Cameron and Grayling to unveil welfare reform plans

Both the Telegraph and Times carry reports this morning about Tory plans for "radical welfare reform".  On Tuesday David Cameron is expected to announce a Green Paper that will include the policies summarised in the graphic on the right.

Many of these ideas come out of Iain Duncan Smith's social justice report and will now be developed by Chris Grayling, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

The Tories are thought to have decided against time-limiting benefits; a US-style reform that Frank Field regards as essential, according to The Times.

There are currently 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit and if the Government succeeds in its target of reducing that number to 1.6 million, the savings to the taxpayer would theoretically be £9bn.  But such savings are very unlikely, however.   American experience suggests that the long-term unemployed need costly assistance over many years as they move away from habits of worklessness.

The Conservative initiatives are welcomed in a Telegraph leader.  Even Simon Heffer is mildly encouraged but he calls for the Tories to go further still:

"If the Tories were to address all these factors - rigorously improving schools (including the expansion of grammar schools, which would have a trickle-down effect), demanding not merely stricter immigration controls but the expulsion of all illegal immigrants, removing benefits from all who refuse jobs and abolishing the minimum wage - then I would call for three cheers for Dave."

Earlier this week Migration Watch issued a report which found that "the effect of benefit levels combined with means testing of benefits for those who are working means that there is little financial incentive for people with families living on benefits to find employment."  Migration Watch continues: "This may partly explain why, despite there being 3.5 million people on Jobseekers Allowance or Incapacity Benefit, some 1.3 million immigrants have come to work in the UK in the past ten years."

Related links: Just before Christmas Chris Grayling spoke to Policy Exchange about his general approach to welfare reform and on today's Platform Ben Rogers discusses the extent of Britain's 'broken society'.

Comments

[James Maskell]

Ill wait for the Green Paper on this one. Labour will be hoping there is something in there they can use to describe the Tories as hating single parents. Yes I know Labour is bringing in similar policies, but thats never stopped them before.

[Alan S]

Welfare reform is going to be much harder now that the economy is facing harder times. Welfare reform is always easier when there's employment growth. That's why the Brown-Blair years have been years of such squander.

[Comstock]

A few quick thoughts

'School age' is four now isn't it? I've no problem with parents of secondary school age kids being forced to job-seek, but imposing it on single mums with young kids is a bit much.

Regular medical tests, yes, fair enough

We already have quite draconian sanctions for those who don't do enough job-seeking

Replacement for new deal, fair enough, if it works and the jobs created are real, long term ones.

[sean]

Discounting the policy wonkery aspect of this and focusing on the politics, I believe that Cameron is on the right track. Already there is a feeling amongst the public that Government spending is getting too high. If Labour comes out against this proposal than they are going to look at least to the voters as backing the status quo.

Further, if Labour talks about this proposal then it helps the Conservatives because it means that we set the agenda in public debate. It makes us appear to be pro-active and rights the impression that Cameron lacks policy substance.

[Tony Makara]

Good news to hear that the wasteful NewDeal, a programme that has cost a staggering 3.6 Billion pounds is to end. I will wait to see the exact details of the replacement programme which I hope will contain a structured training programme rather than a punitive work-for-your-dole regime.

The proposal to introduce medical tests is something no-one can object to, however I would like to see details of how this will apply to those with Schizophrenia, Bi-Polar etc.

I do not support the proposal to force people to do unpaid community work if no paid work is available. This is not only exploitive but will cost many votes and re-enforce the idea of the Conservative party as being uncaring and only interested in punitive measures. If the unemployed are to do community work then pay them a living wage.

The idea of forcing single mothers look for work once their child reaches four is utter stupidity. This is bad for a child of such a young age who needs to have a mother at home as a safe base. What about days when the child has school holidays? What about days when the child is ill? What about the vital mother child bond? Or is it that only married mothers with working husbands can afford the luxury of enjoying spending motherhood with her child?

I warn you, this policy on single mothers will be very unpopular and will cost many votes. Drop the idea now before it becomes more widely known.

[Iain Lindley]

Tony, can you drop me an e-mail at [email protected] please?

[TC]

Re: making single mothers work when their children reach school age, this is a very sensible idea.

Countless studies have shown that by far the most effective way of reducing child poverty is to get single parents into the work force. Having a parent who goes to work also sets a good example for the children - rather than growing up thinking the state will provide everything for them, they will realise that people are responsible for themselves. It's vital that the viscious cycle of intergenerational welfare dependency, which the current system fosters, is broken. 20 hours is a reasonable requirement. It still gives the parent plenty of time to get the child to school and pick them up at the end of the day.

Compulsory community service is a good idea. Why should someone who is not prepared to contribute anything be entitled to the taxpayers' support?

Finally, Frank Field's idea of time-limited benefits sounds great in practice, but it is actually the one part of the US reforms of 1994 that has not proved successful, and was scaled back in 1999.

[Tony Makara]

TC, forcing people to do unpaid work is akin to slavery. If the community work is available then pay a living-wage for the hours of community work that is undertaken. There is a principle at state here, a days work for a days pay. A single person on JSA is receiving a great deal of money and confronted with working for nothing that person may well opt to not sign on at all and try to find money through illegal means, ie crime.

Stopping benefit is a bad idea and may well be challenged under human rights legislation as it is 'subsistence money' one court case could throw a whole governments welfare strategy out the window. Especially if that case involved stopping the benefits of someone with children.

TC, on the subject of single mums working, what about school holidays? six weeks in the summer, three at christmas, two at easter, thats close on a quater of the year when the four year old child will be 'home alone'?

[Tony Makara]

On Tuesday I'm hoping that there will be an announcement stating that those on JSA can put in a claim for 'The adult learning grant' which they currently are banned from doing under Labour. People on JSA could go to college full-time and switch from drawing JSA to claiming the adult learning grant and they can undertake a vocational course of training like electronics or hairdressing. Currently those on JSA are not allowed to study full-time as Labour wants to draft them onto its showpiece gimmick the NewDeal.

[David Belchamber]

Tony Makara at 11.36 is quite right in urging care with regard to policies on single mothers. Apart from his arguments, there is an emotive resonance to the description "single mother" (a bit like "immigration" used to have) that suggests a lack of sympathy on the part of the tories, even if totally incorrectly.

Simon Heffer makes some useful suggestions (and hints at a warming towards DC, which is welcome). I am not sure about abolishing the minimum wage but do agree that the necessary skills needed to be useful workers can only come from a vastly improved educational system.

As social policies are going to be expensive, it is necessary to reduce Brown's wastefulness and I repeat my oft posed question: would it be practical to roll up all or most of the sources of benefits into one agency and also to pay benefit in the form of negative income tax?

If these were possible, there would be huge savings in bureaucracy.

[TC]

Tony, expecting people to do something in return for their benefits is nothing like forced labour.

People have no inherent right to be supported by the state. Why shouldn't we say: yes, we will support you, but we will also expect something in return? You have to actively seek work, you have to take work if it's offered, and if you can't find work, then you have to earn your keep some other way (through community service).

People who do nothing, deserve nothing.

[Rachel Joyce]

As regards incapacity benefit - the regular medical checks need to be performed by independent doctors. GPs will tell you that they find it very difficult to say no to patients when they ask for sick notes - because of their doctor-patient relationship. That is why there is some initial success with the "Investing in Communities" pilots - because there is some indepedent medical input (albeit insufficient). In addition, many people who are long term sick are appropriate in regard to their previous jobs - for instance nurses with back problems, teachers stressed by the classroom. That does not mean that they can do NO work - many would be able to do office work, for instance. The system needs to categorise them in regard to whether they are able to do some work, and what it is.
The success of welfare reform to me will be when it is conducted at a local level - when parish and town councils and small areas of boroughs are involved in providing community work for those who claim they cannot get a job. At a local level people know about their neighbours and taking the anonymity out of the national system will pay real dividends. Pay the minimum wage for those who turn up for the local community work on a daily rate. There is no shortage of community work to be done. Those with mental health or medical problems would be dealt with under a system as above. Same could apply for retraining opportunities.
I don't agree with even mentioning single mothers. What has the marital status got to do with it? This should apply to any parent who - married, widowed, divorced, single who claims benefit and whose youngest child is of school age.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

So far I am pleased with what I see. I am looking forward to reading the rest.

[TC]

A couple of other reforms that I hope will be Conservative welfare policy:

1) It's very important to deter people from going on welfare in the first place. Once they're on it, it tends to have a debilitating effect.

Something that's worked in America is saying you have to be out of work for a month before you can claim benefits, but in the meantime, you are entitled to a very low-rate loan to cover your expenses. This encourages personal responsibility as far as is possible.

2) Benefit levels need to vary by region.

At the moment, benefits are much higher (in purchasing power terms) in the north of England and in Scotland than they are down South. This means benefits are a much greater disincentive to work in areas where unemployment is typically higher already.

One solution may be to regionalize the minimum wage (something even Gordon Brown has shown an interest in) and index benefit levels to that.

[Tony Makara]

TC, I agree fully that people should be made to take paid work if paid work is available. However trying to force people into working for nothing will either drive more people onto incapacity benefit or they will sign off and try to get money by illegal means. JSA for a single person is only 46 pounds a week, its not a lot of money and people will not work for it!

I'm interested to see how the proposal for placements will work, if it is based on the John Howard model. Will there be training? Will there be a guarantee of a definite job once the initial placement has run its course. The great failing with the NewDeal was that employers offering placements were not obliged to keep the person on after six months. So it will be interesting to see the content on tuesday. I'm so glad to see the end of the NewDeal, a gimmick which has cost the taxpayer a lot of money and has managed to increase youth unemployment by 20% in the process.

[Tony Makara]

"Pay the minimum wage for those who turn up for the local community work on a daily rate"

Rachel Joyce, this is a point I agree with entirely. If there is community work available, that could range from gardening to working with the elderly, then pay a wage rather than making people work for nothing. This would not only be fair but would provide a taster for waged work.

[Richard]

"Stopping benefit is a bad idea and may well be challenged under human rights legislation as it is 'subsistence money' one court case could throw a whole governments welfare strategy out the window."

I wasn't aware there was a human right to live off of other peoples' money. Hopefully the Tories will do something about this, rights to liberty are one thing but rights to welfare benefits are dangerously socialistic.

[Ali Gledhill]

How would Cameron create flexible jobs in the private sector - jobs, I would hope, that needed doing? And what would single parents do during their children's school holidays?

It's all very well saying single parents have an obligation to seek work, but if they do not feel obligated, there is no way of forcing them without plunging them into poverty.

[Tony Makara]

Ali Gledhill, good points. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a protest group like gingerbread encouraged single mums with young children to defy the compulsion to work, en mass, would the government be prepared to cut the money needed to sustain these young children? This whole idea is a mess and will cost many votes. Why on earth was the position shifted away from the mother expected to work when the child is eleven to the child being four?

[CCHQ Spy]

Rachel Joyce makes a very important point about the medical examiner NOT being the claimant's GP. i hope Chris Grayling notes that if he hasn't done so already.

[Sean Fear]

"I wasn't aware there was a human right to live off of other peoples' money. Hopefully the Tories will do something about this, rights to liberty are one thing but rights to welfare benefits are dangerously socialistic."

Alas, you'll probably find that there is indeed now a "human right" to live off other peoples' money without doing anything for it.

The basic problem is this. The benefits bill increases year on year, at a time when society becomes more affluent year on year. Logic would suggest that the reverse should happen.

[Tony Makara]

Does anybody on an average wage actually believe that the tax they pay has even covered the cost of their own needs let alone paid for people to be on benefits? Think about it? The tax the average person pays probably doesn't even cover the cost of their own children's education. I can quite understand high earners who pay a lot in tax saying that their money is paying for people to live on benefit but as for the average earner this is not the case.

[Comstock]

So Heffer wants to abolish the minimum wage and stop benefits for those who refuse to take jobs on the new lower wage rates

What a charmer!

[Ash Faulkner]

I have some sympathy with Tony's more compassionate position: pay a decent wage for community service rather than the equivalent of JSA. My only worry is what if those on the community service program simply stay there? That's just a further enlarged public sector.

That said, the general thesis of these welfare reforms is good. I do have concerns about the role of parents, with all this talk of 'single mothers'. We shouldn't be chasing productivity at the expense of the family; there has to be some sort of balance that caters to the needs of parents and children.

Going back to my fear of further bloating the public sector, we all know that the best thing is to expand the private one. It is there that wealth and jobs are created, and that means these welfare reforms require a parallel program of encouraging entrepreneurs. That means loosening up regulation, and cutting corporate tax and small business rates. Otherwise we're simply shifting the unemployed from the no-work sector to the public sector, and that is only mildly better!

[Sean Fear]

Tony, taking everything into consideration (i.e. income tax, national insurance, VAT, road tax, excise duties, council tax, stamp duty etc. etc.) the average tax payer will be paying a very hefty amount in tax each year - probably about 40-45% of his income.

[Tony Makara]

Ash Faulkner, any paid community work would have to be a halfway house between unemployment and work. I'm interested to see how the proposals for the seven year contracts will be arranged. I'm hoping that any placement will have a guaranteed job at the end of it if the unemployed person involved does their bit by turning up every day and doing the work/training. If private sector firms are to get government contracts the government should expect them to provide a permanent full-time job for each placement in return.

I'm curious about voluntary section involvement though, how could the voluntary sector provide paid work and ultimately take people off benefits. The name of the game has to be providing real jobs for people rather than just giving them something to do while on benefits.

[Tony Makara]

Sean Fear, I accept that people pay a lot in tax, nontheless I think its a bit dishonest for people on average or low earnings to claim that their tax is paying for people to live on benefits. We all ourselves are a cost to the state, especially if we have children. My argument is that the tax that the average earner pays barely covers the state services that we use over a lifetime. So all the vitriol against those on benefit from those on average incomes is misplaced.

[graeme archer]

I agree with tony. If a genuine jobseeker has to take community service they should be paid for it; else I don't see the moral difference - surely necessary to demarcate - between the treatment of the long term unemployed, and criminals who are given community service.

[Tony Makara]

Graeme Archer, the argument here appears to be swinging between those who think the unemployed should be made to work for nothing and those who think they should be paid, even if the work is mandatory. We all agree that being at home all day and rotting away on the dole is no good to anyone. It leads to social exclusion and destroys self-esteem.

The whole reason for welfare reform ultimately has to be to get people into paid work so that they are no longer dependent on benefits. The placement system using the private sector could certainly work if there is a job guaranteed at the end of the training.

Providing paid community work for the jobless would be a good idea, it would serve as a stepping stone between unemployment and work. However punitive unpaid work in the voluntary sector isn't going to produce one single job and its going to cost the Conservative party a lot of votes and damage the party's reputation for compassion. The unemployed are not criminals, they need paid work and should not be treated as if they are on a chain-gang.

[seasider]

Rachel Joyce. 'The success of welfare reform to me will be when it is conducted at a local level - when parish and town councils and small areas of boroughs are involved in providing community work for those who claim they cannot get a job. At a local level people know about their neighbours and taking the anonymity out of the national system will pay real dividends. Pay the minimum wage for those who turn up for the local community work on a daily rate. There is no shortage of community work to be done.'

…'for those who *claim* they cannot get a job….

Reading your comments what comes to my imaginative mind - and thinking about my local community is this…for those who *claim* they cannot get a job and are compelled to work for five pounds an hour rather than a decent living wage.
A queue forming (rather like in the thirties, a bit before my time, perhaps you remember) outside the local parish council hall, and the council leader delegating out the local community jobs that need doing. The accountant (and pillar of the community) whose business went bust will be sent off with a bucket and shovel to clean up the dog dirt from the local playing field along with with a drug affected teenager who is unemployable, like the local post office staff now surplus to requirements working with single Mums (whose kids will have to be dragged along with them because no-one is at home to care for them) litter picking and washing down the local pavements. There are numerous ways that you can mix and match this scenario -
While presumably those who inhabit the moral high ground can sweep past them on their way to Church or work, safe in the patronising knowledge that they are 'helping' the 'workshy' (as opposed to helping themselves)

If I've misunderstood you, please do develop and explain your ideas further.

…’people know about their neighbours….taking out the anonymity'...?
People who aren't in work can have their private life and affairs reported on, broadcast and discussed throughout their community and to the authorities in an effort to demean and shame them? Is that your reasoning? Please explain exactly what you mean.
It's astonishing that some people here have called the Government fascist, and then you produce this tat.

Reading the Grayling thread and now this, the only contributor who offers any half decent suggestions on either is Tony Makara.

[Sean Fear]

But people on average incomes don't live on benefits. *Some* of their tax goes towards the social security bill - as well as the services that they use.

IMHO, people on average incomes really don't get value for money for what they pay in tax.

[Roger Helmer]

Thank heaven. We can be proud to be Conservatives again. As Simon Heffer famously wrote, "The reason we have an underclass is because we have decided to pay for one". Now the Party has decided that enough is enough, and we're not prepared to pay for the underclass any longer.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

Another idea the Tories should strive for is abolishing the minimum wage.
It won't be a popular move, but it will help the unskilled poor and the inexperienced young.

[Michael Davidson]

I agree that single parents should have to work once the child is at school. Children grow up best when they see parents (or a parent) working. There's no reason why single parents cannot work whilst the child is at school.

I don't agree with Simon Heffer's argument that we should abolish the minimum wage - that would be ludicrous.

[Tony Makara]

Michael Davidson, you say "There's no reason why single parents cannot work whilst the child is at school" but what about the 11/12 weeks of the year when the four year old isn't at school. Who will look after the child? A child of four cannot be left at home alone. So is it fair on employers to expect them to give a job to a mother who will not be able to work for a quater of the year during the school holidays?

[Tony Makara]

Roger Helmer, the reason we have an economic underclass is because successive governments haven't had the bottle to set up a public works programme for the unemployed. when the market cannot provide enough jobs the government of the day should provide paid work for those that cannot find work. Not as part of a bloated public sector but as a proactive measure to keep people from falling back into the hopelessness of unemployment.

[Comstock]

I see you quoted Simon Heffer, Roger.

As my MEP can I ask if you agree with his suggestion in the Telegraph that the minimum wage be abolished and the government should pro-actively force people into these new ultra-low wage jobs?

[Tony Makara]

Comstock, even if the minimum wage were abolished we would still be left with a core of a million unemployed. That is because of the way our economy is structured, we need a manufacturing base and we need to produce for our internal market to create a million jobs.

I agree that the minimum wage should be abolished but it won't help create many more jobs and people on lower wages will inevitably have that wage topped up by the state. So not a great deal will change.

Unless and until government has a co-ordinated economic strategy and governs for Britain rather than for international capital then unemployment isn't going to go away ever.

[Jake]

Sure , the Welfare state leaks money in every direction , often spending on the undeserving itt, reinforcing idleness and always discriminating against the English and in favour of the celts.

Ditto the taxation system.

The Conservatives need to tread very carefully here though.

[Tony Makara]

Jake, what matters is that any benefit reform gets the balance right. To help the needy and to offer a way out of the revolving door. The NewDeal has been a bizarre waste of money, paying more in benefits, through the employer, to people in work than to those not working. Same goes for the equally bizarre tax credits system where its possible to get more money out of the state when working than when out of work. The astronomical amount of money wasted on both gimmicks could have gone into something useful like proper job training. I wonder what the long term plans might be for the tax credits system?

[Mark Fulford]

"The reason we have an underclass is because we have decided to pay for one"

Society, rightly, will not tolerate starving children on our streets. I cannot take your or Heffer's comments seriously without a good explanation of how you're going to deny help to the poorest without terrible consequences for the most vulnerable.

[Comstock]

"I agree that the minimum wage should be abolished but it won't help create many more jobs and people on lower wages will inevitably have that wage topped up by the state. So not a great deal will change."

If you admit it won't create jobs, why on earth do you support the abolition of the minimum wage? Who would gain from the move, other than bad employers who could undercut good?

There seems to be a view taken (by some) on here that the concept of a minimum wage is some sort of loony left socialist idea. It isn't. It is about providing a basic decency level below which no working man or woman should fall.

America, proberbly the least socialist country on earth, had a minimum wage long before us. Most Christian churches support having a minimum wage. We can debate the level it should be set at but IMHO it's just common decency to have one, and abolishing it would be morally wrong.

[Teck]

What does the immigrant worker have in being employed for a job that a local benefit claimant does not fulfil, health status being equal?

[Tony Makara]

Comstock, what I said was that the abolition of the minimum wage would not create many more jobs. However it would create some jobs so I'd prefer to see it abolished, even with any extra jobs created the rate of pay is likely to be so low as to free very few people from benefit dependency as rent rebates etc would still be necessary. What we really need is radical government led employment programme paying a decent wage.

Teck, we are compelled by European law to let foreign workers come over to Britain. They come over to take advantage of the differential between a strong pound and their own currency. However there is a way around this. We could pay them in their own currency which they would then have to exchange into sterling. This would very quickly dis-incentive any advantage gained by currency differentials and the foreign worker would be less keen to come here thus freeing up more jobs for our own people.

[Tony Makara]

Teck, I forgot to add that foreign workers should be exempted from minimum wage legislation. The minimum wage if it is to exist should only apply to UK citizens.

[Editor]

Hi Tony, 16 of 45 of the comments on this thread are from you!

:-)

Don't feel the need to respond to everything!

[Tony Makara]

Editor, I'm anxious to see a Conservative government so I don't want to see a big mistake being made over certain aspects of welfare reform. Nontheless I'll stand back and let others have a go if you feel debate is being monopolized.

[Editor]

Your comments are great Tony but perhaps spread them out a little more. Thanks!

[Jennifer Wells]

Encouraging news. The bolder the better I think. Money saved from the undeserving poor can be given to the deserving poor. Pensioners. The disabled. The genuinely sick.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

Why I beleive the minimum wage should be abolished.

There is a genuinely good intention behind the minimum wage, but the results are bad.
First of all, it is the poor, the unskilled and the young that must take the consequences. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.
So instead of maybe getting a job where he makes £4 per hour, he becomes a benefit recipent.
If a young person is willing to wash cars for £2.50 an hour to gain work experience and self-esteem, is it the right of the Parliament to tell him he can’t do it?

The minimum wage runs contrary to the most basic economic principles of a free society, but it is also patently illogical. If government could raise the real wages of millions of Britons by merely passing a law announcing that fact, then why stop at £5.52 per hour, or £4.65, or even £100 Isn’t £500 per hour more compassionate than £100?
That might sound absurd. But the “logic” is perfectly consistent with the idea of a minimum wage, once you have accepted the premise that political decrees can raise wages.

[Comstock]

You speak your economic theories, Buckinghamshire Tory, from the comfort of the wealthiest county in England.

It may not fit the theories but in the real world , the real minimum wage has improved real peoples lives. In practice it has raised 'the real wages of millions of Britains.' Fact.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

Comstock, is it relevant for the debate that I live in Buckinghamshire?
My belief would probably have been the same if I lived on a council estate in Manchester or Newcastle,

However, could you provide evidence that the minimum wage has improved real peoples lives?

[jonnyboy]

Having seen new deal "in action" for people looking for work we cannot kill it off soon enough.

One aspect that offended me was the quality of "training" offered. The organisations providing the training having been successeful in compatative tender, allegedly a rigorous process. The quality of the programme was apalling and added nothing to employment prospects of the participants.

And this is a programme trumpeted by Brown! On this standard alone we ought to have demolished any claim to competence many years ago.

[Geoff]

A "Fact", Comstock? Really?

BuckinghamshireTory might live in a Labour council area; in which case will be suffering from below-average services and have the benefit of a One-Leg-Gypsy-Outreach -Officer from their local authority. He/she certainly lives in a country which is rapidly becoming an economic basket case because of Blair/Broon.

Many reports and statistics can also be used to show that it has cost jobs, increased working hours for those remaining and then hit company profits. That in turn hits Government tax revenues so they have less to spare for the Trade Union annual grant who will then be stretched to donate taxpayers money straight to the Labour Party.

Joined Up Government. Don't you just love it?

[Joe James Broughton]

I support the Minimum Wage - this is why.

People who are on very low wages were and are having their wages topped up by the tax payer.

- That means the market is being distorted anyway - and more so.
- Employers who pay better wages are being under cut by the tax payer.
- If there is no minimum wage, more top up is provided by the state, encouraging a greater benefits culture and trap.

Therefore, the minimum wage is the best market solution overall, UNLESS people are saying we should abolish the minimum wage AND stop top up benefits.

There is a lot to put right lower taxes at the bottom, and cutting back benefits. But Labour were sensible to bring the minimum wage in at a time when the economy was performing well, and we should keep it.

[Ash Faulkner]

Buckinghamshire Tory, of course the 'logic' is consistent but the reality is not. A relative minimum wage is what is proposed (and practiced), not a universal one. Nobody says 'everyone on earth should earn £5.60 an hour', or for that matter £500. But if the economy is strong enough, I don't think it is necessarily wrong to have a minimum wage. There is a difference between decreeing what wages should be, and decreeing what wages should not fall below.

It is the same as the principle of state funded education or healthcare. Like a minimum wage, they are not 'rights', because rights are universal, applying to all people in all places at all times. It would be ludicrous to suggest that Britons in 10AD had a right to education, because the resources were simply not there. However, once the circumstances allow it, one of the privileges of membership of a particular community (in this case, the British state) could be a wide education. It is a relative privilege, not a universal right.

Your logic is fine, but I think we must be careful about being too doctrinaire about things. My conscience tells me that to allow someone to live on £1 an hour in a society as wealthy as ours is wrong; reality may taper that conscience, but I don't think it should destroy it outright.

[Geoff]

Mr. Broughton, if the market rate for a grape-picker was £1 an hour plus all the grapes they could eat then that is what a true free market should allow a business to offer if they wish. Workers would either take jobs there or not.

If the orchard next door offered £2 an hour but no free apples then people make their choices.

The minimum wage and high benefits are here to stay, though, as it would be political suicide to propose helping save our economy by getting rid of them.

[Yet Another Anon]

Regular medical tests, yes, fair enough
Where someone is claiming a benefit or addition for something of a medical nature.

In addition I think there should be the requirement which seems to have fallen into disuse, that when someone is sick or disabled through their own actions or through failure to comply with prescribed medical treatment in addition to any tests that they may be required to attend that they should be disqualified from receiving any monies based on that condition.

I support the Minimum Wage - this is why.

People who are on very low wages were and are having their wages topped up by the tax payer.
The Minimum Wage and Employment Regulations interfere with the free market.

I would favour moving progressively towards low level universal benefits based on residency qualifications with additions for those over a certain age or who are severely disabled.

I think variable rate costs such as those for Housing, Medical, Childcare and Education costs should be done through low interest loans repayable in a similar way to the Student Loan currently - but with no upper age limit in relation to liability (currently for Student Loan the debt is written off when the person reaches Pension Age).

In the interim abandoning formal Savings\Capital Limits or reductions based on total savings and perhaps instead reducing benefits such as JSA\Income Support for money earned on savings\capital in the same way as is done for Tax Credits.

Definitions of severe disability need to be narrowed and the system for in and out of work claimants brought into line. Reducing the total budget has to be a priority.

Industrial Injuries Benefits should be abolished, if there has been an injury at work - there are benefits as part of the National Insurance Scheme and assistance benefits, for anything else if the employer was liable then they or their insurance should pay - it should not be the state's responsibility to pay in place of employers.

I think it also might be desirable to set caps on the amount of benefits, medical assistance, education assistance that can be incurred by any one person in a year, a lot of grants available for those on particular benefits should be scrapped, if National Insurance money is to go on health it should go on contributors only and not non-contributors.

It should further be a principle of government that redistribution of wealth is not something desirable in itself, the purpose of welfare is to avoid destitution not to narrow income inequalities. Income inequalities are a natural part of any enterprise society and almost inevitable in human society generally - it is impossible to end relative poverty and there is no point trying.

[Yet Another Anon]

You speak your economic theories, Buckinghamshire Tory, from the comfort of the wealthiest county in England.
I know little about Buckinghamshire, but no doubt it has it's run down estates too.

There are plenty of filthy rich parts of Manchester, Liverpool and other cities.

Regarding Cheshire, people talk about Macclesfield as being rich, most have never been to Macclesfield - many think Prestbury or Alderley Edge is Macclesfield which is no more reasonable than thinking Sale or Trafford is Manchester. Macclesfield mostly is quite urban, some heavily industrialised areas, lots of modest terraced housing as well as plusher suburbs, also some quite run down estates - I imagine Aylesbury has rougher bits too where chavs hang about vandalising shops, houses and bus shelters, and shooting up and getting drunk. No doubt there too people get mugged or their houses\cars broken into by criminals and there are people who are seriously in debt, it's easy to generalise. Even Prestbury and Alderley Edge have their poorer bits.

[Joe James Broughton]

I think a couple of these replies have missed the point.
The pure market based solution would be no minimum wage AND fewer top up benefits.
But I don't think we're going to do that.

But to have no minimum wage, but instead have lots of benefits to top it up is crazy - the most distorting of the market.

As for £1 an hour and grapes, well you would be paying these people benefits aswell, therefore the state under-cutting grape pickers on higher wages.

[Yet Another Anon]

The pure market based solution would be no minimum wage AND fewer top up benefits.
A pure market based solution would be no state involvement in the market or people's personal finances, this would involve there being no welfare benefits at all and no regulation - in practice there is always some degree of regulation because a framework for people and organisations to operate inside of has to be in existence or there is chaos, so talking of a pure market based solution probably isn't of much use outside of economics textbooks.

[Geoff]

Mr. Broughton "The pure market based solution would be no minimum wage AND fewer top up benefits. But I don't think we're going to do that.

Spot on with both points combined - you can't have one without the other. Personally I'd like to see it but I also agree it will never happen.

I don't however agree with YAA - why should a purely market-based solution inevitably lead to chaos? Everyone who can work should work and they should give the smallest amount of tax possible to give a safety net to those unable to work due to genuine illness.

Regular health assessments would maintain ongoing entitlements for the needy, but if you are healthy enough to pull on a pair of jeans then get out of bed and pick those grapes.

I don't want to subsidise your laziness.

[Teck]

Well said, Geoff [January 06, 2008 at 01:29], on the issue of laziness.

Some of the trivial and minor conditions that patients go to their GPs for a sick note are an abomination to the gift of life!

GPs are the weakest link in the assessment and certification process.

[Yet Another Anon]

I don't however agree with YAA - why should a purely market-based solution inevitably lead to chaos? Everyone who can work should work and they should give the smallest amount of tax possible to give a safety net to those unable to work due to genuine illness.
I was pointing out that the term "pure market based solution" was not actually being used correctly - if it is pure, then there is no state involvement and hence no tax and no safety net, if there is tax and a safety net then it may be a market based solution, but it could not be a pure one.

[Yet Another Anon]

The proposal to introduce medical tests is something no-one can object to, however I would like to see details of how this will apply to those with Schizophrenia, Bi-Polar etc.
Surely logic would dictate that until someone was prooved to have a condition then they would be assumed not to have it, each time there was a test applied this should be on the basis to determine if there was something wrong with the person assuming that any previous evidence they had the condition was wrong or that even if it had been right that those conditions might have changed since earlier examinations, otherwise it would just be assuming that what that person's GP had said was correct.

There is far too much readiness to diagnose mental illness in people.

[Geoff]

YAA, as you are taking the concept of a "purely market-based solution" to its fundamental roots then of course you are right. No question.

In a completely libertarian world I'd pay no taxes but choose to put my money voluntarily in to cricket and nuclear weapons. Other people might donate money to abortion clinics but not me. Chaos, as you correctly say, would occur.

That's why a free market economy must provide the best solutions but also ensure that a basic safety net exists. I think that we all basically agree but we just differ on how high the safety net is raised.

[Tooty]

I feel a " nast party" tag haunting us yet again.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

Ash Faulkner, the way I see it, the minimum wage laws keep people from working. As mentioned earlier, it is the young and the unskilled that suffers.
People whose work might not be worth £5.60 an hour, but maybe the employer could offer them 4£ per hour.
That would still be better than unemployment and benefits.

[Comstock]

"but maybe the employer could offer them 4£ per hour."

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have our first volunteer! Give him a big hand!!

Off you go then, and offer your services for £4 an hour- I'm sure you'd love it.

What you fail to mention, of course, is that people who are currently getting £5.60 will have their wages cut to £4 an hour, which I'm sure they will be very grateful to you and your purist free market doctrine for!!

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

Comstock, you seem to assume that employers never have any incentive to raise salaries on their own.
That is a very flawed assumption.
If I were an employer and wanted to offer £4 an hour to do some low-skilled job, that should be my right. Just as it should be my right to accept that job (in agreement with the employer), if I wanted to work for £4 an hour.
If you support the idea of economic freedom, it is quite easy.

The minimum wage is a market regulation, not some illusory "free lunch" for low-skilled workers

And since you brought it up, if my options were a £4 an hour job, or unemployment and benefits, I would certainly choose the first.

[Comstock]

Buckinghamshire Tory, your definition of 'freedom' is a very interesting one. Freedom surely implies some sort of choice, does it not?

Now then, suppose the minimum wage is abolished and an employer says to his staff 'I'm cutting your wages to £4 an hour- if you don't like it you are free to leave', where is the choice in that? It isn't even a choice between work and benefits because if you jack a job in you get none for six months- it is a choice between £4 an hour and destitution which is no choice and no freedom whatsoever.

"And since you brought it up, if my options were a £4 an hour job, or unemployment and benefits, I would certainly choose the first."

Well if working for 4 quid a hour is so bleedin' great, why don't you take a minimum wage job and donate the 1.60 an hour extra to Conservative party funds, so that it can be used to campaign for the abolition of the minimum wage?

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

“Now then, suppose the minimum wage is abolished and an employer says to his staff 'I'm cutting your wages to £4 an hour- if you don't like it you are free to leave', where is the choice in that? It isn't even a choice between work and benefits because if you jack a job in you get none for six months- it is a choice between £4 an hour and destitution which is no choice and no freedom whatsoever.”

Then the worker can find work somewhere else or keep working for £4 an hour. It might not be fun, but they will somehow find work, even if it doesn’t pay very well. It isn’t a great situation, but better than the way it works today.
The people in question don’t have a whole lot of options as it is today, but without the minimum wage they would have more freedom.

“Well if working for 4 quid a hour is so bleedin' great, why don't you take a minimum wage job and donate the 1.60 an hour extra to Conservative party funds, so that it can be used to campaign for the abolition of the minimum wage?”

Again Comstock, I don’t see why you have to drag my personal circumstances into the debate.
It is hardly relevant at all.

[Comstock]

You were the one who suggested you would be willing to work for 4 pounds an hour!

I never even mentioned your 'personal circumstances' in my post above. The fact that you feel the need to accuse me of mentioning them when I haven't makes me think you are in fact fairly well off and wish to hide the fact.

Which is fine, but don't sing the praises of the 'freedom' to work for 4 quid an hour.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

Comstock, I think I should clarify my position a bit more. I don't beleive it is great fun to work for £4 an hour, especially for an adult.
I wouldn't want to be in that situation myself.

But for all it's flaws, I think it is the best option. It is better to work for a low wage than to be a benefits recipent. Even a low-wage job can in the long run get you work-experience, and maybe make you more attractive on the market. The only thing benefits will get you is bad self esteem.

[Comstock]

Time to wrap this debate up, I think. In an attempt to finish on some common ground, I might be persauded of the value of suspending the minimum wage (or reducing it to the lower 18-21 rate perhaps) in the case of long term unemployed people for the first 3 months of a job.

Even here though, there would simply be the danger they would be dumped after 3 months and replaced with another low paid person, so it would need reviewing to see if it was really doing any good.

But support scrapping the minimum wage?- no way, no chance.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

Indeed Comstock, I do not think we will be able to agree on this issue.
However, I hardly beleive that the Tory Party will make this an issue for the next General Election. Regardless of what I think, most people would see it as cruel. A way to make life harder for the poor.
That would ruin much of the good work David Cameron have been doing in "decontaminating" the "brand".

[Joe James Broughton]

Much ado about nothing.
If you pay people £1 an hour, you end up with the state and the tax payer intervening anyway, so why not just set a minimum and reduce the benefits.

We need to take more people out of tax at the bottom (Gordon Brown prefers to increase their taxes and give them benefits - the 10p rate is going this April).

If we re-assured people we will keep the minimum wage, took a robust attitude to crime, (particularly drugs and knives), cut income taxes at the bottom, slashed benefits for layabouts who lower the tone of areas, we would win lots of support in poorer areas and estates. It would be a message of hope.

We should sack consultants and diversity officers and IT companies that screw the government for millions, and cut taxes on businesses so more real jobs can fill the hole.

And BTW, we need to provide sports pitches and gyms - people who are motivated by a sport are more positive overall.