Those listening to Labour’s outrage about the so-called “social cleansing” they believe would result in capping Housing Benefit to four hundred pounds a week might get he impression that Labour opposes the policy.
Odd, then, that it appears in the Labour Party manifesto for the 2010 General Election [pdf]:
Our goal is to make responsibility the cornerstone of our welfare state. Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford. And we will continue to crack down on those who try to cheat the benefit system.
Perhaps Labour genuinely believe that “ordinary working families” in London can afford to spend £20,000 a year on their rent or mortgage.
What about the Government’s plans to move people off Incapacity Benefit?
Here’s what the Labour manifesto has to say on that:
More people with disabilities and health conditions will be helped to move into work from Incapacity Benefit and Employment Support Allowance, as we extend the use of our tough-but-fair work capability test.
Doubtless the Labour leadership will be explaining all.
(Liberal England is also covering this story, and much as I’d like to credit a Twitter source I don’t know who spotted it first – not me).
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
The true cost of the Rwanda farce
Call for Southwell's importance to Byron to be recognised
Peter Watson
Steve Comer
Tristan Ward
Mick Taylor
Katharine Pindar
74 Comments
The source was Matt Smith. I credit him in my article.
I actually saw it first on a blog by Peter Black AM – he should get the credit for it.
So the credit lies here.
Those listening to Labour’s outrage about the so-called “social cleansing” they believe would result in capping Housing Benefit to four hundred pounds a week might get he impression that Labour opposes the policy.
I really don’t understand Labours reaction to this. Of all the cuts to complain about, what on earth caused them to concentrate their attacks on this one?
And how will they regain credibility over the deficit, when they say that a tax-free gift of £21, 000 per year is not generosity enough?
Congratulations on the textbook use of a Tu quoque fallacy. Now perhaps you could actually explain Lib Dem support for kicking the most vulnerable in society because ‘Labour were going to do it too’ REALLY doesn’t cut it.
What I find even more staggering is … guess who the author of the Labour manifesto was?
I’ll give you a clue, it was a relative of David Miliband.
Peter
If you really believe that “the most vulnerable in society” are those chanelling these huge housing benefit figures to private landlords then I fear you are deluded.
To be fair I found it on a tweet from the Tory Press Office and appareently the Tory Party Chair quoted it on Any Questions, though I was abroad at the time so I am relying on hearsay for that last one.
@ Peter,
I understand that 96 per cent of 642,200 claimants who’s HB will be reduced will face rent shortfalls of £20 a week or less, and 79 per cent of £10 or less. If my local landlords association is anything to go by, rather than have the hassle and cost of losing their tenants, the vast majority of private landlords intend to cover most or the entire shortfall by making a small reduction in their rents. Nevertheless, there does need to be more transitional relief in place IMBO.
Labour’s faux outrage on this is despicable. Labour said they wouldnt just oppose for opposition’s sake, but within weeks they are opposing even things they themselves supported when they were in power (reform of housing benefit; AV for the commons; Tuition fees; etc)
It’s already been pointed out that Labour supporters haven’t a leg to stand on grandstanding about the poor and vulnerable considering one of the first things Ed said to Cameron was to welcome his draconian Thatcherite benefit ‘reforms’ and to promise to work with him to help achieve them.
So this comes as no surprise either as I didn ‘t see Labour rushing out to say they would unequivocally reverse the appalling housing ‘reforms’ Osborne has masterminded, which the sadly out of touch Liberal Democrat leadership has so foolishly and shamefully endorsed.
Be in no doubt though, pretending that everyone who is disgusted at these attacks on the poor, vulnerable and disabled are all Labour supporters would be incredibly complacent and wrong.
When Boris Johnson appears more concerned about the effect this has on poor families than Nick or Vince then it’s time for Nick and Vince to have a long hard look in the mirror and stop pandering and submitting to Cameron and Osborne’s far right Thatcherite agenda.
@LDV Bob – how would you reform HB?
At some point you need to take responsibility for your own actions. The cap of 21k is one narrow aspect of the reforms. It is not what people are outraged about. The reduction from median rents to the 30th percentile, raising the costs of social housing and the 10% cut to the HB of people who haven’t managed to get a job after a year are ill-thought out and spiteful.
Yes, reform HB but not in the direction of landing the taxpayer with a huge bill to make people homeless. Simon Hughes is right to to be leading constructive opposition to these half-baked proposals.
@LDV Bob “When Boris Johnson appears more concerned about the effect this has on poor families ”
Indeed, although one wonders what could lie behind the soon to face re-election Boris Johnson’s sudden conversion to compassion.
@Peter
It would be a tu quoque fallacy if it were used as justification of the policy. But justification of the policy is not addressed in this article. The point is that it is clearly disingenous for Labour to use a term like “social cleansing” – Labour’s own words – when their own manifesto contained a similar policy.
In other words the point is not “They’re no better”; it’s “They can’t seriously be sincere about what they’re saying”. So no, not tu quoque.
David
It’s being reported on the BBC that landlords in London are already preparing to evict their tenants when the reductions come into force next year. I very much doubt that landlords in areas that have strong demand for housing (by and large the areas where there are jobs) will reduce rents.
People seem to think, that just because someone is a Labour supporter, they would support, all labour policies.
that’s just ignorant.
1st of all, I don’t see labour actually gave a “figure” for Housing Benefit, or even the word Cap. They said “reform”
IF Labour had of got into power and where trying to push these Same Housing Benefit Caps and Cuts, that where directed solely at the unemployed. You can guarantee I would be shouting and Ranting at Labour and trying to raise as many people to oppose their policy as well.
As hard as it might be, for some of your party to understand, it isn’t all about you or the Tories.
It’s about standing up for what is right and wrong, and adding your voice to the most poor and vulnerable people in society, that seem to be going unheard.
(The BBC has reported)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660316
It says a study, done by Cambridge University, shows that much of the capital, including many of the suburbs, will become “largely unaffordable.”
“However, official figures also suggest that one in 10 households will face shortfall of £30 or more a week”
I don’t think it can be disputed that the Housing Benefit is astronomical, but is that the fault of the claimant?
I don’t think so, It’s the Greedy property developers and Landlords.
What is so wrong with introducing Legislation that CAPS rents Landlords can charge, rather than capping Housing Benefits?
I think it is worth remembering also that the 19.5 Billion Housing Benefit Bill is claimed by Pensioners,sick,disabled,unemployed and the Employed.
It is also worth noting that there are
9.8 Billion Pensioners in the U.K
and
1.64 Billion People claiming JSA
I think it is therefore, fair to say that a significant proportion of the Housing Benefit Bill is claimed by pensioners.
It does not then seem fair to me, to target the unemployed in order to bring down this Housing Benefit bill.
There is no easy solution to this problem, but one thing I do know is, Moving families who are on welfare or in work but on minimum wages, out of the cities is not the answer.
On average, at the moment, most councils charge around 50% of the Market average for social Housing, This is set to rise to 80%.
Now we all know how the private sector works, If Social Housing is raised to 80%, Private Landlords will not be content with charging 20% more than Social Housing. All This policy will do, is drive rents up even higher and cause Landlords to cut their costs even more by not maintaining properties and forcing tenants to live in houses that are beyond disrepair.
And to add insult to Injury, the unscrupulous landlords are then able to claim subsidies from the councils, to bring THEIR properties up to scratch, costing the tax payer more money.
Wouldn’t it be much fairer and a lot cheaper for the Public Purse, if we passed legislation that capped what Rents Landlords could charge, made all property developers, letting agencies have to rent a certain proportion of their properties to people on welfare.
There is a lack of social housing, and unfortunately a lot of letting agencies which charge (Average Rents) will not let to people on welfare.
Then you get the Greedy Rogue Trader, Landlords and Letting Agencies who will let to welfare at “highly inflated rents” for properties that are not really fit for purpose.
With the massive profits they make, they buy up more expensive properties in the City Centres and then move “Larger” families into these properties, and get away with charging even more astronomical rates.
Tackle, the Rogue Landlords, Introduce Legislation which forces all letting agencies to rent a percentage of properties to welfare. And we would be 3/4 of the way to solving the problems
Is this what it’scome to? seriously, there are very many Lib Dems who need to honestly ask themselves what would they have thought of this 12 months ago? A deplorable policy seems to be justified on the basis of ‘well Labour would have done the same’. Smacks of moral bankruptcy to me. How would you react if a naughty child’s response to criticism was ‘well little johnny was doing it too.’?
Doesn’t make it right does it.
@Andrew r
The reduction from median rents to the 30th percentile
…………………………………
Can you explain this Andrew I’ve missed this one.
In general whilst this article is technically correct it appears ratehr sily and synichal. A part is ALLOWED to change its mind on a manifesto after losing an election. A part is NOT MORALLY JUSTIFIED to throw their manifesto in the bin as soon as they get into office. Think about it guys .
@Matt, “9.8 Billion Pensioners in the U.K” should that be million? I’m not opposed to some form of rent control; HB is making a lot of buy-to-let barrons very rich from the welfare budget.
@AndrewR, can’t speak for London, is this landlords bluffing, I don’t know. All I know is that landlords in my area are prepared to loose a bit of rent, rather than go through the hassle and cost of eviction and finding new tenants where (as in 96% of claimants) the reduction is £20 or less. Some landlords are prepared to loose a larger amount if the HB paid direct to them, so they don’t have to chase tenants. Still I don’t think the govt got it right and the policy needs to be amended.
@ Ross Stalker
The justification is implicit. It is Tu quoque.
What a comically weak defence of their hypocrisy by the Labour posters here. “Yeh my party was going to do something like this but I’m going to attack the Lib Dems for it anyway.”
AndrewR
“It is not what people are outraged about. The reduction from median rents to the 30th percentile …”
As it happens, Andrew, I have yet to read anyone justify the use of local median rents as the limit rather than the 30th percentile. Most voters will regard the use of the median as being as bonkers as having a system that allows some people to claim rents of £25,000 or £30,000 per year.
How would you justify the median as a limit?
@John Fraser , has Labour changed its policy on HB? what is the new policy?
matt
Now we all know how the private sector works, If Social Housing is raised to 80%, Private Landlords will not be content with charging 20% more than Social Housing. All This policy will do, is drive rents up even higher
I don’t actually agree with you on that, but assuming you really believe what you write, can you tell me this:
Surely having an overriding limit of £21,000 pa (and £17,700 pa for 3 bedrooms, etc), and reducing local limits from 50th %ile to 30th %ile will have the effect of driving rents down (at least for “mid-market” properties)?
On the origins of the story, I first picked it up from the Tory Press HQ tweet as Peter did.
Does the Lib Dems really understand housing benefits because Michael Moore seems not to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-M7QRNrpL0
andy edinburgh
lol@ david
Yes it should say million no billion, sorry 🙁
matt
People seem to think, that just because someone is a Labour supporter, they would support, all labour policies.
1st of all, I don’t see labour actually gave a “figure” for Housing Benefit, or even the word Cap. They said “reform”
I think that’s sophistry, matt, isn’t it?
The full sentence in the Labour Manifesto is as follows:
Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.
Some analysis:
1. “Housing Benefit will be reformed” You imply that the word “reform” is actually meaningless. That would suggest that the Labour Party manifesto is nothing more than empty words. Do you agree?
2. “to ensure that we do not subsidise people” That’s not talking about the nasty landlords, it is talking about cutting the subsidy to tenants. Do you agree?
3. “rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.” That must mean a cap. Do you agree?
@Simon Shaw
“I don’t actually agree with you on that, but assuming you really believe what you write, can you tell me this”
Can you stop being so condescending, I am actually really losing my patience with your personal Insults. I am not sure who you think, you are amusing, yourself, or others from your party.
From comments made by a few other Liberal Democrats i think, they are beginning to tire also.
It is good politics, when people can present their arguments in a clear and decisive manor.
It does not make good politics, to resort to “bullish” and personal insults directed at opposition,
That is why politics was always disliked so much by the public in the first place and stopped the majority of the Public engaging in it.
The public are engaging now, and this kind of behaviour will be badly frowned upon and have consequences in the polls.
“Surely having an overriding limit of £21,000 pa (and £17,700 pa for 3 bedrooms, etc), and reducing local limits from 50th %ile to 30th %ile will have the effect of driving rents down (at least for “mid-market” properties)?”
I do not agree with that statement at all.
That is not how Capitalism works. Creating a Market where only 30% of properties would be affordable to social housing, Increases demand for “affordable” housing,
It creates a market, where Landlords get away with charging more for less and Landlords to cut their costs even more by not maintaining properties and forcing tenants to live in houses that are beyond disrepair.
And to add insult to Injury, the unscrupulous landlords are then able to claim subsidies from the councils, to bring THEIR properties up to scratch, costing the tax payer more money.
Unless government could “guarantee” that these policies would not make people homeless, they would not force people out of the cities or even out of the outer suburbs. Then it is not a Policy that should be supported by anyone.
If the governments aim is for “welfare bill to be reduced” and for “landlords” to reduce rent, rather than moving welfare out of the cities, why can the Government not implement policies that target the Landlords and and letting agents Directly, insuring the protection of the tenants?
@Simon Shaw
“The full sentence in the Labour Manifesto is as follows:
Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.”
You are aware that housing benefit, is also claimed by the Employed and the Elderly as well as the sick and Disabled?
“some” Bin men who are “people”, are living and working in London and require subsidise from Housing Benefit. Without it, they would be unable to live and work.
“some” pensioners who are “people” who may have lived in London for 65+ Years require subsidies from Housing Benefit to live in London. Do we throw them out of their homes and the city and make them live elsewhere?
“Some” Check out Assistants who are “people” are living and working in London and require subsidies from housing benefit, Without it, they would be unable to live and work in London
The full sentence in the Labour Manifesto is as follows:
Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.
@matt
We are all fairly clear what the Labour Party meant by that – which is something very close to what the Coalition Government is proposing.
You appear to disagree, so why don’t you, as a “Labour supporter” explain exactly what you think they meant.
We are not saying you agree with the Labour Manifesto, but you have previously claimed that the Labour Manifesto doesn’t mean what it clearly does, so please justify that.
Why does anyone expect Labour to behave sensibly over this? They have shown no sign of behaving sensibly over anything else since they lost the election. Or quite possibly, for some time before. In support of that statement I give you Jack Straw on civil liberties, John Reid and David Blunkett, and the election of their leader (method AND result).
@matt – `1st of all, I don’t see labour actually gave a “figure” for Housing Benefit, or even the word Cap. They said “reform”`
That’s right – they don’t give a figure for anything
@simon Shaw
“You appear to disagree, so why don’t you, as a “Labour supporter” explain exactly what you think they meant.
We are not saying you agree with the Labour Manifesto, but you have previously claimed that the Labour Manifesto doesn’t mean what it clearly does, so please justify that.”
I don’t know exactly what Labour meant, I don’t propose that I do know what is meant by every policy announced by ALL parties.
But I have quite clearly stated that i would be opposing any party that was intent on implementing policies that did not guarantee to protect the poor and vulnerable.
I have not “claimed” that Labours manifesto meant something different to what it said, What I said was “labours manifesto did not specify the amount of caps or cuts. The same as the Liberal Democrats or Conservatives, did not specify this in their manifesto’s.
At the end of the day, Labour are not in power, implementing these Policies, If they where, I would be forming my arguments based on the DETAILS of the policy they where trying to introduce. (Yes I would openly Disagree with a labour policy if it was going to unfairly target the poor and vulnerable)
I do not believe in tribalism and supporting policies that I don’t believe in.
I am not a sheep that will follow the flock under the direction of some dominant Ram.
I have my own beliefs and what I consider morals which direct me in me forming my own opinion.
Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are the ones in Power and so I am forming my argument based on “these policy details”
@John
And Liberal Democrats gave these figures how?
They where not even in the Liberal Democrat Manifesto.
And to be fair, Liberal Democrats “Costed” a manifesto which they admit they got wrong and was unworkable.
I don’t think your party is in a position to be throwing that accusation around without looking like complete hypocrites.
@matt
John clearly shares my concern about your weasel-words on what the Labour Manifesto says. I will quote verbatim the first three paragraphs of your post at 8.29 am today:
matt
”People seem to think, that just because someone is a Labour supporter, they would support, all labour policies.
that’s just ignorant.
1st of all, I don’t see labour actually gave a “figure” for Housing Benefit, or even the word Cap. They said “reform” “
I’m sorry but you are very clearly saying there (in the third paragraph) that you think the Labour Manifesto means something completely different to what the Coalition Government proposes.
We think you are mistaken.
If you think it means something different, then, logically, you must have in mind what it does mean.
So would you (or some other Labour apologist, by all means) please tell us what the Labour Manifesto meant when it said:
Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.
David
Survey carried out by National Landlords Association found vast majority of landlords do not intend to reduce their rents.
Simon Shaw
Limiting rents to the median is a perfectly fair and reasonable policy. Reducing it further will result in social segregation. We know that segregation will simply compound the problems of the poor and vulnerable. Forcing children out of schools, forcing people out of commuting distance of their jobs is going to cause social disruption that ultimately the taxpayer will have to pay for. We have seen before how welfare spending rockets under Tory governments as the taxpayer is forced to bear the costs of policy failure. I understand why you focus so much on the anomaly of high rents in certain areas on London. You make a superficially attractive argument on the basis of extreme examples and remain silent on the implications for the 3/4 of a million people who will be affected by these proposals. I’ve yet to see anyone defend the 10% cut to unemployed people. Do you defend it?
Genuine Lib Dems should support Simon Hughes and Bob Russell as they subject these proposals to critical scrutiny.
Just seen Sadiq Khan on politics show” Labour would not cut 10% of hb for people who tried but could not find a job after 12 months”
“would not cap hb so families would not have to move house ” these are what we Labour would have done ,REFORMED hb not attack the most needy as the LIB DEMS are doing, with a big smile on Danny the Axe Alexander face ,doing the Tories dirty work for them,breaking all promises THAT THEY STOOD ON .I am quite enjoying Nick Clegg making a fool of himself ,the more he digs himself in a hole the more he is making a fool of himself ,thats what Lib Dems are saying to me ,that they are embaressed and shamed to have voted for a TORY set of cuts that we did not vote for
andy edinburgh
@matt
I don’t think there are any easy answers to these questions. Rent controls may seem superficially attractive, but there are serious problems with them.
“Economists from differing sides of the political spectrum, such as Paul Krugman[42] and Thomas Sowell,[43] have criticized rent regulation as poor economics which, despite its good intentions, leads to the creation of less housing, raises prices, and increases urban blight”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control#Arguments_against
In my opinion, the obvious policy is to free up land for new-build. This will be extremely controversial, because nimbyism is a very potent political force. But if we are to have rents and mortgages which are affordable for those on low incomes, it’s a fight we should have.
You are all like kittens in a sack. What is more important here; an examination of the policies or the machinations of the political scene? This is all so contradictory. Are you all claiming that parties have to stick to their manifestos? (VAT, tuition fees spring to mind mr black kettle) or are we claiming that doing something that feels wrong is ok because actually its what the others were proposing? Is there any room left for rational argument?
Is this the new politics? no its the same old tribal ding-dong with politicos gazing at their own navels. Forget morality or being constructive let’s just descend into tit for tat – you said this, but you said that, no we didn’t, yes we did ……….. sadly this year just feels like a false dawn for those who hoped for something more dignified and positive.
(before anyone comes on to prove my point about being tribal. I am neither a member of Labour or the Lib Dems, though I have always voted lib dem and even worked with the party for 4 years)
@Simon Shaw
You can not help yourself but to resort to personal insults can you.
As a local councillor for Birkdale, how would you feel if someone was to produce flyers, which depicted the insults you have resorted too and thrown at anyone who has questioned the coalitions policies and YOUR views?
Would you be as comfortable to look some of your constituency in the eyes, if they where pre-armed with your utter lack of respect and discontent you show towards anyone, who has a differing view to you?
I wonder,
Maybe you would like to answer “honestly”
What would your view be, If due to the Cuts, Your Local Library in Birkdale was going to have to close down.
What if an employee, of that Library was facing redundancy?
What if that Employee was forced to claim housing benefit and was still unable to find work after 12 months and would have to take a cut in housing benefit support.
What if that person, then could not afford to rent in their home town of Birkdale, would you still have the opinion, that they should have to pack their bags and get out of town and find somewhere cheaper to live.
Honest opinions please
@AndrewR
“Genuine Lib Dems should support Simon Hughes and Bob Russell as they subject these proposals to critical scrutiny.”
I have a lot of respect for Simon Hughes, and I hope he makes headway in softening the impact of these policies.
I really dislike the 10% cut for the long-term unemployed. The only argument I’ve heard in its favour is that it tackles those who refuse to work. But IDS is already talking about sanctions on those who deliberately refuse to take up viable work. Governments are always reluctant to admit u-turns, but scrapping this arbitrary policy isn’t necessary: there are lots of ways to water it down to makes it meaningless.
I’d like the cap to be phased in gradually.
I’d like the cap not to apply to the recently unemployed.
But I disagree with Simon about life-time tenancies. It’s awful to think of an elderly couple being forced to leave their family home, and to downgrade to smaller accomodation. But it’s even worse to think of a family of six, being forced to live in a three room house. In an ideal world, we’d have enough social housing to avoid difficult decisions. But, even if we introduce a massive house building programme, it’d be decades before we could hope to reach that ideal world.
@andrew
As to what Labour would have done … I’d take these statements a little more seriously, if they also explained how they’d sort out the £150bn deficit they’ve bequeathed the country.
At present, their answer seems to be, we wouldn’t cut so fast. In other words, they’d introduce the same cuts two years later.
andrew
”Just seen Sadiq Khan on politics show” Labour would not cut 10% of hb for people who tried but could not find a job after 12 months”
“would not cap hb so families would not have to move house ” these are what we Labour would have done ,REFORMED hb “
@Andrew
Rather than telling us what Labour’s spokesman said they wouldn’t do, can you advise if they said what they would do?
Because most of us have difficulty in reconciling what a Labour front bencher said on TV today “we would not cap HB” with their Manifesto when it said:
Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.
How do you stop subsidising “people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford” without imposing a cap? Please could someone tell us?
@George Kendall
Thank you for bringing some sensible argument back into the debate, Where have you been all weekend lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control#Arguments_against
Most economists believe that a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing available.[40][41] This view is based on analysis of empirical evidence as well as the understanding generated by theoretical models.[41] Economists from differing sides of the political spectrum, such as Paul Krugman[42] and Thomas Sowell,[43] have criticized rent regulation as poor economics which, despite its good intentions, leads to the creation of less housing, raises prices, and increases urban blight. A survey of articles on EconLit regarding rent control finds that economists consistently and predominantly agree that rent control does more harm than good. The survey encompasses particular issues, such as housing availability, maintenance and housing quality, rental rates, political and administrative costs, and redistribution.[44]
Price ceilings can create shortages and reduce quality. By capping the price of accommodation, rent control may increase demand and reduce available supply, causing a shortage.
So the Problem is, whether you Cap Benefits, or you put a ceiling on Rents. We come out with the same problem
Rent control also reduces the quality of available housing, deters investment, and raises rents on tenants who are excluded from its protections (for example, in jurisdictions with vacancy decontrol, tenants who move or arrive later)
@muxloe
“What is more important here; an examination of the policies or the machinations of the political scene?”
For your information, this thread is headed “Labour’s manifesto pledge to cap Housing Benefit”.
If you want discussion about the substance of the Coalition Government’s proposals then there are other threads that cover examination of the policies.
And, yes, based on a previous posting of yours, I think you might be inclined to be a bit “tribal” yourself.
@Simon Shaw
What we would do is take more from the Bankers than from disabled ,that is what a liberal/con government is doing ,our cuts would have been slower, yes you the Lib Dems were fully on our side ,till Nick spoke to Mervin what an idiot, one example when a council job came up not fill it ,this would have took time ,but would mean not making puplic employers feel like rubbish putting their families through so much worry ,”just ask an disabled person in the street are you scared of the cuts “they are scared that is wrong
Creating jobs would have helped the deficit but all we are getting from the libs is “Labour is to blame for everything ” so lets not create jobs ,can you justify not giving Sheffield Forgemasters a loan to create green jobs ,even if Labour did not have the money you should have found it ,we will now order these parts from the far east
andy edinburgh
Your own man MICKY MOORE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT ,CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS VIDEO TO ME http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-M7QRNrpL0
lets see if you stop kids getting locked up or detention orders stopped any time soon ,dont hold your breath as they will still be going on this time next year,i expected Nick Clegg would have kept the TORIES from being the nasty party but they have become just as bad
@George Kendall
I dont want to go and get all the numbers but will if i need to,Labour had the borrowing lower than the Torries did in 97. Then came the bank crash all over the world that somehow Labour caused ,So if you don,t want a deficit we should have let the banks go bust is that what you are saying.
andy edinburgh
Did I hear right and that Michael Moore said.
The result of the budget and the Comprehensive Spending Review was not Regressive, as it did not take into account the impact of new things like the”Universal Credit” would have?
Considering details of the universal credit have not been even been decided yet, and don’t even come into this parliament, how can they have a progressive effect on the cuts?
And this coming from the Liberal Democrats Secretary of State for Scotland.
now that is embarrassing
@andrew
“Labour had the borrowing lower than the Torries did in 97. Then came the bank crash all over the world that somehow Labour caused ,So if you don’t want a deficit we should have let the banks go bust is that what you are saying.”
You’re partly right, but only partly. A lot more happened than that. I covered this in a lot more detail in:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-we-shouldnt-blame-the-banks-21659.html
@ David
It would seem that they have so david otherwise they will look pretty stupid if they kee[p slagging it off . When a party has to react to a government ..I always think it fair to give them a little time on each issue to workout the alternatives. If in time they do not clarify what they are for and what they are against then your point will ofcourse be valid.
@ george
I really dislike the 10% cut for the long-term unemployed. The only argument I’ve heard in its favour is that it tackles those who refuse to work. But IDS is already talking about sanctions on those who deliberately refuse to take up viable work. Governments .
………………….
There have been sanctions on those who refuse reasonable jobs since the 1960s I believe.
@Andrew.
Just seen Sadiq Khan on politics show” Labour would not cut 10% of hb for people who tried but could not find a job after 12 months”
“would not cap hb so families would not have to move house ”
……
Good to see some clarification Andrew . Did sadiq add in which way any Labour reforms would go ?
@ Gerige Kendall and AndrewR
Posted 31st October 2010 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
@AndrewR
“Genuine Lib Dems should support Simon Hughes and Bob Russell as they subject these proposals to critical scrutiny.”
I have a lot of respect for Simon Hughes, and I hope he makes headway in softening the impact of these policies
……………………………….
Full agree Somon and especially Bob Russels efforts have been heroic in this. With so many other MPs however simply keeping their heads down on this issue of fundimental social fairness I PERSONALLY DECIDED THAT THIS WAS NOT A PARTY WHOSE LEADERSHIP I COULD CURRENTLY RESPECT AND SENT MY LETTER OF RESIGNATION IN TODAY.
Good luck to all those with a social conciense who continue for now to fight from within .
“@Simon Shaw
…
As a local councillor for Birkdale, how would you feel …”
He’s a councillor? Ye Gods!
@Anthony Aloysius St
It’s amazing the info you can find in a google search.
It’s a great research tool to help hold people to account. Especially those that seem to enjoy employing aggressive tactics towards anyone who questions their policies or views 🙂
matt
And now that this page contains the phrase “Simon Shaw” over and over again, and also the words “Lib Dem,” “councillor” and “Birkdale,” given how high LDV’s Google ranking is, it will also come quite high in the list of hits when someone searches for information on that local councillor, and they’ll see that – for example – he thought it was “bonkers” that the limit on housing benefit should be as high as the median rent for local properties of the same size. Interesting.
@matt
@Anthony Aloysius St
Very good to see you resist the temptation to indulge in personal abuse, particularly from an advantaged position of anonymity.
I’ve found the “supposed” explanation of Labour policy from Sadiq Khan on today’s Politics Show.
Surprisingly it actually did nothing to clarify what the Labour Party mean in their stated Manifesto policy:
“Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.”
The key section can be found at 29’ 17” in on:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vp0qc/The_Politics_Show_London_31_10_2010/
29’ 17” Sadiq Khan: Would we have a cap of £400 for those receiving HB in 4 bedroom properties (who, it would mean would have to move out of inner cities – London, and other cities – and move to outer suburbs, with huge turmoil to those families) would we take away, the answer again is no.
It seems to me there are only limited possibilities:
1. Labour would have had a cap, but it would have been (say) £425 per week.
2. Labour think that £21,000 to £25,000 pa is a rent that “other ordinary working families could afford.”
3. Labour have a cunning plan which would “ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector” at rents which are excessive, but they are just not going to tell anyone.
I’m not really sure that there are any alternatives.
@Simon Shaw
How have I indulged in personal abuse?
I have not said anything insulting towards you. You however have called me a liar and weasel all in the last week.
That is personal abuse, in my opinion.
I do not make a habit of googling members name. I don’t think it is constructive to debates, if people are fearful of expressing opinions or views on a public forum.
But there is a big difference between constructive debate and bullish, aggressive insults towards anyone who has a differing opinion to that of your own.
If you had not noticed, I have not engaged in any personal disputes with anyone else on this forum, I have only engaged in differences of opinion, and as a result have had what i think has been constructive conversations on this site.
You are the only Liberal Democrat, that I have seen who has resorted to “personally insulting” people
Hence the Google search
Simon Shaw
If you really think that someone quoting an opinion you have expressed amounts to “abuse,” I can only suggest that you shouldn’t have said it in the first place!
But I suppose you expressed it in the expectation that no one would cotton on to the fact that you were the same Simon Shaw who is a Birkdale councillor, and so that the good electors of Birkdale would never get to hear about it.
@Anthony Aloysius St
Oh, I’m sorry, Anthony. The posting in the name “Anthony Aloysius St” was obviously made by a completely different “Anthony Alysius St” to you.
Anyway, clearly an understandable error on my part.
Also, why on earth do you think I would want people to not know who I am? If I did, then I would surely have used a pseudonym – as you do.
matt
“How have I indulged in personal abuse?
Just like it was with Anthony, it must have been a completely different “matt” who accused people of being “ignorant” and “complete hypocrites”.
Sorry that I (perhaps understandably) thought it was you.
What about the Government’s plans to move people off Incapacity Benefit?
Here’s what the Labour manifesto has to say on that:
More people with disabilities and health conditions will be helped to move into work from Incapacity Benefit and Employment Support Allowance, as we extend the use of our tough-but-fair work capability test.
This part of the article is being largely ignored yet this is the policy that will have an incredibly destructive effect. ATOS is throwing the sick and disabled off benefits they need by using their flawed tick boxing medicals. It is highly unlikely that many will be able to find work, no employer is going to hire someone who is likely to be ill most of the time. ATOS has now an even greater financial incentive to declare people ‘fit for work’ as they are bidding to have the contract for the Work Focused Interviews. They do not care about the extraordinary amount of appeals (which are now so backlogged even before the migration of IB to ESA) as long as they get paid for the so called ‘medical’.
Labour were wrong and the coalition is wrong to continue with this policy. It does not make it right because ‘Labour would have done it’. Danny Alexander before the election spoke against the ATOS medicals, he has u-turned on that one! This policy is idealogical, it will throw many many sick and disabled people into poverty.
I have only made reference to the “parties view” being hypocritical and Ignorance. I have not made personal accusations and insults to anyone, which you continuously do.
“@matt
John clearly shares my concern about your weasel-word”
You continue to want to engage in “personal arguments” rather than political debate.
Quite frankly I am bored of it and I am sure others are too.
If there is a moderator watching this board, surly some warning must be appropriate by now.
Maybe even a private word from a fellow Lib Dem could steer this behaviour in a more appropriate direction
“Also, why on earth do you think I would want people to not know who I am?”
Because you’re embarrassed by your split infinitives, perhaps?
To clarify what Labour’s position before the election on Housing Benefit reform was, they were proposing a cap of £1100 per week on Local Housing Allowance, as compared to £400 per week that the Coalition are going to implement. [1] However, this cap would have been implemented from October 2011 rather than April 2011, giving families more time to sort out alternate accommodation, etc. which is one of the recommendations of Citizens’ Advice in their response to the consultation carried out by the Social Security Advisory Committee on the Housing Benefit changes. [2] [3]
[1] http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/budget/article7074953.ece (no paywall)
[2] http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_20100910
[3] http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/hb_budget_changes_submission_to_ssac.pdf
This briefing paper from the House of Commons Library gives some interesting background info on Housing Benefit and Local Housing Allowance:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsp-04957.pdf
to be clear the citizensadvice article refers to the coalitions announcements at the Emergency Budget, not Labour
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_20100910
By the way, I really should highlight that the link I give in my previous comment, to Citizens’ Advice’s submission to the SSAC consultation on Housing Benefit reforms really is worth reading. After all, they are not a political party (like Labour) trying to make capital out of opposing Government policy, so what vested interest do they have in criticising the changes?
On the other hand, what they do have is a lot of real-life experience advising and helping those receiving Housing Benefit who will be directly affected by these changes, so I believe their thoughts on the matter should be listened to closely:
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/hb_budget_changes_submission_to_ssac.pdf
AndrewM
“To clarify what Labour’s position before the election on Housing Benefit reform was, they were proposing a cap of £1100 per week on Local Housing Allowance, as compared to £400 per week that the Coalition are going to implement.”
That’s very helpful, Andrew.
It’s the first time, as far as I know, that anyone has attempted to provide an explanation for what the Labour Manifesto meant when it said: Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.
The only difficulty that I, and others, have is that it was a Labour Government announcement in March (pre Manifesto) and is clearly only part of what Labour were intending.
That is, unless Labour were really suggesting that £1100 pw = £57,200 pa is a “rent that other ordinary working families could afford”.
Mr Shaw
I too have seen your condescending and aggressive responses to other posters who are in the so-called ‘pretend’ Lib Dems grouping.
Liberal Democratic politics is supposed to rise above these type of insults and engage in debate – there are a number here who are Labour-leaning voters but who are still engaging in discussions on these boards in part to understand what the grass-roots thinks on these interesting matters. Some are trolls but if you think they aren’t don’t respond to them. Personally I don’t see many of the posters here being trolls
If you don’t agree then set out why rather than being so aggressive. You do seem to fall into the ‘tribalism’ that you are happy to accuse others of.
You are an elected representative of the party so should show some degree of maturity
@simon shaw
tribal – no. disenchanted – heartily so. I am disenchanted with much of the political community and as my heart lies with the lib dems it is this party that is the brunt of my ire. It is possible to criticise from a position that isn’t dogmatic.
@AndrewM
“To clarify what Labour’s position before the election on Housing Benefit reform was, they were proposing a cap of £1100 per week on Local Housing Allowance”
Agreed. From the Times article, they implemented a cap of £1100/wk in March, which would come into force in October next year.
They also had a manifesto commitment to “ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford”.
Surely, the two are entirely separate. I can’t see how a maximum rent of £57200 per year could remotely be described as a rent that “ordinary working families could afford”. Can you?
The article says: “Until now, the Government has shied away from tackling this benefit, fearing that there may be too many losers.” Governments of all persuasions always put difficult decisions off until after an election. Surely, this was just another example.