We hear that Iain Duncan-Smith may announce a scheme
whereby jobseekers will be forced to work 30 hours a week in exchange for their
benefits. Quite when they are expected to look for work is another matter, one
that appears not to trouble IDS.
And hark! What’s this I hear? Is it the sound of right wing
think tank hooves clattering in to save the day? A perfectly timed “study” that
should be ashamed to use the name, released and heavily trailed by the Daily
Mail to convince an unsuspecting public yet again that an army of
feckless scroungers deserve all they get?
Hail the all distorted Policy Exchange and a howler
of a “study”assuring us the public are all in favour and the divide and rule
rhetoric of the last few years is paying dividends. But let’s take a closer look
shall we?
In the opening words we are assured
“if any government is serious about both tackling the
issues of long-term unemployment and concentrated benefit dependency and
improving living standards for millions of workless individuals and households,
further reforms will be needed.”
Who says? This conflates relatively small number of long
term unemployed with wider jobless figures.
“Evidence from both fully implemented schemes and pilots
has shown that they can be effective in moving people off benefits.”
What evidence? Citations please? As far as I’m aware there
is no evidence that sanctions work long term. The author goes on to cite a
handful of American and European schemes entirely selectively to “prove” his
point. Oddly, he doesn’t mention the astonishing failure of the UK Work
Programme anywhere...
“For instance, in some trials between a third and a half
of eligible claimants move off benefit rather than turning up for the placement”
Why? Implication is they were cheats – did they find work?
Did they feel unable to comply with the sanction? Did their health stop them?
Unless we have that information it’s a totally pointless sentence. But one that
sneaks in a nice little value judgement.
“Workfare schemes are also popular with the
public.”
Where are the actual YouGov tables please? Where are ALL of
the questions actually asked? How were they framed? Was any background
information given (ie relatively low numbers of long term unemployed, poor
performance of work programme for sick/disabled etc?)
“Up to 10% (65,000) of individuals leaving the Work
Programme without finding work after at least two years of support should be
moved onto a workfare scheme”
Define this 10% please – why was it not defined in the
headlines? Figures of “80%” “52%” etc, imply it is for all claimants.
“A further 10% of those with the most significant
barriers to work should be moved onto a separate scheme, Route2Work, which would
provide support through expert third sector providers, social enterprise and
social finance.”
Should we not be asking why the Work Programme is failing
people in those first two years, rather than introducing yet ANOTHER scheme to
pick up the pieces?
“Workfare schemes should also be considered as a
sanctioning option for benefit claimants who are not undertaking the jobseeking
activities that they should be”
EXTENSIVE evidence shows that in many cases they cannot. To
qualify for Employment and Support Allowance, a claimant must score 15 points.
This denotes a very considerable degree of ill health or disability. As an
example, someone with bowel disease may only qualify for long term unconditional
support if they are FULLY incontinent (not partially) or are fed intravenously.
Anyone else, no matter how sick, how much surgery they need, will be found fit
for work if the qualifying descriptors are adhered to faithfully.
This leaves an army of people with long term conditions or
significant disabilities, scoring between 1 and 14 points, with very significant
barriers to the labour market, being treated as jobseekers. Often the JCP
contact who sees them first disagrees with the assessment of fitness for work,
leaving the claimant in a kind of limbo, bouncing backwards and forwards between
a sickness system that will not support them and a labour system that won’t
engage with them.
If they ARE placed in the Work Programme, both anecdotal
and statistical evidence shows that they will be the most poorly served.
Contractors “cherry pick” the easiest to help and “park” harder to help
claimants with very little interaction. It is commonplace for claimants to
receive just two phonecalls during the entire time they are on the “Work”
Programme. Steven Lloyd, disabled MP, recently said he would like to “chuck
someone out of a window” following the utter failure of Work Programme to help
these people in any way. http://www.disabilitywales.org/1168/4795
All the while we have a system failing sick and disabled
people so utterly, further sanctions are self-defeating and cruel.
Mr Holmes refers to “the generosity of, the existing
benefit system”
Nonsense. The UK has one of the most punitive overall
social security settlements in the developed world.
Youth unemployment has been on an upward trajectory
since in the early 2000s, rising from 248,000 in 2001 to 369,000. Over 68,000
have been claiming for more than a year.
Oh, selective reporting eh!! Youth unemployment fell from
1997 until the global financial crisis, down almost 90% over that period. The
global financial crisis in 2008 hit the young hardest leading to sharp
increases. If we take figures from only 1997 – 2013, it is possible to paint a
picture of systemic rises. This is misleading and has no place in a rigourous
study.
“child poverty based on a relative income measure
remained stubbornly high and millions of children were assessed as living
materially deprived lives.”
Oh dear lord, the FRAMING! This is true, child poverty is
“stubbornly” high, but it FELL by 900,00 – 900,000 under the last government http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/nick-pearce/struggle-against-child-poverty-analysis-of-labours-legacyIt
is set to RISE by 300,000 under this one.
But you know, I’ve lost the will to live.
I’m SICK of right wing think tanks releasing “research” set
to prove exactly what Iain Duncan Smith demands. SICK of “evidence” with no
citations – nowhere in the study could I find the actual data tables from the
YouGov “survey” that apparently found the public want everyone unfortunate
enough to have no job to work for free indefinitely. Just a few cherry picked
results with no qualifiers at all. Respondents are simply asked if those out of
work for 12 months or more should be made to work for their benefits. Absolutely
no information to make that decision. A “research” paper that quotes “surveys”
with no link or data tables for goodness sake!!!
I’m SICK of half truths and misleading sentences. Sick of
cherry picked data that uses random figures to paint false pictures. Sick of
assumptions about the Labour market and fraud that just aren’t true. Sick of
assumptions that sanctions work better than incentives when all the evidence
points to the contrary.
And most of all I’m SICK of “studies” that suggest that
because “the public” support their point of view it must be OK. We are told to
believe that because a public fed false information at every turn now believe
what they have been told to believe, however untrue, it is justification for
going even further, destroying even more lives.
The “research” was written by an Ed Holmes who is
apparently Senior Research Fellow for Economics and Social Policy!!!!! What a
grand title for someone so willing to twist and stretch data like
elastic!!
