Oxfam speaks out on human cost of austerity

Today Oxfam published their briefing paper, A Cautionary Tale: The true cost of austerity and inequality in Europe. They describe the enormous suffering and waste that austerity measures have caused both in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. As a mental health professional, I’m particularly disheartened that suicide rates are increasing in the UK after years of decline. They’re also on the increase in Spain. I suspect this tragic increase is a reflection of lower standards of living, greater inequality, higher unemployment and the slashing of public services to help vulnerable people.

Oxfam point out that this is a tale they’ve seen elsewhere.

The European experience bears striking similarities to the structural adjustment policies imposed on Latin America, South-East Asia, and Sub-Saharan African in the 1980s and 1990s. Countries in these regions received financial bailouts from the IMF and the World Bank after agreeing to adopt a range of policies including public-spending cuts, the nationalization of private debt, reductions in wages, and a debt management model in which repayments to creditors of commercial banks took precedence over measures to ensure social and economic recovery. These policies were a failure; a medicine that sought to cure the disease by killing the patient.

They also have some unpleasant predictions for the future.

Austerity measures will have impacts beyond their period of implementation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that poverty rates in the UK will have increased by between 2.5 and 5 percentage points by 2020, equivalent to 2.7 million more people living in poverty.

Europe could have an additional 15 to 25 million people living in poverty by 2025 if austerity measures continue, equivalent to the population of the Netherlands and Austria combined.

At best, the countries most affected by austerity will become the most unequal in the Western world. At worst, they will rank amongst the most unequal anywhere in the world.

Nice.

Oxfam point out that austerity isn’t even succeeding on its own terms, with most EU countries seeing their debt-to-GDP ratio go up, not down.

Ireland’s return to growth is often held up as an exception to the above. Yet Ireland potentially offers a window into the future for other EU countries, with reports of high levels of regional income inequality, insecure employment and significantly decreased spending power. Moreover, Ireland is highly dependent upon the state redistributing income through taxes and transfers, a feat which is likely to diminish as austerity measures continue to bite.

They call for an end to this failed approach, arguing that the EU should accept that much of the current public debt is simply unpayable, and should negotiate a restructuring or cancellation of the debts. This should be combined with stimulus programmes, investment in public services, strengthening of democracy and fairer taxation.

You can read the full report here.

 

Advertisements

Welfare – A Review of Cameron’s Speech

Prime Minister David Cameron
Cameron announced a raft of changes to the welfare system yesterday in a speech in Kent.  His plan to cut back on ‘welfare’ made me angry for a number of reasons but I thought I’d look through the text of the speech itself to comment. So here is the text – with some coments.

On my first night as Prime Minister, I said we would build a more responsible society.Where we back those who work hard and do the right thing.

See that – linking work with ‘the right thing’. What about those who cannot work or are not able to work? Is ‘work’ inherently more valuable that other activities that we might to which would otherwise further the society we live in.

Where we look after the elderly and frail.

Well, he isn’t doing very well at that, is he? The Social Care White Paper has been delayed and there have been excessive cuts in social care services locally as LA budgets have been slashed. And no proposals to tackle the funding gap in social care.

Where – as I put it – those who can, should; and those who can’t, we will always help.

Who is the ‘we’ here? If it’s social care and falls to local government you can forget it because of the slashing in local government.

Building that society is simply not possible without radically reforming welfare.Today, almost one pound in every three spent by the Government goes on welfare.

I think it’s deceptive to lump ‘welfare’ into one pot and criticise. Welfare is the net that holds up some of the most vulnerable in society. Criticising welfare en masse is an explanation of his lack of understanding of what it actually is.

In a world of fierce competitiveness – a world where no-one is owed a living – we need to have a welfare system that the country can properly afford.The system we inherited was not only unaffordable.It also trapped people in poverty and encouraged irresponsibility. So we set to work.

By all means change the system, but play the policy not the people. We deserve more.

In two years, Iain Duncan Smith has driven forward welfare reform on a scale and with a determination not seen since World War Two.He is a great, reforming Minister, with a passion and commitment that shine through.And he is delivering remarkable results:Over 400,000 more people in work than in 2010.

Bleurgh. Duncan Smith is anything but a ‘great minister’.

Tens of thousands of claimants of incapacity benefits re-assessed, and found ready for work.

At what cost? Is this a success when the process of assessment is so poor? Appeals are frequently won. The assessments can’t actually be that good. Why privatise the reassessments rather than relying on consultants/GPs/health professionals? In order to achieve desired results.

We’ve established the biggest-ever Work Programme – and we’re well on our way to getting 100,000 people into jobs.We’ve helped tens of thousands of young people find real work experience

For free – replacing otherwise paid jobs?

Reformed and reduced the extent of tax credits. Tightened up housing allowances.

So people are pushed out of their local areas.

Capped benefits so that in general, no one can claim more than the average family earns.

Without consideration of family size.

And we’ve laid the foundation for Universal Credit.This has the potential to be one of the most significant reforms for a generation.Ending the nonsense of paying people more to stay at home than to get a job – and finally making sure that work really pays.

The logic is there but diminished by the actual lack of jobs and disconnect between size of family and average income.

What Iain Duncan Smith has achieved over the past two years.Refusing to accept the status quo, turning around huge numbers of lives is truly remarkable.But the job we have set ourselves, of building a welfare system that truly works – that supports the responsible society – that job is not yet complete.So today I want to talk not just about what we’ve done, but where we go from here.

I’m going to skip the next part of his speech for reasons of time and space – it also contains the only part of the speech I actually agree with. I prefer non-means tested pensions which are £140 per week – however if you think about needing to save money – some of the winter fuel allowances seem to be obvious targets. Funny how Cameron here remembers his election promise while conveniently forgetting his ‘no top down reorganisation of the NHS promise’.

I’m baffled by his claim that DLA claimants do not need to provide medical evidence because that doesn’t link in with my own experience of DLA forms. You have to give details of your GP/Consultant – if the DWP doesn’t actually CHECK up on those then surely that’s not the fault of the claimant. Maybe, you know, it would actually be cheaper to check with involved medical professionals rather than engage a private company to ‘assess’ claims.

Interesting that by starting with an attack on ‘workshy’, Cameron tackles in the first part of his speech, pensions and DLA. DLA is not a non-working benefit. Sometimes that gets muddied but it is a benefit which pays/compensates for additional costs in someone’s life due to disabilities WHETHER THEY ARE WORKING OR NOT.

Then Cameron plays his favourite game of ‘divide and rule’ playing on the baser nature of jealousy of our compatriots.

Take a couple living outside London.He’s a hospital porter, she’s a care-worker.They’re both working full-time and together they take home £24,000 after tax.They’d love to start having children – and they know they’d get some help from the state if they did so.But with the mortgage and the bills to pay, they feel they should keep saving up for a few more years.

But the couple down the road, who have four children, haven’t worked for a number of years.Each week they get £112 in income support, £61 in child benefit, £217 in tax credits and £141 in housing benefit – more than £27,000 a year.Even after the £26,000 benefit cap is introduced, they’ll still take home more than their neighbours who go out to work every day.

Can we really say that’s fair?

Firstly, I  had to chuckle wryly at Cameron’s example. I wonder if he is tackling the issue of those ‘fat cat’ public sector pensions and pay freezes as he attacks the low paid public sector workers.

But as for his example? Firstly targeting the family ‘with four children’ to make his point leaves a bitter taste. Why should the income of a childless couple need to be equivalent to a family with four children who will obviously need more to survive? It is a game of jealousy and numbers. We can’t know the histories and lives of the ‘couple with four children’ to make rash judgements about their lives.  Is this ‘fair’? Well, maybe I’m alone in thinking that actually it might be but it isn’t my place to judge.

He shares some other examples about housing allowances and cost of housing in London – to which I say that destroying local communities in the south east due to housing costs will be equally damaging in the long run in terms of accessing familial support.  He goes on

What these examples show is that we have, in some ways, created a welfare gap in this country between those living long-term in the welfare system and those outside it.

Those within it grow up with a series of expectations: you can have a home of your own, the state will support you whatever decisions you make, you will always be able to take out no matter what you put in.

What like..  trust fund kids? I despise a cabinet of millionaires who have never understood the need to exist on benefits and who imagine that somehow this is a great life to lead, attack ‘entitlement’ of those who need to claim them.

Then he goes on to some of the ‘problems’.

Why does the single mother get the council house straightaway when the hard-working couple have been waiting for years?

Because governments and local councils wanted to make sure children got a decent start in life, so mothers were given priority for council housing.

Well yes, exactly – and how is that a bad thing?

Why has it become acceptable for many people to choose a life on benefits?Because governments wanted to give people dignity while they are unemployed – and while this is clearly important, it led us to the wrong places

I don’t think it has ever been acceptable but it has become necessary. It makes me wonder if Cameron actually knows how much Job Seekers Allowance is. It doesn’t allow a great deal of dignity.

You can give a drug addict more money in benefits, but that’s unlikely to help them out of poverty; indeed it could perpetuate their addiction.

You can pump more cash into chaotic homes, but if the parents are still neglectful and the kids are still playing truant, they’re going to stay poor in the most important senses of the word.So this government is challenging the old narrow view that the key to beating poverty is simply income re-distribution.

Interesting that a government of the right is suddenly interested in how money is being spent. I despise the connection made between neglectful parenting and poverty. Poverty may be more than income redistribution but Poverty is NOT bad parenting. I could make a cheap jibe about leaving a kid in a pub but that would be a low blow. What is inherently damaging is the way Cameron makes these links without thought which will no doubt, increase stigma.

Then then he says

For example, the state spends almost £2billion a year on housing benefit for under-25s.There are currently 210,000 people aged 16-24 who are social housing tenants.Some of these young people will genuinely have nowhere else to live – but many will.And this is happening when there is a growing phenomenon of young people living with their parents into their 30s because they can’t afford their own place – almost 3 million between the ages of 20 and 34.

While for many others, it’s a trip to the council where they can get housing benefit at 18 or 19 – even if they’re not actively seeking work.Again, I want to stress that a lot of these young people will genuinely need a roof over their head.Like those leaving foster care, or those with a terrible, destructive home life and we must always be there for them.But there are many who will have a parental home and somewhere to stay – they just want more independence.

Cameron’s stated intention to cut access to housing benefit for under 25s is deeply retrograde. Yes, people can stay at home and honestly, a lot of people who have supportive parents in the same area where they work/study probably do  but this is a dangerous line to cross from his world of happy Chipping Norton families. Is there going to be an expectation on parents to support children to 25? How will this impact on poverty rates and access to jobs. How can a young person ‘get on their bike’ and get a job if they have no access to accommodation – because local housing allowance is an ‘in work’ benefit.

I’m skipping through the last part of the speech with one exception. This little nugget.

There are more than 150,000 people who have been claiming Income Support for over a year who have 3 or more children and 57,000 who have 4 or more children.

The bigger picture is that today, one in six children in Britain is living in a workless household – one of the highest rates in Europe.

Quite simply, we have been encouraging working-age people to have children and not work, when we should be enabling working-age people to work and have children.

Seriously if Cameron thinks people have children to have benefits, he might be reading the Sun too much. Why should we stigmatise larger families? They will be the people paying for our future?.

There’s more than I’ve been able to cover but I think we can see the way of movement of Cameron and his Conservative-led government.

We need to challenge the government and press narrative which stigmatises people who need to rely on welfare because actually, it does create a better society.

What damages is stigmatisation and expectation of support where none exist.

What grates is a speech about ‘entitlement’ from an Old Etonian.

No, he can’t help his background, of course not, but he plays easy games in attacking poverty while not showing any evidence of understanding it beyond anecdote and games of jealousy with what your neighbour might be getting.

But benefit reform in general is popular with the public. I see it as a genuine social work role to advocate and fight for those whom I work with who are stigmatised by the government narratives.

It damages and must be challenged.

Pic by Prime Minister’s Office – Flickr

Oxfam warns of “Perfect Storm” of UK poverty

Today, Oxfam released a briefing paper: The Perfect Storm: Economic stagnation, the rising cost of living, public spending cuts, and the impact on UK poverty.

The paper warns of an assault from all sides on Britain’s poor, caused by a toxic combination of rising unemployment, declining incomes, increased cost of living, public service cuts, benefit cuts, housing shortages and weak labour rights.

The government‟s rapid deficit reduction measures are hitting the livelihoods of almost everyone in the UK, but the particular approach taken is hurting people living in poverty the most. The focus on cutting public spending rather than raising taxes is deeply regressive, and the blend of tax increases chosen is itself regressive. In addition, both public spending cuts and the tax and benefit changes introduced by this government will have a significantly more negative impact on women than on men.

At the same time, we are seeing a synergy of economic and social needs. Protecting the incomes of the poorest people is crucial for both social and economic reasons. It is people on low incomes who are being hurt the most by the Perfect Storm, and increasing the incomes of the poorest will have the strongest multiplier effect on aggregate demand in the economy. By prioritising and targeting social and economic investment, the government can ensure that it protects the services upon which those in poverty most rely, while helping to boost demand and provide investment in the long-term productive capacity of the economy.

Oxfam are calling for decisive action to safeguard the increasing number of British people living in poverty, which shames our status as one of the richest nations in the world.

Protect the incomes of the low paid, reducing the withdrawal rate of Universal Credit from 65 per cent to 55 per cent to ensure that work pays, and increasing the National Minimum Wage at least in line with inflation or average earnings, whichever is the higher;
Protect people in poverty from the increasing cost of living, by giving new powers to Ofgem to cap fuel prices; introducing a maximum level of interest; and protecting the Social Fund and expanding its resources, to protect people from exploitation and to guard against problem debt;
Protect public services, by using progressive taxation to slow the speed and depth of cuts; ring-fencing the Sure Start grant to local authorities in England; and exploring investing in a national system of universal child care, to make work pay for women and to build the social infrastructure of the country;
Protect the social safety-net, by giving local authorities in England and Wales sufficient resources to maintain existing levels of Council Tax Benefit; monitoring the effect of the Housing Benefit and overall benefit caps; reversing the switch from RPI to CPI inflation for benefit uprating; maintaining real Child Benefit levels; and reversing cuts to child-care support;
Provide secure, affordable, decent housing for all, by investing in affordable homes to boost the economy and to help solve the housing crisis; and increasing maximum penalties for rogue landlords;
Protect rights at work: the weak labour market is adding to the power that employers have over workers, and so it is essential to maintain and enforce the vital protections that do exist for vulnerable workers;
Move towards a fairer tax system by clamping down on tax avoidance; introducing a Robin Hood Tax on financial transactions, to help protect public services and benefits and ensure that everyone pays their fair share; and exploring options for a land value tax; and
Rethink how we measure value: the social damage caused by inequality, high unemployment, and environmental degradation all tell us that it is not growth that matters, but the type and distribution of growth; measuring true social value through a measure of well-being such as Oxfam Scotland‟s Humankind Index will help us to measure whether what we are doing to fix the economy is really, sustainably benefiting society.

While such a paper wouldn’t be so surprising if it came from the likes of, say, UKUncut, this is from a major charity more usually associated with providing aid to the developing world. That they now feel it necessary to speak out about the way we treat our own poor may speak volumes about the increasing levels of inequality and hardship on our doorsteps.

You can read the full briefing paper here.

Reforming Care

There’s a good piece today in the Telegraph by Liz Kendall the Shadow Minister for Care and Older People about the need for the government to push through reforms to the system of funding (and provision) of social care in this country.

The timing is pertinent of course although the message seems to have been around for decades. Tomorrow will be the Queen’s Speech and the government will set out its legislative programme for the next year. With the Dilnot Commission reporting last year it seems that the need for changing the means of funding social care support would be something that may appear tomorrow. My own gut feeling is that it won’t but I’m happy to be wrong on this.

There are two connected but separate issues to the ‘care reform’ debate. One relates to the way that care is funded and that is the issue that Dilnot specifically refers to.

Currently, each Local Authority has it’s own ways and means of determining charges although there is a threshold capital limit of £23,500 above which a person may be liable for charges. There are various computations and methods that these levels and charges are managed but the fact is that means testing is by no means consistent across England – nor is quality and level of provision.

£5000 towards care in Manchester may buy something very different to the same in Chester or Westminster or Norfolk.

There is anger about the ‘working hard all their lives to buy a house and then needing to sell it instead of leaving it to the kids’ argument that I have less time for as I think the exponential rise in property values is less about working hard and more about luck, employment opportunities and an odd housing market but if you are going to deprive people of assets which by default is going to happen as social care won’t be fully funded, it should be done in a fair, equitable and transparent manner.

Currently, I find it almost impossible to explain to someone what charges they may be liable for and it shouldn’t be like that.

Dilnot proposes a cap (which may be changed according to the government) on the amount that would be charged to the individual needing care and I can appreciate that. It is a sum which could be insured against and it is a sum which can be planned for.  However, it would need increased capital funding from central government and there’s the rub.

As for the process of improving quality of care and choice in care. it’s separate but linked. The ‘system’ is starved of cash injection at the moment. Cost has overtaken quality in terms of contracts being meted out by local authorities and choice is a luxury for the few rather than an option for the majority.

The government has been ruthless in their decimation of budgets to local authorities and while we’d all like to think the NHS and local social care budgets are intrinsically linked – the reality is different and the shifting of cost and responsibility between health and social care ‘pots’ is damaging to those who need to use these services.

Work has to be done on the fundamental basis of the way that social care is delivered in terms of ensuring that rights and particularly the right of access to well funded care is open to all. While money will always buy more choice and better facilities (that’s the point of ‘working hard all your life’ if you want to follow that argument) – the provisions meted out to those who are unable to pay ‘top ups’ or arrange their care independently cannot lag behind.

There has to be a more cooperative flow of budgets between health and social care and they have a symbiotic partnership and while there is division, there will be increased costs.

Integration is seen as a ‘watch word’ but to date there has been little in terms of actually working on it in a practical and innovative manner from bottom up.

It becomes an easy word to through around and everyone around the table can nod and smile and say ‘yes, we need to do that’ but what is needed is solutions not a continual detailing of problems (although problems do need to be identified of course – but sometimes I feel that’s all that happens!).

So let’s watch and see if the government do pick up the challenge tomorrow – I suspect we won’t see any changes but I hope to be pleasantly surprised..

It is worth remembering though that the provision of Dilnot would appeal to the demographic the government wants to attract but it would be at a considerable cost.

I will watch with interest.

Four Seasons, Private Equity and the Care Sector

Money Talks - Do you listen?

Both the Guardian and the Financial Times report on the possible imminent buy out of Four Seasons by ‘Terra Firma’ – a private equity company. Guy Hands, who chairs the company is described by the Guardian as

the tax exile and private-equity baron best known for his disastrous debt-fuelled takeover of EMI

Comforting.

Four Seasons Healthcare is a large provider of nursing and residential care homes in across the UK. As it says on the front page of their website

We are the leading independent healthcare provider in the UK. We own and operate over 500 care centres and nursing homes, employing around 30,000 people. Our care homes and nursing homes are unique and we’re proud to offer consistently high standards of service and care.

Seems like a perfect investment opportunity for a.. er.. private equity company, right?

Maybe I’m being a little disingenuous. Having an A level in Economics doesn’t give me a significant understanding in financial models of support however what is blatantly obvious is that the sector as a whole (and we’ll push Southern Cross into the mix here as well) have over borrowed on assets which haven’t produced the intended profits.

The further link with Southern Cross is the irony (or maybe it isn’t) that Four Seasons took over a number of Southern Cross homes when they went under.

The Financial Times explains that Four Seasons is looking to refinance a £780 million debt and is ‘likely to raise £525 million of new debt’.

These kinds of fantasy figures have little in the way of substance to me. But that’s a lot of money and I do wonder at the amounts of money knocking around in these health and social care sectors.

Last month Terra Firma bought a Gardening Centre group for over £200 million.

The type of business is of little interest to the company putting the money in. It is purely and simply a business opportunity. This is one of the reasons I shudder at the leaking of health and social care into the private markets. The reality of financing, refinancing and profit making can be cut throat but for the people who live in these nursing homes it’s worth remembering that they are possibly the last years of the lives of people at stake rather than lilies and tomato plants.

Four Seasons has a deadline of September 2012 to refinance the debt it has. It is currently owned by a consortium of banks. A private equity company will be no worse nor better than what exists now unless it is able to offer the company more financial security (which I presume it is) but the interesting part, for me, as an outsider to the world of equity and financing is that this is not the first very large healthcare company to be switching hands and talking in terms of millions regarding profit in health care.

The Matlock Mercury (in the East Midlands) has a story which raises concerns by the GMB union when Southern Cross staff were transferred to Four Seasons and they asked for a response from the CQC. They write

Recently the Care Quality Commission said as follows: “The large health and care organisations are not overseen financially by anyone.

“The Care Quality Commission (CQC) require that a provider is financially stable, but it is outside of our remit to carry out financial audits or financially background checking of any service provider.

I can appreciate that. The CQC is pushed but isn’t it worrying that there is no-one at all overseeing whether service providers are ‘financially viable’? It doesn’t need to be the CQC – but perhaps – as we move towards a situation where more and more health care services are moving into private hands – it should be someone..

This is the future of the NHS. It is already here. Profits will be pushed to shareholders and companies are accountable to those shareholders rather than the people who use and need the services provided.

Tomorrow, this will be the hospitals.

picture by w4nd3rl0st at Flickr

Is there really ‘Crisis’ in Care?

There seems to be a general understanding that the state of social care – particularly in relation to older people – is in crisis. You can look at the headline in the Independent today with their exclusive about a ‘Crisis in the care of elderly as £1 billion cuts bite’ .

I wonder about the use of the word ‘crisis’ though. There is a massive issue in relation to funding but this is not something that has been ‘magicked’ out of the air. Nor is it an issue which has suddenly arrived with this government. We have known about the needs of an ageing population for decades but each government of all parties have continued to try and ignore the fact that there will need to be a higher level of tax receipts or co-payment to meet the needs of people who require support from the state.

If it is a crisis, then it is a crisis created by lack of foresight both politically and economically – it is not a crisis created by the care sector or people who require care.

The Independent article is useful and interesting. It lists a number of cuts in services but also highlights a push into ‘reablement’ services which focus on higher intensity, shorter term care and support ‘packages’ to offset (so the idea goes) longer term care needs in the future.  It is, of course, vital to emphasis early interventions and preventative work however as the criteria for access to services initially rises, those who need care are coming to these services generally ‘later’.  It’s a useful foil to this Telegraph article a few days ago which talks of the numbers of older people who don’t have access anymore to care provided by adult services locally due to changing eligibility criteria.  It’s very important to remember that this system of reducing care to shorter visits by contracted large agencies who deliver poor support by minimum wage workers (some of whom are fantastic but not because the system does anything to actually help them) was created by the push towards contracting out and attempts by local authorities to barter for the cheapest delivery contracts without quality being considered.  This is where the NHS will go and it will be the people who are least empowered to complain who will receive the poorest service. This is not an unforeseen crisis. The roots were planted in the 1990s.

Meanwhile, remember Paul Burstow saying about there not being a crisis in care funding. The word is used to create political capital and blame. No more.

I’d argue there isn’t a crisis in care. There is a well foreseen and ignored gap in the funding and provisioning of needs in the sector. This isn’t a surprise to anyone who has an ounce of common sense. It does need action, just as it needed immediate action 5 years ago, 10 years ago and small half-hearted measures were taken without there being a fundamental reorganisation of the adult care sector.

Yes, we have had the move towards personalisation but it should have been accompanied at the time with a move towards changing in the funding systems. Having the ‘postcode lottery’ and care associated with local authority delivery in an era where people are increasingly mobile makes no sense. We are pinning an approach and delivery mechanism from a different era which should have been re-designed from bottom up to account for different needs in relation to geographical mobility and differing family dynamics.

Perhaps that chance has been lost, perhaps there will be some innovation in this field and more than tinkering around the edges and a resolution of ‘who will pay’ which seems to be the fundamental discussion at the moment.

I’d like to move the discussion further not just about how we pay but what we pay for and how these services are delivered. The ethos behind ‘personalisation’ was to transform delivery of services and it has to an extent but we need to  really embed this ethos for it to work properly and redesign the methods of assessment that feel like a ‘points for cash’ type system where people have to constantly write and discuss things they can’t do and have money and funds assigned accordingly rather than look at models that can build on strengths and abilities, which don’t discriminate on the basis of age or mental capacity or rely on family without providing safeguards where no family exists.

This isn’t a crisis in care. This is culmination of forecasts which have been long made and which have never been addressed.

Of course this needs to be tackled but lets lay the blame on those who we elect to represent us rather than those who have the needs that are no longer being met.

Work! Fair?

There has been much recent debate about the extension of the idea of ‘workfare’ in the UK. ‘Workfare’ is supposed to be an extension of ‘welfare’ seen by the syntax used in the word itself. It is an idea which grew from the idea that people should not receive benefit entitlement as a result of unemployment without ‘giving something back’. In the context in which I’ll be using it, it refers to mandatory work ‘placements’ for people who are not able to secure employment in order to receive benefits that relate to being out of work.  It sounds quite warm and fluffy because of course people should be helped into work and ‘give something back’ but the word also implies a series of sanctions of this work is not undertaken.

Outside the Jobcentre
Continue reading