Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 5° London Hi 7°C / Lo 3°C

Mark Steel: Never mind the baby, just get back to work

The next thing will be an exciting new scheme known as the 'workhouse'

Wednesday, 3 December 2008

You can tell what they've got in mind when they begin an article, as the Work and Pensions Secretary did yesterday, by insisting they have to make tough decisions. It means they're tough enough to cut benefits for the weakest people in the country, because they're hard. It's like if Ricky Hatton did an interview at the start of a fight, saying "I'm going to show the world tonight just how tough I am", then walked into the audience and smashed an old woman in the mouth.

The Minister insists "future reform will ensure that virtually everyone has an obligation to work". But the genius of the latest plan is that it extends to single parents who look after one-year-old children, who will have to demonstrate a plan to find work or risk losing 40 per cent of their benefits. Because that's who's been swiping all the wealth of the country – single parents of one-year-olds. And the rest of us have had enough of them using their vast bonuses to buy Ferrari pushchairs and Gucci jump-suits.

You can hardly walk past The Ivy without hearing a waiter say, "I'm sorry Mr Abramovich, there's no tables this evening, as they're all taken by single parents of one-year-olds", followed by a squeal of "Here you are darling, truffles sprinkled with gold leaf all mashed up in milk with banana – down it goes".

An interview to ascertain why a single parent with a one-year-old hasn't got a job must be the most pointless interview ever. Presumably it will go: "Well, single parent of a one-year-old, why haven't you found a job?" "Because I'm a single parent – with a one-year-old."

Or maybe this is only the first part of the plan, and the next stage will be to interview the one-year-old as well. Then an officer will compile a file that goes: "The interviewee shows no willingness to co-operate. Asked why he hadn't sought work he replied, 'Cat cat cat, I got cat, wee-wee, done wee-wee', and displayed no interest when I suggested he attend a training course in accounting."

The Minister, when asked on the radio how he could justify the benefit sanctions, said: "We don't want to impose sanctions." Well, if he doesn't want to impose them, why doesn't he not introduce them then? Has he got some strange neurological disease where he can't help doing things he doesn't want to do? Perhaps at night he sits on the floor setting fire to worms, and when anyone asks him why he's doing it he says: "I don't want to set fire to worms."

Then he said: "Most people, when asked, thought the sanctions were justified." What people were they then? He seemed to suggest the single parents themselves had said that, but that's unlikely, unless he carried out his survey in the single parents masochist society. And all night they came up to him saying: "Oh minister, I've been a very naughty claimant. Sanction me minister, sanction me, not 20 per cent minister, I've hardly looked for work at all. I deserve more than that, sanction me FORTY, yes FORTY per cent, oh that's so JUSTIFIED minister."

Throughout these proposals is the insistence the cuts are part of an overall plan to help the jobless find work. Which is why it's essential to insist, whenever they start on this track, that the reason unemployment is going up is because there's a bloody recession, and not because people have suddenly become useless at finding work. It would be more honest if these interviewers at job centres called in the unemployed and said: "I've studied your records, and the main reason you seem unable to find work is you're living through the start of a slump. So I'm sending you on a course that can teach you how to be in 1998, or if you prefer 1957, when you should be able to get a job as a bus conductor or chirpy coalman with no problems at all."

They know these proposals will, at most, effect which people are unemployed, but make no difference to the total of unemployed. They might as well announce a plan to send a pack of rabid dogs after anyone claiming benefits, while insisting: "This scheme will assist claimants by forcing them up trees where they might be offered a job as a tree surgeon or ornithologist or member of the paparazzi."

And it's all sold as a part of the New Labour plan to modernise everything, by modernising us into an idea that would have been at home in the 1930s. Next week they'll announce: "To modernise our welfare system even further we're proposing an exciting scheme known as the 'workhouse', followed by a modernisation of housing benefits, in which tenants will pay tithes to a baron, and those in arrears will be placed on a 'ducking stool', which most people, when asked, thought was justified, because we're prepared to be tough."

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Post a comment

Limit: 1000 characters

Comment
Your details

* Required field

View all comments that have been posted about this article

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by Independent.co.uk's Terms of Use

Comments

107 Comments

Most of these women can work and should have a plan to return to work for when their child starts nursery. This is not the same as going out to work but having a direction is important. Time moves on swiftly....as any with children know.

Posted by Lord of the Game | 04.12.08, 19:31 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

How about those 'single parents with a one year old and without a job' who before they were 'single parents with a one year old' were also without a job? It would be interesting to see some comparative statistics on this as these are two clearly different contexts in which to devise policy. In the manner of MS's rather self-satisfied style, it's as if the only thing stopping us having full employment is a tendency for certain people to drop sprogs from time to time.

Posted by Paul | 04.12.08, 17:13 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

There is a difference between choosing to be a single parent and having a partner/spouse die. Being a serial single parent ought not to be a lifestyle option in my view; children are not cash cows to avoid having to work. On the other hand, why pay EVERYBODY child benefit? Target those who need it - and only for the first two. If you want more than replacement in these times of rising population, you should fund them yourself.

Posted by Anya | 04.12.08, 16:07 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Yeah - it is a bit annoying - I was thinking of coming back on some points from earlier in the thread, but it doesn't seem worth it..........And y'know especially annoying I don't even need to make my pharmacy dollar go further, as according to my emails this morning I've apparently inherited 1.7million dollars USD from an long lost relative........Which should even for me be sufficient to buy a life time supply of these mysterious and intriguing 'male-enhancement' products I'm being offered.

Posted by Shiny Bill | 04.12.08, 10:43 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Yeah I'm with you on the spam bots.

The most ridiculous part of it is, what if I wanted to make my pharmacy dollar go further and decided to try some of their 'wares', where would I go???

Posted by Sara | 04.12.08, 10:28 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

"OK Mr. Steel, and this is a genuine question, what are we going to do about these loathesome vermin?"

One presumes the vermin to which you refer are the hate-filled trolls who infest this site, railing against the poor and the weak, or possibly the online pharmacy spam-bots? If so I agree, something really should be done about them!

Posted by Shiny Bill | 04.12.08, 10:15 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

OK Mr. Steel, and this is a genuine question, what are we going to do about these loathesome vermin?

Posted by Harvey Pengwyn | 04.12.08, 08:20 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Reminds me of a famous (literary) quoite. What was it ? Oh yeah

"Have we no prisons? Have we no workhouses?"

Posted by Sequoia | 04.12.08, 00:03 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Well said, Mark Steel.

Posted by Sam B | 03.12.08, 23:54 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

I agree with the comments made by Richard and by Jane Smith. People need to think before they have children.The planet can't support the number of people in the world as it is adn the projected figures for population growth are frightening. I welcome any economic measures that partly discourage parenthood. This is not the same as saying no-one should have any children at all.

Posted by Julia | 03.12.08, 23:50 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

107 Comments

Columnist Comments

brian_viner

Brian Viner: Argh! It's Christmas card time again

If a card is all that’s keeping you in touch, at least use it to say something

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: We've lost sight of our rights

MPs elsewhere commonly enjoy immunity from arrest.

andreas_whittam_smith

Andreas Whittam Smith: This recession will run and run

The Banks remain terrified, albeit that they set the thing off in the first place