Welfare Reform

[DJKillaQueen]

From

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/9559/ids_outlines_plans_to_reform_the_welfare_system_(full_text)_.html

where the full speech can be read.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, today outlined his plans to reform the welfare system. Mr Duncan Smith said successive governments have failed to tackle the causes of poverty and also warned that for too many people work doesn't pay. He said he aimed to create "a welfare system that is fit for the 21st century."

Key points:

Five pathways to poverty - family breakdown, educational failure, addiction, debt, and worklessness and economic dependency ? have not been reflected in priorities of successive governments.

Welfare expenditure, including pensions and tax credits, stands at ?185bn (2009/10).

The proportion of people parked on inactive benefits has almost tripled in the past 30 years to 41% of the inactive working age population.

The legacy of the system we have today stands at more than 1.5 million people on Jobseeker?s Allowance; almost 5 million out-of-work benefit claimants; and 1.4 million under-25s who are not working or in full-time education.

The current benefit system is disincentivising people from working.

Work Programme: Programme will include schemes to get people on the welfare-to-work scheme quicker, give more personalised support, and make benefits conditional on willingness to work.

Pension reform: Phase out the retirement age; end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75; triple-locking the value of the Basic State Pension so that it will rise by the minimum of prices, earnings or 2.5%, whichever is higher

The full speech makes interesting reading. There is acknowledgement that the gap of inequality is the biggest it has been since records began and that tackling poverty is a fundamental requirement to a healthy society. But we've heard this kind of speech before, from all parties and many MPs. There are plenty of ideas in there to discuss but as usual no mention of where all the extra jobs needed are going to come from. There is however mention of rewarding employers that essentially employ those they wouldn't normally employ. Is long term unemployment for example something that any government can solve? They've all tried for long enough and all have failed.

[dbboy]

The speech is only the beginning, we need to see the detail that will bring all Welfare to Work provision under one programme. This should result in a more consistent and coherent service being provided to clients who need to use the provision. In the short term there will be significant change however over the longer term things will improve.

[DJKillaQueen]

This is the crux. One umbrella service is fine, but it has to also be diverse. The reasons for one persons unemployment will not be the same as anothers. Long term unemployment is not just about the availability of jobs, it's about a whole range of things, some of which will be regional, others of which (including impoverishment, mental health, self esteem, skills and so on) are not easily solved with a bit of careers couselling and retraining. The LTU can never compete in the jobs market, they don't even have recent CVs or references. I think we'd be far better off with some kind of intermediate solution for the where training is followed by government funded placements with employers so that the LTU can get some kind of

CV together and so on. Yes that will cost a lot of money but I think that's what it will take to give those people a real chance. Agencies that just give advice and provide basic resources have never been effective enough.

The plan to reassess all those in IB is also one to be watched with caution too. Shifting someone to a cheaper form of benefit will instantly impoverish them more (by a minimum of ?25 per week). Fine if they truly are well enough to seek full time work but, and I think specifically those with mental health problems including depression, would be detrimental to their health. After all how do you assess someone who's condition varies from day to day, esp if it's a condition that can't be 'seen'. There are already sepcialist agencies that work with those on IB who want to find work. Duncan Smith speaks almost as if nothing currently is in place. I think he vastly overestimates the numbers of people that can be retuned to JSA from IB anyway. He might be better off lobbying the health department to put more resources into mental health provision if he truly wants to get people off IB because the average wait for counselling at the moment is 12 months on the NHS.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The full speech makes interesting reading. There

> is acknowledgement that the gap of inequality is

> the biggest it has been since records began and

> that tackling poverty is a fundamental requirement

> to a healthy society. But we've heard this kind of

> speech before, from all parties and many MPs.

> There are plenty of ideas in there to discuss but

> as usual no mention of where all the extra jobs

> needed are going to come from. There is however

> mention of rewarding employers that essentially

> employ those they wouldn't normally employ. Is

> long term unemployment for example something that

> any government can solve?

Yep - reducing that in/equality gap is at the heart of a fairer/better society.

As for the creation of new jobs, I am sceptical. With the planned cutbacks, I can only see unemployment getting worse. Some people smirk when they hear that - for example - various QUANGOs are going to be axed. But (I can only presume) that these same people lose sight of the fact that many are going to lose their livelihoods as a result of these cuts - not a matter for smirking, in my opinion. Don't misinterpret, I am not suggesting that cuts shouldn't be made, but in terms of un/employment they are certainly not going to help. It's a difficult situation and I am glad I am not a politician having to make decisions in the current economic climate.

[DJKillaQueen]

On the Politics Show they estimated that if the government cut the public sector as much as would be needed to really tackle the deficit then as many as 600,000 jobs could be lost. That's a lot of new unemployed...so I agree with you that things are going to get worse before they get better. The government just needs to accept that unemployment has a cost and that it's futile looking for cuts if they are genuinely serious about getting people and esp the LTU back into work. Provision of retraining, resources, employer incentives and so on are going to cost a fair whack in themselves - money well spent imo but at odds with a policy of cutting department spending.

And forcing already vulnerable and impoverished people onto cheaper benefits is just going to increase their problems and be self defeating....there are already many people who struggle to afford to feed themselves....and I find it cynical too. If the government wanted to reduce basic levels of benefit they'd have to have a review which would then decide what the minimum people need to live on is. That of course would be dangerous to do as there is every chance that a review would calculate that the base level of benefit has to rise (very likely given the rising cost of living in recent years) so instead the government goes for the safe option of trying to switch people from more expensive forms of benefit instead, who are mostly the most vulnerable people in our society.

Even with the genuinely work shy (or those with other undeclared incomes alongside their benefits) - how much do you squeeze them before they either starve or are forced to steal? That is a difficult one. At present claimants can see their benefits suspended if they don't actively seek work or refuse job interviews etc anyway. All that happens though is that the unco-operative claimants go to their interviews etc and make sure they don't get the job. So again it's all very well talking tough but the government has to understand that there will always be those that evade capture or fall through the net, unless that is, some kind of compulsary daily placement scheme, whether voluntary work or with employers or training, is forced on them...Again how would government find the money to do that? 'Helping' people costs a lot more than the benefits you pay them.