Tag Archives: benefits sanctions

Jack Nicholls

Young people need liberal listening, not authoritarian threats

By Jack Nicholls | Mon 25th November 2024 - 12:27 pm

Young people, so says the DWP Secretary, must ‘learn or earn’ or lose benefits. Be warned, dear reader, this is an angry post.

This announcement by Liz Kendall has put three things in my mind. Firstly, never underestimate the excessive power of rhyme in policy creation. Secondly, the authoritarian parties will never resist the temptation to hammer young people with a mixture of higher expectations and the threat of less money. Thirdly, it reminded me of one of the formative experiences for my liberalism.

I have worked with young people during a couple of periods in a varied career. The young people …

Continue reading »
Posted in Op-eds | Also tagged | 37 Comments
Caron Lindsay

What party members think about a universal basic income and benefits sanctions

By Caron Lindsay | Mon 19th September 2016 - 8:30 am

Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum  to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. 741 party members responded – thank you – and we’re publishing the full results.

The social security debate at Conference this afternoon will be dominated by two major arguments. George Potter recommended rejection of the motion as a whole because it chose not to endorse a universal basic income and because it supports the use, albeit much restricted, of sanctions. Supporters of the UBI may well support an amendment calling for a negative income tax from Calderdale while an amendment signed by members opposes the use of benefits sanctions in any circumstances. We asked our members what they thought of the idea of UBI and sanctions.

Are you in favour of a universal basic income?

Yes 60.32%

No  39.68%

Here are some of the comments made:

It would be a clear, distinct policy and place the Party firmly on the “Left” (which, as Charles Kennedy and Paddy Ashdown proved) is the only place it can survive.

The nature of work is changing and society needs to catch up. The markets can no longer be a funnel for the rich to build up their wealth. Redistribution needs to be far more aggressive.

No. It is fundementally wrong as it discriminates against the most vulnerable in society. Common denominators always end up being the lowest.

Continue reading »
Posted in Conference and LDV Members poll | Also tagged and | 31 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Rif Winfield
    Whatever the multiple roles which the Navy must undertake (and here I fully agree with you, Edward), what is essential is the quantity of vessels. However effec...
  • Nick Baird
    @Jana - there is a huge difference between the relatively confined space of the Black Sea (and the Azov Sea in particular) and the North Atlantic where the area...
  • Steve Trevethan
    Might the "Future of War "and its present state also be affected by decisions relating to deciding who are the actual enemies? Might the Russia-Ukrains war b...
  • Edward marsh
    Thanks for the comment Jana. I’m not sure it’s “wrong” per say as the navy has a wide reach of maritime security responsibilities, many I outlined, the ...
  • James Hargrave
    A timely piece given current events. Chronic underinvestment in our energy resilience (especially gas) has left us very exposed, and assuming that isn't solved ...