Some of the most vociferous critics of current welfare policies, in my experience, live in social housing, or have bought their former council house.
They often don’t want more welfare – quite the opposite. They work hard, keep their properties in good order and generally behave as good citizens and they’re fed up with neighbours they see as sponging off the State and causing problems in the area.
The issue of welfare is a genuinely tough one. Clever people from across the political spectrum (and across the world) have wrestled with it for decades.
At heart, the problem is simple to state. We want the welfare system to do two different things and no-one’s quite figured out how to make them do both effectively.
The first is a support net to catch those in genuine need. Plenty of people end up in need of help at different times in their lives. The fact that the State does now help is why we no longer have the slums and appalling poverty of a century ago.
The second is to get people back on their feet, back to being self-sufficient, back to the point where they’re no longer reliant on the State. There’s a wealth of evidence that leading a productive life is good for mental and physical health and politicians on all sides see escaping the welfare trap as a good thing.
Unfortunately, efforts to devise a welfare system that manages both of these have fallen short or been so expensive as to be unworkable.
The Coalition Government will have a crack at the problem, as Labour did before them.
Where changes appear to cut welfare, the worry will be that genuinely vulnerable people are being abandoned. Where they keep people on welfare unecessarily, the charge will be of taxpayers’ money being funnelled into trapping people in welfare to the benefit of no-one, or of soft-touch Britain where taxpayers fund LCD TVs for those who simply can’t be bothered to get a job.
And, of course, opponents of the Government will lose no time in screaming about how any solution is pretty much the end of the world (we’ve already seen people talking, absurdly, about “the end of social housing” in the last few days).
All proposals will have problems, whether it’s Cameron’s ideas on social housing, IDS on benefits or more utopian solutions like Citizens Income, that’s been around for as long as I can remember without ever getting any real political traction. We might well decide, for any of those, that the problems outweigh the benefits and kick the idea into the long grass.
But proposals to improve the system from any party should get a fair hearing. If we judge that they’ll do more harm than good, we can reject them, but who knows. We’re not going to get perfection, but if we’re lucky we might find a way forward that’s a little better than what we have now.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Tom Bailey
Daniel Walker
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
28 Comments
But of course the real motivation for changes in welfare is the desire to cut public spending – not any of the things that are mentioned in this article!
Oh for heaven’s sake just merge with the Tories and have done with it.I must admit I suspected the Lib Dems may be something of an anchor to Cameron’s Conservative crusade, I didn’t expect them to be ideological soul mates. The sooner you fade from the political landscape the better.
Yet another advance apologia from the Orange Tories in anticipation of the savage cuts in welfare they and their blue Tory masters are about to inflict on the poor. Why don’t you follow my link to Left Foot Forward and find out what damaging cuts the Blue and Orange Tory millionaires have already inflicted on society’s most vulnerable. http://www.leftfootforward.org/ I
t’s not going to be like the eighties this time — we’re organised and through data collection are able to hold the blue and Orange Tories to account.
The predictable ranting over welfare reforms may be misplaced
gosh the blog owner must be psychic
With the total slashing of the welfare state by the ConDem Government Britain will face a future where the poorest will face Dickensian conditions with extreme inequality that will take us back to the middle ages. The Lib Dems that have been bought off by their Tory masters will be pulverised at the next election as the masses rise in revolt en masse to defeat them for selling their souls to the devil. There’ll be rioting in the streets at the way they’re attacking public services, NHS, women, disabled, LGBT, dyslexic, those on housing benefit, members of the BME community, single mothers, single fathers and anyone else in my little list people i patronise that I can’t yet think of.
“The sooner you fade from the political landscape the better.”
Talking of which, I see there’s an update from Anthony Wells on the last four YouGov polls. Here are his comments:
Here are YouGov’s figures this week:
YouGov/Sun August 2nd: CON 42% LAB 38% LDEM 12%
YouGov/Sun August 3rd: CON 41% LAB 36% LDEM 13%
YouGov/Sun August 4th: CON 42% LAB 36% LDEM 13%
YouGov/Sun August 5th: CON 44% LAB 36% LDEM 13%
The Lib Dem drop to 12% last weekend was slightly more meaningful than I thought at the time. I said then that it was part of a downwards trend, but that we’d probably see the Lib Dems back up at their average of 14% or so in the next poll. In fact, the Lib Dems this week seem to be down to around 13%.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2770
The Guardian reports today that immigration officials have launched a scheme that will give families with children two weeks in which to leave the country voluntarily. If they do not leave, they will face deportation “at some point” in the two weeks after this.
<b<very 'liberal'
The government are banking on cutting 20% of benefits while less than 1% are projected to have been living dishonestly on benefits. I imagine every estate has someone they’ve seen walking normally through the curtains and then limping as soon as they see another person, ours certainly does, and that’s annoying- but you’re putting the genuinely vulnerable and the genuinely in need in the same bracket as that tiny minority.
@Mike – I am pretty sure Chris “B&B” Grayling has said he was going to review this target in light of these figures re percentage of “fraud” cases
@Andrea Gill: Do you expect him to go from 20% to less than 1%? And will you defend him when he doesn’t?
I’m pretty sure the answers are no and then yes. A month or so ago I had a huge argument, I think you might have been included, about how the Lib Dems had changed their mind about early cuts before the election- citing senior Lib Dems saying that Vince Cable had and three Labour negotiators who claimed so. This was flatly and vehemently denied, everyone who says so must be a liar, the Lib Dems would never do that, etc.
Then Clegg admits it and suddenly everyone thinks it’s right that he did so.
You’re all too scared to stand by a position because you know your party could easily go any which way, and then you’d decide you have to stand by it.
In one sense this article is spot on because it encapsulates well an ever-present policy dilemma. In another sense it appears rather wide of the mark.
First, it assumes these are the sort of issues that can be resolved through evidence and deliberation, an objective weighing up of the pros and cons prior to a decision. The fact that the issues are always with us could be taken to indicate that that isn’t likely.
Second, it assumes that we are operating in a world of rational deliberation. Yet, we have a government that appears eager to take the route of railroading through unpopular measures in the face of opposition: indeed, in the face of evidence that what they are proposing doesn’t actually deliver the benefits claimed (eg free schools).
Where will the ‘fair hearing’ occur? Who is it that might be rejecting these measures – if they apparently do more harm than good – in a way that has any meaningful impact on the chances of them becoming policy? If LibDems (of the non-orange book variety) were to coalsce around the view that current proposals for welfare reform were most likely to penalise the poor, increase inequality, endanger life chances and social mobility, etc. what difference would that make to the chances of the policies being implemented? Not only would it require that the non-orange book LibDems have some leverage over the party leadership/LibDem members of the Coalition government but also that the LibDem members of the Coalition have some leverage over the government agenda. So it would appear to be a big ask.
It’s hilarious how when Labour were in power, its blogs and message boards were flooded with Tory trolls.
Now the Lib Dems are in government, its blogs and message boards are flooded with Labour trolls.
Do you have nothing better to do with your time than to rant and rave like jealous fools now that your party is out of government?
Is this what you call “resistance”? I can really see it working.
@blanco: Ignore disagreeing viewpoints, if you like. It’s your prerogative, you don’t have to reply.
I call it being bored and dissatisfied with commenting on issues from within a Labour echo-chamber. When I want to test a political opinion of mine I could either imagine what the opposition would be and then demolish that strawman, or go looking for that disagreement where it actually exists and address the oppositional stances that exist in real life. The second is much more interesting.
This whole piece is verging on dishonest. Why ? Because not once does the author even consider that the main driver for these “reforms” is to save money.
Don’t assume everyone complaining are “Labour Trolls” … there are a lot of unhappy libdem voters making the same noises. Myself included. But hey ! if using a lazy generalizations (along the lines of “predictable ranting” saves you the effort of engaging and/or thinking then who am I to argue.
“You’re all too scared to stand by a position because you know your party could easily go any which way, and then you’d decide you have to stand by it”
Aye. I think people got burned over the Student Tax which was a great fantastic idea that showed how Vince could sway the coalition’s direction.
Until Uncle Dave told them they were wrong.
@blanco – LOL, astute observation…
Kitty Ussher was on LBC last week explaining some of the problems with welfare and benefits payments, basically saying the IT system was causing most of the problems esp with overpayments, and needs completely taking apart.
the blogs argue with each other while rome burns
“Some of the most vociferous critics of current welfare policies … are fed up with neighbours they see as sponging off the State.”
Yes, of course they are. And of course, they have a point. This has to be balanced against genuine need.
Right now, as recession bites, genuine need is rocketing upwards, while “sponging” declines – after all, you’re not sponging if there simply aren’t any jobs you could find.
So why is now a good time for a “centre-left” party (am I still allowed to call us that, Nick?) to support massive welfare cuts, alongside tax breaks for business?
Labour ‘investment’ vs Tory Cuts was never anything other than a manufactured dividing line anyway.
The difference between the manifesto budgets total spending was not really that significant. Whilst cuts are always going to be painful they were coming under Labour or Tories, I think the change in position of the top Libs can be put down to the fact that they got quite alot of compromise from the Tories and the cuts are not really that different.
Of course we’ll never know what Labour were planning on cutting, since they rather pretended they were not and so didn’t state where their axe would fall.
@ Iain Roberts
‘Some of the most vociferous critics of current welfare policies, in my experience, live in social housing, or have bought their former council house…’ , ‘…they’re fed up with neighbours they see as sponging off the State and causing problems in the area’
That’s one hell of a sweeping generalisation. Do you have any real evidence to justify your ‘experience’ ?
Or are we expected to accept your ‘’experience as a basis to examine welfare policy ?
What is your experience ? You imply by your conclusion that it is extensive enough to know the opinions of those who have bought their former council house and as you do not specify any geographical location, are we to presume that these problems caused by people living on welfare are also nation wide ?
I would suggest you provide substantial and irrefutable evidence to justify that people who are living on welfare are causing quantifiable and disproportionate problems in the area’ or you refrain from using such straw man attacks on societies vulnerable.
People on welfare have a hard enough time as it is, without LDV contributors manufacturing stereotypical accusations of them causing problems.
Please justify your comment or retract it.
@ Tony Kee
Don’t assume everyone complaining are “Labour Trolls” … there are a lot of unhappy libdem voters making the same noises. Myself included.
Ah but it is so much easier to dismiss dissent within the party by using the word ‘troll’ as a pejorative. Then you can stay in denial and assume that all is well in party because we have got a few minor policies through.
It is popular on this site to be dismissed as a troll if you show any dissent. A sign of intellectual naivety maybe ? Or just a fear of engaging with the electorate in case you say something our Tory masters may force us to flip flop on the following week?
The Party is in real trouble and all this denial from within will just make the pain worse when the reality finally hits home.
@John can you explain how the coalition has attacked the lbgt community please?
Or are they just in your generic “we hate the coalition and whatever they do we are going to say it hurts all these people” list?
I read with some interest Iain Roberts piece. Well I’m disabled, the lavish lifestyle “where taxpayers fund LCD TVs for those who simply can’t be bothered to get a job” seems to have passed me by and I’d be grateful to know where I pick up my free telly (unless it’s a silly Daily Mail story). Personally I find being severely disabled a pretty shitty existence, help? there is none. About 15year ago you had a social worker who regularly dropped by, you may say it’s not required but a lot of people slip into depression or are too proud to ask for help so I thought it quite useful and some social interaction was nice. Now you just get assigned some faceless social services figure when needed. I accept a direct payment to manage my own care, of which 1hr per week is set aside for venturing out (jealous eh?), and I’m normally requested two or three times per year to produce all my accounts which again doesn’t fit in with this scrounger/dodger tag we’re getting. I apologise for the rant, but when you read some of these poorly-sourced (from a tabloid probably) you just end up wishing to swap places with the author and see if life is as rosey as he assumes.
Well, at least the government can’t possibly do anything worse than Labour’s attempt, which consisted of creating more complex rules that unemployed people (who tend not to be the best and brightest of the nation) often can’t comprehend, employing more bureaucrats to deal with all the rules, and taking benefits away from people whenever they can find a reason. I’m not quite sure why they thought this would help people get “back on their feet”.
James S,
I really couldn’t much care what Labour might or might not have cut. If it makes you feel better, I will cheerfully acknowledge that they score pretty low on moral principle. But they are now irrelevant has-beens. We have to justify for ourselves what we are doing in government. We should not hide behind “yah-boo, Labour might have done it too.”
Perhaps most of the cuts are inevitable. Perhaps. If we were less ideological, we would be paying more attention to the real financial situation, and we would be looking to adapt our cuts programme, in the light of what actually happens in the economy as events develop. That might mean either more cuts or less cuts. I don’t see anyone in our coalition demonstrating that adaptability (though I suspect Vince would like to, if he was allowed to!) I only see an ideological commitment to savage cuts, alongside a meretricious justification based on slagging off the people who no longer run the government.
Cameron gave the game away. The cuts should be permanent. In other words, the economic situation is merely a convenient cover for far-right policies, which the Tories fear they can only introduce by stealth.
And we Lib Dems are cheerleading all this!
Roy Jenkins, are you turning in your grave?
Does anyone agree that the ideas which Chuka Umunna (Labour MP for Streatham) submitted to Osborne might have been a better way of doing things?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/17/chuka-umunna-letter-george-osborne
@David Allen: Clegg wanted deeper cuts than the Tories. That was something he did manage to say *before* the election. He just pretended not to want them this year.
Labour would probably have cut whatever the government’s civil servants and reviews recommend, just less. It’s a joke to attack an opposition party for not having outlined what they would have cut when the government hasn’t done so yet either- and they’ll be hitting soon.
Cuts may be inevitable, but nowhere near to the extent that you want them to go.
>So why is now a good time for a “centre-left” party (am I still allowed to call us that, Nick?) to support massive welfare cuts, alongside tax breaks for business?
Because 1) the country is skint, and 2) what we need to get people off benefits is private sector jobs, and if you hammer business too hard, they don’t create any.
Same as if you tax the rich beyond what they’re prepared to pay, they move to tax havens and our treasury gets nothing.
Of course, not taxing doesn’t mean they WILL create jobs. They’ll outsource them overseas if it’s cheaper to do so: which we all buy into because we like cheap goods on the shelves.
The welfare state should be a safety net for those who can’t help themselves, not a way of life and a dependency culture for successive generations, which is what it has become in some parts of the country that haven’t found anything to replace the heavy industry jobs lost when Thatcher was in power.
Long as able-bodied people are being paid to stay home, there’ll be less in the pot for those in genuine need.
Places where 1:4 work in the public sector (because that’s all there is) are unsustainable because the the three are paying the wages of the one (yes, the one pays tax – back out of money paid to them by the state in wages), PLUS paying for those out of work.
But if it ain’t manufacturing and ain’t financial services any more, where the new private sector jobs we so desperately need will come from is anyone’s guess.
And riots in the streets won’t solve anything.
@ Cassie
Because….
Spoken like a true Conservative 😉