First of all, welcome to the blog. That seems a little stupid to write, as I expect no-one will read this. But, nonetheless, if you do happen to stumble across it, welcome.
The government's plans to make the long-term unemployed do compulsory, unpaid manual work, being the main story of the day, is the subject of my frst post. Or, rather, the Archbishop of Canterbury's reaction to it.
It's no great surprise to see Labour figures come out and voice their concerns, as we've seen Harriet Harman and Douglas Alexander do to a certain extent. As an Opposition, it's pretty much what they're expected to do. Similarly, the TUC, as a left-leaning organisation, is unlikely to be waxing lyrical over a Tory proposal. However, if you look at what these figures are saying, it's very equivocal stuff, basically shifting the focus to an entirely different issue, that of creating work for those having just been made unemployed or actively seeking work, rather than attacking the plans to be set out by IDS later in the week. That's a reasonably good sign, in this blog's opinion, that Labour aren't unfavourable to the proposals either.
Which brings us to Dr Williams and his comments. In theory, there's not that much wrong with his logic if you apply it to those who's lack of work genuinely affects their mental wellbeing, if the idea od being forced into work then adds to this anxiety. But, realistically, how many of the long-term unemployed fall into this category? Compared to those who don't wish to work, either conciously or simply because the cycle of unemployment is so ingrained in the lifestyles of their social circle that the thought of work isn't really one that occurs in a concious sense, I'm willing to bet it's a pretty small fraction.
That's what makes Williams' input, in my opinion, so dangerous. It fails to consider the vast majority at which the government's plan (which I think is progressive, rather than draconian - the stick for the benefit of those at which it's being waved as well as for society as a whole and, eventually, the exchequer), but can be construed as a logical arguement as relating to a small minority. Thus it encourages those who oppose the plans on far less well-meaning, more partisan grounds to also have their tuppence worth. It gives the media the opportunity to run banner headlines on Williams' opposition. It threatens to destroy any potential consensus that these proposals are worth running with. Worst of all, as a church figure, Williams had no reason to make his comments. I'm sure he meant well. Unfortunately, as I see it, he failed in whatever lofty aim he had
