If people are paid to do nothing, that's exactly what they'll do

Just before Christmas, Jeff Randall, a leading Industrial Correspondent in the UK, wrote an article outlining the need for fresh policies to reduce the number of people in the UK who are fit to work - but instead 'choose' to live on state welfare. The language that Randall uses to describe the problem is powerful.

'at least 100 000 scroungers...locked into a culture of can work, won't work...gimme-gimme-gimme attitude of some welfare claimants...reform the eternal layabout...loafers...require rockets up their backsides as well as alarm clocks in their bedrooms...an embarrassing surfeit of work-shy locals...welfare junkies...2.7 million recipients of incapacity benefits, about one million of whom the government believes are fit to work...those whose indolence makes a mockery of his work ethic...'

The language promotes a lack of connection, a separateness between us and the million or so who choose not to work. We are good people, they are bad. We pay our taxes and they devour them.

But how can this separation, this disconnectedness between them and the working population help? What purpose does it serve?

If they really are eternal layabouts and loafers then it absolves us of any responsibility to engage with the problem and offer them help. Why would we waste our time helping bad people?

One of the central beliefs underpinning our work is that all people, at their core, are essentially good. And, unless we hold them in 'unconditional positive regard' we will be powerless to really help them to help themselves. We may be able to force them to find different ways of funding their lifestyles by closing down benefits - but we will not be able to help them with the real challenges of personal and economic development.

The language of separation and blame is commonplace. The language of understanding and compassion much less so. However without understanding and compassion we are reduced to policing the problem, Jackass management by 'stick and carrot' rather than any possibility of meaningful development.

You can read the original Jeff Randall article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/12/22/do2201.xml