The Miracle of St George

BobQ

MS1950 wrote: »

Has the boom in Incapacity Benefit claimant numbers passed its peak ?

.

So the numbers grew under Thatcher and Major to a peak that stabilised under Blair. Interesting!

MS1950

BobQ wrote: »

So the numbers grew under Thatcher and Major to a peak that stabilised under Blair. Interesting!

In summary, as I understand it, the explanation for increasing numbers on sickness related benefits at a time when the general health and life expectancy of the population were improving (ignoring for the moment the more recent explosion in obesity) runs something like this:

Until the end of the post-war ‘boom’ (generally dated around the time of the Opec oil price crisis of 1973) and for a few years afterwards, older and injured workers (particularly unskilled manual workers in ‘heavy industry’) would usually be found alternative ‘light work’ – storemen, checking clerks, cleaners etc – and so kept on the payroll.

But after the effective dismantling of UK heavy industry under Thatcher, Howe and Lawson in the early 1980’s:

1. there was far less unskilled manual work overall;

2. in the ‘brave new’ insecure, unregulated and competitive labour market introduced under Thatcher there was no ‘slack’ for these older, injured and less able workers to be kept on – and so they were shunted onto Incapacity Benefit.

Researchers like Beatty and Fothergill (mentioned in the Has the boom in Incapacity Benefit claimant numbers passed its peak ? report) reckon that since then these older, injured and less able workers have been the last to find jobs during any economic ‘upturn’ and the first to be laid off during a ‘downturn’.

As a result, in the current economic climate, the ‘best’ that the Coalition and it’s private ‘Work Programme’ contractors are likely to achieve is to move some of these people from the slightly higher paying ‘Incapacity Benefit’ to lower level ‘Job Seeker’s Allowance’ (JSA) – but not actually find them jobs – whatever the government’s ‘Big Lie’ PR offensive of the last few days might claim.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

But those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Says little for the current Shadow Government then......

grizzly1911

BobQ wrote: »

So the numbers grew under Thatcher and Major to a peak that stabilised under Blair. Interesting!

MS1950 wrote: »

In summary, as I understand it, the explanation for increasing numbers on sickness related benefits at a time when the general health and life expectancy of the population were improving (ignoring for the moment the more recent explosion in obesity) runs something like this:

Until the end of the post-war ‘boom’ (generally dated around the time of the Opec oil price crisis of 1973) and for a few years afterwards, older and injured workers (particularly unskilled manual workers in ‘heavy industry’) would usually be found alternative ‘light work’ – storemen, checking clerks, cleaners etc – and so kept on the payroll.

But after the effective dismantling of UK heavy industry under Thatcher, Howe and Lawson in the early 1980’s:

1. there was far less unskilled manual work overall;

2. in the ‘brave new’ insecure, unregulated and competitive labour market introduced under Thatcher there was no ‘slack’ for these older, injured and less able workers to be kept on – and so they were shunted onto Incapacity Benefit.

Researchers like Beatty and Fothergill (mentioned in the Has the boom in Incapacity Benefit claimant numbers passed its peak ? report) reckon that since then these older, injured and less able workers have been the last to find jobs during any economic ‘upturn’ and the first to be laid off during a ‘downturn’.

As a result, in the current economic climate, the ‘best’ that the Coalition and it’s private ‘Work Programme’ contractors are likely to achieve is to move some of these people from the slightly higher paying ‘Incapacity Benefit’ to lower level ‘Job Seeker’s Allowance’ (JSA) – but not actually find them jobs – whatever the government’s ‘Big Lie’ PR offensive of the last few days might claim.

I am not sure it was due to Thatcher and Major ( though they may have hastened it) they just happened to be there in the initial period of UK plc decline described by MS195 in #54.

By the time of Blair et al, the worst of the casualties, were already there.

The current shake up might get some off the bench but for many they will just get a different shirt.

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

So the numbers grew under Thatcher and Major to a peak that stabilised under Blair. Interesting!

That's an interesting interpretation of that graph. When I look at it 1995 appears to be the year that the trend changed, but there you go...

wotsthat

Moby wrote: »

Its not the word 'not'. Its the definition of 'disabled'. The Govmt have got ATOS to re-define the term to make the test more rigorous. The people that have been put off by the more rigorous test will just pop up at hard pressed casualty units or local alcohol, mental health units, drug units etc. I know because I supervise such people. They are just being pushed around the system really.

Yes the usual suspects will be clogging up A&E but why would that increase because of an arbitrary change in definition of the word "disabled". Unless there's less access to support (rather than just having less money) it shouldn't make any difference.

BobQ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

That's an interesting interpretation of that graph. When I look at it 1995 appears to be the year that the trend changed, but there you go...

Let me try again! So the numbers grew dramatically under Thatcher and Major before slowing their rate of increase in 1995 and following a similar trend thereafter under Blair.

I agree its not totally correlated with the governing party. However, earlier on Generali stated

That's what I'd always assumed but if you look at the numbers, big increases in the number of people 'on the sick' started during the 1974-9 Labour Government. In some ways that is logical as that's when unemployment figures first became contentious.

I do not think its fair to blame an incoming Government for this kind of trend in their first year or two, but the figures clearly did not shoot up to present levels in 1974-79. The Tories allowed the figures to rise in part to massage the unemployment figures as was widely mentioned at the time. They had 15 plus years to address any abuse and did try, as I recall, but failed.

Generali

So I think we have some agreement. The figures rose quickly under the Tories to try to reduce the unemployment figures. The Blair Government did nothing to address the situation as it also suited their needs.

So this is a long overdue change.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

So I think we have some agreement. The figures rose quickly under the Tories to try to reduce the unemployment figures. The Blair Government did nothing to address the situation as it also suited their needs.

So this is a long overdue change.

I am not so sure it suited their needs rather they were limited in what they could do to reduce it, apart from rename it.

Similarly the conservatives have sought to rename it and shake the tree in the vein hope a few fall off.

Some how I doubt this "change" will actually save money rather put a temporary brake on it. I am sure it will balloon somewhere else.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

So I think we have some agreement. The figures rose quickly under the Tories to try to reduce the unemployment figures. The Blair Government did nothing to address the situation as it also suited their needs.

So this is a long overdue change.

I agree, provided the assessment system is fair and does not deter the deserving as well as the undeserving. Its not an easy decision to make, but equally its not always a good experience for the person being assessed if they are nervous, inarticulate etc.