"Work is the Best Medicine" Says Paul Flynn MP

Wondering what people think of this response to the governments new draconian green paper on Welfare Reform, I thought it was pretty thatcherite! Generally considered Flynn to be one of the more left wing Labour MPs in Wales.

Work is the best medicine
Dole inertia

http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/07/work-is-the-best-medicine.html#comments

BBC Wales has been trawling through their list of Welsh Labour MPs to find one who will condemn tomorrow’s announcement on welfare. I did a Radio Cymru interview but I will not be heard in English.

Understandably, Good Morning Wales is looking for a lively attack on Purnell’s proposals. Most of the media are gleeful at the prospect of major Labour revolt. It will not happen.

All MPs know from our daily contact with constituents that there is abuse in the welfare system. The Tories in the late eighties encouraged 100,000s of redundant workers to sign on the sick so that they would not swell even further the embarrassingly large unemployment totals.

The habit of living on the dole becomes ingrained. Many have had illnesses that have interrupted their working lives. Sometimes it’s very difficult to escape from the dependency culture and re-join the workforce.

Apart from a foolish piece of window dressing about drug-users, I will support this green paper. Most other Labour MPs share the view that a million people can be moved from unemployment back into work and health.

Work is the surest path to a full life and, also, the best medicine.

Footnote21st July) Radio Wales have not found any Welsh MP to challenge the Green Paper.

I havent read what they are proposing to do fully yet so I dont know whether or not it is a good thing or not. But to be honest I have a disabled son and when he was working it was the happiest I've seen him in a long time.There is no way he could take any job and he would need support. So I suppose like most things the devil is in the detail.

I don't have time to answer this fully, the welfare system is very complex. There's a good post here

But the gist of things is that the gov. want to make it far harder to claim benefits and establish a more draconian system - Britain already has a tougher regime than any other European country, it's part of a general neoliberal process of 'welfare reform' happening in most Western economies, that they want to move from a welfare system to a US "workfare" system where people unemployed over a year will be forced to sign on every day and work for their dole money, doing 37 hours of "community service" like petty criminals for various private companies contracted to run the workfare system. Stuff like cleaning graffiti and litter, and probably stacking shelves - the unemployed will be made to do these kind of full time jobs or risk losing the dole, only unlike a proper job they will get less than 2 quid an hour, so there's also the possibility of local council using unemployed as a highly cheap source of labour effecting jobs of regular council workers.

According to the International Labour Organisation the amount of unemployed exceeds the available jobs in the British economy. As the article linked puts it:

"At the moment, the ILO estimate of unemployment for the UK is just over 1.6m (and growing). The number of jobs available in the UK economy is just over 650,000 (and contracting). (See the most recent ONS stats here [pdf]). So, even under the best conditions, with vacancies closely matching local skill distributions and educational levels, and with employers willing to accept local populations, there would still be a vast pool of people unemployed through no fault on their own part. And they should be compelled to carry out petty, punitive labour just so that they don't lose sight of what work really means? This is reactionary drivel."

The government also aims to cut those claiming incapacity benefit by a million over the next decade, which given that every serious academic study shows that this target is not meetable means penalising the genuinely sick.

Arbeit macht frei

There aren't enough jobs going around for all welfare claimants to be forced into work. I would much prefer the present system that encourages people into work rather than forcing them. I am concerned that because of the populist backlash against welfare claimants in the media, these proposals will appear to make sense.

Here is a thoughtful response from a Plaid branch in the north:
http://plaidcymrubont.blogspot.com/2008/07/welfare-written-off.html

Swan said:

I havent read what they are proposing to do fully yet so I dont know whether or not it is a good thing or not. But to be honest I have a disabled son and when he was working it was the happiest I've seen him in a long time.There is no way he could take any job and he would need support. So I suppose like most things the devil is in the detail.

Click to expand...

I agree. My brothers job ghives him so much self esteem and independence. He's got learning disabilities and has needed support to get him placed and help him with problems like pay etc but he's very independent

What about the scary thought that *shock horror* there might be some well founded truth in what Paul Flynn is saying? I dont work full time but if I didnt work at all Id be in the house, bored, little contact with adult company,hardly ever any change of scene and I suspect bored and depressed overall.....

The NHS in Glasgow is very clear - worklessness is a major factor in ill health and in particular in the greater morbidity and early death experienced by many people in the poorest parts of the city. This really matters in Glasgow as it does elsewhere - remember this?

In Iraq, life expectancy is 67. Minutes from Glasgow city centre, it's 54.​

The most recent report of the Director of Public Health sets this out starkly,

For NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, the process of increasing employability in a community can help deal with the social and economic causes of ill-health and with the inequality gap through attracting sustainable employment that lifts people above the poverty line. The process of increasing employability also encourages supportive and encouraging environments that enable working age people to sustain and improve their health and well-being.​

as do the reports of the Centre for Population Health.

The relationships between work and health, and worklessness and health, have been well documented. Unemployment is associated with a higher risk of death and increased mental health problems. Job insecurity is also damaging to health, and has been linked to higher rates of hospital admissions, increases in heart disease and deterioration in mental health. In addition to these quantified relationships between unemployment and health, the presence or absence of employment has a range of consequences for people’s lives, materially, socially and psychologically.

For those in employment, work which provides fulfillment and offers individuals a degree of control over decisions brings benefits to health. In contrast, people in jobs which are lacking in self-direction and control experience higher levels of ill-health and death. There is a need to illustrate the ways in which employers can support healthy working lives and also to understand better how to extend the spread of healthy working practices across different sectors.​

The City's worklessness strategy seeks to put this approach into practice. Even the Scottish Government's health promotion strategy acknowledges the UK Government's approach as being the correct one.

In the days of Thatcher we talked a lot about fighting the Tories with policies for full employment. Now we have developed a policy to try to achieve 80% of people of working age into a job. So much opposition to this is based on the proposal that private agencies might make a profit out of success, and the fact that under the Tories so many people who were out of work were classified as being unfit for work. If we were honest we would acknowledge that lots of people so classified are indeed capable of work, the real issue being that low paid boring work is not very attractive to people who may have got into ingrained habits. This is why MPs like Paul Flynn won't oppose the main aspects of this policy.

But we must acknowledge the legitimate fears of chronically and severely disabled people that they could be effectively punished because of their disablity. That needs to be done through effective engagement and participation in the debate, not by the nonsense and distortions spread mistakenly by so many people.

Everyone claiming an incapacity for work benefit will soon be asked to establish what work they could do, and what help they would need to move towards entering working life if that is possible. Rather than spread stupid fears about this, let's get involved in setting out what the ground rules should be, what support, including advice and advocacy, will be needed to make things happen, and what further protection will be needed to stop employers from discriminating illegally and what the boundaries will need to be to make sure people who are very far from working life aren't put into unnecessary stress.

I am writing something in depth on this whole issue, so I won't reply properly. Needless to say that Britain already has one of the most draconian welfare systems around, so I can't really see what is to be gained by - not facilitating and helping single parents and people who have suffered bad health returning to work - but rather penalising and persecuting them.

John McDonnell MP recently came up with a slogan "attack poverty not the poor", what we are witnessing is New Labour's fundamental embrace of New Right thinking, the government are actually peddling a myth that the majority of people on incapacity benefit are not really ill. They are saying that nobody is sick enough not to work. Their claim is not rooted in any evidence, but rather based in classic new right ideology.

Firstly, unemployment is a structural feature of all capitalist societies. Serious sociological and economic research has shown that there are simply more unemployed than there are job vacancies in the British economy. As the credit crunch starts to bite, we can expect more unemployment and more illness in society.

Secondly, Since Thatcher came to power up until the pressent New Labour regime, the number of people of working age claiming Incapaticy Benefit increased from 0.7 to 2.5 million. Within the last 10 years the proportion of those claims being based on mental health have increased from 21% to 39%. There has been a massive upsurge in stress, depression and anxiety.

Now why might there have been such a rise? One sociological theory elabarated eloquently by psychologist Oliver James is that certain societies create more mental illness, it has been shown that anglo-saxon neoliberalism creates more mental health in society than scandinavian social democracy, for example.

But for New Labour with its New Right thinking the cause of inequality and social problems is that the poor and sick have not taken the opportunities given to them. They won't tackle structural problems in the economy, or introduce social policy such as the living wage, greater rights for workers, support and welfare mechanisms etc. Instead they aim to penalise individuals in order to instil " social responsibility"

Incidentally last year the overwhelming majority of billionaires didn't pay a single penny in income tax. When was the last time you saw New Labour wage a campaign to eat the rich?

JTG said:

Arbeit macht frei

Click to expand...

To use such a comment in the context of a back to work project is IMO extremely offensive to those who died in concentration camps. There is a huge difference between saying to someone 'no contribution via labour or no dole money' and 'the wholesale mechanised destruction of thousands of people per day.

Personally I'm in favour of those who are physcially and mentally fit to do so making a physical contribution to society after a period of a year or so coupled with help in finding a permanant job and where necessary remedial educational opportunities.

I can understand why some people object to this scheme but indulging in offensive hyperbole such as using the words 'Arbeit Macht Frie' in this context do the opposition to this scheme no favours whatsoever.

LilMissHissyFit said:

What about the scary thought that *shock horror* there might be some well founded truth in what Paul Flynn is saying? I dont work full time but if I didnt work at all Id be in the house, bored, little contact with adult company,hardly ever any change of scene and I suspect bored and depressed overall.....

Click to expand...

I was in a position where I'd lost my business and was slipping into dole cheque driven depression accompanied by the gaining of a taste for Super Tennants and it was only being brought back into the world of work via a govt scheme and voluntary work that stopped me being depressed.

Sometimes people need a purpose not pills to reduce depression.

Not having a job is a one way ticket to depression, and anyway it should be a simple principle that everyone needs to have a job.

A certain period of looking for the next job is fine, and a year seems fine, but anymore than that, then maybe the unemployed should go out and litter pick in exchange for their dole?

If there are no jobs to be had then why not?

While Zachor's comment above is true, we have to be clear that Paul Flynn's statement "Work is the best medicine" is deeply offensive to people who are genuinely sick and unable to work, it is also deeply offensive to people who have suffered ill health and are trying to return to work, but experiencing problems making that transition. It is pretty patronising and condescending.

To give an example, a relative of mine was out of work for almost a decade due to serious mental health problems. They have recently been trying to return to work - doing some training, doing unpaid voluntary work etc., but the bottom line is that if this individual applies for a job, and the interviewer says, "why haven't you worked for 10 years" and the individual says, "I was mentally ill" then the chances are that they won't get the job!

But increasing there is a problem that people who are already mentally distressed are made more distressed and anxious by the draconian welfare regime that is not based on anything more than the government's embrace of populism and demonisation of the poor.

Zachor said:

I was in a position where I'd lost my business and was slipping into dole cheque driven depression accompanied by the gaining of a taste for Super Tennants and it was only being brought back into the world of work via a govt scheme and voluntary work that stopped me being depressed.

Sometimes people need a purpose not pills to reduce depression.

Click to expand...

Likewise, I appreciate the government schemes we have, and drugs are just a cul-de-sac.

Gmarthews said:

Not having a job is a one way ticket to depression, and anyway it should be a simple principle that everyone needs to have a job.

Click to expand...

Yup. Everyone should be doing something.

Gmarthews said:

A certain period of looking for the next job is fine, and a year seems fine, but anymore than that, then maybe the unemployed should go out and litter pick in exchange for their dole?

Click to expand...

Agreed. After a year you should be assessed and work suitable for a persons abilities that is useful for the community should be found.

Gmarthews said:

If there are no jobs to be had then why not?

Click to expand...

short termisim on the part of govt and business IMO

Udo Erasmus said:

While Zachor's comment above is true, we have to be clear that Paul Flynn's statement "Work is the best medicine" is deeply offensive to people who are genuinely sick and unable to work, it is also deeply offensive to people who have suffered ill health and are trying to return to work, but experiencing problems making that transition. It is pretty patronising and condescending.

To give an example, a relative of mine was out of work for almost a decade due to serious mental health problems. They have recently been trying to return to work - doing some training, doing unpaid voluntary work etc., but the bottom line is that if this individual applies for a job, and the interviewer says, "why haven't you worked for 10 years" and the individual says, "I was mentally ill" then the chances are that they won't get the job!

But increasing there is a problem that people who are already mentally distressed are made more distressed and anxious by the draconian welfare regime that is not based on anything more than the government's embrace of populism and demonisation of the poor.

Click to expand...

I think any sort of scheme like this should have considerable leniency for those with physical or mental illnesses. However, there are people for whom the structure of work or other meaningful activity would reduce both the incidence and severity of their mental illness.

Zachor said:

Yup. Everyone should be doing something.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's okay if you are very wealthy and live off your inheritance, but working class people taking a holiday for a couple of years is the end of the world! It's okay if you are a billionaire not to pay any income tax, but if you're working class and are signing on and maybe doing a little work on the side it's a crime

What? even someone who has severe mental health problems or is physically incapable? One of the key aims of the New Right driving the current welfare reform is to re-define the whole social model of sickness (more on that another time)

Rather than attacking unemployed, shouldn't we be forcing employers to pay workers a living wage, and increase workers rights? For example, as an agency worker, I am denied basic rights like sick pay and other employment protection.

Why should working class people be forced to work in call-centres (as an example) where they are treated like crap?

Agreed. After a year you should be assessed and work suitable for a persons abilities that is useful for the community should be found.

Click to expand...

People are already penalised on the dole if they don't apply for jobs that they are told to by the jobcentre. The aim of the new welfare reform is that after a year unemployed will be forced to do cheap labour and "community service" for private companies where they won't even be paid the minimum wage - if you're gonna force people to do a job, at least pay them a proper wage.

Zachor,
don't blame JTG, search for the use and abuse of the term on this forum

Udo Erasmus said:

Rather than attacking unemployed, shouldn't we be forcing employers to pay workers a living wage, and increase workers rights? For example, as an agency worker, I am denied basic rights like sick pay and other employment protection.

Click to expand...

Europe is continually trying to get the UK government to accept better legislation on this kind of thing, but they refuse, and with the help of the anti-EU press they get away with it.

Udo Erasmus said:

if you're gonna force people to do a job, at least pay them a proper wage.

Click to expand...

They should certainly get their benefits while they are litter picking - I would be horrified if the government decided to dock their dole AND sent them out to little pick

I agree with what Udo says really.

There might be genuine reasons why some people are claiming incapacity benefit when they are capable of doing a job, but I think any way of giving these people a purpose and some direction away from the potential pitfalls of drug & alcohol addiction, depression and mental health problems would require a qualitiative improvement of the welfare system, which means more money for it and less money for war, nuclear weapons and militarisation.

Let's be clear, the UK govt's reforms are about trimming down the welfare state and making it cost less to the Treasury so that they can deliver tax cuts for the rich and the better-off, rather than building up the welfare system and qualitatively improving it so that it does a better job.

The welfare system and particularly the jobseekers system is going to perform less well if it is cut down and privatised. This is a logical point. To perform better and move more people into work it needs to be expanded upon and reworked so that it serves the needs of individuals rather than the demands of business big or small. This means better-paid and better-trained public sector staff will be needed to run it, trips to Scandinavia to learn how those countries run their systems could be needed, and some government-funded jobs may have to be created in the community.

I personally am not against community service for people seeking work, BUT only if people do it of their own will and are paid for it, and it is linked to a community objective rather than a profit/business objective. Perhaps visible work (not demeaning stuff like picking up litter) such as making murals, organising community recycling and organising local community events/fun days/sports days would revive the community spirit that is crumbling away in many parts of Wales, and give jobless people some self-esteem as well as a valuable role in which people would respect and appreciate them.

Why is litter picking demeaning? It is NEEDED - every survey comes back with the littler problem as number one, and the unemployed are not doing anything, so they should do it in exchange for their benefits. I'm sure they would be happy to make the contribution as they will no doubt feel guilty that they haven't been able to find a job they can do for an entire YEAR!! And so I'm sure they would be happy to give back to their community who is supporting them so kindly.

Of course the grief those on the dole get should not continue if they are doing such work, and Initially it could just be for (say) 10 hours a week. Nothing too strenuous for the poor things...

I'm sure they will continue to actively look for work during that time too.

Udo Erasmus said:

Yeah, it's okay if you are very wealthy and live off your inheritance, but working class people taking a holiday for a couple of years is the end of the world! It's okay if you are a billionaire not to pay any income tax, but if you're working class and are signing on and maybe doing a little work on the side it's a crime

Click to expand...

A holiday is a few weeks or at most a few months. Not a continual doing of bugger all. This is what is destructive. It doesn't matter if you are a tramp or a billionaire, pointlessness is destructive.

Udo Erasmus said:

What? even someone who has severe mental health problems or is physically incapable? One of the key aims of the New Right driving the current welfare reform is to re-define the whole social model of sickness (more on that another time)

Click to expand...

Severe mental health problems yes there should be some form of exemption from schemes like this but there are a whole gamut of other conditions especially depressive ones where some form of purposeful activity would be helpful.

Udo Erasmus said:

Rather than attacking unemployed, shouldn't we be forcing employers to pay workers a living wage, and increase workers rights? For example, as an agency worker, I am denied basic rights like sick pay and other employment protection.

Click to expand...

Its not attacking the unemployed its helping people by providing them with purpose.

Udo Erasmus said:

Why should working class people be forced to work in call-centres (as an example) where they are treated like crap?

Click to expand...

Its not just working class people who have crap jobs.

Udo Erasmus said:

People are already penalised on the dole if they don't apply for jobs that they are told to by the jobcentre. The aim of the new welfare reform is that after a year unemployed will be forced to do cheap labour and "community service" for private companies where they won't even be paid the minimum wage - if you're gonna force people to do a job, at least pay them a proper wage.

Click to expand...

I think that the dole system needs to be more flexible to take into account that there is much more short term work available now but the benefit system doesn't take this into account and penalises people for taking such work as it is still a system geared up to a 1950's mindset where full time permanant jobs were the norm.

A year is a reasonable time to jobsearch indenpendently and if you are having problems then you need to a) be helped to find work / gain qualifications etc b) give something back to your community. I see nothing wrong with people contributing to society after a reasonable amount of time. I've been a doley and I've seen how easy it is to sink into 'jobless depression ' and also how there is a proportion of people who don't want to contribute to their society and just want to suck. This is an unattractive way to live whether you are sucking dole or sucking dividends. Its destructive both to the person concerned and to the society around them.

Udo Erasmus said:

While Zachor's comment above is true, we have to be clear that Paul Flynn's statement "Work is the best medicine" is deeply offensive to people who are genuinely sick and unable to work, it is also deeply offensive to people who have suffered ill health and are trying to return to work, but experiencing problems making that transition. It is pretty patronising and condescending.

To give an example, a relative of mine was out of work for almost a decade due to serious mental health problems. They have recently been trying to return to work - doing some training, doing unpaid voluntary work etc., but the bottom line is that if this individual applies for a job, and the interviewer says, "why haven't you worked for 10 years" and the individual says, "I was mentally ill" then the chances are that they won't get the job!

But increasing there is a problem that people who are already mentally distressed are made more distressed and anxious by the draconian welfare regime that is not based on anything more than the government's embrace of populism and demonisation of the poor.

Click to expand...

But its also equally true that there are generations of people in the valleys who claim they are sick, claim they cannot possibly undertake any form of work when all really they are is completely inexperiencedin the culture of work or in work itself-Previous governments wanted to manipulate the figures and encouraged lots of people who werent sick to sign onto sickness benefits.
There is an ingrained 'sickness benefit culture' in the poorer areas of wales which needs to be ended- for everyones benefit.
Just because you are 18 and believe you can't get a job( so you dont try- youve never tried, your parents have never bothered trying- cos of their nerves) and are well pissed off ebout it doesnt make it true for any of you, it doesnt make you unable to work so that you should be entitled to diability benefits on the grounds of stress, depression, mental illness or anything else.
GP's have gone on record to agree they are signing peoples sick notes when they shouldnt be. That also needs to end.

what is needed is more support for people to work, get them into employment( a part time job would be enough to see the positive effects of engagement in employment) and support them to stay there and even more support for those genuinely so disabled they cannot do any work.
At the moment however thats not the situation, while people just pick up endless payments for 'illnesses' which dont actively prevent them doing any work ( as in they cannot take any job at all)

That doesnt make it wrong for Flynn or anyone else who genuinely cares about their constitutents to say "actually, I think there is excellent evidence to support the proposal that we should end the benefit dependency culture and the attuitide that we cannot work for whatever reason- therefore I must take the stance which will be best for my constituents- even if it upsets them"

If you cannot get a job and are able to work without a disability which limits your ability to work there is a benefit you should be on- its not sickness/disability benefits, ist JSA. Yes its paid at a lower rate but there isnt any argument that can or should be made for people remaining on sickness benefits just because after years of being on them they are unable to get a job.
Im a worker who has very few rights- just like you. INcreasing rights and protections is a whole other thread. Its not yet another reason not to stop the needless claiming of sickness benefits by people who arent genuinely sick or disabled- like you say, preventing those who are genuinely sick or disabled from getting the support and services they genuinely deserve.

I think people find it incredible thart people with all sorts of disabilities manage to get jobs, work hard and yes, actuively enjoy working and yet people who could take job whine on about how sick they are and how the benefits agency ( ergo the rest of the working population) should pick up the bill.

Gmarthews said:

Why is litter picking demeaning? It is NEEDED - every survey comes back with the littler problem as number one, and the unemployed are not doing anything, so they should do it in exchange for their benefits. I'm sure they would be happy to make the contribution as they will no doubt feel guilty that they haven't been able to find a job they can do for an entire YEAR!! And so I'm sure they would be happy to give back to their community who is supporting them so kindly.

Of course the grief those on the dole get should not continue if they are doing such work, and Initially it could just be for (say) 10 hours a week. Nothing too strenuous for the poor things...

I'm sure they will continue to actively look for work during that time too.

Click to expand...

I agree it's needed, it's the council's job and they employ workers on good pay with pensions to do it as part of their other duties. Getting unemployed people to do it as well would complicate this picture.

a few years holiday? fucking hell.........

the most depressing times of my life were when I was stuck on the dole between jobs.

lewislewis said:

I agree it's needed, it's the council's job and they employ workers on good pay with pensions to do it as part of their other duties. Getting unemployed people to do it as well would complicate this picture.

Click to expand...

By this rationale, the prison population should get better pay. Though maybe they should with deductions for room and board.

Still the government are much more likely to use the unemployed as cheap cleaners. After all who is going to fight it? Who is going to fight for the minority rights? In a country without a constitution?

The government makes good money out of using the prison population this way, so it makes sense to use the unemployed in the same way.

They would always be free to stop claiming the benefit.

Gmarthews said:

By this rationale, the prison population should get better pay. Though maybe they should with deductions for room and board.

Still the government are much more likely to use the unemployed as cheap cleaners. After all who is going to fight it? Who is going to fight for the minority rights? In a country without a constitution?

The government makes good money out of using the prison population this way, so it makes sense to use the unemployed in the same way.

They would always be free to stop claiming the benefit.

Click to expand...

I think there's a bit of a difference between being a prisoner and being unemployed (though a cynic might add the similarities are also striking). The unemployed could be used as good cleaners and paid a decent wage I agree, I don't agree with them being exploited as 'cheap cleaners', and I certainly don't believe in forcing people into doing it.

<parental controversy> my mother said that the scroungers on the dole are just as bad as the rich tax dodgers. They both steal from middle ground working people and we shouldn't appease of condone either.

lewislewis said:

I think there's a bit of a difference between being a prisoner and being unemployed (though a cynic might add the similarities are also striking). The unemployed could be used as good cleaners and paid a decent wage I agree, I don't agree with them being exploited as 'cheap cleaners', and I certainly don't believe in forcing people into doing it.

Click to expand...

Who is forcing them? If they don't wish to claim benefits then they are free to do so. If they want taxpayer money then I suspect it is only a matter of time before such a system is adopted. After all we have no constitution to state that slave labour of this sort is not allowed, and such a small group is unlikely to be able to campaign against it.