Welfare Reform - what's happening to good old Labour values?

jonpl Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 07:59:15 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

As a member of the Labour Party, I can't believe what I am reading - making welfare claimants work for their dole!  What's happened to good old Labour values such as minimum wage and tackling poverty!  These proposals are to the right of the Tories! Is the Work and Pensions Secretary having a laugh?!  My party and the Liberal Democrats are shifting decicely to the right, is there any room LEFT for David Cameron's official Tory party.





tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Welfare Reform - what's happening to good old Labour values? | 60 comments (60 topical)

Re: Welfare Reform (#1)

by LabourOutlook on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:31:08 PM GMT

In what way do you think the welfare reform paper undermine the minimum wage or affect our attempts to tackle poverty?


New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#2)

by Anonymous X on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 08:58:05 PM GMT

I'm beginning to think that there's no point of the Labour party existing, let alone being in government if it so intent on bulldozing the welfare state to rubble. Because that's exactly what this means, whether it's wrapped up in fairy tale rhetoric about "transforming lives" or not.


Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#3)

by LabourOutlook on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:24:55 PM GMT

In what way are the reforms "bulldozing the welfare state to rubble"?


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#4)

by donpaskini on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 09:44:54 PM GMT

The reforms are based on a review by David Freud.  Freud has no previous knowledge of the welfare system, and his report is full of quite basic mistakes (including the claim that the cost of housing isn't a barrier to employment) and misleading comparisons about the medical benefits of being in work.    His and Purnell's stated aim is to create a multi-billion pound market in welfare which private companies can make large profits from.  The Tories are very supportive of this.

The assumption is that the way to increase levels of employment is to modify the behaviour of 'customers' so that they are more focused on getting jobs.

The biggest problem with this is that the assumptions are all wrong - most people who are out of work want to work, but face barriers like the cost of childcare, housing or transport; find that wages are too low; and face discrimination from employers (particularly true for disabled people).  You will search in vain for any references to these problems in the white paper, or for what the government is going to do about this.  So it won't achieve its aims.

Another problem is that the system is going to become increasingly cruel and dehumanising.  Unless you believe that every adviser has perfect knowledge and will always be able to assess every individual's circumstances correctly, then more people will find their benefits being docked, and more sick and disabled people will be forced into unsuitable work which will make them more unwell.

There are plenty of other objections - I've read the white paper and there is something malign and stupid on almost every page.  The politics behind it are not at all clever either.  But I'd have thought 'it won't work' and 'it will hurt vulnerable people' are two good objections to be getting on with.

What is especially frustrating about this is that what the government has been doing, providing more support for people to be able to work, tackling discrimination, higher benefits for families and the rest - has actually worked pretty well, particularly by international standards.  But we've just announced that we think this approach has basically failed and that Chris Grayling was right.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#6)

by LabourOutlook on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:19:18 PM GMT

1. I agree that the white paper doesn't address every single barrier to work - for the simple reason that it's a DWP white paper. This is a plan for the welfare system: other issues can and should be dealt with in other departments.

2. You say that the system will become increasingly cruel and dehumanising without offering any evidence of why this should be other than to say that advisers cannot have perfect knowledge - something which is true of any system which you could create. What makes you think that the proposed system in particular will result in cruelty?

3. You mention the good work of the government on discrimination and making work pay as though all that is coming to an end - I read nothing in the white paper about ending any of it.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#8)

by donpaskini on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:44:49 PM GMT

1 and 3.  But this is definitely an area where there needs to be joined up working across government.  And surely a new strategy should build on what has worked, rather than wasting money on measures which will be counter-productive?

Besides, there won't be more money available for, e.g. reducing the costs of childcare or addressing the other barriers to work, because the money is going to pay private companies up to £50,000 per 'customer' that they support into work, according to David Freud.  (The Tory proposals are an even worse waste of money, because they want to pay private companies to help people who would get jobs even without any assistance).

2.  The system will be increasingly cruel and dehumanising because there will be more sanctions, that's the whole point.  More people will have their benefits cut or stopped or be sent onto 'work for dole' programmes, or be required to take the first job that comes even if they fear it will damage their health.  If someone says that they think that taking a particular job will be bad for their health, or will mean that they find it hard to look after their kids, or that they are scared that they will be bullied, then the adviser will have to decide whether to cut their benefits to try to force them to take it.

The theory about how sanctions work for getting people into work assumes a steadily increasing supply of jobs.  That doesn't describe the current situation or the reality of the labour market as it actually exists.

I ran a seminar discussion a while back which included advisers from some of these private companies which will be delivering even more welfare to work services.  They said that what was needed were more good quality jobs for people, that turnover amongst advisers was high because it was a stressful and often demoralising job, and that a lot of the jobs which they were offering people were short term, dead end jobs and would leave people with less money.

But instead of listening to the people who will be delivering these services, Purnell and Freud listened to their chief executives who have spotted an opportunity to make profits out of the welfare system.

Just to give one example of where this approach has led where it has been tried (there are many more), in Germany after the Hartz reforms, one young man with learning disabilities had his benefits stopped because he didn't comply with the requirements for work search that his adviser required.  He ended up starving to death because he didn't have any money.

What these proposals do is to bully vulnerable people, and set them up to fail.  There's a reason why the Tories love them and every single anti-poverty group opposes them.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#10)

by LabourOutlook on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:58:14 PM GMT

Of course things should be joined up, but there's a limit to the size of a white paper - this is a DWP white paper and I hardly think it's reasonable to expect every single housing issue, transport issue, structural issue, educational issue, childcare issue etc. to appear in it.

The sanctions aspect is a tiny part of the white paper and my reading is that there'll be plenty of safeguards.

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#11)

by donpaskini on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:11:58 PM GMT

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a paper about how to get more people into work to refer to the main reasons why people aren't able to find work or stay in work - even if just footnote references to DWP research or some such.

I couldn't see any safeguards mentioned in the discussion on sanctions - there's no right of appeal to an independent body, for example.  Of course, there is a long way from white paper to legislation, and I'd hope that Labour MPs will seek to amend it.
 
Whatever disagreements on this white paper, I think we both agree on what the government's policy on welfare reform should try do - provide help and support so that those who can work can find suitable and rewarding jobs and those who can't have the resources and services to be able to live in dignity.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#12)

by Anonymous X on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:02:22 AM GMT

Exactly - this is the hated Hartz reforms from Germany, but potentially far harsher. Anyone with any sense of compassion should oppose these measures utterly.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#13)

by LabourOutlook on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:50:15 AM GMT

As Johann Hari writes today, the benefit system "as it stands, it can leave people in a rut and let their potential leech away into nothing". That isn't what the left should be defending.

You are completely wrong to say that people who support the proposals lack compassion.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#26)

by grimupnorth on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:24:44 PM GMT

My father  is 88 and  lived through the 1930's. He read through these "reforms"  in the Guardian and wonders what  has  happened to the Labour party. The tragedy is of course that these are not proposals which would win support among Party members. They are just sickening, right-wing,  punitive reforms. Cruel and dehumanising, as Don Paskini has said. Absolutely right.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#20)

by alexhilton on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:20:22 PM GMT

It's not a White Paper, it's a Green Paper, which merely aspires to be a White Paper


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#51)

by jkitleft on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:46:29 PM GMT

Is it possible-shock, horror, as it's a New Labour proposal, that it could just be a headline grabber, and it might be watered down slightly?


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#52)

by Free Radical on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:09:51 PM GMT

Maybe it's a ploy to drive the left and centre out of the party so that JP can become PM?


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#5)

by Anonymous X on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:02:54 PM GMT

See donpaskini's reply for a good run down. I have to add, one would think that a fundamental and *core* role of any welfare state would be to support the workless, particularly the sick workless who cannot work due to health reasons. This genuinely is the kind of absurdly cruel, Tory-like and reactionary set of policy proposals ever suggested by New Labour.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#7)

by LabourOutlook on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:21:26 PM GMT

The white paper is pretty explicit about extra help for people out of work and that individuals who can't work will not be forced to do so.

Could you point to the particular section of the white paper which you consider to be cruel, Tory-like or reactionary?


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#30)

by Curlew on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:42:23 PM GMT

The Poor Law was revoked in 1930 and replaced with the Welfare State - this is a reversal.


[ Parent ]

Re: New Labour = Crypto-Tories (#33)

by LabourOutlook on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:03:12 PM GMT

The help in getting back to work included in the green paper is in the best tradition of the welfare state.


[ Parent ]

Re: Welfare Reform (#9)

by Floating voter on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 10:56:16 PM GMT

"As a member of the Labour Party, I can't believe what I am reading - making welfare claimants work for their dole!"

Well, the implication of your statement is that money should be handed out with no constraints at all. That doesn't seem very responsible.


Re: Welfare Reform (#14)

by NB on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:53:18 AM GMT

There is beginning to be a bi-partisan consesnus on this.  The fact is that simply paying people not to work is terribly destructive to their health and wellbeing.

The main differneces between Purnell and the Tories on this would be, I think, that the Tories would seek to offer more comptence, more involvement by community groups, and would not be contrained by the sacred cows of the tax credit system.
 


Re: Welfare Reform (#15)

by LabourOutlook on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:15:36 AM GMT

As Purnell notes, the Tories approach is based entirely on sanctions - using fear to force people into work and leaving them on the scrap heap if they can't.

The Purnell/Labour approach is to combine the expectation that claimants should act responsibly by looking for work while, at the same time, the state also gives them all the help they need to do so. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Welfare Reform (#16)

by Floating voter on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:53:16 AM GMT

It's not all roses for Purnell - Frank Field was on the radio this morning and he sounded distinctly underwhelmed.


[ Parent ]

Re: Welfare Reform (#17)

by e10rifles on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:32:35 AM GMT

Working in exchange for money is just working, isn't it?

So, as long as the government is paying those workers decent rates (at or above nationally agreed rates in unionised sectors) and they have normal employment rights then fine.

Anything else is slavery by another name.


Re: Welfare Reform (#18)

by alexhilton on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:33:43 AM GMT

I have posted this piece by James Purnell, originally written for Guardian Commentisfree.

James has said he will sign in and respond to comments on the piece if you want to go over there and respond.

I hope this is useful

Alex Hilton
alexhilton@gmail.com
07985 384 859


not true labour anymore (#19)

by daveblue on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 02:44:28 PM GMT

this is not a true socialist labour party anymore as they have changed every value that was the labour party as redistribution of wealth  and now attacks on the most vunerable in society sick and disabled as they are an easy target after the gov spent all our money on an illegal war is nobody going to be able to be sick anymore what if your own doctor says that you cannot work anymore and dwp says you can that means benefits will be cut and also if they put incapacity claiments  on jobseekers allowence then the unemployment figures will go up and as said people with mental health problems it will make there conditions worse but this new labour party is all about spin and looking tough to middle class tory uk also according to new labour i thought they said that the incapacity benefit claiments the figures are going down so who do we believe and remember some of the claiments do not get any benefit only national insurance credits another thing we pay ni for the purpose of  incapacity so people in work should be very worried if they become sick and disabled what will happen i am disabled myself and i worked and payed taxes all my life and still pay tax now


Re: Welfare Reform - (#21)

by Wiseman on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:20:07 PM GMT

At this rate we going to hit a brick wall.  We are hurting our core voters.  We don't need this measures.  All we are doing is aspiring to middle England again.

John Wiseman


Re: Welfare Reform - (#22)

by LabourOutlook on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:26:11 PM GMT

You don't think that voters in our heartlands will disproportionately benefit from the extra help in getting jobs?


[ Parent ]

Re: Welfare Reform - (#23)

by Wiseman on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:47:15 PM GMT

No!

John


[ Parent ]

Re: Welfare Reform - (#24)

by LabourOutlook on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:57:34 PM GMT

Why not? Wealthy individuals can buy all sorts of help to get jobs, why shouldn't our core voters be entitled to similar help?


[ Parent ]

Re: Welfare Reform - (#58)

by ComradeNorton on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:08:57 PM GMT

When I last looked, the Labour Party was the party of the working class, not apologetic middle classes always looking for excuses as to why people can't do this or that. 

Worklessness is the enemy of the working class and perpetuates their position at the bottom of the social pile and we need to do everything in our powers to end it, even if that means sometimes giving people a job so that they can gain some experience of how to carry it out.
 


[ Parent ]

Re: Welfare Reform - what's happening (#25)

by Wiseman on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:09:08 PM GMT

It is the fact that people are being forced in slave labour for dole.  I am furious about this after my Grandfather had to suffer this in the forties and fifties.  We are going backwards!

John


Re: New Labour = Crypto Tories (#27)

by jonpl on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:42:10 PM GMT

It doesn't seem like groups representing disabled people like MIND or Scope have been listened to.  I don't think the secretary of State would be so keen on these proposals if he had the misfortune to be unemployed or disabled through no fault of his own!  It's like some housewarming gift for David Cameron's Tories who are welcoming this like flowers in the spring!  I think the BNP probably think that this is a huge step in the RIGHT direction!


this is not about helping people into jobs (#28)

by daveblue on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:43:47 AM GMT

im sorry but this is not about helping people into jobs its about cuts to benefit and saving money if it was about helping people it would not be about threats of losing money now this will only make people resent the gov it should be relaxed and voluntary this is a   series  breach of disabled rights as they have totally rewritten the rules of a benefit that replaces your income due to injury now fair enough if you can go back to work then thats ok but this would payout until you retire if you cannot now as i said before we in work pay for this insurance the incapacity benefit has already been said that the medical is the strictist in the eu union


Re: Welfare "Reform" and drug abuse (#29)

by Free Radical on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:16:52 PM GMT

I was looking at the Green Paper's proposals on 'problem drug users.'

Para 2.39
We also invite views on the merits of changing benefit rules to require all applicants for benefit to declare whether they are addicted to heroin or crack cocaine. This could include bringing in sanctions such as recovering overpayments and investigations for fraud against those who mislead. If we were to take this forward, then those investigations could include information sharing with the police and, in a small number of cases, contracted-out drug testing.


Under para 2.48 the green paper suggests that "Over time we will consider the case for extending this approach to others - for example, those dependent on cannabit, powder cocaine or dependent on alcohol."

Failure to take up drug treatment and specialist employment support could result in "a potential benefit sanction." (Para 2.43).

While any improvement in drug support would be welcome, the kind of punitive approach suggested and even the requirement to sign a declaration (with the threat of fraud prosecution for non-declaration) would have a very predictable consequence of driving some drug users out of the system altogether and a predicatable increase in crime to accompany it. The green paper seems to take a facile approach - that somehow drug addicts might be rehabilitated or stabilised in some fairly predicatable way, obviously with no insight into the kind of chaotic and disordered lives that many drug addicts live. If people are driven out of the benefit system then of course we should also consider the impact of this on their children.

Let us also think about the implications of the medical tests for incapacity benefit - not through the GP. Presumably a private arrangement by the department - would there be targets for the numbers of people failed? Would there be blood or urine tests that could pick up drug use - with that information then potentially shared with the police...? If it the proposals were extended, as is mooted, to cannabis, then perhaps people on incapacity benefit who took some cannabis might then be tested by a private doctor, prosecuted for fraud and suspended from benefit?

Welcome to the world of James Purnell...


Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#31)

by Curlew on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:49:33 PM GMT

I can imagine the stress that many disabled people will go through when dealing with this Private company who get paid on "results".  If my boss were to try and make me work in a field that I a) have no interest in or b) have no experience in, I would be able to sue him for applying undue stress.  Can the unemployed do this against the private company.

Please don't tell me there will be jobs for all - it just isn't true.


Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#32)

by fluffymike on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:55:49 PM GMT

Hmmm, seems the govt has some strong supporters for this latest piece of unbeleivable right-wing oppression:

shadow work and pensions secretary Chris Grayling claimed the plans were a "straight lift" of those previously put forward by his party.
"Since these are Conservative proposals we will certainly support them," he said.

"I know you will have some difficulties getting them through your own party. Can I assure you we will help you get them through this House even if you have a backbench rebellion to contend with."


Well we've peed off most of our traditional voters, we might as well pee off the benefit claimants that vote as well - just in case they sully the good New Labour name ;-)


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#34)

by Free Radical on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:08:14 PM GMT

I sometimes wonder whether there might be a split in the party with people like Purnell, Charles Clarke and Millburn throwing their lot in with Cameron. They really are an odious lot.


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#36)

by LabourOutlook on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:13:36 PM GMT

People like Purnell, Clarke and Milburn are no more going to join the Tories than Diane Abbott or John McDonnell are going to joint the SWP.

As Tony Blair said of Denis Skinner in his last conference speech, "Never agreed with a policy I've done. Never once stopped him knowing the difference between a Labour government and a Tory one."

We all have the same general set of Labour values.


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#39)

by Free Radical on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:41:38 PM GMT

Well, I don't really wish to be divisive, and I agree that a Labour government is better than a Tory one, but I am not sure any more that we all share the same general set of values, and that is perhaps why members and supporters have deserted us in droves. Our task is to rebuild a shattered coalition of the left and centre-left.

I once saw Tony Benn speak and he began by recounting how Ramsay McDonald's cabinet had cut unemployment benefit - I think from five shillings to half a crown, in the depths of the great depression. All this stuff is nothing new.


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#41)

by LabourOutlook on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:53:02 PM GMT

Your absolutely right that we need to rebuild our support, all while making sure that we don't retreat in on ourselves and leave supporter from whatever background behind.

As for values, Blair said in his 2006 conference speech (I was reading it last week) "The beliefs of the Labour Party of 2006 should be recognisable to the members of 1906. And they are - Full employment; strong public services; tackling poverty; international solidarity. The policies shouldn't."

I think that's what we're all in the party to achieve. The Conservatives said that mass unemployment was a "price worth paying", ignored and underfunded public services, oversaw huge increases in poverty and (topically) looked the other way when Karadzic and the rest were conducting massacres in Yugoslavia.


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#44)

by Free Radical on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:36:45 PM GMT

Forgive me for being cynical about Mr Blair, but:
I think when he said "full employment" he might have added "with over one million on the dole."
When he said "strong public services" he meant to add "with as much opportunity for private profit"
When he said "tackling poverty" he meant to add, "without redistributing income"
When he said "international solidarity" he might have added "with President Bush."

Our Labour government has done good things to be sure, and we must not lose sight of that - the enormous increase in health funding, the Sure Start programme, improvements in schools, the minimum wage. But other things have been deeply disappointing to many members and supporters - I'm sure you know exactly what they are - some to the point where I have contemplated leaving the party. Purnell's Green Paper is in many ways just another of those assaults on our core values.


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#46)

by LabourOutlook on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:47:13 PM GMT

You name four things on which huge progress has been made.

While things still remain to be done and some things have been done wrongly, I don't believe that amounts to a betrayal of Labour values. 


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#47)

by jonpl on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:25:16 AM GMT

The party is very much like the Church of England at the moment!  I would say that I am on the centre-left of the spectrum, but I may be a touch right wing with my reservations on embryology.  I am having difficulty with the "crypto-Tory" wing of the party advocating illegal wars, privatisation and cheap and nasty legislation like this Welfare bill.

BTW.  Mr Purnell's timing is as inept as Les Dawson's piano-playing considering we're nosediving into recession. I'm having nightnmares of four million disadvantaged people painting and removing moss from the country mansions of the privileged!


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#35)

by LabourOutlook on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:08:43 PM GMT

The Tories' proposals are a straight lift from a Labour-commissioned report. You should know better than to automatically assume that everything Chris Grayling says must be true.

As for "these are Tory Conservative proposals" and "we'll help you get them through Parliament", Grayling is just mischief making - he said them to provoke exactly your reaction amongst Labour supporters.


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#37)

by fluffymike on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:28:09 PM GMT

even if it is true that we lifted tory proposals that they lifted from a commissioned report doesn't change the fact that what we are doing is what the Tories would be doing if they were in govt...

and yes Grayling is causing mischief - because he's highlighting that very fact... he knows we are fast alienating our core voters and is glad to be helping us along the way...


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#38)

by LabourOutlook on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:41:20 PM GMT

You say that we are doing what the Tories would be doing if they were in government - I say that they're the ones who are pledging to do what we're doing.

Of course there are disagreements over the details of the white paper. But building on the New Deal which the Tories opposed, more investment in help for people looking for work rather that simply threatening people who can't help themselves and a pledge to reinvest the saved money rather than seeing welfare reform as a 'popular' cut - these things chime with Labour values

None of those things would have been pledges by a pre-1997 Conservative government. The Tories are being forced to go along withthem because people wont stand for their old style of nastiness anymore.

Whatever you think about it, that's a significant shift that wouldn't have happened without this government.


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#40)

by fluffymike on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:49:43 PM GMT

But building on the New Deal which the Tories opposed, more investment in help for people looking for work rather that simply threatening people who can't help themselves and a pledge to reinvest the saved money rather than seeing welfare reform as a 'popular' cut - these things chime with Labour values

This I would tend to agree with - but it's not what I understand to be the reality of what this govt is proposing... and certainly not how DWP staff are being prepared for future devlopments! See my rant above on how we are actually doing LESS to help genuine work seekers and spending MORE time on those who are the new and current 'target' claimants'...


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#43)

by LabourOutlook on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:31:34 PM GMT

I wouldn't presume to argue with you about what's going on in your workplace. Could you explain why, in your experience, why there will be less help?


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#48)

by fluffymike on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:51:26 AM GMT

Put simply, all civil servants work in a target driven culture. We now have equal time with each claimant during interviews, but on the points you get more points for the difficulty of each person re-entering the market.

You get few if any points for someone, for example, who has just left one job and gets another very quickly. You get far more points for getting, for example, a disabled person 'off the books'. There are targets for each person, team, office, district, region etc.

Therefore more resources are aimed at the hgher point scorers and very few towards those who it is hoped will just find a job anyway.

I hope that gives a broad outline of the picture?


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#42)

by sickandtired on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:09:40 PM GMT

Why not drop labour and just call them selves N.E.W now everyones worseoff


[ Parent ]

Re: what's happening to good old Labour values? (#45)

by Curlew on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:42:00 PM GMT

ROFLMAO


[ Parent ]

unbeleavable (#49)

by daveblue on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 11:01:16 AM GMT

now i hear that new labour are to have a state funeral for maggie thatcher costing 3 million pounds who when got in in 1979 put up precription charges took away pension link sold post office giro bank which was in profit sold off utilities closed down mines took away union rights poll tax black weds faulklands war mg rover and more


Re: Welfare reforms (#50)

by Bobsterama on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 01:08:43 PM GMT

Come on guys. This is just common sense.

Why shouldn't the unemployed be made to pick up litter like any other bunch of criminals ?

Stopping benefit payments to unemployable junkies is a great idea too. Apart from anything else, it's bound to cut down on crime rates.

Then there's single mums. Why should they be left to raise their kids (who are bound to end up as chavs anyway) when they could be doing so much more for society by working in Mcdonalds for minimum wage ?



Re: Welfare reforms (#54)

by fluffymike on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 08:19:01 PM GMT

Well you've just castigated the refuse collectors of this country quite nicely!

The bottom line is - if there's this miraculous work that people can be forced to do whilst claiming benefit, then why isn't it a proper job that carries proper wages?





[ Parent ]

ride on fluffy (#59)

by daveblue on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:18:43 PM GMT

fluffy for pm


[ Parent ]

re last comment (#53)

by daveblue on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:24:04 PM GMT

another rightwing arshole who is brain dead


Re: re last comment (#55)

by Free Radical on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:08:49 AM GMT

...I think he was being ironic


[ Parent ]

Re: re last comment (#60)

by daveblue on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:19:49 PM GMT

i want to erase that message one of my moody days


[ Parent ]

fluffymike (#56)

by daveblue on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 06:49:03 PM GMT

ok   if i took it wrong way i am sorry


Re: Welfare Reform (#57)

by Anonymous X on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:28:53 PM GMT

Well, that's the welfare state gone then. It was nice knowing it.


Welfare Reform - what's happening to good old Labour values? | 60 comments (60 topical)