According to the Telegraph:
Tough schemes in which the long-term unemployed are forced to do community work in return for benefits are backed by an overwhelming majority of voters according to a new poll.
The poll was for Policy Exchange - supposedly David Cameron's favourite think tank.
What they and The Tekegrpa sought to say as a result of their survey on fairness was:
The YouGov survey uncovered a widespread public belief that benefits are too generous, with voters blaming the easy availability of welfare payments for joblessness.
The public also backs a stronger sanctions scheme - particularly for claimants who are drug users or have criminal records - and a "cap" on child benefits, with people who have three children not getting payments if they have a fourth.
The "fairness" poll, commissioned by the Policy Exchange think tank, finds that most voters believe that the state should actively discourage people from becoming lone parents, although they do not back tax breaks for married couples.
In addition:
The poll, however, shows that a startling 80 per cent of all voters thinks that people who have been out of work for 12 months should have to do community work before they get benefits - as long as they are physically and mentally capable of working.Furthermore, half of all voters (50 per cent) think that someone on JSA should have to spend between three and eight hours a day searching for work in order to get welfare payments.
But the stupidity of these responses is made clear when a question was asked on the reason for long term unemployment. As was noted:
- the most popular answer (33 per cent) was "benefits are too generous or easy to claim," comfortably beating
- "there are not enough jobs available" (20 per cent.);
- 12 per cent believe the long-term jobless are "lazy or lacking in willpower" while
- 14 per cent say "the rewards from working are too small".
(I added the bulleting).
This is much more telling. First, note the benefit in question (Job Seekers Allowance) is £67 a week. Perhaps the respondents would like to try living on it?
Second, extraordinarily just 20% had noticed that with 2.5 million people unemployed there weren't enough jobs to go round. For the unemployed, let alone the 500,000 or more now on disability benefit the government wants to force into work.
And why is that mistake so easy to understand? Well, because these people reveal by their own answers how little they really know about their own position or that of others in the economy. Whwen sakes about their own positions (again, bulleting added):
- 61 per cent believe they are in the middle 30 per cent of earners.
- Only two per cent think they are in the top 30 per cent
- 9 per cent think they are in the bottom 20 per cent.
I have no idea what happened to the other 28%.
But the point is clear: if you ask people who have no clue about an issue what they think, and then suggest that this should be the basis for policy you will actually simply base policy on prejudice.
That no doubt is what Policy Exchnage want to do.
Indeed, the nasty commentary piece by Janet Daley shows just that -0 and is no doubt exactly what Policy Exchange (and I suspect cameron) desired: as she said:
After all these years of being morally blackmailed by the poverty lobby, harried by socialist ideologues and shouted at by self-serving public sector axe-grinders, the people are not cowed. Even after being bludgeoned by the BBC thought monitors and browbeaten by Left-liberal media academics with the soft Marxist view of a "fair" society — from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs — they have not bought it. They do not believe that if people are poor, it is necessarily society's fault, and therefore society's duty to deal with the consequences.
This is, of course, the libertarianism that is destroying the USA being imported to the UK. The logic is simple: it's "let them sink". That is what the Tories want to do: that is what their friends in the media want. And it plays to a nastiness that is, I am afraid, compounded by fear.
And yes, there is real fear in our society: fear of unemployment, fear of not getting housing, fear of not getting access to education, fear of old age and the poverty it might bring. Fear that therefore says hoard all you have for yourself for fear someone else might get it. Fear that this government deliberately generates. Fear that the Policy Exchange seek to promote. Fear they want to exploit.
But it's odd that when they turned from asking deliberately leading negative questions and asked what would make the UK fairer a different picture emerged from this survey:
Given a choice of various options on how to make Britain a fairer place, the most popular choices were reducing unemployment, cutting tax for low earners and reducing the cost of living.The least popular were reducing university tuition fees, banning private education and increasing welfare benefits.
So although people attacked these who were unemployed they knew that a lack of jobs was a real issue. And they only see tax as an issue for the low paid - as it is, because they have the highest overall tax rates - compounded by Tory VAT rises. And the cost of living has, of course, been put up by the Tories.
But nothing disguises the misinformation in this story - a misinformation that Policy Exchange are, I am sure well aware of. And that's the simple fact that with 2.5 million unemployed, and with hundreds of thousands more to be sacked as a result of Tory policy this year, for may there is no chance at all of getting a job. Ity's government policy that they should not have one.
But these people - unemployed through no fault of their own - are being made the victims of policy - and then being vilified. This is right wing politics at its worst - always choosing elements in society too weak to defend themselves due to misfortune as the supposed cause of wrongly identified failure - and then seeking to firstly vilify and then punish them for it.
Expect policy initiatives soon saying there will be absolute limits on the amount of unemployment benefit anyone can claim, either in a period or over their life.
And then expect policy that will ban anyone who has taken drugs (which would include most of the Cabinet, I suspect) from claiming benefits if they had ever been caught (and 'nice' people aren't, of course).
And follow that on with compulsory unpaid work for benefits (call it the workhouse if you like).
And then for good measure, because these people won't then be able to look after their children as benefits to let them do so will have been denied to them, plan a programme of mass children's homes, with children forcibly removed from their parents to prevent their influence.
And then follow on with big scale prison building to handle the crime epidemics that will follow.
All creating private sector contracts for the supply of the necessary services to contain those affected, of course, so that the cabinet's friends can prosper from this policy.
And then you get some idea where all this is going.
Who said the Tories weren't the nasty party?
All the evidence is they're very nasty, indeed.
As is Policy Exchnage, who are doing the dirty work.
This is the narrative we've got to beat.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
People on JSA do not just have to do community work – claimants have been put on placements at poundland and various other private companies http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/03/now-jobseekers-told-volunteer-at-poundland-or-lose-your-benefits/ It is difficult to find the lists of companies involved in this as each area has a different set of ‘providers’ for ‘voluntary’ work. From what I can gather this has been going on for some time as someone I met online who was volunteering for the CAB got pulled out of that as it wasnt on the approved list – and placed with a private company.
There is also the ‘sanctions’ on which a guardian article was written re whistleblower saying about targets of 3 per week to be sanctioned – where the vulnerable are being sanctioned for minor infringements as they are easy targets – ie the sick and disabled found ‘fit for work’.
This is all compounded by low wages and much of the jobs that are available being part time and/or temporary – hence people moving in and out of work – this causes problems as each time your job ends you have to reapply for housing benefit which many landlords are reluctant to wait for – leading to evictions.
The only way that I think many people could get to understand the reality of these situations is to be in them themselves for a minimum of a year! Otherwise they just dont get it!
Thank you for this article – alarming as it is!!!
One could argue that this is the banks’ way of protecting themselves against the information age. Withdraw so much money from the general population – let’s not forget that people spend their benefit money into circulation, they don’t hoard it, so stopping benefits reduces again the amount in circulation – reduce that money by such an extent that we’re all at each other’s throats and there’ll be less chance for inquiring minds to discover interesting information like, when the banks make a loan, there’s no transfer of funds, the bank creates new money when it pretends to lend it and apart from the teeny fraction that’s minted or printed that’s where we really get money from. Inquiring minds will be too busily occupied with immediate survival to be wondering about such matters. I was reading that in Greece too they’re vilifying the disabled and cutting their benefits, this suggests to me that there’s something rather darker than just the Tory party at work here. Witness recent goings on in Arizona where a proposed law making it essential for anyone wanting to foreclose on a property to have to prove they actually owned that property was just waved into oblivion http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=184886. What’s happening is too widespread. The banks have managed to pull off their centuries-old scam by keeping people in the dark about it. I’ve said for years they’d have trouble getting away with it in this, the information age, so I suppose this is their defence.
BB
I remember my Dad, 40 odd years ago, saying that Tory policy was and always would be to have 2 men chasing 1 job. Some things never change
The “work for benefit” scheme (job placement) was started by labour.
You get to work 40 hours for 67 quid a week.
You also get the pee taken out of you by the other “employees”.
Probably the companies in the scheme are owned/directed/give-bungs-to various political persons.
The “remove the kids from the parents and sell them for adoption” has already started, you do not get to hear about it because reporting the procedures, people and children is prohibited by law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8470199/The-judge-has-forbidden-anyone-to-tell-me-what-he-wanted-me-to-hear.html
Its easy top be a smart-alecky “poor basher” when you are not poor.
But try being poor just for a month …. Something you can do by simply walking out of you front door without money/credit cards etc.
Road test the Daily Mail version of the “state support system”.
You may well wish you hadn’t.
People despise the poor. The idea that the UK is a meritocracy has common currency. As such people at the bottom are seen as having no merit.
On 16 May 1991, Norman Lamont stated in parliament that “Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying.” Lamont is now advising Cameron. The Tories privatised the utilities – these natural monopolies now give us above inflation price increases year after year. It was always the Tories intention to get wage inflation down below price inflation, making people poorer and poorer. New Labour also wanted to keep unemployment high to exert downward wage pressure on wages. Look at this from the minutes of the Bank of England`s Monetary Policy Meeting (MPC) on 3rd and 4th June 1998:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/minutes/mpc/pdf/1998/mpc9806.pdf
From paragraph 35 of the Annex:
Continuing falls in the number of long-term unemployed have meant that they account for a declining proportion of total unemployment. This is normal in a recovery: the share of the long-term unemployed among the unemployed has been counter-cyclical since at least 1984. This could indicate that as the labour market tightens, employers extend their recruitment activity more widely, improving the job prospects of the longer-term unemployed. This implies that the long-term unemployed are an imperfect substitute for the short-term unemployed, and a fall in their share of total unemployment is indicative of labour market tightness. Econometric work by Bank staff had provided support for this theory: it suggested that the long-term unemployed do exert downward wage pressure, but less so than the short-term unemployed.