim, but government by numbers is a bit like painting by numbers. You can can look very clever very quickly but a fraud can be spotted a mile off.

I don't see how this is so difficult to put into practice. You get the IB teams to report for community service wearing their blue jumpsuits so the public can feel good about their tax dollars being spent well. Any that don't turn up are de facto benefit fraudsters and get issued an orange jumpsuit to go and pick up litter with the crims. "Tough on grime, tough on the causes of grime."

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7516873.stm

As well as the saving on the welfare state maybe brown and co can be convinced to follow an excellent example

jimibrant, #36 - but what do you bet the doctor set up to "review" my case is going to be working to a set percentage of people to whom he must deny benefit? Then we get another round of bureaucracy, I have to appeal the decision, etc. etc. It really is an insult to my doctor that it's (apparently) thought that he would state that I was unable to work if the opposite was the case. It took them about five years to determine that the chronic pain conditions from which I suffer were actually referred pain from the damage in my back, is a reviewing doctor meant to get his head around all that medical information before making a decision? No chance, so many minutes per claimant, and just make sure you deny a certain percentage, and that will do HMG nicely, thank you.

For someone to be taken off invalidity benefit, they should need to be offered a job which they CAN do and which is suitable for them. I know what I can do, all I need is an employer who will make the necessary accommodations to allow me to do it.

Too much of industry still suffers from the "bums on seats" mentality, where your physical presence is seen as more important than what you actually achieve. I lost almost 90% of my income when I had to stop work and claim benefits. Anyone here really think I'd do that VOLUNTARILY? I'd happily go back half-time, if only an employer had the courage and the FLEXIBILITY to take me on in a way which would enable me to work.

Re #4 threnodio

That was my initial reaction too, but oldnat makes a good try at explaining it in his #637 on the
2nd Page of Brian Taylor's "Labour lagging in by-election race" at https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2008/07/labour_lagging_in_byelection_r.html?page=2

@41
No one is denying your legitimacy.
Now your doctor would be genuine authorising your case, but how do you think he feels when a low life scumbag comes into his surgery and he has to tell him he is off benefits? Do you think he would be comfortable in the face of the agression, and threats of physical abuse or do you think he would take the easy route and rubbersttamp the claim for a quiet life?
In the inner cities let me tell you they are rubber stamping as fast as they can to get these workshy hoodlums out of their offices so that they can get on with the real work of diagnosing people that need real treatment.

Labour have had 11 years to sort things out and they haven't--- things have got steadily worse with lies, corruption, idiotic top-down centralisation, stealth taxes, state-sponsored nannying, fear of and refusal to listen to the electorate... As usual this is just vote-buying spin. They haven't even kept their manifesto promises so why should we believe them this time? These proposals will fizzle out or there'll be a U-turn or they'll deny saying anything about it, you'll see. Things will only start to change when they're buried in the landslide in two years time.

#39 I like "Tough on grime, tough on the causes of grime."

Have you ever thought of being a PR man for the Government...?

# 37 "The economy is heading into recession and we just can't continue to fund a bloated welfare system..."

Or the Iraq war, or ID cards, or PFI contracts, or new Trident missiles...the list goes on.

Government is surely about priorities. The current lot seem to choose theirs in a very strange way...

#42 - Brownedov

It's a nice try but my money is still on the trick cyclist.

I don't know about a "revolutionary idea" we have been saying for the past 40 years! Maybe just maybe we are starting to see the end of the do gooder society and "bad back Britain". This government is always banging on about hard working families. At long last they seem to be going to do something about "bone idle families". Hopefully now we might be able to look forward a "get off your backside Britain".

Re #15 threnodio

Excellent analyis, but as U11714077's #13 points out, the 10% tax fiasco has reduced the gap between benefits and possible earnings and so has made things even worse than before.

Yet again, NuLabour are tinkering with one piece of the jigsaw in the hope of a good headline and/or by-election while refusing to deal with the fundamental isses of the whole tax/benefits/NI/Pension system, which is long overdue for rethinking from scratch. Tax credits are just another layer of complexity and should be scrapped in favour of negative income tax rates where appropriate.

If it were not for our national pastime of institutional incompetence, a single agency could handle the whole system with many fewer staff and much less cost than the many agencies and departments who currently have a finger in the pie. Outside aid from the oft-maligned Police CSOs could perhaps help in the eforcement and fraud detection area.

Perhaps separate agencies for the 4 countries of the UK would have a better chance of success but the starting point should be a plan to cover all payments and receipts between state and citizens.

Re #23 jimbrant

Just to show I have an open mind, jimbrant, I really do agree with 100% of your post full stop

It's fantastic news that the tories manage to draw this government into an unpleasant argument on evry single issue.

Praticularly impressive is having to be drawn into a row their own people (Frank Field) warned about. It's high time the got tough on slackers tough on the causes of slackers.

I understand it must stick in the throat of every died in the wool NewLabour apologist to see their party attacking their own turf.

Shucks. You've had eleven years to sort it out and now the spending machine has gone completely out of control. I can't wait for Alistair Darling's memoirs when he reveals what a car crash of an ecenomy he inherited from his predecessor. He's not going to take the blame for the mess Gordon Brown got us into. You can already spot it every time he answers a question in theat indignant way 'it's not my fault, you know'. He's the unluckiest man alive.

#43. The thing which gets me so annoyed about all this is not so much that my case is reviewed, it's that there's a *presumption* that I'm a skiver.

Even now, the DWP is trying tricks to get me off benefit - they recently sent me a form to complete, and stapled to the front of the form was a little bit of paper, looked like a mass-produced tear-off slip, which informed me that if I didn't return the form by a certain date (about three weeks) they would assume that I wished to discontinue my claim.

Does anybody else here think the mail is 100% reliable? Besides the DWP, that is? I wonder how many claimants this trick is going to get off IB, even just given the Mail's own figures for lost letters? I had no advance warning that this form was being sent to me, of course.

As regards your point about my own doctor, then the answer is simple. All I ask is that my own doctor has input into the process. I'm not asking for him to be the one to tell me of the decision - put me through the review by all means, BUT ask my doctor for his input too, AND make the reviewer take notice of what my doctor has to say.

Once again, it's not so much the bureaucracy, it's the PRESUMPTION of guilt that really hurts. If we lived under a Napoleonic code of justice, I could perhaps accept it. You just get tired of having to fight the same fight, over and over again, to prove that you really are ill. It's ironic that the people best placed to cope with all of this stress and pressure are the real skivers who ARE making the fradulent claims. The more you deserve the benefit, the greater the strain is likely to be in actually proving the fact.

If they ever try to implement this, I'm starting a grafitti-cleaning company and suing the government for anti-competitive behaviour. What am I saying? If they do this, the first thing they'll do will be to see if they can get any money out of the private sector in exchange for some cheap labour.

The real question here is, if there is all this litter picking, grafitti-cleaning and general maintenance work to do, why are the government not employing someone to do it?

The work they would be given won't give them any useful skills to get back into work, won't be recognised as work experience by employers and will be viewed as a punishment for unemployment by those genuinely seeking work.

Meanwhile the (massively overestimated) people who do just want to live off benefits will find this a cushier option than getting a real job. More than likely, they'll come to view it as a job you can't be fired from no matter how bad you are at it.

This is simply the next in a long line of diversionary tactics from a government that is intellectually bankrupt, stone deaf and incompetent. Whatever they do, you can be sure it’ll cost us more, especially when we have to fund all their mates in the private businesses who’ll be called in to administer the schemes. The first attack was all about removing traditional British freedoms following their disastrous foreign policy. This latest attack is simply designed to pick on the most vulnerable people following their failed economic policy. Let's build an economy, US-style, based on mountains of debt, and then pull the rug away from people at the first sign of trouble; unemployment is about to explode, so let's take money and dignity away from the sick instead of something more equitable, like taxing those rich people currently not paying tax. I'm sure everyone will agree that there are benefit scroungers out there who could be working, but let's not conflate this idea with threats to people who cannot work through mental illness or physical disabilities (and I don't mean just a bad back). I know people in this situation that are already becoming more ill just from the thought of ‘the eye of Sauron’ being turned towards them.

43. At 3:25pm on 21 Jul 2008, Pot_Kettle wrote:
"@41
No one is denying your legitimacy."

No, but they are seriously calling it into question with all the demands to get tough on benefits.

People will say "of course we know you're genuine, we meant all of those other people on IB".

Unfortunately, the genuine claimants get made to jump through all the hoops again to prove their condition/disease is real and make sure that they show the correct degree of subservience to the government. When this is done as a crackdown, it is implicit that the government distrusts you and the claimants have to beg for the benefits that they're entitled to.

re: 52

"More than likely, they'll come to view it as a job you can't be fired from no matter how bad you are at it."

Just like an MP then!

In reality, however good the intentions, this package of measures will result in making life more difficult for those with genuine need for benefit whilst allowing the benefit cheats to continue to work the system.

The most powerful law enacted by this Government is the law of unintended consequences, a seemingly omnipresent feature of every piece of litigation they pass. This initiative will fare no better.

Statistically it will doubtless be a different story. Result reporting will be driven by the service providers whose financial rewards depend on the success of the initiative and by a Government whose credibility relies on that same success. Guess what will happen ?

Having said all that, the stated problem is very real and it is one which is much easier to identify than solve.

It has built up over a long period during which, inter alia:
• the benefits regime, which was intended originally to be a safety net, has come a fishing net – partly one suspects to create a client state of dependent citizens
• for many individuals, 'disability' has become a proxy for 'fit unemployed' ,due to the Tories using the IB ploy to massage the unemployment figures and Labour happily embracing the ploy ever since.
• elements of the tax and benefits regime mean many people are financially worse off, or no better off, if they take a job
• these and other things have combined to create conditions which encourage rather than discourage working in the black economy
• it has been deemed preferable to bring in immigrant workers to tackle shortage of labour than to tackle the contribution to that problem of all of the above

Sorting the mess created by years of that kind of stuff is a bit like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube, after brushing one's teeth and rinsing.

Still - good to know that the days of boom and bust are behind us.

@51

I am completely with you on all your points.
It is really unfortunate that genuine cases are lumped in with the malingerers.

As for the issue with the post I know of a similar scenario with DVLA.
If someone sells you a clone vehicle with a V5 that looks genuine, you send off to transfer ownership, they look and it looks dodgy, they write to the person they have on record as the owner asking them to confirm within 14 days wether or not they have sold the vehicle, If they fail to respond they issue a new V5. therefore cloned vehicle now has apparently a genuine V5 until either you or the real owner actually sell the vehicle.
Aside from the post being unreliable, imagine now that they ask for confirmation in August when real owner is about to go on holiday. said owner gets the request and thinks OK I'll deal with that when i get back. puts it with other mail and forgets about it until after their 2 week break to lanzarote, If they remember to do anything about it when they get back its already too late and the V5 has been issued to the cloned vehicle.
Yes I have been caught out being sold a cloned vehcle the police said I should have spotted that the forgers had used the wrong font on the lettering on their stolen blank V5. after 5 weeks with no V5 the police came knocking and confiscated the vehicle 3 years later still no vehicle, no compensation and no conviction for the perpertrator even though he is known to the police for doing this on 16 other occasions.
Scumbag took my mondeo as part ex the police were meant to pick that up and return it to me also but I still dont have that back either.

Why do people endlessly throw red herrings into this discussion?

Yes, there are people wo are genuinely unable to work, and measures like this are not about them. There are other people, many other people, whose only problem is state sponsored lazyness.

These people should not be tolerated. The fact that they system currently does is a disgrace. If these proposals make a dent in this chronic waste, all the better.

This process does not need to be subjective either. There are various assesment indexes that can give assesments of disability / incapacity on a percentage basis that are wholly objective.

But if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?

After all that's the argument NewLabour are using on ID cards so why shouldn't thye use it for IB claimants?

Makes perfect Third Reich, Stalinist sense.

Now all those on this post who have argued against this initiativ by the goverment I say: "Have you something to hide?"

@58

That is a rehash of the "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument trotted out by the government supporters for 42 days.

The thing is with this government you have everything to fear.

What is really insane is that this targets thier core vote and I suspect it may ensure an SNP win in Glasgow East where they have more than their fair share of malingerers on IB

The Welfare Green Paper is worth a read.

Party political rants like #44 are not helpful since the proposals are largely supported by the Tories, and the time-scale proposed for the pilots make it unlikely that full-scale implementation would, in fact, happen before 2010.

The underlying principles of the paper would, I think be supported by most people. The problem, as always, is in the detail, but we'll see how that turns out from the Glasgow pilot.

To me this just seems a way of punishing all those who are un-employed, yes we have lots of scroungers in our society, mostly them who have churned out kids for benefits. But i dont see their name on the list, making innocent ill people do community work, or prove that they are ill is just a little over the mark for me. All this rubbish of that there is high employment is nothing but a total whitewash. Face the facts, the govt has no idea how many immigrants we have on our soil, and has no idea on how many illegal immigrants we have on our soil either. But with our system we have at the moment these undetected people, will continue to take the easy jobs because our so-called lazy wont do it, why? well that all depends on the place you live at isnt it.

Charging people to do a punishing job, because they cant honestly find a job to suit their own expenses is very wrong. Im afraid that fixing this problem with a sledgehammer wont work.

And yes i have a job!

re: 51

I agree, the best way to differentiate between the sick and the scumbags is if the doctor has input. If the system is changed so that the claimant's doctor makes the final decision as to whether they are capable of working (not in the patient's presence of course, to prevent the possible violence you mention) then this will solve the problem, as long as doctors are not arm-twisted by the government into reaching any of these ridiculous 'targets'. If the IB claims decisions were made entirely by doctors who then passed the decision on to the government, then only those who could fool the doctors (not many) would be able to get away with fraudulent claims, and there would be no need for any potentially tinkering. The changes Labour have proposed are for the already-failed purpose of clawing back credibility, not to genuinely alter the way the system works.

I think most people in receipt of benefits should be required to attend some location for 40 hours a week (just like the tax-payers who are supporting them). I suspect the numbers making claims would shrink dramatically - certainly here in Manchester, where working a fiddle job while claiming benefits has been a way of life for decades. By encouraging fecklessness the welfare state has destroyed British society and weakened social solidarity. If someone leaves school with no qualifications and drifts into a life on the dole while immigrants come here to work and prosper, why should I pay tax to support his lifestyle ?

Was there not an advertising campaign advertising the fact that if you had a suspicion that someone was claiming a benefit you could 'dob' them in? "No ifs, no buts" I whink it went. If you glance for a moment at the discussion on the HYS boards everyone seems to know someone claiming whilst sitting watching a "50 plasma tv and are using that board to vent about it, why not just phone them in? If it means that the unemployment figure soars then that's a small price to pay for the savings in not paying some of these claiments. If someone is claiming legitimately then neighbours and friends would know this much better than some admin clerk who can easily mistake a genuine reason for being off work for bone idleness. And they wouldn't need to dip into the taxpayers pocket to hire investigators, I'm sure judging from the ranting on the boards that some of those submitting would gladly do it for free!

#63 and other similar posters

In the unlikely event that you are interested in reality rather than spleen venting, much of the Green Paper's proposals on reforming the sick note system etc are based on Dame Carol Black's review of the health of Britain’s
working age population.

You can see this at

https://www.workingforhealth.gov.uk/documents/working-for-a-healthier-tomorrow-tagged.pdf

64. why should I pay tax to support his lifestyle

we pay for taxes to introduce Islamic belief on our own british culture. Yes thanks for the britishness.

Yes we have many scroungers, and have for the last decade. The benefits ud get for being a unemployed single parent, has created a lifestyle of single parents, and scroungers.

It used to be said that a hungry man would find work, no matter what, to feed his family.

Today many would rather steal than work to feed his/her drug, smoking, alcohol adiction, and stuff the family.

Excuse me if I am rather cynical but I have plenty of experience of the non-working class.

so what's going to happen to all the people that are currently EMPLOYED to pick up litter, clean graffiti, etc?

obvioulsy they'll loose their jobs, why would the council continue to pay them when benefit claimants have to do it?

they could end up doing exactly the same job but for benefits instead of a real wage

yet another government knee-jerk idea that hasn't been thought through properly (or at all)

Just as a follow-up, there are lots of jobs available in the UK. Most are done by migrant workers because most of our population wouldn't do the jobs. Harvesting fruit and vegetables. Working an cafes. etc. Benefits are much better paid!!!

Anyway, which would you prefer when going into a cafe. Friendly, attentive, smiling staff, or morose, uninterested staff. If you prefer the former then go to cafes with eastern European staff.

#67

I won't quote your user_name, since it is clearly discriminatory against those with an eye injury and, judging from your post probably against most of the human race.

Not sure what you mean by "british culture" (sic), but if your views represented it then even most of the posters who identify themselves as "British" would rush to disassociate themselves from it.

I am not sure that this is the way to tackle the problem. But we also need to be aware of the way that the option of long-term unemployment has in my experience over a 37 year teaching career had a terrible and corrosive impact upon education and educational aspirations.

As a comprehensive school teacher I battled for years against a view that was held my a significant number of pupils that - as Pink Floyd put it -"We don't need no education." I spent much of my career trying to explain that jobs that could be done by people with no education would almost certainly move to countries where there was no education- and wages levels would be much lower. "Oh well!" Came the ready rejoinder" If the government can't find us a job, it will just have to pay us the dole and we will live on benefit."

Of course subsequently jobs that can go abroad seem to have done so and we are left with service jobs that have to be done "in situ". And since the introduction of the minimum wage there is a growing demand that jobs requiring a very minimal competence merit higher earnings than the free market would accord.

In fact one contributor on a thread about youth culture and knives points to the frustration of those who have been foolish enough to try to learn at school only to end up doing some mindless and uncreative service job like working in a supermarket- because our creative and productive industries have shrunk dramatically.

I fear that we have lowered expectations generally and will not solve the problem of the long term unemployed in isolation. What we need is a new national project which is what Gordon Brown said his government was going to be. But it has come down to the "hard working people"- that he is fond of talking about- working hard to supply money for countless targetted initiatives that do not complement each other or create any overall national momentum.

Casseroleon

71 oldnat

Concerning #67, I think you are being rather harsh to he/she who will remain with the name that dares not say its name. This writer seems very bitter, probably a disappointed old socialist, if previous comments are anything to go by. It is pathetic when we read of Blears' patronising schemes to "educate" Moslems, and that High Court Judge Phillips wishing to introduce sharia law into the UK. The writer in question is obviously angry and not very eloquent. That unfortunately, has happened to me when emotions take over from cool logic. We should all try and be calm. Very hard in these crazy times!

Regardless of what may be right or wrong with the benefit system, I think Mr Purnell is being quite hypocritical ln making these proposals at the same time as he, along with the majority of our MPs, continues to abuse the parliamentary allowances system - he managed to get through about £150,000 last year despite his more than adequate salary, pension, ministerial car, etc.

An even more blatant case is the Wintertons who have and continue to build a property portfolio entirely from their MP's allowances; have managed the almost impossible achievement of breaking the rules MPs created for themeselves and, as a punishment, are given 6 months to stop breaking the rules - compare that with the punishment for someone found guilty of benefit fraud.

Until parliament gets it's own house in order it is not in any position to make moral judgements on anyone.

Whatever your views on the merits etc of the proposals, does anyone genuinely think that they will actually happen ?

In my view what the government says, and what they end up doing are usually two entirely different things. And they usually affect the people who are the real problem least.

I'm still really surprised that they made this announcement, especially a week before a bye-election and when Gordon Brown is out of the country. Is there some Macevellian New Labour Leadership challenge sub-plot here, or or they just trying to wrong foot the opposition again ?

#66 oldnat

I think I am right in saying that at the core of the Dame Carol Black's review was a concern to tackle the misconception that illness is necessarily incompatible with work.

In other words, essentially about changing perceptions of medics, employers and affected individuals so as to help genuinely ill people who are able to work but who genuinely think they are not, or who genuinely can't find work due to the attitude of employers.

I would agree that the findings of that review have influenced the sick certificate note element of these latest proposals but that is one element only and I rather fear three things.

First that the genuinely ill are only a relatively small part of the benefits dependency issue and the genuinely ill who could work are a but a sub-set of that group.

Second that, in attempting to help or persuade that sub-set into work, it will be very difficult for the system to distinguish between them and many of the genuinely ill who can't work and that this latter group will suffer inconvenience and worse.

Third that the benefit claimants who could work but won't - either for the money on offer or at all - or who do work but in the black economy, will continue to successfully "work the system".

#73 Phoenixarisen

I accept your reprimand unreservedly. I should been more mindful of Dame Carol's reminder that thos with mental health problems are ill-served by the present system, and my father's injunction "never speak ill of the (political) dead".

#76 Only jocking

I agree with you, but these are the factors to be tested in the pilots. I'll reserve judgment, until they are completed.

I know of people who claim IB who have nothing wrong with them.

I know of people who claim for mobility allowance who have nothing wrong with them who get a brand new car every three years.

I know of people who claim mobiliy allowance and that they claim for their mother/grandmother so that they can drive them around as they are incapable themselves. Do they do this - No! They use the car for their own personal use.

I know people who don't pay their utility bills but know they won't get cut off as it will look bad for those companies as they have children.

If you have something genuinely wrong with you, you have nothing to fear by these changes.

There are a huge amount of people who play the system.

If you are playing the system, get to work and do what ever is necessary.

I work bloody hard every day, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, I studied hard in school and then in uni but I bet I am not that better off than some people on the dole, IB or what ever they are on.

I am not saying we shouldn't look after the weak and vulnerable but equally why should I pay high taxes, high water bills, high energy bills, high income tax for people who can't be bothered to contribute to the system

A brief point that others may well think worthwhile. Listening they want this cahnge to be reduce the numbers on disability by a million by 2015.

Students of the social sciences and demography will establish the link between the NHS coming into existance in July 1948 and the tax year nine months later April 1949.

Go forward 65 years from 1949 and what do you get 2014. A substantial number of those currently receiving disability payments will have reached retirement age of 65 by 2015, they will accordingly disappear off the figures whatever the government does, or does not do, either labour or conservative. The immediate post war bulge of babies can be seen to have reached a peak in about 1949/50. That is the end!

#76 Only jocking

Further thoughts -

I suspect that the criminals will always manage to "beat the system", but many of the benefit claimants are the victims of structural adjustment in the 1980's, and the cultural values of their community don't include work. That doesn't mean they are necessarily "scroungers", but often the value system that they learn within their community simply doesn't include working for a living.

To change cultural values is hugely difficult, but is essential to achieve change.

The Local Authority that I live, and taught, in has the highest level of benefit claimants in Scotland. One of the best initiatives has been to recruit local people (not importing middle-class "do-gooders") to knock on doors and give the message that jobs are available. The scheme has been successful simply because in multi-generational deprived communities, where few people have ever worked, the assumption has been that since the heavy industries that closed in the 1980's had gone, there was no point in looking for a job, since there were none.

The Welfare Green Paper seems to me to concentrate on attitudinal changes - hence I broadly support it.

#78 grandGarethShaw

I presume you have reported these fraudsters to the authorities.

There is a bottom line which is inescapable. It is simply not acceptable in a western European society for people to be allowed to starve or go without shelter. It follows that a 'carrot and stick' approach to benefits can never really be that because society cannot use the stick effectively.

There is one measure, however, which might help. If the utilities companies could be persuaded to co-operate, there could be a system by which the unit costs of all utilities overall were increased but a limited number of units would be at the lower end would be given free. In that way, every household would be assured of enough power and water to service basic needs of cooking and hygiene without fear of disconnection. That would create the situation which, along with housing and council tax benefit would ensure that basic needs were covered. You could then substitute food vouchers for cash in problem cases. A case of everyone staying clean, warm and fed but having to go to work if they want beer, fags and video games.

This would also be slightly redistributive, might have an environmental impact at the margins and would assist pensioners and small family units. The benefits assessors would have discretion as to whether to make cash or voucher payments so that where they were satisfied a claim was genuine cash could still be paid.

33. PoliticalVoice

Over the last 20 years I have employed hundreds of Aussies and Kiwis in London.

They are astonished at how easy it is to find a job here. Most have work within 48hrs of looking for it. As do many eastern Europeans today. So if you are looking for work it really does not take too long.

I often have local lads resign from a job, only to receive a letter telling me that they were now claiming job seekers allowance and asking me why they were laid off. This has happend 3 times already this year. I actually rang one up, as he had told me that he had found a better job and made him an improved offer as we were very busy at the time. He told me he needed a rest and had decided to go on to benefits for a while, but would let me know.

When we interview for staff we are often asked if we pay cash as the job applicant does not want to loose his benefits.

Oh yes and we dont pay any one anywhere near the minimum wage except to a few school leaves in their first 3-6 months of employment.

I know the scale of the abuse must be massive and many small firms do pay cash.

Id like to think this is a serious move and not just some political point scoring exercise.

#77 oldnat

I wouldnt' dream of reprimanding you, and I'm sorry if it came out that way. I've had a tough time on this board today, actually got muzzled, so I'd better consider my words carefully. There are others I'd like to reprimand, but I have no right to do so, and unlike some who will remain nameless I'm not Mr Knowall, who snaps like a frenzied terrier whenever one contradicts him. No prizes for guessing who! Have a nice evening.

#84 Phoenixarisen

I was being ironic. No apology is required.

There's a very good case for getting ths current government off benefits and into work

#86 - preacherjogger

. . . or giving them all P.45s and putting them out to grass.

# 86 and 87

Brilliant ideas! - though no one would be left to take any decisions, except the unelected House of Lords. Or do you see yourselves as being the decision-makers?

oldnat

#77 It is a fair point to suggest we should await the results of the pilots. However, I am sorry to say that whether or not we can believe them is also an issue. Based on recent history, I expect they will prove to be broadly successful - at least based on the statistics produced. Whether that will reflect the reality - - ?

Cynical, I concede but then cynicism is very often the product of experience.

#80
Like you, I support the intention to change attitudes and thence behaviours. However, I am very dubious about the methods, which I fear will do more to create resentment than change attitudes. I hope I'm wrong.

By the way, I think the initiative by your local authority sounds very good, with the merit of being local, simple, informative and non-threatening. It would be good if this initiative contained more (any?) elements with such
characteristics.

#89 Only Jocking

"It would be good if this initiative contained more (any?) elements with such
characteristics."

Sorry, don't understand this sentence.

#89 Only Jocking

Just re-read your comment, and I think I understand it now.

The Welfare Green Paper does indeed encourage local initiatives like the one I described.

#91 oldnat

Seems to have disappeared ? Odd.

However, to respond your point re local elements. Delivered in the locality perhaps but centrally designed, imposed and policed ?

And simple ? Non-threatening ?

#92 Only Jocking

See pp 89-90 of the Green Paper.

#93 oldnat

Picking my way through the management consultant type jargon, I'm afraid my hear was more sinking than soaring at the propsects of success of this combination of centrally constructed black box
of outcomes and targets combined with freedom of methods for local providers, including the world-leading Jobcentre Plus.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.

David Cameron arrived in Glasgow a wee while ago on a relatively warm West Scotland day and spent his time reciting right-wing, pseudo-laissez-faire values, in order to talk to his target constituents and interest his potential voters and, here's a hint, he wasn't talking to the people in Glasgow East. Now, in this same context, Labour pushed back a debate on an embryology bill and rushed themselves into a u-turn on raising fuel duty. All of which indicates, at least, Labour, from Westminster, are trying their darndest still to talk to and interest people in Glasgow East. Yet, here's the rub, and it's quite a big rub, from where on earth, or from where in the Cabinet, did this right-wing, pseudo-laissez-faire reform of the welfare system spring into infancy.

James Purnell, what a fine fellow, no doubt, and from Gordon Brown, off somewhere where he wears bullet-proof vests and sits astride a machine-gun which, presumably, is for the image to be portrayed of a PM who would like to do bad things to bad people. Or, at least, hark back to the days of British Victorian imperialist superiority complexes, out there, wherever there happened to be, fighting for dear ol' blighty (I digress). Interestingly, with Purnell and Brown's pseudo-laissez-faire reforms it isn't just Victorian imperialist superiority complexes Brown is hoping to hark back to. I, for one, expect Poor Laws to be the next consideration, then perhaps, just in their kindness, the Corn Laws will become a central issue of debate. All the while, I'm sure, Brown will still be considering himself as one who does bad things to bad people - he will only be half-right.

#95

As a historian and a pedant I must point out that the Corn Laws were introduced in Georgian times and repealed by the Victorians (1815 and 1846) and the Poor Laws dated back well before then. They were amended in 1834 (three years before Victoria) and later made more humane under her reign.

But the rest of your point is well made: the government are trying to introduce punitive rules (mainly to suck up to the readership of the Mial and Express) that will make things worse not better.

What we need is electoral reform (cf. the Great Reform Act of 1832) to make representation of the people fairer (smaller numbers of MPS, proportional representation, fixed term parliaments) so a party with 35 percent of the vote and 25 percent of the electorate can't claim a mandate and drive through oppressive laws through a supine, whipped majority.

~96 badgercourage,

Great name, and I never knew the Corn Laws were introduced in Georgian times but I think I'll stand by the two examples I gave because both were aspects of Victorian debate whether to amend or repeal or just have a chinwag about them. I think any readers got the point, anyway, I hope.

You're right, electoral reform is needed for the Westminster Parliament and, from the experience of the Scottish Parliament, I think the Mixed-Member Proportional System would work well ('07 experience disregarded) for Westminster. The problem at Westminster, though, has as much to do with the type of elite-culture that maintains the archaic-levels of access and transparency, the 'winner-takes-all' values, and the anachronistic ideas that the centre, centre, centre should govern all. I suppose, come electoral reform, such a culture could transform, but I doubt it, I think it's far too deep-rooted and so Westminster will remain the victim of constitutional meanderings until some event or other forces the hand. What that event could be, one could only speculate.

Send the bishops to Lambeth, the Law Lords to a new Supreme Court, the peers to spend more time with their families and use the Chamber for a democratic proportionally elected English parliament.

#97 timepassescarmichael

I also am a historian and a pedant! (wonder if the 2 go together?)

Our PR system is the Additional Member form - though looking at some of the Labour MSPs, your "Mixed Member" description may be more accurate.

Although the system was an attempt at gerrymandering by Labour - to prevent the SNP ever gaining a majority - it actually works reasonably well.

Minority Government works because the Government has to make compromises to get the Budget through. Thereafter they get on with running the country, but can always be voted down if they get things badly wrong.

The winning party cannot simply push its manifesto through - and a good thing too!

The smaller parties can use the system cleverly (as the Tories and Greens do) to ensure some of their agenda is pushed forward.

Labour and the Lib Dems are still sulking about losing, and can't adjust to the new realities. But they'll learn after their next thrashing, and will become productive members of society again!

The only

#98 threnodio

Sounds a good idea - but the two Parliaments will have to work out who gets that hideously expensive Portcullis House.