Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
The Future State of Welfare with John Humphrys - BBC2 Thursday 27 October
Tonight on BBC2 at 9pm, John Humphrys is presenting a programme that claims to examine public attitudes to welfare reform, as well as meeting people claiming benefits.
John Humphrys travels the country to talk to the people with the most to lose: people on incapacity benefit; the long-term unemployed; people on housing benefit; lone parents. Are they prepared for the harsher future ahead? He returns to the area where he was born - Splott in Cardiff - to show how attitudes to work and welfare have changed in his lifetime. When he was growing up, a man who didn’t work was regarded as a pariah; today, one in four of the working-age population in Splott is on some form of benefit. John also visits America, where 15 years ago they embarked on what has been called a ‘welfare revolution’. Is this more punitive model where the UK heading? He looks at specific reforms the Government has in mind or has begun already.
Humphrys concludes that the public don’t like what they see as a growing sense of entitlement among some groups claiming benefits, and politicians respond to the public mood. He argues that there is strong consensus across political divides, and that reform would edge the UK back towards the original Beveridge vision of welfare.
I must admit that, from listening to some clips this morning on the Today programme, I have some reservations as to the balance of this programme, but we shall see.
Just come across a very good blog piece on Left Foot Forward by Declan Gaffney challenging some of the implicit assumptions that often seem to accompany programmes such as these, well worth a read.
Nobody would argue the UK social security system is perfect, but those who claim it shows systemic failures which throw into question its survival in its current form have no evidence for their assertions: if they did, we would be seeing it, rather than the deluge of misleading statistics and half-truths which dominates debate.
In a sense, this may not matter; Humphrys notes:
“In my decades of reporting politics I have never before seen the sort of political consensus on the benefits system that we seem to be approaching now.”
He may be right, but if this is the case, it is not because the welfare dependency theory has proved itself – it has failed abysmally: it is because the political terms of trade have changed so all parties are engaged in a battle for marginal advantage on this terrain.
All of which raises an interesting question for journalists: if there is a political consensus here, should they not be trying to make politicians’ lives more difficult by challenging it, rather than easier by promoting it?
John Humphrys is wrong, wrong, wrong on social security; here’s why
There are extremely basic points which are not being got across in the debate about welfare reform.
Yes there are large numbers of people who have had to claim means tested benefits for far too long. And as any adviser knows, one rareley comes across anyone who really is able to work and who actually enjoys being in that position (as opposed to being resigned to it and making the best of it).
The debate has become completely skewed so that claimants are blamed for problems which are not of their making. Punishment is the only solution on offer from all the political parties.
There is considerable evidence to show that people get trapped on means tested benefits because of a combination of redundant or inadequate skills, prejudice by some employers, the preponderance of low pay even unskilled jobs, a chronic shortage of unskilled jobs and a miserly earnings disregard which for most people has not been increased since 1988. If one also factors in the cost of travel, childcare and housing it is therefore no surprise that some people find they have to turn down offers of low paid work.
The DWP’s own tax–benefit model tables vividly demonstrate the negative effects of low-paid work and high housing costs and the poverty trap effect of means tested benefits. Child benefit has a positive effect on the poverty trap inherent in means tested benefits and this is one reason why groups like CPAG have long campaigned for it to be increased to a realistic level.
The UK in comparison to other European countries, is particularly wedded to an obsession with delivering social security via means testing – we’ve never really destroyed the notions of the deserving and undeserving poor from the Poor Law.
Then there is the evidence from Citizens Advice and DWP research to show the uncertainty people feel because of the administrative failures in DWP/LA HMRC they experience when moving into work. Rightsnet users have seen more than enough such examples.
None of the political parties are willing to address or even acknowledge these issues – indeed the current government is making the problem worse by proposing to increase housing costs in the social rented sector and failing to cap private sector rents while also cutting help with childcare costs and freezing child benefit.
Worst of all, we are now seeing the emergence of a “no work no welfare” group of people – something else we have imported from the USA which carries enormous social and economic costs not to mention damage to the individuals concerned.
Am I alone in thinking that the problem is that there are no low skilled and relatively well paid jobs outside of service industry anymore?
The lack of manufacturing or primary industry work means people have to have different expectations and skills to do the available work. If you don’t want to work in a call centre, in a shop or as a cleaner it seems there is little hope for low skilled workers (and that’s if you don’t have to move to get work.)
I for one was expected as a youngster to either get a job at 16 at a pot bank or at Creda making washers. If I was really lucky I could work at the Michelin or JCB, both of which paid well.
Since the early eighties the potteries closed down due to lack of demand for ‘the product’ and in other cases production has shifted into other countries where labour costs are lower.
Some people will never want to work ‘in service’ and that therefore, leaves them little choice leading to apathy and anger. Maybe?
That programme was AWFUL. The GP who would not sign off her patients was the worst bit for me.
A 68-year old man stands in a terraced street in Cardiff and wonders why all the men (except one) worked in the 1950s, unlike today.
Perhaps John Humphries thought he was in a Dr Who epsode, also made in Cardiff, as much of the last 60 years seems to have passed him by. Gender equality? The loss of heavy industry? The massive decline in mining? Shipbulding gone? The rise of China and other countries? The successive failure of government after government to get a grip on mobility in housing (let alone build any)? The failure of the education system for that significant minority of people without basic skills. No, none of these issues (and many more) were part of the problem for our John. The fact that many skilled or semi-skilled jobs have gone didn’t figure.
We were then casually treated to a list of low paid jobs he read out from a terminal at Cardiff Jobcentre. There was no exploration of how any of these jobs would pay in practice via tax credits, or how the lucky jobseekers would pay their grossly inflated fuel bills from their wages, or how HMRC would scramble their WTC awards. Nah, can’t be bothered to go into any of that, after all if your’e on an alleged £500k a year why would you be interested anyway? And who would be interested in the fact that the taxpayer tops up (via tax credits) the low wages of people who work for highly profitable companies (tip: take a look around Canary Wharf John).
The separate arguments around the need for a flexible, modern social security system and the issue of worklessness were conflated, of course, despite the massive amounts of tax and NI we pay to insure ourselves. Oh, and he forgot to mention the 12-month cut off for contributory ESA coming in April, or the massive costs incurred by the public purse thanks to the huge upsurge in unnecessary ESA tribunals. But we did have a few quizzical thoughts about Workfare at the end following his trip to New York paid for by us, of course.
Yes, there is a need for an intelligent look at the problems of worklessness - a series in fact, but this wasn’t it. If the programme had been a tribunal I’d be appealing to the Upper Tribunal on the basis that he failed to establish the facts. But I’ll give him 2/10 for trying to tell us that all parties appear to be agreed on drastically reducing the cost of the welfare state.
I had to restrian myself from posting anything on this last night, for fear of what I would say.
A complete failure to examine anything external to the world of “the benefit claimant”, it set itself up as a pseudo-scientific analysis that moved inexorably to the conclusion that was pre-ordained from the outset.
There was no exploration of how any of these jobs would pay in practice via tax credits, or how the lucky jobseekers would pay their grossly inflated fuel bills from their wages, or how HMRC would scramble their WTC awards.
The programme was, I thought, an exploration of the argument of how the modern benefit system has increased idleness.
Presumably if the few (and it was 2?) contributors had not said things like ‘why should I…,’ ‘I’m not working for minimum wage’ and ‘...I’d miss my kids…’ the programme would have had to go and explore the issues.
However, seeing as 2 of people did say the things above it sort of proved the point he was making to the audience.
I’m sure in the audience watching were many people who do work (some for NMW), who wonder themselves how they are going to manage the bills but don’t understand why someone would ‘choose’ not to work.
....and that’s the issue…the perceived ‘choice’ of the benefit claimant.
It would deserve a series IMO to carefully explore the issues involved.
After all I know a man who gets DLA for…..........(insert usual here.)
Or you could say that when, for example, someone says I couldn’t afford to work because I would lose my housing benefit, there is a duty on the programme makers to point out the fact that HB can also be claimed as an in-work benefit i.e. it’s an ignorance of the system that is the bigger problem and that’s why free independent advice is a good thing?
You know, a publicly funded scheme for welfare benefits advice, maybe call it legal aid…..oh hang on, they’re scrapping that as well…..
I was just thinking in my mini series, that no one will watch, we could have Norman Fowler explaining his Housing Benefit scheme from the policy makers view, John Major as PM moving on to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
They could wrestle with the facts that a 25 yr old man working (renting LA flat) FT NMW will be £60 better off in work less travel expenses etc than on JSA.
Also they could explain why the earnings disregards were not addressed since the inception of IS on 11th April 1988.
If earnings disregards had been addressed year on year as had the applicable amounts then maybe they wouldn’t be in this mess?
The AA for 25+ was £33.40. Earnings disregard (single) =£5 (or 15%)
The current rate would be £10, not much to be fair but more refelective of modern times.
For instance petrol being £1.70 per gallon, I could drive from Stoke to Manchester and return for £5. (oh but why I hear you cry) These days £5 doesn’t even by a gallon.
Failing all that they could wrestle tigers or each other and be shown live on 5?
Maybe we need that bloke who explains about astro-physics to do a series on in-work benefits, or maybe the annoying One Show could do a ‘Steet Benefits’ advice session. Or better still - Alvin Hall…he’s good with money!
Maybe we need that bloke who explains about astro-physics to do a series on in-work benefits, or maybe the annoying One Show could do a ‘Steet Benefits’ advice session. Or better still - Alvin Hall…he’s good with money!
Brian Cox? Well he did do Labours theme tune for 1997…..
This kind of vox pop programme always tends to mislead the ill-informed. The benefit system is far too complicated to reduce to one or even two programmes and as already said it cannot be isolated from macro-economic factors and industrial decline. Nor can we evade the question of why this country looks to the USA for its model rather than Europe. After all Pensions were first introduced in Germany.
But John is right. The aim of the problem was to examine idleness, one of Beveridge’s social evils. I have commented previously about how the welfare state has grown into a creature that Beveridge would not recognize and certainly never intended. However that is not claimants fault. Whether the programme fulfilled its aim is a good question. Throwing in one or two examples of claimants not wanting to work does not a thesis make?
I do not consider it acceptable for a person to say that he would rather be on benefit than work. If he can’t work, fine (whether the legal definition of incapacity is drawn too tight is another matter). If he can, he should be seriously looking. This is not just the liberal capitalist position. It is the Marxist position also (somewhat simplified).
Social policy in this area is predicated on a rapidly growing benefit bill. This is wrong and the public have been deliberately misinformed. Public spending on IS/JSA/HB/CTB forms a small part of the benefits bill. The largest part by far is pensions. Public ignorance will remain as long as politicians, egged on by the yellow press, refuse to have a grown up debate about the issues.
Yes, wilful idleness is inexcusable and must be tackled. It is not acceptable for one person to work for the minimum wage while another won’t. However, the size of that problem should not be overestimated. And that issue should not be conflated with the issue of people failing the WCA being declared capable of work all this time and being labelled malingerers. Being capable of work under the WCA is a matter of law and not necessarily one of fact. After all, you could draw the line so far back that only those in comas would pass.
And, finally, how far do you go in concentrating the attack on those unwilling to work rather that concentrating it on the wider socio-economic conditions in which these attitudes flourish. Increased sanctions cause further hardship, particularly to children who are then more likely to miss education. There is less money for food so they eat less and have poorer diets. Issues of poverty and deprivation become inter-generational. Bad attitudes to work become inherited and we end up in thirty years time trying to solve the same problems all over again.
It is entirely right to ask these difficult questions and, yes, the state does need to get serious with some people. However, we need a proper grown up debate. Did last night’s programme contribute anything new to that debate? In parts yes. On the whole no.
[ Edited: 28 Oct 2011 at 02:38 pm by nevip ]I thouht the programme was first and foremost a justification for the government’s upcoming reforms. Somewhat niavely possibly, I was expecting a balanced and well reformed dicussion from the BBC. I was sadly dissapointed. Interesting to note that ESA is still being confused with Incapacity and even Sickness benefits. Also intersesting to note that ATOS refused to take part in the programme.
One question I felt was raised but not answered:- What happens to the childrenof those denied benefits for failure to co-operate with the system? Have we really arrived at a point where we punish kids for the (alleged) sins of the parents?
I thouht the programme was first and foremost a justification for the government’s upcoming reforms. Somewhat niavely possibly, I was expecting a balanced and well reformed dicussion from the BBC. I was sadly dissapointed. Interesting to note that ESA is still being confused with Incapacity and even Sickness benefits. Also intersesting to note that ATOS refused to take part in the programme.
One question I felt was raised but not answered:- What happens to the childrenof those denied benefits for failure to co-operate with the system? Have we really arrived at a point where we punish kids for the (alleged) sins of the parents?
Some great people out there, self made people, made their fortune without help or assistance from state or otherwise and they came from abject poverty. A poverty of which few today would recognise, no shoes, no food, no heat etc.
So on that basis if a few million people are reduced to abject poverty then in 30years we’ll have a rush of billionaires to solve the problem.
I think thats how it works.
But John is right
I am, and at least twice a day.
Nice post btw.
Oh and no dating quips.
Britain may be one of the world’s richest countries but it ranks poorly on fairness, according to an influential German thinktank.
Britain falls short because of its child poverty rate, which is just above that of Greece, only spending 0.28% of national income on early childhood education, and an unemployment rate of 19% among young people.
“About one in nine Britons now lives below the poverty line, educational opportunities for children depend considerably on their social background, and the recent increase in unemployment means too many young people have poor prospects in the labour market,” said De Geus.
Britain was also singled out for a “particularly high level of earnings inequality”.
Britain ranks poorly in global ‘fairness’ league
Pay for the directors of the UK’s top businesses rose 50% over the past year, a pay research company has said.
Incomes Data Services (IDS) said this took the average pay for a director of a FTSE 100 company to just short of £2.7m.
The rise, covering salary, benefits and bonuses, was higher than that recorded for the main person running the company, the chief executive.
Their pay rose by 43% over the year, according to the study.
Prime Minister David Cameron, speaking in Australia, said the report was “concerning” and called for big companies to be more transparent when they decide executive pay.
Directors’ pay rose 50% in past year, says IDS report
Good job we’re all in this together, now if we can get rid of all these poor people, we’ll be laughing…..
Bring back the £10 passage to Australia!
“Britain falls short because of its child poverty rate, which is just above that of Greece, only spending 0.28% of national income on early childhood education, and an unemployment rate of 19% among young people.”
Aren’t these figures meaningless? Particularly given Greeces financial woes.
You might as well compare Greeces olive exports with that of Greenland.
It would be better if comparisons were put side by side with France, Germany and Holland.
Bring back the £10 passage to Australia!
Don’t bring passages into this please. It’s Friday.
“Britain falls short because of its child poverty rate, which is just above that of Greece, only spending 0.28% of national income on early childhood education, and an unemployment rate of 19% among young people.”
Aren’t these figures meaningless? Particularly given Greeces financial woes.
You might as well compare Greeces olive exports with that of Greenland.
It would be better if comparisons were put side by side with France, Germany and Holland.
From the report:
Iceland tops the fairness league despite having massive national debt. Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland came next. The US was 27th and Turkey last.
France and Germany fared better than Britain although all three were outside the top five “fairest” rich nations.
And I’ve come across a few adults now, via ESA issues, that have been living on CTC. Another side effect of the ESA problems.
“Britain falls short because of its child poverty rate, which is just above that of Greece, only spending 0.28% of national income on early childhood education, and an unemployment rate of 19% among young people.”
Aren’t these figures meaningless? Particularly given Greeces financial woes.
You might as well compare Greeces olive exports with that of Greenland.
It would be better if comparisons were put side by side with France, Germany and Holland.
From the report:
Iceland tops the fairness league despite having massive national debt. Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland came next. The US was 27th and Turkey last.
France and Germany fared better than Britain although all three were outside the top five “fairest” rich nations.
How much better did they fare?
How much better did they fare?
Absolutely no idea.
“Some great people out there, self made people, made their fortune without help or assistance from state or otherwise and they came from abject poverty. A poverty of which few today would recognise, no shoes, no food, no heat etc”
Quite so. Those of us who can remember back 50, 60, 70 years know that what is today described as poverty bears very little resemblance to what it was.
Poverty is an emotive word. In my view (waiting to be shot down in flames!) it is wrong to define it as a % of average income. If such a definition goes on being used I suspect you will never get rid of “poverty”.
“Oh and no dating quips”.
Not even one? Half a one??. Oh alright then.
Must be Friday
A group of people wrote to the Guardian to complain about this programme:
We are outraged that the BBC is joining the propaganda war aimed at destroying the welfare state, Britain’s most civilised and civilising legacy (Last night’s TV, G2, 28 October). In the 1940s, after years of depression and slaughter, working-class people who had sacrificed so much felt entitled to a life without the constant threat of war and poverty. Family allowance, income support, unemployment and housing benefits, disability benefits, a state pension, the NHS and free education have assumed that everyone contributed and deserved to be looked after “from the cradle to the grave”.
Entitlement fostered not only dignity and respect, but decent wages and working conditions for those in work. Since 1979, Thatcher’s love for the free market and her hatred for “the culture of entitlement” has determined social policy. We are now all expected to chase nonexistent jobs or work for our benefits, ie £1.63 an hour; sick and disabled people are found “fit for work” even despite terminal illnesses; older people have had their pensions postponed because living “too long” is a crisis; the vital work of mothers and other carers is disregarded and dismissed. The minimum wage is bypassed and we all stand to lose. Why should corporations pay a living wage if they can get claimants and prisoners to work without one?
A well researched impartial series is well overdue.
Even the series about A4e’s efforts (Hayley Taylor) was more illuminating than that and did at least highlight some of the issues. The BBC is obsessed with ratings despite being core funded by licence fee payers, so appears unable to avoid tabloid cliches such as the Humphrey’s programme.
I think there’s a Panorama special later this week whose title says it all: Britain on the Fiddle
I don’t think it’s disputed that work is better for you. It promotes self-confidence as well as preventing idleness. But I’m not sure it follows from that that a person is wrong to choose not to work when they physically can and when others are working for a minimum wage. The ability to work and the moral obligation to work cannot, in my opinion, be considered separately. No one would suggest that an able person work for a pound an hour, well no right thinking person anyway.
To an extent, the minimum wage is a red herring. I prefer to consider the moral obligation to work in terms of how well it allows you to obtain what Robert Tressel called the necessaries of life. It was no consolation to the Zimbabwean working class in recent times to discover that, although starving, they were all millionaires: wages were over Z$1million p/w but a loaf of bread cost Z$900. So when John Humphreys talks about why we should pay someone £1k a week for renting in Kensington he needs to forget the money figure and ask why is it that there are some places which are more expensive to live in than others and how he proposes that we can all access the necessaries of life, eg re-distribute some of his salary perhaps?
The class system in this country ensures that the middle class buy the best jobs for their offspring. In my view, in present times if you paid people £100 per day for doing nothing more than standing on their heads it wouldn’t compensate them for a lifetime’s lost opportunities caused by being born into a very unequal society. Needless to say personal view.
Although it’s very diificult to make comparisons, it would be helpful to know how things work in other countries. There are some big issues out there (no pun intended), for example, the number of you workless people in Spain and the UK is very high, but what happens in other developed countries (aside from the US). There must be some impartial research ‘out there’ somewhere!