BBC debates
Should benefits be linked to community service?
The new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 were debated on the BBC website. First, there was a small debate (just 26 posts) on the 5 Live message board that started when somebody asked Why has it taken so long? and in which I participated. As of November 2010, that debate survives on the website, unlike the debate that followed it (see next paragraph), which has long since been deleted (at least from public view).
The much larger follow-up debate was a BBC news Have your say feature. Titled Should benefits be linked to community service?, I missed the chance to participate. I was waiting until posts slowed to a trickle so that my posts would be among the last, but the debate was closed before I could carry out that plan. 4,770 comments were submitted, 282 of which were not posted by the BBC because they violated the rules. I wonder what they contained, but I doubt that any of them said anything that I haven't heard or read elsewhere. Well, it wasn't that important that I posted, especially as I now know that the BBC do not necessarily keep these debates online for posterity (although they do appear to keep news articles), but I worked my way through all 4,488 posted responses and substantially upgraded this blog to reflect on what I found.
Responses
In answer to the question Should benefits be linked to community service?, most of the posts expressed the same range of opinions that I expected to see, but I saw a few interesting ones among them. Even a cursory glance showed some recurring themes on both sides of the argument. There were also people who like the idea providing the policy is thought through properly. It won't be, because the politicians don't take any notice of the opinions of unemployed people. If they did, they'd easily be able to weed out the genuine concerns from the frivolous. It's actually quite depressing to see just how many people think that unemployed people should be treated like criminals, but if that happens (and there are times when I feel like I'm regarded as a criminal even as things are), the advocates of that policy are likely to be disappointed at the end results.
It could be you next
As some people pointed out, nobody has guaranteed job security. Those who strongly supported the proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 may have a different outlook if they are made redundant and they discover that finding another job isn't as simple as they then assumed it would be. Some of the strongest supporters of the proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 were people who had lost their jobs and always found work again quickly. There's no guarantee that they will be so lucky next time. The 2008 banking crisis will create problems for people who thought it could never happen to them. "Schardenfreude!" will be the reaction of some people, but if the victims revise their opinions in light of their new experiences, maybe they will help me with my campaign.
People raising complaints against benefit claimants should first experience the indignity and unpleasantness of making a claim and then trying to live off the pittance.
... as one person commented.
Two year rule just first step?
Those who supported the proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 wondered why the government was focusing on those who have been claiming benefits for two years or more. The answer is, of course, that these schemes take time to implement so the plan was to start with those who have been out of work for the longest time, though it seems that the policy has since been changed to focus on young people first. Either way, I assume that the scheme will eventually be extended in stages to all those people of working age who have been out of work for six months or more if the government regards it as a success. That's not the same thing as it actually being a success.
Emotions run high
A few posts that, between them, sum up things nicely.
The only thing the comments on this board show (other than the fact that Britain seems to be full of vile, bitter people these days) is ignorance. Unless you have been through the experience then you have no entitlement to an opinion.
Yes, reduce the unemployed and the sick to the level of the criminal, and in the meantime replace the old aged pension with a death seekers allowance.
This is a complex problem not solved by threats and Bullying.
The government answer to every problem seems to be not to tackle it and sort out the problem people, but to smack everyone just in case.
You might think the person who suggested that the pension could be replaced by a death seekers allowance was exaggerating somewhat, but look at the history. We once had the Department of Social Security, but that sounded too cushy so they dropped that name. Likewise, unemployment benefit became jobseeker's allowance and now incapacity benefit has become employment and support allowance. Spot the trend?
Like the vast majority of unemployed people, I'd love the chance to earn a living instead of claiming benefits. I'll mention other responses to the debate, with my own comments on them, in the relevant pages discussing the issues raised.
Elizabeth Malcolm
The debate comes round frequently in different guises and I don't always notice. I belatedly discovered the article about Elizabeth Malcolm and the associated article titled Britain's jobless: Who cares?. From what I see, Elizabeth Malcolm is not the worst case by any means, but she shows no sign of wanting to work even though her own Children are of working age. Her daughter has a baby so I don't object to the daughter staying at home and claiming benefit.
No comments:
Post a Comment