Off topic for this blog, of course, but of great interest to many of our readers; Labour's announcement today of its policy on unemployment benefits.
There's a great deal of misinformation out there, some of it deliberate from the right-wing media. For a straightforward account see Patrick Wintour's article in the Guardian. I'll simply say what I think, and leave it to readers to agree or disagree.
Labour wants to return to the contributory principle, and I support that. If you've been working you've accumulated entitlement to help when you're out of work. That's how National Insurance was conceived, and it's what most people think is fair. If for whatever reason you run out of contributions, or have never made any, you are still entitled to help, but on a means-tested basis. That was the system for years. It doesn't work if you increase the non-contributory benefit (known for years as Income Support level) but don't increase JSA at the same rate. The differential erodes until there is no distinction. To avoid that is expensive.
The policy on youth unemployment has caught the headlines. Those who leave school without adequate skills will have to go onto training to acquire those skills, and will get a training allowance for doing so. If they don't, they will get benefits but means-tested according to their parents' income. There are obvious difficulties with that, and Labour has said that those who don't live with their parents will be means-tested differently. They have not said that the training will be effectively workfare. If that was the case, or if outsourcing companies were involved in any way, I would be dead against it. What they seem to be talking about is courses in FE colleges and the like. I was rather worried by Labour's Stephen Timms today saying that the threshold was "level 3", i.e. A level. That's too high. But I don't have a problem with the principle. Any young person who has had a job will automatically be entitled to JSA.
Those who are outraged by the ideas underlying this policy seem to be claiming that everyone should be entitled to benefits regardless of whether they have made any contribution, including youngsters who come out of school unprepared or unwilling to get a job. Personally I disagree. I believe in a society based on the old Marxist maxim: to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.
So wade into the argument if you want to. But base your comments on facts.
I hope this policy is successful. Wonder what Labour intend to do with those of us who have a long-term health problem or disability which is permanent? We can receive additional benefits so how about proper help into work or encouraging volunteering then?
ReplyDeleteWill complicate the roll-out of Universal Credit if it does go national. Will contributory (JSA) be paid for 12 months, as it used to be. Will personal pensions be removed from calculation of contributory entitlement - I doubt it. Needs meat on the bones.
ReplyDeleteAlso off topic(sorry Historian) I need a little advice,I always record my interviews/sign on appointments,not to publish,but to use as a reference and to be perfectly honest to cover myself if the wrong information is given. " Weeks ago I was asked if I was recording the meeting,I replied "Yes" nothing more was said,today I was asked the same and if I was to stop as consent was not given,I shut it off,a Manager came over and stated that I will receive a letter regarding this. Can I expect a sanction?
ReplyDeleteI've always said that you should not record without permission, but others have said that you can, and have produced evidence. If you've got the recording of you admitting that you were recording (!) that should stand you in good stead for an appeal; you were not told to stop.
DeletePerhaps you could specify you need the recordings as you "have a poor memory/lack of concentration" etc. The letter will probably ask you not to post it online or something.
Delete'They have not said that the training will be effectively workfare.'
ReplyDeleteWell, I for one don't believe them. The New Deal and the Work Programme were both flagship policies which promised training and work for the unemployed but which provided neither. Instead both policies have led to increased Social Security conditionality and Workfare. They have not provided training or genuine job opportunities.
If you have paid NI then you are entitled to unemployment benefit with no strings attached. It is not fair to condemn the unemployed to 'pay for their benefits' if they have paid NI. It is not right to single out the unemployed and say that they alone have to 're-earn' their benefits. It is unfair and it undermines the principle of NI.
As you point the above scheme is slightly different because it applies to people who may not have earnt NI contributions. But then again they have not had the chance to earn NI credits. Any opportunity to earn NI contributions has to be based on real, paid work or training with a job at the end of it i.e. earning the NMW or the living wage. If it is based on Workfare i.e. 'working for your benefits', it is exploitation.
I hope I have made the distinction clear. Yes, Social Security should be contributory based but it should also be based on paid work.
There is also a potential danger with the 'working for your benefits' narrative beyond Workfare. This is shown through the article/link below. This article suggests that Labour now believe that the 'Welfare State' is 'charity'. This opinion blatantly ignores the fact that the Welfare State is based upon the redistribution of income tax and NI contributions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27066705
My worry is that the contributory aspect of Social Security is being deliberately ignored in an attempt to undermine the Welfare State and privatise it under the pretence that it is a fairer system - even through, of course, history shows that the private sector is not capable of dealing with the 'five giant evils'.
DWP, UC and ESA getting slammed on Six O' Clock news - 'over-budget and failing to get people back into work'. Has the BBC FINALLY woken up. That said, no mention of IDS.
ReplyDeleteThere's not much need to mention IDS when you mention DWP, UC and ESA because he's the guy behind all of them, so it's implied. I'm sure he will have seen that report... and subsequently brushed it off as it's "not HIS problem" (when in fact, it is).
DeleteYou are allowed to record (for your own purposes). If they (The DWP/ WP provider) are aware that a recording is being made the onus is upon them to ensure privacy - to mitigate the accidental recording of other conversations, they should do this by providing a private room.
ReplyDeleteYou may find info here
http://refuted.org.uk/
or in the documents attached to this FOI
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/recording_dwp_interaction_by_the#incoming-322027
How long will it be before we have a politician touting to bring back National Service for youngsters.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Norman Tebbitt advocate this in the 80s?
DeleteWith the greatest respect, historian, I think Ed’s wish-list is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteLast night, the BBC quoted IDS bragging that his Universal Cock-Up scheme will be rolled out to 90 JCPs in the North West next week instead of only at the 10 JCPs in the North West which are already doing UC manually, for single JSA claimants only. .
By then, the BBC had already slated the ESA fiasco (complete with chummy soundbite from Mike Penning) whilst Margaret Hodge was already hot on his heels about the PIP fiasco.
Dame Anne Begg was interviewed by the Radio4 Today programme this morning whilst Margaret Hodge did her bit on 5Live, seemingly.
The BBC aren’t meek, mild and biased in favour of the Tories. Instead, they ensure that they’ve got all their guns lined up before they fire a shot, it seems to me.
The BBC is one of the most conservative organisations in the country, second only to the monarchy. It may not be explicitly Tory biased but it certainly has a conservative agenda. This is shown by the fact that it has not fully analysed or criticised, firstly, the failings of monetarism (which led to the 'credit crunch') and, secondly, the EFFECTS of the Tory led benefit 'reforms'. Instead it continues to promote through its bland, middle-class biased programming an idealised version of Britain.
DeleteThis uncritical commentary on Britain has never been more pronounced. During the 70's and 80's there were dramas, documentaries and black comedies aplenty which examined, criticised and mocked Britain and British life. The two that spring to mind are Reginald Perrin (a personal favourite as it mocked the boring and soul crushing nature of office life) and 'Boys From The Blackstuff'.
Where are these kind of programmes now? Were is the 2014 version of Yozzer Hughes struggling on and off benefits, in and out of work, desperate for a genuine opportunity to make a decent living for himself?
We all know that people like this exist but they certainly aren't being portrayed on the BBC. Instead it continues to ignore the declining economy (based as it is on low skilled, low wage work and misleading statistics, which the BBC fails time and time again to fully examine) and its effects (rise in cost of living and food banks) and patronises us with programmes like 'Tigers In The Home'.
Is this plan not making benefits to some degree dependent on IQ?
ReplyDeleteSaying that a school leaver without "adequate skills" ill have to get the required training is all very well. However a few questions need to be raised and answered.
ReplyDeleteWhat does not having skills actually mean? Most will think it means being educationally deficient in some way. However, it could just as easily mean lacking social skills surely.
And what will this training consist of? Will it be tailored to each individual need like the Work Program supposedly is? Or will it end up being a one size fits all hodge-podge like the Work Program ACTUALLY is?
And who'll deliver this training? Will it be local colleges and universities? Or will it be dodgy outsourcing companies as per usual?
As they often say, the devil is in the detail. Which often means there are more questions than answers.
I agree, and, as I've said, I would not want outsourcing companies anywhere near it. It should be run through local councils, and FE colleges used to do the courses. I would suppose that the first hurdle would be attaining Level 1 in literacy and numeracy, and that might spur some youngsters who hardly attend school in their last year or two to get up to that level. After that it should be vocational training of some sort, with literacy and numeracy thrown in where necessary.
DeleteAs you say, the devil will be in the detail.
Another thought. What about those for in their late 20's onwards who may need training? The WP is less than useless in this regard. As is JCP. Indeed, there are stories of people on the WP asking what training they offer and being told none is available.
DeleteLabours concentration on young people is understandable. However, they need to spare a thought or two for older jobseekers looking to improve their skillsets too!