Why the Tories are right to tackle IB claimant numbers
Peter Hoskin 12:10pm
So far as political stories are concerned, the Sunday papers are surprisingly action-packed. Few are more eye-grabbing, though, than this item on p.2 of the Sunday Times, headlined "Tory benefit cuts may raise jobless to 4m". Sounds bad, huh? But, when you read the full thing, it turns out that the Tories may have had a good, honest idea.
Basically, the ST story claims that "senior Tories" are planning to move around 1.5 million people who claim incapacity benefit (IB) on to jobseeker's allowance (JSA) within a year of taking office. Hence the big leap in jobless figures, from what will be around 3 million, up to 4 million. It's unclear whether this is the anticipated result of existing Tory welfare policy (e.g. their more extensive 'work capability assessments'), or whether they have more policy announcements up their sleeves. But, either way, it's the first time I've seen that ambitious 1.5 million figure.
This is important. One of the most dispiriting trends in British politics began during the Thatcher era: moving claimants from JSA to IB, to hide the full extent of the nation's unemployment. And this has continued apace during the New Labour years, until there are now around 2.4 million IB claimants - and plenty of those are long-term claimants, with little hope or expectation of getting back into the labour market. I'm sure many of the claims are legitimate, but there are tell-tale signs that there's an artificial element to the IB rolls. For instance, the number of under-25s claiming IB has gone up by 52 percent since 1997.
Anything which deals with this systemic problem is welcome - and, it should be said, some progress has been made since the Employment and Support Allowance reforms implemented by James Purnell (see UPDATE below). Not only would is it more honest of the government to stop the politically-motivated practice of shifting people off JSA on to IB, but it also brings thousands of people closer to the labour market, into the kind of workfare schemes which are more likely to see them permanently employed. Good for the economy, of course. But good, too, for the life chances of people previously stuck in a welfare rut for the sake of a statistical fiddle.
Perhaps most encouraging for Tory supporters are the signs that the party are willing to take on Gordon Brown over this. You can just bet that Brown will spin this as some kind of cruel Bullingdon plot to increase the numbers of unemployed people. But a Tory source tells the Sunday Times that they will "begin a campaign [on this] in September". It's crucial that they do so. If our country's to stage anything like a decent recovery, then a lot will rest on the successful implementation of welfare reform. And that, in turn, will require a good deal of public support for the measures.
UPDATE: A thoughtful comment from Maslo below, who points out that IB claimant numbers have been falling since some of the Purnell reforms introduced last year - namely, the shift over to the Employment and Support Allowance. S/He's right: significant progress has been made, and you do hope the Tories will continue along a similar path. But I should have been clearer above - the Tory idea is to get 1.5 million people of IB within 12 months of taking office. It's an ambitious plan, and far outstrips what has so far been achieved with ESA (which has seen IB claimant numbers drop by roughly 150,000 in about 10 months). Whether they'll be able to achieve it is a different matter, of course, and both Maslo and i have our doubts. But, when it comes to Tory welfare policy, two words give me some hope: David Freud.
Previous
Wight Tory
August 16th, 2009 12:46pm Report this commentAnything that sets a published minimum criteria for IB is a good thing, Acne and other minor illnesses aren't a barr to work, and definately not as a long term issue.
A good way of measuring the problem as a whole, uncovering the effects of Labour's bean counting methods.
Ian Patterson
August 16th, 2009 12:58pm Report this commentThis has been goverment policy for a few years - look at the ESA guidance on the DWP's own web site:
http://campaigns.dwp.gov.uk/esa/
There is nothing new I can see in what the Tories propose here.
Florence of Arabia
August 16th, 2009 1:20pm Report this commentThat's nice. What are they going to do about the Lisbon Treaty?
Hawkeye
August 16th, 2009 2:06pm Report this commentIt is also important that they establish in people's minds that the 4m unemployed is a Labour phenomenon. It will also help in the run up to the election to watch Brown trying to flannel and deny the figures.
If Cameron waits until he is in government to start this, the Labour smear machine would love it.
We need to establish the true level of unemployment now. Brown can duck and dodge all he wants, but to ignore the figures in public will simply make him seem even more unreliable - if that's possible. It's hard to go further down when you're at rock bottom.
Boudicca
August 16th, 2009 3:08pm Report this commentA possible explanation for much of the increase in Invalidity Benefit paid to under 25s is the inclusion of obesity as justification for claiming inability to work.
There has been a massive increase in rates of obesity amongst young people - it seems likely that this would impact on IB claimants.
The answer is to define and limit qualifying conditions for IB: and ensure that obesity doesn't qualify. Anyone severely overweight should be told they can claim Job Seekers Allowance for up to a year, providing they are attending a daily exercise class which is paid for by the state.
Being a sit-at-home lardar$e should not entitle anyone to IB.
Maslo
August 16th, 2009 4:05pm Report this commentPete, agree with the sentiment of this article alot, but the detail seems a bit out of touch with reality.
The purnell welfare reforms are taking millions off of IB and putting them into a new benefit called ESA, which then categorises them into 3 groups, 2 of which (the majority) are expected to work or (as with single mums) prepare for work.
As a result IB rolls are falling dramatically and (somewhat amazingly) the total numbers on inactive benefits are not even rising in the current recession (almost unheard of in the developed world).
It would be good if the tories continued all this when they get in - but so far they havent really indicated a stomach for the fight - and have pandered on issues like single mums rather than showing they are tough welfare reformers.
Verity
August 16th, 2009 4:14pm Report this commentAny young person with obesity problems should be sent to boot camp for one year. Another sensible and practical reason to re-instate National Service.
Pete Hoskin
August 16th, 2009 4:43pm Report this commentMaslo: thank you for making that important point. I certainly wasn't clear enough in my original post about the progress that has been made. I've now slightly amended it and added an UPDATE above - so hopefully that brings it a bit more in touch with reality! Again, thank you.
Anne Wotana Kaye
August 16th, 2009 5:22pm Report this commentJust thinking such thoughts will lose Cameron votes. Now Brown and Co. have almost succeeded in destroying Britain, he has a huge captive audience of voters prepared to live out their 'orrible little lives on the hard earned money of the few who still work. "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs." Unfortunately tnere are a lot of obese parasites out there, and Nu Labour is banking on them. So go carefully, Cameron, very carefully.
Chuck Unsworth
August 16th, 2009 5:33pm Report this commentActually a graph or two would be very useful here.
Frank
August 16th, 2009 5:42pm Report this comment@Florence (OOT) of Arabia
Why not just ignore it like the Germans will. Have You not realized the import of the recent ruling of the German Federal Supreme Court on the subject.
Occasional Ostrich
August 16th, 2009 5:55pm Report this commentThose on IB for spurious reasons will all be Labour voters anyway, assuming they can drag themselves off the couch and walk to the polling station. However much the Conservatives p!ss them off they still have only one vote each - I think.
TGF UKIP
August 16th, 2009 7:01pm Report this commentJames, funny that - my (northern) copy of the S. Times appears to carry no such story.
Pete Hoskin
August 16th, 2009 7:21pm Report this commentTGF: Did you mean 'Pete' (i.e. me) not James? Either way, odd that your S. Times doesn't have this. I've just checked - and it's definitely on p.2 of my (Southern!) copy. It's linked to above, anyway.
Victor Southern
August 16th, 2009 8:06pm Report this commentNo harm in introducing honest statistics in government - we have had about 15 years of total claptrap and deliberate obfuscation.
Verity
August 17th, 2009 3:18am Report this commentFrank asks, re a question I asked: Have You not realized the import of the recent ruling of the German Federal Supreme Court on the subject.
No, actually. But then, I don't follow the German Federal Supreme Court as carefully as I should.
Verity
August 17th, 2009 3:21am Report this commentVictor Southern: "deliberate obfuscation".
If it weren't deliberate, it wouldn't be obfuscation, would it?
ukbix
August 17th, 2009 9:14am Report this commentSomeone wanted a graph - here is one
http://www.ukbix.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=165
note IB figures have been falling for YEARS.
As for Freud - anyone calling for him to speak loses credibility in my eyes instantly.
Take a look at the comment I left here
http://indusdelta.co.uk/story/fnd_phase_2_released_may_be_cancelled_conservatives/3742
and explain to me why you think he is in any way someone remotely suitable to comment on benefits at all.
The 100 thousand figure quoted in the press (number of IB) is meaningless, as people are not yet officially being migrated from ib to esa.
ESA has a huge fail rate, as was planned - the tory figure probably just represents the current fail rate of new claimaints.
Many genuine claimaints will suffer - read
http://www.ukbix.com/viewtopic.php?t=172&f=16
as for doing it in 12 months hmmm.
1. Going to have a tough time explaining why 1.5 million people who legally are not fit for work at present are suddenly cured.
2. Cant happen without massive tax spend, insufficient infrastructure in place to cope even with current testing levels, never mind re-testing a minimum of 1.5 million (best case scenario for them) in 12 months, not even if all examiners work 24/7, 365 days of they year.
As usual, its easier for the parties to attack the sick and disabled to gain public favour in times of economic crisis, than to tackle root issues, worked well for germany didnt it....
ukbix
August 17th, 2009 10:31am Report this commentps - re statistics,the dwp do not even hold statistics which show the basics such as how percentages of how people fail each type of medical, how many of those appeal, how many are overturned at appeal etc etc.
They dont in effect have a clue how efective the current system is, never mind what it will be like when reformed.
paul
August 17th, 2009 1:52pm Report this commentThe hardliners on this site, all want to remember, Do not become ill or unemployed in this country when the welfare state is gone. Think about that tonight when you go to bed.
david
August 17th, 2009 3:08pm Report this commentWhat I find astonishing about these figures is the spare capacity in labour this country has after the longest period of growth in history. At the peak we had nearly 1 million europeans and others holding down jobs and paying taxes in this country with nearly 4 million of our own citizens being maintained by the state. I know our education system is bad but this is ridiculous.
Trafalgar
August 17th, 2009 3:58pm Report this commentVerity, if every American child with obesity problems had to go to boot camp, the cost would triple the US national debt.
Verity
August 17th, 2009 5:28pm Report this commentTrafalgar, no, because they'd save on fried chicken and 'burgers.
ukbix
August 17th, 2009 7:35pm Report this commentYou two (Trafalgar and Verity) do realise the issue is about UK benefits, not US don't you?
Ps, I note my last comment hasn't shown, is their a problem with it, or is it too embarassing that the powers that be may not have thought certain things through properly?
JohnBUK
August 17th, 2009 10:24pm Report this commentPaul, in case you haven't noticed we CANNOT AFFORD the Welfare State as it is at the moment. WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY LEFT. It's been hosed around the State Urinal by pillock Brown and his chums so they can feel good about themselves.
David Ossitt
August 18th, 2009 3:15pm Report this commentukbix.
"You two (Trafalgar and Verity) do realise the issue is about UK benefits, not US don't you?"
Be very careful; by referring to them as "you two" and then bracketing them together is a very bad idea.
But to then; question their understanding of the subject is near to madness.
rattyy
August 26th, 2009 3:43am Report this commentJust a thought .... could the increase in under 25's be due to the fact that under 25 JSA is only £50.95(over 25's -£64.30) , whereas there is no discrimination in IB or indeed ESA after the 13 week assessment period. There are also no tax credits available to Under 25's either, who do not have a disability or a child, and so no extra help to get a start in the labour market with a lower paid job . Couple this with being restricted to an LHA housing Benefit system that will only pay single under 25's a rate considerably lower than someone over 25.Parity in Benefits , espescailly including TAX Credits would see a huge shift of these claimants.
Back to top