Recent Posts
Chef’s Table: Halima Saleem On Nadiya’s British Food AdventureAugust 21 2017 - Read more
G20 in Hamburg: Fears and Fractures After the SummitAugust 13 2017 - Read more
Defending DunkirkAugust 3 2017 - Read more
Portraits and Landscapes in ‘Beyond Moments: Morocco’August 2 2017 - Read more
Poem: Eyes On BlackJuly 29 2017 - Read more
Cameron’s Burdensome Citizens
Posted by: Bipan Lally
Tags: benefits,britain,conservatives,David Cameron,DLA,economics,JSA,labour,NHS,Politics,recession Posted date:
August 5, 2012 |
6 Comments
Share This
The Tory reforms for disability benefits and the Work Experience Scheme have come under fierce criticism. The truth may be that the British public is unwilling to accept the realities of a double-dip recession
We live at a time where people make excuses over smart decisions, point fingers rather than address personal failures, and take the easy route with short term success, ignoring long term implications in the process.
The UK has spent 13 years in a period widely dubbed as the “tax and spend” era pushing the UK economy into a recession. Traditionally, in time of austerity, the UK has turned to the Conservative Party and this time was no different; the Tories duly stepped in to sort things out. Government spending was too high and the debt that was accumulating was unprecedented. We needed a drastic change in policy and an overhaul in the way important changes will be implemented.
Enter David Cameron: a contender with many new ideas that seemed radical and attractive. Saving £1 in every £100 spent by the government seemed quite reasonable until it fell into place. Then Iain Duncan Smith came forth with his proposals. Ouch. In spite of the negativity surrounding these proposals, I believe that this kind of political rethink is precisely what this country needed. However, the overwhelmingly negative public response to the recent Work Experience Scheme left me feeling quite nonplussed.
The Work Experience Scheme was aimed at 16-24 year olds who were unemployed and were seeking Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) for at least three months. It required candidates to work 30 hours a week for a duration of two to eight weeks while they were on the JSA. If they chose to drop out within the first week they were likely to have their JSA cut for up to two weeks – something I thought was quite fair. The companies opting in to the scheme were mainly related to the service industry, such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Burger King. The idea, primarily, was to bring these people into the working world, to give them a chance to gain responsibility, experience and training, and to provide an advantage when job seeking.
By November 2011, of the 39,000 unemployed who had signed up to the scheme half of them were off JSA within four weeks. Maybe it wasn’t the scheme – maybe it was the sheer fear of having to do the scheme again that drove these people to find jobs in the end; who knows? Bottom line, it seemed to have worked. Surely, and correct me if I’m wrong, a job seeker is one who is seeking a job by any reasonable means possible? Many of my peers are in their current jobs today because they spent many years interning while studying or working full time in another job. From careers in marketing, banking, law, fashion and arts, people who interned were able to “build-up” their resume. I am not, by any means, saying this Scheme was perfect – clearly there are grey areas for exploitation, which would be the same for any scheme – but shutting the Scheme down entirely was not the answer. If a citizen can’t spend one full week in a work experience scheme then we, as a country, have a questionable future before us. It seems as though the “tax and spend” era has made our youth, and our older citizens too cushy, unwilling to do what is needed to ensure an economic recovery. It raises concerns over whether the people of Britain really comprehend the depth of the current recession.
The recent cut in Disability Living Allowance (DLA) has been another controversial topic. Iain Duncan Smith has stated that the current system, which features 70 per cent of claimants on ‘life-time awards’ – those who are assessed once and then given the allowance for life, such as those who may have lost limbs but have since had prosthetic limbs fitted – will be reassessed to establish whether care is required. As Iain Duncan Smith puts it: “Do you need care, do you need support to get around? Those are the two things that are measured. Not, have you lost a limb?” This clarifies the name of the benefit: disability. If a claimant isn’t classified as unable anymore, he or she will be cut from the DLA and expected to get into employment. The number of new people claiming for DLA has risen far above the indication of new health problems that DLA is based on. With these vital measures not adding up, where are all these claims coming from? This shows the wider public that something is going terribly wrong with the DLA system.
The media allow key facts like these to go almost unmentioned and focus mainly on the “millions will be left stranded” banner. Not quite accurate. How just and fair can a system be that currently sees drug addicts and alcoholics getting more financial support than those who are completely blind? Yes, everyone in these groups needs assistance but some cases just seem far too unreasonable. Many people currently on DLA have never had a medical assessment or haven’t had one in 20 years. It is the same as the banks handing out credit without checking your financial ability. We all know where that kind of attitude got us. While the coalition usually disagrees with some of the more radical reforms, such as the recent proposals to scrap GCSEs by the Conservatives, this is one policy they both agree on.
David Cameron and his merry band of Tories aren’t perfect and they have many flawed policies in other areas. For instance, cutting the NHS budget is leading to a reality where blanket cuts aren’t benefitting any more people than they are hurting. I would rather have well-paid medical staff who are satisfied with their jobs treat me, than an unhappy, underpaid and over-worked team.
Many reforms need to happen, but will these changes to the work experience schemes and tightening of disability schemes really work out in the long run? We lived comfortably under labour, during the “tax and spend” era, but the Tories are facing the tough issues that others won’t. Whether or not these policies work depends now on whether the public can accept that we are living in times of austerity and that compromises will have to be made to ensure that the UK can ensure an economic recovery. Time will tell.
Image from: http://shepherdsbush.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/candidates-argue-about-debates/
About the author
Bipan Lally
Bipan Lally is currently studying for her MA in Education at the University of California Davis. Her area of focus is schools with fewer ethnic minorities and low science results.
Bipan Lally is currently studying for her MA in Education at the University of California Davis. Her area of focus is schools with fewer ethnic minorities and low science results.
6 Comments
Roger
It would be more convincing if the author checked her facts before writing. DLA is not an out of work benefit. It is there to cover the costs assciated with disability, including the extra costs involved in getting to work.
The last time it was argued that work makes you free was a long time ago and the slogan was so successful it appeared over the entrance to one of the work camps as “Arbeit Macht Frei” – probably not a precedent even this lady would wish to see implemented again.
Alison
You have mixed up Disability Living Allowance with Employment and Support Allowance- the former is for disabled people whether they work or not, the latter is for those unable to work. It might be Ok if the tests for both were actually medical tests or at least took a medical condition into account, or we’re properly functional taking all aspects of living with a disability into the picture. Instead they are little to do with actually carrying out work or surviving from day to day (the new PIP test may be nearer). There is nothing wrong with assessments but they mustbe fit for purpose!
Bipan (Author)
Thank you for your comments, I appreciate this is a sensitive subject. In response to you;
Brian – I agree with you. For the Conservatives it does sometimes feel as if though they aren’t as sincere in their policies as the policy should be conveyed. Having said that, I do believe the policies discussed in this article are much needed.
Roger – perhaps I should have clarified better – as mentioned in the links posted in the article, the overhaul in the DLA is based on those people who are not working either at all or to their fullest ability i.e., working part time over full time, as well as those who are in employment. I should have mentioned that the reassessment is for everybody on DLA. If you are not classified as being unable anymore, the DLA will be removed.
Alison – I have simply gone on facts which have been extracted from news articles, quotes and figures linked into the article above. You’re absolutely right – there is a big difference in the two but IDS has mentioned DLA more strongly which is the reason of focus. Perhaps somebody should let IDS know the difference…
Clive
“The recent cut in Disability Living Allowance (DLA) has been another controversial topic. Iain Duncan Smith has stated that the current system, which features 70 per cent of claimants on ‘life-time awards’ – those who are assessed once and then given the allowance for life”
Which shows that Iain Duncan Smith is an unmitigated liar. There are no ‘life-time’ awards in DLA. There are ‘indefinite awards of DLA which can be subject to reviews.
“The number of new people claiming for DLA has risen far above the indication of new health problems that DLA is based on”
Absolute rubbish, the rise was expected and planned for when DLA was first introduced. There isn’t- for example, a comparison of numbers of people on Attendance Allowance falling because those who received DLA before 65 (retirement age) are allowed to stay on DLA unlike those who become disabled after the age of 65 and can claim AA.
Sorry but this defence of a vile and vicious government is sickening. The ConDems are making the poorest and most vulnerable pay for the crisis that was caused by the rich and wealthy.
Oh, and if someone works 30 hours a week then they deserve a wage.
Jason
It appears that Roger’s post was made with the intention of provoking a highly emotional and negative response to Ms. Lally’s interesting and thoughtful post. Roger is of course entitled to his opinion, sensibly expressed, but he should choose his metaphors with much greater care.
The sign “Arbeit Macht Frei” was first used in the Solovetsky Camps of Special Assignment – known by the Russian acronym “SLON”. The first such camp was established in February 1920 in the prison of a monastery in northern Russian which was first erected and used by Ivan the Terrible to imprison anti-Soviet Russian officers and men. Records confirm that the first 45 prisoners to read the “Arbeit Macht Frei” sign lasted just 11 days and suffered the most unspeakable acts of torture and violence. There was no food or water except for the wild dogs unleashed on the prisoners when their starvation began to manifest itself in violent convulsions.
The display of “Arbeit Macht Frei” signs at Auschwitz of course continued this terrible legacy.
Roger’s attempt to invoke the horror of death, despair, starvation and torture through his reference to the sickening signs cast above the iron gates of concentration camps at Auschwitz and elsewhere during the second world war is completely inappropriate in the context of Ms. Lally’s considered contribution to the debate about the need for reform of disability living allowance in the United Kingdom and the actions of Cameron and IDS.
The United Kingdom actually has an impressive track record of supporting disabled people and creating work oppportunities for them. This is something I personally applaud. I have been privileged to work alongside a number of disabled people over the years and I have seen how their initial retisence and fear can be quickly replaced with confidence and fulfilment. I have seen how initial workplace prejudice and uncertainty can quickly be replaced with acceptance and friednship.
I have seen disabled colleagues flourish in the workplace; gain qualifications and expertise, become valued and equal members of a team and make extraordinary contributions. I have also seen how work helps disabled people to gain personal confidence and broaden their friendship circles.
Personally, I do not want to see a single disabled person loose the safety net of social welfare, if they are unable to work, but for those who can work, I see huge benefit in investing to create the conditions for that to happen; not for government but for disabled people themselves.
So, back to historical metaphors. Let me offer one to Roger.
It was a Conservative led coalition government in 1944 which introduced the first comprehensive framework for the employment of disabled people through the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. The 1944 Act made provision for the setting-up of a disabled persons employment register, the assessment of disabled persons needs, rehabilitation and training facilities and a specialised employment placement service. In fact, it went further and placed a duty on employers of 20 or more workers to employ a three per cent quota of registered disabled people. In addition to designated employment, it provided protection against unfair dismissal of registered disabled people.
This is what a Conservative led coalition government was doing right around the time when Churchill’s soldiers were tearing down the “Arbeit Macht Frei” gates at Auschwitz.
I hope that Cameron and IDS will show compassion and balance as they work through these critical issues and that Roger will think more carefully before brandishing around historical metaphors.
Jason
That sounds almost convincing were it not the aura of smug satisfaction, tinted with malice that surrounds IDS and the Posh Boys…
This is class spite masquerading as policy..
Nothing more.