Here’s your starter for ten in our weekend slot where we throw up an idea or thought for debate…
Though he is often thought of as the father of the modern welfare state in this country, William Beveridge in fact had other views on the matter. As he said of the Beveridge report, the aim, “was not security through a welfare state but security by cooperation between the state and the individual”. In other words, the state should assist people in achieving self-reliance (and so the contributory principle in the report) rather than being simply a benevolent charity writ large (and so his support for conditions on benefits such as mandatory attendance at work or training centres and his desire to see friendly societies provide social insurance schemes rather than having the state be the sole provider).
Was Beveridge right then? And is he right now?
Hat-tip for Beveridge quote: Duncan Brack’s chapter in The political thought of the Liberal and Liberal Democrats since 1945.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
The true cost of the Rwanda farce
Call for Southwell's importance to Byron to be recognised
Peter Watson
Steve Comer
Tristan Ward
Mick Taylor
Katharine Pindar
71 Comments
I don’t believe in sending people into mandatory work placements in order to receive their benefit.
“Community Work” or whatever they would want to call it. If you have people claiming benefits, cleaning up parks, sweeping streets Cutting grass verges e.t.c. you are taking the work away from the existing employees who are paid for this type of work, To me, is seems very counter-productive.
It would also be wrong to force people to work 30 hours a week, in return for £65 a week JSA, and it would amount to nothing short of slave labour.
However
Training centres and Education, I believe is a good idea, for the long term unemployed. There is a shocking amount of people, who lack the very basics in numeracy and literacy education, Some of these people tend to have a very low self esteem when it comes to their learning capabilities and should be approached with total care and professionalism.
There are ways I think, that the person can be steered towards learning again, encourage them to take an interest once more, whilst actually improving their chances of employment.
This can be done my the use of training courses like, Health & Hygiene courses. Not only would the course be beneficial in the home {it is shocking the amount of people who suffer food poisoning each week, down to their own poor knowledge of hygiene standards} But the certificate would advantage someone applying for a position in the food industry.
There could also be courses in First Aid, or “Emergency Aid” as I believe it is now called. It is something that I think a lot of people would welcome learning as you never know when skills like this could be needed in your own home or family. And again, A qualification in First Aid is also something very positive to be able to put on your CV.
These courses can have multi benefits as they boost not only a persons chances of employment, but also hopefully boosts the persons self confidence, which could hopefully lead on to further training.
Courses in Hospitality, Leisure and Services, could then be very beneficial to someone and a big boost to there CV.
The main aim should be to encourage rather than force to learn, and once someone has got that self belief back and the motivation, it could lead on to many more things, that improves people’s quality of life and their chances to succeed.
It’s difficult to discuss these issues without coming over all Daily Mail.
That said, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the quick fix solution to so many problems has been to “benefitise” it, with the result that any rational or sensible change to any benefit is seen as an attack on the poor.
Too many unemployable miners – Invalidity Benefit
Too many unemployed teenagers – expand University sector to an unsustainable level and warehouse them there for a few years.
Minimum wage too low – introduce top up benefits that put the load on the state, not the employer. I find it absolutely disgusting that the state are subsidising multinational corporations that repatriate their profits overseas
Its hardly surprising that so many rich individuals see nothing wrong with tax avoidance when they see Governments delivering financial pats on the head to such a large percentage of the population
The result of all of this is that we no longer have a safety net, we have a duvet of a system that cocoons all of us to a greater or lesser extent and makes it far too easy to stop work, or never work without any incentive or driver to change that situation.
For once, I hink IDS has got this about right, alhough we obviously need to see the details
There are many courses which cost relatively little such as PASMA (mobile scaffold towers) which for £150 could make an unemployed labourer more employable, as well as more health & safety aware.
The governments language is too Tory. It’s of the burdensome and lazy unemployed when really we are talking about citizens who find themselves between jobs, or in the worst cases, having lost motivation in a culture of welfarism and low esteem, and low expectations. Sometimes it has a regional dimension too were old mass-employment industries have declined – and that needs special help to encourage enterprise – it’s not the fault of the individual and mass exodus is not possible because of housing costs.
It goes back to ‘fish’! Teach a man to fish, ensure he has free access to the river, and remove artificial barriers and monopolies that prevent him selling excess catch to the market, you help him to a livelihood and integrate with the social-economic process which makes us all the better for his inclusion. Better that than giving him inadequate fillet handouts week by week and hope he eventually get a job and then tax him heavily to pay for handouts to others.
What is missing, as has been said this week, is am integrated vision – a Liberal majority. Not just the CBI saying that there is a lack of joined up thinking but as Phillip Blond (whom we share some parallel thinking with) has pointed out that cuts to spending are falling behind (“way behind”) unemployment counter-measures. Where is the training, the community lablets, bank lending – or more realistically – the credit unions?
The Lib Dems need to take a lead where this government is failing to. Onwards to March!
I’m not an expert on Beveridge’s views, and am not against social benefits being matched by social obligations, but I believe that (whether in a big society or otherwise) such obligations and benefits should be universal, with obligations based on ability to contribute and welfare benefits based on need.
The problem with the illiberal means-tested benefits introduced by Labour is not that they provide something for nothing, but that people with disabilities, children, housing needs etc are paid NOT to work, save, negotiate a lower rent with their landlord etc, and penalised heavily (often 100% or more) if they do. Ironically the justification for this insanity is to avoid wasting benefits, but making these benefits available to the wealthy is not a ‘waste’ if we ensure that they are paying for them through other means. If we want to ask the better-off to contribute more we should do so through proportionate taxes on excessive incomes, expenditure, pollution, wealth, abilities, etc not by withdrawing universal benefits such as education, healthcare, housing, pensions, disability benefits, security and child benefit, which create a them-and-us society.
So rather than adding conditions to means-tested benefits we need universal but basic benefits for all (except non-doms), additional help for the disabled elderly and children, and free advice and protection for residents, consumers, employees, tenants, students, etc.
Benefits would be supported by moderate taxes on modest incomes (say 20% scrapping NI up to £50k) and a much higher rate (say 50% with no loopholes for pensions contributions etc) thereafter so as to encourage employers to take on more lower-paid workers rather than fat cats, high taxes on pollution and luxuries, making council tax more proportionate to land values, etc. NI would be replaced by an obligation to contribute to the community through volunteering, jury service etc, or (if you would rather not and can afford it) making a financial contribution. Those who misbehave would have to contribute more (with prison reserved for enforcement and protecting society from dangerous criminals).
We should not ask only those on means-tested benefits to contribute to the community, we should all do it.
The State should assist people in achieving self-reliance. Indeed! This must include redistribution of the inheritance of wealth in each new generation. I wonder if Duncan Brock picked up my “Inheritance for All” article in New Outlook in, I think, 1976.
I very nearly became Liberal MP for Newbury in 1974 on a platform that clearly distinguished Liberals from both Labour and Conservatives. From Labour: privatisation of all activities other than those which either cannot or ought not to be rationed by price. From Conservatives: greater equality of opportunity in education, health and the inheritance of wealth.
Today, this ought to mean putting VAT on expenditure on private education and private health and using the proceeds to improve standards in state schools and the NHS.
It also ought to mean gradually introducing UK Universal Inheritance (www.universal-inheritance.org) for all UK born UK citizens at 25, with £2,000 for 25 year olds in 2011 up to £10,000 ( less than 10 per cent of average wealth of every adult and child in the country) in 2015 and hopefully more thereafter.
How should this be financed? By reforming Inheritance Tax to bear more on receipt than on giving of capital, with abolition of the outrageous unlimited exemptions for lifetime gifts and agricultural, business and shareholding assets for the wealthy.
Basically, in order for the State to assist people to achieve self-reliance, the widely but often subconsciously held Conservative political ideology of unrestrained Dynastic Capitalism cascading down the generations must be challenged and replaced by a Liberal political ideology of Popular Capitalism with national universal inheritance for all young adults in each succeeding generation.
Sorry Dane I do not see how having a UK Universal Inheritance of 10k, bares any relevance to the question, whether the Benefits system should have conditions such as mandatory attendance at work or training centres.
Those who strive to keep tearing holes in the safety net shouldn’t act surprised when this creates ever larger ghettos and a hugely expanding underclass. This at a time when the Bankers are back to their bonus bonanza’s while complaining that they are being unfairly maligned for their part in the wrecking of so many economies and lives.
Blair looked on unconcerned as the gap between rich and poor widened to dangerous levels as his only priority was to keep the wealthiest and most powerful appeased, fat and happy.
Now the gap between rich and poor looks to be accelerating who will stand up for those who have the least and the most to lose under ‘austerity’ Britain ?
Osborne ? Cameron ? Dare I say it, Clegg ?
The poor will end up suffering in silence unless someone in politics with courage gives them a voice.
“matt”
I was not responding to your comments – sorry about that! -, but to the thought of Mark Pack’s that the State should assist people in achieving self reliance, for which a bit of capital at 25 would be helpful.
18 year old students would be able to borrow from banks (with subsidised interest rates) for tuition fees. For others, who will all need a bank account in which to receive the £10,000 at 25, it will help to reduce alienaton, financial and social exclusion and poverty. It will also help to increase entrepreneurial activity and home ownership
. I imagine that you would agree that the £50,000,000 given by Rupert Murdoch a few years ago to each of his children will help them to be self-reliant, but that less than that might encourage them more.
18 year old students would be able to borrow from banks (with subsidised interest rates) for tuition fees. For others, who will all need a bank account in which to receive the £10,000 at 25, it will help to reduce alienaton, financial and social exclusion and poverty. It will also help to increase entrepreneurial activity and home ownership
Personally I don’t believe that students should have to borrow money for tuition fee’s, but hey that’s another subject 😉
And as for everyone being given the £10k at the age of 25, I don’t think it would have any effect on poverty or Employment, In fact it would probably have the reverse effect and do more harm than good.
Those people that where on Welfare at the age of 25, would have their welfare stopped or significantly decreased as the DWP would automatically know, that the claimant would have come into savings.
The person would then need to sustain themselves on this “inheritance” for a year, before being entitled to welfare again.
It seems counter productive to me and would not increase social mobility at all, You would have those, from more advantaged backgrounds basically being given a boost to their bank balance, or maybe a new car, where as someone from a disadvantaged background, could find themselves more penalised for the inheritance.
I don’t like the idea of Murdoch giving 50 million to each of his kids either, I despise the bloke, everything about him reeks corruption, he has his fingers in to many pies and has far to much influence IMO, But there is nothing we ordinary folk can do about that.
If you have people claiming benefits, cleaning up parks, sweeping streets Cutting grass verges e.t.c. you are taking the work away from the existing employees who are paid for this type of work
Matt, you might want to look up the lump of labour falacy.
@ad
I’m not really sure of whether you support or denigrate the lump-of-labour argument which certainly has had a lot of right-wing support in its various emanations over the decades.
Anyway I don’t see that it applies in this case as we are not talking about a fixed number of workers working less hours to leave a productivity gap that can only be filled by employing more workers. In any case we shouldn’t be looking backwards at discredited economic theories but addressing the really pressing need to create growth in this econony which will create more jobs.
Matt’s argument – as I understand it – is that it’s counter-productive for people on benefits to do community projects and therefore efectively replace – probably council employees – on poor wages. In a booming economy there could be some financial arguments for this but I think the negative social arguments would easily win out.
But in our current economy the council workers would lose their job and end-up on benefits because cash-strapped councils would have nowhere to re-employ them and there are precioius few vacancies they could move to. And thanks to latest LibDem moves they couldn’t even lodge an unfair dismissal claim if they weren’t previously employed for two years.
So we end up with a group of benefit claimants doing the grass-cutting but sacking the people who originally did the job at minimum-wage who paid NI and tax but end up unemployed and instead of contributing to the State they end up on benefits.
Sounds like utter madness to me and I agree with Matt on this. I particularly agree that training and education has got to be a key route to getting people into work and ultimately the best possibility of them breaking free of poverty.
The wefare state has been shown to be a failure. It does nothing but encourage “laziness” and gives the idle, the fecless and the sick and disabled free money for no reason at all. I resent the fact that MY MONEY goes towards these people who have no place in society. I am more than glad that Clegg and Duncan-Smith are doing their all to tackle and eradicate this from our society.It’s time that the enmployed are left to their own devices; hunger and homelessness are the best incentives to find new work. It may sound harsh, but it is tough love. And as for the “sick and disabled”, first we know most of them are fakes. And it just isn’t my or society’s responsibility to pay to keep the sick and disabled alive. That should be down to the family. If you can’t work, sorry, but you don’t eat. It’s the law of nature and we Liberals need to face reality on this. Let’s face it: these people don’t contribute much, if anything, to society. For every person we get rid of from disability or JSA, that’s more money we can spend on Our Boys in Afghanistan or on tax breaks for people in Alarm Clock Britain who really do work. The Coalition has the right idea to whittle down the welfare state and we should all stand shoulder to shoulder with Nick and Dave as they try to Get Britain Working Again.
Why do people assume that mandatory work in return for benefits has to mean doing a full-time job for the current rate of unemployment benefit? That would obviously be horrendously unfair and economically unproductive. But asking people to work a certain number of hours at minimum wage would be a different matter altogether – so if you kept the benefit rate for a single person at £65 a week, you could say, Okay, here’s 10 hours a week of work, we’ll pay you £6.50 an hour for it. In effect, instead of paying out benefits for nothing dependent on circumstances, you would be providing a Work Guarantee, where the number of hours of work guaranteed would vary depending on the claimant’s circumstances. (Or the minimum wage guaranteed: no reason it would all have to be national minimum wage rates, if that would mean undercutting wages in the area.) It doesn’t seem wholly unreasonable to me as a way of paying non-contributory benefits to people who are fit to work.
Oh he was right indeed. I, for one, am sick and tired of going into work day in day out only to have my taxes taken away to pay for the lazy, feckless unemployed, chavs, cripples, sickness-fakers and anyone else who is workshy. The welfare state has been nothing short of a disaster and there are millions of people in the country who work hard but resent our money going to pay for “sick” or “handicapped” people who, let’s be honest, contribute nothing to society. I applaud the part the LibDems are taking to dismantle the welfare state. We have to say to these people who receive benefits: sorry, but that’s the law of nature and we simply can’t afford to pay for your fecklessness any longer. People should have to, if they want, purchase their own out of work insurance. That we it is optional and people like me who work hard won’t feel resentful that our hard-earned money is being spend on some bogus motability scheme for some “disabled” person who is toolazy to walk anywhere. IDS and Clegg have my full support on this!
@EcoJon
Thanks, that was exactly what I was trying to say 😉
@Malcolm Todd
“Why do people assume that mandatory work in return for benefits has to mean doing a full-time job for the current rate of unemployment benefit? That would obviously be horrendously unfair and economically unproductive. But asking people to work a certain number of hours at minimum wage would be a different matter altogether – so if you kept the benefit rate for a single person at £65 a week, you could say, Okay, here’s 10 hours a week of work, we’ll pay you £6.50 an hour for it.”
Lets just say for arguments sake, just to keep things simple.
In order to get your £65 a week JSA, you had to do 10 hrs a week “Community Work” which was solely in the Councils Field of work { Cleaning parks, Sweeping streets e.t.c}
Now there is Approx 1.5 Million people claiming JSA
1.5 Million people doing 10 Hrs work a week = 15 Million Hours of Work a week
15 million Hours divide by the average 40hr a week = 375’000 Full time Positions.
So as I was saying, It would be counter productive as it would cost many council employees who already do that work their jobs, adding more people to the dole cue.
Those are just the claimant counts for JSA. If you where to put all the people who where on Income Support, carers Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, ESA e.t.c. and ruled all those people had to do “community work” in return for their benefits. As you can see, the system just does not work.
It is far more productive to Educate and train people who have been long time unemployed, rather than “community work”
The jobs are simply not there for the millions of unemployed and underemployed in this country. Most of our industries are long gone or will be gone soon. Vast numbers of jobs have been automated out of existence. We simply have to accept that we will have to pay for millions of unemployed workers who will never find enough employment. Something like a citizens income policy is my preference. This avoids the pointless and demeaning process of “signing on” and “signing off”. It is a process deliberatly designed to make people feel unworthy and ungrateful. Beveridge was writing at a time when millions of workers were needed for manual and low-skilled jobs. Those jobs are long gone and there will be no jobs to replace them. We cannot all sell each other insurance or make hamburgers for each other.
“Ed the snapper” if the job aren’t there how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of people who have come here and found jobs from Eastern Europre?
Matt – ““Community Work” or whatever they would want to call it. If you have people claiming benefits, cleaning up parks, sweeping streets Cutting grass verges e.t.c. you are taking the work away from the existing employees who are paid for this type of work, ”
Having driven down several Motorways and Dual Carriage ways today, all of which had verges strewn with litter, it seems no-one is doing this work at all at present. So it wouldn’t be taking paid work away from anyone.
From Simon McGrath: “Ed the snapper” if the job aren’t there how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of people who have come here and found jobs from Eastern Europre? ”
Because those jobs are not sufficient to pay a living wage for a British citizen. I do not see how a redundant British worker can support his/her family then pay his rent or mortgage plus all his other bills and debts through fruit picking, serving chips or washing cars. If anyone thinks a living can be made doing that then I invite them to try it. Now that the recession has come along most of those jobs have gone anyway and the East Europeans have been returning home in droves. It takes large-scale manufacturing industries to support a population in anything other than a basic standard of living. Those industries have now gone abroad and no doubt the fabled “service industries” will soon follow them.
“Sarah Reigns” – great parody lol
@Simon McGrath
“Ed the snapper” if the job aren’t there how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of people who have come here and found jobs from Eastern Europre?”
There are currently 2.5 million Unemployed in this country, There is a total of 5 million people classed as Economically inactive, either on sickness or Disability benefits, or other out of work benefits.
5 Million people, In a Country with a population on 62 Million people
In a population on 60 Million People. I think it is fair to say that 3 million of those, would be classed as sick, disabled and unable to work. After all that is only 5% of the country. Can people not really grab the facts that 5 % of the uk would have some form of sickness or illness or disability, that effects their ability to work.
That is not to say that there are not cheaters out there, of course there are, but they are a small minority, and they should be weeded out. There are many sick and disabled people who would love to work, and they should be supported in to work. And then there are people, who are genuinely to sick, ill to work, and we as a country, should do all we can to support them.
There are also 2.5 Million people out of work, who either claim JSA, Income Support, or No Benefits at all, just registered as unemployed and looking for work with the job centre. That’s a further 4.2% of the Uk, who is unemployed
2.5 Million people unemployed, Chasing, 375’000 jobs
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0111.pdf
The unemployment rate for the three months to November 2010 was 7.9 per cent, up 0.2 on the
quarter. The total number of unemployed people increased by 49,000 over the quarter to reach
2.50 million. Male unemployment increased by 43,000 on the quarter to reach 1.48 million and
female unemployment increased by 6,000 on the quarter to reach 1.02 million. The unemployment
rate for those aged from 16 to 24 increased by 1.0 on the quarter to reach 20.3 per cent, the highest
figure since comparable records began in 1992. The number of unemployed 16 to 24 year olds
increased by 32,000 on the quarter to reach 951,000, the highest figure since comparable records
began in 1992.
There were 157,000 redundancies in the three months to November 2010, up 14,000 on the
In the 3 months up to December 2010 there where
There were 456’00 job vacancies in the three months to December 2010 However 120’000 of those where part time positions. So in actual fact there where 336’000 full time vacancies for 2.5 million people unemployed.
There were 1.8 vacancies per 100 employee jobs in the three months to December 2010, up 0.1 on
the previous quarter and on the year.
Where are all these wonderful jobs going to come from??
Do you think the government is going to pay people twice to do the same job? Especially this Government who is hark set on cutting back on the size of the public sector workers. If they can get those on Benefits to do the work, do you really think the council employee, who used to do it, will keep his job?
Of course not.
@Tabman
“Having driven down several Motorways and Dual Carriage ways today, all of which had verges strewn with litter, it seems no-one is doing this work at all at present. So it wouldn’t be taking paid work away from anyone”
And how do you suppose, forcing remedial work like that, in what would tantamount to chain gains “punishment” in order to get their benefits.
Do you think this would inspire people, or do you think it might just cause more harm than good,
I certainly do not see any benefits of it.
How is this motivating them, encouraging them back into the class room, learn some real skills, that can then be used in the work place and better there chances of employment, even starting someone back on the path to learning can be very liberating for them, and who knows where it would take them, It would certainly support and encourage them to better themselves, rather than punishing them for being unemployed and forcing them to pick up dog shite and god knows what else. Community service, is what we use to rehabilitate criminals, not those that are reliant on the welfare state
@Simon McGrath
“Ed the snapper” if the job aren’t there how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of people who have come here and found jobs from Eastern Europre?”
There are currently 2.5 million Unemployed in this country, There is a total of 5 million people classed as Economically inactive, either on sickness or Disability benefits, or other out of work benefits.
5 Million people, In a Country with a population on 62 Million people
In a population on 60 Million People. I think it is fair to say that 3 million of those, would be classed as sick, disabled and unable to work. After all that is only 5% of the country. Can people not really grab the facts that 5 % of the uk would have some form of sickness or illness or disability, that effects their ability to work.
That is not to say that there are not cheaters out there, of course there are, but they are a small minority, and they should be weeded out. There are many sick and disabled people who would love to work, and they should be supported in to work. And then there are people, who are genuinely to sick, ill to work, and we as a country, should do all we can to support them.
There are also 2.5 Million people out of work, who either claim JSA, Income Support, or No Benefits at all, just registered as unemployed and looking for work with the job centre. That’s a further 4.2% of the Uk, who is unemployed
2.5 Million people unemployed, Chasing, 375’000 jobs
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0111.pdf
The unemployment rate for the three months to November 2010 was 7.9 per cent, up 0.2 on the
quarter. The total number of unemployed people increased by 49,000 over the quarter to reach
2.50 million. Male unemployment increased by 43,000 on the quarter to reach 1.48 million and
female unemployment increased by 6,000 on the quarter to reach 1.02 million. The unemployment
rate for those aged from 16 to 24 increased by 1.0 on the quarter to reach 20.3 per cent, the highest
figure since comparable records began in 1992. The number of unemployed 16 to 24 year olds
increased by 32,000 on the quarter to reach 951,000, the highest figure since comparable records
began in 1992.
There were 157,000 redundancies in the three months to November 2010, up 14,000 on the
In the 3 months up to December 2010 there where
There were 456’00 job vacancies in the three months to December 2010 However 120’000 of those where part time positions. So in actual fact there where 336’000 full time vacancies for 2.5 million people unemployed.
There were 1.8 vacancies per 100 employee jobs in the three months to December 2010, up 0.1 on
the previous quarter and on the year.
Where are all these wonderful jobs going to come from??
Do you think the government is going to pay people twice to do the same job? Especially this Government who is hark set on cutting back on the size of the public sector workers. If they can get those on Benefits to do the work, do you really think the council employee, who used to do it, will keep his job?
Of course not.
@Tabman
“Having driven down several Motorways and Dual Carriage ways today, all of which had verges strewn with litter, it seems no-one is doing this work at all at present. So it wouldn’t be taking paid work away from anyone”
And how do you suppose, forcing remedial work like that, in what would tantamount to chain gains “punishment” in order to get their benefits.
Do you think this would inspire people, or do you think it might just cause more harm than good,
I certainly do not see any benefits of it.
How is this motivating them, encouraging them back into the class room, learn some real skills, that can then be used in the work place and better there chances of employment, even starting someone back on the path to learning can be very liberating for them, and who knows where it would take them, It would certainly support and encourage them to better themselves, rather than punishing them for being unemployed and forcing them to pick up dog poo and christ knows what else. Community service, is what we use to rehabilitate criminals, not those that are reliant on the welfare state
Matt. I take it you didn’t listen to Radio 5 on Thursday, where there was a woman working to try and deal with the long term unemployed, those where no-one has worked in a family for 30 years.
She stated that these people are so completely divorced from working that they have no concept of what it means, and see benefits as a comfort blanket. Yet if they do something useful, even once, it starts to repair their self esteem.
We have a wealth of jobs that need doing and 2.5 million people doing nothing. How stupid is that?
“matt”
The £10,000 Universal Inheritance should not count against welfare benefits. It should always be helpful to have a bit of savings/capital.
People would have said that there is nothing ‘ we ordinary folk’ could do about all sorts of things in the past. But it is ordinary folk who voted to enable Liberals to introduce old age pensions, income tax, Estate Duty, and the Income Welfare State. Universal Inheritance is part of a proposed Wealth Welfare State, which of course must mesh with the Income Welfare State. There is no reason to be so pessimistic about the possibility of political and social progress.
Murdoch has created great wealth. It should be spread out more equally in the next generation, in the interests of genuinely greater equality of opportunity. How else, other than with Universal Inheritance, are you going to reduce the inequality of ownership of wealth in each new generation?
2.5 Million people unemployed, Chasing, 375’000 jobs
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0111.pdf
And those are ‘offical’ figures which have never been anywhere near the true value since the early 80s when the figures began to be ‘massaged’.
Yep, that’s it. All the rest is just the usual political games. I am sure that the vast majority of the unemployed would love to work 40 hours a week. Just not for their unemployment benefit only though…
It is just not economic to get these millions of unemployed to do pitifully basic jobs. You have to match the jobs to the person, then do risk assessments, then pay the supervisors, then supply the equipment and transport, you have to supervise them, you have to ensure that they attend, you have to find those who do not turn up or call in sick, you have to impose punishments on defaulters (and have a thorough appeals process). Then you have to ensure that those conscripted into these schemes have time off for interviews and job-hunting (a very time-consuming and expensive activity as those who have tried it will know). I have supervised unpaid volunteers doing conservation work. It was expensive, hard-work and very time-consuming even though I was dealing with interested and motivated volunteers. I certainly would not want to supervise resentful conscripts drafted in to pick up litter on a motorway embankment. Would it even be economic to do so? I think not. Every conscript would know that the menial job had no future and would lead absolutely nowhere. Better for the state to build some new workplaces and make some useful products then send the unemployed to college to prepare them for new, real jobs.
@Tabman
“She stated that these people are so completely divorced from working that they have no concept of what it means, and see benefits as a comfort blanket. Yet if they do something useful, even once, it starts to repair their self esteem.”
And your suggestion is for them to do remedial tasks like picking up litter and cleaning motor way verges.
I fail to see how that would boost anyone’s self esteem, That is how we treat our criminals, who are forced to do community service.
Those on welfare are not criminals.
You want to build up people’s self esteem, then that needs to be done through targeted skills and education,
As I said in previous post, in the last 3 months of 2010 there where only 336’000 {Full}Time Vacancies
How is Picking up dog poo, cleaning motorway verges and picking up litter, going to go into helping the person find Employment? quite frankly it is not, cause anyone who puts on their CV, that they have taken part in a “community work” scheme, would be instantly be seen as a long term bludger.
Where as someone, who has been given the opportunity to learn new skills, & Education would have a better chance of raising their self esteem, and giving them skills and a better CV to go out in to the job market.
I am afraid Tabman, that your posts seem more to me about Benefit Bashing, and resenting the fact that we have a large welfare bill, in struggling times, Well unfortunately, that’s how it is I am afraid. We can’t blame those people for the mess this country is in.
All we can do is help them to try and improve their life chances, through training and education.
Like I said there are 5 million sick & unemployed people, in a country of 62 million people that’s 8.1% of the population. I don’t see what’s so awful about those figures.
Are all you people, who are currently in full time positions, willing to take say a 15 hour week cut from your jobs and pay, to create the new jobs needed for the 2.5 million unemployed?
And what about those of you, who have 2 jobs or even more, or work in a job doing 80 hours a week, What if the Government brought out a law, so that the maximum hours worked a week, where 30 hrs a week, so we could bring down unemployment that way?
Would you be happy with taking a massive pay cuts, and cuts to pensions, e,t,c, I suspect not,
so why not actually spare a thought for those people that are unfortunate than yourselves, those that are reliant on welfare, and see its education and training we need, not sanctions and community work
@Simon McGrath who said: ” if the job aren’t there how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of people who have come here and found jobs from Eastern Europre? ”
Various reasons but a lot of the Eastern Europeans are here because they are employed on starvation wages and living in squalor so that Tory landowners and farmers can increase their profits and dodge taxes and NI contributions.
These workers are lied to in their home countries by gang-masters who give them ‘loans’ to pay for their transport here and work. They are lied to about the wages but by the time they are here it’s too late and the gangmaster holds their passport and they are warned if they go to the police they will be jailed. Often their English is non-existant – they really are modern day serfs and slaves. What is the LibDems doing about their civil liberties?
What continually amazes me about this site is the naievety of many of the LibDem posters – I can never decide if they are actually children or have never worked in a real job with ordinary people as they display and almost total ignorance about what is going on and happening to ordinary people in this country.
The other thing I have notriced is the right wing shift among posters and the slow disappearance of centre, centre left LibDem posters – they seem to be giving up and either leaving their party or taking no part in it.
Now the Tories and LibDems are trying to pull British pay rates and conditions down as well and a first step is Vince Cable explaining that we can get more ‘growth’ by taking away statutory protection from UK workers unfairly sacked. Previously they were protected after 12 months now the Tories and LibDems have increased this to 24 months before they can apply to an Employment Tribunal.
A major attack on every UK worker and the LibDem MPs are going to support this Tory savage policy. How can you lor sleep at night.
And as others have said all these work dragooning schemes come to nothing – they were forced on a starving UK population in the Hungry 30s and now we are heading back to those days. In due course the masses will take a lead from Tunisia and Egypt and it won’t be a Bonfire of the Quangos.
@Matt
It’s obvious that some of the posters here just want to punish benefit claimants and have no interest in actually trying to find ways to get them into work other than at the most menial level. Perhaps it makes them feel secure in their own lives to realise that they are way above that.
Well anyone of us can end up back at the bottom of the heap and only when you are there do you realise that this good life on benefits is a figment of the DM and DT readers’ imagination and sadly it now seems that LibDems are joining them.
And what about the disgrace of Sure Start for the poorest of families being scrapped and cut despite Cameron and Clegg giving personal assurances on the eve of the GE that it would be kept – just more broken promises and pledges from them.
@matt:
I ain’t kidding. I’m sick of having the piss taking out of me. Just the other day the Daily Mail reported that 94% of all claimants are fit to work and I bet its more than that too probably more than 96% cos some fakers must get through. I used to be in the Conservative party but I don’t like their anti-Euro stances cos my business relies on the EU lol so I started supporting the the Lib Dems when the Coalition was formed and realised both parties really do think alike apart from EU. We need to make the welfare state as small as possible and then hopefully lower taxes for the middle class and mid to large businesses. I’m part of Alarm Clock Britain and I’m glad that for once we have politicians who stick up for us finally something is being done about Labours anti-work policies!!
@Sarah Reigns
TICK! TOCK!
I’m amazed that a go-getter like yourself could possibly support someone with as poor a work ethic as Mr Alarm Clock himself 🙂
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/nick-clegg/8290943/Nick-Clegg-no-more-Government-business-please-after-3pm.html
@Sarah Reigns
I found your previous post distasteful to say the least.
Using words like cripple, you obviously have no compassion whatsoever.
Maybe you should also try and check your facts Sarah, before posting this Dross.
These Figures where for “New” claimants not “existing”
You should also be aware that 40% of people, who have there benefits refused, or taken away, who go to a Tribunal, Have there benefit given back, This goes up to 70% when the applicant is legally represented.
That Suggests that the DWP and ATOS are failing sick and vulnerable people miserably.
Poverty and sickness can strike anyone at any time, What would your attitude be, if you or a member of your close family was struck down by an illness or accident, Unable to work, unable to pay the mortgage e.t.c. e.t.c.
If this party is going to start attracting people with attitudes such as your own, I am sure it is in more trouble than i thought and that might just as well merge with the Tories now.
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/incapacity_benefit_94_per_cent_can_work-2458
“”400,000 ‘were trying it on’ to get sickness benefits: 94% of incapacity benefits of work” Daily Mail, 26 January 2010
This headline is even more inaccurate than the other oft-quoted figure, that 75 per cent of incapacity benefits are fit for work – of which more later.
The Mail has exaggerated the latest figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on the processing of claims for Employment Support Allowance (ESA). People applying for the ESA have to undergo an assessment of whether they are able to work and the statistics cover the results of this assessment.
Looking at the figures it becomes clear that even in this short headline there are several things the Mail got wrong.
Contrary to the headline the figures from DWP only relate to Employment and Support Allowance, which replaced Incapacity Benefit in 2008.
Roughly two million of the 2.6 million people on incapacity-related benefits are on Incapacity Benefit, not ESA. Thus even if the 94 per cent figure was valid it would cover a relatively small proportion of those claiming benefits having been deemed unable to work.
The Government is currently in the process of assessing those on the old Incapacity Benefit to move them on to ESA.
The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that when they have completed the 1.5 million assessments 23 per cent of these people will be fit for work – not 94 per cent, or even 75 per cent.
This demonstrates how misguided it is to apply a statistic related to ESA applicants across the board to all Incapacity Benefit claimants
‘Trying it on’
This refers to the number of people who, having undergone an assessment were deemed to be capable of work.
Since ESA was introduced 396,000 of those assessed have been categorised in this way. However it is important to note that up to November 2009 33 per cent had appealed this decision, and in 40 per cent of cases a tribunal sided with the claimant. This resulted in 13 per cent of those found fit for work being changed.
The Mail also uses the phrase ‘trying it on’ in relation to those who withdrew their application before an assessment could take place.
Though it is suggested in some papers reporting the figures that these people withdrew their claims, knowing they would be ‘found out’ by the extra scrutiny.
Yet a report completed for DWP actually found that one significant reason for withdrawal of claims was the improved health of the claimant. Given that DWP has previously said that it takes on average three months between a claim being made and an assessment taking place, this seems like enough time for a change in circumstances that would see claims withdrawn.
94 per cent can work
This proportion is based on results that show that 6 per cent of all those who applied for ESA were placed in the Support Group, where they receive ESA payments and are not required to engage with Pathways for Work.
A further 16 per cent of applicants (or 25 per cent of those actually assessed) were placed in the Work-Related Activity Group – those who received ESA who are required to participate in Pathways to Work.
Pathways to Work is a programme that seeks to help people on ESA prepare for and find work.
So how the Mail arrives at the 94 per cent figure is by putting the 16 per cent of applicants who pass into the Work-Related Activity Group as ‘fit for work’ even by the Government’s own definition, such people are not deemed currently fit for work.
This point is at least alluded to a few lines into the Mail article, where it is stated: “94 per cent of new claimants were either ‘trying it on’ or would be fit enough to work in the near future.” [emphasis added]
So, for the purposes of that eye-catching headline, those who may be able to do some form of appropriate work in the future, become those who “can work”.
Conclusion
This article shows just how something loosely based on the statistics can become a very inaccurate headline.
It is true to say that of all the people who have so far applied for Employment Support Allowance 6 per cent went into the Support Group.
But this does not mean that the other 94 per cent of ESA claimants are all fit for work, let alone 94 per cent of people on Incapacity Benefit.
Of course, the Mail is not the only paper to report the figures. The Daily Express, has also covered the statistics, but claiming that they show 75 per cent ‘on sick are skiving’.
While we will be taking a closer look at this article later today, there is further explanation of why even this lower figure is wrong”
So there you have it Sarah, isn’t it better when we have the full facts, rather than benefit bashing headlines.
I think the point about the welfare state is that there is, or should be, an implicit contract. On the one side, government undertakes to help those out of work with training and financial support to live decently and to find work. When they do, it should ensure that they can earn a decent standard of living that is BETTER than it would be if they were unemployed. On the other side, the unemployed should be obliged to improve their skills, take up work when it is available, not turn it down for no good reason and certainly not claim to be sick when they are not.
It seems to me that there are failures on both sides of the equation at the moment. The Coalition government should be putting any spare funds it can find into helping training and improvement of skills. The budget deficit appears to be falling slightly faster than expected and an emergency “reskilling” package should be implemented, with educational assessments for all unemployed for longer than a certain period to identify their weaknesses and compulsory daytime attendance at adult education and training centres, bus fares/bicycle allowance paid. Monetary rewards for those reaching certain levels of educational and skills improvement could provide additional incentives.
As an education “nazi” myself, I would say anyone using “it’s” wrongly, or using “loose” when they mean “lose”, as well as people who add a question mark at the end of a sentence that isn’t a question, should lose all benefits immediately. (Just joking!)
@matt
Good piece matt and only one thing I would take issue with.
The Daily Mail didn’t get anything wrong – they were just doing what they always do which is pandering to their Tory readers and making the facts suit their editorial line.
If they had misinterpreted the stats then that would be bad enough but I’m afraid it goes much deeper and actually is a bigger threat to Democracy in this country than phone hacking at the NoW.
They are their to justify the Tory ideology and that will never change – oh they’ll do the odd story about Tories that don’t matter to preserve a semblance of ‘balance’ but it’s all a charade.
LibDems used to be able to see through this but the right-wingers who are either flooding in to the party or perhaps previously kept tsilent about their true feelings are now in full throttle and in control.
@EcoJon
“LibDems used to be able to see through this but the right-wingers who are either flooding in to the party or perhaps previously kept tsilent about their true feelings are now in full throttle and in control.”
I think you may be right.
We all know through the Oldham East and Saddleworth result that many conservative supporters where encouraged by their own party to support Liberal Democrats and prop up their vote.
I wonder whether many people like Sarah Reigns “former” Conservatives, have joined the Liberal Democrats in the hope of taking over the party completely and destroying it from within, or steering it into a permanent merge with the Tories.
She certainly should take a look at the Liberal Democrat Constitution http://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution.aspx
“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which noone shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full.”
Unbelievable, seeing some posts here actually advocating hunger and homelessness for the unemployed/disabled is something I thought I’d never see here, but I suppose starvation will ‘reduce the surplus population’
@matt
Can’t quite work out how the LibDems attacking the statutory rights of every worker in the UK sits within the LibDem constitution. Seems to me that making workers have to wait for 2 years instead of the current 12 months before obtaining legal protection against unfair dismissal breaks just about everything written.
The Tories in the LibDem party will soon be rewriting the party constitution anyway. Och it would just be easier to merge the parties as you can’t get a bus ticket between their economic policies and welfare cuts anyway.
Sure Start was another shocker as well and yet another broken Clegg pledge. I wonder how the guy can sleep at night?
@nige
Look on the bright-side – more work for gravediggers 🙂
Don’t know if we can continue with cremation though as that might be too big a strain on the National Grid and push up electricity prices. Silly me we want the prices up so people can’t stay warm – now what about that Fuel Allowance?
Look on the bright-side – more work for gravediggers 🙂
Yeah probably the only growth industry, that and Victorian(esque) top hat makers.
I must admit it’s surprising that other Liberals on the site aren’t decrying the comments above as the poster(s) claim to be in the party or has the party itself changed that much?
I’m afraid this is a very selective quotation and out of context quote of Beveridge which I suspect is being used for the narrow political purpose of gaining support for forthcoming workfare proposals and playing the old Tory game of blaming or associating unemployment with those who don’t want to work.
The Beveridge report was written in 1942 – and my guess is that given the circumstances at the time anyone who was voluntarily unemployed would be seen as fair game. And of course if Beveridge considered “voluntary” unemployment to be such an issue one might have expected him to push the issues in subsequent years when he joined the Liberal Party, became a Liberal MP and even its leader – but somewhat surprisingly he didn’t. It may be that he was slightly more concerned about using Keynesian economics to reduce the extent of involuntary unemployment and to achieve the 3% unemployment level he wished to see set as target in “Full employment in a Free Society 1944” . Oh for such a principled approach from the current Liberal Democrats.
Might I suggest that in future liberals try and look at the overall messages of their “heroes” such as Keynes, Beveridge and John Stuart Mill before using selective quotation as a means for justifying the behaviour of this coalition. If you wanted to take this game to a ridiculous extreme you could even use Beveridge to make a case for supporting eugenics – which he did for a short period in his earlier life.
@EcoJon
“Can’t quite work out how the LibDems attacking the statutory rights of every worker in the UK sits within the LibDem constitution. Seems to me that making workers have to wait for 2 years instead of the current 12 months before obtaining legal protection against unfair dismissal breaks just about everything written.”
I was wondering that myself, it was one thing to read the announcement by David Cameron, through the media, But it was something else to see Vince cable in a BBC News Interview trumpeting the policy as good for business and vital for growth.
Seems to me that the coalitions only growth strategy is to reduce the rights of workers and allow companies to avoid long term commitments.
“Sure Start was another shocker as well and yet another broken Clegg pledge. I wonder how the guy can sleep at night?”
I agree, but from what I heard, he is closing his ministerial box at 3pm, and taking a nap in the afternoon 😉
@nige
“I must admit it’s surprising that other Liberals on the site aren’t decrying the comments above as the poster(s) claim to be in the party or has the party itself changed that much?”
I am saddened by that also, I am shocked that someone who uses the word cripple and brands people as worthless and lacking purpose, has not been met by more disapproval from other members of the party
Rather baffled by the comments about immigration from E Europe. How can you explain that during the economic boom time somewhere around 600,000 people came here, not speaking English in many cases and got jobs wjile millions stayed ‘unemployed’. If young people from Polamd can move across Europe to London is it so unreasonable to ask why young people from Wales and N England can’t do the same?
@toryboys fascinated to hear that Beveridge became Leader of the Liberal Party, something which has been missed by party historians.
I would imagine Beveridge’s views on cutting investment and stifling growth would be very different to the current government.
Yes, idleness was identified as a potential problem during the inception of the welfare state, over the last thirty or so years, governments have encouraged it, I doubt Beveridge would agree with their approaches either.
As you point out Mark: “was not security through a welfare state but security by cooperation between the state and the individual” this is cooperation between state and the individual, this is why yhe current government have got it all arse about face, they’re cutting at the wrong time, the circumstances aren’t in place for growth to create jobs for people to have the opportunities to be told they’re not really playing their part in this partnership.
Unemployment has been used for way too long as an excuse for governments not to aim for full employment, because it’s seen as less expensive, it’s an example of people knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.
“The other thing I have noticed is the right wing shift among posters and the slow disappearance of centre, centre left LibDem posters….”
An interesting observation EcoJon. I think you probably understand from your long experience with the Labour Party how it is for those of us on the social liberal (I won’t say ‘left’ because that’s a well-worn debate in itself) wing of the party. I felt genuinely sorry for long-term socialists who had perhaps given a lifetime’s work to the party they passionately believed had and would improve the lives of their fellow citizens only to see most of what they had struggled for betrayed by a group of arrivistes who, in some cases, had no roots in or understanding of the Labour Movement. To have remained a member of the Labour Party over a period of years you would have had to have been anti-EU/want to see Britain at the heart of Europe; believe in the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy/be intensely relaxed about individuals becoming filthy rich; support unilateral nuclear disarmament/support the renewal of Trident; + Iraq. At least, I felt, I didn’t have to make compromises on that sort of scale when the Liberal Party merged with the SDP. Now I do, and it is incredibly uncomfortable. I am not a coalition loyalist, so I am not going to come on here and defend Tory policies which in other circumstances I would be fighting, but probably like many others on the social liberal wing of the party I am coping with the situation to an extent by being in denial that many of the things that the coalition is doing are going to have as devastating a consequence as the Labour Party says they are; or additionally assuring myself that the short-term pain is necessary in order to deal with the disastrous economic situation, and that the policies being pursued by the coalition are not part of a nefarious Tory plan to drastically roll back the boundaries of the state. I know that this is probably self-deception, but I am about to write a cheque to renew my membership. Labour Party members have been through the nightmare years of Blair and Brown and are experiencing a surge of optimism that they can now get their party back: I want to still be there when there is a chance to get my party back!
@Simon McGrath
As EcoJon pointed out in an earlier post.
Many people from Eastern Europe came over here through Agencies {Gang Masters} had their fares paid for, documents, e.t.c. and where then put into shared accommodation at ridiculously high rents. The Agencies have the contract with the employer and because they where employed and paid by the Agency, and not directly from the Employer, These Agencies get away with deductions in wages and for trapping them in high rental accommodation.
Accommodation does not come as part of the Job and is a separate contract that is signed, That’s how the Agencies get away with it.
If an Employer gives you accommodation as part of a job, the maximum they can deduct in wages is £32.27 a week, and only then as long as it does not bring the employees take home pay below the National Minimum Wage.
This does not apply to agencies.
I had friends from Portugal, who came over to the UK, using the same sort of Agency, They where then sent out to work at Bernard Matthew’s. After the Agency had deducted fee’s, loans, accommodation, transport e.t.c. they where lucky to clear £35 a week.
That’s how they become trapped.
@Simon McGrath
“@toryboys fascinated to hear that Beveridge became Leader of the Liberal Party, something which has been missed by party historians.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beveridge
In 1946 Beveridge was raised to the peerage as Baron Beveridge, of Tuggal in the County of Northumberland,[5] and eventually became leader of the Liberals in the House of Lords.
@Sarah Reigns
I sincerely hope that you or any of your family never find yourself in the position of needing to “purchase their own out of work insurance”.
To explain why I say this I will give you an example from my own past experience. My mother, who worked as a SRN for the best part of 32 years (never went on strike despite low pay and long hours) contracted breast cancer at the age of 43. After having a whole and part of a breast removed she understandably had to take time off work. During this time she also underwent re-constructive surgery due to infection and complications but to also regain some semblance of “being a woman”.
After 2-3 years she returned to work at the local hospital but not as a hands on practical nurse. All the time the spectre remained of the cancer returning to finish her off but mum just got on with life the best she could but the whole experience changed her physically and mentally for the worse.
Eventually, my mother found she could not cope with the house she lived in at the time and decided to sell up and move to a smaller house. When mum eventually applied for a mortgage she found she could not get any form of life assurance to pay for the endowment or to underwrite the repayment option. All this because she had been unfortunate to have contracted cancer…She would have been turned down for any sort of Private Health Insurance too for the same reasons.
The above illustrates, I hope, why “cripples, sick and handicapped people” (to use your words) need a welfare state for support.
Your views would not seem appropriate to that of any the mainstream parties in the UK at present and if you are deluded enough to think your views are then try writing to each and kindly publish your replies somewhere for us all to see.
Finally, you mention that you are in business for yourself, good for you. Let’s hope you do not lose your business and decide to move into politics. There are no parties right wing enough to support your position since April 1945 and we all know what happened to them.
@matt, @hainart
No, I am NOT kidding. And you guys had better pay more attention to our leader, Nick Clegg. The welfare state is done for and even he says so. In his recent article for the Sun he rightly pointed out that those of us who don’t want handouts are more important. We cannot afford the welfare state at all any longer. Too bad, so sad for the scroungers and the “disabled” who contribute NOTHING to society. We are moving towards the US model in almost everything, especially health and thats a good thing the NHS should be privatised. I’m now in the LibDems because I see the party is right-of-centre, pro-capitalism, pro-worker. Not like all those pathetic wishy-washy views you had before the coalition lol you may not like it but your party has changed and now supports the REAL PEOPLE, people like me who create wealth and by the way I will never need out of work insurance as I am worth millions. The LibDems are even proving they stand up for business by removing “rights” from workers like making it 2 years before they can take me to tribunal AND they’re going to make it easier for me to sack people. Hopefully we’ll get rid of a lot of health and safety which causes me to lose money as well.
I say Nick Clegg is the best thing to happen to us, he is modernising the Party. And soon Britain will be back to prosperity with people like me back on top and the scroungers and sick-fakers on the bottom where they belong!
‘The Last Liberal’ and ‘Sarah Reigns’ are trolls who do not represent the views of Liberal Democrat and are posting their obnoxious views here to discredit the Liberal Democrats. They are therefore not worth engaging with.
@Sarah Reigns
Now you have just shown your true colours.
I doubt for 1 minute that you are a genuine Liberal Democrat Supporter, or Even a supporter of any party for that matter.
The purpose of your post, is quite clearly intent on causing friction for the party.
It is not sensible, it is not grown up, and it achieves nothing.
If you are unhappy with the coalition or a particular party, then why not engage in proper debate, instead of submitting this Dross.
@Sarah Reigns
You are obviously trying to wind us all up aren’t you? Go on admit it and go away so people can have a sensible discussion here without your poisonous input. Your’e wrong Sarah, end of story….
Nick Clegg, and believe me I am no fan, would recoil in horror at your views (“handicapped, sick and cripples”) as would David Cameron. Remember his son. I am no fan of Cameron either but my heart went out to him when he lost his son as it would any parent to lose a child in any circumstances.
There are people like you who are allowed to vote that share the same views as yourself but fortunately for all of us you are in the minority. You can have your points about those who have no wish to work (chavs etc, to again use your words) and that group of people require attention from government as commentators have pointed out above.
Where I take a dislike (to put it mildly) regarding your views is that you lump the most vulnerable people in society as undeserving of welfare because they had the misfortune to be born disabled or to fall sick through no fault of their own.
I have a son who is autistic (disabled) and you say that he should fend for himself as he will not contribute anything.
By your warped logic life should be a free for all, the survival of the fittest. Believe me if that is how life becomes you will need more than Nick Clegg to look after your business.
Matt
Thanks for spotting what I really meant – but the basic point that Beveridge had a plaform in active politics and used it to argue for a reduction in involuntary unemployment – rather than arguing against the welfare state and adopting the Tory line of blaming unemployemnt on the voluntary unemployed still stands. The the coalition goes on the more I’m coming to the conclusion that the natural predecessors of the LibDems were the National Liberals rather than the Liberal Party, which was an honorable institution and actually gave something to national political life.
@Sarah Reigns
You are giving us trolls a bad name – either the LibDems have gone beyond the parody stage or you were born without the compassion gene,
it should be based on universality of need,
not universality of entitlement, which is what happened under labour with things like winter fuel payments and child tax credits
both of those are miles from anything beveridge advocated, as I blogged on this site at the time of the debate on child credits
We can all tut at “Sarah Reign”‘s views, and we can all pat ourselves on the back about what a great man Beveridge was, and we can all say that Nick and Dave would be horrified at her views, but the evidence of what is being done right now, in government, does not support this. We are, as a party, supporting policies which take money away from the most vulnerable in society. We are removing mobility payments for those in care homes, making them virtual prisoners. We are scrapping DLA and replacing it with something very feeble. We’re redusing housing benefit for those who are disabled or sick through no fault of their own. Disability rights campaigners are highlighting these problems but every time one of them speaks here I see they get shouted down and called “Labour Trolls”. Hell, we’re even taking rights AWAY from workers by making it easier for them to be sacked and taking away their right to tribunal until they’ve been employed for 2 years. How can any of us support this crap? Are we not Liberal Democrats? Or are we right-wing Tories? We know for a fact there are many Tories who feel the same as this “Sarah Reigns”. We can shout “pupil premium” til we’re blue in the face but that won’t help the disabled who are in danger of losing their homes.
We need to take a long, hard look at ourselves and pull our fingers out from you-know-where. We are, in government, enacting policies that will HURT the poorest, the disabled and the weakest in society. Our party’s goal was always to protect these people. We’re doing the opposite and we’re letting it happen. Shame on all of us who call ourselves LibDems.
I would date the birth of the Welfare State to December 1911 and the National Insurance Act – though Lloyd George and (I am told) Winston Churchill were only following imperial Germany. I’d like to see an essay on the subject from someone more knowledgeable than myself.
Beveridge pioneered a major welfare reform. He also wrote in wartime when unemployment was not a concern and when everybody was expected to help the war effort. Naturally he will have sought to maximise his support by arguing that benefits could be conditional rather than automatic. Indeed, it will have seemed obvious in wartime that benefit recipients ought to give something back in return.
What we have found out since then is that it is broadly not practical. If you ask benefit claimants to take over paid work that people are now doing, you simply drive those people out of their jobs – Matt’s point. If on the other hand you try to get them to do jobs that are currently left undone, like litter clearance, it actually isn’t free, it costs a lot of money you don’t have – as explained by Ed the Snapper.
If you’re a professional, like Mark Pack, you know these things. So when, Mark, you call for benefits to be contingent on some sort of workfare, you know very well that it ain’t going to happen. You are covertly supporting the view that if we can’t get claimants into workfare, it’s OK to stop paying them welfare and let them starve.
Which party are we, again, please?
@ Eddit Holbert
I can only agree with your last post, it just about sums up my feelings, the Tories where always going to do these things (against the vulnerable/disable blaming the poor for being poor etc ) just look at their history however when the coalition was formed I did have hopes that the Party would have a moderating influence and I generally supported it but, for me at least, it became clear very quickly it wasn’t going to happen and I no longer support the Party whilst this coalition and it’s current policies towards the vulnerable/working classes are being pursued.
Just what has happened to the Party? it speaks volumes that posters such as Sarah Reign and The last Liberal feel this could be their political home, yes their views are an anathema to Liberals (or should be) but still I do have to ask myself just how far has the Party shifted to the right?
“Just what has happened to the Party? it speaks volumes that posters such as Sarah Reign and The last Liberal feel this could be their political home, yes their views are an anathema to Liberals (or should be) but still I do have to ask myself just how far has the Party shifted to the right?”
It speaks volumes about your inability to see through caricature sock-puppets created by left-wing tyrols.
David Allen – I’m curious to know your views on productive work and the individual responsibility of the able-bodied to improve their own situation.
My husband’s business (a small, independent bookshop) has just gone in to voluntary liquidation. He has worked and paid taxes since he was sixteen, incidentally in the process helping to pay for more fortunate people to have the luxury of going to university – he was looking after his mother who was dying of a brain haemorhage when he was trying to also cope with GCSEs). After woring for a national chain he ran the bookshop for thirty six years and paid himself only £15,000 per annum for at least 51 hours of work a week, working six days a week and taking only two weeks’ holiday a year plus bank holidays.
Now he is a job seeker (as he still has a year and a bit to go before he reaches retirement age).
However, on top of the bookshop work he has for years helped to run our town Gala which raises money for local charities, been chairman of our village hall society and contributed a great deal to our Lib Dem constituency association. This is the kind of work that should be counted as “community work” in my opinion, voluntary work that contributes towards society and would not be paid for by local councils.
As for saying that disabled people are feckless! One of my sisters is seriously ill and disabled by Parkinson’s Disease. In her younger days she had three jobs at a time, cleaning in the early mornings, teaching during the day and working at a bar in the evenings. She did this to pay her family’s way because her husband had a mental illness and could not keep a steady job.
Anyone can find themselves disabled. Sarah, I really hope it does not happen to you, but if it does you will rue your words. You have a lot to learn.
Tabman,
You may well be right to think that “Sarah Reigns” and “The Last Liberal” are caricatures created by trolls. You’ll notice that some of the Labour posters on this site, Matt for example, have come to the same conclusion. However, it is really not possible to be sure. There are some real people around with weird opinions who will genuinely applaud when our party now attacks welfare, with dog-whistle phrases such as “alarm clock Britain” for example.
Perhaps the Voice editors could comment? If “Sarah Reigns” or “The Lost Liberal” can be identified as trolls from their contact details, perhaps the editors could let us know?
“see through caricature sock-puppets created by left-wing tyrols.”
LOL. I hope your right, but you cannot deny that such views/people exist, maybe they are hooking onto the party maybe not, it’s still worrying not to mention very offensive no matter what their political agenda maybe.
Tabman,
To answer your curiosity: I believe that we should have strong incentives to encourage those who can work to do so. We do have strong incentives. In fact, we have excessive social inequality and ample rewards for success.
Of course it is a pity we have so many people on benefits. All parties have tried and largely failed to reduce the numbers, because of annoying and boring practical difficulties, which some would like to pretend are not there. But it is dishonest to pretend that they are not there. Simply cutting benefits now will not suddenly drive people to find jobs which don’t exist.
Tabman
If you actually look into the issue of “voluntary” unemployement you will see that it is actually a lot more complex than it is made out by many on the right. The are a wide variety of reasons why it happens – early retirement, poor training, lack of self confidence and esteem – and the problem cannot be addressed by “stick” approach of reducing benefits/workfare, and can be quite costly to address effectively.
But the problem has always been there and you have to ask why those on the right (now including some LibDems) feel that now is the time to raise the issue when involuntary unemployment is on the rise. Sarah Reigns may be a poor parody – but the fact that she has got such a reaction does suggest that there may be a grain of truth.
@tonyhill
I read your response and yes the experiences are similar. Personally I left the LP when Blair became Leader and have only just rejoined as I believe that Milliband is possibly capable of being different. I would have rejoined under Brown but personal circumstances got in the way. Joining under Brown was purely on a personal level because I know he has principles and that he is basically a decent human being although he does have a lot of faults, but don’t we all.
During my time out of the LP I still worked for candidates at all levels who I knew personally and who had principles they would stick to. The carpet-baggers never seemed to make that cut 🙂
At the end of the day whether to stay or go has got to be a personal choice. Looking at everything that the LibDems have done since the GE I might have stayed if I had been a member but unless you are one it’s a question without a real answer.
I suppose the sticking-point would have been the Tory Coalition – I would have worn a Confidence & Supply position but probably not what was agreed. However, if I had stayed then I think I would still have been there – not giving any support to Tory ideology but just enduring and doing what I could to retain a social conscience.
I wouldn’t probably have gone on tuition fees because we still don’t have sufficient information to actually work out the effect on poorer kids and the ‘exceptional circumstances’ definition is a key factor to me which we have yet to get. I would have fought for tuition fees to have been redlined in the coalition agreement and await the biographies with interest to see the excuses. However, I would probably have gone following the HoC vote when I believe principles went out the window and political expediency won the day.
But I do know that if I had still survived as a member I would have gone over Cable’s announcement to raise the unfair dismissal bar from 12 to 24 months and effectively remove statutory protection from every UK worker. And the crass excuse that it will promote ‘growth’ is unreal. How can Cable say that the 12 month period stops employers from hiring workers. Of course it doesn’t as an employer has 12 months to form an opinion and terminate employment if they wish without an legal probs.
No what is going on is purely Tory ideology at work to increase the bar to 24 months to keep a dowmward pressure on wages and to ensure workers keep their heads down and accept reduced wages and conditions. It also prevents workers leaving an employer for a better-paid job because they would then have no employment protection for 2 years – would you move? I know I wouldn’t.
There’s always a tipping point – well there is if you’ve joined a party out of personal conviction and not just to have a career. But time will tell.
I appreciate your response as always, EcoJon. Perhaps because I am an employer rather than an employee, and have been at the receiving end of an entirely unjustified action for constructive dismissal, my views about this aspect of coalition policy are not quite the same as yours.
@tonyhill
A unjustified action will still be an unjustified action if the employee has been employed for 25 months – what people find unsatisfactory is that justifiable actions cannot take place if the employee has been there for 12 to 24 months. I can see the argument for a trial period for both the employee and employer but sureley 12 months is enough to work that out. I do actually believe there are some cases where employees bring actions that are unjustified (or more usually threaten to do so – so they they get offered healthy payoffs)- but the answer there is to deal with what is considered an appropriate cause and what isn’t directly rather than messing around with periods of employment. What will happen next if the current logic is followed will be an increase to 36 months and beyond, because there will still be some unjustified claims from thise employed for up to 3 years.
12 months is more than long enough for a “trial period” within which the employee has no legal protection. On the other hand, 24 months is arguably too short a period within which to grant an unscrupulous employee the nuclear option of a legal action for unfair dismissal. Is the answer to seek some sort of halfway house, a kind of “small claims court”, whereby an employee dismissed after (say) 6 – 30 months could sue for a smallish fixed penalty only?
@tonyhill
I have been an employer as well Tony and also taken an ET against an employer as well as reporting on ETs on and off for a long time.
So I’ve got quite a mixed view on them. The big money payers are the discrimination cases and I don’t think the time bar will apply to them so that won’t save unjust claims with a big compensation potential.
Decisions can be a bit capricious because a helluva lot of emphasis is put on the ‘feel’ that tribunals get about the witnesses and I have often felt that the tribunal system actually accentuates this flaw whereas a chairman sitting alone seems to act more on the actual evidence. The chairman of course is legally quaified.
I have seen so many determinations that defy the evidence and any logic but they happen both ways.
However, what really annoyed me about Cable was the growth excuse. I don’t know if you’ve seen the figures published but the 200,000 jobs created by the private sector in the last 12 months which Cameron crows about – well only 6,000 are actually fulltime.
The rest are partime or temporary or short term contract and agency – so saying a 12 month period would affect them is just nonsense.
It’s scary when I listen to Pfeizer scrapping 2,400 good full-time jobs down south today and then look at the 6,000 full-time jobs which it took 12 months to create and I wonder how many of these are low quality supermarket shelf stackers etc