The Guardian has reported this morning that:
Ministers are working up sweeping plans for welfare changes including scrapping a key disability benefit for under-25s and replacing it with a multibillion-pound package of support to get into work, the Guardian has learned.
They added that:
The plans are still awaiting the conclusions of reviews by Alan Milburn, who is looking at young people's employment, and the Timms panel, which is examining the personal independence payment (Pip), a non-means-tested benefit that helps sick and disabled people with support costs.
I could start by giving this report the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that this may not be what Burnham's government is planning to deliver because all of this may refer to inherited plans, but I have quite a strong feeling that this would be untrue.
Presuming that I am right to dismiss this idea, I am deeply dismayed, to the point of being very angry, about the proposal apparently being investigated.
Personal independence payments are not payments for being unemployed. Nor are they payments, as such, for having a disability. They are exceedingly difficult-to-secure payments to compensate for the additional costs imposed by that disability, so that people have a chance to compete on a level playing field despite the health and disability conditions that they have.
In my opinion, the health element of Universal Credit can be viewed in the same way. No one wants to claim this benefit. Anyone who does so has to prove their need. That need arises because they do have additional costs compared to the “normal person” whom the government would like to exist to meet the needs of the universal employer they have in mind when defining that each and every one of us must find our fulfilment through work, however meaningless much of modern work might be.
But what really angers me most of all about this proposal is the assumption implicit within it that everyone under the age of 25 has someone, other than the government, who might care, provide for, and meet their needs if they exist, even if they impose significant additional costs upon them. That might be true in the arrogant, conceited world within which most in Westminster might exist, but in the real world this is total nonsense.
In the real world, there is actual poverty. 20% of people in this country live in it. It is as if the government has not noticed.
Many more young people live in families where, even if they are not defined as being in poverty, the cost-of-living crisis is very real. Maybe the government has not noticed.
In addition, a great many young people do not have families who can support them, or who they are in touch with. They are alienated from their families, or they do not know who they are, or they are dead, or that family might abuse them, and any number of other reasons might be available as to why this situation exists. Maybe the government has not noticed, yet again.
Whatever the reason, the consequence is that there are very large numbers of young people who, almost by definition, will be amongst the most vulnerable people in our society, who do rely on health-related benefits or personal independence payments to have some chance to take part in the society in which they live, although, such is the meanness of such benefits, doing so will always remain challenging.
And now, these people are to be sacrificed to the supposed goal of forcing these people into work, when there is no work for them to do.
There is already around 5% general unemployment in the UK economy, with an unemployment rate of around 10% for younger people. If the market had work for people to do, the policy being proposed might make some sense. But there is no such work. Ministers are pretending that there is full employment. There is no such thing. This means that not only are they imposing profound punishment on people who do not deserve it, they are doing so instead of taking action to create jobs, which is unforgivable, but will not happen because they are terrified of the idea of industrial planning in its broadest sense, believing that to be socialist, and that would never do in the modern Labour Party.
At the same time, they are ignoring the fact that the Bank of England is clearly on a trajectory to raise base interest rates in this country, with the deliberate, albeit unstated, intention of increasing unemployment as a consequence. In other words, these very same ministers are letting a government agency pursue a policy which will deliberately deny opportunity to the more vulnerable members of our community at exactly the same time as those same ministers are quite deliberately planning to withdraw the benefits that those same vulnerable people require to be able to eke out an existence, and I think that a fair description.
Three questions have to be asked.
The first: have these ministers gone out and checked their facts? Do they know why these benefits are being claimed? The reality is that there is no evidence that they do.
Second, do they understand the macroeconomic environment in which they are operating? The evidence suggests they do not.
And finally, do they understand the wider context of their proposal? There is unemployment in this country. It is a consequence of their choices. They could decide that we should have a policy of full employment. They could create a fiscal policy with that goal in mind. They could instruct the Bank of England to end its policies deliberately intended to increase the rate of unemployment in this country. They are doing none of these things.
In that situation, what they are proposing is not just wrong; it crosses the boundary into gross negligence, to the point where it might be considered not just a crime against society, but a crime against the people within it.
The Guardian speculates on whether there might be a backbench revolt on this issue. I sincerely hope there will be.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
May I suggest that based on my experience and the plural of anecdote is not data – and Jacqueline will no doubt have a view as well which may be interesting to hear……….
There are a lot of people who are not well enough to work but not sick enough to get specialised treatment
Ditto with education
And we are now seeing the fallout.
As with bed blocking, resources could be provided to deal with this and it could be made a management priority but it isnt.
There also seems to be a certain lack of curiosity as to what is making so many people sick, as has been pointed out the biggest trigger of mental health issues is money problems – discuss
Much to agree with
Well said John, well said.
It’s strange how numbers dominate our thinking these days – surely Thatcher’s most poisonous gift to us.
All the politicos and civil servants can react to now is moving numbers around – benefit claimants and prisoners in prison – it’s not about what they need or the reality of their lives, it’s just cutting the numbers. It’s not about how serious your crime is, just cut the prisoner numbers no matter how dangerous the prisoners are and get them out and looked after by a threadbare probation services.
It’s a form of inverted pleonexia – whereas the rich continue to behave to make their numbers – denominated in money of course – go up, we – the great unwashed – are fated to see our numbers go down, reduce. That’s our money, law and order, civil society, housing, work all being taken away and accrued to the top – a sort of pleonexic ‘double entry book keeping’ where the rich get credited everything all facilitated by the people we vote for. Or rather, we didn’t.
Much to agree with
Another example of the Labour party accepting the right wing free-market lobbyists, same as with the triple lock proposals. Also governments and most policy makers do not look for evidence or it appears have any experience of life outside their own bubble of privilege and power. When I write up blog posts or think about political issues in general I ask several fundamental questions – how would it work, who would be affected, does the evidence support the idea. Its an essential part of the process of evaluating or formulating policy.
Thank you
I too am dismayed and angry if this report is correct.
The key issue is that it accepts the right wing idea that benefit recipients are scroungers who should be working. They should therefore be pushed into work, irrespective of ill health or anything else, by reducing welfare. Hey, that worked in Victorian times, when there was no welfare, when children “willingly” went up chimneys to clean them. No malingering there. What a great idea, no welfare. Let’s go back to Victorian times!
It is deeply cynical. The wealthy supposedly need the encouragement of tax breaks so that they work harder. But the poor need to have their income cut to achieve the same.
There is no possibility of the unemployed getting jobs when there aren’t enough jobs. Sure you can give support, help or mentoring to a few so that they can get a job. But that’s just playing musical chairs. A few may get a job but they displace others who become unemployed. Total unemployment is unaffected. There aren’t enough jobs!
And this is the Government’s fault. They deliberately cause unemployment, it’s a deliberate policy decision, “to control inflation”. That is, it’s a price worth, other people, paying. They disguise this by saying the Bank of England is independent, but that’s their choice. And the kicker is that unemployment is ineffective at controlling inflation. Their policy of mass unemployment doesn’t even work!
To then plan to reduce assistance to the very people their policies have made unemployed is nothing short of evil.
The voting age is to go down to 16 thus treating mid teenagers as adults but then they decide to treat them differently to other adults. It may just be me but this doesn’t make sense.
I started full time work at 16 in 1963 but there were lots of jobs then. If you didn’t like one, you could find another. At 17 I was unemployed for six weeks ( during the winter in Bournemouth area, there were fewer jobs ) Not nice but an experience which taught me something which many of my fellow students in the following year did not appreciate.
I think you are right about the mind set of many of our decision makers. They don’t have the understanding of how many people live.
Thank you
Strange that AB might be on-board with such punitive means-tested welfare measures when he has previously talked up the benefits of UBI, not least for improving economic security:
Basic Income UK – Andy Burnham on Universal Basic Income:… | Facebook
Proposal launched for groundbreaking Basic Income pilot in Greater Manchester | Northumbria University, Newcastle
Might another relevant, unasked question be, “Why is the infomation you present and the questions you properly ask, not evident in the main stream media?”
Not least, might this apply particularly to the “British Bias Corporation”?
The job market for young people is appalling. I know of several well qualified graduates working at McDonalds or similar on zero hours contracts whilst they apply for numerous jobs. Equally many of the so called NEETS come from the homes where they don’t have good support and have been failed by our education system. If well qualified graduates are struggling to get work, what hope is there for poorly qualified youngsters with anxiety etc? I really hope these changes are not implemented as it’s really pitting the generations against each other and I can’t see how it will get people into jobs that don’t exist.
It seems to me that being a barista is now an entry-level job – including for people with firsts and 2:1s, and in what most ageing f**ts would call “useful subject, not that they would know.
Grandee Milburn, as Health Secretary messed with the NHS, did the same again advising Streeting, seems determined to be the ” strong man who takes on the excessive benefits budget and slashes it”.
We are stuck with a former minister who appears to be not doing ” what is best for the population” but how to please the City etc by cutting “waste”.
It is a waste of time expecting current UK politicians to do anything for the good of the population. It’s all about tinkering and exercising power without regard to the consequences for the majority.
Just a thought, in a world increasingly moving towards AI for administration, policy and research (and the subsequent reduction of headcount), i wonder how long it will be before AI concludes that a lot of these policies will simply not work. The government may think there are millions of unfulfilled vacancies out there, it won’t take long for AI to determine most of these are duplicate postings.
Many.
A lot are ghost jobs.
They do not really exist.
Policy chosen by a government and passed by Parliament isn’t a crime.
I would suggest you think carefully about that claim.
There are ample precedents that prove you are very wrong in the ethical sense that I am using for the word crime.
I know someone directly impacted by this, if it comes to pass.
Didn’t Burnham say something like ‘no cuts to welfare’ on Tuesday. Well come on them – make a statement about it, put the minds of the poorly and the disabled at ease, NOW. You can stop people leaving in fear NOW.
The other angle is this is the constant mantra from the media which goes totally unchallenged ‘the spiralling welfare bill’ not only never challenged but discussion not allowed.
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/bbc-fails-to-explain-why-question-time-host-repeatedly-fails-to-debunk-the-lie-of-spiralling-welfare/
The fiscal rules he says he is committed to require Social Security cuts.
The forty plus years “war against the poor” continues. Another example from earlier in the week (albeit at the other end of the lifecourse) is the abolition of the “triple lock” and its replacement with the “double lock”. To contextualise, had the latter been introduced in 2012, the basic state pension for a single person (reaching retirement before 6 April 2016) would be around £600 smaller than it is today. Around 20% of pensioners live in poverty, with around half of those experiencing deep financial hardship. It’s the winter fuel payments fiasco all over again, but this time on a larger scale. Different political actors, but the “war” continues.
Much to agree with