I've already noted the Observer's excellent article on the myths surrounding social security. Now let's look at another one, which is that Labour increased benefits (or social security) dependency. It is, of course, untrue as this data shows:
It was the Tories who took dependency to its peak of near enough 6 million and Labour who reduced it to just over 4 million before the recession got in the way. But it was also clear Labour was tackling the issue of incapacity benefits that the Tories created and Labour, rightly or wrongly, reduced support to lone parents too whilst taking unemployment down to levels only dreamt of throughout the period of Tory rule until the banking crash intervened.
Labour did not get everything right on social security. But to say it created a culture of dependency is a straightforward lie. That was entirely a Tory creation.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Points all taken. But what happened in 2005?
I think that is poor presentation
“But it was also clear Labour was tackling the issue of incapacity benefits that the Tories created and Labour, rightly or wrongly, reduced support to lone parents too whilst taking unemployment down to levels only dreamt of throughout the period of Tory rule until the banking crash intervened.”
But how many of those jobs were skilled, highly paid permanent jobs and how many were “McJobs” in the service sector in call centres and burger flipping?
And many of the welfare “reforms” practiced by the present government are just variations of policies mostly brought in by New Labour. Workfare was certainly on the cards as Labour policy if they got back in in 2010!
Under Labour as well, people could simply not leave benefits as they would not be able to afford to work. Not because of the absurd suggestion that benefits were too high, but that wages were so chronically low. Who in their right mind is ever going to accept employment in order to be worse off? Accepting full time work would mean accepting full rent and council tax payments. Sure, there was help towards this, but only if you were on poverty wages.
It is entirely the fault of the previous and present governments to let private landlords to charge whatever rent the market will bear and charge it to the taxpayer and for them to allow employers to pay poverty wages when £7.45 is considered a basic minimum to live on.
I don’t think it is fair in this respect to let Labour entirely off the hook!
I don’t
And said so
But while New Labour did not create welfare dependency, it did little to stop it.
There were some gains under Labour, but it was far too timid of what the tabloids and the media would say to properly tackle the welfare system; and by tackle, I don’t mean cutting amd freezing benefits to get cheap headlines, I mean tackling unemployment and showing that actually increasing benefits would be good, not bad, for the economy.
More universal benefits and less means testing will actually make the administering of benefits cheaper too.
In fact, this government’s attacking of the welfare system makes little economic sense at all. It provides cheap headlines and little else!
I really don’t think it is accurate to say that Labour ‘tackled’ the ‘Incapacity Benefit problem’. They may have got the numbers down but that doesn’t mean that those taken off it (or its successor ESA) went onto a better outcome. After all, ESA to JSA is hardly aspirational. And those with partners working full time would have gone from their NIC based ESA to nothing. Probably explains at least some of the drop in numbers.
Anyone can reduce the numbers on benefits by, at its extreme, simply abolishing the benefits. The next best thing is to simply tighten the conditions, that’s hardly imaginative or radical but that’s what Labour did with the creation of ESA. It’s lazy to call this tackling the problem, it’s no more than headline chasing.
I made clear Labour was far from perfect
And is not
But it did not increase the number of claimants
And I thin k that is a fair point worth making, not least because it is true
Labour did nothing to help people like me retrain. i was left to rot. I’ve got two degrees and years of work experience behind me and I received zero, niente, nichts, nada, null advice, support in terms of retraining. Only negative, punitive hands on the shoulder treatment. Labour also introduced the hideous ATOS that is wrecking the lives of many due to a ‘get them off benefits at all costs even if it kills’em’ approach. The negativity and dehumanisation is beyond belief. Labout started this and the Tories are whipping it up into a witch-hunt. What people need is proper support and advice and then you’d see results. Thatcher’s appraoch was to shift people onto Incapacity benefit (‘generous’ in those days) to mask unemployment. All these Governments are reprobates – for God’s sake we need something new!
With respect if you have two degrees and years of work experience why do you need help at all? You are clearly very capable and should just get on with helping yourself. Shouldn’t you? After all, you’ve had an enormous amount of training already – some of it no doubt state supported. You’re quite capable of understanding what advice you need and seeking it out. Why are you feeling sorry for yourself?
On the ATOS review however I quite agree.
Does having two degrees mean you know everything? Forever? It would be remarkable if you did. I find your comment baffling
Hi Richard. Having two degrees shows an aptitude for learning and, presumably, a love for learning. In this case it is combined with years of work experience. It’s not about what you know, it’s about being able to learn and adapt. Surely? Of course it doesn’t necessarily prepare anyone for the emotional impact of unemployment. But they know what a library is and how to use it. They know how to formulate a problem and set about exploring it. They have the habit of work and that also presumably involved problem solving. How much more advantage would they like?
Why would someone this capable sit and wait for the government to tell them what to do? Why would someone this bitter about government generally be interested in what the government tells them to do anyway?
I’m sorry: in my experience life simply does not work like that
Sure. Life is unfair, and some of the people with substantial advantages don’t feel or act as though they are advantaged.
It’s amazing what assumptions people make! After 15 years in secondary education I had a monumental nervous breakdown which included a period of homelessness and needed some help to re-orientate. I was confused, medicated and needed advice and support. It wasn’t there! The Job Centres were as helpful as chocolate teapots – probably less! I am beginning to find a way forward but what is the point of having these expensive Job Centres if they are unhelpful? Job Centres still work on a punitive basis. Read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/feb/06/are-jobcentres-working