Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes

alexhilton Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:17:53 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

When Oliver Letwin, the man in charge of the Tory policy review, declared that the welfare system had to go beyond mere safety nets to encompass redistribution of money, it was hailed - not least by the Guardian - as a decisive break with the past.

Writes James Purnell in The Guardian
The DWP Green Paper "No-one written off" was published today.




But little attention was given last week to David Cameron's criticism of the government for "transferring money from rich to poor", and his belief that the "end of the road" had been reached with this approach. It's a major retreat from the Letwin position, and came after Cameron had failed to mention child poverty in a Glasgow speech on social breakdown, in which he instead emphasised the role of the individual in tackling poverty and deprivation.

One of the reasons Labour lost the trust of the country and the chance of power for 18 years was that we convinced ourselves that you help the poor only by handing out more and more in benefits. We left individual responsibility - so important to the founders of the welfare state - out of the equation.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown decisively won the argument about the importance of work as a route out of poverty. Their New Deal combined extra help with extra responsibility for the individual to take it up. As a result, we have halved the number of people unemployed, and there are now more people in work than ever before. We have shown that the choice between helping the poor and reforming welfare was false.

But in arguing last week that we must tackle the causes of poverty rather than poverty itself, Cameron is making the reverse mistake. He ignores the fact that having too little money is not just a definition of poverty; it is also a cause of staying poor. If you are serious about ending child poverty, you also have to tackle poverty now, or the problems of one generation are inherited by those that follow.

Our approach will be stepped up in the Welfare green paper published today, and will help 200,000 children out of poverty. We will for the first time allow separated parents on benefits to keep all of their maintenance benefits. We will aim to get a million claimants off incapacity benefit, through help with their health and a return to work. Those on long-term sickness benefits overwhelmingly want to return to work. We will give them the help to do so but will expect them to take up that help.

We will make it easier for businesses to employ disabled people, by doubling the funding for such things as sign language interpreters, specialised equipment, and transport costs. We will expand treatment for those with drug problems but also require them to accept this help or lose benefits. There will be more help for parents to learn new skills and look for work when their children get older. We will strengthen families by requiring both parents to be registered at the birth of their child.

This approach is already working. In Glasgow, Cameron did not mention that unemployment there has almost halved since 1997, nor that the number of children in poverty in the UK has fallen by 600,000. And he wouldn't have dared claim that the Tories would have found £1bn in the last budget to take 500,000 more children out of poverty, as we did.

This came about because the government wants to use the collective power of our citizens to galvanise individual responsibility. Cameron revealed last week that he doesn't understand this.

Another Conservative leader once said: "We have gone as far as we possibly can with the redistribution of income." That was Margaret Thatcher in 1975. We all know what happened next.

· James Purnell is the work and pensions secretary


tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes | 78 comments (78 topical)

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#1)

by redpants on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:51:55 AM GMT

This shows that we are still capable of radical policy development.  There will be complaints about this direction here, I have absolutely no doubt about that,  but it's so great to see the depth of thinking here and a genuine analysis of a pretty intractable problem being dealt with through a worked up policy programme.

At the moment it feels like the Government needs to earn the permission in the media, and with the public, to be listened to.  We've lost the initiative.  We need to go out there and be clear that we know people aren't happy with us and that we are working hard to sort that, but that we're still going to deliver for them.  

To me this kind of policy initiative does just that. It's bold - there is a clear need for it - and it strikes a chord with the public.  James and the DWP team should be congratulated.

 

 

 


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#27)

by sickandtired on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:27:53 PM GMT

Congratulated for out torying the tories?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#31)

by wellred on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:52:36 PM GMT

Cameron said he was "thrilled".

I am now feeling a bit ill!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#36)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:36:57 PM GMT

I agree. Purnell has done a good job here. Nice to see some boldness in the Cabinet.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#2)

by alexhilton on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:01:25 PM GMT

I do welcome the moves to help people back to work, and these measures do seem more sensitive than our first effort when we sent semi-qualified doctors from SemaSchlumberger round to people's houses to see if they could stand up or not.

But I don't think the answer is solely in finding a job for a person with a disability. We need people with disabilities to be players in a jobs market, where they can take their skills from job to job and compete for jobs and have employers compete for their skills.

And we can't truly achieve that until society fully adapts to disability, until public transport is fully adapted, until schools teach more flexibly and until attitudes to disability have been broken down and rebuilt.

So I think we should have some humility and recognise that society itself is disabled until this has happened.


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#3)

by wellred on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:08:53 PM GMT

My brother has chronic schizophrenia. He is best cared for in the stress free environment of the family home. His interpersonal skills and levels of paranoia means he best away from groups of people and their demands such as at work. He looks odd, is utterly naive and vulnerable and his personal grooming isn't great. He would not last 5 minutes. Any changes to his routine trigger severe migraine and violent sickness. There is also the damping effect of his miscellaneous medication.

I have watched him twice descend into complete psychosis and at other times hover on the edges. Seeing him forcibly hospitalised was a horrific experience. This is distressing in the extreme for him and for our family. I am crying simply writing this at the prospect of him being put through this process of re-assessment which will unleash the terrors on him and potentially push him into another massive psychotic breakdown. So to those commentators advocating these measures go on get all muscular and tough about these so-called fraudulent long-term Incapacity Benefit claimants for this is the impact you will have on our family. Hope they will all be happy.
When interviewed on Channel 4 news, David Freud, a banker, who came up with the estimates for those he thought should not be on IB, could not give a convincing account of how he had arrived at the figures when repeatedly pressed. They were simply back of the envelope estimates. He seemed to be saying that he had taken the increase in the number of people on IB and the decrease in the number of people claiming unemployment benefit and read this directly across.
Hope the commentators who affect to know what's best for others can live with their consciences knowing the enormous harm that is about to be perpetrated on people like my brother.


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#7)

by Floating voter on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:33:58 PM GMT

The situation you describe for your brother makes clear  that he would be a genuine case and incapable of work in the usually accepted work environments - offices, dealing with people, etc.

That said, there are also people who are just out of the habit of work. It is these people who need to be found and helped (booted??) back into employment.

That is why each case must be assessed. There cannot be a "one size fits all" approach to this. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#12)

by Craig on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 02:10:33 PM GMT

Is there any reason your brother wouldn't be capable of working from home? I'm not trying to be insensitive to your plight, but I thought the whole point of these reforms is to identify what sort of work people in your brothers predicament *can* do rather then what they cannot. This whole thing is for nothing if you just throw your hands up in the air at the first hurdle.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#13)

by Craig on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 03:42:28 PM GMT

Sorry, I forgot to add in my previous post that even if someone is deemed too ill to work and therefore exempt from attending regular work focused interviews, they will still be required to have regular medical assessments until they are fit enough to come off ESA support anyway, so your brother won't be any better off.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#15)

by wellred on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:45:03 PM GMT

His condition is chronic and lifelong. We'll be the first to celebrate if he makes a miraculous recovery... so there is no until he is fit enough. His medication makes him dopey and tired and grumpy. He has to have medication to counteract Parkinsonism brought on by the anti-psychotic drugs. Doctors tried to mess around with his medication to try and achieve a lighter touch but this just sent him spiralling again. His concentration is poor. He often paces around the house worrying about invisible things. My mother takes him out for a walk every day to keep him active. It pains me to say this of my brother but he isn't capable of very much intellectually either. He writes like a child. He was in remedial classes when he was young and had an EEG on his brain because he used to get bad headaches. Doctors told my mother he had a 'shadow on his brain' but no more was said about it.

My father also had schizophrenia ...unfortunately it tends to run in families and thus my poor brother (but no-one told my mother of my fathers illness before she married him) drew the short straw. My father by contrast had acute breakdowns and stayed reasonably well and rational inbetween such that he was able to hold down a good job until his mid forties when he seemed to deteriorate somewhat.

And can you believe this my own son is Autistic -at the severe end of Autistic. He's 17 but mentally about 5 years old. How devastated am I ...three generations of my close family afflicted in this way ...but hey that's off the point.

The research suggests there is some kind of link but don't quite know what.
 
Believe me if there was a better life to be achieved for my brother we would be fighting for it. He once tried at the suggestion of a social worker to live away from home. He lasted two days and fled home in terror. The best thing for him is to be kept stable and shielded from unnecessary stress.

What a drain on the state we all must be.

Carers UK reckon carers provide the equivalent of £87 billion pounds worth of care each year -unpaid! I think my family have done a fair amount of that given this macabre tale of genetic bad luck.

I myself have a first class hounours degree and I intend to use it!




[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#16)

by wellred on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:48:02 PM GMT

"hounours degree"

oops that was a typo not a spelling error!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#17)

by wellred on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:59:08 PM GMT

I also must add that I didn't know (nobody does) when I had my son that there was a chance of him being Autistic.

My first son who is 19 is a bright, handsome productive member of society with a strong work ethic (he's been working ever since he got a paper round as soon as he was old enough)  and paying his taxes.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#20)

by Craig on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:32:29 PM GMT

I'm not having a go at you mate, I'm just trying to tell you the situation. *Everyone* claiming Employment & Support Allowance will be required to have a medical assessment or 'work capability assessment' as it to be called. They will also be asked to attend a work assesment interview after a few weeks in order to discuss their future work potential. They will then be placed in one of two groups based on the results of these assessments.

Work related activity group. These people will have been deemed fit enough to work and will be farmed out to one of the private companies who will help them find work that will fit in with their needs. They will be paid £84.50 per week.

Support group. This group are too ill to work but will be required to have regular medical exams to decide if they are healthy enough to switch to the work related activity group or come off ESA altogether. These will be paid £89.50 per week.

As I understand it, the government want the vast number of people claiming ESA to be moved into the work related activity group.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#30)

by wellred on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:40:44 PM GMT

I know you weren't. You were just making helpful suggestions. I hadn't intended to make it into a confessional all Oprah-style but was just trying to show that its not so simple and in assuming a model of 'work is good for you' for everyone that some serious damage is going to be done for people who have seriously entrenched, long-standing intractable problems of a chronic mental ill health nature.

There is no cure for his condition and its just a case of containment and gentle stability. Some people get worse with age and the great mathematician John Nash made a recovery of sorts in his elderly years.

My mother is going to have a coronary when she finds out what she is going to have to deal with. He will not be able to take in what people are saying to him and he is incredibly suggestible. I can imagine him at the hands of some keen, incentivised adviser.

She is nearly 70 and it will cost a heck of a lot more to look after him when she crocks it through shock and stress.

I am not going to say any more, I am just distressing myself.  I hope I have illustrated the reality of some of the fallout there will be from this.



[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#59)

by snowflake5 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:07:02 PM GMT

"Is there any reason your brother wouldn't be capable of working from home?"

Craig - you are betraying your ignorance of schizophrenia here (not your fault as society doesn't spend any time on this illness as it is not "fluffy" in the way diabetes is).

I knew the son of a family friend who suffered from schizophrenia, and the first thing to go was cognitive reasoning. Simply ability to see cause and effect disappeared and paranoia took over. He went from someone who got a first in his degree to someone who couldn't construct a lucid sentence. When they tried to assess his linguistic abilities, he ended up a Level 1 (I think this is on par with six year olds). There was no way he could work - indeed, even while ill the poor chap kept applying for jobs and kept getting knocked back as he was literally unfit to work. Very tragic and very scary.

And the families suffer from societies ignorance and the cruel advice that people should "snap out of it". It's not something you can snap out of. It's down to brain chemistry being completely messed up. Part of the reason I am so anti-drugs is that we think someone triggered his illness by slipping him a mickey. There was no history of the illness in the family, who have had their lives literally ruined by this.

I am confident that the new legislation will protect people like him. People who are ill are always better off under a Labour government. Remember when the Tory administration released mentally ill people "into the community" with no care and support? Many ended up on the streets, hurt, confused and in a dreadful state. We on the left really need to put our differences aside and fight really hard for a Labour government - Tories are so cruel, civilised norms go out of the window when they are in power.   


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#4)

by MarkHanson on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:16:34 PM GMT

I welcome the policy in principle and I'm sure in practice that deserving cases, especially the brother of the previous commenter, won't (and shouldn't be) harassed by the welfare state.


The problem is that its not what we say its what people hear. People have heard the message that Labour is getting tough on welfare but there's a steady stream of stats that are interfering with that eg youth unemployment, NEETs and a general feeling that there's far too many welfare dependents versus the amount of immigrants doing unskilled jobs.


I fear not enough people will hear James' message.


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#5)

by treborc on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:30:27 PM GMT

I'm disabled the last five years I've been pushed into different training programs, then i had a job sitting in an office doing nothing, the company which took me on did not know what to do with me, they did not ask me, I sat for months in an empty office doing nothing until one day I was told it had not worked out they were sorry but at terminated my job. The next job I had was handing out baskets to people saying welcome to the supermarket we hope you enjoy your self, that was over Christmas. Then a Charity said they needed and I quote a crippled type person to collect money, since people were not giving enough these days, I refused that, it was self employed.

But thats it for five years, I'm a trained benefits adviser, I have a full coaching badge Football but of course no legs. I have trained and have done everything, I'm still with the job center waiting for a phone call to tell me a job is available, I've not seen them for six months, because we have no new jobs and once one comes up I sit in line with dozens of people from Poland.

Who are these employers who are going to employ people like myself, I'd not employ me if I was looking for somebody, it's all about reducing benefits nothing else and Labour and the Tories have done a deal.


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#24)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:40:27 PM GMT

You have my sympathy, I can feel the frustration coming out of the screen.

 

Have you considered doing a degree through the Open University (http://www.open.ac.uk/)? Many entry level courses have presentations starting in October so now is a good time to look into it. If you are disabled and unemployed then you could probably get the tuition fees waived. I'm not sure how doing a part time degree would affect your benefits but you could always ask.

 

If nothing else it would keep you busy, and indicate to any potential employer that are aren't willing to sit around doing nothing.

 

(I must declare an interest - I graduated myself a few weeks ago . . .)


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#25)

by Anonymous X on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:59:17 PM GMT

There is almost no way he would get all the fees waived. And OU degrees are *seriously* expensive, much more so than taking a Bachelors degree at a regular high education institution.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#33)

by Floating voter on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:04:40 PM GMT

"And OU degrees are *seriously* expensive, much more so than taking a Bachelors degree at a regular high education institution."

Something else we can "thank" the current administration for especially since they got "free" grant-aided degrees. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#46)

by alexswanson on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:07:18 PM GMT

There is almost no way he would get all the fees waived.

 What makes you say that? That's not my impression from reading OU literature. At least I would be surprised if he couldn't get substantial help.

And OU degrees are *seriously* expensive, much more so than taking a Bachelors degree at a regular high education institution.

Nonsense. My degree cost maybe £3,500 all in. Plus I didn't have to pay living expenses since I did it in my spare time.

I think it's sad that you're discouraging him from even looking into it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#6)

by TonyH on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM GMT

This is one of the areas wide open to hackery and where normal people lose their common sense.

First thing’s first – to require people on incapacity benefits to do a test to see if they are capable of work is perfectly reasonable. To do it insensitively, intrusively and in a manner that causes stress to the very ill is immoral beyond belief.

Wellred’s comment’s surely points to a test that should take about five minutes – read his medical history. He’s a chronic schizophrenic – the benefit is his, end of story.

I never fully understood why Conservatives are so happy to attack the money wasted on the parasites who actually do cheat our system while ignoring the massively greater sum wasted on shareholders in certain utility industries (where it’s not even a proper market).

Likewise, I’ve never understood why some Labour colleagues defend the loopholes in the benefits system which allow it to be exploited by a small number of people.

Don’t we all agree that the system should fiercely protect the ill while carefully and efficiently weeding out the cheats? Even though the cheats are a small number of people aren’t they the biggest threat to our ability to protect the weakest in the society? They give cause to those who want to tear the entire welfare state asunder.

That being the case, it’s surely not beyond the wit of man to devise a system of checks and balances which does both jobs properly, decently and fairly.


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#10)

by wellred on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:14:04 PM GMT

Thanks for that note of support.

I have posted this account on some of the media websites reporting on this just to try and restore some kind of perspective but
take a look at the comments out there, the vitriol against claimants is staggering and quite frightening.

I hope that there will be some process of exemption from re-assessment in cases like these ...negotiated via family carers and professionals ...you have no idea the damage the slightest upset does. He is like a frightened child.





[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#11)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:23:54 PM GMT

I understand completely.

When I heard about the proposals yesterday, it made me want to retch. But my advise is to not listen to the government, and look at what they do. Some may talk with masochistic glee, when talking about 'scroungers'. But it is always more complicated. That's what the Tories don't seem to understand. Reasons including losing benefits and lack of affordable childcare stop many from working. This system actually seems to povide benefits as a top-up.

But this reform to IB, seems to propose helping people into work, by helping them with health issues. And cutbacks only happen, if someone absolutely refuses to work, rather than if they have looked for jobs and training, and they have tried, but failed. And the final step before cut backs would be going on to government schemes.

Obviously, there need to be exempions, and your brothers case is one of the primal ones. I think it's very brave of you to post about this case, considering the ugly amosphere in which welfare is normally debated.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#19)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:03:20 PM GMT

That's what the Tories don't seem to understand.

 

They do understand this. Iain Duncan Smith has been doing a lot of work precisely into the causes of poverty and how to sort them realistically.

 

It's actually Labour that puts blind ideology ahead of reality - witness the barmy obsession with mixed-ability classes in schools. Anybody sensible knows that this is going to damage the education, and hence life chances, of all the children involved.  But hey, who cares so long as the gods of political correctness are satisfied.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#26)

by Anonymous X on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:02:29 PM GMT

"Wellred’s comment’s surely points to a test that should take about five minutes – read his medical history. He’s a chronic schizophrenic – the benefit is his, end of story." You are being quite naive. I have a terrible feeling that he would be classed as 'able to work', due to him being mentally and not physically disabled. By the way, in terms of this "reform" package, I am absolutely stunned that even the New Labour faction of our party can be so ardently Thatcherite.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#47)

by TonyH on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:42:27 PM GMT

I have a terrible feeling that he would be classed as 'able to work', due to him being mentally and not physically disabled.

If that's the case, that is a serious problem with the testing process - but not a problem with the idea of having a test.

I don't think it's naive to say what should and shouldn't be the way to treat someone with a proveable, demonstrable disability.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#8)

by DavidPrescott on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:48:11 PM GMT

I think there's an awful lot to commend the paper though I think a lot members would have preferred the annoucement to have been made in the House first!

If these reforms, as promised, help to lift a further 200,000 children out of poverty and get us back on track to halving child poverty by 2010 and erradicating it by 2020, then we'll all welcome it with open arms.

But surely the big issue - as Barnados highlight - is that half the 1.9 million children in povery already have a parent in employment.

By all means let's help people back to work, but let's not push them into meaningless McJobs for the sake of getting them off the register and make sure we hit the 80%.

That's the concern I have with private firms being incentivised to find work for the long-term unempoyed.

How will we ensure that they're finding them the right job - or is any job, the 'right' job?

These reforms will work best if we also pay people a living wage, grant equal employment rights to temporary and agency workers and conduct a closer scrutiny of employers.

Whilst they'll be a lot of people with valid concerns about how this works in practice and no-one ever wins friends on reforming welfare, at least we're defining the terms of debate and setting the agenda again.

For that alone, you  should be applauded James.






Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#9)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:08:52 PM GMT

The government has to do this very carefully. When I heard about this yesterday, I was instantly angry, and thought it was about appeasing the Tories.

But, the government has a history of talking right and acting left. We will hear phrases such as 'scroungers' and 'scammers'. In a sense it is correct, but ugly politics.

Scratch beneath the surface, and you will find stark differences between Labour and Tory proposals for welfare. Labour's proposals seem to offer benefits as a top-up. The Tories would impose a time limit, and force mothers to work when their children are extremely young.

While they sound similar, Labour is offering a hug, and the Tories are offering a shove. Johann Hari has written an article about this today. And he highlights the differences between what these proposals, and Wisconsin welfare, offer.


But, we need to be very careful. The government should transform the minimum wage into a living wage. It seems though that benefits won't be immedietly withdrawn, unlike the current system (is this the case for housing benefit under the proposals?).

They should offer universal childcare, to provide mothers with a safety net for their children.

Labour though, seems to be helping, rather than blaming those on benefits. The Tories would lick their lips to see incapacity benefit abolished. But, we seem to be helping people with their health, and helping the disabled.


Overall, I think the government should include a bit more compassion, but seem to have gotten this right.


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#14)

by fluffymike on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 03:52:15 PM GMT

And why exactly should people be forced to work? To contribute to a capitalist regime that sucks the profit from people's labour, wears them out, and then disregards them, whilst using the profits reaped to perpetuate the domination and control over those very people whose labour provides their wealth...

We are all supposedly born free and equal - but you cannot opt out of a system that seeks to control and regulate you, and where the wealth of the land and its properties have already been snatched by capitalists who then deny you free and fair access to that land or its resources.

And then makes you contribute to your own slavery through work...


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#18)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:59:31 PM GMT

And why exactly should people be forced to work?

I think that if - for example - farmers, refuse collectors or doctors decided they didn't want to work, after a while you might be quite keen for them to restart.

 

you cannot opt out of a system that seeks to control and regulate you

Yes you can. Defect to Cuba or North Korea. Or if that doesn't appeal to you, find a nice quiet island in Scotland or somewhere, fence off the world, and look after yourself. Have fun.

 

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#21)

by sickandtired on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:38:18 PM GMT

You Should go far in New Labour with comments like your last one


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#22)

by fluffymike on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:46:23 PM GMT

To your first point - yes if they refused it would be noticed - but it's the very fact that they are in positions where they have to strike that undermines the whole capitalist system - people should be able to reap the benefit of their own labours - not to have it sucked off by a capitalist over class that then squanders it on betting through the stock exchange and currency markets and which make sure that when they get it badly wrong it is the people who suffer whilst they have protected themselves...

And why should anyone move to another country? Are you saying that occupation and oppression through the use of force, the fear of force or through economic slavery is justified?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#23)

by alexswanson on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:36:10 PM GMT

 when they get it badly wrong it is the people who suffer whilst they have protected themselves

I'm well aware that capitalism isn't perfect. It's just that socialism is far, far worse. And one of the problems with socialism is precisely that people like me have to spend time fighting it when we could be doing the other things that I for one would much prefer.

 

And why should anyone move to another country?

Just suggesting options.

 

Are you saying that occupation and oppression through the use of force, the fear of force or through economic slavery is justified?

On the contrary, my opposition to such things is part of my objection to socialism. Nobody under capitalism is as much an economic slave as someone in a nationalised industry. One of the reasons I get paid better than nurses do is precisely that I have skills which I can hawk round private companies, whereas nurses have to work for the NHS and hence have to put up with whatever wages and working conditions the govt chooses to impose.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#29)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:32:58 PM GMT

Then why do contracted out workers in the health service get paid so poorly?

People like to pretent that if we lift regulations are lifted off companies, they'll still pay workers properly. When it is found out that they don't, companies some how shift the blame on to the workers themselves.

Capitalism is a great way of generating wealth. That is why I'm a social democrat. It is a great way of generating wealth, because that's what it sets out to do. That's why companies like Enron are caught in mass scandals. That's why private companies cut corners over safety measures, environmental safety, or wages.

And that is precisely the reason why we need a living wage, envrionmental audits, safety regulations, and strong unions.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#38)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:45:39 PM GMT

And why exactly should people be forced to work?

I'm stunned you even have to ask this question! People can't live on thin air alone - people need food, clothes, housing etc. and all this costs money.

Who on earth do you think pays for this? People don't pay their taxes to subsidise those who are perfectly capable of working but choose not to. That would be just plain unfair.

Everyone has to do their bit and it's everyone's duty to work and not take benefits off the state if they are capable of working.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#43)

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

'duty'?  'Duty' demanded without consent is simply tyranny...

Yes people need clothing, food and shelter - and there is plenty of natural resources to allow everyone the ability to provide this for themselves ... The role of the state should simply be to provide a means by which people can pay taxes to provide services that are better organised on a large scale.
 
But that isn't what happens under a capitalist system. Here the means of providing oneself with food clothing and shelter from our environment has been taken from us by the state, and even those who can feed themselves from the wild and by growing their own food are still forced into the capitalist game by the need to pay the state for the right to exist.

Thus the individual's labour ceases to provide for himself any longer, and shortly after ceases to even contribute towards taxes, and for the rest of the year is going straight into the pockets of the capitalist classes for their entertainment and continued opression.

Give people free access to the means of providing for their own food clothing and shelter and communities will work together in cooperation in distributing the surplus and caring for the elderly, the sick and young.

But that won't happen because the capitalist classes - the real scroungers and layabouts - will not voluntarily relinquish their grasp of the common man's wealth!




[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#54)

by Curlew on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:04:58 PM GMT

Well said!!!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#63)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:38:25 PM GMT

Oh please! Conspiracies about 'capitalist classes' conspiring against poor people doesn't wash with me.

'duty'?  'Duty' demanded without consent is simply tyranny...

No it isn't.
People have a duty to pay tax.
Parents have a duty to care for their children.
Workers have a duty to do their jobs properly.

None of things requires consent. What would happen if someone just said they couldn't be bothered paying tax? He'd go to jail. What would happen if a mother just said she won't be feeding her baby anymore? The child would get taken into care.

What you want is a world without responsibilities and consequences, which is almost anarchic in it's thinking.

I resent to my hard-earned taxes being given to those who refuse to work through choice. This is not because I'm mean spirited, it's because I believe in fairness, I believe in everyone doing their bit for society and the common good and I don't believe in free riders. These are strong Labour values and I'm pleased that the party is fully embracing them.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#65)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:28:40 PM GMT

I've sort of met a middle ground with my opinions from Sunday and Monday.

These reforms are largely sensible. I agree with Polly Toynbee on this. They are largely sensible, but I think not only are there better things tat we can do with welfare reform, but that the government doesn't talk enough about the responsibility the rich have, in say, paying taxes (they owe £42 billion which has been avoided).

She said that Purnell could have reminded us of the strong work ethic of the poorer workers-the cleaners, the dinner-ladies etc. Indeed, we should reward them far more. We need to start tranforming the minimum wage into a living wage.

The plans are largely good, but the government often ends up banging on about 'reform' which makes it sound as if their record is far worse than it actually is. They have a great welfare-to-work record. But the talk of 'scroungers' makes us all believe that those who don't work are just simply lazy.

But benefits have been simplified, and the sickest get more in cash. There is a certain vindication for the fiascos of child support in the last 2 decades, by allowing mums to keep maintenance allowances.

However, I think there needs to be more emphasis on helping people to work. Look at Pathways for instance.

But we need to show that there are other ways of helping people. I think ensuring cutbacks for the minority who consistantly refuse help is fine. But, we need to understand other worries first. Part of this comes down to an obsession with the government that people are appaled by the idea that rich people should pay their fair due to society.

Lets look at some inequalities that can be solved, and then the reforms on workfare can then be implemented. A huge number of people in this country have no qualifications. 5 million can't read properly, as I found out through watching the moving documentary Can't Read, Can't Write. The government should supercharge adult education.

Many in our mining heartlands have a chronic health condition. They have to be cared for, for most hours of the day. But we need to make sure that people have a chance to bring in extra cash. Carers should get more. And, we can legally enforce that all jobs have the option of part time work. Universal childcare, and other policies have the potential to boost our economy, and bring many women into the workforce. 

Or, we could make sure that housing benefit, like incapacity benefit with Pathways, is not immedietly lost.

And a living wage would slash the cost of tax credits.
We need to emphasise the positive in welfare reform, rather than play on people's worst fears, however sensible Purnell's reforms are.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#66)

by LabourOutlook on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:43:43 PM GMT

I'm glad you've come round since Friday :)

But I think you're wrong to say that Purnell didn't talk about what we've achieved and that any of the language Labour used to 'sell' the reforms played on people's fears.

On the various TV and radio interviews I saw and the article he wrote, Purnell constantly made clear that this was the latest of a line of reforms going back to New Deal when we were first elected. He talked about the fact that Labour had helped people into work and that IB rolls had been falling for eight years.

You've referred to Labour's "talk of 'scroungers'" in various threads, but I haven't seen where you're getting that from. Sure, some papers have chosen to report the reforms in that kind of language but I think the report, Purnell and Labour in general have been very careful to use sensitive language throughout.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#76)

by daveblue on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:02:05 PM GMT

ha ha ha ride on man


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#28)

by Anonymous X on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:31:09 PM GMT

I've got problems with the whole green paper Firstly, too much "work for dole" would obviously prevent jobsearching, attending interviews and the like. Secondly, do you mean community service in terms of the same punishments given out to minor offenders? If so, I find that morally repugnant to even suggest; that's tantamount to criminalisation of the poor, or those victims of economic circumstance. (Additionally, say if the community service was cleaning streets, wouldn't that mean less jobs in municipal workforces? Do council-employed cleaners get made redundant one day, and end up doing the same work but for starvation-level benefit cheques the next?) Thirdly, another practical issue, I don't believe it likely that the system will take note of individual needs, such as having to look after kids, not having a car and being unable to travel 15 miles away, for example.

I find it strange that there is this populistic right-wing feeling to dismantle the welfare state further. If we're about to have a recession, or at least an unsettled time ahead of us economically, surely we need a stronger social security system? Back to the issue of the abolition of IB. What will happen to individuals who are sick or disabled, whether acutely or less obviously/visibly? They are not exactly the people employers want if given the pick. Yet forcing them into work could create a greater caseload for the NHS of individuals ill-health needlessly made worse by the coerciveness of the new measures. How many people with mental health problems will end up being sectioned due to the stress of being forced into inappropriate occupations? How many physically ill individuals will be face deteriorating health, with no longer a safety net of incapacity benefits to fall back on?

This is statist bullying of the poorest, sickest and vulnerable at it's most cruelest and compassionless.

 


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#32)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:01:38 PM GMT

I think what the government needs to make is a clear distinction, between work for dole in a social democratic way, and in a conservative way.

The government is saying that if you work, you can keep your dole. The Tories have a two year limit over one lifetime. The first approach is strikingly different from Wisconsin welfare. We wouldn't see people struggling to pay for food, or finding shelter.

If the parties were nannies, Labour would be saying to a child as they crossed a road, "Come on. Give me your hand." The Tories approach is to condemn that, saying that when those on the dole ask for help, they are saying "I am a leach".

I know WFTC has its problems. But for many families, it makes all the difference. My mum is self-employed, but is considering changing professions soon. But it is difficult to work full time, as she had to fight to make sure schools ensured their legal obligation to my SEN statement. So her wages are topped up. Some get wages topped up by more than their total salary itself. That is the hallmark, of the most redistributive government we've ever had. If workers get into work, they will get topped up wages.

But, if the government wants to emphasise what is actually a sensible piece of legislation, they should put a living wage at the centre of it.


The Tories Wisconsin approach would ensure that work was mandatory for someone, whether they like it or not. Labour is saying, here are several options for jobs and training. If this works, it would allow the reforms to follow the individual, not conscript them to poor wages and undesirable jobs.


It is only when someone refuses any help given to them, that cuts are made. I have some misgivings about it.


Some ugly language will be thrown about. Overall, we should emphasise that community sentences should be community work. It should not be about putting people in orange clothing, and making them clean up rubbish. It should be about say, visiting the elderly.


The proposals seem to have several important steps, and actually emphasise the difference between Labour's philosophy and the Conservative's philosophy.


1) You will be given a choice of a number of jobs or training in the local area.


2) If you lose jobs, or if there are no jobs, you will work in government programmes.

3) If you don't try, and absolutely refuse, the money is cut off.

Here is the Conservative option:

1) You will be given a job. No choice. Even if the job doesn't fit your needs or skills, tough luck.

This is why I don't like conservatism. It is about short term decisions. Visceral, and simplistic. When conservative decisions are made, they are very hard to undo. Social democratic policies require building blocks.

But Labour is saying that they won't cut off benefits if people get into work. They will be top-ups. This is not Toryism. You want to know what they'll do? They'll gut benefits and tax credits. It is the comparison Purnell makes between Cameron and Thatcher that is most striking here.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#37)

by Anonymous X on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:44:18 PM GMT

Read the Tory "Green Paper". It's not as 'Wisconsin style' as that fat hack Hari claims, but it's actually pretty disturbingly close to the Purnell proposals.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#39)

by AngryVoter on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:51:32 PM GMT

Probably because, for the most part, they are...

 This is how Labour continues to crunch down and down into the polls, you're not coming up with anything new, it's already been thought of and claimed by the Tories via the Social Justice Charity of Iain Duncan Smiths [Though I do echo IDS in 'I don't care who adopts the findings, as long as somebody does'] it just may be a good idea to try to find ways of clawing back different policy areas, rather than nicking everything the Tories have come out with.

 Personally I feel Guido nailed it on the head this morning.

http://www.order-order.com/2008/07/rich-marks-monday-morning-view_21.html


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#40)

by LabourOutlook on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:40:21 AM GMT

Nonsense. Are we just swallowing any anti-Labour line the Conservatives come up with nowadays?

The reason for the similarities is because both the Labour and Tory papers are based on the Labour-commissioned Freud report.

So it's the Tories stealing ideas from a Labour report, not the other way around.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#41)

by aneurin on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:46:42 AM GMT

David Freud's report ('Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity: options for the future of welfare to work') isn't a "Labour report" it's "An independent report to the Department for Work and Pensions". The Conservative Party is just as entitled as anyone else to read it and use it as a basis for policy.

In any case I'm rather struck by a sense of déjà vu. Wasn't "completing welfare reform" supposed to be one of the "key tasks" of Blair's second term?


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#61)

by snowflake5 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:17:09 PM GMT

Labour Outlook - Angru Voter is a Tory - hence his anxiousness to credit IDS with the idea!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#62)

by LabourOutlook on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:24:39 PM GMT

Damn. I'm a little over-enthusiatic with my rebuttals today. The point is valid though :)

Snowflake - have you checked your emails? I send you a message this morning.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#64)

by snowflake5 on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:10:28 PM GMT

Have just checked, and have just sent you a reply


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#34)

by NB on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:13:53 PM GMT

I'm worried that Frank Field thinks they have got it wrong.  Field has been thinking about this longer and harder than anyone else. Field's key point, that there should not be a financial incentive to move from JSA to Incapacity Benefit, makes a lot of sense to me. Purnell's claim that it would cost "hundreds of millions of pounds" is ridiculous - this is sadly a rounding error in the gigantic Social Security Budget.  Has Gordon been meddling again, I wonder?


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#35)

by madasafish on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:23:41 PM GMT

What you or I think is irrelevant. We have got rising food and energy cost inflation. It will get MUCH worse next year as oil prices feed into fertiliser (doubled) into food.
 Expect to see green vegetable prices double next year.

That means the deserving poor will starve unless incomes rise. Since taxation cannot - cos evryone lese suffers the same cost increases - benfit cuts will have to be made.

No if , no politics, but simple economics.

Purnell knows that.

..
If Gordon Brown was honest, he'd tell you all.. BUT..

Food price inflation is likely to be 20% plus next year... something will have to give...


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#42)

by TrueLabour on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:05:14 AM GMT

So Purnell puts forward ideas that the Conservatives tabled 6 months ago.

Was our slogan back in 2005?

Vote Labour Get Tory 


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#44)

by leftmark on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:47:31 AM GMT


 it  occurs to me there are not insignificant numbers of people who although they are unemployed do not qualify for any benefits ,does anybody know if the govt is including these people in its proposals to make people work like this?

if so it seems an awful idea, how are you going to motivate somebody to go out and work full time simply to receive nothing more than national insurance credits?


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#45)

by Croslander on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:29:12 AM GMT

It is obviously true that there are some people who can work but choose not to, either by choice or because they have just given up - and that isn't good for them or society - it isn't only about money, what about the social aspect of work?

The critical thing is that people who cannot work are treated sensitively and supported by a caring state, and that those who can work are genuinely supported through training options, interview skills sessions and CV drafting lessons.

As to some of the comments suggesting that people shouldnt have to do jobs they consider themselves too good for, like working in a supermarket, well those people need to take a long look at themselves. I don't want to pay to sustain their fragile egos. Get over yourselves.


Is the current status quo such a victory for Socialism?


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#48)

by fluffymike on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 02:54:00 PM GMT

No the current situation is not a victory for socialism - mainly because it isn't a socialist policy!

The bottom line is that the current situation and the one proposed do not tackle the real issues... helping those who want work find work.  With the targets and job cuts that have devastated the DWP over recent years the focus has actually drifted from genuine job seekers towards those who do not really want work - all because they are the new target scorers in the ridiculous scoring system the DWP now have...


Far better to say to those who don't want work - here's your £60 - don't bother us again until we ask to see you in 6 months. Then actually spend more than 5 minutes on the genuine cases and actually get them into work.

And forget about cutting another 15000 jobs from the DWP, closing our offices and screwing the staff with below inflation pay cuts, draconian attendance managment policies, threats of privitisation, and deteriorating working conditions... such as cutting flex-time whilst encouraging other employers to be more famliy friendly... hypocrits!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#49)

by Floating voter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:37:03 PM GMT

"Far better to say to those who don't want work - here's your £60 - don't bother us again until we ask to see you in 6 months."

Why give them money for nothing? Why not save the £60? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#50)

by Floating voter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:47:15 PM GMT

"And forget about cutting another 15000 jobs from the DWP, closing our offices and screwing the staff with below inflation pay cuts, draconian attendance managment policies, threats of privitisation, and deteriorating working conditions... such as cutting flex-time whilst encouraging other employers to be more famliy friendly... hypocrits!"

You won't like this then..... 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4374701.ece 

...Benefit offices should be transformed into separate business units, run by the staff.

Each office would have its own budget and be required to operate within benefit laws. Freed from the miles of red tape, staff would be able genuinely to provide personal services to get claimants back to work. Profits earned by the office would be shared between staff bonuses, lower bills for taxpayers and new investment to help more claimants back into work.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#51)

by fluffymike on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:17:43 PM GMT

Freed from the miles of red tape, staff would be able genuinely to provide personal services to get claimants back to work. Profits earned by the office would be shared between staff bonuses, lower bills for taxpayers and new investment to help more claimants back into work.

You really don't know much about DWP offices do you??? How the hell do you make profits out of paying benefits?


It should be a public service run by the govt to prvide support for those in need - not yet another hugely expensive in the long run fiasco of a privitisation scheme!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#52)

by Floating voter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 06:57:53 PM GMT

"You really don't know much about DWP offices do you???"

No - I work for a living. I *pay* the taxes.

"How the hell do you make profits out of paying benefits?"

Don't ask me. If you'd even bothered to follow the link instead of spouting off, you would see that it was an excerpt from Franks Fields' article so take it up with him!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#53)

by fluffymike on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:48:06 PM GMT

I also work for a living - in a DWP office!

I did 'bother to follow' the link - and did not find my answer therein... However as you spout off in favour of the suggestion I would expect you to be able to back it up with good reasoning... I guess I'm wrong!

Anyway, you're in good right-wing company: On Purnell's plans, "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. "

Whilst your man Frank Field told the BBC's Today programme he doubted the proposals would make any difference.

(Excerpts taken from BBC news page)


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#56)

by Floating voter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:26:39 PM GMT

"However as you spout off in favour of the suggestion I would expect you to be able to back it up with good reasoning... I guess I'm wrong!"

I didn't spout off in favour of the suggestion - quote me where I'm supposed to have done so! All I did was draw them to your attention. You then accused ME of having made them. That's what I'm on about.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#57)

by fluffymike on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:34:15 PM GMT

My apologies - you are quite right.

I made the rash assumption that you supported what you had posted, and were especially drawing attention to the extract you quoted because you agreed with it - if it was simply to underline one of the many concepts within the piece that I wouldn't, as you say, 'like' you're spot on!

I withdraw my accusations of spouting :)


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#60)

by Floating voter on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:16:33 PM GMT

"if it was simply to underline one of the many concepts within the piece that I wouldn't, as you say, 'like' you're spot on!"

I'll try to be clearer in future.


"I withdraw my accusations of spouting "

Likewise! :-)


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#55)

by Curlew on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 08:09:11 PM GMT

"Profits earned by the office would be shared between staff bonuses,"

Oh my god!


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#58)

by NB on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 09:05:56 PM GMT

I think the common idea of Purnell and the Tories is that organisations whose job it is to get people back to work should be paid for doing so. This will also allow organisations to make investments in people and systems (ie investments in the real sense, not in Gordon's sense in which all government expenditure is called an "investment").

Frank Field reminds us that £60bn has been spent over the last 10 years on schemes to reduce unemployment with almost nothing to show for it. Everyone accepts that there has to be a better way.  Whether this is it, remains to be seen... 


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#77)

by daveblue on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:05:28 PM GMT

somebody used to shovel horse shit for a living


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#67)

by RedRooster on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 10:53:52 PM GMT

It's understandable why people on Labourhome are picking through the fine policy details of this.  Most of us are, or want to be, policy wonks of some description.  But it's worth taking a step from the detail and look at the implications of how this is being sold.

Let's assume that the Labour proposals are significantly more considered and compassionate than those put forwards by the Tories.  Let's say we really are 'talking right but acting left.'

That's all well and good as long as we carry on winning elections.  But the second we lose one, because we haven't made the public case for the compassionate side of what we're about, we make it infinitely easier for the Tories to roll back the distinctively Labour parts of our programme, leaving only the 'tough' side to it.

I've got no problem with the substantive proposals in the green paper, as long as they are introduced in a REALLY sensitive way.  But the message that's going out so far doesn't appear to have sensitivity as a priority.

Not wanting to sound like a fatalist here, but if I was looking to start building a legacy, this is not how I would go about it. 


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#68)

by NB on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:16:03 PM GMT

The question shouldn't be "what will make Labour/Tories look good" but what is right for the country and esp for the disadvantaged. The present system is killing tens of thousands of people.  To the extent that there is a bi-partisan consensus, so much the better.


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#69)

by treborc on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 09:03:11 AM GMT

This is the simple answer, two people turn up for a job at an office, Robert(me) has numerous disabilities he needs a carer with him, he needs to have injections twice a day, he takes eighteen drugs, he needs help in changing his nappy four times a day, he had days in which he will vomit up from his bowel.

Tobin is from Poland is young healthy fit, he is bright he is not dumbed down with drugs and does not smell.

who would you give a job to.

thats the problem many disabled people have our disabilities are not nice they are serious and they do mean we cannot go to a toilet like other people we need help.

Social care funding has been cut to the bone, I use to have 24/7 care day and night, I do not get care now my wife has to do it.

But the big question is like one employer said being deaf or being blind or having a illness which people cannot see is a big difference to having somebody who shits himself all day.


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#70)

by adwilliams134 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:14:22 PM GMT

A lot of people on here are skirting around the issue and avoiding it.

You do not have a right to and endless supply of Unemployment Benefits while you wait, at your leisure, for a job to come around that you fancy doing.

It is your duty, as a citizen of this country, to work if you are able not if you feel like it.  The fact you might not like the job on offer is an irrelevance -  it's a step in the right direction.

My own personal belief is if you are fit and healthy, you should be allowed to draw benefits for 4 weeks while you look for the job you want.  After 4 weeks you get placed in a job you are capable of.  Get yourself fired fired from it or refuseit, you lose your rights to benefit.


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#71)

by leftmark on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 02:56:50 PM GMT

good thing it isn't up to you then :)


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#72)

by Floating voter on Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 03:18:42 PM GMT

" good thing it isn't up to you then"

It might be better if it was. His analysis is accurate. 


[ Parent ]

benefits not to work no more full employment (#78)

by daveblue on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:14:57 PM GMT

What happened to the 70s and 80s when it was said we would have machines doing most of the work and we would have more leisure time, surely there their cannot be as labour says full employment because the jobs will not be there,i know that work can be good if you are fit and healthy but even though i pay my taxes why do some people get so nasty about people who do not work it is better they get a small amount of money from the goverment than to turn to crime if they stop benefits


[ Parent ]

Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#73)

by treborc on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 07:57:31 AM GMT

I give up lucky so do a lot of voters in Glasgow as well.


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#74)

by Anonymous X on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:28:57 PM GMT

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


Re: Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes (#75)

by doctordunc on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:17:18 PM GMT

I'm sorry, but we're letting Purnell off the hook here.

How do these sweet-sounding words stack up with the government's approach to Remploy?  The government chose to close 29 Remploy factories and sack 2400 disabled workers (in a brutal set of redundancies across the other remaining factories).  How can the government, Purnell in particular, with a straight face throw 2400 disabled employees out of work and then say that there will be sanctions if they don't find work?  It's a disgrace.  I know some charities came out in favour of the closures, suggesting that it was better to support disabled people to work in 'mainstream' companies - but contributors to this thread with much more experience of these matters than me have, surely, adequately expressed why that is often impossible.  Choice and independence has been robbed from many disabled workers.  Instead much of the earmarked government subsidy has gone to hugely profitable private companies such as supermarkets, in order to 'support' them to employ disabled workers in far less useful and fulfilling work.  You can see why the supermarkets would like to get extra government subsidies, but the logic flies in the face of the syrup-sweet words of James Purnell and other apologists for his continued assault on the welfare state.


Benefit reforms: James Purnell writes | 78 comments (78 topical)