A lot of the comments coming from the liberal and/or left of this country following David Cameron's announcement about benefit reform seem to be largely missing the point and opportunity to debate what is an issue that, if not existing in reality, does exist with great umbrance in the minds of the Great British public. Rather than discussing whether the Tories are rehashing old policies but rather whether or not they have a point this time and if they do is it workable?

Of course people considering themselves thoroughly left wing may well say that such plans to force people into community work and off of incapacity benefit is a very anti-welfare idea, and those considering themselves deeply liberal may say that the idea of forcing people to join in with community work is not a very positive approach to civil liberties, though I think they'd be stretching with that analysis more than just a little in both cases.

Labour have of course attacked plans, as they should if they wish to keep their seats, but have they attacked in the right manner? Well Peter Hain initially said the right things, and that the Tories scheme would be too "costly" to run. Given examples in America using the same sort of scheme are running tight on their budgets, however Gordon Brown's claim that Labours "welfare to work" packages are the right way to go more than slightly ignores what each issue is really going to be targeted at. You see, Cameron can argue as much as he likes that this is about encouraging those that want to work out of benefits, but it's not. It is clearly about clearing out those that are too lazy to work from the lists. New deal and such other initiatives from Labour, however, are about truly helping those that *do* want to get back into employment making that step easier. Two completely opposite ends of the scale that really cannot be compared to anything Labour have so far (not) done.

So why should the liberals and lefties amongst us embrace this idea in a potentially reformed more acceptable manner? Well because first of all being a welfare state does not mean just leaving people to gather welfare if they shouldn't be there. It means supporting everyone through the rough times so they can get back to the good times, and anyone arguing that the minority of benefit claimants that do so without necessity through laziness are perfectly entitled to do so and shouldn't be urged out of that system are only showing all of the weaknesses of woolly socialist thinking. Secondly is because leaving people to take money that they don't deserve that could be spent on those that do deserve it by the state is distinctly illiberal in pretty much any way shape or form. People should of course have the choice to live their lives as they see fit, but if choosing to scrounge is at the detriment of someone that cannot choose to work for whatever reason then some balance has to be found. Finally it is because it is of course better for the country to have more people in work earning more money and developing themselves.

If people honestly can't find work after the period of time the Tories are discussing, two years, why is it necessarily a problem to put people on to compulsory community schemes? I really can't find an issue with this, as long as the individuals are dealt with respectfully in the fact they are doing something that otherwise wouldn't be getting done, and as long as there are a set of "employment rights" that individual has while undertaking such service. It shouldn't be instead of getting a job, one worry about the scheme I've heard is that it will leave people without the ability to find new work and of course that has to be avoided. If these people are interested in work then they should be grateful for the chance to get some extra service on their CV's and some extra life experience. If they are purely interested in the money then there is no shame in making them work for it as if it were a part time job in my eyes.

David Cameron himself wonders how half a million people under the age of 35 can be on incapacity benefit, and therefore has a good reason to re-test everyone. There should obviously never be anyone on incapacity benefit that is able to work and we really should be competent enough to work that sort of thing out by now, and aside from the cost (which may prove prohibitive) is there any real reason not to carry out reassessments en masse if able to? If the test is rigorous enough, something Labour have clearly stated it isn't, then there is really little need to reassess those individuals given the benefit, but in reality with the concessions made on this issue would it be prudent to carry on without a large reassessment at some time...I personally think not. Ultimately, however, With 4.3 million people claiming to have an illness or disability (census data, 2001) that limits their ability to do a job while of working age I do have to wonder just how unlikely it is for 500,000 to be between the ages of 16 and 35.

I think that ultimately you have to embrace an idea as fully as possible or you don't embrace it at all, and currently we're wading in waters of mixed political ideals and messages. You can go on welfare but after the initial checks you're pretty safe to keep getting it regardless...a haven for cheats that know how to work the system. And once you're on benefits of any kind, there will be ways of trying to encourage you off but no ways of trying to get you off if you're an unnecessary burden. On one hand we're being socialist yet on another being entirely capitalistic. Those that enter into a socialist system should, in my opinion, be treated in the manner that they live if that is their choice or inability to avoid. Cameron and his Tories haven't declared using those on benefits as slave labour from the first day of application nor that they wish to cull anyone from the incapacity benefit lists that truly need the states help, but what they have said is very un-Tory in my eyes...and that is that if you're taking part in state redistribution of funds and the state is receiving no benefit from doing so (i.e. by you getting through a rough patch and returning to employment) then there is something owed to the state. In this case it is community service of sorts that is accessible and useful to those seeking employment and the local area, but where else could it be applied?

Incapacity benefit is something this quite strictly can't be applied to, of course, the integrity of the system has to be relied upon and if so there should be nothing that the state should feel in return for helping these people get through their lives in a dignified manner. But what of Child Benefit? Housing Benefit? If people receiving these monies do so because of true necessity then isn't it right for the state to expect something in return? How can the government paying for you to raise your son and daughter be beneficial to the tax payer if those kids then go on to cause social damage and physical damage in the community?

It's a tough one, and when moving this discussion to areas such as these different forms of benefit aside from job seekers allowance it will always be a minefield. Parent's can't be punished if their children are truly just "bad egg's" and if you take some benefit away from them aren't you just condemning them to a higher likelihood of anti-social tenancies, both are very key problems in such a debate. The one thing that is clear though is that the time is right to actually seriously consider the other side of the argument if some were brave enough to give it the effort it would require.