Today an open letter, signed by well over forty of our parliamentary candidates from 2010, will be sent to Nick Clegg. And, on Monday, a meeting, organised by the Social Liberal Forum, will take place in the Palace of Westminster in Committee Room 18 (made infamous by the story about Sir Bob Russell MP allegedly pulling the door off of its hinges).
The subject of both the letter and the meeting will be the recent voting record of our peers on aspects of the Welfare Reform Bill ranging from sickness and disability benefits, to the household benefit cap and child benefits.
The meeting in particular will be a chance for our MPs and peers to hear from representatives of organisations such as Liberal Youth, the Social Liberal Forum, the Liberal Democrat Disability Association, the Welfare Reform Consortium, the Children’s Commissioner Office and others. Both the letter and the meeting will allow voices within the party and wider society to explain to our parliamentarians our concern over the way they have voted on the Welfare Reform Bill.
In particular, three weeks ago 51 Lib Dem peers voted for a one year time limit to ESA, directly opposite the request of a motion passed last conference, and the government’s benefits cap, as currently planned, is at odds with policy made at conference on reducing child poverty and safeguarding universal child benefit. More important than raising concerns, however, is to discuss productive ways of moving forward.
Above all, the organisers of the meeting and the letter hope to ensure that voices within the wider party are listened to on future votes on the Welfare Reform Bill in order to guarantee that the final welfare reforms implemented by the government are in keeping with not only party policy made by conference, but also with the spirit and fundamental values of the Liberal Democrats as described in our constitution and as felt by ordinary party members up and down the country.
* George Potter is a councillor in Guildford
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
13 Comments
It is indeed vital that we get the welfare reforms right, and in particular that we ensure the one-year time limit on contributory ESA for those in the WRAG group is voted down, or we’ll be reaping a whirlwind.
If we think that private insurance is the way to go for disability benefits, then let’s make that argument. I haven’t heard it. If we don’t think private insurance is the way to go, then let’s not hang out to dry the people who’ve been paying National Insurance contributions all their lives. How can we even think of introducing a time limit when we haven’t yet sorted out the mess that Labour left us with the introduction of the poorly-functioning WCA testing on which ESA depends, and which means that all sorts of people are being put in the wrong group?
I hope you have a productive meeting, and look forward to hearing more. (I heard it was close to 50 candidates? I hope they’re joined by more, anyway).
I’m glad to hear this meeting is taking place, and especially the discussion of “productive ways of moving forward”. It is intensely frustrating to see our parliamentarians apparently voting against our own policies with no communication to the membership as to why.
How can I, as a LibDem activist, possibly defend the actions of our Lords in the recent votes to my friends who are in receipt of DLA, or those who are concerned about the effect of the benefit cap? Neither the Lords concerned nor the party have provided a defence or rebuttal to convince me or allow me to convince others. There may well be good reasons, and I would like to trust that our Lords would not vote in these ways without good reasons, but trust only carries me so far. As for the friends who are voicing these concerns, “trusting the LibDems” is more like a joke.
This is hardly the first and unlikely to be the last occasion where the Coalition is at odds with party policy (and the personal opinions of many members) and we need much better communication to the membership on these occasions, especially when the decision is made to whip parliamentarians against party policy. Otherwise we are just handing another “LibDem betrayal” story to our opponents, demoralising our activists, and losing our supporters. If you want us out on the doorsteps putting the party case, give us arguments, give us explanations of our “difficult decisions” and give us rebuttals to the betrayal theme. And ideally give them to us in our inboxes on the day the vote happens, not in a meeting weeks later.
It may not be easy to step back from the hothouse of parliament negotiations and think of how to put the case to the activist or the voter in a timely fashion. But it’s the right thing to do, both morally and practically. Not easy, but right, to borrow a phrase.
The letter to Nick Clegg can be found here:
http://socialliberal.net/2012/01/27/letter-to-nick-clegg-on-the-welfare-reform-bill/
There are about 50 signatories in all 🙂
And don’t worry, there’ll be a post meeting report on Lib Dem Voice – though I think someone else will be writing that onel.
Rachel – we did get a big concession on DLA in that the regulations on testing etc. will have to be approved by parliament. But, as I understand it, they can only be approved or rejected (not amended) so we’ll have to have the gumption to reject them if we think they’re no good. We don’t want to end up with something as much of a mess as the current WCA assessment for ESA.
On ESA, though, I’m completely at a loss to understand why so many Lib Dem Lords voted the way they voted, i.e. why there wasn’t a bigger rebellion.
This is great stuff, George. Looking through the signatories of the letter, they include our new MEP, and at least four from the Leadership Programme, our star candidates of the future.
This meeting on Monday is very important, but I also think that people need to make their views known to the leadership.
Nobody has come out and defended these cuts to ESA and DLA for any other reason than “we can’t afford it”. Actually, we need to afford it if we are to be the sort of compassionate society that we want to see.
I think a lot of people must just be saying “well, I assume we’re cutting the fraud, I’m all for that”. But we have an assessment system that *doesn’t work*, on the basis of which we’re planning to introduce a one-year-limit that will affect *the wrong people* because they’ve been put in the wrong group.
Not to mention one year being too short in any case – if you became disabled in some way right now (you went blind, say) and you did hope to work again in some way at some point, would it take you just a year from now to find a job? Is that the sort of insurance policy you signed up for in paying NI contributions?
And the DWP is trying to get this policy through with the aid of much massaging of the press and manipulation of facts. If we were cutting fraud, that would be great. But we’re not, we’re on course to stuffing a whole lot of people, and ourselves as well.
I’m also glad to hear this.
It must be added, though, that while a majority of LibDem peers chose to use their votes in ways which the letter opposes they were only defeated with the help of other LibDem peers.
If there was no whipping exercise then they deserve to be congratulated for providing the balance which ensures the views of the public are accurately and fully represented.
Keep up the excellent work George.
If being in a coalition means that you no longer need to vote in line with party policy then democracy is well and truly dead, I support you fully but wish you were going even further…
Nick Clegg and co have zero possibilty of gaining back the electoral support of this life long Liberal voter. But you and other hard working members just might 🙂
An important meeting – I hope the parliamentarians are listening. I remain unconvinced by the argument that we are somehow to be given credit for getting ‘important concessions’. We are this government’s working majority, and no change goes through without our support. I therefore find it a hard line defend us with as a party. Good luck organisers.
My wife received a letter from jobcentre plus this week , advising her that her contributory ESA benefit would be increasing on April 12th , She rang them , and the conversation was ;- Wife ” why have i been sent this lettter when my benefits are to stop on April 1st ?”. ” well we know there are changes , but we are not sure what, so dont get too worried for now”. wife ” well i am worried because we have a large mortgage payment to meet , and i will have no income until i get old age pension in 2015″ , “you may be able to get tax credits in 2015 . so dont worry too much”,wife ” i just told you i will be retired by then, but what am i to do in the meantime as my benefits are to be time limited and i have reached the 2 year threshold. I am not able to work again , so why am i in a back to work group?”.
“We are aware that you cannot return to work , but you are put into that group automatically ” Wife “why ? ” Because you are not terminally ill . Dont worry too much though ” . Wife ” of course i worry , i am to lose my income for 3 years.” ” How do you know this ?”. Because my husband has been following the progress of the bill via the internet”. ” How did you find out about it in the first place? “. Wife ” because you wrote to me 4 months ago to advise me i would lose my benefits, and i have been worried ever since”.
Sadly the above is fact , not fiction , and its great to know that my wife has been paying contributions for forty odd years , not , as we thought , to help out in the event of becoming too ill to work , but to pay the wages of numpties who do not know what day of the week it is. Also demonstrates that timelimiting ESA is very,very , wrong. Any member that votes with the government on this issue should have their names printed in every newspaper.
People on ESA are “categorised” into convenient slots which do not necessarily reflect the severity of their illness . Some may be able to return to work after 6 months , many will never be able. If your partner has a salary over £35 k , you may not feel the effect of losing ESA .For the majority , the effect is far reaching and can be financially devastating.
Good luck at your meeting on Monday, and before you go, read this, which tells you what your opponents are up to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/27/bash-poor-wave-flag-tory-trick
MPs of all parties need to wake up to the fact that they have been misled deliberately time and time again by Ministers and the controlled media. The Spartacus Report proved this over DLA.
The ATOS assessment is NOT being put right under Harrington. A man in a coma has just been found fit for work.
Benefit fraud on IB/ESA is 0.3%. DLA fraud is 0.5%. Read the governments own report, not what they TELL you.
Before your meeting, please ask Danny Alexander why he utterly condemned the ESA medical as “finding hundreds of thousands of sick people unfairly fit to work”, only a few weeks before the election? Yet now supports it and abolishing DLA as well. A taste of power goes a long way to overriding a man’s conscience doesn’t it?
You can see his interviews scattered throughout the BBC Scotland documentary “Who’s Cheating Who” on You Tube.( In 3 parts)
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yop7L95NyIU&feature=related
43 seconds in Alexander predicts that the number of appeals from the genuinely ill will cause meltdown in the Appeals system. (Seems his powers of prediction were greater then than his honesty now)
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0GiLGDgk0M&feature=related
“people genuinelly in need are being denied money they are entitled to”
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ8zgGN-zU8&feature=related
“The fact is the process is not working”
Please remember, you WORK FOR US, not them.