Dear James Purnell,
It was very instructive to read your plans to make benefit claimants pick up litter and clean graffiti. In principle, I’m happy to admit that it makes sense for people to engage in meaningful activities should they be unable to find work. People often forget that the benefits of work go way beyond merely earning money in terms of routine, purpose, psychological needs etc, which means that your plans are a welcome step forward. Well, I say your plans, but we both know that’s not technically true.
Under your plans, benefit claimants will have to do four weeks’ community work if they have been unemployed for more than a year, and after two years they will have to work full-time. You described the move as “revolutionary” and said that it will “transform lives”. Perhaps it will, but that’s probably why the Conservatives put forward these proposals in January of this year. In case you’ve forgotten this, hop onto the BBC website today and click on the story relating to your proposals (or just click on the thumbnail below).
You will see that on the right hand side of the screen, there is a link to a story relating to Conservative plans for reforming benefits from January 2008, and the opening section is as follows:
“The long term unemployed would be forced to work for their benefits under plans outlined by the Conservatives. People claiming Jobseekers’ Allowance for more than two years would have to do 12 months community work. Tory leader David Cameron said he wanted to help people into work and end the “something for nothing culture”. PM Gordon Brown said the government was already getting tough with the long-term jobless and the Tory plans were out of date and would not work.”
So, to recap, you have not only stolen Conservative plans for welfare reform - you have stolen Conservative plans for welfare reform that the Prime Minister himself said would not work and were out of date. Yet again, the Labour government have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they have run out of ideas while happily and shamelessly lifting other party’s policies and claiming them as their own. Honesty and integrity are a myth within the Labour Party and I am truly ashamed to have such a bunch of deceitful and incompetent morons running this country.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
24 responses so far ↓
asquith // July 21, 2008 at 8:41 am
He should encourage people to do voluntary work, by raising the payments of anyone doing such work on a valid basis (if they can prove it, and the organisation they work for can vouch for it).
A potential problem is that it would tie voluntary organisations to the state. But it would save a lot of money and eventually cut the welfare rolls as people got jobs, rather than basically wasting time on make-work.
asquith // July 21, 2008 at 8:43 am
You may call it bureaucratic, but it would save on admin costs. We are all aware of the barriers to work facing the long-term unemployed, such as lack of skills and self-esteem and its counterpart, the reluctance of employers to take them on.
Blue Eyes // July 21, 2008 at 9:02 am
The basic premise of this idea is sound (which is why Brown doesn’t like it) in that people should keep busy to keep their skills and routine busy and encourage people to find better jobs. I would put it the other way though, and say that anyone should work for these “projects” as soon as they go onto JSA so they don’t get used to the do-nothing culture of unemployment.
The government should set up contractors to employ the unemployed and these contractors could bid for public works or community projects and hopefully use the skills that the workers have and perhaps get paid to train the workers in new skills to give them a hand up in finding the next “proper” job.
This idea has a lot of potential but needs to be more carefully thought out.
Letters From A Tory // July 21, 2008 at 10:03 am
It seems we all agree that the quality and content of the government contracts will go a long way to determining the success of welfare reform.
Maybe the Conservatives could design a really good system and Labour could ‘borrow’ it?
Guthrum // July 21, 2008 at 10:19 am
Honesty and integrity are a myth within the Labour Party
And in other parties it appears but I digress-
This is just further evidence of the interchangeablity of ‘ideas’ in the Westminster Political class. None of this is revolutionary, it is shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. It all just show that both parties are wedded to the State and ’something must be done’.
The only thing that can be done is for the State to get the hell out of our lives and cut taxes. creating faux jobs for the unemloyed and faux jobs for Civil servants to administer is utter madness. The only people being penalised here is the taxpayer.
Giving money to Banks £50Bn at the last count did not improve liquidity one jot, giving 20 million people a major tax cut will improve liquidity and get those who want to work back into real jobs.
Stop pretending and merge both Keynesian Parties, neither have any radical ideas, and just want power for powers sake.
Letters From A Tory // July 21, 2008 at 10:59 am
You have got to be kidding me - do you really think Cameron and Brown have the same approach to the state? Brown is a complete control freak, whereas Cameron has taken every opportunity to show how he’ll start to chip away at the state (welfare reform, prison reform, education reform).
The Conservatives need to get into power because someone needs to sort this country out - it’s the socialists who always cause more damage and that’s why we need a new government to starting sorting things out.
Stu // July 21, 2008 at 11:11 am
A. Tory living up to his name
The greatest trick Tony Blair ever managed was to nick Conservative policies and then convince everyone that it didn’t matter since all parties are the same. Apparently Purnell is equally adept at that particular trick.
Letters From A Tory // July 21, 2008 at 11:15 am
It must be driving the Conservatives nuts. It’s quite clear that the Labour tacticians are going to steal every policy they can get their hands on, which obviously leaves them open to criticism but also makes it harder for the Conservaties to carve out a niche for themselves.
A truly cynical tactic that stinks of desperation.
asquith // July 21, 2008 at 11:39 am
The problem with Labour taking Conservative policies is that they use them instrumentally, but don’t believe in them as a matter of principle. They are thus likely to get things totally wrong (see PFI).
They should once and for all decide to be either liberal or socialist and behave accordingly, rather than just throwing together everything some management consultant and PR spiv tells them to.
Guthrum does have a point, the creation of non-jobs is expensive, and this happens in private sector make-work too (much of it reliant on government contracts). These people are lost to the productive economy.
I still think the best solution is for them to do voluntary work, with little government involvement, except to establish that they are doing the work they claim. What I worry about is those that would be fired from voluntary work, which I can imagine happening to some people.
As Cameron has realised, things that are not “the state” can still be “society”, ie. not for profit firms, housing associations, various charities etc. They may end up doing a better job than the socialists. The danger is to turn them into arms of the state as New Labour have been doing, but that is avoidable.
Blue Eyes // July 21, 2008 at 11:59 am
I don’t think it will be driving the Tories nuts at all. It goes to show that their policies aren’t mad as Labour suggest. Voters are well aware of this policy theft and will begin to wonder “why don’t we just get the policies from the Tories’ mouths?”
newmania // July 21, 2008 at 12:06 pm
One thing about both sets of Policies is that they are more expensive than the current sticking plaster approach and even if savings arguably come through eventually it will not help given the position of indebtedness we are in. I see no merit whatsoever in sending out the idle to build roads which will only undermine ordinary companies and lose jobs for others
Guthrum // July 21, 2008 at 12:23 pm
You have got to be kidding me - do you really think Cameron and Brown have the same approach to the state?
Yes I do, read George Oborne ‘The Triumph of the Political Class’ for the full expose of the lie that is the two and half party State.
Cameron cannot bring himself to commit to a small State or minimal taxes as he is just as reliant on patronage as Blair/Brown. Distributing largesse with our money is how it works.
newmania // July 21, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Guthrum the size of the state is equally attributable to its being roughly the size the voters want it to be. Patronage is as easily distributed via tax breaks . As to the political class coming from an identifiable elite with common interests , it was ever thus and always will be .
Having said all that if you say that the alacrity with which Labour have followed Conservative ideas shows they are not as radical as they are suppsed to be I would agree.
Letters From A Tory // July 21, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Newmania, I take your point. I can only assume that this ‘community work’ is not being done by anyone else at the moment and could do with some more manpower.
Guthrum, I’ve heard many good things about that book, although I disagree with your assertion that Cameron will never commit to a small state. Having said that, when he inherits a crippled economy and disastrous public finances in 2010 I doubt he will just flick a switch and cut the government out of everything.
Bill Quango MP // July 21, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Missing some points here chaps.
Take street cleaning. Men on machines on local authority contracts, or employed by the council are replaced by people who do it for.. nothing.
There are no pensions to pay, no holidays to pay, no sick pay to pay.
The people have to do it in return for the benefits that they were getting anyway.
Some, surely, can be encouraged to do it permanently.
They can do it more often as there is no cost bar administration and supervision.
It won’t save a lot of money short term.. but it will long term as long as the harsh and hard medicine that will need to follow that the benefits will reduce over time and eventually stop.
Shops/warehouses/agriculture/sanitation etc could take all these people on a sort of work experience whereby they gain people for NO cost. as long as the employer can maintain some control, they will take them.
Some of the best will be converted into full time employment.
I tentatively welcome these stolen proposals from Mr ‘I thought it up on my own’ Purnell.
However every government since the 50’s has said they would something.. none has. I doubt much will come of this either.
Incapacity benefit can easily be restructured into Long/short term need. Long term are largely left alone for 3 year stretches, short term are not.
You may have difficulty walking, but you can answer the phone? Like a call centre? A government department information line?
The issue at present is low pay is too low,while benefits too high [relative to incomes..they aren't really too high]
As discussed before raise personal tax threshold and insist on some form of work for benefits, after ‘X’ time period has elapsed
newmania // July 21, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Bill Quango …thinking about what you say you are right of course lots of similar sounding initiatives have ended up in porridge and I wonder if its because we are not really ready for the down side
Essentially lots of help and fake jobs and so on is not a lot of use if you are not prepared to see groups of people with no money and no means of living above a desperate level of poverty . It only works with real and felt consequences to individual behaviour , Confronted with that reality the majority would find employment and here the minimum wage is important as well as tax at low levels .
It would not be a pretty sight in spots though and whilst I feel that regional renewal not to say moral renewal would eventually be a good for the vast majority the road would be bumpy.
This works to some extent in the US because people there accept that you are your own master and no-one owes you a living . We have a very different history where opportunity is subject to vertiginous class barriers all the higher under Labour and the political fall out of a crack at dependency is one that both Parties are going to dance around . If you want to see how badly wrong a US policy imported here can go look at tax credits where it assumed a level of personal financial competence common in the US at low levels but a bureaucrats nutty dream here . this again is to do with differing cultural takes on the place of the ‘individual’ in his own destiny
Really adopting the spirit of the Wisconsin style of approach involves a societal change including tax , employment legislation and the spread of individual responsibility as a given. Cameron has talked about a multi generational task and this is the sort of ting he means . You cannot, when there are people involved, break a few eggs to make an omelette, well not much and not get re-elected. David Cameron will be as conscious of what Thatcher got wrong as what she got right , rightly so.
I `m entirely happy that David Cameron is a Conservative but he is also starting room where we are as any Conservative must not from a book of ideology , btw , the preference for a small state and market solutions , is very far , in my view , from all a Conservative is anyway.
patently // July 21, 2008 at 3:31 pm
If Labour keep nicking Tory policies, can we expect the next Tory election slogan to be:
“Vote for the Organgrinder, Not the Monkey”
Guthrum // July 21, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Having said that, when he inherits a crippled economy and disastrous public finances in 2010 I doubt he will just flick a switch and cut the government out of everything.
I doubt whether he would call for small government even if everything was hunk dory. Amazingly enough, Italy has had irregular government since WWII, Belgium had no effective government for five months, but the economy in both countries did not xcollapse. Pray how is Cameron going to ‘inherit’ a poor economy, politicians do not produce a thing, most politicians have never had a ‘real’ job, so how can they think they can direct ‘the economy’. This is just Statist nonsence of the first order. The only legitimate role of Government is Defence (not aggression) and the maintenance of Law and Order. Have we learnt nothing from the years of disastrous State intervention ?
newmania // July 21, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Guthrum Sweden`s tax take is about 70% and it hasn`t collapsed either..hmmm?
Letters From A Tory // July 21, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Actually, Belgium might well be about to collapse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7507506.stm
Cameron is going to inherit a poor economy. Taxes are ridiculous, the size of the state is ridiculous, the public sector is painfully bloated, consumer confidence is likely to still be low, we might have a serious negative equity problem, tax receipts are already falling, unemployment is going up etc. Governments do not have to micromanage like Gordon Brown does, but they cannot just walk away from the economy. I totally disagree with the assertion that politicians can’t affect the economy.
For example, didn’t you hear about something called the credit crunch? It was caused by reckless actions from banks and investors in this country and indeed across the world. The vast majority of commentators that I’ve read on this subject concur that the failure of governments to put the necessary safeguards in place is one of the biggest reasons why we are in this economic mess in the first place.
Guthrum // July 21, 2008 at 7:33 pm
For example, didn’t you hear about something called the credit crunch? It was caused by reckless actions from banks and investors in this country and indeed across the world. The vast majority of commentators that I’ve read on this subject concur that the failure of governments to put the necessary safeguards in place is one of the biggest reasons why we are in this economic mess in the first place.
Lets nationalise the Banks then ! or set up the Ministry of Banking- where does it end ?
Ever heard of sending good money after bad ? £50Bn is only the start, the Banks really want £200Bn of our money, but with no guarantee of providing anymore liquidity, they will not even lend to each other.
Slash the state and get the economy moving with Tax cuts. I saw stagflation up close in the seventies- we really do not want to go back there.
newmania // July 21, 2008 at 9:28 pm
If you slashed taxes now there would be violent dislocation that wss poltically insupportable . Lasting change has to be gradual
Trevor Loughlin // July 22, 2008 at 1:03 pm
The introduction of the failed Wisconsin welfare reforms (cuts) will mean that the newly criminalised and destitute unemployed will have nothing to lose by taking direct action against the architects of this vile scheme. The sooner someone “reforms” James Purnnell’s face the better. Crime will become a political act.
Bahtat // July 22, 2008 at 5:27 pm
The only think these silly ideas will do is increase petty crime.
Why politicians and the public don’t understand that welfare is simply a bribe to the underclasses so they won’t steal your possessions and rape your wives and daughters is beyonds me. If you make them work for the bribe then they’ll simply react by doing what you don’t want them to do.
Leave a Comment