And there are plenty of avaricious little scams within the programmes themselves. Even though I moved out of London seven months ago – was forced 120 miles north due to the housing benefit caps – my work programme provider has not been reassigned [for some reason the folks receiveing funding for me in Tower Hamlets are being lackadaisical with their paperwork, while I'm still on their books - I've now found part-time work, so, doubtless, they'll be applying for a reward payment; they have had no input in my finding employment.] So someone is getting money for nothing. Obviously, folks who might be exploited while on programmes don’t object if they get brushed under the carpet. Lots of this milking goes on; on every single programme I’ve thus far seen. I once attended a programme in Aldwych which wasn’t provided and I didn’t actually attend. It truly is a scandal. One day I was turned away from a centre I was supposed to attend because they were having a corporate party – balloons, cakes, sandwiches… What’s thus far been in the papers is nothing. But I’m not sure the attested purpose of these schemes is the ‘real’ purpose. Their greatest effectiveness is that publicity about them – and the demonisation of claimant status – pressures people in work to put up with worse pay and conditions. This is what the government pays for.

In addition to the number of businesses making money through welfare to work, how about the apprentice scheme? This could be useful training for young unemployed people, or it could be cheap labour for business.

That over 50% of people that were polled who said that they though that if someone had not paid into NI they should receive no benefit is shocking. I mean what do they really expect an unemployed person to do without any benefit at all? I have worked in part time jobs where I would not have paid in enough NI, so would it be fair to punish me because I had to take part time work so that I could be there for my children? It would be a completely unacceptable move that would cause homelessness among other things.

Yes, I agree that there should be a distinction between those who have paid inn for many years, and those who have not. That is why reverting to the system whereby you receive a percentage of your wage for a limited time, and other people receive the basic benefit is more reasonable.

I also think you may be confused about current ‘conditionality’ with regard to those who claim unemployment benefits, and ESA ‘working group’. These people are not being overlooked with regard to the ‘Work Programme’ and other mandatory work schemes. Claimants are indeed being forced onto such programmes.

My carer’s partner who lost his job at the county council – and who by the way receives NO Jobseeker’s Allowance, and only signs on for his stamp – has been told this week that he is required to go onto a long-term work programme. Fortunately, he applied to the NHS to volunteer at the local hospital with a view to gaining full time work there, so he was able to avoid being forced to work in the local warehouses. He really was going to be made to work for NOTHING AT ALL!! I find that absolutely unacceptable. If he was going to be forced to do that, they should at least pay him JSA!!

I have found that the idea of ‘making work pay’ along with attitudes towards people getting more benefit if they have paid in, often really means that other people – who for whatever reason have no job and haven’t paid in enough NI – amounts to cutting the benefits of people who already have nothing. The arguments above are good of course, but talk of removing benefits altogether is sailing into very dangerous territory indeed. Hopefully common sense will prevail!