The government is right to pursue those who

Published 11 December 2008

Tackling abuses of the welfare system is a necessary (and probably vote-winning policy) and there is no doubt that the government considers the welfare reforms introduced by the Work and Pensions Secretary, James Purnell, to be an important piece of legislation. The bill aims to challenge a culture of social security that keeps 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit and 2.1 million lone parents on income support.

At the heart of the Purnell reforms is the intention to create a "something for something" ethic that obliges those on long-term benefits to attend Jobcentre Plus interviews. Other proposals are equally far-reaching and bold. Those on incapacity benefit will, from 2009, be asked to undergo medical assessments to determine whether there is any kind of work that they might be capable of doing. Seeking work could also become a condition of receiving housing benefit.

The most controversial proposals are those that relate to single parents, usually mothers, with children. With immediate effect under the new act, benefit-claiming single parents with children over the age of 12 will be moved from income support to Jobseeker's Allowance. From 2010 the rule will apply when the child turns seven.

"There is nothing left-wing about people being trapped on benefits, having miserable lives where their universe consists of a trip from the bedroom to the living room," Mr Purnell told the NS in September. It is hard to disagree with that, or with the motives behind the new legislation.

The right to state benefits is not absolute. It has to be matched with a responsibility to seek employment, education or training where possible. Except in rare cases, where physical or mental disability renders an individual incapable of working, people are far better off working than living off benefits. And it is better, too, for society. There is a growing consensus that incentives to work ("conditionality", in the argot) need to be built in to the welfare system. This applies equally to the large numbers of people stuck on incapacity benefit and to the long-term unemployed who are physically and mentally able to work.

But policies devised in a period of boom look far less benign when implemented during a recession. The "firm but fair" talk does not match the new economic reality.

Much depends on the nature of the "conditionality". It is obviously preferable for incentives to be persuasive rather than coercive. It would be preferable if men and women on benefits recognised that they and their children would be better off if they were in work rather than on benefits. At present, however, many are not convinced by the argument. It is true that there are approximately 500,000 vacancies around the country (though that figure may fall sharply in 2009 as the recession deepens). On the face of it, unemployment could be slashed if those seeking work could be matched with opportunities, but frequently they cannot.

The most egregious mismatch of skills, opportunity and geography is for single parents. They invariably require flexibility from employers (the current mood is against that), but often they lack skills, having been off the job market for so long. And the mother of young children is seldom in a position to hop on her bike to go where the work is.

We agree with Mr Purnell that public money should not be wasted on people who are "playing the system". Sadly, in Britain today, too many grow up with the expectation that the system is there to be played, that the state should provide even if they are not prepared to contribute in return.

But more could be done to make this latest package more acceptable. Single parents are far more likely to be enthusiastic about seeking employment or training if the government could give solid assurances that childcare would be fully in place while parents worked, trained or sought work. The conditionality the government seeks to introduce is, perhaps, out of place for young mothers seeking to do the best for their children. When the government itself is blaming international markets for the economic downturn, it is not reasonable to punish those unable to find work.

If the new rules are misapplied, the impact of conditionality on child poverty targets could be severe indeed. Cutting off a single parent's benefit may show the government's determination to get lone parents back to work. In practice, it punishes both parent and, ultimately, the vulnerable child.

Post this article to

7 comments from readers

Carl Jones
11 December 2008 at 16:57

The government and Newstatesman`s attitude is very alarming.

We get this sinister mantra, every time the economy has a wobble. Within weeks of bad economic news, the papers, radio and TV are full of fear mongering benefits cheat stories.

The last decade has seen the City make billions and billions in profits. The out going head of the FSA said "corruption is as bad as ever"!!!! In fact, middle class corruption goes unchecked....thousands of immigrant builders, plumbers and casual labor, and most of it paid for in the grey economy. If we add the estimated 10% of City finance derived from illegal drugs, then we are talking about 10s and 10s of billions of unchecked corruption. I could move into the current economic bout of elite criminality, BUT WHAT IS THE POINT?LOL

Just imagine how much we can save on benefits, then we can give it to the banks.LOL

If the government and Newstatesman are serious, then lets add another new law the 1000+ already created by New Labour....lets have a law guarenteeing everyone a job...surely this is a human right?? All the Labour government has done over the last decade, is LECTURE the public about their responsibilies, surely the government has RESPONSIBILITIES??

Sure, they can keep bust banks going and the board in their mansions, but they can`t even pay benefits which one can actually live on, and yet, all benefits are spent in short order, so someone is getting employment out of it.

The reality is, our NWO government is hell bent on destroying the family.

Riots in Iceland and now Greece...how long before it is British cities?

writeon
11 December 2008 at 20:40

What a grotesque farce British politics has become. If anybody is "playing the system" it's people like Purnell who are punishing the poor in order to show his loyality to the reactionary social, political and economic agenda that's ruled Britain for the last thirty years, an agenda that's done so much incredible damage, damage one can see all around one, if one has the guts to open one's eyes and look. But then people do look, but they don't care and don't give a damn about the mess they've caused, because for some that mess has been extremely profitable indeed.

Purnell wants to underline his right-wing credentials and stroke the ghastly prejudices of the Sun and the rest of the media, who regard stomping on the poor as a kind of middle-class substitute for blood-sports like fox-hunting and bear-baiting.

Concentrating so much time, money and energy on whipping the poor into line is incredibly waseful for society for very little real reward or concrete beneficial results. Instead ain the same resources at the massive, concentrated corruption in the City where everyone knows hundreds of millions, if not billions are siphoned-off every year in various scams, crime on a massive scale, dwarfing the peanuts paid out to a mere handful of people getting something for nothing from social security benefits. Christ! The priorities are so offensively wrong here!

Why is it that "incentives" aimed at the poor are so brutal, so coercive, hitting them in the pocket, when incentives directed at the wealthy are always so gentle, so persuasive, literally giving them money? The stick for the poor, the carrot for the rich. It's so bloody reactionary and vile.

What about the opposite approach? How about a redistribution policy downwards instead of the threat of cuts to benefits? What about a substantial increase in the minimum wage so that there would be no "incentive" not to find work? That staying at home would be barmy compared to getting a real job. Raise wages instead!

gnuneo
14 December 2008 at 00:49

"What about a substantial increase in the minimum wage so that there would be no "incentive" not to find work? That staying at home would be barmy compared to getting a real job. Raise wages instead!"

its always the same mentality - schools are not performing well? Blame the kids, bring in Ritalin or some fascist tyrant Head, make MORE testing, criminalise truancy, do EVERYTHING possible to try to FORCE the children to do what you want them to do.

never is it contemplated that actually in most cases kids themselves WANT a decent education - but they are misbehaving because they're not getting one, instead they're just getting this heap of abuse miscalled 'Schooling'. No wonder there is created the 'Us and Them' mentality of the UK. Compare to Scandinavia where the kids are central to the design and operation of a school, where truancy is lowered and standards raised, because the kids ENJOY GOING THERE!! I know, i know - shocking notion, isn't it?

then look at this proposal - more 'punishing the weakest' policies, instead of raising the standards in the workplace, instead of bringing in the workers onto decision-making structures, instead of increasing the amount of money that goes in wages and decreasing that amount stolen away by the 'owners', instead of creating those INCENTIVES that politicians always go on about (when in fact they mean punishments), instead we have here the failed measure of Workfare, the American Plutocratic notion of 'Bugger making better conditions, lets just force people to work for peanuts and no rights.'

remember the documentary 'bowling for columbine'? In it, the mother of one of the shooters tells how she was forced 'back to work' as a single-mother by the Workfare program, and that due to being forced to take *3* minimum pay jobs just to survive, was not able to oversee her child's development - with tragic consequences.

the wealthy have doubled their wealth under NuLabour, but here we see the poorest attacked again. No surprise!

writeon
15 December 2008 at 07:09

Athens, remember Athens. Not the Olympics or ancient democracy, but what's happening today. That may be what the future holds, spontaneous uprisings, fueled by injustice, sparked by some random act of violence.

I imagine the aristocracy, fat and comfortable behind the walls of their global Versailles are watching developements in Greece very closely. 1789 - it's that time!

concerned
15 December 2008 at 16:34

I would like to draw your attention to the DWP#s own statistical summaries, which estimate the number of lone parents claiming Income support to be somewhere between 720,000 and 740,000. Where do you get the figure of 2.1 million from?

http://83.244.183.180/5pc/is_prim/ccfam/statgp/a_stock_r_ccf...

Carl Jones
15 December 2008 at 20:08

Oh dear, I wonder why I`ve been censored again?lol

gnuneo
16 December 2008 at 21:02

concerned: from the stats you provided, it would seem to be the total, not just single-parent claimants. Small mistake. Good to keep 'em on their toes however! :)

writeon: here in the UK we have a *chance* to do this entirely peacefully, we have the surplus and the infrastructure to get us through and build the essential changes, however if nothing changes, if we continue to have to carry the burden of making the Rich richer, if the NuLabour Govt ignores the rising clamour for social democratic evolution, then i see little other recourse than disaster. We in the UK have had historically more flexible 'elites', who have by-and-large seen the way the wind is blowing and acclimatised, whereas others (notably the frogs and russkies) got their heads chopped. Lets hope they haven't lost that basic ability during their inbreeding and cross-breeding rituals.