The future of "welfare", part two

I've been putting off writing this.  It's easy enough to write about the history of social security, but the future is necessarily speculative.  And it becomes increasingly obvious that there may not be a future for welfare at all.  This appeared yesterday in an article in the Telegraph by Peter Oborne: "Iain Duncan Smith's brave and ambitious programme to reshape the welfare state along the lines envisaged by Beveridge 70 years ago is making some progress."  This is so nonsensical that one must assume that Oborne wasn't taught history at his public school.  Yet this is part of the narrative with which this government is destroying the whole concept of social security.  It will become, again, the punitive last resort of the 1834 Poor Laws.  Running it will be a profit opportunity for private companies, with no involvement of the tatters which remain of the public sector.  There will be a huge role for charities.  Universal Credit, if it ever happens, will signal the final killing-off of the idea of National Insurance.  Benefits, already no longer seen as a right, will cease in their present form.  Welfare will have been reformed out of existence.
This is not inevitable, unless a Conservative government comes in in 2015.  Even with a Labour government, though, the future looks precarious.  One hopeful sign is that some Labour thinkers have talked about returning to the contributory concept in social security.  I believe that this is essential.  Benefits, as of right, should be paid if the claimant has contributed over, say, 6 months in the preceding year; paid at a fairly high level for a limited period - again, say 6 months.  Once those contributions run out, then benefits should fall to a level set as the minimum someone needs to live on decently.  This minimum should be sacrosanct.  No one's income should fall below it.  There would have to be means-testing, but not of the old kind.  And "conditionality"?  Yes, there would have to be the condition that the claimant is looking for work, if that's possible.  Sickness and disabilities would attract the same minimum income but recognise additional needs.
Housing benefit is a huge cost, and it's money paid to landlords, not to the claimant.  There should obviously be a big push on building and buying more housing in the public sector.
And there should, equally obviously, be massive job creation.  That's not easy in a capitalist economy, but it could be done, through local authorities, for instance.  Unless there are jobs to go to, as we are seeing at the moment, long-term unemployment will remain high.
What we need is not tinkering around the edges.  Nor is it the kind of change which this government is engineering, based on personal aggrandisement and contempt.  We need an agreed set of principles on which to base a system which doesn't divide people into skivers and strivers.  Any thoughts?

Black Monday

There's been plenty of coverage today of the welfare "reforms" which have kicked in - together with big cuts in legal aid and huge changes in the NHS.  Get it all over with in one go, I suppose the government said.  I caught the interview with Iain Duncan Smith on the Today programme where he was trapped into saying that he could live on £53 a week if he had to, inspiring a petition on change.org for him to do just that for a year.  And there's just been a civilised discussion on the late news programme on Radio 4.  Labour has coined its sound-bite - "the brutal society".  And tomorrow Osborne intends to keep it going.  The Independent says he's making a speech in which he will claim that "vested interests", including churches and charities, which have condemned the cuts are reacting with "depressingly predictable outrage" to necessary reforms.  The government is confident that the public, or that section of it which has no personal experience of living on benefits, is on their side.
If anything good could possibly come out of this, it will be the beginning of a genuine debate about what we want the welfare state to be.

War on the poor

If you're under 25 and unemployed you probably feel even more depressed and persecuted than usual today.  David Cameron feels the need to assert right-wing ideas, and that means a "welfare crackdown", with the young taking the brunt of it.  The report in the Telegraph says: "Ministers expect this 'next wave' of benefit cuts to include the axing of all housing benefit currently paid to around 380,000 people aged under 25. Such a move would force many to move back in with their parents rather than living independently."  
The Express says: "It could also mean stopping the £70-a-week dole payment for individuals who do not try hard enough to get work and forcing a hard core of unemployed to do community work after two years - or lose all their benefits."  Of course, that's just making the ritual noises to appease Tories, but it's another kick in the teeth for the unemployed.  Interestingly, the Express has another article entitled "Starving in Britain" which shows clearly the effect of cutting housing benefit, and the struggle of people, even those in work, to feed their children.
If you're not angry enough yet, read the piece in the Mail on Sunday based on an interview with the Dear Leader, from which all the other reports get their information.  The headline sets the tone: "Cameron to axe housing benefits for feckless under 25s as he declares war on welfare culture."
Figures in one city I know show that there are 44 unemployed people for every job vacancy.  Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) is already forcing people to do unpaid "community" work.  Under 25s already can only get housing benefit for shared housing.  Etc., etc.  There's no need to repeat it.  

Welfare Reform

The welfare reform bill is out, and with it the expected rhetoric about ending the dependency culture. The universal credit is the most important aspect, and few will quarrel with it. The problem is that the public are being led to believe that everyone could work if they really wanted to, and that there are many thousands of workshy scroungers out there who have to be bludgeoned into jobs. Turning down a job offer continues to be the major crime, despite the fact that the only job offers anyone ever turns down is the casual work through agencies.

Cameron poured scorn yesterday on the failure of FND (although his figures have been disputed) yet the government has decided to extend the contracts for another 3 months to bridge the gap to the start of the Work Programme, and is going to give the WP contracts to the same failed providers.