After some positive sounding, if not ultimately quite plain, news from the Tory conference; along with some more news of common sense policy pledges, it is good to see that the Tories can be trusted to revert to type at some point. This time it is the popular issue of benefit "scroungers" and the Tory plan to implement a "three strikes" rule

If people refuse reasonable job offers they'll lose their benefits and if they refuse an offer three times, then they'll be excluded from the benefits system for three years...And for those who don't manage to find work and claim jobseekers allowance for more than two years, we'll introduce a year-long community work programme to get them back into the work habit. - Chris Grayling

This is essentially building on their previous plans of community service for those on benefits. What isn't clear from the reports on this announcement is whether the Tories still intend to make these community service programs voluntary or compulsory to keep your payments coming in, but the advancements of the three strikes rule still manages to completely miss the main crux of this issue.

If people are not on benefit, what else are they doing? With no income, no home, no job and...one would hope...no family to be sharing that situation with, what exactly is their range of options? Yes, the "dirty scroungers" may be shocked in to taking some low paid job for 6 months before finding their way back on to benefits, perhaps even less time than that, but those that truly can't find work that suits them...and it's very important to stress that it needs to suit them when so many people that used to be on incapacity benefit will suddenly find themselves "able" to work again...how are they helped by having income refused? To me it would seem that crime is the only course of survival once they fall in to this situation, so why should it be promoted as a "solution" at any stage by a government?

Assuming that the community programme is voluntary, this is at least an advancement of the Tory policy in to more liberal grounding; but who decides what a reasonable job offer may be, and in practice how is it likely to take anyone off of benefits if they're determined to stay on them? I once again have to say that if you want a benefit system part of your costing of it has to include that it *will* be screwed over by some people for their personal (immoral, some may say) gain. The focus here should be on getting those that truly want to, to get back in to work...with a carrot, not a stick.

For those interested, this post marks a not-complete-but-pretty-big change of opinion from my previous stance, though my central tenets of needing to provide people with encouragement and experience to get back in to work, as well as a more radical idea of increased benefits for those willing to do the community work, haven't changed at any point.