There's something sinister going on. The DWP has released new figures ahead of the WP performance data - the figures for those who have been "sanctioned" i.e. stripped of benefits. The papers seem to understand that they're being manipulated but fall for it anyway. The
Mail headlines it "More than 150,000 forced off benefits after refusing to participate in Iain Duncan Smith's back-to-work scheme". So already they don't grasp what people are being sanctioned for. Turning up late for an appointment is hardly "refusing to participate". But they then go on to talk of, "Suspicions that figures will be used to distract from report that fewer than one in 20 on scheme have found a permanent job". Yes. Apparently sanctions are running at 15,000 a month. Do the papers seriously think that these are all people who are "determined to avoid getting a job at all", in the words of Mark Hoban?
The
Telegraph has spotted that "More people who take part in a flagship government jobs programme end up being stripped of their benefit payments than finding permanent work, new figures suggest." This is a much better account of the situation; perhaps Patrick Hennessy, the author, has a better understanding of the subject. But they still repeat the statement from Hoban: “Through the Work Programme we are offering the hardest-to-help claimants extensive support in order for them to take control of their own lives and return to work. They need to do their bit to find a job but we’ll be there to help them do that.”
The comments under both articles demonstrate both the entrenched attitudes, and the anger which is building up.
