Tories to impose two year limit on Jobseekers' Allowance and then it's workfare

Over the last few days Chris Grayling and David Cameron have been unveiling tough-love policies on welfare.  We've already had announcements to reduce the number of incapacity benefit claimants by introducing compulsory medical testing and also a requirement for single parents to undertake part-time work once their youngest child reaches school age.

Yesterday we learnt that the party will introduce a 'three-strikes-and-you're-out' policy on job offers for unemployed people.  The FT reported:

"Mr Grayling proposes that a claimant would lose one month’s out-of-work benefits for turning down a reasonable job offer and three months’ for turning down a second offer.  “If they refuse a third reasonable offer, they will be excluded from receiving further out-of-work benefits for a period of up to three years,” he said."

This morning, at an event in Brixton, the Conservative leader will announce the most radical step yet.  In an initiative based on the welfare model pioneered by US Republicans - and signed into law by Bill Clinton - the Conservatives will introduce a two-year maximum limit on being able to apply for Jobseekers' Allowance.

Significantly the two-year limit will be a cumulative one.  A claimant won't have to have been claiming JSA for two consecutive years but will find that a pattern of sporadic claiming will add up to a ban on further claims.  This part of the Tory package is designed to capture those people who seek to work the system by taking jobs for short periods but then quickly resign from them.  The Telegraph reports that more than a quarter of those who go into work from JSA are back claiming within 13 weeks.  Two-thirds of all annual JSA applications are repeat applications.

Once the two-year limit has been reached claimants will be required to undertake community work programmes such as removing graffiti or cleaning parks.

Speaking to the Daily Mail Chris Grayling, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said:

"Staying at home will no longer be an option.  We have an absurd situation under Gordon Brown where millions of people are coming here to work while millions of Britons are allowed to remain on benefits.  We now know that four out of every five jobs created under Labour have gone to foreign workers. That's a culture that has got to change."

ConservativeHome will be at this morning's launch press conference and will report more afterwards.

Labour will attempt to attack the Tories on these policies but the man who would be expected to front those attacks - Peter Hain - may be a little distracted this morning.  The Guardian reports that the former deputy Labour leadership candidate failed to declare tens of thousands of pounds he received for his campaign.  Guido has more.

Comments

[Comstock]

I started the day depressed and now it has got worse, much worse.

Significantly the two-year limit will be a cumulative one. A claimant won't have to have been claiming JSA for two consecutive years but will find that a pattern of sporadic claiming will add up to a ban on further claims. This part of the Tory package is designed to capture those people who seek to work the system by taking jobs for short periods but then quickly resign from them. The Telegraph reports that more than a quarter of those who go into work from JSA are back claiming within 13 weeks. Two-thirds of all annual JSA applications are repeat applications.

And do you know why that is? Because too much work is temporary through employment agencies. The job centre encourages people to apply for such work, so they shouldn't be amazed when they come back within a short time frame in exactly the same pickle.

Whilst agency work has it's place (students during holidays for example) there is simply far too much of it, and employers have no reason to take anyone on permanently because there is such a ready pool of temp workers, and the agency sector has mushroomed to take advantage.

Trust me, as someone with 10 years as a temp I know more about this than the whole bloody HOC put together.

And since I've proberbly clocked up my 2 years already in dribs and drabs of gaps between assignments and am therefore responsible for the entire woes of the British nation you might as well shoot me now and have done with it.

[James maskell]

Regarding Hain et al, why do these candidates not ask the team that does the financial side of their campaigns the question "Have we had any donations which appear to have something fishy about them". Its stunning that candidates for ther Deputy Leadership of the Governing Party dont ask these questions despite knowing that donations to political parties has led to criminal investigations under their last leader.

I recall Hain was mentioned in the last load. Is this the first time being reported twice, or a fresh possible rule break?

The mind boggles...

[James maskell]

Very good point cornstock. Cameron needs to be wary with this welfare policy. Yes, be firm with those who can work but chose not to, but he needs to bear in mind the temps and part timers. Work is still work, whether it be full time behind a desk or more intermittant work. He needs to be more distinguishing.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I will wait for all the details to come out but whilst I take the point made by Comstock it does on the face of it seem a very good idea.

[Paul D]

I'm reminded of Sir Humphrey in Yes PM - "this country will have as much unemployment as it's prepared to put up with"

Good on CMD if he's not prepared to put up with it any more

[Bexie]

I have been freelancing (temping) in IT and Construction for donkeys now. Since I do it through my own limited company, there is no welfare at all for me between assignments. To be frank this is how it should be, there should be no automatic expectation of people to be supported by everyone around them, unless there is a compelling reason so to do. I have to plan for my downtime financially, so why should I be expected to cough up for those who do not?

[R.Baker.]

Backwards steps to penalise people,like this one on JSA didn't work in the 60s and it won't work now.When becoming unemployed via resignation or being fired you were not allowed any benefit for 6 weeks,then you could claim full benefits but only for a period of 6 months.What the workshy did after running out of benefits after this 6 months was to immediateley go on the sick and get exactly the same amount of benefit but without them having to sign on.This is all part of the idleness scam that is still available to be used by shirkers today.Stop this sickness escape route and then we will be making/saving billions instead of handing the same over to long term non-producing parasites in the country.

[Mark Fulford]

Whilst agency work has it's place (students during holidays for example) there is simply far too much of it...

Agency work is largely the product of increased employment legislation. Employers turn to agency workers because they come with less strings.

David Cameron was on TV this morning and, though the trials of feeding children and dogs mean I could be mistaken, I thought he said "two out of the last three years" -- in which case you'd be safe.

[Teck]

'Mater artium necessitas' - the majority of people with average intelligence, average functionality and average health would get on their bikes when they get hungry.

Support should only be reserved for genuine deficiencies and dire circumstances, and pure money should not be the first offering. There is an old saying about teaching the hungry to fish rather than giving them fish.

[Tony Makara]

So, this is the great welfare reform we have been waiting for? What a disappointment! Absolutely no strategy to create work at all and for all David Cameron's talk of a multi-dimensional approach all we get are tail-end punitive measures to punish the unemployed for being unemployed.

What has happened to compassionate Conservatism? Is it now deemed surplus to requirements now that the party has a lead in the polls? Treating the jobless like chain-gang criminals and making them work for nothing makes a mockery of all the statements about compassion. Chris Grayling's comments about people sitting at home and making a career out of claiming benefits are a disgrace. Grayling should apologise for abusing the poorest sections of our society. David Cameron should also apologise for his comments on BBC1 this morning saying that the unemployed sit at home watching TV all day.

The unemployed need waged work not patronizing abuse.

Let's look at the proposals:

1)People are expected to undergo tests to claim incapacity benefit. Fair enough.

2)People are expected to take work if its available. Fair enough.

3)People out of work are expected to attend job-seeking agencies. Fair enough.

4)People out of work are expected to work for nothing on community programmes. This is not fair at all.

If community work is available then pay the unemployed a living wage for doing it. It is wrong to exploit people for free labour.

The welfare reforms will do nothing to create the new jobs that the unemployed need.

Can anyone tell us how we will find work for 1.6 million JSA claimants when only 600,000 vacancies are available at any one time? Even if the 600,000 vacancies are filled, what about the rest of the unemployed? Unemployment is forecast to stand at 1.8 million in the coming year and is likely to be higher by the expected election date of 2010. Added to this will be the extra numbers shifted from Incapacity benefit to JSA. How will all these people find jobs that just don't exist?

The only way to get people off benefits is to get people into waged work, so where are the jobs coming from? Because if all these people are not working it means they are still on benefit and the welfare problem hasn't been solved at all. Workfare will just become a smokescreen to mask unemployment. That is dishonest politics.

So what should be done?

The unemployed should be drafted onto a 'waged' public works programme while at the same time the British economy should be restructured and built on a large manufacturing base. The reason we have mass unemployment is because the service sector economy cannot provide enough work for a population of our size. A manufacturing base will provide wares for our domestic market and provide work through exports. Unless politicians understand this basic truth, the problem of unemployment will never be resolved.

We as a nation are diminishing while nations like China, India and Russia grow and prosper through manufacturing. A change of direction in our economic infrastructure is needed if we are to get our people back into work. Unless there is change, this nation will be plagued with mass unemployment indefinitely.

[Sean Fear]

"A manufacturing base will provide wares for our domestic market and provide work through exports"

I'm afraid that's wrong. Manufacturing is *never* going to be a major source of employment in this country, because UK manufacturing can only be competitive by achieving very high levels of productivity, which in turn means very high levels of automation.

Both China and India have huge numbers of people employed in agriculture (and very poorly paid for it) and have a standard of living anywhere between one tenth and one fifth of our own. They have absolutely nothing to offer this country as a model to emulate.

As you say, there are 600,000 vacancies avaialble (not to mention the jobs that are being filled by Eastern Europeans). What's wrong with taking measures to ensure that some of those vacancies are filled by people who are currently on benefits?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Tony, I normally agree with much of what you write but not today. Treating the unemployed like 'chain gang criminals'!!!'Chris Grayling talking about people sitting at home and making a career out of benefits are a disgrace'. Really? Why? In many cases they are true. You really undermine your argument using language like that.
We have many industries that rely on immigration simply to function (hotels, resturants, NHS,agricuture for example) yet have, as you say, more than 1 million unemployed. Why?

[Tony Makara]

Sean Fear, I have to be careful here because I don't want to monopolize debate on this subject or I'll be getting ticked off by the editorial team again. So I will be brief.

On China, this country is going to become the world's economic superpower, it will achieve that through manufacturing and an aggressive export policy. Look around your home, I bet most things in it were made in China. Those goods could have been made in Britain by British workers and the money you paid for those goods would have stayed in this country to be spent again in this country creating more work for our people. That is why we need a manufacturing base.

On the matter of the 600,000 vacancies, I agree that those jobs should all be filled. However that still leaves us with a serious level of unemployment. On foreign workers, as I've said previously make the minimum wage only applicable to UK workers and pay all foreign workers in their own currency which they then would have to convert into sterling. This would destroy the incentive to come here to work.

[Sean Fear]

"Those goods could have been made in Britain by British workers and the money you paid for those goods would have stayed in this country to be spent again in this country "

They could indeed, if those workers were prepared to accept a Chinese standard of living.

China may very well become the World's largest economy - simply because there are so many Chinese. It is most unlikely that China will ever achieve a standard of living equivalent to our own - unless (as former manufacturing centres like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan have done) it switches over to high value services.

[Tony Makara]

Malcolm Dunn, I do not like the way that David Cameron and Chris Grayling are trying to create the image that everyone unemployed is a freeloader. The language is bad, creates the wrong image for the party and will cost votes.

The party lost in 1997, not because of the economy, that was good, but because of its image! Conservative politicians must learn to use diplomatic language when dealing with subjects like welfare reform. If reform is to be carried out then do it quietly and sensibly without the negative language, which is very insulting to those unemployed who genuinely want to work.

[Tony Makara]

Sean Fear, we wouldn't need to accept a Chinese standard of living if the money we spend stays in this country. Think about it.

[Bexie]

Tony,

Nye Bevan had the view that the unemployed should be treated as a public sector workforce pool in return for the dole. I see no problem with this, if someone is expecting us to cough up money for them, then if there is community work to be done, then they should be prepared to do it. Having said that, they should be paid the minimum wage for the work they do.

Actually, it might work quite well if the expectation was that in return for the dole they would be expected to do at least one day a week in community service. It would top up the dole money and seriously compromise the ability for people in work to claim.

[Sean Fear]

"Sean Fear, we wouldn't need to accept a Chinese standard of living if the money we spend stays in this country. Think about it."

Actually, we would. We'd either be paying Chinese prices for our home-produced manufactured goods, or - if prices were kept artificially high (and Chinese imports banned) we'd be paying far more than other countries for our manufactured goods - which would sharply hit our standard of living.

[Watervole]

Tony Makara - entirely agree. This is a very disappointing and retrograde step. Grayling has failed to apply intellectual rigour and appears to have swallowed all the various employment myths wholesale.

It is a myth that people are turning down jobs "because they don't feel like them". This isn't true. I know of many excellent mature workers, people thrown on society’s scrapheap, who are unable even to get job offers, despite excellent CVs. Why, because our society is ageist and employers choose to employ green beans instead of experience. Add to that, the fact that it is cheaper for employers to fill jobs with overseas workers and the british worker simply has no way to compete for jobs in this market.

There are malingerers of course in any society, but before taking cheap shots at the unemployed, Chris Grayling would do well to consider that an unemployed couple are expected to live for a week on £82.50 which is equivalent to the average weekly expense claim of an MP.

The three strikes and you're out model is already superceded by current Labour legislation. If you turn down a job once at the moment, your claim is suspended and you get investigated. Further insult is applied since the job centres are full of foreign workers.

The idea that anyone wants to be on JSA is ludicrous. There are decent people out there who would literally be starving if Grayling's proposals to cap benefit at 2 years are enacted. Even more ludicrous is the idea that people deliberately take on jobs and then reapply sporadically for JSA. If Mr. Grayling had ever been through this process he would understand it is so humiliating and invasive that no one in their right minds would contemplate it once, never mind on a repeated basis. Where did he get this one from? Mickey Mouse?

Grayling should take the time to talk to people on benefits and find out the real issues. The government has set up a society where it pays for young pregnant women to remain at home rather than work. Simply, they get more money for less hassle. There are numerous benefits that derive from having children and adding to the problem. There is no incentive to get a job. The system itself does not encourage people on borderline wage packets to achieve and be independent. Rather it penalizes them.

What are the conservatives going to do about getting mature people back into the working population? That is the real iniquity in all this. If Mr. Grayling would care to do some investigation with those currently on JSA, he might understand what the real problems with the system are. Workers over 50 have real difficulty getting jobs due to the economics of the job market. As a society we should be capitalizing on that experience, not binning it. Workers over 50 form a large part of the unemployed – these are people who have paid tax, paid NI and done their bit for society – they are not spongers. It is time we dispensed with the myth of the sponger – they are not the norm. The norm are decent people unable to get work.

The whole JSA business is a mess and disincentivises british workers. Those on benefit are sent to training centers to learn how to make better job applications etc. The tutors are foreigners whose knowledge is not localised. How would Mr. Grayling feel if as a british unemployed man he went to courses staffed by immigrants? The tutors also teach techniques which make no sense. If you send your CV into an employer - are they really likely to want to know your address as a priority? Is it really a good idea to put your age on the CV? Try it and see Mr. Grayling.

If you find a job - even a part time one - the system requires you to make a separate claim and there is no upgrade path to wean beneficiaries gradually out of the black hole. Even Citizen's Advice Bureaux advise that it is better to be completely unemployed than earn partical income. Why, because the chances are that if you manage to earn even a tiny bit, the system will kick you out completely rather than enabling you gradually to get back on your feet.

Mr. Grayling, Mr. Cameron; if you really want to get votes, win an election and sort out the problems of the unemployed, please, please take the time to talk to those who have experienced the benefits system at first hand. There is a real opportunity for the conservatives to do something wonderful in this area but only if they are prepared to investigate rigourously and listen to the hard truth. It is not a one-size fits all.

This policy announcement is a vote loser - make no mistake - and will deter even ardent conservatives. It is shortsighted and fails to address the real scandals within the employment market.

[Moral minority]

Where are the detailed reforms of benefits?Yet again, Grayling fails to offer policy substance. His university funding proposals were savaged by Sir Terence Kealey of Buckingham University. He had nothing new to offer when Shadow Transport Spokesman. Grayling is simply an attack dog. It's time that Cameron recognised that fact.

The British people are angry that immigrants and asylum seekers get benefits, council houses etc ahead of their offspring. Look at the big house that Abu Hamza was living in. Then there is Lee Jasper sitting tenancy in Clapham on over £100k per annum from Red Ken.

There is genuine anger but the Conservatives are afraid of being tagged as racists by Labour who are trying to shut down debate on the issue. Unless Cameron is bold to enough to take on Labour and the race relations industry, the main beneficiaries at the next election will be the BNP, UKIP and the English Democrats.

[Gnosis]

I just saw cammers on sky and i must say he and grayling sounded like proper toffs,how on earth can uber rich dave even being to understand the lives of the poorer in society with his background,he basically called them scroungers this morning and that may sound good to those on the hard right but to the masses who live on council estates and the newer young torys who have a more charitable veiw of these things it sound very very harsh indeed for us to be attacking the unemployed is a damned stupid idea,we should be trying a softer approach to return them to work through training and incentives if these people get ill because they have no money to feed themselves they will end up in hospital which will probably cost more money than they were getting in the first place so once again dave will you please shut up as we do ok when you keep your stupid ideas to yourself.

[anon]

A move in the correct direction! Clearly there are 'tweaks' that may need to be made i.e. with temping jobs, but overall excellent

[George Hinton]

For the proposals to work, government needs to provide the economic environment for employers to invest and create jobs.
Socialist statism that has seen high taxes, high social costs, onerous employment laws and minimum wages does not create a climate that creates jobs. Employers instead export jobs to countries with freer and cheaper economic conditions, as has been seen with call centres.
For the plan to succeed we need an ecomomic model more like the US that provides the commercial sector with the financial incentives to create jobs. What Gordon has done is to subvert this model and expand the public sector creating a bloated public payroll that real employers have to pay for.
As regards the comments of watervole, spot on.

[activist]

People who criticise this move simply do not know the statistics. We have millions of able bodied people turning down jobs - fact.

Are those calling this a harsh step to the dark ages - Comstock, asking you particularly here as a Labour supporter - aware that this idea mimics one of Bill Clinton's more successful policies? And that his welfare reforms, shrieked at by the American left, lifted a whole generation of the poorest off welfare and into the prosperity and digniity of work, healthcare cover, etc?

Do you think Bill Clinton was a cruel Genghis Khan?

[London Tory]

A backward step today from the Tory Party.

Firstly, voluntary and community work has been an option for the unemployed for at least the last 25 years. It was an option under us, and it is an option under Labour's New Deal. It has always been woefully under subscribed and abused, seen by the unemployed and the civil servants who adminster it as the easy option. I can tell you that no 18-24 year old is going to willingly get out of bed in the morning to paint the local community centre for 8 hours a day, in return for £50 a week. What happens if he doesn't ? At the moment, he is "sanctioned" by the DWP, resulting in the loss of first 2 weeks, then 4 weeks benefit. This almost always prompts an incident in the local Jobcentre, very often needing security guards or the police to intervene. This in turn often leads to the civil servant who has had to deal with this aggressive jobseeker in an unscreened environment- going sick. This leads to higher absenteesism, more pressure on the staff who remain, and reduced efficiency within the office. And the sanctioned Jobseeker ? He has no income for weeks, so very often resorts to crime. His Housing Benefit is messed up- sometimes leading to eviction and homelessness. My point in explaining these realities to some of the Conservative "don manques" posting on this subject, is that this is a very complicated subject, and chasing the glib headline in the Daily Mail will lead to more welfare and poverty, not less.

As I have said before, ANY reform to ANY part of the benefit system has to me made, hand-in-hand, with a targeted blitz on the Black Ecomony, because at the moment hundreds of thousands of people move seamlessly between 'doing a bit on the side' and claiming benefits. Why ? Because it is very easy to do, and it pays. And you won't get caught. Benefit fraud needs to be treated with the same seriousness as rape, for instance. That means the Police, Customs and Excise, the Revenue, and the DWP working in tandem, with vastly increased resources, to deal with these matters. Under both parties over the last 25 years, you have had a less than 1 in 10 chance of being caught if you commit benefit fraud.

The Conservatives should be doing so much better, and showing much more original thought, in this area. Chris Grayling should stop tickling the tummies of a core group who will vote for us anyway, and map out a coherent strategy which rewards work, however menial, and deters the cash in the hand mentality so prevalent in this country today.

[London Tory]

P.S: I was a senior civil servant in the then Dept of Employment for many years.

[Watervole]

Activist, your comments show naivety. For instance, does it make sense for managers and directors to take jobs as road-sweepers? If people are put forward for the wrong jobs, is it a surprise that they don't stay in them very long? What are the consquences of eroding the employment real-estate that is one's CV if it displays an erratic career path (thanks to being put forward for the wrong job) and if there are long gaps in the CV resulting from unemployment? Would you as an employer take someone on if you saw this in a CV? The Telegraph research misses the point.

[Northernhousewife]

I was a little surprised by the reaction on ConsevativeHome to this policy.
For all your complaints, this got fairly favourable reporting on the Today programme[!!!] who made a point of saying the proposals include alot of carrot aswell as stick and the Tory propsals were a ligher/softer version of the American model and that Cameron had rejected the tougher stance set out by Labour MP Frank Field! Stourton's main concern seemed to be how a Tory Govt would pay for the huge carrots!
'The public mood is changing' according to Radio 4. If as reported, one in four men in Birmingham are on long term benefits, it needs to.
Please note that Sky news is reporting that the Labour Party cannot afford to make the usual 'nasty party' bleetings since they have been trying to sort out the same issues and the the Tory detoxification means it won't work anyway.
No one should unkindly suggest that ALL claimants are scroungers any more than they should naively suggest all claimants have no other current alternative.
I worked in an area of the north where it was accepted that children would follow their parents onto benefits. One rare working grandparent said sadly, 'the grandkids wanted to know why I HAD to go back to work after Christmas? Surely if you just stay off, the Govt will just send you a cheque?'
Sometimes it is neccessary to force SOME people to look outside but tough love [as opposed to cruelty] means not making sure you can present them with definate opportunites when they do and continued support when they are clearly not able.

[Watervole]

Northernhousewife, the Today programme is no more than a government orifice as is all our public broadcasting.

[Tony Makara]

Why is the Conservative party only attempting to deal with the effect of unemployment rather than the causes? I predict that there will still be a core of at least a million people on JSA even after five years of Conservative government. That means a million will remain on benefit. This won't change because there is no strategy for creating paid work.

[John Ionides]

Tony,

you are nothing if not consistent on this point, but I think you badly misread the problem. As I responded to you before there is a huge paradox that lurks at the centre of these debates; how we perceive individual cases and how we perceive the system as a whole.

Take the single parent example which you have been so concerned about. When presented with two people who clearly no longer want to live together, there is a clear case for helping them go their separate ways. They have one life, after all, so why force them to live in misery? On the other hand, there is clear evidence that society as a whole is much stronger if people do stay together and if children are raised in two parent families.

Similar arguments hold for the unemployed. One person comes along and you want to help them. They need cash for the basics. How can you argue against that? Against this, if we look at the population as a whole, if we support worklessness (which is what the government has been doing, and I am afraid is then end result of what you are advocating) you don't end up doing the jobless any favours. It is simply too easy to slip into a regime of not working, which rapidly leads to all the other problems associated with poverty.

I don't seem to recall any huge fanfare about helping people back to work being the *cheaper* option, but to my mind it is morally reprehensible to support what we have at the moment (and what you seem to want to perpetuate) a system that facilitates people dropping off the edge of society.

Now, you may call me heartless because I seem to be ignoring the plight of the individual, but I would say that looking at the bigger picture necessarily improves the mean outcome, and that is what we should really be interested in.

Also, I wonder how much time you have spent in China or Russia, and the extent to which you are aware of the wages and associated quality of life in these places. Mass manufacturing in the UK is simply not going to compete in the forseeable future (until the quality of life in Russia / China / India approaches that in the UK) and it is hopeless to expect it to be able to.

[Tony Makara]

John Ionides, I definitely do not support worklessness. I'd like to see those on JSA drafted into a public works programme, but one that pays a living-wage, not one as proposed which makes people work for nothing. Even with that we are only dealing with the tail-end of the problem. The only way to eradicate benefit dependency is through creating jobs in the economy. Government must look at ways to help create work rather than just sitting back and hoping the market will make it happen. With regards to Russia, I do speak Russian and listen to Russian radio daily so I'm fully conscious of the strides made since the dark days after the fall of communism. As for China well the whole world knows, and particularly the American's know, and fear, that China will be top dog before long.

The question of mothers, I'm not against the mother working but concerned about the effects on the child in a single parent household where the child will have to spend eleven weeks of the year home alone if the mother is working during what are usually school hours. Are we really prepared to have a four/six/eight year old sat at home unsupervised while the mother works? What if there is a crisis situation like a fire or injury? In a time of social breakdown the last thing we need is a generation of children growing up with a sense of alienation. With 45% of marriages ending in divorce that is going to mean a lot of children being home alone. I say leave these women to bring up their child until it leaves primary school and set the focus on trying to find work for the JSA unemployed.

[John F Aberdeen]

I agree with those in favour of the tory proposals but also agree in part with London Tory in that these have to be balanced by changes in the tax system.
Over the past 10 years Bottler has refused to upgrade the persoanl tax allowance, thus lots of people (who shouldn,t)are paying tax and getting benefits at the same time.
I think the current proposals are one side of the equation,, the other side should be upping the personal allowance to £15,000. Then set a flat tax for all at 15%.
Scrap most of the benefits, even if it means raising the minimum wage.
To tackle the Black economy you need incentives to get people off it,, a reasonable tax rate and yes an ammnesty for those in it. I other words, a new tax system and a new beginning, on the clear understanding that there will be serious charges if they go back to their old ways.
Shawn Bailey was on Daily Politics today,, he made an excellent case for the new policy and demolished Caroline Flint the Nulab spokeswoman.
I hear questions from the socialists, is it affordable,, well if you scrap the quangoes, special advisers, the useless IT systems, the bloated public sector employment, then probably billions can be saved and used elsewhere like back in peoples pockets and bank accounts.

[Watervole]

Let's accept there are two issues here: one, how to combat the government-induced culture of worklessness; two, how to actually help the unemployed, treat them as real people, and come up with genuine ideas on how to address the problems.

In response to one earlier comment accusing me of not putting forward any solutions (but which since appears to have disappeared) I would like to see genuine re-training, liaison with employers as suggested by someone previously, and a healthy knife applied to bodies like HMRC, DWP, JSA et al which are costing us far more than the unemployed and which exacerbate the problems, rather than help. Reducing the administrative morass would reduce the cost of helping the unemployed.
In addition, you have to look at the job market and address the problems of competition from foreign workers who do not pay the same levels of tax.
If we are going to put money into real solutions then unlike Brown's right-wing government, for that's what it is, we have to make sure this gets to the end user, not the millions of middle men taking their rake off as is currently the case.

[John Ionides]

Tony,

Russia, huge strides forward? For some, maybe, but I don't think Ford workers in the UK would settle for $1,150 per month. Do you? (and, as I am sure you are aware, the New Economy has forced house prices in Moscow and St P close to London levels, so it is not as though the cost of living is that low).

And the pension is what? $27 per month? not much when staple foods have doubled in price over the last year.

[what station do you listen to by the way; I hope its Ekho Moskvy because I wouldn't believe a word of most of the others :) ]

On benefits; I don't think anyone is having them work for free. What people get for this is the state underwriting their healthcare, housing, education for their children and giving them money to live off. Its not a bad package overall, and is worth considerably more than just the JSA rate that has been discussed here.

Of course, some people might not like to do it. You might not like paying your taxes (remember, top rate earners spend roughly half their time effectively earning for the government through their taxes) but what would you expect to happen if you said "sorry, I don't feel like paying"?

On single parents; I completely take your point about the burden of parenthood and the difficulties of raising a child alone. But, even with all the benefits that are thrown at single parents, the outcome is still worse for the child (and in many cases is not terribly nice for the parent either). In short we are in a horrible pickle. We can either let things go on the way they are, which is not going to be terribly good for the next generation of mothers or children, or we can try to address the situation. In this, it is important to realise that single parenthood is something that has been massively facilitated by the benefits structure. There is an implicit assumption that if people want to live this lifestyle that the state should subsidise it, and this is most concerning.

Of course, now we are in the position we are in it is very difficult to reverse. What are actually benefits become seen as entitlements (i.e. people have factored it into their life choices already) but unless you are happy with the overall affect on society that the current level of single parenting has then I think there is a clear case for modifying the benefits system.

[Tony Makara]

John Ionides, I must hold my hand up and admit that I mostly listen to the state sanctioned VOR and the Stimme Russlands German service. Its an old habit I've had since around 1976 when it used to be the old Radio Moscow and Radio Peace and Progress, although I must stress that I'm not a Bolshevik! I also watch a bit of Corbina TV but it really depends what is on, its hard to watch some of the crass Russian humour, and the way the dub movies with just a two voice talkover is enough to put anyone off. Its always interesting to see what happens in Russia thats for sure! I will leave you with a little Russian culture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TphUiqngoo

[Michael Davidson]

Tony, I think for once we might actually agree on something.

If you are going to make the unemployed work - then they are no longer unemployed and they should be paid an hourly wage (no lower than the minimum wage), not benefits.

These proposals, whilst they have many positive aspects, are flawed by this one rather large hiccup.

If you make people work, you have to give them a wage - you cannot get people to work for Dole money - that defeats the very point of Dole money - it's supposed to be for those who are out of work, not in work.

[John Ionides]

Tony,

Russia, huge strides forward? For some, maybe, but I don't think Ford workers in the UK would settle for $1,150 per month. Do you? (and, as I am sure you are aware, the New Economy has forced house prices in Moscow and St P close to London levels, so it is not as though the cost of living is that low).

And the pension is what? $27 per month? not much when staple foods have doubled in price over the last year.

[what station do you listen to by the way; I hope its Ekho Moskvy because I wouldn't believe a word of most of the others :) ]

On benefits; I don't think anyone is having them work for free. What people get for this is the state underwriting their healthcare, housing, education for their children and giving them money to live off. Its not a bad package overall, and is worth considerably more than just the JSA rate that has been discussed here.

Of course, some people might not like to do it. You might not like paying your taxes (remember, top rate earners spend roughly half their time effectively earning for the government through their taxes) but what would you expect to happen if you said "sorry, I don't feel like paying"?

On single parents; I completely take your point about the burden of parenthood and the difficulties of raising a child alone. But, even with all the benefits that are thrown at single parents, the outcome is still worse for the child (and in many cases is not terribly nice for the parent either). In short we are in a horrible pickle. We can either let things go on the way they are, which is not going to be terribly good for the next generation of mothers or children, or we can try to address the situation. In this, it is important to realise that single parenthood is something that has been massively facilitated by the benefits structure. There is an implicit assumption that if people want to live this lifestyle that the state should subsidise it, and this is most concerning.

Of course, now we are in the position we are in it is very difficult to reverse. What are actually benefits become seen as entitlements (i.e. people have factored it into their life choices already) but unless you are happy with the overall affect on society that the current level of single parenting has then I think there is a clear case for modifying the benefits system.

[Joe James Broughton]

MM "The British people are angry that immigrants and asylum seekers get benefits, council houses etc ahead of their offspring. Look at the big house that Abu Hamza was living in. Then there is Lee Jasper sitting tenancy in Clapham on over £100k per annum from Red Ken.

There is genuine anger but the Conservatives are afraid of being tagged as racists by Labour who are trying to shut down debate on the issue. Unless Cameron is bold to enough to take on Labour and the race relations industry, the main beneficiaries at the next election will be the BNP, UKIP and the English Democrats."

Hmm.

Some of these are valid points and should be raised - but in the right tone.
But be careful - the Conservative party is not a dustbin grievance party - leave
that to the Lib Dems and the BNP.

We believe in private enterprise as a way of raising the standard of living for all.

[Tony Makara]

Michael Davidson, I agree that a fair days work is equal to a fair days pay. Plus if people were paid for doing community work it would serve as a taster for proper work and once they discover their increased purchasing power they would be more motivated to find full-time permanent work. David Cameron and Chris Grayling could have turned this policy into a real coup if they had not used any of their negative language and had offered a square rate of pay for any community work to be undertaken. I'm not against the health tests, or the expectation to take work, or the expectation to attend an agency to look for work.

What upset me today was the language used and the proposal that people be forced to work for nothing. This whole reform package could have been handled so differently and it would have got a more favourable reaction. In the long term the Conservative party has to develop a strategy for creating jobs though because if it doesn't this debate will be raging on in ten and twenty years from now. We need a million more jobs to end the dependency culture.

[Yet Another Anon]

On foreign workers, as I've said previously make the minimum wage only applicable to UK workers and pay all foreign workers in their own currency which they then would have to convert into sterling. This would destroy the incentive to come here to work.
If the minimum wage applies to British workers, but not foreign workers then employers will have an even greater incentive to employ workers from abroad, far from dampening immigration such a measure would most likely accelerate it - the minimum wage should be completely abolished along with most employment regulation and most Health & Safety regulations.

Employers will be annoyed at bureacratic schemes requiring them to use foreign currency and would mostly ignore it - if they pay the workers in cash then how is the state to know what currency they were paid in.

However foreign workers are paid, this does not get away from the fact that they are being employed because they have skills and attitudes largely missing from many unemployed people, the way unemployed people get the jobs is by having the skills and attitude to get them, and because people want to employ them, not because the people employers prefer have had some kinds of inane handicaps put on their abilities to live and work in this country.

In many cases work will simply go undone rather than someone be employed when the employer does not believe that they are suited to the job.

As for industry, yes this could boost the economy, but it will not neccessrily generate more jobs because of the huge amount of automation used and because many industrial skills these days are very high tech, industry looks for graduates with IT skills these days, not people who can't even find a power button on a machine.

There are warehouses now that are completely dark - they are completely machine operated, the only humans ever there are the people who maintain and repair the machines and most of the time they are not needed.

British Steel employed hundreds of thousands of people, by the 1990s one Swedish company with 7 employees produced more steel at it's Sheffield factory every year than British Steel produced in any year during the time it was nationalised - that's automation for you!

[Yet Another Anon]

If for example Chinese workers in the UK were paid in Yen, and Indians in Rupees then all that would happen is that employers would keep stocks of such money - especially for large companies this would be no problem, shops would be set up trading in these in the UK and the people paid such money, when sending it back home wouldn't have to change it - the Yen and the Rupee are quite strong stable currencies, it could even result in a plurality of currencies being used in the UK that could undermine the use of the pound.

[Tony Makara]

Yet Another Anon, I see your point but I don't think its a likely scenario. The individual worker who shows the gumption to come over here and work will want ready disposable income for themselves and will want to send money home.

I agree fully that there is a severe skills shortage in our country, particularly in the vocational blue collar skills needed for fundamentals such as plumbing and electronics. That's why its important that government plays a role here. They could place an unemployed person with an employer and strike up a deal by which the employer gets to train/employ the jobless person while he/she receives benefits and then if he/she learns the trade the employer is then duty bound to offer that person full time employment. Seeing as most of the long-term unemployed are not going to find work anytime soon, because they lack skills, its better that they are allowed to train while on benefit.

[Gezmond 007]

Are There no prisons ? Are there no workhouses ?

This policy stinks and will do the Tory party untold damage. It has not been thought through and is full of holes.

It is beginning to show that Cameron is ok when he,s knocking Labour but cannot think of any decent policies to bring the huge majority of the public onboard.

[Malcolm Dunn]

'Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?' Eh? What are suggesting?
Generally speaking the media seem to be pretty positive although not in the Guardian (qu'elle suprise). According to the Mail David Freud who they describe as Brown's welfare guru approves too.

[Yet Another Anon]

They could place an unemployed person with an employer and strike up a deal by which the employer gets to train/employ the jobless person while he/she receives benefits and then if he/she learns the trade the employer is then duty bound to offer that person full time employment.
And what is the person who is unemployed going to do while being trained? Employers naturally do not have time for someone who is just training, anyone with them is going to be expected to work doing something useful.

I recall YTS, all that happened when there were the various schemes in the 1980s was that far from adding any jobs, all they did was provide state subsidy for training and state subsidised allowances for positions the employers intended to have anyway. Those seeking the position still had to go through the same interview process as if there had been no state involvement and so all it did was switch a lot of recruitment costs and labour overheads from private to public sector. The Manpower Services schemes were the same - just a form of state subsidised cheap labour.

Under such schemes employers will mostly employ the same people they would have done anyway, and will lay off those who are employed under special exemptions from extra labour costs or state subsidies when those end, so what's the point - the main loser in such schemes is the taxpayer.

If the state on the other hand wanted to act as an agency for the unemployed and employ them at benefit costs sewing mailbags, doing laundry etc.... at minimal cost and then plowing any profits back into the Treasury then that's another matter - in the late 1920s\early 1930s there were labour camps for single unemployed men in the UK intended both to discourage those who were not genuinely destitute and also recover a lot of public money going in welfare.

Such things if they are done have to be done as a commercial venture, not a welfare measure - there is no reason why public services cannot be run by the state on a commercial basis.

[ActiveJobseekers.com]

Great article. I find it very useful and informative. A service I also find useful is a new online resource called ActiveJobseekers.com. It is a a place where job seekers Actively looking for jobs can create resumes for free and also announce their availability to employers.

Employers can then contact these job seekers knowing fully well that the candidate is actively looking for job.

Laura
http://www.activejobseekers.com

Great article. I find it very useful and informative.

Laura
http://www.activejobseekers.com

[Cate H]

I'm unemployed and claiming JSA, if I didn't I would certainly starve and possibly become homeless. While i'm sure there are people who are quite happy to live off the state and have no intention of changing the habit of a lifetime, i unfortunately have no choice. I already do voluntary work, voluntarily. Some of these suggestions are shameful. I wish someone would offer me a job, I have a degree already so I'm not eligible for funding for any practical training, and I'm too old (26) for other schemes. Job Centres are useless, they are benefit administration centres, no more. Other than "have you looked on the job points" they offer no help. I've also wasted my time applying for jobs when there clearly wasn't a genuine vacancy, and they already had someone in mind. It also doesn't help that training is so inflexible, with courses only starting in September, and some NVQs require you to have a position with a company or organisation before you start, which you can't get unless you have an NVQ qualification. It's a classic catch 22 situation.

[planettech9]

THE dangers of taking drugs and their devastating impact on people's lives are being shown in dramatic fashion to teenagers in a series of workshops in Tameside.

Students are also being told how related robbery and car crime can bring misery to the communities in which they live.

Groups of youngsters aged between 14 and 16 - from secondary, pupil referral units and special schools in the area - are taking part in the two-day event.

They will watch a play about drug and alcohol issues and look round a mock-up prison cell to show what life is like on the inside.

====================================
sameer
========================================
===========================
temping jobs-