Over in The Guardian, Nick Clegg writes,
All governments promise welfare reform. Very few deliver. In 1997 Labour promised to “cut the bills of social failure” and to “make work pay”. But during its 13 years in office the welfare bill rose by 40% to £87bn. People moving into work can still lose more than 90% of every pound they earn: a punitive tax burden on the shoulders of the poor.
The real tragedy, however, is not the cost of the welfare system. It is the price paid by the most disadvantaged, too often condemned to a life on benefits. Nearly 1.9 million children live in a household where nobody is in paid work, according to the Labour Force Survey. A million and a half benefit recipients have been reliant on state support for nine of the last 10 years. The welfare system is reinforcing social segregation…
Our welfare reform plans go hand in hand with our investments in long-term social mobility. In the comprehensive spending review we announced a £7bn “fairness premium“, stretching from the age of two to 20. These investments are intended to promote social mobility, to ensure that children are able to rise regardless of their background.
The welfare reform package is an investment in mobility too. We will finally offer, to borrow a phrase from the US, a “hand up, not a handout”. Labour politicians who have honestly wrestled with welfare reform are broadly supportive. Tony Blair argues that “an analysis of the pros and cons of putting so much into tax credits is essential”. And James Purnell revealed this week that he had pushed for a version of the universal credit being unveiled in our welfare reform white paper on Thursday, but was blocked by Brown. We – the coalition government – are the reformers now.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems beat Labour in a Liverpool by-election for first time since 1997
Little Wonders #dundeewestend
Will Labour kill off the landmark climate and nature bill?
Lib Dems will continue to back 50 per cent cap on faith-based admissions to schools
Alex Macfie
Toby Keynes
Peter Davies
William Wallace
Slamdac
70 Comments
The comments to the article say it all – your party is finished. All those thousands upon thousands of people (myself included) who turned away from Labour and voted LibDem have been betrayed over and over on issue after issue since Clegg decided to crawl up Cameron’s backside. Look at the comments – the anger the electorate feels toward your party is becoming as strong as the anger we felt when Labour went into Iraq.
It is never a good idea to betray those values upon which got you elected. Betray your voters at your peril. You are finished.
The thing I worry about is what will happen to my benefits. My disabilities mean that I’m totally incapable of work, long term, unless new treatments arise that can negate the overwhelming problems I face, so attitudes of “helping me get into work” (I can’t say “back to work”, I’ve never been able to work) are somewhat useless to me. Three of the benefits mentioned as being cut, and replaced by this universal system, are benefits I’m on – Income Support, Incapacity Benefit, and Housing Benefit.
A good article, but who on earth thought quoting Tony Blair would be a good idea? Very worrying.
I really don’t like this approach it seems to lack understanding and compassion. I do not believe that the majority of those people who are out of work enjoy being unable to work, they don’t enjoy being unable to give their children a nice life. There are not the jobs out there for many of the claimants, they may not have the skills and many of the long term unemployed are not an attractive prospect for prospective employers. We may live in an economy where many will not get jobs, are we going to condemn them to a life on wholly inadequate benefits. I am a pensioner but I do pay taxes and I don’t in any way feel deprived because I am paying just a little to help my fellow countrymen. Why is it so wrong in the eyes of this coalition to raise taxes to ensure that benefits aren’t cut and those who for one reason or another are unable to work are able to live a decent life.
“Betrayal” … “Tellow Tories” …. yadda yadda yadda
This party is not some Labour plaything. An entirely predictable response from the Guardianistas.
The trouble is that – as far as I can see – there was not one single bloody word in the Lib Dem manifesto about cutting benefits, or problems of welfare dependency, or any of this stuff.
If this is what Clegg really believes (and sometimes I doubt whether he believes in anything except his own career advancement), then I wish he had had the honesty to say so before the election, rather than inducing people to vote for him by completely false pretences.
You would think that Nick Clegg has reached the depths of his disingenuity. But he has managed to scale down even lower.
The reason the welfare bill rose by 40% was the introduction of Tax Credits to encourage people to go to work or stay in work. Welfare spending wasn’t out of control.
This article is scandalously misleading.
Does anyone truly believe a word that comes out of Cleggs mouth? I’m waiting for a CH4, or FullFact fact check, before taken any of this at face value.
Glegg said, “Nearly 1.9 million children live in a household where nobody is in paid work”. Yet according to the same Labour Force survey, two thirds of those children live in single parent households. Why omit this detail? So if we are to get most of these into work, what will the child care cost be and who will bear them?
Very interesting report on workfare in America,Canada and Australia…
http://campaigns.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep533.pdf
“The reason the welfare bill rose by 40% was the introduction of Tax Credits to encourage people to go to work or stay in work. Welfare spending wasn’t out of control.”
I’m not sure it’s worth dignifying such rubbish with a detailed analysis, but considering that unemployment was 20% higher in 2010 than in 1997, and prices were 40% higher, what is surprising is that the welfare bill didn’t rise by a lot more than 40% in cash terms!
This is from the report on workfare(above)
• Effectiveness in improving employment outcomes
– There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding
work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available
for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by
employers.
– Subsidised (‘transitional’) job schemes that pay a wage can be more
effective in raising employment levels than ‘work for benefit’ programmes.
– Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour
markets where unemployment is high.
– Levels of non-participation in mandatory activities are high in some
workfare programmes.
Thank you,Tabman, for raising the intellectual level of this debate.
Having insulted Guardian readers, which paper’s readers do you respect?
One does not have to be a Guardian reader or a socialist to have noticed, as have some 30k students currently demonstrating in Westminster, that Clegg is not a man who can be trusted to keep his word.
@Tabman:
This party is not some Labour plaything. An entirely predictable response from the Guardianistas.
—
Yes, go on and rubbish voices of dissent instead of listening to the concerns of people like me who left Labour to vote LibDem and now feel betrayed. Just go on and rubbish us. It’s what New Labour would have done.
Tabman wrote at 2:04 pm
An entirely predictable response from the Guardianistas
I have to say I found the comments shocking in their near-unanimity following some very lively exchanges in the first fortnight after the CSR. Nor did I see any howls of “betrayal” of a centre-left which we all now realise Mr Clegg and his ministerial colleagues never felt part of. I did see a lot of anger that society’s most vulnerable are to face a succession of attacks in the name of “fairness” and “mobility” while top executives pocket a 55% pay rise and corporations & the mega-rich get away with billions through tax loopholes unavailable to the rest of us. I saw the point made repeatedly that you can’t impoverish people into jobs that don’t exist (least of all when you’re doing away with another million of them), and you don’t help people’s employment prospects by forcing them out of the areas with jobs.
This wasn’t some outpouring of tribal hatred: many of us accept that there were unpleasant choices facing any government. But the Coalition’s plans to slash spending on this scale and so early in a still desperately fragile economy, to add another million to the dole queue when 2½ million are already chasing half a million jobs and then to harshly penalise all those left out of work or needing housing support are contrary to economic sense, common decency and the fairness Mr Clegg claims to seek.
I warned here in May against LibDem identification with the Tories. Others said “Don’t worry, it won’t happen”. But it has happened, even among readers of the pro-LibDem Guardian. I don’t want to see the country torn apart by political hatred any more than by counterproductive and divisive economic & social policies sustained through financial scaremongerong and scapegoating of the poorest. What most critics want is for the Coalition to re-think these horrible proposals. This was supposed to be an open, responsive government, but all we get is Mr Cameron telling us he’s not for turning even when a Department headed by one of his own party colleagues says it’s open to ideas.
This isn’t just coming from Labour supporters or the usual suspects, you must be starting to realise that by now (there’s enough evidence on these very pages). This is just bad policy, and LibDems should be grateful to those seeking to modify them and avert a brutal decade of social polarisation that’s unlikely to favour the long-term prospects of a centre party.
Excellent post, @Dave Parker.
I’m getting fed up of LibDems telling me I’m some Labour troll simply because I feel that my vote has been betrayed. I did not vote for what the party is now doing and I feel disgusted for falling for Nick’s false claims of “fairness” and “compassion”. Yet whenever I voice my disapproval of the way the party I voted for is acting, I get called names and am told “Labour would have done the same.” That is no excuse, and the people using that that reply to justify these countless anti-Liberal policies know it.
We were promised a “new politics”. All we got was more of the same – lies, betrayal and screwing over of the poor and vulnerable in this country. But, hey, the bankers still get their bonuses and executive pay is up!
The students protesting today have been shouting “Nick Clegg, we know you. You’re a f*****g Tory, too!” That says it all.
By the way as anyone got any details on the progress made in tackling tax avoidance? I could have sworn this was a major plank on which LibDems stood on. Not much as been heard about it. I guessing that once the benefit scroungers, who have been bleeding this country dry, have been dealt with, then attention will turn towards it.
@republica
Strange that LibDems support this, them supposedly being the advocates of evidence based policy.
Clegg’s quoting of Blair and warm words of praise for Workhouse Purnell have proven the final straw on this particular camel’s back. Though it’s hard to say it out loud, I’m afraid that this is no longer my Party. Congratulations, Nick, you’ve just lost another member.
Incidentally, I’m the blogger referenced by the always-excellent Stephen Ball about three-quarters of the way down the comments.
@ jayu
“By the way as anyone got any details on the progress made in tackling tax avoidance?”
The answer is that very little progress has been made. The banker’s bonus tax which, if honoured, would have brought in approx £3.5 billion has been replaced with Osborne’s banking levy which, if honoured, will only bring £2billion. The deadline that Osborne set the banks to sign up to the Tax Code of Conduct has been ignored by most of them. Vodafone have ducked paying their £4.8bn tax bill. Osborne is planning to reduce the number of tax collectors. Instead of pursuing the £40 billion of tax that should be paid each year, the coalition government see the solution to the deficit in getting the long-term unemployed to do four weeks voluntary work.
Douglas – “the anger the electorate feels toward your party is becoming as strong as the anger we felt when Labour went into Iraq”
Invasion of Iraq – 2003
Labour re-elected – 2005
@ jayu … In the lib dem universe up is down,black is white,wrong is right and yellow is blue so nothing really suprises me anymore, but ,maybe some will read the report i posted and come to see that their benefits policy is a big ‘ole lie and will probaly cost money and will hit the most vulnerable the hardest and chances are it will get poor results,to me it seems that lib dem government ministers have very big brains but very small hearts much like automatons.
It would appear Clegg and Co has upset an awful lot of people, I’ve never been one to gaze into a crystal ball and say the party’s finished or wiped out at the next GE but I’m beginning to think you could get good odds on it, It’s been less that a year since the GE and there are already civil disturbances over education cuts (Fees, EMA ect) and guess which party is bearing the blunt of peoples anger? and it’s only going to get worse when the true effects of the cuts take hold.
nige (exLD)
“In the lib dem universe up is down,black is white,wrong is right and yellow is blue”
“war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength …”
@Tabman:Invasion of Iraq – 2003
Labour re-elected – 2005
—
Yes, but with a much-reduced majority. The LibDems, with a much smaller amount of MPs has much more to lose. Besides, it took a couple of years for Labour to start breaking their promises (though that does not excuse it). It took the LibDems, what, a few weeks? Less than that in my area, where the local LibDem candidate campaigned on the line “Vote LibDem to keep the Tories out”.
But go on rubbishing those disaffected LibDem voters instead of defending your policies and lies. Do you not care about the future of your party? Are you happy for the poorest and weakest in society (who, unlike the rich, rely on public services) to be bearing the brunt of these cuts while those who caused the crisis get off lightly? Is that what Clegg means by the “new politics”? Taking away benefits from the disabled while being light on the richest who can afford to avoid as much tax as possible? Forcing the unemployed into unpaid work while the rich send our jobs abroad and corporations enjoy lower tax?
Your party is becoming nothing more than a right-wing mouthpiece for the Tories.
Weird that Clegg would choose the Guardian, a paper he vilified during conference, to make his argument. Perhaps he realises that he will need to win over at least some of these ‘lefties’ in order to hold on to the Lib Dems current electoral gains.
@mpg
He’d probably get a better reception if he wrote for the Sun.
Douglas…check
nige (ex ld)…check…
All trolls present and correct….check….
It’s easy to see where coalition priorities lie in reducing the budget deficit..
Benefits Cheats: estimated at £1 to 1.5 billion.
Tax Cheats: estimated at £40 to 70 billion.
That’s why they will be concentrating their attention on legislation to deal with the long-term unemployed and housing benefit claimants, and dismissing the numbers of tax collectors. Its a no-brainer.
“All trolls present and correct….check….”
Is this bit of kindergarten abuse really all the party’s supporters have left to say?
I have plenty to say thanks. But there seems to be many of these threads with the same sign ons repeating ad nauseum;
“you liberals are doomed”
“I am an ex ld and have been sold out”
amongst many. Taking a peek back through the previous threads, the same names pop up time and time again to repeat the same lines again and again.
@Cogload:
All trolls present and correct….check….
—
Again, attack those who VOTED for your party as trolls. Is that all you have? Has the “power” your party now holds gone to your head as well? You won’t even try to defend your policies policies so you attack those who feel let down by your party. You must have learned this from New Labour, as they attacked people like me who voted for them and felt betrayed as well. Disgusting.
Cogload wrote –
“All trolls present and correct….check….”
Thanks for that. I do have a question, what was the point of your post? was it just to belittle? or was it to make the people who this was aimed at to stop posting and leave?
nige (exLD)
@Cogoland:
Taking a peek back through the previous threads, the same names pop up time and time again to repeat the same lines again and again.
—
Maybe because I am bloody ANGRY that I voted for a party who has gone back on nearly every promise they made in their campaigns. Do you expect people like me to just roll over and accept this? Now that you’re in power, do you want no voices of dissent? What do you expect? Why not try defending your party and explain why their multitude of u-turns and false promises are good things instead of having a go at those who voted LibDem in hopes of making this country better? Why not stand up for the students, the poor, and the disabled who are being let down by your party? Or are you just another blind tribalist who, like Labour and Tory stooges, defend their party no matter what?
@Cogoland:
Taking a peek back through the previous threads, the same names pop up time and time again to repeat the same lines again and again.
Please do, I don’t recall ever saying the party is finished before, in fact you may even find posts defending party members who have been attacked by people with similar attitudes as yours. and to be truthful I’d even give rejoining the party a great deal thought if it takes up the same position it did pre-election and if there’s a change of leadership of course .
Cogload,
I wouldn’t have commented but since the troll assertion has been made again, I’d like to reiterate that I votred for the party, broadly supported their ideals – as expresseed in the run up to the elsection. As they have now done pretty much the opposite in many areas, I feel that I have a very good right to make that point and to disagree with policy that is not what I voted for. And I will have my say every time the troll accusation is allowed to be made. I find it is this accusation that demeans threads and debate and sidetracks them. I am surprised that it is continually permitted.
Morale in the party must be even lower than i thought it was.
Those of the contributions above who support Clegg seem to be reduced to insulting people who have voted LibDem in the past and, in some cases, campaigned hard for many years, but who cannot , in all conscience support this Tory governmnet and its Thatcherite policies. To win elections, you wil need people to vote for you and to go out and campaign for you. How do you propose to achieve that.? Tell you what, keep insulting your former supporters; that’s bound to win them round and to attract additional support.
The NUS have pledged to campaign to unseat Clegg at teh next election. I hope they succeed. Meanwhile i shall continue to pay my membership sub (the minimum, of s course) , but make no other contribution, in order to be eligible to vote for a new Leader. Obviously , I shall not be voting for anyone who is a member of the current government
I have a number of problems with this.
We have never had a debate in the Lib Dems about reducing benefits. Nick Cleggs says no matter, people will get jobs and problem solved. But actually it is government policy to make lots of public sector workers unemployed, and a lot of these people do not have transferable skills that would find them alternative work in the private sector.
Social Mobility of course is a 2 way street, and forcing people downwards is not something I subscribe to.
So unless people find jobs, the welfare policies of this government will make the poor poorer. Every politician likes to believe they can reduce unemployment. I appreciate there are policies intended to reinvigorate the private sector, but trying to force banks into lending more, and reducing corporation tax might not be enough to make us more competitive.
The bottom line is that the safety net that is meant to save people from destitution has got bigger holes in it now. I am a social liberal and I am sticking with the Lib Dems because the country needs to be governed today. Labour preferred to sit this out and wait 5 years. that was an abdication of responsibility on their part, leaving progressives within the LIb Dems with no other options. If the policies work then fine, if not the party needs to change direction and people need to be in place to make this happen.
At the South East Region Conference about three weeks ago Simon Hughes asked the (large) audience for their views on student loans. About a third were felt our MPs should vote for the Browne proposals as improved by Vince Cable; a third voted that LibDem MPs should abstain, as allowed by the coalition agreement; and a third felt they should honour the pledge made to oppose student loans. A much smaller group of delegates at the South Central Conference voted with only three against to continue opposition to student loans, perhaps because they had not had the opportunity of hearing Vince explain the good points of his proposals. I completely understand the anger of people who voted for us because they thought we were more principled than Labour because there are plenty of people in the party who feel pretty angry too. Anyone who wishes to come here and debate with us should we welcomed: I draw a distinction between that and being abusive.
@ jayu
“By the way as anyone got any details on the progress made in tackling tax avoidance?”
Yes, Danny Alexander made an announcement about it at LibDem conference. Lots more money is being spent to crackdown on it:
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/politics/libdems-launch-%C2%A37bn-tax-avoidance-crackdown/1018708.article
Tabman,
“Invasion of Iraq – 2003
Labour re-elected – 2005”
You missed out the words “on 35% of the vote”.
I too wouldn’t have commented in not inspired by the words of Cogaland…
Some people fail to realise that Ad hominem’s only serve to encourage more of us unhappy dissenters to comment.
Are we to assume that the protest’s in London today were simply a bunch of student trolls ?
As for this comment from Clegg.
Taken together, our welfare reforms should reduce the number of workless households by 300,000 within three years of implementation.
I think this response from one of the posters on the host site sums up what many of us feel when Clegg is niave enough to face the angry public.
Reduce the number of ‘households’ is a very appropriate choice of words. That I assume refers to the number of families that will no longer have a house to ‘ hold’.
Freudian slip perhaps
Clegg is now so hated by the average voter that he has become a spent force. I certainly don’t trust anything that comes out of his mouth and even if he had something postive to say (which in this case he certainly doesn’t) the public will just see it as the ramblings of a liar.
The sooner the party realise that removing clegg is essential for political survival the better.
Those who argued that not entering this coalition would have destroyed the party are looking more foolish by the day. The party is being destroyed… from the inside!
oh, and please don’t think that all libdems think that anyone who criticises the coalition is a troll. i don’t – and i also criticise the party (i’ve been a member for 18 years, have worked for three of its MPs and have stood as a cllr three times).
I think the fundamental problem for Clegg & the party generally is that many who voted LIb Dem in May did so because they believed in him personally.
A trust that he has completely betrayed.
Many councillors will probably now suffer defeat next year, including my own if he even decides to stand at all.
I find it amazing that a man who was riding on the crest of a wave in May can sink to such a level of popularity in Nov, it must be something of a record.
This is from the Urban Dictionary –
Clegg
A verb. To ‘Clegg’ (or ‘clegg on’)is to put a spin on something disagreeable; especially for the individual – no matter how much – but do so in defence; and especially in an earnest way. This verb is named after the Liberal Democrat politician, Nick Clegg, who has consistently defended Conservative policies within the Con-Lib-Dem coalition.
Clegged out
The process of having sold out, especially to a system or body that directly undermines the principles and values you have long adhered to. Derived from the actions of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, following the 2010 United Kingdom General Election. (also: Clegg out, Clegging out)
Well at least he’ll be remembered
Dissent: “The thing I worry about is what will happen to my benefits.” “”who on earth thought quoting Tony Blair would be a good idea? Very worrying.” “I really don’t like this approach it seems to lack understanding and compassion.”
Trolling: “The comments to the article say it all – your party is finished. All those thousands upon thousands of people (myself included) who turned away from Labour and voted LibDem have been betrayed over and over on issue after issue since Clegg decided to crawl up Cameron’s backside.” “You would think that Nick Clegg has reached the depths of his disingenuity. But he has managed to scale down even lower.”
Really, I do have to wonder why some people have nothing better to do with their lives than go around on websites and post the over-emotional rubbish in every single bloody thread. Even if this was a case of people feeling genuinely betrayed rather than people just trying to get a rise it’d still be quite annoying.
@Sense
So you find people who express their feelings of genuine betrayal as ‘annoying’?
Well I’m sure they are ever so sorry for upsetting you, and I’m sure they didn’t really mean to knock those rose tinted spectacles of yours off kilter.
“Really, I do have to wonder why some people have nothing better to do with their lives than go around on websites and post the over-emotional rubbish in every single bloody thread. Even if this was a case of people feeling genuinely betrayed rather than people just trying to get a rise it’d still be quite annoying.”
Oh please, it’s not half as annoying as the displays of priggishness, of which yours is a fine example.
“Nearly 1.9 million children live in a household where nobody is in paid work, according to the Labour Force Survey. A million and a half benefit recipients have been reliant on state support for nine of the last 10 years. The welfare system is reinforcing social segregation”
It is exactly this kind of spin that is destroying the Liberal Democrats Party credibility. And the very same reason why we now have words like clegged out and clegging.
The British Public are not fools and are no longer happy with being treated like ones.
1.9 Million children live in a household where no one is in paid work, The statement implies (families, where there are 2 parents out of work and reliant on benefits) It fails to point out that of that 1.9 million children, a high percentage of them do indeed come from single parent households,
1.5 million people reliant on state support for the last 9 out of 10 years, The statement fails to point out that some of those 1.5 million are people in low paid work, that also claim Housing Benefit and or Income Support.
There is so much anger amongst the British People for how this coalition is treating people, Nobody condones the kind of violence we have seen on the streets of London today, but this situation will only get worse as long as government and especially the likes of Clegg and Co, keep insulting people’s intelligence.
Just like we should never give in to terrorists, we should never give in to those who Riot,
However we do need to recognise, not just how much damage Clegg is doing to the party, but how much damage he is doing to politics.
I believe it really is time for him to go, The Liberal Democrats, need to elect a new leader, they need to hold an emergency conference, and they need to decide which direction they are going to take the party and the coalition.
And Poverty minus many pounds is better is it Nick ?
Why doesn’t anyone in the Liberal high command tell Nick that he keeps making things far worse with these cack-handed Blairite/Thatcherite self justifications ?
Cheerleading Osborne and the Tories as they crack down on the poor, disabled and vulnerable is the political equivalent of a putting a shotgun in the mouth of the Party and pulling the trigger right now.
Far too many of the public already think we are little better than unprincipled Tories yet you keep reinforcing every one of their stereotypes with these insipid Cameroonian platitudes.
You negotiated a coalition not a merger Nick, so stop behaving like the Tories personal fall guy.
Thankfully there are still Liberal Democrat MPs who haven’t lost all sense of what the Party stands for.
Lib Dem Jenny Willott said it “makes no sense” to cut the payment by 10% for people who are on jobseeker’s allowance for more than a year. The MP, who is part of Energy Secretary Chris Huhne’s team, told the Commons: “I really hope that the Government can think this proposal through again.
“If we really are trying to help people off benefit and into work then this arbitrary limit really makes no sense.”
I look forward to her being smeared as a ‘troll’ by the usual right wing suspects.
Did he really just quote Tony Blair?
Did he really just say a “hand up, not a hand out” the catchphrase of the *very* right wing Rudolph Giuliani when he was mayor of New York who pioneered the “workfare” programme there, where many public sector workers laid off in budget cuts have ended up doing the same types of jobs for the city but this time for subsidence living welfare payments.
People are being reclassified as fit for work by a private company hired by the Government who conduct laughable tests conducted by not very well trained nursing staff ticking the boxes of a rigid form, people with mental illness and people with physical conditions that are depleting but that still allow them to take three steps and bend to pick up a piece of paper once (tick the box, fit).
These same people, if they don’t manage to find work they are capable of doing (if they are capable of doing anything at all, the ones with mental illness might have a teenie bit of trouble fitting in in most workplaces and a good proportion of the ones with physical debilitating illnesses might be able to pick up a piece of paper but might find it slightly more challenging to work for eight hours a day ) in a climate of unemployment already and with more to come a millionish extra public sector jobs and private sector jobs that relied on the public sector, if they don’t manage to find these jobs within a year that are apparently going to spring up from the private sector through the act of the coalition wishthinking them into existence, then they’re going to have to go onto “workfare”
While on Workfare, these previously classified as unfit for work people, as well as those who just haven’t managed to get a job within a year, will be forced to do any task, under threat of total destitution, a sanction of withdrawal of all benefits for three months ie. become homeless and starve.
This is not liberalism, not in the slightest degree, and anyone who thinks it is really doesn’t belong in the party. There are already two authoritarian right wing party’s in the country, the Tories and New Labour and there isn’t room for a third party that “understands the reality’s of government” , which seems to be a euphemism of pandering to the agenda of the Daily Mail and Murdoch , libertarianism when it suits you, hunting, smoking, allowing a socially sick industry to pressure young girls to starve themselves, authoritarianism when it doesn’t, control orders et al.
The student protests today are only going to be the start of it, the stupid and senseless violence that resulted from a hijacking of a peaceful student protest of 50000 people was the ugly pus on the boil of anger that’s building up as a result of the policy’s we’re not only enabling to be enacted, but now apparently actively supporting. “Why didn’t you go to Lib Dem HQ” some in the fringes of the crowd where asked “Because they’re the same” was the reply.
That’s the rub of it, nothing is being done to separate us from the Conservatives, and we’re sharing in the public anger directed at them, and when Nick et al. are so willing to defend these policies like this justifiably so. Going so far as to pressure parliamentarians in the party where Education is one of our core principles, to vote for the tuition fee increase and the scrapping of funding for University’s making us one of the worst funded University systems in the developed world and the one with *the* highest fees, despite the fact that we specifically had a clause in the rushed coalition agreement that allowed our MP’s, including our ministers, to abstain on this issue.
Cogload et al.
Please stop these childish comments of labour troll at every disagreement voiced. I for one am definitely not a friend of the Labour party, I’m a long time lib dem voter and sometime activist , when I’ve been well enough in the past I’ve been on the doorstep delivering leaflets and putting the case for our party, and because I’ve put the case for our party I know just how much those at the top of the party are now deviating from that case.
Even for the disagreement that comes from the self identified Labour posters here it is not at all helpful to simply shout troll at them, that’s tribalism in it’s simplest and purest form.
If you truly believe that these policy’s are right then make cogent arguments to defend them, if your simply angry because the posters are making points that reflect badly on the party then I ask you to reflect that we’re a political party and not a cult, I’ve supported the party because I believed in it’s principles, I didn’t support the party because I wanted to belong to some sort of football supporters club where I could chant at the partys opponents no matter what. What is being done in my name and other members names is something I profoundly disagree with and I will not be silent simply because the disagreement doesn’t reflect well on those at the top of the party.
The Telegraph headline for tomorrows welfare plans which Nick is so gushing about
Workshy to lose benefits for 3 years
How did you manage to get so out of touch Nick ? Is this your vision for Britain ?
So even if Cleggs mad policies work. He is happy for a few poor to become socially mobile and leave those that dont’ succeed in an even more poor and desperate state . There is something bordering on the logical and morally unhinged about this press release .
I wish those still in the Liberal democrats luck with ridding the party of their ‘miltant tendancy’
After 20 odd years in the party ……hey those who are inclined can call me a troll !!!
Workshy to lose benefits for 3 years
Surely that’s not necessary… You will die of starvation in less than 3 months!
So the mentally and physically disabled will be told they are fit for work (based on the fact that they can pick up a piece of paper) and if they happen to be too ill to go to the interview that has been made for them, they get to starvation as a reward.
The sick, disabled and unemployed are not like students, they don’t have a huge social network to organise a protest…
Many are alone, frightened and vulnerable. This vendetta has to stop. I am sick of what this country is becoming.
The only saving grace is that the European court of Human rights will not stand for this kind of state abuse…
I have more faith in the European courts then I do in any senior Lib Dem to put a stop to this truly sickening ideological crusade against the poor.
Enough is enough.
“Workshy to lose benefits for 3 years”
Are people who have been made unemployed to allowed no choice at all when looking for a new job? No choice at all about what job to look for, or where to work?
They will be instructed by some bureaucrat to apply for certain jobs. If they don’t apply for them, or if they don’t accept when offered them, they will be disqualified from receiving any benefit for three years?
Is this “liberalism”?
When are Liberal Democrats going to take back their party?
I have a genuine question, as I have no idea how party politics work within the Liberal Party.
Do you have to wait till 2015 until you can vote out Nick Clegg as Party Leader.
Or is this something that can be done before?
Are none of you concerned about the mental anguish you are causing to some very sick and disabled people?
There are people out there petrified by these daily announcements, living in fear, that they are going to lose their benefits and be found fit to work.
The Government are saying if you are found unfit to work, you will be protected.
But
The new Capability tests are used to assess what you can do, rather than what you can’t do.
So if you are able to turn on tap, for instance, or tie a bow. You could be found to be capable of doing some work.
Which means the Government could argue, that the person is capable of stuffing envelopes for instance.
The coalition is set to rewrite the laws on the criteria of the capabilities test, so they can throw millions off incapacity benefit and other disability related benefits.
This is a disgrace.
These people need a voice, that voice used to be Liberal Democrats,
Where is your thin red line.
Pure pantomime knockabout – and people wonder who is guilty of dragging debate down into the gutter and turning voters off!
Labour’s record in lowering turnout is unsurpassed in recent years and there’s no reason to suppose opponents to the coalition will win any extra votes by engaging in damaging and destructive tactics either on blogs or in the streets of Westminster. Negative tactics may win occasional skirmishes but they are hollow and dont win debates.
For anyone who is interested they should compared the insightful and grounded discussions on the policy threads on this site which reflect the state of LibDem membership far better than the ‘oh, yes it it’ and ‘oh no it isn’t’ why-oh-why exhortations in this flame war here.
I would be very interested if any of the critics could explain more clearly the broad policy platform and credible costings they think would command enough support to carry a majority.
Thatcher may have sold the family silver, but Brown mortgaged our ancestral home to the hilt.
If anyone wishes to convince me I want to be confident that any government programme has a likely chance of being successfully implemented while also agreeing with the principles of fairness I think most people agree with – regardless of initial partisan feelings.
The country rejected Labour’s corruption, incompetence and vicious attacks on civil liberties at the general election and I see no evidence the medicine voters decided to treat it with will be of longer-term harm.
Like addicts going through rehab the transition does cause pain and many people will refuse to sober up because they’re accustomed to their dependencies and they’re confused or scared about the future, but if we want to fulfill the best of our potential our politicians must create an environment where this is possible.
I accept there are problems and unresolved issues with coalition policy but until someone can present a better alternative it won’t be accepted.
Oh and questions about ‘thin red lines’ is a bit of a giveaway: LibDems don’t have thin red lines, LibDems have clear golden water!
“LibDems don’t have thin red lines, LibDems have clear golden water!”
Indeed. Sometimes it feels as though we’re drowning in it.
I don’t know about golden water, but it appears the LibDem leadership are giving us all a golden shower.
@Oranjepan
Oh and questions about ‘thin red lines’ is a bit of a giveaway: LibDems don’t have thin red lines, LibDems have clear golden water
Clear Golden Water, I love it, Is that because maybe cause they have P!ssed on every promise they made and turned there back on social responsibility?
@Orangepan
“Like addicts going through rehab”
I actually find that comment abhorrent.
you are suggesting that people on welfare are no different to drug addicts and are a scourge on society and something that should be frowned upon.
It is Right Winged Dross like this, that is angering the Public and will see further civil unrest in our cities,
You should be ashamed of yourself
I have a question about tr0lls, would being called a tr0ll in a derogatory manner be classed as a ‘personally abusive comment’? If so then it directly goes against comments policy here on LDV and it should be stopped or is it the case that it’s okay to ‘personally abuse’ someone who disagrees with party leadership?
@Mark Pack, I think it’s about time the auto censorship is updated to include ALL posts that contain that word.
@matt
I’ve always thought Keith Richards was a particularly good guitarist, but I never rated him as a political pundit. Good for him that he didn’t have ambitions in that direction.
Shall I take it you think there is not one person in the country who feels entitled to all they can get and that the rest of us should all be falling over ourselves to give it to them?
Don’t you believe in any moderation? Not even for the greater good (I’d be interested how you define this)?
If you want to contribute your extra donation I’ll be very happy to recieve it. You can contact me through my blog.
@Mark pack
When is LDv going to publish the results of the latest internal party survey
@orangepan
I do not believe in comparing people who are reliant on welfare benefits, As Heroin Addicts, who need to go through Rehabilitation to get them off and stop being a Burden to Society.
I really find your comment Repugnant, and you obviously have no concept of the kind of struggles faced by the majority of people on welfare.
I think you should rethink your post and apologise.
So it has come to this. The Liberal Democrat party, a party which once prided itself on compassion, is attacking the weakest and poorest people in society. The disabled and ill are going to suffer as this one-size-fits-all approach will not take into account the many nuances of illness and disability. I could go on, but what’s the point? I’m just a troll to the party I gave my support to.
@matt
you are a funny boy.
If you can’t read what I wrote and answer the questions put to you then you’re not engaging with the discussion and instead your just promoting your preconceived ideas.
You can pretend you can read minds all you like but you just make yourself look more and more like a complete joker.
The welfare system as was was highly flawed.
It was no longer just helping people who needed help and in as much it was becoming progressively unaffordable.
It needed reform.
I won’t argue the proposed reforms are manna from heaven, but the intention to target assistance more closely where it will have a real benefit is laudable. It is also good that there is recognition that assistance comes in the form of simplification, not just finance.
For many people confusion and uncertainty was caused by prolferating forms of benefits, each administered separately and often for pitifully small amounts. And each with a different set of conditions that could easliy appear to conflict.
Would you rather spend the welfare budget on the admin staff and new computer systems or give it to the people who the support was intended to reach in the first place? I personally don’t think the state should be a sponge to the unemployment pool as that’s just robbing peter to pay paul.
The point about housing benefit is also important – why should anyone be supported to levels they couldn’t afford if they were supporting themselves?
£20,000/year rent would typically require £80,000 income. Very few people being subsidised to that level could possibly hope to achieve that standard of living independently – so to be supported that much is a complete disincentive to find employment while being a complete incentive to ask for a kickback from your landlord, and which has the knock-on effect of creating an incentive to inflate the cost charged.
It is massively perverse for undeserving people to be able to play the system, let alone while this is at the expense of more vulnerable people who are also regularly put off by the labyrinthine mess welfare has developed into and sharper operators have taken advantage. Who knows how many people died as a direct consequence of the corruption which was allowed to infect the welfare system?
I’m not saying the proposed reforms are necessarily what I’d prefer, but I am saying any argument in favour of the status quo is downright wrong.
Frankly I’d like to ask what do you think is the cause of so many people claiming incapacity benefit and how do you propose to deal with it? What about the 5m+ people classified as economically inactive?
It is a sad country where so many people are without purpose. But then, while living under the rule of a corrupt and confused Labour government it’s hardly surprising they simply followed their leaders.
you can waffle and spin as much as you like orangepan.
But your likeness of people being dependant on welfare is similar to a drug addict is just plain wrong.
“I won’t argue the proposed reforms are manna from heaven, but the intention to target assistance more closely where it will have a real benefit is laudable. It is also good that there is recognition that assistance comes in the form of simplification, not just finance.”
I am all for reforming the benefit system and cutting costs, but where in the proposals for a universal credit system have they outlined the benefit will target assistance more closely? The truth is, they have not.
Every announcement on benefits have been a direct assault on the poor and the most vulnerable.
The changes to the work capability assessment tests are designed to kick hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people off sickness benefits and on to JSA.
70 % of claimants who appeal that decision through the tribunal win there case and are found unfit to work.
The cost of each tribunal to the tax payer, is also an added cost to the welfare budget,
There are 2 million people claiming Incapacity Benefit, No body is denying that there are a small majority of those people who are claiming, who shouldn’t be.
If the DWP. where to use G.P’s reports and evidence for assessing claimants, rather than the Billions wasted on ATOS, an IT company for assessing medicals, the welfare budget could be reduced even more.
If DWP, took the time to write to a patients G.P, they would be able to find out how many times they see the patient in regards to their illness and what if any treatment they are still having. This would weed out the small minority of claimants who are still claiming sickness benefits for old injuries or illnesses that have been long cured. But no that is to simple and the government would rather spend Billions to an IT company.
The 10% cuts to housing benefit, for those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more is just plain wrong.
Using “sanctions ” forced “work placements” 4 weeks community service as punishment is just plain wrong.
Reducing LHA to 30% Percentile from the 50% Percentile is plain wrong, It will cost the average benefit claimant £9 a week
Please explain how you think any of the announcements made by the coalition and this Universal Credit, is progressive and will target help where it is needed most.
it is not disputed that there are 5 million people on out of work benefits and sickness benefits.
There are soon to be another million added to that figure, with the 500’000 public sector workers being made redundant and the 700’000 from the private sector that will follow.
There was also only 375’000 (full time) vacancies, advertised through Job Centre plus in September 2010,
So where are all these jobs going to come from?
Labour were corrupt incompetent fools so our policies are beyond criticism ?
Great argument.
Maybe we should cite their policies or their hated Leaders like Blair as some kind of weak defence then since they are so repugnant ?
These measures are punative and have been unashamedly headline as such by the Conservatives.
The merits of benefit simplification is so far in the future as to be a red herring just now.
It won’t come into force till next Parliament, if it ever does.
But these scapegoating measures are coming in soon.
And with an entire Government budget to choose from the idea that the lions share of massive cuts must be primarily targetted at the poor and vulnerable is nonsense. It was a choice and a Thatcherite choice that Nick is so unwisely cheerleading.
So this is perhaps the weakest argument of all.
“There is no alternative” – Margaret Thatcher
Those screaming “fire” while pouring petrol on these threads should re-read Amy McLeod’s thoughtful and measured post before making a fool of themselves again.
@orangepan
“If you can’t read what I wrote and answer the questions put to you then you’re not engaging with the discussion and instead your just promoting your preconceived ideas”
You are practically calling me thick, but I can only respond to your questions in the context that you are writing them.
For example, you said
“Frankly I’d like to ask what do you think is the cause of so many people claiming incapacity benefit and how do you propose to deal with it? What about the 5m+ people classified as economically inactive?
It is a sad country where so many people are without purpose. But then, while living under the rule of a corrupt and confused Labour government it’s hardly surprising they simply followed their leaders.”
I think the cause of so many people claiming incapacity benefit, is because there are so many people who are suffering from many different physical and mental disabilities. Yes there is a small majority who are claiming fraudulently, but this is a very small minority. As for the 5million + economically inactive which are derived from those claiming out of work benefits and sickness benefits, in all realities there is not much anyone can do about that. Bare in mind that figure is about to increase as 500’000 public sector jobs are set to go, followed by another 700’000 private sector jobs.
There are simply only 375’000 current full time vacancies in Britain.
The private sector is simply not able to grow enough to reduce these figures, especially in a time of economic slow down.
I find your last sentence the most concerning though, The way it reads to me is,
you are implying that the 5million plus people who are economically inactive are also corrupt, which you say is not surprising as they have lived under the rule of a corrupt and confused Labour government and have followed their leaders.