It’s become a political truism that there’s a problem with benefits scrounging – indeed the entire premise of the government’s welfare reform bill, now completing its Commons stages, appears to be that people need to be coerced to work. I’ve just sat through two months in the Public Bill Committee, and I can’t once recall ministers acknowledging that people on benefits want to work. Instead, a flow of negative stories about benefits scroungers and intergenerational worklessness has emanated from the DWP, which has variously and insidiously conflated addiction, obesity, disability and idleness with the need to claim social security benefits.
It’s disingenuous for Chris Grayling to say – as he did to the work and pensions select committee last week – that it’s nothing whatsoever to do with ministers, that he can’t control what journalists write. The language doesn’t have to be explicit when the mood music’s constantly negative. We’ve seen plenty of stories in recent weeks that appear to have been released for no other reason than to whip up public hostility to those who receive social security benefits, doubtless in a bid to help to legitimise the government’s mean welfare reforms.
All this calls into question the government’s good faith. In opposition, and when appointed to DWP, Iain Duncan Smith told us that his reforms would reward work, that they were about making work pay. That’s certainly an objective that we’d all agree with: Labour’s reforms also ensured that nearly everyone was better off if in paid work. But while it’s true that in-work poverty remains disappointingly high, it’s simply a myth to suggest that languishing on benefits under Labour was a valid, or popular, lifestyle choice.
And it’s also a myth that IDS’s universal credit will resolve the problems of in-work poverty. Indeed, it is not really designed to do any such thing. While the focus on getting almost all households to at least have some work is entirely understandable, the policies selected by the government – mini jobs and disincentives for the second adult in a couple to enter the workplace – will in practice do little to reduce in-work poverty, while inadequate funding to help parents meet the cost of childcare will mean for some families in-work poverty will become much worse.
Labour must therefore reframe the argument. Evidence-based policymaking requires us not to attack the workless, but to address the barriers to work – not least of which is the lack of jobs. Labour should make the moral case, not simply leap on the bandwagon of condemning the workshy. For while there are some who shirk their responsibilities (and let’s not underplay Labour’s very successful crackdown on benefits fraud), the truth is that many are desperate to work.
As unemployment rises, and ordinary people fear for their jobs, our position should be to guarantee a right to work, to guarantee work will lift you out of poverty, and to recognise that responsibility lies not just on claimants, but on government too to remove barriers to work. We must be bold, for such an approach is not just politically possible, it’s morally imperative that it’s the position we take.
Aaaah Just checked out his speech and this is applicable to Kates commentary here. I’ll say it you screw-ups have been listening…a bit. Lol I am however mightily cheered. An INCENTIVE based policy platform. Thinks about it, all the moaning, all the whining, whenever you want something, public or private you have to fight fot, we do not REWARD good and sensible mature behavior. So. 1) Highlight the failures of the Tory Governmnet (REAL LIFE examples), let the people speak for themselves about how wonderful it is to live in the Blame Society. 2) People need reassurence and security, for their little rabbits and their futures. We have to do a LOT of work here. If you do not commit crimes and lead a decent life whatever your income you should be treated with dignity and respect. That means a massive emphasis on public/private sector treating people as human beings. Bring back the human touch. 3) Incentive based society. Apprenticeships, training platforms, mixed multi-tasking team (ability and background) development and confidence building at schools/college with parental/extra teacher involvement. Create a “can do” attitude which will give people more confidence to overcome challenges and not do as they currently do, see themselves as losers at the bottom of a ladder built of crap. Businesses supported, more pro-active Business Link that reaches out with chambers of trade etc community based financial incentives including local Authorities and Private sector companies encouraging people with real incentives to spend money locally in their own high street, if Tescos can do it, so can we. Blah blah I could go on for hours. 4) Skills skills skills vocational and pragmatic greater communiction with private sector employment requirements essential, great understanding of local post industrial economies, rural economies, affluent City economies. How to create a baseline economy that develops gradually, slowly that increases demand, local wealth over tinme and therefore prevents any sudden inflationary concerns. With increased wealth pooling in geographical areas, you end up with more sustainable economy which must be linked in with skills devleopment. Thanks Ed for your speech, still not happy with your Welfare position there is a better way forwards. This is the vision or a small part of the vision Britain needs. A vision where people are fighters, winners and play a role, as I said i could go on for hours. I’ll upgrade master Milliband to 3/10. On the way, just refinement on Welfare and a position on the Constition etc, but creating an Empowerment Economy an attitude to do battle and seize our destinies via an enabling State and an enabling private sector where employers and employed are supported by the the ultimate Insurance Policy. The Labour party. To lift people up, to teach them to value themselves and each other not through mothering them but by using the very best elements in character development that even the military use without any of the nasty parts. We should not be in a position where we are demanding people work harder and certainly not from aplatform of privalage (that will hurt Ed badly so advisors go and put your heads under a cold tap and slap your faces for five minutes). We have to empower people let them take the lead once we have shown them what can be done. And bloody support their local/real economies for heavens sakes so we do not end up with a bunch of very jarred off unemployed confident and able people lol.