Comments on: At last, some new thinking on welfare reform

By: Fighting the structural causes of involuntary idleness (also by Robin Hood Tax) | pratichesociali

Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:13:44 +0000

[...] the terms of debate are starting to shift. The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ)’s game-changing Dynamic Benefits has led to similar [...]

By: Robin and the benefit system | The Robin Hood Tax

Robin and the benefit system | The Robin Hood Tax — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:44:26 +0000

[...] sufficiently consider the non-financial aspects of people’s livelihoods – but they’re a great start. And, at an estimated £2.7 billion, it’s small change from a Robin Hood tax. It will also most [...]

By: Jill Love

Jill Love — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:48:55 +0000

I haven’t read the report either, in fact as a recipient of JSA I didn’t know there was one.
That to me is the nub of the problem, we become disenfranchised, set apart, poverty and joblessness are disfigurements that strike to the very soul, most of us try anything to conceal it, especially to ourselves.
I found this site because I was looking up on identity, how we see ourselves and how others see us. The ways in which benefit claimants and the low paid are spoken and written about are at best patronising and at worst downright libellous and slanderous. So why don’t we rise up as a body and take everyone else to court? Simply because we don’t want to be included in the group, as individuals we can all provide evidence that we’re not workshy, lazy, unworthy, scrounging ne’erdo wells but the bad PR has us thinking that probably the rest are.
Any government recognises the need for an underclass, a disposable element,a good guy versus bad guy, they know that our society bereft of any real commitment other than to self can only work where division exists, I don’t want to be better than I am I want to be better than you.
So a new report, great! but I fear no real change.

By: Herb Skew

Herb Skew — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:23:15 +0000

I haven’t read the 370 page report either, but I can guess the sort of social tinkering a Tory thinktank might make. They don’t have a good track record here, and never will as they simply will never understand.

But the more lateral aspects of the welfarism of today have, unfortunately, become a way of life to many people. Of course, it is not fit for purpose, I am not defending it – and in the future they will probably[hopefully?] compare it to Speenhamland.

What’s frustrating is that successive administrations have made welfarism essential – not just to the Tories out-dated ideals of Victorian economic family units – but to individuals. We are a society of individuals [which might allude to some of the moral implications around stereotypes of the workshy; I thought it was very well examined in the blog].

Sadly, the reward from working, particularly for a pittance, has diminished the dignity of work and significantly destroyed trust and faith in the openness of society. New Labour has felt like a vapid continuum of Toryism I was hoping to see consigned to the past.

It, also, needs to be noted that when we address welfarism so generally, we need to look at our so-called meritocracy also. We don’t really live in a fair society, despite society – politicians more so – constantly telling us it is fair. Equal opportunities in the 21st century is a cruel PR[& PC] gimmick for the poor – to keep them poor.

However, Will raised an interesting point about the informal economy, looking beyond means-testing and benefits, and this might help stimulate how Britain attempts to emulate the traditional models of Americanized wealth creation, particularly as the real harrowing fact is that there are quite simply not enough jobs here. Generations will be lost again, as the cycle revolves again with insecurities remaining about the depth of the “recession”.

But I enjoyed reading this analysis – thanks for the honesty. But for me to become positive about it, I think changes throughout many aspects of our apparently liberalized capitalist-democratic society need to be vigorously altered.

By: Niall Cooper

Niall Cooper — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:49:21 +0000

I too am impressed with Iain Duncan Smith’s bold ideas for radically simplifying the benefits system published today. These proposals are not only timely but will be welcomed by all those find the current benefits system too complicated.
Church Action on Poverty has long argued for a major overhaul of the benefits system to re-design it around the needs of those who use it.
For decades the benefits system has given every appearance of being designed by and for experts. It is certainly impossible for the majority of its users to understand. Claimants are often unclear of the effect that taking work will have on their benefits – many assume that this will result in their losing all benefits entitlements. The existence of so many different benefits, each with a separate regulatory regime may make bureaucratic sense, but it makes absolutely no sense to claimants.
Ian Duncan Smith’s proposals are a major step in the right direction and should be welcomed by people of goodwill across the political spectrum. We will be calling on both David Cameron and Gordon Brown to give these proposal serious consideration.

By: Will

Will — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:40:32 +0000

Moussa, a great analysis. I agree they’ve shifted the debate, not just in politics but perhaps also in the media – a spate of editorials yesterday decrying the barriers to moving into work, where in the past they’ve focussed on the supposed laziness of benefit claimants.

Also agree that it in developing this theme further they need to look beyond the narrow confines of the benefits system into areas like the informal economy (my suggestions here http://www.community-links.org/linksuk/?p=1055), the types of jobs available, and the value of work that is currently unpaid – caring and volunteering particularly. Are you hopeful?