The Unemployment Business

The latest edition of Corporate Watch

It has almost become a self-evident truth that unemployment has been growing progressively over the last two decades, both in scale and in its significance for social and economic policy. How and why are often ignored but a vast industry to ‘manage’ this ‘crisis’ has developed. From flourishing private companies, such as A4e, contracted by the Department for Work and Pensions to deliver what Jobcentre Plus has apparently failed to achieve, through tens of subcontracted employment services providers, to a growing sector of so-called voluntary organisations that depend on this reserve army of unemployed people to source their ‘slave’ workforce. This double issue of the Corporate Watch Newsletter takes a look at this relatively new ‘unemployment business’; its protagonists, ideological, political and economic premises and how it is being utilised by the New Labour government to dismantle what’s left of the welfare state.

The ‘unemployment crisis’ has certainly been exacerbated by the recent economic downturn, with many employers going bust, but that’s not the whole story. Many big businesses have also exploited the current climate to push for compulsory redundancies. More importantly, the recession and the rising number of jobless people have been skilfully employed by politicians and government officials. By introducing new schemes and increasingly coercive measures to ‘help’ the unemployed get back into the job market, they have put yet another nail in the welfare state’s coffin.

The first article, The Welfare Crisis, discusses these deployments in more detail, providing some historical background on New Labour’s welfare reforms. Two other articles take an in-depth look at the New Deal programmes, both old and new, which have been at the core of these reforms, providing some new details and figures about the winners and losers, or the private contractors and their victims. The voluntarism business is discussed in depth in a separate article, again with some interesting details and figures. These are complemented by a shorter article on prison slave labour, which bears striking similarities to the increasingly coercive benefits and employment system, both in how it is working out and in the reasoning behind it.

Readers may notice, or be annoyed by, the rather excessive use of inverted commas in most of the articles. This is because one of the aims of this issue is not only to demystify the business jargon used to talk about employment and benefits, but also to pause and question the official terms and euphemisms that have come to be used by almost everyone without much questioning. To that end, we have included a list of the most common words and terms in this ‘benefits newspeak’, along with their real meanings.

Our other aim of this issue is to highlight how the reformed welfare system is being used by the state and the market for social control. During interviews conducted for the purpose of producing this newsletter, one of the “Jobcentre victims,” as he described himself, commented: “If they gave the money they spend on finding work for people to those people [on the dole], there wouldn’t be a crisis, would there?” No, there probably wouldn’t but, of course, it’s not only about money. Keeping people busy with work or looking for work also serves another political agenda: preventing time for politics, uninstitutionalised creativity and other ‘dangerous’ activities.

With all the talk about ‘flexibility’, people nowadays appear to have less freedom to choose what they really want to do, particularly those with less marketable skills. Forcing people to do whatever is available on the job market to survive means subjecting them to ruthless market mechanisms (everyone seems to accept terms like the ‘labour market’ as normal!). We have included an article about the rather small-scale acts of resistance by the unemployed and benefit claimants, but we are aware that much more could, and should, be done. We hope this issue is a useful contribution to this growing movement.

The rest of the magazine can be found online here and a full PDF here

Tories Harsh Crackdown on Benefits

Welcome to Reality Check. Today I’m taking a close look at the Conservative pledge to cut billions from the welfare bill.

Tory 3-strikes Policy
First-time offenders would lose benefits for three months
Second-time offenders would lose benefits for six months
Third-time offenders would lose benefits for up to three years

The party says that benefit fraud and error has cost £80 every second under Labour.

Their answer is what they call a “crackdown” on cheats. Anyone who is cautioned or convicted of benefit fraud three times will have their payments stopped for up to three years.

So how much will their “three strikes and you’re out” policy actually save?

We asked the Conservatives and they said “We can’t say”, so I have attempted to do the sums instead.

How many people have been convicted of benefit fraud three times? The Department for Work and Pensions tells me the answer is… zero. No-one. Ever.

How many have had their benefits stopped after two convictions? Last year the figure was 69 people.

Stopping their benefits for twice as long, as the Tories propose, would save roughly £100,000 a year or less than one penny a second. Thus reducing the cost from £80 a second to £79.99.

Even if we include those people cautioned as well as convicted, it is clear that this proposal is not going to save much money.

Theresa May was asked if she knew there was no record of anyone being convicted three times for such an offence

The shadow work and pensions secretary, Theresa May, was asked by Reality Check if she knew there was no record of anyone being convicted three times for benefit fraud.

She declined to give a direct answer, but said the policy was intended to send out a clear message to benefit fraudsters.

More savings

The Conservatives’ bigger promises on welfare rely on saving £600m within three years. Not by targeting cheats, but getting people off Incapacity Benefit (IB).

Basically, the Tories argue that one in five of the 2.6 million people currently on IB is fit for work. That’s just over half-a-million claimants.

They would be moved onto Jobseekers Allowance which gives them about £1,300 a year less.

The government is already planning to do the same thing and last month calculated moving people off IB would save £300m a year over the next five years.

The Conservatives’ figures suggest a saving of £200m a year – significantly less than Labour.

But there’s a problem with both figures.

They are based on an assumption that significant numbers can be moved off IB. But no-one knows if that is right because it’s not been tried.

We do know that with new claimants, a quarter of those told they were fit to work appealed against the decision, and of those, more than a third had their appeal upheld.

Neil Coyle of the Disability Alliance prefers to get benefits right the first time

And Neil Coyle, of the Disability Alliance, believes the policy would hit the vulnerable. He prefers to get benefits right first time

Both Labour and the Conservatives believe that getting tough with benefit claimants goes down well with voters.

But if the consequence of reform is thousands of vulnerable individuals with long-term health conditions being treated unfairly, it’s a policy with built-in dangers.

Taken from BBC News

Response suggests many people wrongly judged fit to work

There have been a great many interesting responses to the Citizens Advice report – published last week that detailed “grave concerns” over the number of sick and disabled people being judged fit for work by the new Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) testing system.

The report found that terminally-ill patients, people with advanced Parkinson’s Disease or Multiple Sclerosis, with severe mental illness, or awaiting open heart surgery have been registered as fit to work.

The Citizens Advice report was inspired by the high number of people consulting their local bureaux in the wake of being wrongly, they believed, registered as capable of returning to work. Their concerns seemed to chime with those of a number of Society Guardian readers, several of whom wrote in detailing their own experiences of being assessed and found fit, when they felt they were not able to work.

One reader described the fitness test as “the most prejudicial, unfair and downright negligent piece of so called medical practice he had ever witnessed”. He wrote:

“I can barely walk and am about to have a second ankle fusion surgery. I can’t stand or walk for long without intense pain and despite my medical records was given a score of 0 out of 15 for my ankle problem, 0 being completely fine. This was a shock considering I’m about to have a major surgery including bone grafts for which I am in plaster for 6 months. My GP and surgeon can’t believe it.”

One reader wrote of a friend who had her benefit cut off because she missed her assessment appointment, because she was in hospital bed having chemotherapy for stomach cancer; she was penalised for missing the appointment by having her benefits stopped. Another said the assessment process was like being “interviewed by a computer”.

Describing the difficulties his mother has had with the system, another reader wrote:

“She was recovering from one complete knee replacement operation and due to undergo the second in a matter of weeks. A blind man on a galloping horse could tell that she was not fit to work but sure enough the result of the consultation was that she should be taken off benefit.”

He went on to highlight a concern that many readers touched on:

“One of the problems is that the benefits agency doesn’t conduct these examinations, they are outsourced to a private third party who I suspect have a mandate to remove as many people from the system as possible and have a target to achieve.”

Later, a healthcare professional working for the private healthcare company which carries out these assessments, wrote in indicating that there was a target that the inspection team were expected to meet. Under the username rightthewrong, he wrote:

“I probably am going to get fired tommorrow for coming on this forum, but I don’t care. I have been doing these “assessments” for some time now. It’ s rubbish, draconian to say the least and it is designed to get people off the sick benefit. It is designed so that 75% of the people who apply for ESA, come hell or high water, ‘fail’ it.”

Taken from guardian.co.uk

New benefit test will fail to spot illness and disability

People with mental health problems who are frequently unable to complete more than two tasks in a row could be assessed as fit for work, under new revisions to the sickness benefit test outlined by the government last night.

Mind already has grave concerns that the Work Capability Assessment, the current test for sickness benefit Employment and Support Allowance, is not sophisticated enough to accurately measure when someone’s mental health affects their ability to work. However, in a radical tightening of the criteria, revisions to the test proposed today will simplify the test further by slashing the sections relevant to mental health in half, prompting fears that tens of thousands of people with serious mental health issues could be stripped of their benefits and forced to look for work they are unable to do.

Mind’s Chief Executive Paul Farmer said:

“Most people with mental health problems want to work, but need time and support to be able to do so. However we have seen some truly shocking examples of people who cannot be reasonably expected to enter any workplace being assessed as fit for work, including one person who was sent an assessment form while in psychiatric hospital, and another who cannot manage even simple tasks including getting up in the morning without one to one support.

It is clear that the current assessments are failing to pick up on people with major barriers to work, yet the government has responded by simplifying the tests even further, radically reducing the likelihood of spotting serious and enduring mental health problems. People who really cannot work because of serious illnesses who are found fit for work will have their benefits taken away and will be forced to look for work, some without hope of an employer ever taking them on.

Tightening the test may be a move to reduce the sickness benefits bill, but the knock on effects will be felt further down the line. The legacy of these errors would be another generation of people parked on a different benefit, unable to find a job and having to live on reduced incomes, in poverty.

The government proposals are hard on the heals of a Citizen’s Advice Bureau report released just last week finding widespread failings in the whole assessment system, ranging from problems with the test, problems with the guidelines for those carrying out the test, and problems with their knowledge about mental health and disability”.

Examples

Jenny* has worked in the past but when she developed depression and anxiety she applied for Employment and Support Allowance. Despite two GPs, a psychiatrist and a senior nurse stating that she is not able to work or seek work, a 54 minute assessment and report written in the remaining 6 minutes disagreed and she was refused. The report included comments that she ‘did not appear to be trembling…sweating…or make rocking movements”. Jenny feels that her condition has been made light of and the refusal of ESA has caused her very significant distress which is severely impeding her recovery.

Michelle* has a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, severe anxiety and depression. She has very poor short-term memory, relying on a task list to get through daily routines, and avoids social contact and going to new places due to severe anxiety and panic attacks when she is particularly unwell. Michelle had to fight on appeal to qualify for Employment Support Allowance, but under new proposals, would likely be assessed as fit to work.

* names changed

Taken from MIND

Work for Your Benefit is Slavery

We recently reported that Work for Your Benefit providers can sell workfare participants to businesses. This post is focused more on the amounts of money the working “slaves” will receive and the providers income; another post will be for the mistreatment and other concerns.

We are using the figures mentioned in Jobseekers Allowance isn’t enough!

Whether or not longterm unemployed people should have to commit forced labour as a condition of claiming benefit is an ongoing debate, however, the higher tier Jobseekers Allowance divided by National Minimum Wage works out at roughly 11 hours.

If jobseekers are to do forced labour to receive benefit then they should do a maximum of 11 hours of work per week. Of course, the entire workfare scheme needs to be scrapped.

Is it slavery?

There are worse forms of slavery but this significantly meets the definition criteria.

Everyone has a right to social security – and such payments are designed so low to discourage those who dont want to work. Being completely honest… if I was getting £160 per week in benefits, and I had to work 30 hours or so more to get that after deductions… its not about being lazy but there wouldn’t be any point in working. The country would also be bankrupt as everyone would exploit it.

Therefore if Jobseekers Allowance is below the “poverty line” that is fine. As soon as you start working for your benefits you are a worker (even if you aren’t employed by the person you work for and exempt from National Minimum Wage under such terminology).. being paid below a “minimum level” (subsistence) becomes an issue.

There are two different amounts for a minimum level…. the “poverty line” (lowest at £112) and Minimum Income Standard (highest at £145 – same as the 18-21 NMW rate for 30 hours). Which ever figure you use, the Training Allowance is much less than the “poverty line” and considerably less than the National Minimum Wage designed to protect people from working for unfair wages.

Taken from Flexible New Deal

Seriously ill ‘forced back to work’

Seriously ill and disabled people are being pushed into finding work without any help or support, a charity has warned.

Citizens Advice said it had “grave concerns” about how sick and disabled people are being assessed for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).

The allowance was introduced in October 2008 to replace incapacity benefit for new claimants, and to give more support to people who may be able to return to work.

But the charity said that since the allowance was introduced, its advisers across England and Wales had been reporting high numbers of seriously ill and disabled people who were being found “fit to work” under the new work capability assessment.

People who were found to be fit to work included those with advanced stages of Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, as well as people with severe mental illness, and some who were dealing with acute short-term health problems, such as waiting for open heart surgery. Overall, 69% of people who were assessed for the allowance were refused it.

In its report, which is supported by 18 other organisations, including Macmillan Cancer Support and the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the group warned that the medical test people undergo to assess their fitness to work does not account for the complexities of many illnesses and disabilities.

It said it was also hearing numerous reports of hurried medicals, where vital details were missed and unjustifiable assumptions were made. It added that the assessments did not place enough emphasis on the impact of mental health issues on people’s ability to work.

The charity said that failing the assessment could have an enormously detrimental effect on people. It said people who failed were told they must find work, and they could also be put on jobseeker’s allowance, which it said was a less supportive benefit, while in some cases they may receive no benefits at all.

Citizens Advice also warned that the stress of the test and the prospect of having to fight unfavourable decisions at a tribunal put considerable pressure on people, and risked making it harder for them to return to work.

David Harker, chief executive at Citizens Advice, said: “The current test to determine eligibility for ESA isn’t working. We are seeing cases where the Government’s aim of moving people into work is being totally undermined. Seriously ill and disabled people are being severely let down by the crude approach of the work capability assessment.”

Taken from Yahoo! News UK

DWP report finds doubts about work capability assessments among welfare-to-work staff

Jobcentre Plus staff feel many people who pass work capability assessments are not fit for work, according to a study by the Department of Work and Pensions published yesterday.

They believed this was especially damaging for clients with mental health problems and exacerbated their symptoms.

Work capability assessments decide whether people are eligible for one of the two levels of employment support allowance (ESA) or jobseeker’s allowance, which is worth £25 less than the lower level of ESA.

ESA replaced incapacity benefit in October 2008 for new claimants, with the work capability assessment introduced at the same time, and early evidence has shown that more people have been deemed fit to work under the new regime.

Neil Coyle, director of policy at the Disability Alliance, said he sympathised with jobcentre staff’s frustration. In his experience, many were unable to deliver support they felt clients needed because the assessment made them ineligible for ESA.

The study also confirmed a large backlog of appeals against work capability assessment decisions.

Coyle said the backlog was likely to get worse because the government intends to push all remaining incapacity benefit claimants through work capability assessments. “It’s worrying, not least for those of us who foot the bill because appeals are very expensive,” Coyle said.

The study, based on in-depth interviews with more than 70 staff and customers, found considerable delays in having a work capability assessment and this limited the scope of work-focused interviews. These take place between nine and 13 weeks after a client has made an ESA claim and are aimed at supporting claimants into work.

Some people had received no assessment by the time of their third interview.

Benefit delivery centre staff, who process claims, reported that there was an incentive in the system for appeals because it allowed claimants to continue claiming ESA, as opposed to jobseeker’s allowance, until the appeal was heard. Several staff were acutely concerned about the extra costs this entailed.

Minister for disabled people Jonathan Shaw said: “This research was carried out some time ago soon after the benefit was introduced and we have made considerable improvements since then. We continue to see where improvements and changes are needed to ensure that ESA is working as it should be.”

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said the work capability assessment was currently being reviewed to ensure that it was accurately identifying people for the most appropriate benefit and work was underway to streamline the appeals process.

Taken from CommunityCare

Disability tests in need of overhaul

The Work Capability Assessment (WCA), which came into operation nearly a year and half ago, is the test that is meant to determine whether people are eligible to receive the new employment and support allowance, which offers support for disabled people and people with long-term conditions to get in to work. But as more figures become available showing just how tough this new test is, and as more claimants report bad experiences, have we reached the point where we need to ask whether the test itself is actually fit for work?

The early indications for the test were not positive. While to its credit, the Department for Work and Pensions did engage a large number of disability organisations in the design process, many of the organisations (including Leonard Cheshire Disability) felt that their concerns were not always listened to, and that changes were being made without enough real evidence. It was clear from the outset that the new test was being made tougher, even though the old test had been described by a former secretary of state as “the most stringent” in the world. The result, of course, is that there are far fewer people being assessed as needing additional support to get back to work, and fewer people receiving the additional financial support that the employment and support allowance can provide.

The government contracts out the responsibility for carrying out these tests to a company called Atos, which in turns employ “health professionals” to conduct the assessments. But there have been serious concerns both about whether the people conducting the tests have sufficient expertise to fully understand the huge range of different impairments that they might encounter, and whether the test itself is appropriately constructed. Already research has highlighted problems: the National Autistic Society found that the system was not always working for people with autism; Citizens Advice Scotland reported that the system was causing disabled people “unnecessary financial distress and emotional strain”; Macmillan and Citizens Advice reported that some people with terminal cancer were not being fast-tracked through the system.

Those who feel that they have not been properly assessed can complain directly to Atos. But very often a poor assessment will lead to an appeal, a tribunal and delays, as well as extra expense to both the individual and the taxpayer. Most importantly, of course, every time the test doesn’t work appropriately it can mean someone missing out on the support that they need to find work, and the financial support that they need because of their impairment.

Given all the concerns with the system it might seem positive that a review of the WCA has been ongoing for some months. But sadly the review was not set up in response to the serious difficulties that some disabled people were experiencing with the system. It was set up to make changes to the assessment that the government estimates will mean 10% fewer people again receiving the employment and support allowance.

Benefits should not be about targets but about ensuring the right support is delivered to those who need it. If disabled people can be supported into work then there will be a direct benefit for them, and also for the taxpayer. But if people are forced off the benefits designed to support them and into appeals by an unfair system, then that could lead to wasted opportunities, and even poverty. While the employment rate for disabled people is just below 50%, an overwhelming number do want to work. The employment and support allowance should be seen as the opportunity to deliver the support that many disabled people need to move into employment.

It is not too late to widen the current review of the WCA so that it really examines what needs to happen to make sure that the benefits system meets the needs of disabled people. An assessment that just gets tighter and tighter, restricting support for more and more people, will simply not be fit for purpose.

Taken from guardian.co.uk

Disability: A Claimant’s View

According to a recent OECD report, the UK already has one of the most stringent tests for assessing disability in the world. However, that has not stopped Labour introducing the ‘Employment and Support Allowance’, yet another ‘get-tough’ initiative aimed at reducing the 2.6 million claimants currently receiving Incapacity Benefit (IB). Labour have blamed the Tories for this state of affairs, but have achieved little themselves – apart from enraging the disability lobby.

I first got into trouble with my back in 1993, through working in libraries with work stations poorly adapted for computer use. My GP prescribed anti-inflammatory tablets and advised me to carry on working – advice which was subsequently reversed. Then I tried physiotherapy, which made the pain worse, and acupuncture, which achieved little. I had x-ray, MRI and ultrasound scans, all of which showed no problem, but by now rest days were used merely to recover and get my pain down to tolerable levels. The best advice, which did bear some fruit when followed, came from the GP’s receptionist(!), when she told me sotto voce, “Alan you will get no further with the NHS, you need to see an osteopath”. We are now well into 1994.

I worked spasmodically until 1996, then gave up. I still, 13 years later, have pain every day, which gets worse through repeated stooping, sitting on firm chairs, lifting heavy shopping, or even key-boarding for more than, say, 15 minutes. I thought them weird, but it soon became clear that symptoms like mine are not uncommon. Besides my GP, I also saw two Benefit Agency Doctors, and had no trouble claiming long-term benefits. In 1996 Invalidity Benefit, as it was then called, paid just over £100 per week – not bad – until Major’s government slashed it to just over £60 per week, made it taxable and renamed it Incapacity Benefit. When Labour took over in 1997, there was talk of reducing IB to the level of Job Seekers Allowance (JSA), but instead dramatically raised Council Tax, which effectively cut all benefits and pushed claimants towards means-testing. I received a flyer inviting me to a ‘work-focused interview’, but ignored it since there was no mention of a medical input. Nothing has changed, but Labour’s propaganda, coupled with my inability to prove that I have real physical problems, makes me feel vulnerable.

Things didn’t turn really nasty until 2007, when I was sent a hefty form to fill out. Ominously the word ‘pain’ did not appear on it – until added by me on each page. Another ‘medical’ followed, but this time, while I answered his questions, the doctor was typing away on a lap-top. As became clear later, he was trying to put together a case against my claim. I was shocked when told in a letter that I had scored only two points, my benefit was stopped and my P45 enclosed. The offer of a loan followed soon after, an offer I was fortunately able to ignore.

Having decided to appeal against the decision, my GP provided me with a support­ing letter. When it came, the appeal was heard by an independent doctor and a lawyer, and took about 40 minutes. I had two witnesses; no one appeared for the DWP, but this, it seems, is normal. The verdict, in my favour, came in writing for me to take away: amazing! The DWP’s miserly two points had been increased to 10. I got back all of the benefit which had been stopped, but the whole process took six months, and had done my developing anxiety and depression no good at all.

I had been encouraged to appeal by an ex-DWP employee, who told me that most of the DWP’s doctors would never make it in a hospital or general practice.

Six months passed when I was dismayed to receive yet another form, with another follow-on medical, but this time there was no lap-top and no further trouble. But, I was now quite paranoid about receiving any more brown A5 envelopes from Belfast. This is the reality of ‘welfare reform’.

A. Claimant

Taken from Freedom

Work For Benefit: The New Helots

Welfare reform legislation is due to be one of this Government’s enduring legacies. From this autumn there will be two benefits: Jobseeker’s Allowance, and Employment and Support Allowance. Already there is pressure on medical assessors to channel those on Incapacity Benefit into the former, where many lone parents and others will also eventually join them. JSA brings a lower income – down to the standard rate of £64.30 a week, in contrast to £89.80, the starting point of incapacity allowance – and, after six months, puts claimants on the Flexible New Deal. This, being tried out in large parts of the country, will eventually replace all existing welfare-to-work schemes. For a year the jobless will be farmed out to private companies, intensively advised and obliged to carry out a minimum of four weeks of “work related activity” (they may be “advised” to do much more).

This sounds relatively benign. It replaces 13 weeks in “work placements” of dubious value or simply stuck in “training centres” (where the only “training” is sitting in front of computers “job searching” for work that does not exist) of the previous New Deal. However, the Government has learned nothing from its experience of farming out the New Deal to private companies, two of which at least have been accused of malpractice. The faith-led YMCA has also run schemes. Most have scraped through their contracts with low employment outcomes and feeble training standards. The approximately 600,000 claimants who have faced sanctions for not complying with every aspect of the schemes shows how they are used to punish people. If participants were in charge of inspections, the companies would fail in an instant – yet the DWP has been told to contract out its new scheme to the same bodies.

The new regime will closely regulate people’s lives. Partners of JSA claimants will also have to seek work actively. Those dependent on drugs and alcohol will undergo compulsory rehabilitation. There is no clear notion of what will happen if they fail, other than they will have no benefits.

Most worryingly, after two years unemployment people will be forced onto the Work for Benefits programme. This will involve full time activity in “training options, short term work trials, a remuneration subsidy for employers to take them, or voluntary work in the local community,” (DWP October 2009). With unemployment set to rise to 3 million by October next year, when this policy is enforced, they will have plenty of compelled “volunteers”.

Some argue that since JSA is supplemented by housing and council tax benefit, it is “fair” to work for this money. However, those further benefits are paid at varying rates, making the overall pay rates different between individuals – and still leaving them well below the minimum wage.

This all raises fundamental issues. First, why should those who through no fault of their own have no job be forced to do what has up to now been the task of those sentenced to do community service by the courts? Indeed, what will happen to community service orders when the long-term unemployed start to undertake similar “sentences”?

Second, this will corrupt the voluntary sector, parts of which are already gearing up for it. The character of the voluntary sector will change. The nature of forced labour is to give power to the employer while discouraging the worker, making them dependent on the goodwill of the employer. The rights of volunteers are not the same as those on paid contracts. Groups and no doubt individuals will profit financially.

Third, it doesn’t take a genius to realise that cash-strapped local government will see this as an opportunity to plug gaps in their services. A tied labourer is cheaper than a paid employee. In areas as disparate as home helps to environmental projects volunteering could become a new national service, replacing those working for real salaries.

Those opposed to welfare reform have to date had little impact on Brown’s take it or leave it decision that this is the direction welfare will go in. The umbrella initiatives organised by the TUC have petered out in well-meaning but ineffective lobbying by a coalition of “antipoverty” NGOs with some union support. There are now signs of a more militant approach emerging from unions of the unemployed and other groups. There are web sites promoting opposition and plans for a decent benefit system that could really cope with people’s needs. As mass unemployment returns pressure for change will increase.

Labour looks set to leave behind a new class of helots – the work-for-the dole underclass. An incoming Conservative Administration will have plenty of conscripts for its plans for workfare. Both ideas were pioneered by the same person – once adviser to Labour and now the Tories, the exceedingly wealthy Lord Freud.

Andrew Coates

Taken from Ipswhich Unemployed Action