91热爆

I would have thought a Newsnight investigation into the role the 91热爆 and it's researchers played in allowing someone who has just been found guilty of incitement to murder, and who also had very close links to the failed July underground bombers would have made for a very interesting Newsnight.

It would be quite nice if newsnight did a breakdown to show exactly who gets what benefits. There is a lot of media coverage and public discussion about how many immigrants etc get job seekers allowance. I have tried to find the figures but have struggled.

Beveridge's evils still exist, but it is clear that the welfare system isn't fit for purpose. There are too many people on unemployment benefits, and it is in no- ones interest for this to be the case. However the Wisconsin style system has many problems and we shouldn't be forcing people who can't to a job for a valid reason into work that isn't suitable.

Johann Hari of the independent has written some good stuff on this, you could have him as a participant in your discussion.

Welfare benefits were original;ly intended as a safety net and not a lifestyle. In fact, under the Labour Party it has created large-scale idleness among those of working age. I write as someone who experienced first-hand hardcore unemployment in the mid 1980s yet still found a way onto the job ladder through cleaning toilets. I have been wondering for years now that I ave been a mug and have been financing the idle and feckless to multiply and live off teh state very comfortably while I receive nothing in return for my 拢900-plus per month tax & NI payments.

Welfare benefits were original;ly intended as a safety net and not a lifestyle. In fact, under the Labour Party it has created large-scale idleness among those of working age. I write as someone who experienced first-hand hardcore unemployment in the mid 1980s yet still found a way onto the job ladder through cleaning toilets. I have been wondering for years now that I ave been a mug and have been financing the idle and feckless to multiply and live off teh state very comfortably while I receive nothing in return for my 拢900-plus per month tax & NI payments.

HAVING SPENT NEARLY 6 YEARS RESTRICTED TO MY FLAT WITH SEVERE DEPRESSION I BEGAN TO IMPROVE IN NOV 2006.DOING VARIOUS VOLUNTARY JOBS AND SELLING ON THE INTERNET REALLY HELPED ME REGAIN SELF RESPECT.HOWEVER IN OCT 2007 ALL THIS WAS DESTROYED WHEN I WAS TOTALLY DECEIVED BY THE DOCTOR WHO REVIEWED MY CASE.HE WAS MOST SYMPATHETIC AND CONSTRUCTIVE ENCOURAGING ME TO CONTINUE AS I HAD BEGUN.WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD HE REPORTED THAT I WAS FIT FOR IMMEDIATE WORK.WITH THE HELP OF MY DOCTOR I AM APPEALING MY CASE. SINCE THE WEEK BEFORE XMAS I HAVE HAD NO INCOME,MY FAMILY ARE SUPPORTING ME.
I HAVE HAD 6 BLOOD TESTS,AN X-RAY AN MRI SCAN WITH MORE TESTS TO COME.TO CAP IT ALL I PUT MY BACK OUT BADLY AND NEEDED DENTAL WORK.FOR A NUMBER OF GENUINE REASONS I HAD TO GO PRIVATELY AT A TOTAL COST OF 拢1,500.ONCE AGAIN MY FAMILY PAID.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE REALLY NEEDY WITHOUT THE SUPPORT I HAVE ENJOYED.
OF COURSE THERE HAVE BEEN A HUGE NUMBER OF SPONGERS BUT IT IS SCANDALOUS TO TREAT US ALL AS THE SAME.SOME SERIOUS IN DEPTH ASSESSMENT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
MEANWHILE BACK TO THE FLAT!

We've pretty much abolished Want and Disease and Squalor. Idleness Ignorance are more difficult, if not impossible.

The real reform we need to bring about is a proper rent structure for Council Houses. The disaprity between private rents and Council rents are a disgrace - especially when many Council Houses have several wage earners - they are no longer exclusively for the poor.

We've pretty much abolished Want and Disease and Squalor. Idleness Ignorance are more difficult, if not impossible.

The real reform we need to bring about is a proper rent structure for Council Houses. The disaprity between private rents and Council rents are a disgrace - especially when many Council Houses have several wage earners - they are no longer exclusively for the poor.

There can't be a household in the country that hasn't got a neighbour, or knows someone who has, who has never done a days work in their lives. It cannot be right that anyone who is healthy and capable should sit on their backsides, drawing benefits and making no effort to find work. I have personally been in a position whereby I have drawn 'incapacity' benefit. Two Triple Heart by-pass operations in 12 months was the reason I had to claim this benefit. When I eventually had to take early retirement, because of my continuing poor health, I know how devastated I was that I could no longer work for a living. God knows how anyone can sit at home doing nothing when they are able to work. The depression I suffered when I could no longer work is something I never want to experience ever again. There can be no valid excuses why these people shouldn't work, so why should we tax payers - Yes, I still pay my taxes - help to keep them in their idleness? I don't think we should, so I for one will support whatever actions the government takes to sort this out once and for all.

another thing I would like to see is for basic welfare rights encoded in a written constitution as in the EU
- but Gordon Brown remains opposed
to that judging by his red-line opt
out from all EU rights charters for
the less advantaged in recent years

I am much minded to think that the old adage that people do not much value anything until it becomes scarce or hard to come by is very significant here.

Undoubtedly cutting benefits drastically would force lots of people into any sort of a job, just in order to feed themselves, etc. Of course crime rates could be affected (upwards) by this step, too.

As a retired teacher, I used to teach quite a few students from homes where no-one has had a job for years...yet the families still had cars, holidays, Sky TV etc. Perhaps this is why white working class boys do so badly at school - why work if you don't have to?

For years I think the welfare system has been abused.There are too many people today that take advantage of what could and should have been a great idea. Politicians of all leanings have allowed it to be taken advantage of. Because they are, and have been frightened of losing their seat and vote. I was brought up in a state that had no welfare system and I survived. Because I had responsible parents. They could have done with a good welfare system then, but had none. As a politician once said, we have never had it so good. What should be added to that remark today, is and we do not appreciate it. It is in great need of an overhaul and many benefits should disappear altogether

For years I think the welfare system has been abused.There are too many people today that take advantage of what could and should have been a great idea. Politicians of all leanings have allowed it to be taken advantage of. Because they are, and have been frightened of losing their seat and vote. I was brought up in a state that had no welfare system and I survived. Because I had responsible parents. They could have done with a good welfare system then, but had none. As a politician once said, we have never had it so good. What should be added to that remark today, is and we do not appreciate it. It is in great need of an overhaul and many benefits should disappear altogether

As others have stated,welfare is set up to be a safety net not a way of life. I am not sure how best humanely to pressure people to "pull their own weight" in life. Some will always escape and play a welfare game;some will encounter hardships in life necessitating receiving long term assistance. Welfare and Social Security should be melded. Government must find a way to collect "premiums" from all wage earners including those in the underground economy in order to make these support systems self sustaining.

After the DWP became involved in my working life, via Incapacity Benefit(IB), I lost my employment! The DWP did nothing but harass my GP, phone around old employers and then ask the county council I was working for to give me a contract just to get me off the IB! Of course once my employer knew of the mental health problems I had experienced in a past occupation -not to mention the implication that I was a malingerer on IB - I did not get my contract renewed as promised.

I'd say it is very damaging to have para professionals organising your working life. There is the suspicion that mental health problems are not genuine too. I did work for the Jobcentre for a short period of time and found there was a negative view of most of the claimants, this shaped the treatment/help they received.

Even in the face of discriminatory practice/unfair treatment by employers the DWP blamed the client for being unemployed.

Tbere needs to be some redress for when the employment agencies get it wrong. Jobcentres should be impartial and offer help to those unfairly treated by employers.

I have started working in Copenhagen and it is clear why socialism (which is what we are talking about) does not work. Beveridge and his ilk are all very well meaning, but the systems they put in place do not take account of human nature. If something is available for free, then people will take it and they won't value it. It leads to a dependency culture, a lack of self motivation and enterprise. You see it in the run down estates of England, you see it in benefits migration and you see it in spades in Denmark, which far from being a "socialist paradise", is a run down, graffiti ridden, grimy place without any vigour or get up and go. Let's face it, socialism is a dead end!

So, the purpose of welfare state was, as you say to tackle "Giant Evils" of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.

Let us see, how did we do on each since.

1. What do we mean today by 'Want'?

2. 'Disease' - it would be good to see if the profile for specific diseases is different for those on Welfare vs those of general public, cf. diabetes, lung cancer, obesity. Also, what of their life expectancy?

3. 'Ignorance' - What is the proportion of single mothers on welfare who have left school before GCSE's vs general population for girls? How many children in general from families on welfare leave school early? What is the proportion that goes on to University?

4. 'Squalor' - What proportion of welfare families lives in B&B accommodation? What proportion lives in Council Housing? What proportion lives in the homes rented for them by Councils? Who inspects them?

5. 'Idleness" - this is really interesting topic to tackle as it would appear to have greatly increased with wider availability of welfare! I think we would welcome deeper look into link between say loitering in streets and welfare dependance. Any data that police may have?

General issue to address is:
What proportion of those currently on welfare are second or even third generation recipients? Or, has welfare become addictive? If so, how do we get people off it without making their lives even worse?

Hope these are of some use.

Please, please keep of emotionally charged and party political commentary and make it grounded in facts as much as possible. Where there is no data - expose that rather than falling for single cases that are used by likes of Daily Mail!

Good luck and look forward to an interesting and informative piece.

So, the purpose of welfare state was, as you say to tackle "Giant Evils" of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.

Let us see, how did we do on each since.

1. What do we mean today by 'Want'?

2. 'Disease' - it would be good to see if the profile for specific diseases is different for those on Welfare vs those of general public, cf. diabetes, lung cancer, obesity. Also, what of their life expectancy?

3. 'Ignorance' - What is the proportion of single mothers on welfare who have left school before GCSE's vs general population for girls? How many children in general from families on welfare leave school early? What is the proportion that goes on to University?

4. 'Squalor' - What proportion of welfare families lives in B&B accommodation? What proportion lives in Council Housing? What proportion lives in the homes rented for them by Councils? Who inspects them?

5. 'Idleness" - this is really interesting topic to tackle as it would appear to have greatly increased with wider availability of welfare! I think we would welcome deeper look into link between say loitering in streets and welfare dependance. Any data that police may have?

General issue to address is:
What proportion of those currently on welfare are second or even third generation recipients? Or, has welfare become addictive? If so, how do we get people off it without making their lives even worse?

Hope these are of some use.

Please, please keep of emotionally charged and party political commentary and make it grounded in facts as much as possible. Where there is no data - expose that rather than falling for single cases that are used by likes of Daily Mail!

Good luck and look forward to an interesting and informative piece.

So, the purpose of welfare state was, as you say to tackle "Giant Evils" of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.

Let us see, how did we do on each since.

1. What do we mean today by 'Want'?

2. 'Disease' - it would be good to see if the profile for specific diseases is different for those on Welfare vs those of general public, cf. diabetes, lung cancer, obesity. Also, what of their life expectancy?

3. 'Ignorance' - What is the proportion of single mothers on welfare who have left school before GCSE's vs general population for girls? How many children in general from families on welfare leave school early? What is the proportion that goes on to University?

4. 'Squalor' - What proportion of welfare families lives in B&B accommodation? What proportion lives in Council Housing? What proportion lives in the homes rented for them by Councils? Who inspects them?

5. 'Idleness" - this is really interesting topic to tackle as it would appear to have greatly increased with wider availability of welfare! I think we would welcome deeper look into link between say loitering in streets and welfare dependance. Any data that police may have?

General issue to address is:
What proportion of those currently on welfare are second or even third generation recipients? Or, has welfare become addictive? If so, how do we get people off it without making their lives even worse?

Hope these are of some use.

Please, please keep of emotionally charged and party political commentary and make it grounded in facts as much as possible. Where there is no data - expose that rather than falling for single cases that are used by likes of Daily Mail!

Good luck and look forward to an interesting and informative piece.

How on earth are we ever going to balance our books with thousands of people invading our benefit system weekly and a government that is incapable of taking any action other than punitive sanctions on the elderly and poor.

So, the purpose of welfare state was, as you say to tackle "Giant Evils" of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.

Let us see, how did we do on each since.

1. What do we mean today by 'Want'?

2. 'Disease' - it would be good to see if the profile for specific diseases is different for those on Welfare vs those of general public, cf. diabetes, lung cancer, obesity. Also, what of their life expectancy?

3. 'Ignorance' - What is the proportion of single mothers on welfare who have left school before GCSE's vs general population for girls? How many children in general from families on welfare leave school early? What is the proportion that goes on to University?

4. 'Squalor' - What proportion of welfare families lives in B&B accommodation? What proportion lives in Council Housing? What proportion lives in the homes rented for them by Councils? Who inspects them?

5. 'Idleness" - this is really interesting topic to tackle as it would appear to have greatly increased with wider availability of welfare! I think we would welcome deeper look into link between say loitering in streets and welfare dependance. Any data that police may have?

General issue to address is:
What proportion of those currently on welfare are second or even third generation recipients? Or, has welfare become addictive? If so, how do we get people off it without making their lives even worse?

Hope these are of some use.

Please, please keep of emotionally charged and party political commentary and make it grounded in facts as much as possible. Where there is no data - expose that rather than falling for single cases that are used by likes of Daily Mail!

Good luck and look forward to an interesting and informative piece.

So, the purpose of welfare state was, as you say to tackle "Giant Evils" of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.

Let us see, how did we do on each since.

1. What do we mean today by 'Want'?

2. 'Disease' - it would be good to see if the profile for specific diseases is different for those on Welfare vs those of general public, cf. diabetes, lung cancer, obesity. Also, what of their life expectancy?

3. 'Ignorance' - What is the proportion of single mothers on welfare who have left school before GCSE's vs general population for girls? How many children in general from families on welfare leave school early? What is the proportion that goes on to University?

4. 'Squalor' - What proportion of welfare families lives in B&B accommodation? What proportion lives in Council Housing? What proportion lives in the homes rented for them by Councils? Who inspects them?

5. 'Idleness" - this is really interesting topic to tackle as it would appear to have greatly increased with wider availability of welfare! I think we would welcome deeper look into link between say loitering in streets and welfare dependance. Any data that police may have?

General issue to address is:
What proportion of those currently on welfare are second or even third generation recipients? Or, has welfare become addictive? If so, how do we get people off it without making their lives even worse?

Hope these are of some use.

Please, please keep of emotionally charged and party political commentary and make it grounded in facts as much as possible. Where there is no data - expose that rather than falling for single cases that are used by likes of Daily Mail!

Of course, the case today is different. However, we do not have real data to say what are Top Five Social Ills in UK today and it would be important to ask Mr Parnell what is his review based on.

Good luck and look forward to an interesting and informative piece.

Go back to Hermione Parker's 1989 book 'Instead of the Dole' dedicated to the memory of the Tory M.P., Sir Brandon Rhys Williams who was a dedicated advocate of a Citizen's Basic Income Guarantee - the BIG idea that would come by way of an integration of the tax and benefit systems.

This BIG idea - replacing 'all existing cash benefits and income tax reliefs and that takes the individual as the unit of assessment, descends directly from the "New Social Contract" advocated during the second World War by Lady Juliet Rhys Williams DBE.' She argued against the Beveridge Plan, 'partly because it would leave large sections of the population unprotected against poverty, and partly because is would destroy the will to work...'

In his 'Citizens' Britain' (1989) Paddy Ashdown supported a steady progression to a Citizen's Income. 'Every step we take towards it will diminish dependency, liberate economic power in the hands of the citizen and cut back on the oppressive power of the state bureaucracies over people's lives.'

Lynn Jones just made comment about companies like BT and their excellent record of supporting staff with mental illnesses. Shame she never worked for BT, who in fact have the UK's highest incidence of sickness caused by stress, anxiety and depression. What is more the problem is often exacerbated by the bullying tactics of its lower level managers, in attempts to meet ever increasing targets.

If government sets a clearly absurd inflation indicator of c 2%, when people are facing a real inflation rate - on basics like petrol, food, mortgages, train fares etc that is far, far, higher - how can society claim any meaningful welfare system is functioning ? The system that is in operation is not addressing runaway inflation. The infrastructure around it is therefore failing.

A neat solution is the Westminster one: Each month you submit claims up to 250 GBP (or 400 GBP if its food) and no one expects a receipt. You get paid. And you can earn over 60K.
Superb.

We are about to suffer the consequences of the promotion of greed in our banking system and surprise, surprise its the poor, the sick and the vulnerable that are the problem. has this country completely taken leave of its senses?

If government sets a clearly absurd inflation indicator of c 2%, when people are facing a real inflation rate - on basics like petrol, food, mortgages, train fares etc that is far, far, higher - how can society claim any meaningful welfare system is functioning ? The system that is in operation is not addressing runaway inflation. The infrastructure around it is therefore failing.

A neat solution is the Westminster one: Each month you submit claims up to 250 GBP (or 400 GBP if its food) and no one expects a receipt. You get paid. And you can earn over 60K.
Superb.

My daughter has been unemployed for many years. She gets no suuport from the job centre or the government. All she gets is a "badgering" from the centre. There are no special projects in this part of Nottinghamshire to help, encourage, retrain or support.

Again we are just receiving spin from this government.

The voice of the poor is not being heard on this issue - even on your
Newsnight website! Stop censorship.

The vast majority of people do indeed want to work but Purnell
comes away with warm phrases like
that before jumping immediately to discussion of drug addicts, people with mental illnesses and work ethic problems. This is patronising guff.

Perhaps if Whithall devolved job policy to the regions instead of
passing all these contracts to
the private sector we might get
somewhere. All the private sector brings to this scene is a lack of
public accountability & pressure!

Its no good getting people off benefits until the problem of immigration has been sorted out. The money that will be taken from British people from the cutting of benefits, will then be given to the asylum seekrs who enter the country. These people have never paid taxes in to the country, wheras alot of the deserving British people on benefits have. Isn't it time Britain strated to look after the people who live here.

I am listening to Newsnight with sheer disgust. So we allow all these immigrant workers into the country to take jobs which would otherwise be going to British people and then we complain and even more have a go at people who are unable to find work etc. This is appaling, attacking those on benefits with good reason and even the disabled. When will this government come to it's senses? Repatriate the foreign immigrants and give our own people a chance to work. It really sucks badly! When will we learn?

never having been on 'welfare' in UK I cannot comment on this south east of england phrase 'welfare culture' that (allegedly) exists up here in
Scotland where for reasons that you
have not explained or explored we're not as a nation deemed fit to handle
'welfare' or 'job search' matters in
our own way. Why does that persist? I suggest that part of the answer
is that there is a very powerful
private sector lobby who saw back
in 1988 that there was money in all this for the private sector ('it is
good business' as one interviewee admits) and these lobbyists caught the ear of New Labour very early on.

My daughter has been unemployed for many years. She gets no suuport from the job centre or the government. All she gets is a "badgering" from the centre. There are no special projects in this part of Nottinghamshire to help, encourage, retrain or support.

Again we are just receiving spin from this government.

never having been on 'welfare' in UK I cannot comment on this south east of england phrase 'welfare culture' that (allegedly) exists up here in
Scotland where for reasons that you
have not explained or explored we're not as a nation deemed fit to handle
'welfare' or 'job search' matters in
our own way. Why does that persist? I suggest that part of the answer
is that there is a very powerful
private sector lobby who saw back
in 1988 that there was money in all this for the private sector ('it is
good business' as one interviewee admits) and these lobbyists caught the ear of New Labour very early on.

I am listening to Newsnight with sheer disgust. So we allow all these immigrant workers into the country to take jobs which would otherwise be going to British people and then we complain and even more have a go at people who are unable to find work etc. This is appaling, attacking those on benefits with good reason and even the disabled. When will this government come to it's senses? Repatriate the foreign immigrants and give our own people a chance to work. It really sucks badly! When will we learn?

I worked last year in a private training company which was attempting to get people back into training or work on Merseyside.

My experience was that the organisation concentrated on those who were easy to place and got rid of the more difficult cases such as ex offenders, people with mental health problems, substance misusers, the homeless, etc.

There was definately a tendency to "cherry pick".

Employers also tended to employ people who they regarded as fitting in so again the old and people with disabilities lost out.

I would favour the re introduction of projects such as Community Programmes- I am sure that there are some very useful social and environmental projects that could be done

Its no good getting people off benefits until the problem of immigration has been sorted out. The money that will be taken from British people from the cutting of benefits, will then be given to the asylum seekrs who enter the country. These people have never paid taxes in to the country, wheras alot of the deserving British people on benefits have. Isn't it time Britain strated to look after the people who live here.

We are about to suffer the consequences of the promotion of greed in our banking system and surprise, surprise its the poor, the sick and the vulnerable that are the problem. has this country completely taken leave of its senses?

I worked last year in a private training company which was attempting to get people back into training or work on Merseyside.

My experience was that the organisation concentrated on those who were easy to place and got rid of the more difficult cases such as ex offenders, people with mental health problems, substance misusers, the homeless, etc.

There was definately a tendency to "cherry pick".

Employers also tended to employ people who they regarded as fitting in so again the old and people with disabilities lost out.

I would favour the re introduction of projects such as Community Programmes- I am sure that there are some very useful social and environmental projects that could be done

I am a 'Support Worker' set up by the governement and I would like very much for you to come out and see what is entailed in actually turning these PEOPLE'S lives around.
It apprears to me that they have no idea of what effect stopping benefits will have upon the lives of the children of these people, the debt alone for these people is unbelievable, even though they are on benfit, they are allowed to gain credit from companies that undertake no credit check but demand interest rates of extorsinate preportion in comparison to the income they have.
I could talk for hours on ' this subject, as it is so vast and wide spreading and so related to learnt behaviour that some people, mainly MP's that have not fully worked in the community for many years or on a 'proper' front line basis.
In my opinion this is not an answer to the probelm we have diminished our education and have allowed people to learn behaviour that could have been addressed by schooling.
On top of all the points I have made is there are questions to be answered?
Who picks up the problem when the budgets are cut for 'Supporting People'budget is reduced?
Who are the volunteers that will assist this problem?
Where do we find them?
Please spend sometime in the communities that you live in and come back to me.

If government sets a clearly absurd inflation indicator of c 2%, when people are facing a real inflation rate - on basics like petrol, food, mortgages, train fares etc that is far, far, higher - how can society claim any meaningful welfare system is functioning ? The system that is in operation is not addressing runaway inflation. The infrastructure around it is therefore failing.

A neat solution is the Westminster one: Each month you submit claims up to 250 GBP (or 400 GBP if its food) and no one expects a receipt. You get paid. And you can earn over 60K.
Superb.

A major factor in people becoming reliant on benefits has to be that going back to work simply doesn't always pay.
My partner works full time, I work a few hours a week, we have 2 young children and are still dependent on some benefits just to keep us afloat. Even after my partner was promoted and recieved a pay rise we are financially only a few pounds better off and can still not afford our rent.
We are a hard working, thrifty family who work for our own self-esteem and to provide a good role model for our kids, but our financial dependency on housing benefit and tax credits is seriously demoralising - how do people with less self-motivation feel ??

If government sets a clearly absurd inflation indicator of c 2%, when people are facing a real inflation rate - on basics like petrol, food, mortgages, train fares etc that is far, far, higher - how can society claim any meaningful welfare system is functioning ? The system that is in operation is not addressing runaway inflation. The infrastructure around it is therefore failing.

A neat solution is the Westminster one: Each month you submit claims up to 250 GBP (or 400 GBP if its food) and no one expects a receipt. You get paid. And you can earn over 60K.
Superb.

I worked last year in a private training company which was attempting to get people back into training or work on Merseyside.

My experience was that the organisation concentrated on those who were easy to place and got rid of the more difficult cases such as ex offenders, people with mental health problems, substance misusers, the homeless, etc.

There was definately a tendency to "cherry pick".

Employers also tended to employ people who they regarded as fitting in so again the old and people with disabilities lost out.

I would favour the re introduction of projects such as Community Programmes- I am sure that there are some very useful social and environmental projects that could be done

It's a bit ironic this is on NN tonight, as here in Bristol two of our main Community Drugs Projects (KWADS and Southmead Project) are being forced to close through lack of local and government funding.
So lets see James Purnell put his money where his mouth is, and prove he's not just spinning or headline grabbing

We are about to suffer the consequences of the promotion of greed in our banking system and surprise, surprise its the poor, the sick and the vulnerable that are the problem. has this country completely taken leave of its senses?

It's a bit ironic this is on NN tonight, as here in Bristol two of our main Community Drugs Projects (KWADS and Southmead Project) are being forced to close through lack of local and government funding.
So lets see James Purnell put his money where his mouth is, and prove he's not just spinning or headline grabbing

I was disappointed to hear this evening's interview with James Purnell, as it proved to be yet another missed opportunity to challenge the government's welfare policies, especially as regards incapacity benefits. In my role working for and with disabled people and representing their interests to the government in various fora, I have become increasingly dismayed at the systematic impoverishment of people who are already at the margins of society and the reluctance of the media to grapple with the details of the changes at hand.

For example, Mr Purnell and his predecessors have repeatedly claimed that they aim to get one million people off incapacity benefits (IB) and into work - yet at a recent Social Market Foundation event when I challenged the Secretary of State, he admitted that whilst the IB roll will fall by one million, this will be achieved mostly by natural off-flow (people reaching retirement age or dying). Current IB claimants will not be migrated to the new Employment and Support Allowance, and will indeed be 'left to languish' without support.

Similarly, claims that the new gateway, Work Capability Assessment is a measure of ability rather than incapacity masks the fact that its tougher regime will inevitably mean that many people with disabilities and long-term health problems will be left to claim Job Seekers Allowance with its harsh regime, leaving them unable to access the specialist support services that the government has proclaimed as the cornerstone of reform.

These are just two examples of major flaws in welfare reform that the media has failed to address, and which, if they continue to go unchallenged, will see the increased marginalization and stigmatization of a minority group whose rights are supposed to be enshrined in law.

If government sets a clearly absurd inflation indicator of c 2%, when people are facing a real inflation rate - on basics like petrol, food, mortgages, train fares etc that is far, far, higher - how can society claim any meaningful welfare system is functioning ? The system that is in operation is not addressing runaway inflation. The infrastructure around it is therefore failing.

A neat solution is the Westminster one: Each month you submit claims up to 250 GBP (or 400 GBP if its food) and no one expects a receipt. You get paid. And you can earn over 60K.
Superb.

And regards Denmark: The notion that they are a rank and uncivilised country (Richard Marriot) is a joke. Denmark is 10 x the country the UK is: Civilised - definitely, with a common purpose. The UK, post Thatcher and Blair, is the laughing stock of Europe. Rightly.

Pity there are so few full time well paid jobs to go with all the rhetoric posted here so far today.

600,000 vacancies, many part time and mostly min wage.... 2.5 million on incapacity benefit and 1.2 million registered unemployed.. mmm this should be interesting, especially if a econmic crash does appear in the UK.

It had to happen one day, the privatisation of the welfare system. For years now we've had schemes set up to help the deprived in "undesirable" areas that have been staffed by very well paid people from outside the particular area(the privatisation of deprivation). Now we see the private sector ready to do their bit for those on benefits(the privatisation of poverty). It's a shame that it has been mentioned in the news so many times today(almost making them impossible to separate)the topic of benefit recipients and drug addiction. The fact of the matter is that there are people on benefits who not only need help from the state but deserve it. We as one of the riches nations should feel ashamed at how we treat the less well off with each political party treating them as a problem rather than a resource, granted there may be room for a fresh look at the welfare system but is this not also true of the tax system(private equity firms and wealthy business men banking off shore) but to demonise everyone in receipt of benefits is not only wrong but inhumane. I as someone who once claimed benefits did so because of need not greed(拢50 a week). I could go on but wont as it seems The Rich get Richer whilst The Poor get F***ed

Pity there are so few full time well paid jobs to go with all the rhetoric posted here so far today.

600,000 vacancies, many part time and mostly min wage.... 2.5 million on incapacity benefit and 1.2 million registered unemployed.. mmm this should be interesting, especially if a econmic crash does appear in the UK.

If government sets a clearly absurd inflation indicator of c 2%, when people are facing a real inflation rate - on basics like petrol, food, mortgages, train fares etc that is far, far, higher - how can society claim any meaningful welfare system is functioning ? The system that is in operation is not addressing runaway inflation. The infrastructure around it is therefore failing.

A neat solution is the Westminster one: Each month you submit claims up to 250 GBP (or 400 GBP if its food) and no one expects a receipt. You get paid. And you can earn over 60K.
Superb.

And regards Denmark: The notion that they are a rank and uncivilised country (Richard Marriot) is a joke. Denmark is 10 x the country the UK is: Civilised - definitely, with a common purpose. The UK, post Thatcher and Blair, is the laughing stock of Europe. Rightly.

I was disappointed to hear this evening's interview with James Purnell, as it proved to be yet another missed opportunity to challenge the government's welfare policies, especially as regards incapacity benefits. In my role working for and with disabled people and representing their interests to the government in various fora, I have become increasingly dismayed at the systematic impoverishment of people who are already at the margins of society and the reluctance of the media to grapple with the details of the changes at hand.

For example, Mr Purnell and his predecessors have repeatedly claimed that they aim to get one million people off incapacity benefits (IB) and into work - yet at a recent Social Market Foundation event when I challenged the Secretary of State, he admitted that whilst the IB roll will fall by one million, this will be achieved mostly by natural off-flow (people reaching retirement age or dying). Current IB claimants will not be migrated to the new Employment and Support Allowance, and will indeed be 'left to languish' without support.

Similarly, claims that the new gateway, Work Capability Assessment is a measure of ability rather than incapacity masks the fact that its tougher regime will inevitably mean that many people with disabilities and long-term health problems will be left to claim Job Seekers Allowance with its harsh regime, leaving them unable to access the specialist support services that the government has proclaimed as the cornerstone of reform.

These are just two examples of major flaws in welfare reform that the media has failed to address, and which, if they continue to go unchallenged, will see the increased marginalization and stigmatization of a minority group whose rights are supposed to be enshrined in law.

Lynn Jones just made comment about companies like BT and their excellent record of supporting staff with mental illnesses. Shame she never worked for BT, who in fact have the UK's highest incidence of sickness caused by stress, anxiety and depression. What is more the problem is often exacerbated by the bullying tactics of its lower level managers, in attempts to meet ever increasing targets.

It had to happen one day, the privatisation of the welfare system. For years now we've had schemes set up to help the deprived in "undesirable" areas that have been staffed by very well paid people from outside the particular area(the privatisation of deprivation). Now we see the private sector ready to do their bit for those on benefits(the privatisation of poverty). It's a shame that it has been mentioned in the news so many times today(almost making them impossible to separate)the topic of benefit recipients and drug addiction. The fact of the matter is that there are people on benefits who not only need help from the state but deserve it. We as one of the riches nations should feel ashamed at how we treat the less well off with each political party treating them as a problem rather than a resource, granted there may be room for a fresh look at the welfare system but is this not also true of the tax system(private equity firms and wealthy business men banking off shore) but to demonise everyone in receipt of benefits is not only wrong but inhumane. I as someone who once claimed benefits I did so because of need not greed(拢50 a week). I could go on but wont as it seems The Rich get Richer whilst The Poor get F***ed

I was disappointed to hear this evening's interview with James Purnell, as it proved to be yet another missed opportunity to challenge the government's welfare policies, especially as regards incapacity benefits. In my role working for and with disabled people and representing their interests to the government in various fora, I have become increasingly dismayed at the systematic impoverishment of people who are already at the margins of society and the reluctance of the media to grapple with the details of the changes at hand.

For example, Mr Purnell and his predecessors have repeatedly claimed that they aim to get one million people off incapacity benefits (IB) and into work - yet at a recent Social Market Foundation event when I challenged the Secretary of State, he admitted that whilst the IB roll will fall by one million, this will be achieved mostly by natural off-flow (people reaching retirement age or dying). Current IB claimants will not be migrated to the new Employment and Support Allowance, and will indeed be 'left to languish' without support.

Similarly, claims that the new gateway, Work Capability Assessment is a measure of ability rather than incapacity masks the fact that its tougher regime will inevitably mean that many people with disabilities and long-term health problems will be left to claim Job Seekers Allowance with its harsh regime, leaving them unable to access the specialist support services that the government has proclaimed as the cornerstone of reform.

These are just two examples of major flaws in welfare reform that the media has failed to address, and which, if they continue to go unchallenged, will see the increased marginalization and stigmatization of a minority group whose rights are supposed to be enshrined in law.

It had to happen one day, the privatisation of the welfare system. For years now we've had schemes set up to help the deprived in "undesirable" areas that have been staffed by very well paid people from outside the particular area(the privatisation of deprivation). Now we see the private sector ready to do their bit for those on benefits(the privatisation of poverty). It's a shame that it has been mentioned in the news so many times today(almost making them impossible to separate)the topic of benefit recipients and drug addiction. The fact of the matter is that there are people on benefits who not only need help from the state but deserve it. We as one of the riches nations should feel ashamed at how we treat the less well off with each political party treating them as a problem rather than a resource, granted there may be room for a fresh look at the welfare system but is this not also true of the tax system(private equity firms and wealthy business men banking off shore) but to demonise everyone in receipt of benefits is not only wrong but inhumane. I as someone who once claimed benefits I did so because of need not greed(拢50 a week). I could go on but wont as it seems The Rich get Richer whilst The Poor get F***ed

Tonight, the usually excellent Newsnight let itself and claimants down. Sadly its usual grasp of the issues were lacking and the interrogation of the protagonists very poor. James Purnell, the DWP Secretary was all over the place and clearly out of his depth, yet Jeremy didn鈥檛 really challenge him and certainly didn鈥檛 nail hin like he has so many others.

The panel was also biased towards supporting the proposals, they had a odious woman from the Welfare to Work Company: 'America Works' boasting how successful their programmes were, yet there is plenty of evidence WTW in the U.S has failed, many now in prison or on the streets In Australia since Rudd was elected they are now reigning in some of their WTW programmes. No mention either of a new report commissioned for the DWP which found that the use of benefits sanctions can 鈥榳orsen existing health problems鈥� and 鈥榩rovoke new mental health problems鈥�

They also always seem to find people who support the schemes, despite many personal accounts of how useless groups like A4E are.

Like many media packages on welfare it just did not seem fully researched, particularly the ideology behind these reforms, and there is one, this is not evidence based policy making. These are changes on a truly massive scale, most lifted from right wing countries like the U.S and Howard era Oz, some are based on only 13 weeks research by Freud!

Tbh, i think Newsnight's own prejudices were showing a bit tonight

I found this evening's report on the "reform" of the Welfare state quite interesting. However, this notion "work" has never been defined or given any form of parametres.
w=t/D ???? Fifteen buckets of blood and sweat? Broken back and mentally tourtured?? So what is WORK??????

Under this mantle of investigative and serious journalism Newsnight really did not add any weight to the debate. This report merely focused once again on this concept of the "sroungers".
I think this report on Newsnight is actually focusing on low paid work; that is to say the government wishes to create an even larger pool of reserved labour to act a wedge and thus drive down existing wage rates.
I do believe that this government would gladly follow the German model and introduce the one Euro job.

This current discussion here has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism and it is such a pity that certain individuals equate this discussion in this manner. In fact Beveridge was of a LIBERAL disposition. I do believe that a little research on certain matters would assist greatly!
I do think those within government who make suggests about welfare reform should follow the Portillo and Paris experiences: life on welfare benefits.Only then might certain "reformers" actually understand the full consequences of their words.
Instead of screaming about welfare reform, then let us see some solid and long lasting jobs with a decent hourly rate, for example 拢8 pH minimum.

Tonight, the usually excellent Newsnight let itself and claimants down. Sadly its usual grasp of the issues were lacking and the interrogation of the protagonists very poor. James Purnell, the DWP Secretary was all over the place and clearly out of his depth, yet Jeremy didn鈥檛 really challenge him and certainly didn鈥檛 nail him like he has so many others.

The panel was also biased towards supporting the proposals, they had a odious woman from the Welfare to Work Company: 'America Works' boasting how successful their programmes were, yet there is plenty of evidence WTW in the U.S has failed, many now in prison or on the streets In Australia since Rudd was elected they are now reigning in some of their WTW programmes. No mention either of a new report commissioned for the DWP which found that the use of benefits sanctions can 鈥榳orsen existing health problems鈥� and 鈥榩rovoke new mental health problems鈥�

They also always seem to find people who support the schemes, despite many personal accounts of how useless and invasive many of the giant training agencies groups like A4E are.

Like many media packages on welfare it just did not seem fully researched, particularly the ideology behind these reforms, and there is one, this is not evidence based policy making. These are changes on a truly massive scale, most lifted from right wing countries like the U.S and Howard era Oz, some are based on only 13 weeks research by Freud!

Tbh, i think Newsnight's own prejudices were showing a bit tonight

The government appears happy to spend up to 拢62,000 per person getting people back into work. That is to say they're willing to spend the money provided it all goes into the pockets of private contractors and doesn't go to help poor people themselves. Gordon Brown's obsession with the economy above all else has led us to this, poverty is to be made into another industry; another source of spurious productivity and another excuse to hand public money over to the private sector.

If a privatised benefit system earns money by removing claimants from the benefits system, surely it is in their interests to ensure that there remains a sector of society which continues to fall off the bottom of the economic ladder. If these contractors actually reduce unemployment then they will put themselves out of a job, so they will no doubt choose instead to create a conveyor belt of disposable temporary workers for their corporate associates. Victimising the poor is not the way to create stable employment that adheres to the often-cited 'aspirations' of the people.

The government appears happy to spend up to 拢62,000 per person getting people back into work. That is to say they're willing to spend the money provided it all goes into the pockets of private contractors and doesn't go to help poor people themselves. Gordon Brown's obsession with the economy above all else has led us to this, poverty is to be made into another industry; another source of spurious productivity and another excuse to hand public money over to the private sector.

If a privatised benefit system earns money by removing claimants from the benefits system, surely it is in their interests to ensure that there remains a sector of society which continues to fall off the bottom of the economic ladder. If these contractors actually reduce unemployment then they will put themselves out of a job, so they will no doubt choose instead to create a conveyor belt of disposable temporary workers for their corporate associates. Victimising the poor is not the way to create stable employment that adheres to the often-cited 'aspirations' of the people.

Tonight, the usually excellent Newsnight let itself and claimants down. Sadly its usual grasp of the issues were lacking and the interrogation of the protagonists very poor. James Purnell, the DWP Secretary was all over the place and clearly out of his depth, yet Jeremy didn鈥檛 really challenge him and certainly didn鈥檛 nail him like he has so many others.

The panel was also biased towards supporting the proposals, they had a odious woman from the Welfare to Work Company: 'America Works' boasting how successful their programmes were, yet there is plenty of evidence WTW in the U.S has failed, many now in prison or on the streets In Australia since Rudd was elected they are now reigning in some of their WTW programmes.

No mention either of a new report commissioned for the DWP which found that the use of benefits sanctions can 鈥榳orsen existing health problems鈥� and 鈥榩rovoke new mental health problems鈥� They also always seem to find people who support the schemes, despite many personal accounts of how useless the big private training groups like are. Again, no mention that much of this 鈥榬eform agenda鈥� has been driven by the US Insurance giant UnumProvident, once described as a 鈥榞angster company.

Like many media packages on welfare it just did not seem fully researched, particularly the ideology behind these reforms, and there is one, this is not evidence based policy making. These are changes on a truly massive scale, most lifted from right wing countries like the U.S and Howard era Oz, some are based on only 13 weeks research by Freud!

Tbh, i think Newsnight's own prejudices were showing a bit tonight

I found a lot of these facts, not opinions on a website

www.swansheffield.org.uk

You need to get LABOUR EXCHANGES to work. Compulsory notification of all vacancies is essential if the labour
market is to function efficiently. I was at the New Deal launch in my Job Centre by Gordon Brown in Jan 1998 - and I asked to see the Executive & Professional Vacancies Register as
I had naively assumed that the Job
Centre was where you called at first when looking for a job. Total panic then breaks out as civil servants jump in to tell the THREE LABOUR
GOVERNMENT MINISTERS in attendance
that 'Sorry but the old Executive and Professional Job Seekers' register that DFEE used to keep was privatised in 1984 and ceased to exist in 1989'. I was told to go away and look for vacancies in a
local newspaper as the Job Centre
couldn't help Dundonians like me.

I suggest the unemployed of Britain sue DfEE(now DWP)for negligence and continuing neglect of duty of care!
It is 80 years since a Dundee MP called Winston Churchill invents
labour exchanges with a bit of help from Beveridge - yet politicians &
civil servants have forgotten how
they used to work or what they're for. Instead we get more private sector involvement in recruitment
and continued UK labour market inefficiency unless you are part of a well-organised job-seeking network like the Poles whose newspapers are packed with small ads advertising jobs and flats and mutual support.

Sorry, something is wrong with the blog, some of my post is missing, I wanted to add for those who are interested I found a lot of the information, facts, not opinion on this website, its very up to date etc

www.swansheffield.org.uk

People have discovered that in our democracy they can vote themselves somebody else's money.

Now that the taxpayers have noticed what mugs they are it is time for a change.

Take away my 拢100 winter fuel payment and give me back the 拢125 in tax that it cost me.

No-one who can work should receive benefit for being idle.

No-one should be paid to have children.

Reduce government, welfare and tax, then watch us all prosper.

I have been unemloyed for almost 6 years so I know what exactly are they talking about. all questioned asked by Mr. Paxman left unanswered by Mr. minster for DWP!!!! why ? well, because he is a politician so he will never give an answer what politicians are good at is nothing but spin and false promises. give the job to me and I'll show you how do it.
as I said in the begining I have been unemployed for almost six years and all I was given was nothing but lies and benefit insted of help!! in fact I was indirectly forced (because I can think or possibly talk)to remain unemployed in a systematicaly and extremely organised corrupt organisation called DWP and some shadowy private contractors such as A4E or better known as ACTION 4 EMPLOYMENT.I must say that both have done nothing for me but atleast A4E earned good money for giving so called advice that I'm not aware of. I noticed that your reporter said A4E helped 11000 unemployed to get a job!!! the question now is that how many unemployed have been refered to that company by DWP? or how many of those 11000 individuals are still in the same job or whether they have been indirectly forced or even threatened to take a job or even what kind of job they have been given?

i was sent to A4E twice in the past 3 years and I must say the moment I arrived at their office it became cleare that it was another unbelievably well architechted money scam to rip-off the tax payers in order to gain profit for some fat cats!!!. I remember extremely well when I asked my advisers and their superiors at the job centre to give me a loan(拢2500)to a private company to train me as a plumber because then I could earn money and stop claiming benefit,but they simply refused by saying it was imposible but just few days later and in my astonishment they sent me to A4E supposedly to be given help and advice to get a job.I later found out that they get somthing between 拢3000 to 拢5000 to providing me with their service!!! 3 years on I'm still unemployed and tax payers have been forced to pay my expences as a result of an unworkable and incompetence organisation called DWP.

is it not crazy to pay 拢5000 to a company to give me utterly useless advice and pay close to 拢150,000 in benefit to people ( during past almost 6 years)like me insted of paying 拢2500 to train them as electrician or plumber and get rid of them consequently taking the pressure off the real tax payers sholders not those registered in tax heavens while earning in london one of which could be A4E.

I have got reasonably good information about benefit claimers and I can tell you quite confidently that 90% of benefit claimers have job and are working in black market earning realy good money some of whom are milioners and stil living in council houses. I am to scared to talk but when I saw you program I said that is it I have had enough and I want to talk.

Dear news night if you help me to speak out by publishing this comment in the best way possible I would be gratefull to send you unbelievabley detailed information about the ways most of so called unemployed benefit claimers operat and how government agencies failed to catch them.

above email account is not real because I am to scared. I know you can get me if you want to, but I do not want to get in to problem. I'm doing this because I believe as an upright citizen I have a duty and it is to help to put the things right if I can.

if I see this published I'll send you more with prove and evidence so show you the scale of abuse.

many thank -- traped and tiered

Sorry, something is wrong with the blog, some of my post is missing, I wanted to add for those who are interested I found a lot of the information, facts, not opinion on this website, its very up to date etc

www.swansheffield.org.uk

I have worked hard all my life and payed my taxes, rates etc I am now 57 years old and will have been married to the same lady for 30 years this March.We have raised two children who we managed to send to university. Although my wife has never worked full time since the children were born, both my children are honest and hard working and everything seemed to be going well.
That was untill four years ago
when my wife and i realised our son who was 19 at the time, and studying at university, had some kind of psychosis problems. Which have gradually became more serious and culminated in him being admitted to a psychiatric hospital under a section 3 order at the end of last october that is because he did not think there was anything wrong with him, and the above had to be done for his own safety because he was becoming so vunerable when he went out.
During this 4 year period I have lost my father and did not know for 8 days that he had died, had a nervous breakdown my wife has had serious kidney problems which she is now recovering from.

All this has taken a toll on our health my wife has had to finish work because of her health and to look after our son.

I had to claim for myself 10 months ago and was put on incapacity benefit WHEN YOU ARE ON INCAPACITY BENEFIT YOU CANNOT CLAIM ANY OTHER BENEFITS I HAVE A SMALL PENSION WHICH I AM DRAWING BECAUSE WE NEED THE MONEY I PAY 22 PERCENT TAX ON THAT. ALSO WE CANNOT CLAIM CARERS ALLOWANCE FOR OUR SON.

MY WIFE HAD TO FINISH WORK 2 MONTHS AGO AND HAS ONLY JUST RECEIVED INCOME SUPORT OF 拢56.00 POUNDS A WEEK BENEFIT BUT WE STILL HAVE TO PAY OUR GAS ELECTRICITY WATER RATES ETC LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

THE COMPANY WHO SHE HAD BEEN A LOYAL EMPLOYEE OF FOR NEARLY TEN YEARS SAID THEY DID NOT HAVE TO PAY HER SICK PAY FOR THE MONTH OF JANURY WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY A PERSON WHO DEALS IN THESE MATTERS AND IS HELPING US THAT WHAT THEY SAY IS INCORRECT.THEY ALSO GOT THE FIGURES ON HER P60 FOR 2005/6 WRONG SO SHE COULD NOT CLAIM INCAPACITY BENEFIT THERE IS NOW AN INVESTIGATION INTO THIS BY HM TAXES.

If had not been for my wifes parents i do not know how we would have survived the last 10 months during this time we have used up all our savings we also had our bank account emptied by someone who obtained my wifes debit card details last year which took 2 months to resolve we have had to pay our rates utility bills rent etc although we are now getting some help with the rent and rates

THE POLITICIANS AND MEDIA COMMENTATORS CREATE AN IMPRESSION THAT PEOPLE WHO CLAIM STATE BENEFITS AND LIVE IN COUNCIL HOUSES ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOW THIS IS DISGUSTING BECAUSE THE MAJORITY ARE DESCENT HARD WORKING PEOPLE I AM ONE OF THEM AND PROUD OF IT.

PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS IN LIVE THAT IS A FACT, TAKE THERE INCOME OF THEM AND SEE HOW LONG THEY SURVIVE ON THERE SAVINGS LIKE I HAD TO AT FIRST BUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A BENEFITS SYSTEM YOU WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE ANORCHY.

So the powers that be should not punish ordianary people who fall on hard times for one reason or another. If Politicians cannot balance the countries financies and mishandle the economy. Do not try to sqeeze the most vunerable in our society just because they are easy meat and finally for the powers that run this country remember.WHO KNOWS WHATS AROUND THE CORNER 'FOR HOW THE ALMIGHTY HATH FALLEN' IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE.

I work for an advice bureau which provides welfare benefit and debt advice.

I find general discussion of such matters woefully ignorant of the realities of existence for the clients I see every day. Clients who have to suffer the indignities of our exceptionally complicated welfare system.

The system is itself unfit for purpose but the depth of ignorance of the hows and whys of existing within it are so profound; even, are perhaps especially, amongst politicians, that I despair of any attempts by them to fix it.

Why not target the poor?

This government and the opposition always look for the easiest target and in the poor they have one.

People who live a millionares lifstyle at taxpayers expense such as politicians, should have their payments cut when they fail to deliver on their promises!

In which case none of them would ever get payed because they have caused this problem, that is poverty to increase, by introducing policys that have increased unemployment and poverty generally!

We cannot abandon the poorest in our society because a bunch of vastly over payed idiots in parliament say so!

Remember, we live in a country which has been lucky enough to experience one of the best welfare states in the world. We are protected from absolute poverty and given adequate resources to maintain a decent standard of living at all times. Whilst we hear the ever-present objections from those who claim to have been shunned and neglected by the system it is evident that if they were to live in any other country it would soon serve to show them how lucky we are. I think we all need to review our priveledged situation and gift our confidence to our extremely capable welfare state.

Incentives? A common word used amongst the media and politicians to address people returning to work.

Not only did the Rt Hon James Purnell fail to answer any of Mr. Paxman's he failed to address 'incentives' in his comments and reforms.

What incentives are there to return to work if you recieve equal or less income than when on benefits.

The income one receives when one is countable for full tax, income support, council tax and housing benefit (if applicable) puts many low income workers into the poverty bracket and financially less off than when on benefits.

A well travelled university graduate I returned to this country to find work as quick as possible to 'pay my way'. Employment at minimum wage is quick and easy to find, (even though being overly educated can put you at a disadvantage for these posts). I found myself worse off. loosing housing benefit, paying council tax, income tax and the additional costs associated with going out to work such as formal dress and travel.

Surely the governments response is pretty simple. Increase the income at which point one has to pay income and council tax. Now there's an incentive. Go to work and actually earn money!

All the interviewees on the show stressed that the majority of people want to return back to work. Ok, point taken. But not even 'dollies' are stupid enough to make themselves worse off and with extra effort. So you may 'want' to work but the economist in you will stay on benefits.

Cut taxes on low incomes, cut your benefits bill, cut the unemployed, raise Britain's productivity. The lost revenue from taxes can only amount to the benefits bill and the bill of private companies paid to put people back into work.

I believe tax payers would be happier contributing to someone's taxes than their dole check

I was shocked to hear Lynn Jones's comment regarding "Companies like BT have an excellent structure for supporting people for example with mental health issues"

Having being on the receiving end of BT's excellent structure for support for nearly three years after an accident at work that eventually caused me to have "mental health issues" I was on the verge of suicide.

I feel so strongly about 'caring BT' because I'm aware of another case on-going of somebody who has contacted me recently and asked how I had managed through all the periods of feeling abandoned almost feeling like you are being constructively dismissed...Well the help I received was not through 'caring BT' but through strength of a loving family and finding a Doctor who could understand the issues of balancing work/a normal life style and pain.

Sure BT have all the answers unless you at the receiving end, the loneliness and isolation of illness and then when you get back to work the snide remarks by managers who should know better, in a situation where you have had to change your job due to disability you can become a spare part with never a permanent position available to suit your condition.
One of the main problems I felt was that I was a Burdon to any group I worked for as your disability was a drain on their productivity target levels, this become obvious when I was asked if I would like to go onto a job search list where all managers are asked if there is a suitable vacancy on their groups...Once that search is over and no work is found what do you do???..*

** WARNING** this is the start of the caring BT's Dismissal procedure.

As a previously hard working 'Productive' engineer with absolutely no bad marks against me with years of service I was reduced to an employee who nobody wants.......I hope these managers are not the people that BT have found positions for are the people with "Mental health issues" .....Oh hang on that could explain it.....

Buzby

Let's just quickly look back over the history of The Welfare State. It all began in 1899 when Seebohm Rowntree and Charles Booth (Quakers) became concerned about poverty (initially in York). It was they who first began to talk about "Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness". Language is continually evolving and the meanings they ascribed to those words were different then (consider the change in use of many words, such as 'gay'). By 'Want' they meant 'Absolute Poverty' i.e. that people did not have basics of food, clothing, and shelter. 'Disease' was a far bigger problem then, there were no NHS hospitals, people could either afford to pay a Doctor or not. By 'Ignorance' they were referring to the inability to read, write, or manage simple arithmetic; commonplace as there were no 'state schools'. 'Squalor' was seen as people living in scenarios which constituted a health hazard. By 'Idleness' they did not mean laziness but 'being unable to find work'; let us remember those unable to find work would not have had any form of income to feed their families! Thes e five problems, collectively led to people being 'in poverty'. It was Beveridge, much later (1940's) who led politicians to declare "...if we can ensure that everyone has this basic income, we can say we have eradicated poverty". This was the basis upon which the Welfare State was founded(The National Insurance Act 1946). This has been the rationale ever since... definition referred to by Sir Keith Joseph in his pamphlet 'Equality' in 1979. By then a different view on poverty had emerged largely due to the work of Peter Townsend. He argued that: "...families are in poverty if their resources restrict them from participating in the range of relationships and consumption activities which constitute full membership of society". Whichever view you take one thing is clear: There are many families in Britain today who struggle to survive on State Benefits alone, or with some State support. To remove these basic benefits would result in their being 'in poverty' and they would then have to resort to whatever might help alleviate their situation (eg crime). The proposed policies would hit those in greatest need the hardest. It would represent a return to Victorian Britain in essence. We have clearly made improvements since the turn of the 19th Century, but let us not delude ourselves - there is still poverty in Britain today.

David Freud's proposals for welfare reform should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by all of the media.

This report is a shoddy and superficial piece of work which, when shorn of the statistical sophistry of its many brightly coloured charts and graphs and its lengthy exposition of welfare provision in other countries, demonstrates David Freud鈥檚 complacent ignorance of the subject. His statement that the medical test which entitles claimants to receive Incapacity Benefit is ludicrous is in itself highly risible. He gives the impression that claimants are in cahoots with their G.P.s who are only too pleased to certify that they are entitled to this benefit. He is obviously unaware of the process which claimants have to go through. It is also obvious that he does not realise that these claimants undergo an independent, rigorous medical assessment conducted by a Department of Work and Pensions Approved Doctor.

In promoting his report, when he was not articulating the prejudices of the saloon bar on the subject of malingerers who live off the bounty of the state, Freud gave tongue to the very same soundbites spun in the boiler room of New Labour which David Blunkett used to come away with during his short tenure as Secretary for Work and Pensions. I refer to those facile throw away lines about work being the best cure for illness and depression.

According to David Freud, of the 2.5 million people who are in receipt of Incapacity Benefit only about 740,000 are genuinely entitled to it. Freud 鈥榮 solution is to entrust the private sector to purge those undeserving elements from the benefit roll. If 1,760,000 are to be put back to work courtesy of the private sector, where is the staff to come from to do this? How are they to be trained? What incentives will be on offer to purge the benefit rolls?

Inevitably the involvement of the private sector will mean corner and cost cutting. The staff will be temporary contract employees whose pay will depend on results. Their training will last a mere three to six weeks at the end of which they will emerge with ring binder folders replete with forms with boxes to tick to ensure that enough people will taken off Incapacity Benefit and forced to seek work for which they are unfit. If this will be the case, those private companies should not be allowed to dictate that commercial confidentiality clauses in their contracts prevent us from learning what they are being paid to carry out this work. After all we know that Incapacity Benefit costs us 拢12.5 billion a year, therefore, it is only reasonable that we should know what it will cost to reduce this sum.

Finally although the Tories back David Freud鈥檚 proposal, it was they who introduced Incapacity Benefit in April, 1995 when they where determined to drive malingerers off benefit and back to work. William Hague was the then Department of Social Security minister who oversaw the day to day passage through the House of Commons the legislation which brought about this change.

I missed the programme but would ask if anyone had a break-down of claimants by area. Where exactly are all these unskilled jobs to be found in some areas? If there were masses of jobs around the UK the government wouldn't have to encourage half the working-age young people off the dole register and into higher ed. The ones remaining are, by and large, unemployable - thanks to our secondary school education.

There are several hundred people at Westminster (for about a third of the year)also taking advantage of the taxpayer, moonlighting and never having done any proper work. What about them? Does the amount of benefit paid out equal MPs' expenses and pensions? We cannot expect ordinary people to be conscientious unless the people at the top are blameless.

Not much about A4E who are the main benfit gainers from unemployment

JN