James Bloodworth at Leftfoot Forward cogitates on George Osbourne’s proposed Welfare-to-Work scheme intended to redress the shortcomings arising from Iain Duncan-Smith’s 2011 model. Namely, the failure to achieve the predicted step change of between five and 15% of participants entering employment after the first two year cycle: a figure which compares to the model it replaced.
Whereas under current arrangements, after two years, unsuccessful participants return to mainstream Jobcentre, Osbourne proposes a new category. Unsuccessful participants now will be required to enter into various agreements such as community work or daily presentations to the Jobcentre or mandatory training. Bloodworth’s choice of opening gambit is that these will apply to only 5% of claimants, and would appear a hostage to fortune as it easily could be responded to that it is not a swinging assault on the great many of unemployment.
I do not find anything objectionable with the stated aim of requiring long-term unemployed to demonstrate some form of work ethic, just as I do not with the putative aims of the ‘bedroom tax’.
What I object to about the latter is more the wholly un-Christian mess of the manner in which it has been implemented, without any breathing space and carrot/stick encouragement for under-occupiers. Vocal opposition to it has become a statement of easy virtue without the attendant consideration of where the funding shortfall is going to come from.
Examples would include whether the Scottish Government would, in the event of a No Vote and devolving of benefits provision, implement carrot/stick legislation or revert to the status quo ante. Or, as Peter Risdon saw when twatting with John Ferrett (leader of the Labour group at Portsmouth City Council) who vowed to oppose evictions, but – like his municipal authority – appeared coy about discussing how many people in employment were pursued into bankruptcy for underpayment of council tax.
Back to Work-for-Benefits, although I cannot see it becoming as badly unstuck, there still is room for as much failure as with IDS’ scheme. A bit of common sense in demanding more frequent presentations at the Jobcentre would be easy to achieve, so not to have a situation where participants in rural areas such as mine find themselves travelling for two or more hours a day when they could be otherwise looking for work.
“Community work” appears admirable, but I should like to be convinced that it will not involve already profitable private businesses and/or suppressing self-organization by participants.
Likewise, where schemes are non-profit, I would that they are pre-existing and committed charities – a point which escaped the gaggle of buffoons and louts who tried, and failed, to intimate the Sally Army – and not created for the purpose, potentially removing paid-employment from the market.
Osbourne – and, no doubt, his opponents in time – speak of street cleaning as if it is punishment duty when it can be highly rewarding and profitable.
