No wonder left wing politics is in such a dire state now. If you can't see the difference between Labour and the Tories - yes even New Labour - then there isn't much hope for you.

On the issue of immigration, there is a common working agreement under EU legislation (principally introduced since 2004) that European workers can come to this country in order to work. It is often overlooked just how many British workers work abroad in Europe; it is a reciprocal arrangement.

Please bear in mind that many people who took found work in this country from abroad did so from a time when unemployed figures were substantially lower than they are today, the British could have applied for these positions in the past; but they did not.

There is also a lot of misguided opinion on how easily European people can claim a full range of benefits in this country, that simply is not true. There is a requirement on such people to come to this Country in order to work; they must go through a rigorous process in registering for work as a prerequisite to establishing 'habitual residence' and a 'right to reside'; the criteria was tightened up a great deal under Labour. If these people end up out of work through say illness, they are expected to have arranged adequate insurance cover before coming here. They must make their own provision rather than look to this State for support as they will not get benefits in this Country under our legislation.

People should not believe all they read in the papers!

The accent has been on attracting certain groups of qualified workers from abroad, presumably as a result of a skills gap in our own job market.

@thinkov I've just got back from Bangkok where we had barricade-makers and brick throwers (and a few grenade launchers and ak47-firers). No thanks. We don't need that in the UK.

Ryan, that's a generalisation if I may say so. There is a great a duty upon a claimant not to milk the system as there is on the DWP to ensure such claimants are not rewarded inappropriately for making themselves unsuitable for the labour market.

The introduction of ESA (by Labour) has, amongst its limited virtues, made provision for ensuring that claimants who have a drink or drug habit must agree to a programme of rehabilitation treatment as a condition of their entitlement.

DLA is awarded (under the legislation) according to 'severe disability' needs, this applies to claimants who have a mental and/or physical impairment. The allowance should be awarded to those who have an impairment; not because they are simply claiming to fund their habit.

Many of these claims have gone by unchecked for far too long by the DWP, but they are reviewing these claims in vast numbers and have been well before this budget. Many will be refused. The claimant can appeal but Tribunals will very quickly determine who are genuine and who are not.

It should be born in mind (and I'm by no means protecting the drug taker) that many people do turn to drugs or the drink because of some profound life time event over which they had no apparent control. (ex-serviceman being a case in point, suffering PTSD as a result of active service). Similarly, many people took seemingly 'harmless' cannabis in their early teens, only to end up with profound psychosis in later years. The DWP and Labour researched this in great depth, the DWP will no longer fund people to continue their habit, but they will make extra allowances for those who are prepared to rehabilitate and thus make themselves more suited to the job market.

So tell the many you know that the net is closing in. The unfortunate thing is the less genuine have an inherent habit of getting away with it whilst the genuine end up suffering.

Sorry Ryan my keybord warriorness gets the better of me sometimes

sorry Robert, I'm not with you, prey tell as to what particular cat is out of the bag?

Oh and by the way, I'm very big hearted to those in need!

Not to mention that it was Labour's failure to end Right to Buy and get councils building social housing again that led to the appalling housing benefits bill, leaving the new Government to attack families claiming the benefit rather than deal with the root problem.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/24/housing-benefit-pove...

This was tacked on to Laurie's rant about the "lowliest and the lost"

"Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's 'When the Lights Went Out'."

Was it meant to be amusing?

Agreed... with all the above !
Oh... just remember all this next time you 'think' of voting Liebour !

Elizabeth: well, bloody precisely (re:DLA). My former long-term partner is disabled and in chronic pain and I spent most of the last three years trying and failing to help him get any kind of support. Benefits for sickness are so incredibly hard to get that no wonder people are frightened of looking for work when and if they finally get their claim - take two days of temporary work and you get another six months' worth of waiting in abject poverty for your claim to be processed.

Excellent article Laurie.

I agree that these measures were already coming in under the previous Labour government and now extended by the current Lib-Tory administration. The means testing imposed for DLA will actually cost more than it saves as people will (correctly) utilise the right to appeal. So in reality its as you state an attack, a class driven attack on the welfare state.

I do hope Labour couch their opposition in the terms you state, the party of Nye Bevan, Clement Attlee and Barbara Castle. People in the party such as Cruddas will hopefully step forward to remind us what the Party should represent and is truly about.

Watching the pathetic "anger" of our side made it even worse

where are the brick throwers the barricade makers ?

there must be a radicalisation

Great article Laurie

Well said, the 13 years of Liarbour tory government were the foundation of the new Tory tory government's taking up the relay baton (or is it cudgel?). Millionaire fascists out, millionaire fascists in....

The area of welfare reform was, as many correctly say, already well under way. The implementation of Employment Support Allowance (ESA) under welfare reforms brought in by Labour was fiercely opposed and still is.

As a welfare benefit specialist I appreciate the extreme difficulties which many genuine claimants are having in getting their claims successfully processed. The problems emanate from poorly trained DWP decision-makers and their over reliance on private health care contractors who are using inadequately trained health care professionals to examine claimants.

These examinations are far too hurried and undoubtedly the subject of targets to reduce the numbers. The proposed scrutiny on DLA claims will become a big a farce as it is with the ESA claims. Like someone says many are appealing; this is a time consuming and extremely expensive process. MP's should be lobbied at local and national levels for campaign on change. Gladly I feel able to contribute by making many appeals to both the lower and upper Tribunals. The judiciary are aware of the problems and it is through disputing these unjust decisions that change will inevitably have to be made.

Some of these medicals are taking as little as 8 minutes and are often conducted by a poorly trained nurse who spends more time looking at a computer than the claimant. It will cost far more than it saves.

However the biggest concern is that the DWP's biggest expense is connected with Retirement Pension (I have seen the figures); that's why they are so obessesed with upping the retirement age! The DWP also waste millions on private contracts with 'back to work' organisations who stand very little chance of getting people back into work......for there are no jobs!

Why must you drag up Osborne's name? He was named Gideon by his parents, he decided he didn't like it at school and now uses George. Its a common tale. A cheap dig at a posh name is pretty poor.

I hope this is not too long

This is a superb article, as you say it was NL and I would suggest a supine middle class media that has allowed the coalition to go much further than they otherwise could have.

I was very much involved at a significant level in challenging the initial Welfare Reform Bill, during this time, Jim Murphy, Blunkett, Hutton brought the bill in and later Hain, and the odious Purnell (with his Tory sidekicks like the banker Freud) and Yyette Cooper guided (they didn’t have to push) ever more draconian welfare reform through the commons etc.

Sadly, my experience in terms or unity in challenging the counter-reforms was that there was very little support from the unions, the far left, the churches or indeed anyone else, with as you say the exception of the rather wonderful John Mcdonnell. Perhaps because unlike the Tories who are quite explicit in their actions, NL dressed up the cuts and more harassment in terms of ‘empowerment, choice, help’, etc
Orwell would have recognised the approach.

What was just as demoralising was how acquiescent the majority of the disability and welfare charities were in accepting both the policy and indeed the ideology and nostrums behind these ‘reform’ the notion of the ‘active citizen’ the end of ‘something for nothing’ etc and ultimately neo-liberalism itself.

In terms of the media, I have been monitoring their coverage of welfare for many years now: I once got a very defensive letter back from the producer of the Panorama programme on IB and have had many other less than positive responses. Another time, the Today Programme spent a whole day with the grass roots 'Stop The Welfare Reform Act' group we were involved in, interviewing its members and seeing how they lived. It was an excellent piece of journalism, but the whole package was scrapped on the orders of the then DWP Secreatry John Hutton on the grounds that morning he wanted to talk about child poverty!. I really do think the BBC is not 'neutral' on welfare and really thinks the 'welfare system is broken' and that is is better for all to work, (what work?)

The worrying thing is all the LP candidates seem to still support this punitive approach to welfare and have been very quiet on many of the measures on welfare in the budget.

Hopefully, as is now happening around the UK, people are joining together to challenge the cuts and especially the welfare cuts which most decent people see as obscene.

re: Nicky. Keep up the good work !
re: Laurie.Keep up the good works !

An adroit politician with a skilled PR advisor on the team would've played the 'caring Conservatism' card by rolling back New Labour's abominable DLA restriction programme, with much fanfare about cost-effective welfare reform.

Are we to conclude that Osborne is politically-maladroit? Possibly. But there's no shortage of PR and media-relations in Number 11, let alone next door at Number Ten. Could it be that no-one knows and no-one cares, isolated from reality, cocooned in advisers from policy units and sanitised focus-group reports?

Possibly.

But not likely. Someone's polled the media and concluded that Parliament, the press, the BBC, and the public don't give a damn' about anything or anyone to do with disability and welfare. Who's to say that they are wrong in such a calculation, given the experience of the last decade's benefit 'reforms'?

It would seem that we have evidence-based government at last.

Well the real evidence is that once people se how their benefits are being denied/reduced

they will steal not appeal

that's the next step:criminalise the claimant

spot on Nick and better articulated than I could ever manage

@pdab: "As Scope says, though, DLA is not a benefit - it is a recognition that it costs more to live as a disabled person. It's not means tested, so it's paid to people in work."

Isn't that all the more reason to ensure that those who need it, get it (with less hassle eg. form filling/bureaucracy) but those who don't, don't?