Labour vote to the Tories' benefit

toco

Red Ed and his dysfunctional and confused Labour Party just lost the next election.Phew!

Dan Grover

I'm not a fan of the cap. It makes no sense to me.

1 - We justify benefits on the basis of need. Whether that need is derived from a disability, an inability to work due to sickness, an inability to find work, a lack of skill etc, the idea is that benefits are given to those who need them.

2 - The general concensus is that welfare needs reform, which will have both social (ie less ghetto'ised areas) and economical (more tax payers, less tax drainers) repercussions.

I think this bill "loses" on both accounts - I don't think it does anything to actually address the long term requirements of 2 above, and it also gets rid of the idea of 1.

Dan Grover

If a family is getting £30k in benefits now, it is - in theory, at least - because they need them. Maybe they have loads of kids and maybe they live in central London - whatever. If it's determined that they DON'T need this much money, then let's lower the benefits for the bits that are unfair. If they're getting too much, work out where that gain is and cut it down. Having a cap makes no sense. There's no point having a behemothic benefits system if, as a matter of policy rather than mistake, there are still people in need. Not only that, but if there are people *above* £26k who are deemed to be getting "too much" benefit, then surely there are loads of people below that number too, they just happen to have one less child (for example).

Andy Leeds

I disagree with Dan Grover. The benefit cap is long overdue. To have a disposable income of £26000 you need well over £33000 of gross income. The Labour Party is dim witted: they are not opposed to a benefit cap, merely to this cap. They actually propose regional caps which could be lower than £26000. Thus logic dictates that they must also accept regional benefits rates. Good idea. Lets have those too.

David R

Dan surely the possibility of either the success or the failure of this bill has given the government the opportunity to ask for a mandate for that welfare reform at the next election?

Charles

@Dan Grover

The problem with an uncapped liability is that it doesn't incentivse the welfare recipient to save money.

This is most obvious in housing benefits in central London where there are cases (not the norm admittedly) where benefit recipients are able to live in properties which no normal working person can afford. This cap provides a mechanism to force recipients to choose how they will spend the money rather than receiving whatever is needed to fund their lifestyle choices

Axstane

Dan Grover - ever thought why a family where nobody works needs to be accommodated in Central London? Let them not work somewhere cheaper.

THOMAS KNIGHT

The success of the tories here is in framing the debate they way they wanted it. But instead of truly grasping the nettle - for instance, why not a dramatic cut take it or leave it cut in housing benefit (which is, after all merely a wealth transfer from taxpayers to private landlords), the debate has been focused on the recipients, with the daily mail feeding us a diet of undeserving immigrants living in £2m hampstead town houses.

This appeals to people's baser natures but I suspect will be largely ineffective in reducing the bill.

What's really needed is a cut in income taxes, and a proper introduction of wealth taxes, to put state funds on a proper footing. But that won't happen as the few 'poor widows in mansions' who might lose out have huge political clout as do their wealthy children who stand to inherit hugely when they kick the bucket.

Raffles

Dan 1) we are broke
2) if you are taking that much in benefit sorry you may have to move
3) we are broke

Magnolia

Dan Grover, there will be many families who don't have that third or fourth child because they cannot afford to. They may have wanted a lot of children but they could not provide for them and so they denied themselves. Some may even have not been able to afford the second or even the only child.
One MP stood up in the HOP today and said that there were 8 million households in the country on £26,000 or less before tax and you thinks it's ok for them to pay for other people to live in their London homes. I can't afford to live in a London home and I'm wealthy.
Have you had a look at our debt position lately? It's still going up.
Can you imagine what our country will be like if we have to live without debt because that is what will happen if our creditors give up lending us money.
Do you think the NHS will exist in that situation?
We have to make it plain that the unfortunate have to suffer as well because the economic situation is so dire that we need economic recovery before 'fairness' or we'll all be in the m***e.
Where I take issue with the government is the extent to which they use welfare savings to prop up the Euro.

Ostrich (occasionally)

toco 1st, 6:31pm

"many a slip 'twixt cup and lip!.

George Shepherd

The politics and "framing" of this debate are interesting but just watch Osbo's grin turn to a frown when the first pics of crying kids being evicted from their houses are the number 1 story on News at 10

Then the Left will claim "we told you so, evil Tories never change"

Populist politics are a minefield and by hyping up the debate for short term political gain, Osborne will have to reap what he sows

he might have been better to let IDS get on with the reforms "quietly" behind the scenes???

Andrew SW18

George Osborne (for it is he): "Turkeys; May I introduce Christmas?"

Fergus Pickering

Dan Grover, what do you mean by 'need'. Are families on £26,000 going to go hungry? Are they going to suffer extreme cold in their houses? They might, of course if the adults spend the money on booze and fags. How do people NOT on benefits manage? They consume less, do they not.

Why should a family with no one in work NEED to live in London? Can't they move to somewhere cheaper, like Newcastle? Or Swansea? Or (gulp) Glasgow? If not, why not?

Working Man

If the tories actually act like tories on issues such as this one, as well immigration and europe whilst getting the economy moving, then they have a good chance to win a majority at the next election.

For labour to vote against this welfare reform bill shows just how out of touch they actully are with ordinary working people. Its embarrasiing to see them on the wrong side of nearly every arguement. One positive for labour to take is that at least they will not have upset their army of supporters who are mainly union members and long term benefit claimants.

treborc

Who the hell gets £30,000 plus on the dole or on sickness, it 's mostly larger families with children.

I'm classed as disabled after an accident at work which left me with a spinal cord injury, I get DLA and I have two children at home which is basic we are told of a family, I get £16,500 and I cannot get housing benefits or council tax because I'm over the limit for these means tested benefits. so who get £30,000

tom jones

It's feels so good to not be on the backfoot for once! Last year felt like u-turn after u-turn so it's brill to have this fair, popular, common sense policy doing so well and showing Labour off to be what they are: The party of the few, not the many (heard that somewhere before, I think lol) If Osborne was as good a chancellor as he is a political strategist then GDP would be high and deficit would be getting slashed. That's a kind of compliment.

Irascible Old Git

So let me see if I've got this right.

Come the next election, with millions of people unemployed, the Tories are going to trumpet the fact that benefits have been capped, and somehow those hard-working people who's income has been slashed over the proceeding five years are going to vote for them in droves.

You couldn't make it up (oh, you just did).

toni

‘we’re going to make sure everyone in the country knows how they voted on this.’
Should read:
We're going to make sure everyone in the country knows how *Labour and the Lords* voted on this.

GDT

Perhaps those not in favour of the benefits cap should be given the option of voluntarily paying higher contributions to ease their conscience.
I very much doubt there will be many people in line to sign up for that.
The sooner the cap is in place the better.

GDT

IOG @ 9.55pm - people not working or contributing direct tax to the UK is something like 8 million give or take?
There are more than three or four times as many people in work. I know which slice of the pie I'd chase if I were a politician.

c0mat0es

As the cap is set at the equivalent of the average wage, the cap is HIGHER than the earnings of possibly half the working population. That does not seem a strong incentive to find work.

Clear Memories

People like Dan Grover completely miss the very basic point, which is never raised.

Except in very few cases, you are responsible for your own decisions.

So, if you p**s about at school and make yourself unemployable, open your legs to any passing scrote and end up pregnant or wash up on these shores uninvited, why should those who recognise they have to work support you?

Answers on the back of a stamp please, for there is no justification.

Colin Cumner

Of course there should be a benefits cap otherwise the country will end up carrying even more debt. I have never understood why those who choose to avoid working for a living (as opposed to those who are unemployable because of illness or disability) should end up with an income greater than those who do work. Surely no one can deny that this growing dependency on welfare burgeoned under Labour. Those on the Left just don't get it and probaqbly never will - the hard working, tax paying majority are sick of having to support the lazy and feckless members of society, particularly when their own living standards are steadily being eroded for this very reason.

Trapped

@ Thomas Knight

"But instead of truly grasping the nettle - for instance, why not a dramatic cut take it or leave it cut in housing benefit (which is, after all merely a wealth transfer from taxpayers to private landlords)"

I agree but only in part. I would support a cap on each tier of the LHA system (and a forced migration for all legacy HB claimants), as long as the LHA pay is under the tier cap, then it's down to the person where they live, just set the cap so it forces people to not live in Chelsea or Kensington.

Simples.

Clear Memories

Irascible Old Git
February 1st, 2012 9:55pm

Of course those on benefits won't vote Tory - they never would because successive Labour money-wasters (sorry, Chancellors) have trapped them to ensure a never-ending supply of voters.

In the same way, Bliar flooded the UK with foreign scroungers for the same reason.

But those who have to pay to keep these indolent scum will be grateful. And as more idlers are forced into work, they'll change their spots because welfare scum are utterly selfish. And like all socialists, one they're in work, they won't want to lose their money in taxes to support the remaining idlers.

Cameron and Osbourne are on the right track. As the numbers in work rise, the unemployable rump becomes smaller and of less interest to Labour, thus their malign influence is diminished.

And as the benefits shrink and become more difficult to obtain, the flood of immigrants will diminish, whilst it will prove politically easier to remove those that have no right to be here. And, quite possibly, many of those whose presence is tenuous.

Remember, the BNP is predominently a white, working class, socialist organisation filling the role vacated by 'Old' Labour. The 'fascist' epithet is flung at them by the true fascists over on the left.

Sir Everard Digby

I disagree -the 'debate' is framed in entirely the wrong way. Society should value those who contribute to it. I struggle to see why some of those on benefit could not make a useful contribution to society in some way.

What is particularly irritating is that some benefit claimants seem to be disconnected from the consequences of their actions. E.g. a decision to endlessly procreate with no income other than state assistance can lead to more income and a better property.

For those who receive no state aid,the opposite could be true. This cannot be right.

What Labour have really voted for is a continuation of the culture of entitlement with irresponsible actions being rewarded by the state. Who would re-elect any party taking that line?

Contributing to society will receive no comparative reward.

This situation strikes at the very heart of any concept of fairness -which is exactly why the electorate want it sorting out.

The left wing hyperbole about 'cleansing' areas of London, 'fairness', 'poverty' is no more than a cynical attempt to divert attention from this inescapable truth.

A responsible society does not act in this way. Time for all of us to face up to our
responsibilities.

Nickle

We justify benefits on the basis of need.

================

And when you do so, you ignore the needs of those who are working, and end up paying for these benefits. They aren't worthy of anything, is your logic.

End result is now they have decided that enough is enough.

So perhaps some Labour party member can tell me more about Ed's variable caps.

What's the cap going to be on the Wirral?

Nickle

This is most obvious in housing benefits in central London

=====

Lets do the sums.

Housing benefit - 104,000
Child Tax Credit - 13,337.04
Income Support - 5,539.67
Council tax - 2,157.83
Child Benefit - 3,863.91
Free Schooling - 6000 * 5 = 30000
Free Health Care - 1800 * 7

Total 172,000

That is what Labour was paying out free of tax or input into the system.

All paid for out of other people's taxes including those on minimum wage.

Irascible Old Git

Well done, Clear Memories, for entirely missing the point of my post, but making the case for me.

So the ‘indolent scum’ are going to be forced into work, are they?

Whose jobs are they going to take?

Dan Grover

I think perhaps a lot of you misread my intent - it was my fault, I don't think I was clear.

By all means, if you think benefits are too high, let's lower them. That's fine. My point was that if the INTENT is that benefits are only paid to those that really need it, and no more, then a cap makes no sense. If you think they should be forced to move if rent is too high where they are, fine. If you think child benefits should be lower, fine. If you think benefits should be regional to account for different costs of living, fine. If you think benefits should literally allow you to live and nothing more, fine! I'm not immediately opposed to any of that - my problem is with the very concept of a cap, not whether it's high or low enough.

Dan Grover

As an analogy, let's say the same was true of healthcare on the NHS. Afterall, we need to get the cost of the NHS down too. In theory on the NHS, you get the care you need. Even in cases like hymen-regeneration surgery or breast enlargement surgery, the idea is that it is NEEDED for the mental welbeing of the patient (whether you disagree or not, that's how it's justified). In theory you only go to the NHS if you *need* treatment - so a cap makes just as much (or, in my view, little) sense here. If they need anti-biotics, they need anti-biotics. If they don't, they shouldn't be having them anyway. If you think that one way of cutting costs on the NHS would be to stop giving people anti-biotics for mild infections and just have them man up and take it because they don't really *need* it, then fine. But the cap proposal is akin to simply saying that no one is allowed more than 3 courses of anti-biotics a year - so the old gran with Pneumonia who needs them in December but has already had her fill for the year doesn't get them, meanwhile someone who doesn't actually *need* them still can, as long as they haven't taken them more than prescribed by the arbitrary limit.

Dan Grover

Ultimately, my point is this: If someone needs it, they should get it. If they don't, why were they getting it anyway? A cap is just a lazy way of cutting the welfare bill without actually having to think. It'll harm people who actually do need the money, whilst still giving people under that cap more than they need. If you think benefits are too high, then let's lower them - but lower them with some reason and do so uniformly, not just at a certain, effectively arbitrary point.

Dan Grover

Clear Memories, that's fine! I haven't missed any point! If you want to reform benefits so that you get thruppence an hour performing hard labour in a work house, so be it. Whatever. People in these comments are bringing up all sorts of welfare reform ideas, and indeed, in the of Nickle and others, questioning the very nature of the benefits system. That's all fine, but it's not mutually exclusive to what I'm saying. A cab is a very, very bad way of lowering the welfare burden, and saying that isn't an attack of those working. There are many ways to bring down the welfare bill that are better, much much better. Hell, you could reform the benefits system so that the payments are low enough that no one ever *does* get more than £26,000, but it should be because that's what the government has decided these people need/deserve/require/whatever you want to call it, not because they went over some random threshold.

You piss about at school, then yes, you deserve to die in the street if you can't find a job. That's fine if it's your view - but what about those kids that she had because she let any old scrote get between her legs (apparantly). What did they do to deserve a life of poverty? You read the Coffee House, so you don't need me to tell you about the educational fortunes of those from poor families, the stats of students that get free school meals speak for themselves. You can harp all you like about how it's the parents fault etc etc, but it's the kids in this scenario that suffer, and they've done nothing wrong. In what way are they less deserving of help from the state than a disabled person, who has equally little control over their circumstances? If a kids parents don't read to them, or help them with their homework, what do they do?

stereodog

When I was unemployed what used to really anger me was that the job centre treated those actively looking for work so much worse than the long term unemployed. I used to have to travel 2 hours on the bus twice a week to earn £60 JSA while people with so called depression never had to attend in person. Someone I know earnt enough on disability allowance to pay to be treated in Harley Street! I also felt that I was tarred with the same brush as these benefit scroungers. Despite having a history degree I work part time in a shop and I thank God daily for it because I'm free of the benefit system. The lazy scroungers not only leech of the tax payer, they also take away resources from the kind of active job seekers the system was designed to help in the first place.

Clear Memories

You're halfway there Dan.

Of course the poor little fuckers that result from the opening of willing, untutored legs don't deserve to be punished.

But we have to create a system where the silly cows are frightened to open their legs blessing the planet with another generation of leeches.

Deepsnoozer

This Tory policy will fall apart like all the others! They don't stand a chance at the next election. Stop kidding yourself!

Ed Stevenson

Cap is great. give them foodstamsp instead of cash so they don't waste money on fags and booze.

Hugh

No-one seems to be asking why the cap limitation is set at £ 26,000, the gross pay at median earnings, rather than the net pay, which is close to £ 20,000.
Surely comparison of cash with cash is more logical.

Matthew Tysoe

Cant feed em dont breed em. Simple.