Benefit cuts consensus?

This is more of what I want to hear, tackling the work shy, Labour are always on about a fairer society but what about someone on a low wage subsidising people with no intention of work, is that fair?

Smart move by the Conservatives. After all the Labour cries of 'savage cuts' the first time the Conservatives announce something significant Peter Mandleson and his government are muted. No doubt the electorate will take note.

Nick -- I think the difference between the Conservative policy and Labour is that David Cameron and his team are actually attempting to resolve the mess this country finds its self after 12 years of spin driven policy from Blair and now Brown. The entire benefit system is far to complex and open for abuse. UK needs clearly defined and assessed benefit schemes to ensure value for tax payers money especially as the tax take is shrinking rapidly.

PS When are we going to have a little chat about Harriet Harman's little driving issue ? BBC seem rather quiet on this one !

"Labour are not condemning Tory proposals to take £25 a week off people on incapacity benefit who are deemed "fit for work". "

How ironic. I guess this is what happens when the parties all go chasing the same voter sweet spot.

So, you end up with the red tories, the blue tories and the yellow tories...

Some choice, eh?

Get the workshy off their backsides and back to work.

Brilliant policy.

Keep them coming, Dave. There is nothing progressive about all those at work subsidising all those who sit on their backsides and do nothing.

Before we all get excited, this ain't going to happen. The short sharp shock didn't happen, immigration controls didn't happen, and a whole mess of other Tory distant past pledges didn't happen. Like all the other main parties, the Conservatives are just a bunch of windbags.

It doesn't really matter what policies are put forward by the Tories this week. Here are some predictions for you:
1) All ideas will be condemned by Labour MPs as unworkable, daft, uncosted, expensive, etc etc
2) Half the Labour supporters on here will parrot those same sentiments
3) The other half will persist in saying that the Tories have no policies, when will we be told there policies

Meanwhile, rational people will listen, think, and judge what they hear against 12 years of what the Labour government has done.

And those who say the Tories can't change - you would have us believe that Labour did, so why not the Tories too? Truth is, everyone changes, all the time. You adapt or you die.

About time too and it doesn't go far enough.

Child benefits next please, Dave!

The people, most of whom I shall assume don't suffer from disabilities or don't struggle to pay the bills when they have children, who are going about saying how wonderful and progressive this policy is really need a reality check. Targeting incapacity benefits- of all the benefits that could have been targeted- is a disgraceful and immoral move and the fact that Labour are planning it too makes me physically sick... essentially, it's happening no matter who we vote for- God, aren't we all so very lucky that we live in a democracy and get so much choice in matters...

Dave's plan to scrap New Deal- one of the few benefits initiatives that has actually worked over the last 12 years- is ridiculous at best, but to start making it more difficult just to claim incapacity benefits is a step in the wrong direction. They'll say the assessments are fair but, in this current climate, there's not a chance of them being fair in any way, shape or form as it'll all be about cutting costs as much as possible. As for the Conservatives- they haven't changed at all. The current climate just gives them a mandate to do what they love doing best- make drastic spending cuts- and not be lambasted by the public for it.

So our choices are red cuts, bigger blue cuts or savage yellow cuts? Forgive me whilst I turn- both physically at the sight of this, and politically- green.

Labour isn't working:
Latest figures show that three million people have not had a job since before 1996, and a further two million people in England and Wales have never had a job at all.

And that was in the boom years.

At the lower end of the scale we need to widen the gap between the income of those in work, and those able to work but don't.

So I would cut income tax for the lower paid, increase the amount and duration of Job Seekers Allowance (making it more of an insurance scheme), and at least maintain the income of anyone too ill to work. This would be funded by taking at least 1 million people off Incapacity Benefit, and reducing the amount of benefit that is not contribution-based.

This is not just an economic issue, nor just an issue of saving money.

It is not fair that working people subsidise others who can work and don't.

There is such a thing as social justice, it's just not the same as equality.

I know, let's take £25 a week of people who are both poor and disabled, and use the money saved to cut Inheritance Tax so the wealthy can leave loads more dosh to their kids!

sorry Mr Cameron, you don't get my vote with stuff like that

Is it because the Labour party don't want to spell out their benefit reform, because they feel that those people are natural Labour supporters?

I would be more interested about the comments of a particular member of the army personnel who had a frank discussion with Bob Ainsworth, especially his reply, and Brown's response to this outburst when senior officers can only speak out once they resign?

This is good.
With both Tory and Labour leaders espousing the same policy in many areas, perhaps we can have a joint manifesto for the coming election.
It would save paper. (Good for the environment)
It would only need one battlebus to tour the Country. (Smaller carbon footprint)
It would need less time devoted to Party Political broadcasts. (Thus allowing more time for really important programmes like Strictly or X)
It would save wear and tear on my letterbox.(Thus saving money as I wouldn't need to replace it so often)

Benefits cuts are OK fro both Labour and Tories because the poor have no voice in British politics. The ethical and moral injunction of 'doing unto the least of my children' has been forgotten in our increasingly selfish society - what other explanation is there?

Now, if a new poll tax (by the poll tax party - the Tories just in case you have forgotten) was proposed everyone would be up in arms! So long as someone else suffers the British people don't care! The media propaganda machine has branded all of the poor as 'undeserving poor' - except on course if the want a new duck house (or when the BBC provides tax avoidance advice to its vastly overpaid 'stars')! Hypocrisy of the selfish rich!

Look, we ALL know there are thousands if not millions of benefit cheats out here. The Labour government has GOT to be in agreement with any reasonable way of redressing this.

Of course the Tories are also putting this as high priority - especially young people should be "earning or learning" as William Hague aptly puts it.

Over the last twelve years of Labour misrule there has been so much "common sense" quashed or squashed by them. Most problems are not rocket science to solve but for some inexplicable reason they are beyond the present ghastly shower. It's too late for them. They had the chance and blew it.

Election coming and the whole world knows by now who will win - and we DON'T want that reject Blair as a President of Europe either....

A chorus of "needs must". they were designed by the same man so it is not unreasonable for there to be a similarity.

What does matter is that something is done to reduce the expenditure of government.

Honesty in the approach to the electorate would also be good. Perhaps no "news management" I am fed up with such and such will say this let them say it and see if it is worth reporting.

The difference being that Labour have had 12 years to get this done and are only now looking at the problem.

My biggest concern is that on the face of it - Cameron seems to me to be no different to Gordon Brown in terms of being 'up front'

All I want is a bunch of MP's who listen to and value the opinion of we the great unwashed.

Sadly too much to ask.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

There are far too many people milking the system. I know individuals that are doing exactly that and it makes me sick! Worst is that I have reported them and nothing gets done.

I would support a reform and don't see why I should pay my taxes to support people who could actually work in an office or supermarket check out. I suffered a serious back injury 5 years ago and could have quite easily gone down the unable to work avenue, though some of us have pride!

This is exactly the kind of policy I was hoping for.

The number of people on incapacity benefit has been creeping up ever since it was created - I doubt this has anything to do with more people actually being unable to work. I have no problem with the principle of the system and think that those genuinely unable to work should be provided a comfortable level of living - but this system needs to be policed properly.

Consenus on Benefits cuts?

Is Blair being parachuted into the European union to amend their "benefits" system or are the MP's who ripped off Britain now advocating a consensus to withdraw from the EU.

1979, the cops are out their running about, you better watch out if you haven't got a job.

I wonder where the information comes from that the man in the street wants this or that depending on who is speaking?

No one has asked me what I would like to happen. Is it because I am in an office?

Back to some honesty please!!!

18. At 10:22am on 05 Oct 2009, brossen99 wrote:

...Its all part of a " Corporate Nazi " ideology where large corporations lobby government to make everything as inefficient ( difficult ) and expensive as possible, especially for people living in rural areas. A key part of the " Corporate Nazi " plan is the systematic dismantling of our welfare state whilst at the same time providing a virtual welfare state for the Banks and their stock market parasites.
-------
Presumably you can point us to their published manifesto, so that we can all be fully informed of "their" sinister plans? (I looked for a link on all the Student Union websites I could find, but drew a blank). Thanks.

OK, smaller version of what was moderated above:

What about all those "students" taking "gap years"? My view is if they qualify for a university place and are offered it they should take it. These "gap years" are another excuse to loaf about and not pay tax and many of those who take them are not academic enough to go to university anyway.

11 sagaminx

"I know, let's take £25 a week of people who are both poor and disabled, and use the money saved to cut Inheritance Tax so the wealthy can leave loads more dosh to their kids!

sorry Mr Cameron, you don't get my vote with stuff like that"

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

Another splendidly ill-thought out post saga ! The subject of Nicks blog is that the Labour policy and the conservative policy are virtually the sameonthis one. You attack the tories for this policy but not Labour - why is this ??? Bit odd for a so called floating voter isn't it ? So what would Labour spend the savings on ? More diversity coordinators or 5-a-day advisors perhaps ? Or more equality regulatory bodies(how is the neice of countess longford's criminal case getting onby the way ?)

I think the idea from both parties is that there is a significant number of what you refer to as "disabled" who are actually nothing of the sort and are fit to do work of some sort. Not even Brown or Mandelson seem to disagree with that. Presumably, you would be happy to allow this massive fraud to continue.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Sagamix, come on, I KNOW you can read. This policy is almost exactly NOT

"take £25 a week of people who are both poor and disabled, and use the money saved to cut Inheritance Tax"

Firstly its take £25 off people who SAY they are too disabled to work, but actually aren't.
Secondly, its NOT to fund any Inheritance Tax cut, its to save money where it is being spent unnecessarily.
And thirdly, isn't the Labour party policy to make Inheritance Tax transferable, AND to increase it, which will effectively raise it to around the same level that the Tories are proposing.

Misrepresentation is often seen in politics, I don't see a lot of point in using it on a blog.

Ministers are sceptical that this can be done at all and believe the Tory plan would be an unacceptable risk with the public finances.

Nick did you manage to keep a straight face when you wrote that?

To suggest that ministers have any concern about risks to public finances is bizarre!

All the things that could have been done with an extra trillion of public debt and what do we have? Back to where we were 12 years ago, but with an extra massive debt...

Every one in the country could have been given £15,000 cash... that would have ended poverty for a while...

saga @ 11

"I know, let's take £25 a week of people who are both poor and disabled, and use the money saved to cut Inheritance Tax so the wealthy can leave loads more dosh to their kids!
sorry Mr Cameron, you don't get my vote with stuff like that"

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

labour are doing exactly the same thing but wont announce it... i take it labour wont get your vote either?
difference being that conservatives announce it - labour dont
i wonder what labour will spend the savings on?

there are more than 2 million on incapacity benefit, who are not counted as unemployed or included in the figures, this policy would apply to those that are able to work, only the genuine disabled and incapacitated will continue to get the extra money (and rightly so) but for those that are able to work, they will get the same amount as everyone who is officially unemployed.

surely saga, you are not in favour of discrimination?

do you really believe sir, that savings made under this policy are ring fenced for one particular tax cut?
no government ring fences a saving/tax rise for one single purpose, the difference being that labour say they will, like taxing the motorist for a greener britain and investing in transport projects - 2007/8 £47 billion taken in tax on motorists, yet less than £9 billion actually spent on transport projects.
even our local labour MP cannot tell us where the money has gone!

normally your posts are a considered opinion, ill put this one down to a bad nights sleep and you havent yet had your breakfast...

HMIE tells us that there are swipping differences between our schools, ranging from excellent to very poor.Theses are the problems consecutive governments have failed to address, problems where 20% of school leavers leave full time education after 11 years with no formal qualification.

The unemployed and underfunded, who have not achieved their education potential are the victims of poor government and the continuation of these attacks on the most vulnerable in society is a reflection of the weakest, that line their own pockets and ignore the real issues.

"11. At 10:15am on 05 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
I know, let's take £25 a week of people who are both poor and disabled, and use the money saved to cut Inheritance Tax so the wealthy can leave loads more dosh to their kids!

sorry Mr Cameron, you don't get my vote with stuff like that"

Except Cameron is talking about those who are not genuinely unable to work (and who could therefore, if they don't like being poor, get up off their sofa and join the workforce like the rest of us do).

And as Nick R points out LAbour are planning to make the same cut, so why is it specifically that Cameron won't get your vote (as if we didn't know)

Except (again) of course the cut in IHT is being funded by increases in tax on Non-Doms, so you're wrong there.

Also, again, of course, Labour have themselves cut IHT by introducing the transferable nil-rate band so why are cuts in IHT (a tax on wealth that's been taxed already) a reason to specifically criticise Cameron?

Also, also, of course, of course, I doubt anything Cameron could do would get your vote. Luckily for the country, he won't need it.

#26 strictlypickled
Just exactly who is saying that those in reciept of incapacity are fit to work?.

Just another waging finger! let blame the poor again, it works everytime?.

Most peopel will work if there are suitable jobs available.
Over the years, UK must have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and many £billion's each year in taxes to off-shoring, from call centers, to IT services. It is time this is reversed.

Part time, flexible hour jobs are needed for families needing a second income and those who need to top-up their pensions. Full time skilled jobs are needed for the young or young-at-heart.

Over the years, I think Labour sold us out in more ways than one.

11. At 10:15am on 05 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
I know, let's take £25 a week of people who are both poor and disabled, and use the money saved to cut Inheritance Tax so the wealthy can leave loads more dosh to their kids!

sorry Mr Cameron, you don't get my vote with stuff like that
********************************************
Oh come on Saga, Cameron was never going to get your vote anyway!

#11 sagamix

I know, let's take £25 a week of people who are both poor and disabled, and use the money saved to cut Inheritance Tax so the wealthy can leave loads more dosh to their kids!

sorry Mr Cameron, you don't get my vote with stuff like that


Nick you say, quite rightly.

Listen very hard. What do you notice? Labour are not condemning Tory proposals to take £25 a week off people on incapacity benefit who are deemed "fit for work".

The reason is that, although they've hardly shouted this from the rooftops, that's their policy too. Yes, that's right the government has already published plans to make every claimant of incapacity benefit face a tougher fitness-for-work test which will lead some to be switched off £89/week IB and onto £64/week JSA - the job seeker's allowance.

Which part of NuLabour have exactly the same policy do you not understand?

Sagamix - Mr Cameron is never going to get your vote anyway, is he? Your blogs are so predictable, boring and silly. But thanks for joining in.

pickled @ 26

the Labour policy and the Clown policy are virtually the same on this

if you can point me to where Labour are prioritising cuts in Inheritance Tax, I will happily take a look

look we need some Out of the Box thinking on this, not the tired old cliches about "get up off your lazy backsides or starve"

what I suggest is less stick and more carrot - as an example, maybe what we do is we say to people on benefit not that we'll CUT your money if you DON'T do this, that and the other, but rather we will INCREASE it (by, say, £25 a week) if you DO do something good and worthwhile - learn a musical intrument, perhaps ... or a foreign language

real benefits (as opposed to the benefits we're all moaning about) will then flow ... I mean, an underclass who can tinkle the ivories and speak French are no longer an underclass, are they?

raised self esteem AND an extra £25 a week to spend

this is the sort of thinking we need - enlightened thinking

At least the Conservatives appear to be able to put a b*m on every seat at their Conference.
(Cue posts galore about rich Tories not needing to work and having the time to attend etc etc etc)

This is not a new policy, Its the same as the current governments policy of transferring people onto Employment & Support Allowance(ESA). As of October 2008 everyone wanting to sign on for incapacity benefit(IB) had to apply for ESA as IB no longer exists. Claimants who have been on IB for years are being recalled and reassessed, many are being found fit. they have 3 choices claim Jobseekers Allowance & receive £64.30, Claim ESA (which they will fail the medical as its stricter than the old IB one)and receive £64.30 or appeal the decision on IB - this means they will only receive 20% of their benefit - 20% of top rate IB is £17.96. These are weekly figures.
Mr Cameron is trying to hijack an existing government policy and pass it off as his own. Anyone on ESA has to be put into one of 2 groups - The Support Group - for those when need continued daily support to live (normally the severely mentally or physically disabled) or The Work Related Activity group. This group are to be helped by the jobcentre and independent partners (private companies given grants by the government) to get jobs that they can do and that help them get better.

Mr Cameron's announcement makes good headlines but its an existing government policy.
One question - has anyone found an employer who is prepared to employ people with some health problems? It took me 7 years of searching to find an employer who would employ someone with uncontrolled epilepsy.

"I would support a reform and don't see why I should pay my taxes to support people who could actually work in an office or supermarket check out."

Because some of us would like a proper job instead? The rise in joblessness is more complicated than a recession or the invisible "workshy" and has much more to do with that there's not much left in the UK other than sitting decomposing in some menial minimum wage job, and there's only a certain amount of that to go around at the best of times.

If any future government is serious about getting people off benefits and into work, then they need to work harder to bring a range of industries to the nation.

It is extremely easy, and politicians often make it so, to become overwhelmingly cynical about their motives.

But when I read yesterday that Iain Duncan Smith had proposed simplifying a benefits system from fifty-one benefits down to just two, then I did think that at last somebody was on the right track.

Even though there is a massive upfront systems 'migration' cost when embarking on such an exercise, which usually results in such proposals being squashed at the outset by those allegedly 'highly intelligent' people at the Treasury.

Frank Field proposals fell at that hurdle all those wasted years ago, but maybe IDS will have better luck.

#28 Grawth

Who's going to be doing these assessments? Surely they'll be incentivised, just like the private traffic wardens. And like parking tickets, wrong decisions will be almost impossible to overturn.

The Tories know that this is cheap money because who cares about those on the £64 a week Jobseekers Allowance in a declining jobs market? If there aren't any jobs just stick 'em on a training course or a work placement (they'll be receiving considerably less than the minimum wage).

Oh yes, the Tories really have reinvented the words 'progessive' and 'compassionate'.

Anyway, what about the bankers who have destroyed the nations finances? What about the wide open tax loopholes that account for many more billions in lost tax revenue?

This is all very Darwinian - eat for the little guys and leave the big guys, 'the ubermensch', ooops strayed into Nietsche now but you get my drift.

How many times over the years have we heard Conservative politicians spouting populist promises about sorting out the lazy workshy ? Such policies are always about money, not morals. Even if they did make a genuine effort, where are all these training places and jobs going to magically appear from in a time of rising unemployment ? The REAL material effect of Cameron's policies would be to leave the lazy workshy largely alone while penalising those recently thrown out of work through no fault of their own. Caledonian Comment

In response to JayJay691 and Brossen99:

"Targeting incapacity benefits- of all the benefits that could have been targeted- is a disgraceful and immoral move" - Utter nonsense. No right- minded tax paying worker of this country should have any problem with a political party seeking to cut the amount of people incorrectly or illegally claiming benefits to which they are not entitled. These spongers are making us hardworking tax-payers pay more tax each year - that is disgraceful and immoral.

You conveniently ignore the fact that, under the Tory proposals, if you still qualify for IB then you have no cut in your benefits.

As for "Corporate Nazi ideology" - Brossen 99, only some far left wing communist/socialist would suggest that this policy is a systematic dismantling of our welfare state. Get off your arse, get a job and pay some tax like the rest of us.

#1. At 09:26am on 05 Oct 2009, tenmaya wrote:

"This is more of what I want to hear, tackling the work shy, Labour are always on about a fairer society but what about someone on a low wage subsidising people with no intention of work, is that fair?"

Err, I thought this blog is about incapacity benefit (by the grace of God go you, me and any number of bloggers), not JSA...

I have no problem with any party/government tackling the latter 'cheats' but I see real dangers in any party targeting the former.

33. At 11:05am on 05 Oct 2009, derekbarker wrote:

#26 strictlypickled
Just exactly who is saying that those in reciept of incapacity are fit to work?.

Just another waging finger! let blame the poor again, it works everytime?.
----------
I don't think that anybody is saying that all those in receipt of incapacity [benefit] are fit to work.

Derek, do you think that all people receiving it are unfit to work?

What is it with the inheritance tax that people don't get?

I work all my life and pay tax on my money all my life and pay tax on everything I buy and when I die I'm supposed to pay tax again? For what? What have I done?

Inheritance tax is theft, pure and simple theft.

No amount of bleating about more nurses and teachers when newlabour have triped spending in twelve years can justify the ludicrous act of theft that is inheritance tax.

Why shouldn't my kids have my money? Having children is a choice and part of that choice is to take responsibility for their upbringing and financial health.

More tax equals less and less incentive to create wealth; newlabour apologists doin't seem to realise we have already gone past the tipping point with artists, companies and managers leaving the country because they are sick of paying too much tax. The wealth creatijg poool is falling and that alone will, lead to l;ess nurses and teachers if newlabour and its apologists go on ion their ill advised and wrong headed way.

'we'll all be poor equally' is not an excuse for this policy direction; no-one will have any money and standards will fall across the board including public services.

Next we will be into information control; arguably we've already passed that point too. So nuclear disasters will be greeted with 'don't panic' messages and a subsequent smothering of the data for people with radiation exposure.

We are heading fast down this road; look at Gordon Brown last wee and his bleating about not being asked the right questions. He's just dying to do a national public broadcast telling the country how hard he is working and how much they have achieved. it makes my heart sink the depths to which we have fallen.

And yet we still get this puerile bleating about more nurses and teachers the moment a tory policy is announced.

Well, I for one think there are quite enough of them and they should, like the rest of us, work a liottle harder in these difficult times and not just go hire more people.

Call an election.

38. At 11:12am on 05 Oct 2009, sagamix wrote:
......look we need some Out of the Box thinking on this, not the tired old cliches about "get up off your lazy backsides or starve"

what I suggest is less stick and more carrot - as an example, maybe what we do is we say to people on benefit not that we'll CUT your money if you DON'T do this, that and the other, but rather we will INCREASE it (by, say, £25 a week) if you DO do something good and worthwhile - learn a musical intrument, perhaps ...............
***********************************

As if there aren't enough people already blowing their own trumpet in politics!!

33 derekbarker

#26 strictlypickled
Just exactly who is saying that those in reciept of incapacity are fit to work?.
====================

No one as far I as I am aware.....certainly not me.

Are you seriously implying that none of the 2.6 million people on incapacity benefit are capable of doing any type of work at all ?

Cut Incapacity Benefits and get the Unemployed back to Work cries the Conservatives shouting from the Rafters, as it was under the last Tory Administration that Cameron was in when we changed from the System from Invalidity Benefit to Incapacity Benefit in the First-Place.

Firstly, Why were unemployed people allowed to simply move onto Incapacity Benefit as an up-grade from Unemployment Benefit in the Second-Place while "Only" needing a Sick-Note from their G.P.?

Secondly, Why must those whom have more that satisfied the requirements in the past to receive Incapacity Benefits and Invalidity Benefit before this with no prospects of ever being able to hold down any Job of gainful Employment have to keep being caught up in the endless rounds of Government Reviews on this Issue, so that any Political Party can simply play knock-about Politics with Peoples lifes with this Issue?

Thirdly, Even when those currently receiving Incapacity Benefit for being long-term Unemployed are told to seek Employment, WHERE are ALL the Jobs needed TODAY and in the FUTURE to remove these People from any long-term Dole queues coming from, for there is no point in suggesting that anyone should go back into Employment at a moment in Time like today and in the foreseeable future whereby U.K. Unemployment will be rising for at lease the next 3 - 5 Years, and will level off and remain high for between 5 - 10 Years excluding yet another U.K. or World-Wide Recession during this same Time period.

Or, is this simply a Paper excercise to have everyone regardless of needs, and ability on the same level of payments at a level of Income Support, simply so that the majority of People will become Poorer while Bankers, and the Conservative Elite - Set can & will get even Richer?

Saga @ 38.

What on earth are you on?

We have no money we need to economise.

When they can play the piano and speak French what do we do give them a train ticket to Paris and let Sarkosy pay their benefits?

"sagamix wrote:
I know, let's take £25 a week of people who are both poor and disabled, and use the money saved to cut Inheritance Tax so the wealthy can leave loads more dosh to their kids!

sorry Mr Cameron, you don't get my vote with stuff like that"

Frankly I am shocked, I think the BBC is missing the big political story of the day "Sagamix in not voting for Tories shock"

If someone is in the category 'on incapacity benefit who are deemed "fit for work"' shouldn't they be looking for work? Just because someone is on incapacity benefit doesn't mean they are too disabled to work, and those who are off due to "stress" are just going to have to put a brave face on things.

And while I know that the died hard lefties seem to think that anyone with a job should feel happy to give the majority of their hard earned money so that the poor can share in the wealth the rest of us actually want to take some of our money home at the end of the month.

If someone is able to work they should't be on "incapacity" benefit, the problem is that governments like to place long term unemployed on IB as it keeps the jobless figures down.

roll on @ 316

which part of NuLabour have exactly the same policy do you not understand?

I think the difference will be in the implementation - the Tories are so much more efficient when it comes to bashing the poor ... practice makes perfect, and all that

glad you wrote, actually, because I wanted to ask you something - if I were Scottish and lived in Scotland (which I'm not and I don't) and I was of a free market Right Wing political disposition (which I'm not) ... yes, it's a Double Hypothetical! ... AND I believed fervently in an independent Scotland, where would I find succour? ... which serious political party could I feel good about?

38 sagaminx

"the Labour policy and the Clown policy are virtually the same on this"

if you can point me to where Labour are prioritising cuts in Inheritance Tax, I will happily take a look
...........this is the sort of thinking we need - enlightened thinking

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

My comment was referring to the incapactity benefit issue, which is not entirely unreasonable given that it is the subject of Nicks blog.

You have somehow linked this to inheritance tax for whatever reason. Though I do understand why such an avid fan of the neice of countess longford would be concerned about inheritance tax!

And I think that many of us have had enough of the "enlightened thinking" of the the past 13 years.

Nick Robinson:

In theory; The consensus is that there is...on all sides from
what I am reading...

~Dennis Junior~

I see nothing wronmg with the opposition party adopting policies espoused by the government. Afetr all, it's what Labour didi in the period up to the 1997 general election.

The reason the government is keeping quite is that they don't have the courage of their convictions. If it's the right thing for the country, it ought to be promoted but, if iy is even vaguely unpopular in certain parts of the country/electorate, then an unopopular government will tend to keep quiet about it, until they see which way the wind blows.

The usual attack on the poor and vulnerable. It's hard enough to get benefits when they're needed, this is just motivated by a heart-less cull of those least able to defend themselves

winifred @ 37

Mr Cameron is never going to get your vote anyway, is he? Your blogs are so predictable, boring and silly

Winnie, that's so unfair! - someone has to fly the flag for predictability, tedium and silliness - and it's not quite as easy as it looks, you know - have a go yourself and I bet you'll see what I mean!

robin @ 48

I work all my life and pay tax on my money all my life and pay tax on everything I buy and when I die I'm supposed to pay tax again? For what?

to pay for infrastructure and decent public services, and to look after the poorer members of our society

51. At 11:28am on 05 Oct 2009, LondonHarris wrote:
.....Or, is this simply a Paper excercise to have everyone regardless of needs, and ability on the same level of payments at a level of Income Support, simply so that the majority of People will become Poorer while Bankers, and the Conservative Elite - Set can & will get even Richer?
*****************************
Er no. It was done so that Labour could claim that unemployment was down and the number seeking JSA had fallen.

58. At 11:38am on 05 Oct 2009, beardedshrimper wrote:

The usual attack on the poor and vulnerable. It's hard enough to get benefits when they're needed, this is just motivated by a heart-less cull of those least able to defend themselves
----
Yes - as Nick says, that's labour policy for you......

Call an election.

You've hit the nail on the head, Nick. There's an election round the corner. Dave has to be seen to be bold, with radical real alternatives.

But what is becoming clear is how some Tory policies are New Labour but with a different wrapping. Benefits now schools academies later.

What you haven't suggested is an explanation. The Tories are trying a touch of triangulation to strangle the opponents. Will it work - only if voters trust Dave to deliver?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/tory-triangulation-then-strangulation.html

But why is nothing being said about sorting out waste in government? What about the 800,000 additional government workers employed since 1997, many in non jobs that add no social value to our society whatsover. I know people working for central government who arrive at work around 10am and are back home by 4pm, work 2 or 3 days a week at home but spend the time persuing various honnies and iterests. How they get away with this and why those collegues of theirs that do work hard tolerate this is beyone me but that is another story. The main point is that yes we need to get thoses capable of working off incapacity benefits but people working for governmemt who do not work their contracted hours are milking the system and committing fraud just as much as benefit fraudsters and are getting paid many times more for the privilege. The government needs to eliminate fraid within its own ranks before turing on others. Lets hope this is an item on the agenda for this weeks conference but I am not holding my breath.

Nasty nasty Tory party. I shake my head as I see they just can't help themselves ignore the who use complex tax avoidance measures in order to not contribute to the country that feeds them but go for the poor instead.

They're still talking about deregulation when deregulation has been a disaster and fighting with Europe when Europe is our future.

They are a right wing party - nothing centre about them.

There is a very simple solution to all this.
Pay everyone over 18 £100 a week, no supplements, no extras.

Income earned up to £10000, no tax. After £10000 a gradually increasing tax starting at a small amount and gradually increasing to 40% with no tax bands up to £50,000. Everything on top of that is taxable at 50% but there is no employee NI contributions.

Simple, easy to understand and impossible to avoid. Such a tax regime would make it pointless being on benefits and encourage everyone to do what work they can whatever their disabilities. Those in need of full time care could be provided for out of the NHS budget.

I am disabled. Although I have been able to work in the past I can't work now as there are too many problems for me to be a viable employee.

If the Government want me to go back to work then I would only ask that I am given something suitable and not some menial rubbish job just to keep me doing something. My experience of Government initiatives in the past have been that disabled people are sent on training courses, at the end of which there is no job. So they go back to as they were before.

I have been on at least four Government schemes, the last one was the Jobclub. Never once have I got a job as a result of all these courses. Such work as I have had I have organised myself! I don't want to go on any more training schemes, I want a proper job. I have five years before retirement age and I'm not worn out yet.

exiled scot @ 52

when they can play the piano and speak French what do we do, give them a train ticket to Paris and let Sarkosy pay their benefits?

I think you're spoofing a serious issue - the point is that a bunch of people who can play piano and are fluent in French (or play flamenco guitar and speak Spanish for that matter) will have enormously raised self esteem (as well as 2 very marketable skills) and will be far more likely to start making an impact on the world ... a PRODUCTIVE impact

it's just an example of enlightened thinking ... there are many more

So the plot thickens.
The Tories where the first to realise that you could fudge the unemployment figures by shifting as many people as possible to Incapacity benefits & Labour followed the form.

Now the Tories have realised that it is going to be cheaper to shift them back again.
Ahh, but there lies the dilemma!

If you do that, the unemployment figures will start to rise sharply again & Dave will be saddled with being the Prime Minister of unemployment.

We haven’t even got into the subject of how many Public sector workers are due to lose their jobs due to cuts because both sides are doing their very best to fudge this very important issue.

So Dave, (all together now) WHERE ARE THE JOBS GOING TO COME FROM THAT YOU EXPECT PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR??

Nice to see that both parties seem to leave the true work dodgers out of the equation as usual & reserve the brown boot for those who have contributed to the system & just need a hand.
Not likely, you will still have to wait for 6 months before getting any practical help – no change there then because that’s been the way for as long as I can remember.

Now I’m crossing my fingers that I don’t lose my job on Dave’s watch.

A no pain, no gain message from the man who can’t even tell us how much his personal wealth is.

Nick says “The Tories - encouraged by Freud - believe that they can do this quickly, get private companies heavily involved and tear up Treasury rules to allow them to spend money upfront to get people back to work in the hope of future savings in benefits".

Sounds rather like a PFI to me Nick. Haven’t we been there before?
I see even more hidden debt building up here, & this time it won’t be Brown’s.

15. flamepatricia wrote:

Look, we ALL know there are thousands if not millions of benefit cheats out here. The Labour government has GOT to be in agreement with any reasonable way of redressing this.

Of course the Tories are also putting this as high priority - especially young people should be "earning or learning" as William Hague aptly puts it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That will be the same Tories that contributed to the cuts in apprenticeships when I was a lad then.
The forces of gravity must have physically changed because it’s taken 20 years for that penny to drop.

This raises the age-old dilemma of the welfare state:

- On the one hand, we must provide for those genuinely in need.

- On the other, we shouldn't be spending taxpayers' money on people who could work but prefer to milk the system.

Over the years, various ideas have been proposed - such as "vouchers instead of cash?" - but the first essential is to tighten the rules, which seems to be what both the Conservatives and Labour agree on.

So - with an election looming - both parties agree on tightening the rules, and on getting a clearer distinction between the workshy and those genuinely in need. Good!

38#

And wheres that extra 25 a week going to come from Saga? Add to the debt mountain?

31#

"HMIE tells us that there are swipping differences between our schools, ranging from excellent to very poor.Theses are the problems consecutive governments have failed to address, problems where 20% of school leavers leave full time education after 11 years with no formal qualification."

Er... dunno quite how to tell you this, but... I'll whisper it, so that no one else hears.....The conservatives havent been in office for 12 years...!

This is just playing to the Gallery. This idea of moving people onto sickness benefit was started in the 1980s when Th*tcher was in charge. It helped massage the unemployment figures while that Government destroyed industry to destroy the unions and turned us into a nation of bankers and people who sold Coffee to bankers. Mostly London As the Conservatives are a party of very very little Englanders.

What happens if these disabled people can do work they can't get?
Tories are very good at stirring up this kind of hatred. To make their lower class voting drones feel like one of them and think they're interested in them.

60#

And for mock tudor cladding as well no doubt. Bet that means he can go to his grave feeling easier eh, Saga?

14#

"Benefits cuts are OK fro both Labour and Tories because the poor have no voice in British politics."

No voice?


What do you think the right to vote is? No voice, my foot.

@64

MPs and ministers I presume?

Nick, I'm a bit puzzled because your own news pages are carrying the following story:

"Labour rejected the Conservative approach to incapacity benefit claimants as "callous".

"This is unfair on the genuinely sick who should not suffer a £25 a week cut in benefit," employment minister Jim Knight said

"Our plans are to get people off benefit and into work. The Tories don't seem to care about getting people into jobs, they just want to cut their benefit."

I'm not sure Mr Knight has understood the Conservatives' policy (which, as you say, is exactly the same as his, only bigger and quicker), but the tactic seems to have worked in forcing the Government into defending Incapacity Benefit claimants and their right to go on claiming Incapacity Benefits.

I suppose you could mark that down as a score for Mr Cameron.

#48 rockRobin7

Great post, well said. Inheritance Tax is simply grave-robbery under another name.

64. emigrating:

"But why is nothing being said about sorting out waste in government? What about the 800,000 additional government workers employed since 1997, many in non jobs that add no social value to our society whatsover."

Exactly! One of the features of Labour since 2001 has been the relentless increase in bureaucracy. Reversing this - and using IT to replace a lot of it - seems essential, but the real elite in the UK don't want to see their empires diminished. Not surprised you are "emigrating" - I'm considering it too!

@ 73 ... and he can go to his grave feeling easier

yes that too - sorry, forgot to mention that - a nice contribution (via Inheritance Tax) to the Common Good as you are about to drift away into the long, sweet night is very likely to make you feel good

although maybe not with Robin

The benefits system is so complex 99% of the benefit staff don't understand it. Its time for a change now , it will take at least 4 years to get some common sense in to the system.

At least the Tories understand that the deficit is something that needs tackling now, by doing nothing Gordon Brown will heap extra misery on the most needy in the years to come. We all know that the interest on the national debt needs tackling in order to prevent the disintegration of public services in the near future, Gordon Brown is blinded by ideology and must resign..

#71

Fubar-Saunders.

Thanks for the whisper but it's no illusion whirling in the wind.

The privatised brigade are already calling for a 3Bn cut in state education, as well as pulling all schools out of LEA control.

Think about Fubar, poor communities, will be asking poor parents to help fund their local schools. ouch!

I have been on both sides of the fence. After 25 years of constant employment, I suffered a serious illness and could not work.

I returned to work until retirement, at my own initiative, after my treatment ended. I could have stayed off work until retirement but chose not to.

If I did it, so can others, always if there is availble, suitable work.

"sagamix wrote:
pickled @ 26

the Labour policy and the Clown policy are virtually the same on this

if you can point me to where Labour are prioritising cuts in Inheritance Tax, I will happily take a look"

I don't have time to call on the power of google to find a link but Labour DID make a promise to allow couples to share their Inheritance tax allowances but it was a couple of years back (they made the annoucenment after the Tories proposal went down well so it probably isn't still Labour policy).

"look we need some Out of the Box thinking on this, not the tired old cliches about "get up off your lazy backsides or starve"

what I suggest is less stick and more carrot - as an example, maybe what we do is we say to people on benefit not that we'll CUT your money if you DON'T do this, that and the other, but rather we will INCREASE it (by, say, £25 a week) if you DO do something good and worthwhile - learn a musical intrument, perhaps ... or a foreign language"

Isn't the big carrot the whole getting a job thing? While I do agree with the principle of paying the unemployed extra if they do something worthwhile I don't see how them learning a musical instrument or a foreigh language qualifies? If they are being paid out of the public purse how about something that benefits the public? E.g. helping to clean up a local wasteland so children could have a park? Or planting trees?

It does something to improve the environment around them. Paying the unemployed to learn a language or musical instrument is basically a big "screw you" to all the people who want to learn a new language/skill but can't afford to (learning a language at my local adult education centre would cost over £1800 and 6 years to learn a langauge to A-level standard and that is before you actually pay to take the exams)

"real benefits (as opposed to the benefits we're all moaning about) will then flow ... I mean, an underclass who can tinkle the ivories and speak French are no longer an underclass, are they?"

Not really a benefit for the country though is it? I haven't looked at the jobs section of the paper but I doubt that there are many people looking for candidates who speak a bit of French and have had a few piano lessons.

"raised self esteem AND an extra £25 a week to spend

this is the sort of thinking we need - enlightened thinking"

If they actually got a proper job they would get self esteem, but they might not actually be better off after taxes if we have to pay for the unemployable to have piano and French lessons.

So David Cameron, a man whose dining room chairs cost him over £1,000 each, is planning to make those on Incapacity Benefit that his party deem fit for work £25 a week poorer. He's going to force those on Jobseeker's Allowance to forcibly retrain for McJobs or have their benefit taken away. And he's going to cut Inheritance Tax for the rich so they can pass on more of their money to their children, presumably in the hope they don't have to actually get jobs. And this is the new, caring, progressive Tory Party?

Of course this could all have been so different if Blair had had to backbone to face down Brown over Frank Field's welfare reform proposals right at the very start of New Labour! But of course he took the easy way out and sacrificed the man he had appointed to "think the unthinkable" on welfare reform to keep Gordon sweet, how much better would the public finances be today if Field had been allowed to see through his reforms?

"skynine wrote:
There is a very simple solution to all this.
Pay everyone over 18 £100 a week, no supplements, no extras.

Income earned up to £10000, no tax. After £10000 a gradually increasing tax starting at a small amount and gradually increasing to 40% with no tax bands up to £50,000. Everything on top of that is taxable at 50% but there is no employee NI contributions."

That is a policy that I have always thought was far superiour to our current one. Everybody gets the same from the state regardless of status (which will cause the left wingers to collapse in horror - the state giving money to the rich!). However, the big bonus is that there is no benefit to being unemployed. Everyone would be able to earn more in employment than they could on benefits.

#72dh
Absolutely! the new austerity tory party wont be able to fund such a crazy policy that is doomed to fail.

It's all about the tories trying to convince the public that they will not be the party of Thatcher again, where unemployment reached 3million but the truth is, that is exactly what the tories will be, with their austerity and cuts.The tories of today will surpass Thatcher and most probably create 4 million unemployed.

Labour has created a society of people who can use the system to fund a lifestyle that they have not contributed towards. The people on this blog who say it's disgusting to propose this need to get off their soap boxes and understand that this proposal is tagetting people who 'can' work and not those that 'cannot'.

I am all for a society were we take care of those less firtunate than myself, what as happened is there is inbalance created by those rely on the benefit system out of choice not out of need.

Has always been the problem with Labour their heart is in the right place, but sadly their minds are clouded by pity instead of common sense!

11

and others.

You see, its exactly comments like this that are the problem.

Listened to a fellow on a radio phone in on my way to work. Poor chap had been completely blind for two years and unable to work. Now, due to a catastrophic misunderstanding inflicted upon him by people making ignorant statements, he was convinced that his income would be reduced, and he threatened, live on air, to commit suicide.

Of course, this is so far from the truth it would be laughable if it was not so tragic. The proposed move is to assess those who wish to claim the allowance, and those who can work will fail the assessment. There is no reason why such an assessment should not take place, people can not expect to claim public money without proving their entitlement to it. Once the gent had this explained to him, he calmed down, and agreed he would be happy to attend such an assessment, which he would certainly pass.

Sorry Saga, you are purely fear mongering here. It reveals a few things about you, and I find this approach disgraceful.

#14 John

Agreed! It looks as though the Thatcherite Consensus, which caused this financial crisis, is alive and well. I hope none of the readers here are either unemployed or disabled - there's a storm coming. I wonder what these 'sons of Thatcher' are going to cut next? The minimum wage?

Neither Brown or Cameron will contemplate saving billions by scrapping Trident will they? IMO that's why there's so much about air at the moment about Iran. Iran is not going to attack anyone, and haven't done so in the last thousand years - I think Babylon was the last place they invaded and liberated the Jews there.

mark @ 83

helping to clean up a local wasteland so children could have a park? Or planting trees?

now we're talking - yes, it doesn't have be piano or French, those were just examples - we have to make sure it's interesting and enjoyable work though, otherwise there'll be problems with take up - and the fact that people IN work might start feeling a bit put out is quite understandable but, as with all "politics of envy" type stuff, is best put to one side - we need to "think the unthinkable" on this, otherwise we'll just go round and round in circles - it's that sort of issue

14

Ignorance, rubbish and tripe.

The poor have as equal a say in politics as anyone else.

Unfortunately so do the stupid, the lazy, and those who will exploit them to achieve their own ends.

A few points

1. This seems to involve more public spending when our creditors are increasingly desperate for us to pay back debt before we do anything else.
2. Thus assumes there are loads of private sector jobs that these people can do - why would any employer take these people on when there are loads of young Poles etc who are twice as good for the same price?

81#

Sorry Del, someones grassed you up mate.... You cant trust these bloggers, rotten snitches!

Hope you enjoy Deep Purple, although without Richie Blackmore and Jon Lord, its not quite the same... and Gillans voice is pretty shot by now. Should still be a good gig though.

Exactly what British politics needs, a group of pampered millionaires telling us that people on benefits are 'scroungers' again.
The world is a fractured and unpredictable place, but you can always rely on the Tories to address the problem by making the lives of poor people intolerable.
The notion of this clan of spoiled rich-kids lecturing the nation on any fiscal issue is so patently absurd and ill-judged that we are bound to get at least three terms of the evil swines.
As for me? I'm off to New Zealand, I remember how bad it was when the Tories were in before and nothing would make me go through that hell again.

81#

Oh incidentally Del, you're flag waving about a 3bn cut in education - Ed Balls has already said that he could find 2bn... which means that if push really came to shove, he could find 3bn.

So, whats the difference?

"derekbarker wrote:
#72dh
Absolutely! the new austerity tory party wont be able to fund such a crazy policy that is doomed to fail.

It's all about the tories trying to convince the public that they will not be the party of Thatcher again, where unemployment reached 3million but the truth is, that is exactly what the tories will be, with their austerity and cuts.The tories of today will surpass Thatcher and most probably create 4 million unemployed."

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories manage to hit 4 million unemployed, unemployment is already about 2.5 million and rising and I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are 1.5 million unemployed hiding in the figures somewhere.

A (much needed) streamlining of the benefits system would lead to higher unemployment figures. The ironic thing is that Labour drones will go on about the Tories hitting 4 million unemployed for the next 30 years but if the figures weren't massaged we are probably already there.

Nick Robinson : Listen very hard. What do you notice? Labour are not condemning Tory proposals to take £25 a week off people on incapacity benefit who are deemed "fit for work"

BBC main story on the "TORY CUTS !" : Labour rejected the Conservative approach to incapacity benefit claimants as "callous". "This is unfair on the genuinely sick who should not suffer a £25 a week cut in benefit," employment minister Jim Knight said "Our plans are to get people off benefit and into work. The Tories don't seem to care about getting people into jobs, they just want to cut their benefit."

Shurely shome mishtake - Ed

84. At 12:15pm on 05 Oct 2009, OldLabourAndProud wrote:

So David Cameron, a man whose dining room chairs cost him over £1,000 each....
----
Did he buy them with his own money, or the taxpayers'?

If the former, then what is the relevance to your argument (other than a bit of old labour class envy)? If the latter, then he should have gone to (for example) Alistair Darling (£10k of taxpayers' money towards furnishing his flat, including £2339 for 'magnolia' carpets) or Hazel Blears (almost £5k of taxpayers' money spent on furniture in 3 months) for advice on how to really do it.

38. sagamix:

"...look we need some Out of the Box thinking on this, not the tired old cliches about "get up off your lazy backsides or starve"

"..learn a musical intrument, perhaps ... or a foreign language"


How about hiring them as extras for a gritty new BBC docudrama about New Labour... the Blair & Brown years?