This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/work-for-the-dole-taxpayers-alliance
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| 'Work for the dole' is a poor show | 'Work for the dole' is a poor show |
| (12 days later) | |
| A new report from the TaxPayers' Alliance says there are too many shiftless scroungers on welfare, and they need to be booted right back into work. I would say "hold the front page", but in all likelihood someone already is. | A new report from the TaxPayers' Alliance says there are too many shiftless scroungers on welfare, and they need to be booted right back into work. I would say "hold the front page", but in all likelihood someone already is. |
| The TaxPayers' Alliance is a lobby group founded by a researcher for a Tory MEP, and funded by wealthy industrialists with links to the Conservative party. It overlaps with a range of other rightwing thinktanks such as the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. This report is drafted by a former Tory parliamentary candidate and "entrepreneur". | The TaxPayers' Alliance is a lobby group founded by a researcher for a Tory MEP, and funded by wealthy industrialists with links to the Conservative party. It overlaps with a range of other rightwing thinktanks such as the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. This report is drafted by a former Tory parliamentary candidate and "entrepreneur". |
| The report itself is utterly disingenuous in its presentation of findings. Eager to imply that the unemployed consume large amounts of public spending, the report claims that welfare takes 28% of government spending, 57% of which goes to "benefits for working-age people". In fact, in 2011-12, the biggest portion of the total benefits bill went to pensions, which took £74.2bn of £159bn. Jobseeker's allowance accounted for a mere £4.9bn. Not only that, but a large amount of the benefits claimed – whether housing benefits, child tax credits or council tax benefits (abolished since April) – are available to people in work. | The report itself is utterly disingenuous in its presentation of findings. Eager to imply that the unemployed consume large amounts of public spending, the report claims that welfare takes 28% of government spending, 57% of which goes to "benefits for working-age people". In fact, in 2011-12, the biggest portion of the total benefits bill went to pensions, which took £74.2bn of £159bn. Jobseeker's allowance accounted for a mere £4.9bn. Not only that, but a large amount of the benefits claimed – whether housing benefits, child tax credits or council tax benefits (abolished since April) – are available to people in work. |
| It goes on to point out that 5.6 million working-age people are not working and are reliant on benefits, suggesting that "in many cases the value of these benefits taken together adds up to £15,000 to £25,000 per year". Weasel words: "many cases" can mean anything from two upwards. In this case, it most likely refers to those well-known anecdotes that circulate in the tabloid press, such as those concerning the relentlessly demonised Iona Heaton and family. | It goes on to point out that 5.6 million working-age people are not working and are reliant on benefits, suggesting that "in many cases the value of these benefits taken together adds up to £15,000 to £25,000 per year". Weasel words: "many cases" can mean anything from two upwards. In this case, it most likely refers to those well-known anecdotes that circulate in the tabloid press, such as those concerning the relentlessly demonised Iona Heaton and family. |
| The report calls for benefits to fall in real terms, and refers to "the regrettable 5.2% blanket benefit increase put through in 2012". But this was an inflation-linked rise. For a single recipient of employment support allowance, for example, the increase is a mere £2.80. The TaxPayers' Alliance can rest comfortably in the knowledge that things will get much worse for people on benefits for the next three years, as the government keeps rises below the rate of inflation. | The report calls for benefits to fall in real terms, and refers to "the regrettable 5.2% blanket benefit increase put through in 2012". But this was an inflation-linked rise. For a single recipient of employment support allowance, for example, the increase is a mere £2.80. The TaxPayers' Alliance can rest comfortably in the knowledge that things will get much worse for people on benefits for the next three years, as the government keeps rises below the rate of inflation. |
| And so on, and so on. To this extent, the report is a jumble of Tory tabloid thematics. The underlying case is that millions of people are on benefits because they are not habituated to work. For this reason, it proposes a compulsory work scheme for those who have been in receipt of benefits for a certain length of time. The aim is to force them to work for their poverty, giving them a total 30-hour working week (but not much time to seek paid employment). | And so on, and so on. To this extent, the report is a jumble of Tory tabloid thematics. The underlying case is that millions of people are on benefits because they are not habituated to work. For this reason, it proposes a compulsory work scheme for those who have been in receipt of benefits for a certain length of time. The aim is to force them to work for their poverty, giving them a total 30-hour working week (but not much time to seek paid employment). |
| Most of the report's claims are unsourced or only vaguely attributed. Taken altogether, the report is nothing that a half-competent undergraduate couldn't have put together using materials from the rightwing blogs. It is trivial, reactionary fluff. | Most of the report's claims are unsourced or only vaguely attributed. Taken altogether, the report is nothing that a half-competent undergraduate couldn't have put together using materials from the rightwing blogs. It is trivial, reactionary fluff. |
| But this has consistently been part of the Tory agenda, and that of its business backers. It will not significantly reduce their tax bill. It might offer some a pool of "free labour", just as workfare has done in the US. But its most salient effect would be to make people a lot more dependent on the market, and to increase the bargaining power of employers. Underpaid and badly treated? Too bad – try getting another job, or living on welfare. | But this has consistently been part of the Tory agenda, and that of its business backers. It will not significantly reduce their tax bill. It might offer some a pool of "free labour", just as workfare has done in the US. But its most salient effect would be to make people a lot more dependent on the market, and to increase the bargaining power of employers. Underpaid and badly treated? Too bad – try getting another job, or living on welfare. |
| The pseudo-populist right often tries to recruit "the working man", Joe-the-Plumber or whomever, in alliance against welfare recipients. But, whether or not they are in employment, it is workers who lose out from this. | The pseudo-populist right often tries to recruit "the working man", Joe-the-Plumber or whomever, in alliance against welfare recipients. But, whether or not they are in employment, it is workers who lose out from this. |
| • This piece was commissioned after a suggestion from BlackberryBlossom. If there's a subject you'd like to see covered on Comment is free, please visit our You Tell Us page | • This piece was commissioned after a suggestion from BlackberryBlossom. If there's a subject you'd like to see covered on Comment is free, please visit our You Tell Us page |
| • This article was amended on 5 September 2013. The phrase 'It doesn't mention that this was an inflation-linked rise' in the fifth paragraph was amended to read 'But this was an inflation-linked rise'. The link to inflation was mentioned on page 16 of the report. | • This article was amended on 5 September 2013. The phrase 'It doesn't mention that this was an inflation-linked rise' in the fifth paragraph was amended to read 'But this was an inflation-linked rise'. The link to inflation was mentioned on page 16 of the report. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |