Iain Duncan Smith is a right-winger. He was one of the first politicians to call for an invasion of Iraq, he is a eurosceptic. So, obviously, anything he’s proposing on welfare reform will be anathema to left-wingers. Right? Well, maybe not.
Under the current welfare system, many claimants aren’t interested in low paid work because they believe they’ll be worse off. This isn’t a guess, I’ve heard it with my own ears. This is outrageous. In the eighties, I was incensed when the Conservatives used to bang on about using tax cuts to improve incentives to the rich, but left the poverty trap in place.
Iain Duncan Smith is now proposing to do something about it. He doesn’t just believe in welfare reform, he had a blazing row with George Osborne over the issue.
There are two ways to sort out the poverty trap: allow low paid workers to keep more of their benefits as they earn more, which is expensive, or cut benefits so they have to work, which would drive the poor further into poverty. Ian Duncan Smith is proposing the expensive route, which of course means cuts elsewhere.
He wants to pay for it by cutting benefits to the relatively well-off. Sadly, stopping child benefit for bankers earning millions won’t raise enough. To fund welfare reform, it’d be necessary to take money from the middle-class.
We don’t know the detailed proposals, and so we shouldn’t offer unqualified support.
But, for those, like myself, who regard ourselves as slightly left of centre, this presents a challenge. Do we support a right-winger, who wants to cut benefits to the relatively comfortable in order to give money to the very low paid? And if we don’t, who is really the right-winger?
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)
51 Comments
Looks to me that we should wait and see what he comes up with.
Lets just look at some of the reform plans:
Removing 10% of housing benefit from people who are on job seekers allowance for more than one, this could push the unemployed into homelessness too
Changing the housing benefit rules to stop poor people living in the expensive part of central London – a form of ‘social cleansing’
Proposals to remove benefits from people who use drugs and don’t take treatment – forcing them into criminal activity to survive
Moving people with disability benfits onto job seekers allowance, to cut their income and force them to work which if unsuccessful will lead to cuts in their housing benefit (see above) – this measure is most likely to be used against people with mental health problems who are physically able putting them under even more stress
Quite frankly that the liberal democrats support this is sickening you should be ashamed of yourselves and when we are tripping over people begging on the streets in the numbers we had in the 1980s we will all know who to blame
Agree Geoff.
Paul: ALL of the things you are mentioning have nothing to do with IDS or the DWP, in fact they are precisely what IDS is having “blazing rows” with the Treasury over
Difficult to judge without seeing the detail. But, as @Paul Smith notes, where we do have concrete proposals the signs aren’t promising. And we could add in concerns about the future of the Supporting People budget which helps vulnerable households to continue living independently. Of course, the tension identified in the article is in part a tension because Osborne is pressing down so hard on the total DWP budget and that is about choices over the policy areas in which the cuts should fall or where more money should be spent (eg. on pointless reorganisations in the health service). If the Coalition dealt effective with tax evasion the tension identified could dissolve.
I thought the blazing row that IDS had with Osbourne was about the £3bn IDS wants up front, to set-up his vast reform program? Not the detail of the reforms.
I have to agree with Paul. The signs don’t look promising. I really do hope it turns out the way you imply George but proposals such as taking away 10 percent of a person’s Housing benefit if they have been unemployed for more than 12 months is shockingly sickening.
Maybe LKD is right and these policies are being contested within the government but I can not offer my support to IDS whilst policies to harass the 99 percent genuine disabled and mentally ill are still on the books.
It comes back to ideology over necessity. I am not denying the deficit but forcing those who are unfit for work to look for work when only 1 percent of such people are disingenuous regarding the ability to work isn’t about saving money or helping the poor. Its right wing ideology and it is extremely dangerous.
First they came for the unemployed and I said nothing because I wasn’t unemployed
Then they came for the sick and disabled and I said nothing because I was able bodied……
Be wary of feeding a monster that may one day come to feed on you.
On a side note it is interesting to note how scarily Orwellian the articles on this site have become since we entered this kamikaze coalition.
Regressive is Progressive
The left should back the right.
War is Peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Of course the Labour Party will oppose any serious changes to welfare. They want to have millions of people dependent on the state as they think this gives them a captive group of voters who they can terrify with stories about what the Tories and Lib Dems might do to them.
The very worst thing for Labour would be if the Coalition welfare reform succeeds in getting people off benefits and into work. They might start to take control of their lives and think they don’t have to depend on the State. Who knows where that might end up?
Yes, that’s why they introduced the ESA and the Work Capacity Assessment which is currently the subject of so much media fuss and attention.
Or in other words – do stop talking out of your rectum; it’s polluting the atmosphere.
@ Paul Smith
So you think that someone who doesn’t work should be allowed to live in Soho or Chelsea on Housing Benefit, but someone like me, who works and gets a slightly above average income should never have that opportunity?
You see, iIn reality there already is social cleansing of central London – of those in the middle, who don’t qualify for HB but nor can afford rents or house prices. As someone who is in overdraft at the end of every month, i don’t see why i should subsidise someone to live in a nicer part of town than me. By all means help those on low incomes, but don’t pay for them to live in Zone 1!
@Dominic
Completely agree. I don’t think taking economic necessity and re-branding it as social cleansing is particularly progressive; it’s reactionary. If housing prices are high, people without the means can’t afford to live there. If you think that’s social cleansing I think you’re misplaced in a capitalist society.
Paul: I honestly don’t remember where I read or saw this, could have been on news night, but it was made clear that IDS was not happy with the Treasury precluding his reforms by building X amount of savings and conditions such as cutting HB after a year, into the Emergency budget.
PS: I agree fully with the HB cap as it is driving the market prices up without this cap, but disagree with the 10% cut after a year, which seems a ludicrous idea picked out of the blue and unnecessary if IDS got his way with what sounds like some great ideas about making it easier for people to get back into work.
I’d love to see Paul Smith’s justification for paying out £100,000 a year of public money to house a family that has no-one working. Heck, not even the middle class mortgage subsidies come anywhere close to that – nearly enough to buy 2 MPs for a year. It’s a very strange sort of lottery prize, not open to the average council tenant.
Does he have some productive ideas for encouraging drug addicts on benefits to improve their lives? (I’m more hopeful here, since I think we ought to explore a Portuguese style approach to decriminalisation, which seems to have been beneficial in reducing both crime and addiction rates).
I do not think that IDS believes that the truly disabled should suffer: indeed, he probably considers that it would be a good thing to be able to afford to treat them more generously. We know that disability has been used as a mask to disguise unemployment among older workers. The trick is in distinguishing between the two, and also in ensuring that there is a realistic prospect of employment for those who are merely Labour’s hidden unemployed.
Why concentrate on trying to define negatives, rather than trying to define solutions? Make some positive proposals on how to distinguish who is deserving, and how to improve the employment prospects of those who have been parked and abandoned by the state. You never know, your ideas might get taken up. It’s a coalition government, after all. Provide solutions, and you can rightly claim to be making a real contribution to government. Provide solutions that work and are implemented, and voters will see that you truly deserve their attention and maybe their vote. The issue isn’t just whether to support IDS as George Kendall suggests: it’s to help him make the best possible job of sorting out the welfare mess. That’s the difference between government and opposition.
@Geoffrey Payne (and @Henry) “…we should wait and see what he comes up with.”
I don’t agree. I think it’s worthwhile to talk about what we think should happen, rather than just react to the detail of what ministers propose.
Even though there’s only a miniscule chance we might influence what is finally proposed, I think we should take that chance.
Of course, IDS is talking about more than a slower withdrawal of benefits. He’s also talking about simplifying the system, which would inevitably mean winners and losers. And that’s hard to discuss without knowing who those winners and losers will be.
But we can talk about the essential principles.
Personally, I feel the poverty trap is appalling. It hurts the country, because many who might otherwise contribute to the economy, are locked out of it. And, much worse, it hurts those people.
Welfare reform isn’t a silver bullet. There will still be many who will remain on benefits. But it could help.
I’d be happy to sacrifice the Lib Dem policy on higher tax thresholds, if it could be used to fund a slower withdrawal of benefits to those on low pay.
What do you think?
For more detail of what Iain Duncan Smith has proposed in the past, have a read of the executive summary of the paper from the Centre for Social Justice.
http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/CSJ%20Dynamic%20Benefits%20exec%20WEB%20NEW.pdf
Below are a couple of sections that give a rough idea of what he was proposing. Obviously, what would get through the coalition, may be quite different. Not sure if the pro-couples part implies a pro-marriage bias, if so, that might be challenged.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/13/coalition-split-marriage-tax-teather
“* Reduce the rates at which benefits are withdrawn to an across-the-board rate of 55% of post-tax earnings;
* Increase the ‘earnings disregards’ – allowing low earners to earn more, before any benefits are withdrawn;
* Simplify the benefits system by moving from the current 51 possible benefits, to two streamlined payments – Universal Work Credit, and Universal Life Credit;
* Reduce the penalties for couples, those with mortgages, and low-earning savers.
…
two categories of people are made marginally worse off by these reforms:
* The largest group comprises those higher-earning families earning above £30,000 per year currently
receiving the Family Element of Child Tax Credit (£545 per year). This benefit currently starts to be
withdrawn when earnings reach £50,000 per year. Under these proposals it would be subsumed into the
Universal Credit, and thus tapered away at lower earnings.
* The other group comprises a subset of those working just above the hours thresholds for the Working Tax
Credit, who under the new proposals would be affected by a slightly different schedule. This is especially
true for home-owners and those with savings.”
@Paul Smith
You’re criticising Osborne’s budget, not IDS’s welfare reform proposals.
@Alex M “If the Coalition dealt effective with tax evasion the tension identified could dissolve.”
While I’m all for trying to tackle tax evasion. If it were that easy, don’t you think Labour would have done it already?
@Barry George “interesting to note how scarily Orwellian the articles on this site have become”
I’m not going to apologise for that. The title is provocative, but it’s also pointing to a real irony, made all the more dramatic by the blazing row between IDS and Osborne.
@LKD
I vaguely remember something about IDS being unhappy, but no idea if it was rumour or a substantiated report. And I agree with you on the 10% cut after a year. In my opinion, that’s the worst thing the coalition has done.
@Dominic Curran and @Gareth Jones
I’m agnostic on the issue of a housing benefit cap. I don’t feel I know enough about it. I might read up about it later, but while this thread is going, I’ll concentrate on IDS’s proposals.
The Centre for Social Justice proposals are ok in so far as it is pretty much always good to put extra money in the pockets of people on low incomes (though fiddling with marginal tax rates is a pretty inefficient way to reduce poverty – for the same amount of money it would be possible to e.g. halve child poverty). It also has some less desirable outcomes – under IDS’ reforms pretty much every school leaver will be better off if they go to the Jobcentre and sign on before going to get a job (because once they get a job they will be able to keep some of their benefits).
But what seems to me to be pretty obviously not ok is the IDS/George Osborne compromise to cut £13 billion in universal benefits in order to get £3 billion for reducing marginal tax rates, particularly when combined with all the other cuts that Paul Smith mentioned. Steve Webb, who is an excellent Lib Dem MP and welfare expert, overruled Nick Clegg when he tried to review the Lib Dem support for universal child benefit last year. If you means test benefits, then you end up spending more on admin, public support for them falls, and they end up being cut back or scrapped – it is the poorest who end up losing out most.
Dominic
I too would love to have the income to live in zone 1. I don’t think I would actually move there, I would just like the income to have that choice…
I agree that Housing benefit should be limited to affordable rent in less affluent area’s but where do you draw the line ? Do you want unemployed people all locked together in ghettos?
Once you say to people that if you lose your job you have to move to a different part of town, you are opening up a can of worms that ends up being rather distasteful. It has the potential to create much greater segregation of the poor from not only the rich but just about anyone who has a job.
Like I say, I agree with the principle of your point but it’s very, very muddy water.
However, one swallow doesn’t make a summer. There are of course, with any set of policies, going to be one or two policies that in principle make sense.
I think it is unwise to single out the small number of policies that are ok from the huge mass of policies that are dangerous and reckless.
Take a man who spends a year frantically looking for work but due to the recession is unable to find a job. To take 10 % of his housing benefit away is a disgusting and humiliating policy in my view.
If you openly support the benefit policies of this coalition then policies like the one above is what you will get.
So rather than ‘cherry pick’ one example of where the proposed policies ‘might’ be sensible I would appreciate more your indication of whether you support the policies as a whole?
A good sound bite policy that makes sense and appeals to the public could turn out to be a Trojan horse with a world of hurt hidden inside.
Once these changes are passed through the government then it’s too late to say ‘But I thought you meant…’
The problem wit hthe policy is that it comes from the myth the Conservatives like to perpetuate: the reason people are unemployed is because people don’t want to work, and as such people need added incentive to work. The mundane reality is that there isn’t enough jobs in many places in the country, especially unskilled jobs suitable for the long-term unemployed. There is little in the way of government assistance to help them learn a trade and move into employment.
Very few people choose to live off of the meagre benefits provided by the state – anyone who has tried knows it. Of course, people from a position of high priviledge looking down through their distorrted Daily Mail or Telegraph lenses don’t see the reality and simply see work-shy scum.
@ barry george
i don’t want estates to be ghettos. many already are, especially in london, and i don’t want them to be worse, which is what the tory policies will do.
the removal of 10% of HB after a year is indeed disgusting.
talk of HB and council tenancy reform is all essentially rearranging deckchairs, or reallocating a very small cake. i want the cake to be bigger. the solution is to build more council homes. by increasing supply you reduce demand for more expensive private lettings, you create jobs and tax revenue, you end the miserable overcrowded living conditions of many of the most marginalised in society and you have a lovely public asset at the end that you can borrow on should you ever need to.
if anyone is going to conference, you should make contact with simon hughes and make your support for his opposition to these proposals known.
IDS means well, but he is far from being the first to tilt at this windmill. Getting rid of the poverty trap is fearsomely expensive. That’s why the most likely outcome is that he will get disillusioned and just give up, when he sees all the compensating cuts which Osborne will demand – not necessarily unreasonably.
Cutting middle-class child benefit probably just won’t be enough, on its own, to have the sort of impact on the poverty trap that IDS is looking for. That’s a practical objection.
If I can paraphrase George Kendall’s argument (and burlesque it a bit!), I think George is saying: “Yeah, maybe this won’t totally solve the poverty trap on its own, but hey, it’s a transfer from the middle class to ameliorate the poverty trap, so come on you lefties, this is progressive, so it has to be a good thing, right?”
Well, my first answer is, there are lots of things you could do which are progressive, you could burgle Fred the Shred and hand out fivers to the all-day drinkers in pubs, but being progressive doesn’t necessarily make it good, however leftie you are. Having children costs money whatever class you are, so, it is rational to ask the childless middle-class to subsidise the child-rearing middle-class, who are taking on the socially useful task of perpetuating the species! If you really want to be progressive, there are surely better ways to go about it.
You argue as if it is taken as read that reducing benefits for those who won’t work is a bad thing. Is a carrot AND stick approach really that bad? Allowing people to keep more of their benefits if they take on low paid work is a good thing. Taking benefits away from the well paid is also just fine with me. Is there a good idealogical reason why people who have been unemployed LONG TERM couldn’t have some reduction in benefits IF there is work available and they refuse it?
Speaking for myself, if I became unemployed, I would want to spend time looking for a new job as well paid as the old but I would join a temping agency fairly soon and take on what work I could whilst still looking for a “proper” job. Benefits should protect those who are between jobs not take the place of paid work surley? Or I am wrong here?
Colin
There is no right and wrong , but there is right and left
I know people who have applied for quite literally ‘hundreds’ of jobs and they don’t even get an interview.
It is ok for those of us with skills that are in demand but who wants to employ a mentally ill person who suffers from panic attacks and auditory hallucinations , has a blank CV and no qualifications or skills..
It’s not a level playing field. You can take as much benefit money back from such people as you like but it is not going to make someone employ them. There simply are not the jobs available nor is there the will of employers to employ them.
So you may like the stick but I believe that in the majority of cases you will succeed in inflicting pain on the unemployed but pointless pain as employers won’t be any more tempted to employ them then they were before.
Punishing people who work their socks off trying to find employment by cutting their housing benefit may not be wrong in your opinion but it is certainly right wing.
You don’t state your political allegiance (if you have one) but you certainly come across as a Tory. Certainly not a Liberal … well, certainly not a pre-election non orange book Liberal… well, who can tell these days
I am beginning to understand why the public believe that we have lost our unique identity….
I find it hard to spot it myself…
Sometimes, entusiastic, pro-coalition Lib Demmers try to caricaturise ALL Tories as rabid poor-hating sociiopaths. I think IDS, in this instance, shows that this view is little more than spin. His is a great idea, something the Left would have done too, an ideal circumstances. I for one am wholly behind IDS’s poroposal.
I respect all this wrestling with the difficulties of the Income Welfare State and the income poverty trap, without knowing what the answers are.
But I do know that there ought to be a Capital Welfare State as well as an Income Welfare State, with every 25 year old UK born UK citizen receiving a basic minimum national Universal Inheritance of at least 10% of average wealth in the country, financed by essential reform of the taxation of the transfer or wealth from each generation to the next.
IDS would not dream of pushing for that, of course, being a conservative. But liberals and liberal democrats should do so..
Are you really suggesting that you will say to the public, oops that bit of Government policy on welfare reform is George Osborn’s and not Ian Duncan Smith’s so you should back IDS?
I forgot to mention the bizarre plan to punish social housing tenants for getting a job by evicting them from their home, now that’s Eric Pickles not IDS
Two words: Collective Responsibility
Now how many Lib Dems are bound by that?
The only way of providing jobs for the marginally fit for work is to set up a government agency to employ them. Private sector employers will, as stated, simply not employ people who they regard as unreliable.
It is remiss for Lib Dems to support the recategorisation of those on ESA/IB without ensuring that the state is making adequate provision to give them a fair chance of finding work.
Child benefit, by contrast, must be paired back. I would support withdrawal except for the first child. Withdrawal would need to be tapered.
Winter fuel allowances should be available only to those eligible for pension credit or attendance allowance. However, the pension credit rules must be amended so ensure that the savings income taken into account is much nearer the actual amount received. Currently, the benefit deems interest to accrue at £1 per week ie 10.4%.
@Dane Coulston
I am a fan of your thinking. I have always wanted to replace income welfare with a citizen’s dividend.
Barry George,
I understand that right wing politics doesn’t like benefits for the poor an supports reducing them. You seem to have missed my qualification of refusing work. Those who can’t find work despite trying hard to find some are the very people who need protection of the state.
Part of liberalism is responsibility. Every individual has the primary responsible for providing for themselves. The state’s role should be secondary. I seek only to discern between those who can’t work or who can’t find work and those who won’t work even if given the opportunity. I’d rather give more of the limited benefits pot to those who do what they can.
As far as my political allegiance, I like to stir things up a bit so often adopt the role of devil’s advocate. I’m beginning to get the impression that this is lost on this website.
Just wanted to point out that child benefit and tax credit are administered by HMRC not DWP. Any such savings realised by those won’t necessarily go into welfare reform but into HMRC pet projects. So bring those benefits under the purview of DWP would be a good start
Colin
You seem to have missed my qualification of refusing work. Those who can’t find work despite trying hard to find some are the very people who need protection of the state.
I didn’t miss it Colin. It simply doesn’t apply. There is no proposal to protect those who are trying hard to find work. The government will simply take away 10 % of these peoples housing benefit regardless of how hard they have been trying to find work.
So, if you believe these people ‘need protection of the state’ then you are clearly against the government position which is to remove protection from those who need it most.
@smcg
“The very worst thing for Labour would be if the Coalition welfare reform succeeds in getting people off benefits and into work.”
What work? There are not going to be any jobs because 600,000 of existing jobs are being axed by the Blue and Orange Tories. The reason it is difficult to get people off benefits and into work is because the private sector and the market simply does not provide the number of jobs required. The way to remove people from benefit dependency is to nationalise large sectors of the economy which will provide the necessary jobs and insist that people take them. Or set up a huge programme of public works. Of course, Blue and Orange Tories would argue that this would simply be the redirection of existing benefits. But there was a time in this country when we had a mixed economy and the market did not have the dominance it enjoys today. In those days unemployment was around 250,000 and there was no such thing as a benefits culture. Another solution to the problem is a world war of course.
Some comments are responses, not to the welfare reforms, but to George Osborne’s budget. I’m not going to respond to these. This is a thread about IDS’s ideas. There are lots of threads that discuss Osborne’s budget; this isn’t one of them.
@donpaskini
Thank you for your comment. You talk about one of the main downsides of what it looks like IDS will propose: the cuts in middle-class welfare. Of course, we don’t know what those cuts would involve, and there are downsides to cutting middle-class welfare. But, I think the benefits of increasing incentives for those excluded from employment are far greater.
I share your admiration for Steve Webb. He is, indeed, an expert on the subject. Thankfully, as Minister of State for Pensions, he is in IDS’s department, and will have input into these proposals.
I don’t agree with the argument that changes to middle class benefits would make the system too complex, because central to IDS’s proposals is to make the benefits system far simpler.
When you say “fiddling with marginal tax rates is a pretty inefficient way to reduce poverty”, it depends what kind of poverty alleviation you think is best. I don’t think money is enough. I think it is far better for those excluded from society to be helped into work, than to leave them languishing on benefits, even if we could make the benefits marginally more generous.
It seems to me to be utterly iniquitous that some on benefit, if they do a low paid job, will often lose 90% of their wages through lost benefits. When IDS has been talking about allowing that person to keep 55% of their income, surely that is a lot more than fiddling.
There are very real problems with IDS’s ideas. His proposal to simplify the benefits system might make it possible to tackle benefit fraud, estimated at £5bn. But by making the system more comprehensible, it is likely to increase the takeup of benefits: it is thought £16bn of benefits are unclaimed each year.
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/08/the-hidden-expense-of-eliminating-benefit-fraud-and-the-ids-reforms/
But, for someone who wants to reduce poverty, these are just further arguments in *favour* of IDS’s proposals. It is surely utterly indefensible that the overly complex beenfits systems means that £16bn of benefits are unclaimed each year.
If you are skeptical about IDS’s motivations, I really recommend a quick read of the summary of the CSJ report.
http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/CSJ%20Dynamic%20Benefits%20exec%20WEB%20NEW.pdf
It goes into detail as to why tackling disincentives to work is so important to dealing with poverty. I found it extremely impressive.
The whole justification for our party’s policy of increasing the tax threshold to £10,000 was to increase incentives to work. We’ve recently shied away from wholesale welfare reform because of the herculean political challenges involved.
But we now have, perhaps, unique circumstances which make it possible.
Traditionally, tackling the poverty trap has been the preserve of Lib Dem conferences, passing motions that never had a chance of passing into law. The “tilting at windwills” that @David Allen refers to. That one of the leaders of the right wing of the Conservative party is willing to put his career on the line to fight for such policies is remarkable. Even more so, that he has won the support of some influencial thinkers on the right, such as in the Spectator, and among the Tory grassroots, such as ConservativeHome.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/07/in-praise-of-clegg-the-radical.html
I find it utterly remarkable that rightwingers are proposing, perhaps the most radical leftwing policy in a generation. Why aren’t we cheering?
Obviously, we can’t give unqualified support when we don’t know the details. Perhaps the Treasury will wreck the whole concept. But we should offer what support we can to IDS in his battle with Osborne.
The political challenges are intimidating, but fighting poverty is not a task for the faint-hearted.
If the coalition does adopt policies similar to the CSJ report, there will be immense political risks. There will be winners and losers, which is always very dangerous politically. The costs will be far higher than the £3 bn the CSJ suggest, so either some other policies will be lost, there will be further tax rises, or further cuts to middle class benefits. Perhaps the whole package will have to be introduced in stages, so that the cost is incurred when the budget is not in such a mess, and when the economy begins to recover and jobs are more available (an adjustment which would answer @Oliver’s and @MacK’s objections).
As Liberal Democrats, it may cost us votes. But surely, this kind of policy is exactly why we are in politics? The kind of policy which should motivate us to storm the metaphorical barricades.
@Colin Green
Thank you for your question about using a stick as well as a carrot. I’m sure a lot of others have the same question, but lack the courage to ask it.
Broadly, I agree with @Barry George’s answer.
Under Labour, the stick had already started to be applied. The question is whether to apply it further.
Long-term unemployment is often closely linked with other issues, such as low self-esteem and depression. Withdrawing benefits from the long-term unemployed might appear to make sense (always assuming there are jobs for them to take up), but the consequences can be brutal.
I’m old enough to remember, in the eighties, the many young people who suddenly appeared begging on our streets, when the government withdrew benefits from sixteen to eighteen-year-olds.
I am glad that IDS doesn’t want to cut benefits further. I hope he can hold onto that position.
“I’m beginning to get the impression that this is lost on this website”
Sorry about that. I’m afraid the debate on this site can be a little judgemental and confrontational. But I, for one, welcome your honesty and open mind.
IDS’s pledge to allow people to keep 55% of their pay/benefits can only hold good if they have a job in the first place.
In my view, welfare reform only has a realistic prospect of success if it is undertaken at a stage in the economic cycle when employment is growing steadily. For this reason, it is going to be very difficult to undertake in the next three or four years.
My concern is that, for some within the coalition, welfare reform is a euphemism for reducing the cost of ESA/IB and housing benefit. Cold budgetary calculation that will reduce the quality of peoples’ lives.
Is that really what Lib Dems joined the coalition for?
@ Philip Rolle
In my view, welfare reform only has a realistic prospect of success if it is undertaken at a stage in the economic cycle when employment is growing steadily.
Yes, common sense would suggest that to be the case, but ideology before reality is in affect here.
My concern is that, for some within the coalition, welfare reform is a euphemism for reducing the cost of ESA/IB and housing benefit.
Welfare reform without realistic employment opportunities is nothing short of an attack on the vulnerable that can’t fight back. It can simply be translated to ‘we need to recover the deficit so let’s start with the poor’.
Many of us (as George just pointed out) can remember the poverty on the streets the last time the political right had the reigns and I, for one, fear for what is to come from this coalition.
Is that really what Lib Dems joined the coalition for?
I voted Liberal and always have but I would have not done so if I had known that we would enter a pact with the Conservatives. So I best leave the fully paid up ‘members’ of the party to answer that question…
“mpg”
My thinking is not to replace the Income Welfare State by an annual Citizen’s Dividend, as you suggest, but to add a Wealth Welfare State to the Income Welfare State. The Asset Welfare State would of course tend to reduce the need for some of the Income Welfate State demands and costs.
What I am proposing is a once-a-lifetime Citizen’s Inheritance of at least £10,000 for every UK born UK citizen at the age of 25, financed by taxes on the transfer of capital from each generation to the next. Not an annual Citizen’s Dividend.
Am I right that you are thinking more of a basic annual income guarantee for all? My problem with that is that it either would, or would not, be enough to live on, but there is a Basic Income Group (BIG) calling for that, particularly across the Atlantic, I think. Or would a Citizen’s Dividend be something else again?
it is not Welfare Reform it is the beginning of removing welfare targetting the most vulnerable group first. We are being held to blame for the deficit while the real culprits are not being targeted at all because you dare not.
The new Work Capability Asessment to be introduced for ESA ( that is even more stringent than the original ) is designed to take many more sick and disabled off not only the support group but also DLA itself. Perhaps you should all do some research into this. The Guide for Decision Makers also clearly states the use of ESA medicals to remove DLA benefits. I have also read in DWP literature that Consultants and GP’s clinical diagnoses should not be taken too much into account. So a short ‘medical’ by ATOS staff who may not even be doctors will decide whether a sick or disabled person will be fit for work. The descriptors of not being able to walk far is being removed and the term ‘mobilise for 50 metres’ is being used with the use of an ‘imaginary’ wheelchair. These are their words not mine. Unable to bend and kneel is also being removed as is the type of chair you can sit in, changed from ‘upright’ to ‘adjustable’. If you can hold a pen or use a keyboard you will be deemed ‘fit for work’. As only tick boxes are used you wil not be able to explain that you can only do this for a few minutes. There are more changes and those with mental illnesses will not fare well either.
Will employers really employ us? NO!! Will they install ‘imaginary’ ramps for our ‘imaginary’ wheelchairs or spend money on all the new health and safety measures they wil need?, We will not even get an interview. Unemployment is set to rise and we will not be able to find work as no employer will take anyone on is who is likely to be taking a lot of time off. We are being f orced into poverty and fear. The hatred being whipped up against us is terrifying and nobody seems to be speaking up for us. Will these so called ATOS medics be instructed next to put a plus sign on the form? Far fetched? I doubt that people in Germany would have thought that doctors would have done this. They were softened up by a hate campaign first as well.
I do not believe that the Lib Dems would have voted for these measures introduced by the Labour government yet you appear to be seizing them avidly under the coalition and expanding on them. Where has your fairness gone? Indeed where has your conscience gone? Do you really know or care what is going on or are you also just feeding from the hype?
I suggest that you actually find out what is really going on. All the information is there on the Decision Makers Guides and the internal DWP literature if you can be bothered to look for it. Before you say it, I did not type this, my son did it for me as I am unable to use the keyboard for this long.
Agreed. The new work capability assessment is far too stringent.
Unfortunately, the more ATOS certify as fit for work, the more they save the government in money ( and they also increase their chances of in due course retaining the contract ). I would urge all who goattend an ATOS medical to appeal against the result where necessary. Many of the decisions are being overturned at tribunal.
It is very disappointing that Lib Dems are complicit in what is effectively an attack on the vulnerable in order to save money.
@ Anne Waters
Excellent post that fully describes the fear of those living on ESA and DLA. I hope it makes people think about what it is they are actually supporting when they call for ‘welfare reform’. I have tried my best to get people to see the catastrophic reality that this government is pushing ahead at full speed with attacks on the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill and the unemployed, but to little avail.
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
@Philip Rolle
Even though the recovery is still weak, I think it’s important to start this initiative. It’ll take time to make the changes, and if we waited until the economic cycle was fully in its expansion phase, it might only come into effect just as the economy was contracting.
I fear if we don’t do anything now, it’ll never happen. There is political momentum behind this. We have a minister with considerable support from the right, who is willing to put his career on the line for this. In the past, the right has contemptuously dismissed ideas like this. If we wait, the right may flip back to their previous position.
I agree it would have been better to have introduced this during the extraordinary period over the last sixteen years, when the world was enjoying the longest boom in living memory. But that is in the past.
I fear, in the next few years, the boom will be in east Asia, and not in western Europe, where we’ll have a long period of slow growth. If we wait for the boom, it may not come.
In my opinion, the key benefit of these ideas is not to the economy. It may be that reducing the proportion of benefits clawed back from the low paid won’t result in a lot of them getting full time jobs. But if it means, where they can, they work for a few hours a week, I think it will be worthwhile. Not because of their extra earnings, but how becoming economically active will improve their self-esteem.
If those who have never worked get some work, it’ll have a positive impact on their children. In improving their self-belief that people like them can have the prospect of the dignity of employment.
I agree that the budget hurts those on benefits, and I wish that it didn’t. But I think we should back those elements of the coalition that are trying to do the opposite. When reading the CSJ document, I found nothing about reducing benefits. Indeed, it considers the option of simply increasing them. From the rumours we have of conflict between IDS and Osborne, it appears that IDS is resisting further cuts, and is resolutely fighting for the interests of the poor. I think we should back him.
@Anne Waters
Thankyou for your comments. I have a lot of sympathy for what you are saying, but I’m not going to respond because I don’t want to knock this thread off its topic, which is IDS’s proposals for removing the poverty trap.
@Dane Clouston
Thanks for your comment. I wanted to have time to think before responding, hence the delay.
I think there are two issues with your proposal. Whether financing it would lead to capital flight from the country, and whether giving a lump sum of cash is the highest priority for scarce resources.
Your proposal reminds me of the principle in the Old Testament, that each family should own land, which in the long-term remains in the family possession, regardless. And hence, gives everyone a stake in the country.
I like that principle. I think the modern day equivalent should be a good education. On the centre-left, we’ve traditionally argued that the problem is underfunding of schools. But, in the last thirteen years, school funding has been doubled, and it doesn’t seem to have made the difference we might have hoped.
I believe that every human being is equally precious, regardless of the circumstances of their birth or upbringing. I think every child has enormous untapped potential.
The problems of educational underachievement are hugely complex. But I think a major factor is if parents are capable of working, but feel excluded from work. This has a knockon effect on the self-esteem of their children, and this results in underachievement in school.
I think that a tax and benefit system that removes any financial incentive to work is appalling. And I applaud IDS for wanting to change it.
@Anne Waters
On reflection, I’m not happy with my previous response.
My saying I don’t want to knock this thread off topic must be deeply frustrating, and I’m sorry. So a short reply.
“Perhaps you should all do some research into this”
I think you’re right. I should do more reading on this.
“Will employers really employ us? NO!! … We will not even get an interview.”
I agree. And I don’t have a lot of faith in bureacracies to handle disabilities fairly and effectively.
But I really don’t want to knock this thread off topic, so I won’t say any more, except that it’d be great if we had a post specifically devoted to this important issue.
I don’t feel qualified to write it. Perhaps, after a little reading I will be. But if someone else is qualified, please do.
@George Kendall
@Anne Waters
Thankyou for your comments. I have a lot of sympathy for what you are saying, but I’m not going to respond because I don’t want to knock this thread off its topic
A little pedantic maybe George ? I have not seen Anne here before and she obviously has some health issues and real fears about her future. And your point…. is that even though she took the time and even enlisted the help of her son to make her point, which is on the subject of ‘welfare reform’, she didn’t put it in the right thread !
See, this thread is about welfare reform but only with regard to the strictly specific ‘idea’s’ of IDS. Dare not speak of actual government welfare policy or you will be politely moved on.
I repeat my statement on the Orwellian behaviour of grass roots Lib Dem’s. Your stated unwillingness to apologise for it is not in itself justification..
First thing after the election this site was a wash with ‘its all Labours fault’ but now it is about a pseudo denial of genuine fear, concern and confusion by members of the public.
Anne clearly has a valid point. She has taken the time to seek out this site and she has made what i guess must have been quite a considerable effort to post here.
She may not address IDS’s proposals directly but she is dealing with actual and clearly defined government policy on welfare and this thread is discussing hypothetical government policy on welfare.
.Bad Bad Anne… She should have realised that this was a hypothetical discussion and no place to bring genuine concerns about the actions of Lib Dem’s in government who support the very same policies that cause her so much concern.
She is looking for support and for you, a self claimed ‘slightly left of centre’ contributor to dismiss her by using the ‘you’re in the slightly wrong topic dear’ defence is inappropriate in my opinion.
How are such people, who let’s face it, have enough problem’s in life, supposed to fight back against the policies that affect them so much when they have to remember to dot their “I’s” and cross their “T’s” and god forbid post in EXACTLY the right thread or they will be dismissed.
I do not doubt that you genuinely have a lot of sympathy for Anne. But sympathy alone won’t help her. Speak up , respond , encourage others to do so, but please, please don’t dismiss her…
I thought that the issue now was about re-gaining a public perception of our unique identity that according to the polls, we have lost.
We won’t be re-gaining much public approval by not responding to people like Anne.
@ George Kendall
@Anne Waters
On reflection, I’m not happy with my previous response.
I am glad you stopped and thought, Mea culpa for not noticing that you had corrected yourself, but I was writing my above reply at the time.
I won’t speak for Anne , but I thank you for taking the time to take her more seriously…
Perhaps someone should write an opinion on
(a) the integrity of the ATOS Origin testing procedure ( pursuant to the Purnell “reforms” )
(b) what, if anything, should replace it to make it fairer; and,
(c) whether the state should have a permanent role in employing the marginally fit for work through some sort of Remploy agency
I have already expressed my view that a government agency must be set up re ( c) above.
As to (a) and (b), I would submit that the high proportion of ATOS decisions overturned on appeal suggests that something is wrong with the medical assesssment procedure.
@ Philip Rolle
Perhaps someone should write an opinion on (a), (b), (c)
Seconded…
It is due time these welfare reforms are thoroughly scrutinised and analysed. To me they are nothing more than an excuse for the ideological victimisation of the weak and vulnerable.
But whilst we are ‘pussy footing’ around the subject, talking about what IDS may or may not want, we are avoiding facing the stark reality of a painful and traumatic future that will affect millions of people in this country.
The ‘actual’ welfare reforms need to be examined and probed in detail on this site. Avoiding subjects that we are uncomfortable with may be convenient but it certainly isn’t winning us any awards. It’s time to face the public with the policies we are apparently willing to vote through parliament.
There is too much hiding behind pseudo nuances and ‘kind of’ debates that just come across as if we are simply avoiding the issues.
Please tackle this one ‘head on’ LDV and give us a chance to express our ‘voice’ on subjects that apparently make some members uncomfortable.
The policies are real, the pain is going to be real so for goodness sake let the debate be real too.
I respect what George is trying to do here but we need so much more, we need…. A backbone!
Not implying that George doesn’t have one but it is no good if the site is spineless and unwilling to confront ‘our’ own party on the issues that really count.
This one counts…
George Kendall,
Thank you in turn for your thoughts.
The tax proposal to finance UK Universal Inheritance would be in two parts. The Capital Donor Tax (CDT) at 10% would cause no one to emigrate. It is a tax on what cannot be denied to be luxury expenditure of ALL giving and bequeathing of capital (however defined) at half the prospective rate of VAT on ordinary expenditure, with no exemptions except between partners, spouses ( unless one of them lives abroad) and cohabiting siblings.
However it should be at twice the rate of VAT – 40% – for gifts and bequests to non UK taxpayers, which would have caught Sir Philip Green’s gift of his business to his non-resident wife, for example. Once the proposal has been introduced, capital flight would be taxed. Some will emigrate at the prospect, of course, and doing so should perhaps attract Capital Donor Tax at the 40% withholding rate for effective gifts from themselves as UK tax payers to themselves as non-UK tax payers.
Then there would be the progressive Lifetime Unearned Capital Receipts Tax, starting with a broad 10 per cent band, from which the Capital Donor Tax already paid would be deducted, so that those whose lifetime receipts of gifted or inherited capital fall within that band would have no more tax to pay. This is a tax, paid by beneficiaries not donors, that can be avoided by donors spreading generosity widely enough, and particulary to those who would not receive much capital from other donors, which would be a good thing.
You question whether a lump sum of cash is the highest priority for scarce resources. But we are not talking about scarce resources of income. We are talking about capital privately owned or received by UK tax payers. Should this be taxed by the government to be used as income subsidies or should it be taxed in otder to spread the ownership of property and capital more widely to all citizens?
Liberals and Liberal Democrats are bound by their party constitutions. The Preamble to the Liberal Party Constitution says “The Liberal Party exists to build a Liberal Society in which every citizen shall possess liberty, PROPERTY and security and none shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”. Also “At home its goal is a country in which the powers of the state will be used to establish social justice, to wage war against poverty, to SPREAD WEALTH and power. The Liberal Democrat constitution regrettably cuts out the mention of every citizen possessing property, but does suppport “the widest possible distribution or wealth”.
In the old Testament capital was mainly land, but in a modern society it is cash and investments including businesses and land. UK Universal Inheritance would give everyone a stake in the capital of the country, to do with as they will and can, at the age of 25, with availability by loans from banks after the age of 18 for approved purposes against the certain receipt at 25. Certainly everyone should have as good an education as possible, and also good free health. But my proposal is a Liberal proposal – not a centre-left proposal – adding the inheritance of some capital by all citizens, so that there is greater equality of opportunity in education, health AND the inheritance of wealth.
Of course education must be improved. More expenditure would help to reduce class sizes in state schools. I would favour putting VAT on expenditure on private education – and private health incidentally – both luxury expenditures – in order to spend more on state education and the NHS. But that is another issue! No distracting response required!
I wish you and IDS well with sorting out the benefit system as well as possible. I just think that a basic minimum inheritance of capital would help young adults in all sorts of ways, in addition to whatever solutions are arrived at as far as income benefits are concerned.
As stated before,UK Universal Inheritance would help in our country to reduce alienation, financial exclusion, poverty, social exclusion. It would help increase education, entreneurial activity, home ownership and opportunity for all. Such an Asset Welfare State would also, I believe, reduce to some extent the demands on the Income Welfare State. That is the connection with this thread.
National Universal Inheritance is an unfamiliar concept, a liberal political ideology of Popular Capitalism in each new generation to replace the widely but often unconsciously or subconsciously accepted conservative political ideology of unrestricted Dynastic Capitalism with its ideal of inequality of inherited wealth “cascading down the generations”. It is the party policy of the Liberal Party. It ought to be considered by the Liberal Democrats as well as by other political parties.
@Philip Rolle and @Barry George
Thanks for thinking specifically about an article on how the benefits system treats disabled people.
Philip, I think the outline you describe would make a good article. Especially, as you point out that this is both Labour and Coalition policy, so the piece wouldn’t be party partisan.
The site says “We are happy to publish articles by non-Lib Dem members (at the editor’s discretion), and will ensure this is flagged for readers to avoid confusion or misunderstanding.” So if you did write such an article, if it’s well-written, and presents a constructive argument, I imagine it’d be accepted. Though it might be worth emailing [email protected] to ask their advice.
@Barry George “Please tackle this one ‘head on’ LDV”
This issue has been discussed on the private members forum. But I can understand why we’ve not yet had an article for the public site.
Articles on LDV only happen if a volunteer writes them. Submitting an article to LDV is a little intimidating. Many of us feel that, if we submit an article, we not only need to be sure of our facts, but able to defend our position when someone critiques it. On an issue like this, that’s pretty daunting. It was easy for me to write a piece on the poverty trap. On and off, I’ve been thinking about the issue for at least ten years. How benefits policy affects the disabled would be much harder.
A lot of Lib Dem members are very unhappy about some government policies, but generally support the coalition as the best of the options available. They see a lot of tribal point-scoring against the party on this site, and want to back the party up, rather than undermine it. So they avoid issues where they disagree with the party. Regrettable, maybe. Thoughtful criticism from people who are, nonetheless, supporters of the coalition, would probably help rather than hurt the party. But it’s understandable.
A lot of party members are incredibly busy. When I was a councillor, there is no way I’d have had the time to contribute as much as I have to LDV.
So if you guys were willing to write the article, that’d be great.
If you’d prefer not to write a fully fledged article, can I suggest something else?
How about if I submit a thread that invites policy ideas, entitled, “If I could propose a motion at the Lib Dem conference…” One of you guys could then draft a hypothetical motion to the Lib Dem conference on this subject, and we could then discuss it in the thread.
LDV kindly published a thread from me on similar lines in the beginning of July, so I’m pretty sure they’d do so again. I could submit the thread pretty quickly. So if you’d like that, let me know.
Im very worried. When wil they test people on Income Support, not Invalidity Benefit. – People with personality disorders or mental illness like manic depression or schizophrenia or Aspergers or autism will inevitably fail their tests.
Those who are resistant to this being turfed out, will have to get their only hot meal from coupons in THE SUN like everyday last week during the Conservative conference. ANd from coupons in the The Star and Daily Express to provide their only drinks and snacks.
The fact that people who cant stand doenst count as they are scored as being being in a wheelchair, and
cannot submit medical reports by the American ASOS company.
It will be like the USA system with maximum time limits. Minimalist and payments of the lowest common demoninator. Chris Grayling copied Tony Blair in his speech to conference: “No doubt the rules of the game are changing”
Chris Grayling said “We will roll out the biggest Welfare-to-Work programme the world has ever seen. And that is just the start….
Protecting the vunrable? Who does the goverment think are vunrable? The squeezed MiddleClass? Certainly not the sick and disabled?
Someone who is currently receiving Incapacity Benefit and Income Support with mortgage intreast support. Will benefit from losing their house sometime next year due to MIS being reduced below the intrest rate they pay, being assessed for ESA then having to go on treatment plans and positive thinking courses, followed by having their ESA reduced after one year. If they also get DLA they can look forward to having that reassesed in 2013.
If they find themselves reassessed as no longer incapable of working then they can look forward to a massive reduction in benefit, then if in rented accomodation a further 10% cut in any housing benefit after one year. If they have a morgage and have somehow managed to makeup the shortfall caused by lowering MIS they will proably no longer be able to do so on job seekers allowance and after two years will no longer get any MIS anyway.
Maybe the idea is to encourage them to kill themselves, or make them so ill with worry and stress they die of natural causes.