The "fairness" poll

I'm certain I've mentioned before that sometimes I find the public's attitude to the unemployed a little disconcerting. In truth, I find some of the things I hear downright scary. Either way I was interested to see two articles in the Sunday Telegraph about the subject. The Telegraph, to my mind, is certainly on the scary side of right-wing politics but you can't be too fussy about stuff you find on the bus, so I read it nonetheless.

The first article concerned a YouGov survey about the public's attitude to the long term unemployed. This was only part of the whole survey, the survey was entitled Just Deserts? Attitudes to Fairness, Poverty and Welfare Reform. The survey was commissioned by the Policy Exchange think-tank. I've never fully understood quite what a think-tank is or does but Policy Exchange is rumoured to be David Cameron's "favourite ideas outlet" according to Janet Daley, a political commentator, columnist, and talking head for Radio 4's Moral Maze.

2407 adults were polled on-line in early March. "The figures have been weighted and are representative of all British adults." I think this is shorthand for them saying they have some extremely convoluted scientific way of making the opinions of two and a half thousand people representative of those of the British populace. Perhaps it involves logarithms?

These were some of the attitudes expressed:

• Benefits are too generous or easy to claim 33%


• There are not enough jobs available 20%


• They do not have the skills necessary 16%

• Rewards from working are too small 14%

• They are lazy or lacking in willpower 12%

• Don't know 5%

There was all manner of dreadful opinions in this survey, there was that old chestnut which is the statement that "some people who are poor are much more deserving than other people who are poor." 71% of the people polled agreed with this sentiment.

Then there's the subject of workfare, the notion that the unemployed should work for their Government handout. Now in this poll, 80% of those polled felt that: "people who have been out of work for twelve months or more, who are physically and mentally capable of undertaking a job, should be required to do community work in return for their state benefits."

Now IN THEORY I have no problem with this idea, I have no objection at all to me doing something useful for the community, in order to work for the money that the state gives me to put a roof over my head and money to live on. I think it's often referred to "as putting something back" and God knows, if there's one group of people who could do with putting something back, it has to be the unemployed. I think we all know that irrespective of what the Sun says about feckless scroungers, the unemployed may well be perpetually skint, but in the main they have, broadly speaking a fairly easy time of things.

Then there's the rub, this would have to be organised, and this job would fall to the same people who we sign on with every fortnight. The task of getting two and a half million people to contact the DWP once a fortnight to declare themselves without a job and subsequently pay them some money is something the civil service finds onerously problematic to organise without making countless mistakes.

So how on earth are they going to cope with organising things for, let's say, a million unemployed to do community work and keep track of what is going on? What about all those people who are currently doing this work as their (paid) job? All the people who currently pick up litter, run coffee mornings for the elderly, act as lollipop people, whatever is considered useful for the long-term unemployed to spend their time doing. This strikes me as one of those things that hasn't quite been thought through properly.

To me, I don't see anything wrong with people doing some kind of community work in order to get their benefits. As long as other people aren't losing their jobs as a result and as long as the government isn't getting their Big Society on the cheap.