Are tough times affecting attitudes to welfare?

The British Social Attitudes survey asks more than 3,000 people every year what it is like to live in Britain and how they think Britain is run. The study by independent social research agency NatCen Social Research shows that attitudes towards welfare and welfare claimants have toughened.

For example, in 2001, 88% of respondents agreed that government should be mainly responsible for ensuring unemployed people have enough to live on, whereas this has dropped to 59% now. In terms of benefit rates, 62% of respondents thought that unemployment benefits are too high, up from 54% in 2007 and 27% in 1991.

One figure that did catch my eye is that 37% of people surveyed believe that “most” people on the dole are “fiddling”. Conversely, around 1 in 3 people agree that the welfare state itself encourages people “to stop helping each other”.

In conclusion, the author notes (abbreviated):

What our data clearly show is that, while attitudes to different aspects of welfare are behaving in a far from uniform way, they are generally moving in line with the current direction of government policy, rather than responding as they have previously to the onset of recession. We see that the public is becoming less supportive of the government taking a leading role in providing welfare to the unemployed, and even to the elderly in retirement. There is less enthusiasm about public spending on all types of benefi ts and an increasing belief that the welfare system encourages dependence.

Advantaged groups who seem best-placed to weather the recession, and are least likely to rely on welfare if they do fall on hard times, are becoming markedly less supportive of welfare in principle and in practice. So while public opinion overall is moving in the same direction as the current welfare reforms and their underpinning assumptions, there is by no means a consensus – with views on some issues being more divided than they were a decade ago. As the economic crisis continues to run its course, we may yet see a polarisation of opinion that places real obstacles in the way of government, as it pursues the prolonged task of implementing its reforms.”

To download the welfare section of the report, see Are tough times affecting attitudes to welfare?

Hmmmm…........

So a large quantity reckon people claiming unemployment benefits shouldnt be given enough to live on but at the same time reckon that “people on the dole must be fiddling”

Duality and dichotomy spring to mind here (as well as ignorance of what is REALLY happening out there)

Added 19th sept…..

Benefits to be frozen for 2 years and then increased by “average” wage rise. Hmmmmm….

Coincidence? Its obvious that £71 a week is FAR too much for Jobseekers to live on.

This survey shows what we are up against and is already being used as justification by government ministers for the increasingly mean and nasty benefits system being developed.

The shift in attitudes can be changed because it is based on a constant stream of negative press and language, often inspired by or even used by politicians.  This sort of coverage , doubtless inaccurate doesn’t help: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4547280/Give-me-a-bigger-house-says-Latvian-mum-of-10-who-gets-34k-benefits.html

I think we need to develop a nationally coordinated, rapid response unit to respond to such stories and pronouncements by politicians.

Also, advice work is fertile ground for human interest stories showing what life is really like when people deal with the benefts system.  We need to publicise such stories - many claimants feel outraged at the way they are treated and are happy to go public in order to try and prevent the same happening to others.  This is a legitimate form of advoccay alongside our usual work and something we must do a lot more of.

Some of the responses to this story show that either some are not paying attention while others just do not have a grasp of the language.  Take the following examples.                                   

“Tell this woman to either get off her backside and get a job or get out.”

The article makes clear at the outset that she is working.

“These low lifes need to be sent packing! I’m fed up of supporting people who are NOT from this country it’s unfair when they are literally sponging us dry…. Help your own first surely?”

There’s that use of the word literally again.  Are sponges in the EU or in international waters?

“anyone know what the hell she is doing here anyway,can people just come here as a right and ponce,I’m at a lose on this one.”
 
Please sir!  Please sir!  I do.

“Disgraceful that she should have these children in the full knowledge that SHE cannot provide for them.” 

Don’t even go there.

“Redcorner” is right ! My parents had a large family and we were brought up in 3 rooms in a tenement -no kitchen , no bathroom, no inside w.c.and we weren’t lucky enough to have.” 

“Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o’clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of ‘ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!”

“stupid sad country glad i left it” 

Don’t let the door hit your back on the way out.

“take your country back or lose it, the identity of the nation is slowly vaporizing, in 20 years this once great nation will be a third world country, immagration is killing it slowly and strangeling the life out of it, more qualified brits are looking to move out to other countries which will leave britain with a brain drain, these people dont care to assimilate they just want the benefits, if the benefits were ridgid and harder to get then they wouldnt pour in, the present and past prime ministers are weak absolutely useless, you need a firm hand who understands the real issues who loves the nation and will get the UK out of the EU, it is sad to see that is why i had to leave after seeing droves of immegrants and radicals taking over. (sorry for my spelling)”

Sorry for my spelling.  Quite!

“Two words. Great Britain.”

I’ve got two words also and the second one is off.

“It’s about time this country stood up for itself and stopped paying benefits to these thieving parasites!! Our own people are living in poverty because we are paying these people.
That’s not racist - thats fact”. 

No that’s not fact.  Would you like to borrow my dictionary?  Dictionary!  You know that book which explains what words mean.

I’m bored now.

i think you need a wee lie down with a nice cup of tea

I know what I’d like to lie down with and it aint a drink.

Oh dear!  The Sun’s not very good at this!  A very quick QB calculation shows that, with 10 children & the amount of TC she is quoted as getting she would also get about £83 per week of her £100 rent paid - & very likely about £15 or more of the Council Tax.

The sad thing is that despite all this benefit bashing there is a serious point, which does not get discussed.  How far & for how long will the working age population be able & willing to go on providing benefits which, in some cases, put people into a better financial position than they could hope to be in from their own efforts alone?  As an example, the Sun family has a gross income I estimate (assuming the Sun has at least got the amount of TCs right!) as about £56500 pa, of which only about £17500 is earned income.  I know of another case (nothing to do with CAB) of a single person with (not seriously disabling) mental health issues who has a benefit income of over £25000 pa - equivalent to a gross earned income of around £33000 pa - with no requirement to work (this is more than one of my relatives, who is a highly specialised nurse, earns!). In the long term is this sort of level of State support sustainable?

I know there are cases where it is clear the benefit system does not provide sufficient money, but I am also increasingly convinced the system is badly skewed & that there are people (not necessarily fraudulently) who receive more than seems reasonable.  In the main, welfs see people in the former category & perhaps it’s sometimes a bit difficult to see the other side of the coin.  Of course, doing anything about this would be incredibly difficult.  In my - unpopular - view, IDS is to be commended for trying, but from what I know so far I very much doubt whether UC will make things better - if it works properly at all!

There!  Now I’ve put my head on the block.  I’m sure someone will come along & chop it off pronto!

HI Derek, you ought to try doing some advice work with us self employed people. We reckon to claim the sorts of figures you mention in expenses alone, and get benefits without paying any national insurance

Derek has some good points here that i believe transcend the whole benefits issue.

I am not advocating the means testing of the ability to have children however the world in which we live cannot function if everyone has ten kids, benefit system or no benefit system.

I know that people who have 10 kids is obviously not the norm (and therefore should not be used as a stick to bash other people with) but for crying out loud : there is never a need to have 10 kids full stop, regardless of income or status. I have made a personal choice to not have children as i cant afford to bring them up to a reasonable standard, however if i won the euromillions tomorrow i still wouldnt have 10 kids as its socially irresponsible.

As a society we must ensure that people are looked after regardless of age or income and the children must form part of the equation. They did not “ask” to be placed in this position and what does the Sun want to see? Do they want people to starve? Probably!