EdithWeston linked to something on another thread by the ex-Labour minister, James Purcell.
Did anyone challenge those policies at the time?
Here is an extract. Some of it sounds pretty similar.
"Over the past 10 years, we have become much more ambitious about who we believe can work. Ten years ago, helping people on incapacity benefit into work might have been thought dangerous for their health. Today, the evidence shows that helping and supporting people into work is often the best way to improve their health. Ten years ago, people were wary about requiring single parents to look for work. Today, we know that it would improve their life chances and lift 70,000 children out of poverty.
That?s why, this October, we are replacing incapacity benefit with the Employment and Support Allowance. The new allowance will remove the perverse financial incentives of incapacity benefit and refocus the capability assessment on what the claimant can do, rather than what they cannot. And it?s also why we will be expecting single parents to look for work when their youngest child is seven, rather than 16, bringing us more into line with other industrialised countries.
The employment and support allowance will apply to new claimants first, but over time we will transfer everyone on incapacity benefit to the Employment and Support Allowance. These new expectations will mean we work towards our aspiration of 80 per cent employment ? the highest of any major industrialised country.
This is all based on the fact that we want to focus on what people can do, not on what they can?t, which brings me to my third principle ? contribution. Welfare is a mutual bond ? a relationship in which the citizen is expected to contribute. In return, the state will guarantee protection should they need it.
To take this principle of contribution further, I have asked the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie, to lead a review of benefit conditionality. It will include the sanctions applied to customers ?playing the system?, and how we might best use advisers? discretion in tailoring services to meet people?s needs.
We do expect everyone who is long-term unemployed, claiming job seeker?s allowance and participating in flexible New Deal to take active steps to return to work, which will include undertaking work-related activity in return for their dole. Jobseekers who join the flexible New Deal will be expected to do at least four weeks of full-time work or work-related activity unless they find a job within 12 months.
We are streamlining the various New Deals into a single, flexible New Deal to be delivered by private and voluntary sector organisations. We will reward them on what they achieve, precisely so we can free them to be more flexible and work out how to achieve those results. This is a crucial point ? a personalised regime for everyone. That?s because the evidence suggests such programmes only work when they are adapted to an individual?s needs.
These policies will help those who need support. But there is a small group who refuse to take up the opportunities available. For them, beyond the Flexible New Deal, we will be looking at how we can develop a strict sanctions regime, including either cuts in benefits or an option of permanent work for their benefits.
I think with these proposals we respect both sides of the welfare contract. Those who cannot find work would feel a sense of contribution. Those who don?t want to work would have to.
My main point is a simple one: whenever in future I set out what we will do, you can refer to these three principles ? control, capability and contribution ? to understand why. This is how I think we should understand the modern welfare state."
network.civilservicelive.com/pg/pages/view/261574/oneway-street-to-workfare