Dependency on the Welfare State?

I have some more thoughts on the divisive issue of benefits, which follows on from my previous post about David Cameron's plans to limit Housing Benefit to over 25's. This is after all, a very important issue (not just monetary but sociologically as well.)
We hear everywhere in our modern culture; whether it's TV & the wider media or just good old simple government announcements/interviews, that there is a "benefit dependency" culture in the UK. Now I know what it feels like to have no job and look for work, it can be a depressing and quite frankly lonely place to be... And this is a mature & well rounded (I hope) person speaking... This talk of demonising & alienating the benefit claiming population (which a large amount do actually work) really needs to end. There will always be a minority who try to abuse the system but that applies in all walks of life.
William Beveridge, one of the major influences on the modern UK welfare state, saw full employment (with unemployment at an eye watering level of 3%!) along with acceptable living wages as the basis of social welfare. Nobody is perfect, he was staunch believer in controlled eugenics which I am wary of, but that is another post altogether...
I am pretty sure that when the welfare state was set up to provide as a "safety net" for the most neediest in society, it was not envisioned that working people would need to claim money from the state to live their life to an acceptable standard. It annoys me when certain (not just right wing) modern day politicians use the phrase to misleading consequences to describe what they imagine how the welfare state should function. Also to be quite frank, as with similar issues such as creation of the NHS & ban on new public schools, a big majority don't agree altogether. Their ideology demands minimum intervention from the "big, bad, state." We would be driven back centuries with slavehouses, appalling public health, low literacy rates & no social mobility to boot.
Another problem with recent governments is the creeping use of private companies to find & help people into work. I know from first hand that in alot of instances these so called "back to work" firms are completely useless at finding people work. (if there even is any)
What else are Jobcentres meant to be exist for than to help people into work, outsourcing something to a private company which after all is only interested in profit and has no real vested interest in helping people into work; as long as they still receive the government cheques for "helping" people. There has even been accusations of serious fraud at a4e. If this was a public service and people had been directly swindled out of their money, these "dodgy" companies would not get new contracts providing yet more profits.
There are "safeguards" in place which try to stop people from swindling the state. But is alienating the very people who you are trying to help or even cutting them off from the system going to help in the long term. I doubt it...

As reported on the Guardian website...
"Private firms awarded multimillion-pound contracts to run the Work Programme have advised that there should be many more cases where claimants have their benefits stripped as punishment for failing to seek work."
If they can't do their own job properly, which they are getting paid millions for; how can they be trusted to punish the so called work shy?

Comments

Popular Posts