One step too far for British politicians
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Wisconsin proposal is far more extreme than anything yet advocated by any mainstream politician in Britain, writes Nicholas Timmins
The Department of Employment already has limited powers to require attendance of indviduals at Job Clubs and other work-seeking measures which will be somewhat strengthened when the new Jobseekers' Allowance takes effect in October.
Labour has also aired limited proposals to require the young to be in work, education, or a government-approved programme for a time.
But full-blown "workfare" - the requirement that benefit will be paid to the unemployed only on condition of participation in a training programme or community sponsored job - has relatively few advocates.
Politicians on both the right and left - including Michael Portillo when he was Secretary of State for Employment, have resisted the idea of the state becoming the "employer of last resort", on the grounds both of cost and distortion to the labour market.
Providing even limited and voluntary work schemes such as the Community Programme has proved expensive and of mixed impact, they argue - and the cost would be far greater if all the unemployed were required permanently to be on schemes or in training. And workfare schemes would be likely to displace employees in "real" jobs, they argue.
There will also be considerable scepticism in Britain over whether the Wisconsin programme will fulfil its pledge to withdraw benefit entirely after five years, leaving people to fend for themselves. There would, however, be much fascinated observation of what followed.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments