What is the governments agenda regarding the benefits culture?

drc

I always wonder why a government, especially this government, would want to make the welfare state larger and why it encourages people to stay on benefits rather than get a job. I understand and appreciate that there needs to be a welfare state, but I don't think it is any longer a 'last resort' safety net. It is now a lifestyle choice for millions of people and it has become a huge financial monster. The fact that it is often more financially lucrative for people to claim benefits rather than work seems crazy to me.

But why would the government want the welfare state to grow and for it to be so easy for people to claim and stay on benefits? Some people claim that this is mainly because Labour see benefits claimaints as guaranteed Labour voters, but I think this is too simplistic. So what is Labour's agenda regarding the welfare state? I know that there are going to be some changes that have been drawn up by James Purnell but it all seems too little and too late and certainly not the best time to put certain regulations through. I also suspect they are not recommending these changes because they truly believe in the health of the country and its population but because Labour has sensed a shift in public opinion regarding perceptions of the welfare state and they are worried they will lose at the next election if they are not seen to be offering lip service to these concerns.

Stories like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1162503/The-real-telly-tubbies-X-Factor-failures-83-stone-family-claim-simply-fat-work.html (yes, it is from the Daily Moan) make me wonder why the government would think it is a good idea for taxpayers to subsidise a family that seem to not want to work and whether it is physically and psychologically beneficial for such a family to stay dependent on the state which seems to encourage antisocial behaviour and irresponsibility. Obviously, this is just one case but representative of the mindset of many people at the moment who believe they are 'entitled' to everything the state has to offer without giving anything in return. What is worse is that the state is encouraging and rewarding such views rather than discouraging them.

So my question is, what is the real agenda regarding the government and the welfare state and why has there not been a sensible and realistic overhaul of the benefits system so that it works for the good of the country, rather than creating more inequality?

chopperharris

Labour do not see claimants as votes , if they in anyones summation are lazy then they wont vote.As seen in scotland last year though in a by election they did vote , against labour in defiance of changes proposed to benefits clamants in what is the worst area in the western world for life expectancy...scotland.

You are right though there needs to be a better option , but these areas of 3g (three generations) of life long claimants there is no jobs to have and health suffers through enviromental variables.

The only option , and perhaps misthankfuly for the recession , is the work to benefits scheme for the able bodied.Maybe , just maybe , this can bring pride back into communites where its a sheethole if the people whom live there want it to be...not simply lack of funding , lack of decent housing and lack of jobs....if those jobs revolved around only 8 hours graft for a giro or no giro then its the lesser of all evils.

These people are not the majority of claimants , as unemployment creeps up then life long workers will have a taste of how the perceived good life of life on handouts really is....and they wont be reading the daily facist and as easilly agreeing with it.

The protection of the workforce , "the cradle to the grave" was not meant for a lifestyle choice , this much you are right.It wasnt for the benefit of the people but the beneift of the countries war machine.Keeping everyone fit and healthy after the war was safegauding its forces and future forces.It was and still is supplying healthcare to prevent disease , and finances do ultimately prevent disease in applying a social security structure.

The income and outgoings of those on benefits is a joke , its a fraction of what others have when working and the costs of living are still the same , its basic needs and when you have lived with that lifestyle then change is bad due to fear of it being worse.They get zombified with that lifestyle , fearing that they wont be any better off taking that job at minimum wage yet having maximum outgoings.

Sure theres a beleif that folk come here to live off them by the mail readers and their ilke , but if where they came from had some sort of system do you think any would actually come here....living is cheaper there , and suprisingly better weather in most cases too.They dont come here for the benefits they come here for the same reason why we leave here to go to australia , a better life.Perhaps the option there then is ringfencing the immigrant from benefits , but history shows us that crime then rises when there is no income , people will steal and kill for food easier than for a better life or drugs.

IF we live in a benefits cutlure and 3g then the problem lies in it being the blame hound for all of societies misgivings.It becomes all to easy to blame the weaker , and to wrongly punish it.There is always a true problem rather than the masked one created for the purpose of misdirection of the voter.This problem is that of no jobs , no manufacturing , not lazy people....from what I see it takes more effort to choose to not work than to actually work.

Maybe we should go the whole hog , back to the old days of the poor house for those that are pooor and debtors prisons instead of IVA and bankruptcy.

WE might as well go further how about banning having children until over 25 and actually married for 5 years and sterilisation on a divorce.

WE can tackle the oversseas state pensioner and claimant next , and they ironically for the most part agree in the rhetoric of the mail on immigrants and benefits lifestyle.

You see when you let one part of society suffer as a blame hound , then as you eradicate it then there has to be another to replace it for blaming.Our own section eventually will become the next one.History has shown us very well that countries without a benefits system start wars on the basis of blaming otheres for their own problems....not just wars with a need for oil.

Look on the bright side-:You wont be paying for their pensions , they wont live long enough , life expectancy is approaching that of third world for those that are the minority of life long claimants....and we can start on the niggers , jews and disabled next.

cootambear

Q. What is the governments agenda regarding the benefits culture? a. Trying to create a term like `benefits culture` to explain chronic, systemic unemployment within capitalism. Trying to create hysteria around it to justify low benefit levels, and to deter claimants from claiming their desrved benfits for fear of being labelled scroungers or facing criminal actiona. Trying to deflect attention away from the vast sums, expotentially greater than benefit fraud, that are denied to the exchequer though the tax scams of the super rich.here to help

Guy_Montag

I think the govt. is just too weak to impose the changes - they have tried, there was the change to list what people on incapacity benefit were able to do, rather than that they were unable to work. But it's all a bit piecemeal & while the economy is going well, we didn't really need to, since there was enough money to pay for these people, now things are a bit sticky, it's a bit harder.

So maybe a complete rethink about how benefits should work is what is required.

What should they be for? IMO: Ensuring that no-one has to go without food, shelter & clothing.