In May 2010, the Labour Party pledged to cap Housing Benefit. In their manifesto [pdf], they argued that the State shouldn’t be subsidising people to live in private rented properties that “ordinary working families” couldn’t afford.
Over 600 Labour parliamentary candidates happily stood on the pledge, not a whisper of opposition to the idea was heard from their ranks.
Fast forward to October 2010, five months later, and the Coalition Government come up with the same plan.
Not only was the Coalition scheme denounced by Labour in the strongest terms, with talk of “social cleansing” echoing the horrific Kosovan experiences, but the fact that Lib Dem ministers were supporting it was seen as proof positive of the Lib Dems turning into Tories.
Now, the policy itself could turn out to be a good or a bad one – personally I don’t know, and that’s not the point I’m addressing here. The question I’m interested in is why we (any of us) might support and then oppose the same policy even when the facts don’t appear to have changed.
Labour supporters may have fallen foul of a well-known psychological phenomenon, and one I wrote about back in August: that our assessment of whether a policy is good or bad is far more reliant on where it comes from than we’d like to admit to ourselves.
Research in the US shows people – across the political spectrum – will happily find reasons to support a policy they see as coming from their party*.
Our natural tendency as humans is to like or dislike a policy first, then to retro-fit our reasons. (There’s a growing body of evidence that this is pretty much our approach to most conscious decisions we take).
It’s one reason why we get entrenched views – so many of our opinions are down to what we like or dislike. You may be able to persuade me that chocolate is unhealthy and that there are all sorts of reasons for me to eat less, but good luck persuading me I no longer like it – that’s getting into brainwashing territory , it’s much harder and takes a lot longer.
We can avoid that some of the time, if we’re willing to put in the effort. Most of us manage it on occasion and most of us are quite convinced that we’re much better at it than other people – especially those across the political divide (just one reason why science is often hard – it goes against our natural way of reaching conclusions about the world).
In the online world where opinions flow freely and vicious arguments flare at the click of a mouse, and where we’re all sometimes too quick not only to condemn a policy or idea, but to leap to our very own perfectly-formed conclusions about the motivations of others in proposing, or opposing it, perhaps this should cause us to pause for thought.
* For those party members who pride themselves on taking a more oppositional approach to their party’s policy, this will be the grouping or faction they perceive themselves to be a part of.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Remembering Don Cupitt and his television series The Sea of Faith
How to improve the regulation of political polling - The Week in Polls
Why the government are getting it wrong on local government reorganisation
Rwanda scheme ICT costs revealed
John Mc
Simon R
David Evans
David Raw
70 Comments
Whatever the merits of the psychological arguments, the piece simply has a mistaken premise, because it repeats the myth that the housing debate is about the HB ceiling/cap.
In principle, a cap is a legitimate idea, though there are issues about how to implement it.
But that is one of the smallest of the nine different HB changes being proposed – and being introduced separately across a two year period. The cap is estimated to save £65 million, 3% of the total savings from cuts to housing benefit. I recommend the links in the Don Paskino post, including a link to what the 30th percentile would be worth in LHA
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/29/housing-benefit-the-facts/
Much more important in its impact – especially outside London – is the shift of LHA local ceilings from the 50th percentile to the 30th percentile everywhere. Adrian Sanders argued that these proposals are very poorly designed and will cause much misery on LibDemVoice at the weekend
https://www.libdemvoice.org/adrian-sanders-writes-the-cap-that-doesnt-fit-21839.html
Surely the least defensible proposal is to cut housing benefit (the very definition of a top down, one size fits all, personal circumstances ignored policy surely) for anyone on JSA for 12 months. Given that conditionality applies to JSA, can anybody explain the principle behind this proposal? It is intended to get a “give them a kick up the backside” headline in the Daily Express, but has no other merit. I would imagine LibDems ought to oppose that, whoever proposed it. (To his credit, Steve Webb has signalled that he does not think it is a good policy, though he is bound by collective responsibility).
So it ought to be perfectly possible for Labour – and for LD backbenchers – to consistently scrutinise and indeed oppose several of these policies consistently.
Sunder makes some valid points, but I think he misses the main point of the piece. That we, in all parties and all factions, tend to be more narrow-minded than we realise. We may criticise Labour for attacking a cap, despite previously proposing it themselves. But this kind of mistake happens across the political spectrum.
And on this blog. LDV has its fair share of comments which denounce a policy (or defend it) because of who it came from. The paradox is that this is self-defeating. If our reason for commenting is to influence the opinion of others, the more narrow-minded and judgemental we are, the more we will alienate those we seek to influence.
Those who already agree with us may cheer us on, but what’s the point of preaching to the choir? The people who matter are the neutrals, those who come to this blog seeking answers, not angry assertions.
Such visitors are generally intelligent, and can spot a personal attack or a specious argument based on passion rather than reason.
Sadly, they’ll find plenty of specious arguments and personal attacks on this blog, both from opponents of the coalition, and from its supporters. But thankfully, they’ll also find, from both sides, well-informed and thoughtful debate.
Yes, it isn’t *a* cap that’s the problem. It’s *the* cap.
Anyway, from the headline I rushed in here thinking there would be some kind of self-knowledge in this thread. Early cuts from the Tories were evil until they became our salvation with the Lib Dems (coincidentally at the moment when your leadership no longer had to worry about appealing to the electorate and had secure employment in the Tory government).
Nuclear was a tried, tested and failed technology when Chris Huhne said it was. Now it isn’t.
So many examples.
Sunder Katwala
“Whatever the merits of the psychological arguments, the piece simply has a mistaken premise, because it repeats the myth that the housing debate is about the HB ceiling/cap.”
I’d agree with you, Sunder, that the debate isn’t just about the overriding ceiling. However a very senior Labour Party spokesman (Ed Milliband’s right hand man, Sadiq Khan) stated publicly yesterday on the Politics Show that even on the overriding ceiling issue the Labour Manifesto doesn’t mean what we all think it means.
The key section can be found at 29’ 17” in on:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vp0qc/The_Politics_Show_London_31_10_2010/
29’ 17” Sadiq Khan: “Would we have a cap of £400 for those receiving HB in 4 bedroom properties (who, it would mean would have to move out of inner cities – London, and other cities – and move to outer suburbs, with huge turmoil to those families) would we take away, the answer again is no.”
It seems to me there are only limited possibilities:
1. Labour would have had a cap, but it would have been (say) £425 per week.
2. Labour seriously think that £21,000 to £25,000 pa is a rent that “other ordinary working families could afford.”
3. Labour have a cunning plan which would “ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector” at rents which are excessive, but they are just not going to tell anyone.
I’m not really sure that there are any other alternatives.
It does behove us to say “Would we like this policy if it were coming from another party, or from our own” more often.
I’ve actually heard people say “I like this policy, but there must be something wrong with it because it was in the Tory manifesto and they’re evil.” Seems we’ve got a long way to go before we can reach the kind of collaborative politics we Lib Dems espouse, and that’s just changing attitudes in our own party…
I suppose in a way it’s fortunate that the majority of the public aren’t strongly identified with a political party – it would make this behaviour even more of a problem for co-operative politics.
Maybe the cod psychologists want to look into their desires to justify and reconcile their consciences with policies that a few months ago they would never have remotely contemplated and would have labelled as socially divisive or actually even wicked.
Sunder Katwala is quite correct to put the focus on the totality of the reforms. I am a neutral George, although I did vote Lib Dem last time around (to keep out the Tories as Norman Lamb put it to me!) I find the policy on housing to be almost vindictive in its character.
Perhaps a look at reducing tax relief on the pensions of the very rich might have been a more popular (and a morally fairer) way to raise funds. Or the ridiculously high rents charged in Kensington for the very modest properties some families are living in.
Norfolk Boy
“Perhaps a look at reducing tax relief on the pensions of the very rich might have been a more popular (and a morally fairer) way to raise funds.”
Good suggestion – and the Coalition Government have done it!
See e.g. London Eveving Standard 15.10.10:
The tax breaks high earners get on pension savings are to be cut dramatically to save £4 billion a year, it has been announced.
The amount people can save tax-free into a pension each year is being slashed from £255,000 to £50,000 from next April.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23887731-pension-tax-relief-cut-to-save-cash.do
George:
“Sunder makes some valid points, but I think he misses the main point of the piece.”
No, I think he’s hit the nail on the head. The government would rather people discussed the cap and ignored the other changes.
I can only echo his request for someone to explain the merits of the 10% reduction in housing benefit after a year on Jobseekers Allowance. I asked on another thread and was told that most people would expect that “after 12 months the claimant should have found a job or moved someplace cheaper.” Is that really the Lib Dem party line these days? If not, what is?
“Surely the least defensible proposal is to cut housing benefit (the very definition of a top down, one size fits all, personal circumstances ignored policy surely) for anyone on JSA for 12 months.”
Absolutely, My opposition to this isn’t based on some psychological condition, it is based purely on the fact that it is just plain wrong and no justification can be given to persuade me (nor any other liberal I hope) otherwise.
nige (ex LD)
Iain, the term we used when I was studying psychology a lot of years ago was “source credibility” – if someone (or even a political party, say) you don’t trust says something, it is much more likely we will dismiss it – and the reverse is the case if we do trust them. In tribal political parties, of course, there is always “presentation” and “spin”, by which is often meant an attempt to distinguish little tiny fine points, as against major policy. “We would do it like this” rather than like (the hated party B solution) that!
Anthony Aloysius St
“No, I think he’s hit the nail on the head. The government would rather people discussed the cap and ignored the other changes.”
But it isn’t just the Government, is it?
How else do you explain that when Ed Milliband’s right hand man, Sadiq Khan), spoke on the subject to the Politics Show it was one of the only two aspects he spoke about?
On the cap issue, would you concede that the Coalition Government is introducing a policy which the Labour Manifesto itself proposed?
“The question I’m interested in is why we (any of us) might support and then oppose the same policy even when the facts don’t appear to have changed.”
The same could be said for Tuition Fee’s.
However I am still of the opinion, that you can not oppose a policy, until DETAILS of that policy has been disclosed.
I am not defending labour, no matter what you may think. I Believe myself that their should be “reform” and the Housing Benefit Bill needs to come down. I just think there are different ways of tackling it.
And although Labour said in their manifesto, there would be changes to Housing Benefit. they had not specified by what means and who it would target the most.
If for arguments sake, Labour had stayed in Government and they were proposing to introduce the “same” reforms to house benefit, which included cutting housing benefit by 10% for anyone who had been unemployed for 12 months or more, I think you will find the same people would be shouting just as loud at labour as they are here.
The difference is, Labour Supporters and activists where not afraid to shout very loud and PUBLICLY at Labour if they announced policies they did not agree with.
Liberal democrats and indeed conservatives seem to be afraid to speak out publicly on the coalitions policies due to this ridiculous idea, that disagreement would be seen as a sign as a weakness and damage the coalition. (personally I don’t believe this clap trap and I think it is a Tory scare tactic, to keep Liberal Democrats in-line)
Anyway the point is, It is a Liberal Democrat Coalition Government that is introducing this 10% reduction in Housing benefit to the Unemployed of 12 months or more.
So it is for Liberal Democrats who need to “justify” why they will support this policy and why they believe it is “fair”
What I find distasteful about all this is the sense of relief; that we can now attack the Labour party for hypocrisy.
I do not think that benefits claimants should be used as a political football. The problem they face is the problem of the policies that are currently on the table, and which Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander have signed off. This is a policy that has come from nowhere. I do not see any evidence that any research has been done on the impact of these policies, the denials that it will make large numbers of people destitute are most unconvincing.
In May 2010, the Labour Party pledged to cap Housing Benefit. In their manifesto [pdf], they argued that the State shouldn’t be subsidising people to live in private rented properties that “ordinary working families” couldn’t afford.
Where does the word cap appear as i cant see it ,stop trying to put the blame on Labour ,the Lib Dems have become Tories in stealth ,we will see how people judge you at next Mays election .
andy edinburgh
George
Yes, I agree with that general point of the piece, though the housing benefit changes aren’t a particularly good example. This cuts in all directions. The question ‘would I take this position if we weren’t in power/opposition’ is a good one to try to check this a bit.
Yes, Labour would have had to cut public spending, though somewhat less than the CSR overall, and so ought to to reflect this (and signpost at the least the direction of the spending cuts/tax rises) in its advocacy in opposition.
It is self-evidently the case that many Liberal Democrats will now support as reasonable and achievable compromises policies with which many would have decried in very strong terms had their party not become part of the government (most obviously tuition fees, including by LibDem politicians who no longer thought their earlier position credible well before the last election).
But, for me, the least politically honest campaigns of the last Parliament were Tories using the “stop Brown’s NHS cuts” slogan.
@andrew
You say you cannot see where the Labour Manifesto said they would cap HB.
It was here:
Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.
Well said Iain Roberts. Only slightly undermined by the obligatory shoehorning in of a tribal attack on Labour into what was otherwise a perfectly good illustration of the argument that followed.
There is a well worn phrase that, when asked, most people would define socialism as being “whatever the Labour Party does.” Experience so far of reading your website and coalition pronouncements shows the same is apparently true for liberalism and conservatism. Otherwise we would not have Lib Dems arguing that the NHS is not being privatised, that arbitrary caps on housing benefit are fair, as are tenure limits on social housing and that the structural deficit is sufficient reason to abandon any hope of egalitarianism. Nor would we have ordinary Conservatives arguing that crime could be alleviated with something other than mass imprisonment and that the armed forces and police should bear some of the cuts.
IAs for the tribal attack: In purely political terms it does not behove you well to make this apparent hypocrisy such an issue. Firstly, whilst it superficially appears that the statement in the labour manifesto does entail a cap on housing benefit, it could in a more sympathetic reading be taken to mean a cap on rents. I don’t actually believe that to be the intention of the policy, I think it was a populist response to tabloid scare stories, but, so is the coalition policy. The difference is that the experience of the Labour Party taught them to insert sufficient ambiguity into such a statement to gain the populist vote whilst not necessarily being committed to the populist policy. A similar approach to that used for raising “stealth” taxes in order to try and square the circle formed by our nations hypocritical duality of wanting first class services supplied by the state and to expect the state to provide all of the bases of social justice whilst refusing to pay for them to do so through direct taxation. Second; the problem with this incessant attack on how ‘the Labour party would have done the same’, is that it is an implicit admission of guilt, ‘we know it’s wrong but you would have been just as bad’.
The tone of the housing benefit debate and the security of tenure for council housing is one built upon the same emotive posturing as the wider benefits debate and is designed to undermine support for the welfare state. Ironically given his history, Ian Duncan Smith is the only government spokesman who speaks in terms that do not support that dogma and thus opens the door to a fairer settlement.
The Labour party in government fell for the same propagandist tone set by the media and never stood up for the good that they did. Ultimately the last government followed a liberal agenda on most things but failed to on civil liberties and law & order and the glaring “mistake” of Iraq. By dismissing the whole record the last thirteen years as authoritarian and socialist then the Lib Dems are undermining their own cause of liberal egalitarianism by claiming that many of the tools to achieve it were discredited by their association with Labour. On the other side of the coin by accepting the cuts process in full you are implicitly accepting that liberal egalitarianism is only affordable in times of affluence and is nothing more than a desire of your members rather than a principle of philosophical truth. Cutting off your nose to spite your face could be said to apply.
So you end up arguing that the cuts to social services are justified by having been similar to proposals by the Labour Party and that they are also justified by a Conservative analysis of the economy as being caused by Labour profligacy. By arguing thus you are effectively setting the Labour Party up as the arbiters of social justice and the Conservatives of economic competence. In both cases you are implicitly accepting that adherence to liberal principles would be wrong in the current circumstances.
Although you frame your article primarily as a chastisement of the Labour Party i would hope that it gives Lib Dems sufficient reason for self reflection in a way that, as much as you refuse to acknowledge it, Labour members and supporters are already engaged, albeit too late.
@Simon Shaw
“@andrew
You say you cannot see where the Labour Manifesto said they would cap HB.
It was here:
Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford”
To be fair Simon you are substituting the word “reform” for the word “Cap”
And Andrew is right to say that the word “Cap” does not appear in the Labour Parties Manifesto.
I know you will try to spin the sentence, with a question asking what Labour meant by “reform” and surly that meant “Caps”
But truth be told, “reform” could take on many shapes.
andrew
“we will see how people judge you at next Mays election”
Why wait until next May? There are council by-elections every week.
In 145 elections held in the 6 months to the end of October voters have judged Lib Dems to the extent that we have made 3 net gains (21 successful defences and 10 gains more than compensating for 7 losses).
Full details here:
http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.com/2010/10/lib-dem-by-election-results-continue_31.html
matt
“To be fair Simon you are substituting the word “reform” for the word “Cap” “
No I am not.
The key word(s) there is not “reform” – which is one of those weasel-words which can mean anything you want it to mean.
The key words are “to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.” And that means a cap.
going by your own research Simon
Labour are up 15 seats
LibDems are 3 seats up
Conservatives 13 Seats Down
I would also be intrigued to see by how much Liberal Democrats “held” their seats by
The results would suggest that the Gap is being closed between Liberals and Labour and if their was a general election, Labour would probably walk away with a Majority.
in my opinion, I think it is fair to say that these results are showing that the “majority” of people, do not support this Conservative led, coalition government.
I think there is a lot of truth in Iain’s post – there are certainly a fair few people whose approach to issues seems to be: ‘The Tories are the spawn of the devil; the Tories support policy X; therefore policy X must be the work of the devil.”
This approach, and particularly argumnet based on guessing at another party’s motivation behind a particular policy, tends to lead to very noisy but often not very enlighteing debate.
Personally I prefer to judge policies on their merits. There were policies of the last Government I agreed with and there are Tory policies I agree with, even though I generally disagreed with the Labour Government and generally diagree with the Tories.
I wonder if the best way forward for the Coaltion is to appoint former Labour ministers to lead reviews on the contraversial things, as they did with John Hutton on public sector pensions?
It is also important that the Coalition ministers don’t fall into the mindset of ignoring everything the opposition say, just because they are the opposition.
So in the discussion about Housing Benefit reform, which I broadly support, some very important issue shave been raised about how difficult it may be for families on low incomes to move from one property to another, and on the reasons for the 10% cut for people on JSA after one year. I hope that the Coalition’s ‘new politics’ will include giving reasoned responses on some of these issues.
Saying that, it then behoves the opposition to shut up about ‘U-turns’ when what the Government has actually done is listen and act.
@Sunder
Thanks for the links. Having looked at the list of new LHA figures, and knowing the sort of rent levels in the area where I live (south Abingdon) I am reassured that the amounts being suggested are adequate for people to find housing. I also note that they allow a level of expenditure on housing that is well above what many working families in this area spend on their housing costs.
I agree with you that the 10% cut for those on JSA for over a year requires more explanation and thought.
@Sunder “Yes, I agree with that general point of the piece”
I thought you would. It’s one reason I always read your pieces with interest.
“This cuts in all directions. The question ‘would I take this position if we weren’t in power/opposition’ is a good one”
Indeed. A good question. It can bring us to realise that we’re wrong to tribally support a policy when in government, or that we’re wrong to oppose it in opposition. And if that leads to more honest public debate, and better government decisions, it’s a good thing.
It can also make us realise that, sometimes, there are no good options, just a lot of choices which all have serious problems. Something I’ve become acutely aware of since the deficit crisis.
(BTW Just a minor quibble. Regarding Labour cutting public spending somewhat less than the CSR. Personnally, I think that Labour would have had to cut nearly as much, but over a longer timeframe, with extra tax rises to make up the difference)
Regarding the 10% cut in housing benefit for the long-term unemployed, I’ve repeatedly said I oppose it. But I’m beginning to think it shouldn’t be the focus of this debate. I can’t see any logical justification for it, it’s not planned for a couple of years, and there’s a lot of opposition, including, it seems, among ministers. My guess is it’ll be dropped before being implemented.
I think the more significant question may be, as Sunder says, changes to LHA local ceiling. Frankly, I can’t understand why the Labour leadership have got side-tracked on the cap issue, when this change will effect far more people. I can see the justification for the cap. The change to LHA local ceilings is much more troubling, though I’ve not yet come to a fixed position.
@matt “However I am still of the opinion, that you cannot oppose a policy, until DETAILS of that policy has been disclosed”
Agreed. And I also prefer to allow time to chew over a policy, and hear both points of view, before coming to a firm conclusion.
Regarding whether Labour are proposing a cap, I’m with Simon Shaw. I think Labour’s policy would have meant a cap. Which makes their strategy over the last week difficult to understand. I think, probably, they made a mistake, and are now reluctant to back away from the issue. Boris Johnson’s intervention, paradoxically, is probably making that even more difficult.
@Sunder “for me, the least politically honest campaigns of the last Parliament were Tories using the “stop Brown’s NHS cuts” slogan”
I’m afraid no party covered themselves in glory during the election.
No one really squared with the public about about how deep the cuts would be and what hard choices would be necessary. I’ve heard the phrase “the liar’s election” applied to it, and it’s more accurate than I’d like.
@ simon
We will have to wait till the next election to see what LABOUR does about hb ,as the way you and your palls are going Labour will walk the next election ,when an oap or a disabled person ask you on the doorstep “Why you were all for no cuts,no vat rise ,no tuition fees ,and letting the guy who pays less tax than his cleaner away scottt free”
what will you say ,as we all know you had the books and borrowing was lower than expected ,how can any Lib Dem policy or manifesto ever be looked at seriously again ,you changed your mind over cuts in a weekend ,you will get lambasted for the way Nick sucked up to CAMERON ,CLEGG WAS RIPPING HIM DURING THE ELECTION THEN DONE EVERYTHING HE ASKED ,
Vince Cable bottled it to go to the university yesterday as he was going to get it tight for his double dealing
,We are heading for a “FUC###G CAR CRASH ON TERROR LAWS” Camerons words wait till you start ripping into each other over that (cant wait) its great in opposition but now you are in power and are not dooing to good
andy edinburgh
I have gone through the Liberal Democrats 2010 Manifesto and nowhere in there can I see any proposals which would support the Governments announcements to Cap Housing Benefits, Reduce LHA Limit’s or cut Housing Benefits by 10% for those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more.
I did find this
page 22 of Manifesto
Bringing 250,000 empty homes back into use. People who own
these homes will get a grant or a cheap loan to renovate them so that
they can be used: grants if the home is for social housing, loans for
private use.
(I have not heard this policy being implemented)
On Page 24 manifesto
We will also create hundreds of thousands of opportunities for young people
affected by the recession. A work placement scheme with up to 800,000
places will ensure that young people have the opportunity to gain skills,
qualifications and work experience even if they can’t find a job. Young people
on the scheme would be paid £55 a week for up to three months. We will
also fund 15,000 extra Foundation Degree places, fully meet the up-front
costs of adult apprenticeships, and increase the Adult Learning Grant to £45
a week for 18–24 year-olds in Further Education.
(Have not heard this policy being implemented)
Nowhere does it mention “however we will reduce Housing Benefit by 10% after 12 months for those who are not in Employment, work placement scheme or Education)
These policies where not mentioned anywhere, so surly instead of saying what Labour would have done, The Party should be saying why they support these policies.
Cameron is clear where he stands on these policies, remember he said
“‘I know you don’t like the answer that we are sticking to our policies, but we are sticking to our policies,’
“Regarding the 10% cut in housing benefit for the long-term unemployed, I’ve repeatedly said I oppose it. But I’m beginning to think it shouldn’t be the focus of this debate.”
As it’s not remotely near to being the focus of the debate, I wonder why you should say that.
Perhaps it’s another manifestation of the “loyalty” you spoke of previously, which means that party members keep as quiet as possible about aspects of coalition policy they disagree with? On the contrary, I suggest if people really want this policy dropped, they’d be well advised to say so very loudly, very clearly and as often as possible. And I’m sure that would be more beneficial for the party than giving the appearance of acquiescence in such indefensible policies.
@matt
You do say some bizarre things at times.
“I would also be intrigued to see by how much Liberal Democrats “held” their seats by”</i If you want to see how well Lib Dems did in the 21 seats that we held and the 10 seats that we won, full details are on the ALDC website: http://www.aldc.org/elections/by-election-results/
“The results would suggest that the Gap is being closed between Liberals and Labour “ That we should be so lucky! Unfortunately, the results do not show that.
“if their was a general election, Labour would probably walk away with a Majority.” No, what the results do suggest is that Labour have improved on the poor position they were in last May.
“these results are showing that the “majority” of people, do not support this Conservative led, coalition government.” A singularly bizarre thing to say at a time when the Conservatives and Lib Dems between them enjoy the support of over 50% of voters.
matt
” I have gone through the Liberal Democrats 2010 Manifesto and nowhere in there can I see any proposals which would support the Governments announcements to Cap Housing Benefits.”
Sorry, did you miss the bit where is says:
We will oppose any reforms in Housing Benefit so as to ensure that we carry on subsidising people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families cannot afford.
@Simon Shaw
“You do say some bizarre things at times”
Can I just say I welcome your opinion, when put in a eloquent manor 😉
“A singularly bizarre thing to say at a time when the Conservatives and Lib Dems between them enjoy the support of over 50% of voters.”
I don’t think I would use the words “enjoy the support” when this coalition Government has embarked on the fastest, deepest and most regressive Budget in Decades. which was not supported by 63.52% of the Electorate
63.52% of the Public voted for a slower more gradual cuts to Spending.
“if their was a general election, Labour would probably walk away with a Majority.” No, what the results do suggest is that Labour have improved on the poor position they were in last May” Labour are gaining council seats across the country in the By-Elections, whilst Conservatives are losing massively, that supports my claim that if their where a General Election Labour would end up being the biggest party and probably a majority Government. Even the latest polls show that labour are short by 23 Seats
That’s exactly the reason why Cameron is scared stiff of this coalition failing, and the reason why Clegg is so keen for his party not to publicly speak out about coalition policies.
The 10% cut for those on JSA for over a year requires to be rejected and scorned for the wicked spiteful attack on the poor that Osborne and Cameron dreamed up. So Simon Hughes is absolutely correct in threatening a backbench rebellion over these planned cuts to housing benefit proposals he correctly identifies as “harsh and draconian”.
@simon shaw
“We will oppose any reforms in Housing Benefit so as to ensure that we carry on subsidising people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families cannot afford”
Where does it say that?
@matt
Look at the bottom of page 19:
We will oppose any reforms in Housing Benefit so as to ensure that we carry on subsidising people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families cannot afford.
@ Matt, @ Simon Shaw.
Taking current polling averages (40% Tory, 37% Lab, 14% LibDem, 9% other), and plugging them into the BBC polling predictor (which works on FPTP), if there were an election tomorrow, the seat split would go Labour 313, Con 286, LibDem24, others 27; we would presumably be supporting a minority Labour government.
Its guesswork of course. But it’s as good an illustration of where the country’s head is at vs. the analysis of by-election results. And it is fun. If rather worrying.
andrew
“We will have to wait till the next election to see what LABOUR does about hb”
Although I couldn’t follow most of your posting, that raises an interesting point, Andrew.
Does anyone (even you, Andrew) seriously think that Labour would go into the next election with a Manifesto that committed themselves to repealing all (or even some) of the changes which the Coalition Government make to Housing Benefit?
Doesn’t that really say it all?
@ LDV Bob “The 10% cut for those on JSA for over a year requires to be rejected and scorned for the wicked spiteful attack on the poor that Osborne and Cameron dreamed up.”
Under which definition of poverty do you beleive everyone on JSA is poor?
Yeah what exactly is so wrong about forcing people into destitution anyway?
Simon Shaw,
“matt
” I have gone through the Liberal Democrats 2010 Manifesto and nowhere in there can I see any proposals which would support the Governments announcements to Cap Housing Benefits.”
Sorry, did you miss the bit where is says:
We will oppose any reforms in Housing Benefit so as to ensure that we carry on subsidising people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families cannot afford.”
What you’ve done, you clever fellow you, is to take the quote from the Labour manifesto, turn it through 180 degress to make it say the opposite, and then tease us all with the suggestion that you can find the reversed version “at the bottom of page 19” in the Lib Dem manifesto. What a hoot! What a jolly jape! You joined your mates in the Bullingdon or something?
@David Allen
I was going to say “Well spotted, David”, but as it was so completely obvious, I won’t!
matt would have been perfectly reasonable in attacking Lib Dems if our Manifesto had said that – but it didn’t. And that is my point.
It would just be really pleasant, for once, if one of our “Labour friends” were to acknowledge that on the £21,000 (etc) overriding limit, the Coalition Government are implementing a policy contained in the Labour Manifesto.
“Under which definition of poverty do you beleive everyone on JSA is poor?”
I’m sorry Mr Tebbit but are you being serious or have I stumbled into the Daily Mail by mistake ?
Lets not pretend the vast majority of those out of work don’t have to survive on a weekly sum which an MP, or indeed city councillor, would struggle to survive on for five minutes.
JSA
Aged 16 – 24 £51.85
Aged 25 or over £65.45
You actually believe this is vast riches from which 10% of a persons housing benefit can be plucked with Thatcherite impunity ? Thank God Simon Hughes and other Liberal Demorat MPs aren’t so ludicrously out of touch.
@simon Shaw
“I would also be intrigued to see by how much Liberal Democrats “held” their seats by”</i If you want to see how well Lib Dems did in the 21 seats that we held and the 10 seats that we won, full details are on the ALDC website: http://www.aldc.org/elections/by-election-results/"
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusions you have.
From what I could see, the true figures are
14 Held Seats but lost % of the vote
7 Held Seats gained %of the vote
10 held seats No details
11 held seats (No Labour Candidate)
12 gained Seats
5 gained seats no Details
13 gained Seats ( But No Labour Candidate Ran)
1 gained seat (not opposed)
13 Lost Seats
+5 Lost Seats where there was no Labour candidate running.
92 Seats Lost % share of the votes
59 Seats Gained % share of the votes
So I stand by my previous comment 🙂
@Simon Shaw
“It would just be really pleasant, for once, if one of our “Labour friends” were to acknowledge that on the £21,000 (etc) overriding limit, the Coalition Government are implementing a policy contained in the Labour Manifest”
No what your coalition is actually doing is implementing a policy that they have given no justification for, on why they would reduce HB by 10% for anyone who has been unemployed for over 12 months.
And why they are reducing LHA to 30% of the median rents.
These are not policies that labour said they would do, no matter how you to try to spin it.
Not to mention the Lib Dems doing best in places where the Tory vote has fallen dramatically. Tactical voters, Conservatives who see the local Lib Dem as better, whatever. It isn’t the Liberal Democrats winning so much as it is the Coalition winning.
@matt
Why can’t you acknowledge it?
The fact that I refer specifically to one aspect (“that on the £21,000 (etc) overriding limit, the Coalition Government are implementing a policy contained in the Labour Manifesto”), and you then refer to two others is a bit of a giveaway.
Mr Simon Shaw, you saw my comment in the other thread ( https://www.libdemvoice.org/labours-manifesto-pledge-to-cap-housing-benefit-21858.html#comment-149615 ) clarifying that Labour proposed a cap on Local Housing Allowance of £1100 per week in the March Budget (links in my comment) and you responded to it: https://www.libdemvoice.org/labours-manifesto-pledge-to-cap-housing-benefit-21858.html#comment-149627
So for you to claim that “if one of our “Labour friends” were to acknowledge that on the £21,000 (etc) overriding limit, the Coalition Government are implementing a policy contained in the Labour Manifesto” you are being thoroughly, shamefully disingenuous (or you just have a very bad memory). How is an £1100 per week cap the same as a £400 per week cap?
And by the way, I am not a “Labour friend” at the moment, I am still a member of the Liberal Democrats, but with each new policy announcement I have to ask myself what am I sticking around for?
Mike(The Labour one)
“Not to mention the Lib Dems doing best in places where the Tory vote has fallen dramatically. Tactical voters, Conservatives who see the local Lib Dem as better, whatever. It isn’t the Liberal Democrats winning so much as it is the Coalition winning.”
There’s a lot of truth in that, which is why, in my own area, we are targetting Conservative seats to make gains next May.
I also think the “Coalition winning” point is why many opinion polls (YouGov in particular) are so clearly out of line with what is happening on the ground (e.g. in council by-elections). In actual elections a sizeable part of the electorate is what might be termed “pro-Coalition Government” and where Lib Dems are in with a chance we do well at harvesting that vote.
What this means is that in the two thirds or so of the country which are not especially Labour-inclined, Lib Dems are doing quite well in local council by-elections. Stronger Labour areas are more difficult than before.
@Simon Shaw
“Why can’t you acknowledge it?”
Because as I have said previously, You can not comment on a policy until the “details of that policy” are announced.
I have also said quite clearly that if labour where in government and where proposing the “same” policy at the same level of cuts, I would be shouting just as loudly in their direction.
My opinion is not biased as it is Liberal Democrats introducing the Policy.
My opinion remains unchanged.
I also have grave concerns about the announcements to councils and housing associations being allowed to charge 80% of the market rates.
As I have said in a previous post.
I know people who are currently tenants in social housing (council, Housing associations) will not be charged at the new 80% market rates.
But any NEW tenants will be charged at 80%.
we all know there is a shortage of social housing, hence the reason that so many people have to rent in the private sector. But new tenants move in and out of social housing every day.
And these new tenants are the ones would could see rents at 80% of the market value, resulting in a higher housing benefit claim.
It is also worth pointing out that, the Government have said that these new rules would not apply to existing tenants.
However.
If 2 households do a mutual exchange, that becomes a new tenancy and you have to sign a new tenancy agreement and would therefore come into the new 80% Rate. (if they where HB claimants) that would raise the Housing Benefit Bill.
If a Couple have a joint tenancy and that couple splits up, You can not just take 1 persons name off the tenancy, you have to end the tenancy and apply for the property again, although this is normally awarded to the woman, with the child. It still becomes a New Tenancy Agreement and therefore liable for the 80% rate. Increasing the housing benefit bill again.
If for whatever reason you are a current council tenant, and you apply to the council to move you for, social, medical, personal, reasons or simply a larger house, because of extended family. You will take up a new tenancy agreement and again could be at the 80% rate.
The only people who are protected from the 80% are existing tenants with existing agreements, so as long as they never move from their current accommodation, then no they would not be effected
These are not policies that Labour said they would introduce. But it is policies that are being introduced by the coalition government.
There is no comparison in what labour said in it’s manifesto “to reform housing benefit” and the policies that are being announced by the coalition government.
@AndrewM
Firstly, please don’t (from your position of anonymity) accuse me of being “thoroughly, shamefully disingenuous.”
Secondly, would you please carefully reread what I posted, in reply to you, on the other thread. If you are being fair, you may then wish to come back and apologise to me.
@Simon Shaw
Liberal Democrats are making most of their gains in seats where there are not even “labour candidates” running
As a whole the liberal democrat councillors shares of the vote are going down in 3/4 of the elections held so far.
Labour are taking seats from Conservatives.
And they are also increasing their share of the vote in almost every seat they have ran for so far.
The cuts have not even started to take effect yet.
Once people start seeing the redundancy figures and the cuts start to bite, Then you will really see your share of the votes fall.
@matt
Have you read the full article (which I wrote) at:
http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.com/2010/10/lib-dem-by-election-results-continue_31.html
It included the following comment:
“Labour continue to do well, normally winning a few seats off the Conservatives each month, although it is interesting to note that no Lib Dem seats have been lost to Labour for the last 3½ months.
Over the 6 months May – October 2010 Lib Dems are net 3 seats up: 21 successful defences and 10 gains more than compensating for 7 losses. Labour are net 15 seats up; Conservatives net 13 seats down and Others are net 5 seats down.”
So, just to be clear, it was I who wrote: “Labour continue to do well”
I think it is clear to most readers whether it is you or I who is doing the spinning here.
@Simon Shaw
But I don’t think your comments on this thread where a fair representation of the actual results in all the elections since May.
“In 145 elections held in the 6 months to the end of October voters have judged Lib Dems to the extent that we have made 3 net gains (21 successful defences and 10 gains more than compensating for 7 losses)”
http://www.aldc.org/elections/by-election-results/page/1
If you look at all the results for all the wards in the by-elections, it paints a very different Picture to the one you where trying.
.
@Simon Shaw
It’s fair enough to point out that the Lib Dems aren’t losing seats in council elections, but I don’t expect it to last. I thought this last May, when I wrote https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-enter-the-storm-with-our-eyes-wide-open-19653.html .
So far, we’ve weathered the storm better that I had expected. But I still think it.
Political parties piloting the country through an austerity programme tend to suffer short-term punishment in the polls. But, if they do it well, they may gain respect and support after the event. I think that’ll happen to us.
I’m cautious about talking up our current support. The coalition was the right thing to do and sorting out the budget is essential. But we need to be mentally prepared for the going to get extremely tough.
@AndrewM
On the matter where you accused me of being “thoroughly, shamefully disingenuous”, I trust you have read what George Kendall has said (more eloquently than I) this evening on the other thread you referred to.
He said this:
“Agreed. From the Times article, they implemented a cap of £1100/wk in March, which would come into force in October next year.
They also had a manifesto commitment to “ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford”.
Surely, the two are entirely separate. I can’t see how a maximum rent of £57200 per year could remotely be described as a rent that “ordinary working families could afford”. Can you?
The article says: “Until now, the Government has shied away from tackling this benefit, fearing that there may be too many losers.” Governments of all persuasions always put difficult decisions off until after an election. Surely, this was just another example.
As a general rule I distrust everyone who is incapable of equivocation… well, nearly.
So, if Labour truly believes in progress they should give credit where credit is due and head-off any potential deadlock on the issues, as it is Labour are starting to look more like they are being led by their vested interests in a strategy of unilateral and unbending opposition.
I’d have much more sympathy for Miliband & Co if they could take a less confrontational approach and could play the role of an honest broker, but all that comes across whenever I pay attention is a crazy-eyed demagogue and a group of sheep cowering in fear at the threat of losing over-extravagant entitlements.
The thought that Labour’s immaturity will come back to haunt them is more than scant consolation.
@ Simon Shaw
When Lib Dems,start claiming, as they regularly do on this site, that local election results “prove” that the opinion polls are wrong I am reminded of the response given on Yougov’s Q&A section:-
“Equally a few people point to local government by-elections, but when compared to general election results these normally grossly overestimate Liberal Democrat support.”
@LDV Bob
“Under which definition of poverty do you beleive everyone on JSA is poor?”
I’m sorry Mr Tebbit but are you being serious or have I stumbled into the Daily Mail by mistake ?
Lets not pretend the vast majority of those out of work don’t have to survive on a weekly sum which an MP, or indeed city councillor, would struggle to survive on for five minutes.
JSA
Aged 16 – 24 £51.85
Aged 25 or over £65.45
You actually believe this is vast riches from which 10% of a persons housing benefit can be plucked with Thatcherite impunity ? Thank God Simon Hughes and other Liberal Demorat MPs aren’t so ludicrously out of touch.”
No, I asked you a straightforward question.
On what definition of poverty do you believe everyone on JSA is poor?
I asked this because your previous comment implied that you thought being on JSA was the same thing of being poor, and I just wondered what definition of ‘poor’ you used to come to this conclusion.
I note that you haven’t answered the question.
“I note that you haven’t answered the question.”
And I note that the only person here who has attempted to defend this 10% reduction – assuming you weren’t trying to defend it – is still the one who said that most people would expect that “after 12 months the claimant should have found a job or moved someplace cheaper.”
But by all means carry on trying to score debating points rather than addressing the substantive ones.
Neil
On what definition of poverty do you believe everyone on JSA is poor?
The widely accepted definition of poverty is having an income which is less than 60% of the national average (excluding the wealthiest members of society). On this measure, the proportion of the UK population defined as in poverty is roughly one in five.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4070112.stm
That would include 100 percent of people on JSA
You can of course argue about relative poverty, absolute poverty and social exclusion but to try and make the point that a person on JSA isn’t poor just doesn’t match up to facts.
You aren’t allowed to have much savings or another income if you get JSA.
I am sure you (or the daily Mail) can find a few exceptions, where someone has milked the system somehow, but it is safe to say that if you are on JSA (and you need to provide your own housing) then you are by that very fact, poor.
Neil
Another source for the defintion of poverty…
Just under 1 in 4 people in the UK – or nearly 13 million people – live in poverty, according to the latest figures. This includes nearly 1 in 3 children, almost 4 million
What is the UK definition of poverty?
Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01. This is the ‘poverty line’ which has been accepted recently across the European Union to measure the extent of poverty in member states; it is not the same as a comprehensive definition of poverty, which includes many other dimensions. These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid, and include the self-employed.
http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=68016
JSA + housing = poverty
@Simon Shaw
You claimed:
“It would just be really pleasant, for once, if one of our “Labour friends” were to acknowledge that on the £21,000 (etc) overriding limit, the Coalition Government are implementing a policy contained in the Labour Manifesto.”
And the policy in the Labour manifesto that you claim the Coalition are implementing is:
“Housing Benefit will be reformed to ensure that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford.”
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech to the Conservative Party Conference said that the cap on benefits that he announced for those out of work would be “set at the level that the average working family earns.”[1] I think it is reasonable to assume that George Osborne’s “average working family” can be equated to the Labour manifesto’s “ordinary working family”. So how much does an ordinary working family earn? In the press release accompanying the Chancellor’s speech, HM Treasury tells us that according to the Family Resources Survey: “Median income earnings after tax for working households is currently £479 per week”.[2]
Can you honestly claim that an ordinary working family with £480 a week can afford to spend up to £400 a week on rent (more than £1,700 a month and more than £20,000 a year)? They would be spending 83% of their income on the rent alone, not even including utilities. To me, that just doesn’t sound very likely, although I’m happy to be proven wrong if you can show me an example of a family that somehow manages to make it work. I’d be quite interested to get some money-saving tips from them, actually.
By the way, Iain Roberts, the author of this article and the one on Saturday, seems to agree on this point: “Perhaps Labour genuinely believe that “ordinary working families” in London can afford to spend £20,000 a year on their rent or mortgage.”[3] Just replace ‘Labour’ with ‘the Coalition’ and yes, that’s a very good question to ask.
If the Coalition (or Labour for that matter) really were implementing that manifesto policy to the letter and making sure that Local Housing Allowance was only paid up to a level that ordinary working families (by George Osborne’s definition) earning £480 per week could actually, realistically afford, the cap would be set substantially lower and tens of thousands more families would be harmed by these “harsh and draconian” (© Simon Hughes) cuts.[4]
The fact is, Labour was spinning when it made that pledge in its manifesto and George Osborne was spinning when he announced the Coalition policy of the total cap on benefits.
Therefore, I will apologise for calling you “thoroughly, shamefully disingenuous”; that was an overreaction on my part and I’m sorry. On further reflection, you were merely being disingenuous and misleading, and I will not apologise for calling you out on that.
[1] http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/10/George_Osborne_Our_tough_but_fair_approach_to_welfare.aspx
[2] http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_48_10.htm
[3] https://www.libdemvoice.org/labours-manifesto-pledge-to-cap-housing-benefit-21858.html
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11616741
Liberal Neil wrote –
“On what definition of poverty do you believe everyone on JSA is poor? ”
This question has already been answered in a serious manner but I just can’t believe it was posed as such so I’m replying in the spirit it was asked.
ROFLMAO 🙂
http://www.voa.gov.uk/LHADirect/Documents/LHA_percentile_rates_Nov_2010.html
provides an Excel Document showing information for all regions.
It gives current LHA rates as they stand today at 50th percentile
and what they will be in April 2011, When LHA is reduced to 30th Percentile
It might help people better understand what is going on, and how it might effect people in your own area’s.
I remember when Labour got hammered at the polls in the last metro/unitary elections and 2 Labour spokespeople went onto the BBC and put forward 2 completely different views.
One said they’d had a shocking night, a response to government ‘not listening’ to people and that they needed to change to win back votes.
Another tried to spin her way out of the situation by saying low turnout helps the Lib Dems and Tories win, how Labour didn’t put as much work in as the other parties because it was busy ‘getting on with the job’ of governing, how some seats were won with tiny majorities showing most people (had they voted) would’ve voted Labour……….and various other nonsense phrases.
Let’s not be like that second spokesman and try and conceal all bad news. Our vote in many anti-tory areas has gone down rapidly. Unsurprising. People who hate tories rather than like labour (there are lots of them) won’t vote for us over Labour anymore, unless our candidates are well known and hard working.
Being in Coalition was a pyrrhic victory, being in government allows us to do things I never thought would happen, like raising the threshold and not replacing trident this parliament. as well as blunting the right of the tory party. But I was convinced we’d be wiped out across the north, the cities and London. The wipeout isn’t happening. But the results show that we need to seriously look at the shires, market towns, coastal areas and even true-blue rural heartlands to make gains. We’re nicking seats off the Tories at the moment. As people get tired of Ed Miliband (they will, he’s boring) I remain convinced we’ll take seats off Labour, especially if the economy grows well.
So yes, there’s been some bad news hidden amongst the good news, but it is, based on the circumstances, good news and the trolls on here trying to make out that every result, even a win, is a bad one should be ignored. Where it’s bad, acknowledge it’s bad, but where it’s good, build on it. Where we work, we win.
Mike
@Liberal Neil
And I note that when it comes right down to it you don’t seem to care about the definition of poverty when you can pretend that I haven’t already answered your ‘crucially important’ semantic trivia.
‘Vast majority’ means what it says, though overwhelming majority would actually have been closer to the mark. So what you chose to imply is frankly amateurish sophistry and cheap deflection tactics.
The current annual salary for an MP is £65,738. (excluding allowances and expenses)
The annual income for the vast majority of those on JSA is around £3000.
So would it also upset you if someone described MPs as NOT POOR considering it’s almost TRIPLE the average UK salary which is about £23,000 ? And more than TWENTY times the annual income of someone on JSA ?
Or would the fact that a few multi-millionaires MPs (like say…. Cameron and Osborne) fall outside even that income based scale outrage your sensitive semantic soul again ?
@AndrewM
You “claim” to be a Liberal Democrat member. You repeat your accusation that I am “being disingenuous and misleading” apparently on the basis that the Coalition Government’s overriding HB cap of £21,000 is too high to be what the Labour Manifesto meant.
That is beyond bizarre!
So if I had asked my question slightly differently, as follows:
“It would just be really pleasant, for once, if one of our “Labour friends” were to acknowledge that on the £21,000 (etc) overriding limit, the Coalition Government are working towards implementing a policy contained in the Labour Manifesto.”
are you saying that would not have been “disingenuous and misleading”?
In that case I rephrase the question and would ask that you withdraw your accusation.
I would define someone being in poverty if they had £50.85 a week to live in.
Even if they where receiving full HB to cover all their rents, they would still be left with the following bills.
Electric £10 a week
Gas £5 a week
Total Fuel Bill £15 a week
£50.85 – £15.00 = 29.5% of income being spent on fuel = Fuel Poverty
Disposable Income £35.85 a week
Weekly water rates £7.00 a week
TV licence £2.79 a week
Total £9.79 a week
Disposable Income £35.85- £9.79= £26.06 A week or to put another way £3.72 a Day
£3.72 a day to spend, to be able to feed, clothe,toiletries and cleaning
And lets not forget that we expect that person who is out of work to be mobile and look for work, which means they need to spend money on ” buses & travel” as Ian Duncan Smith said, To look for work in other towns.
With today’s soaring food prices, I personally take the view that £3.72 a day to feed yourself is inadequate, yet alone to clothe and clean yourself.
I take the view that this is someone living in Poverty.
@Simon Shaw: I am indeed a member of the Liberal Democrats; I joined shortly before the election (and I even sent a tenner as a donation before I actually joined), both because I thought I genuinely believed in what the Liberal Democrats stood for and I thought they believed it too. Do you remember all that nonsense that Nick Clegg talked about during the election campaign, a “new politics”, “we have a fantastic opportunity to do things differently for once”, etc.? Well I’m one of the suckers who actually believed him. Unfortunately, with each passing week, the “new politics” looks very much like the old politics.
Do you remember also the election broadcast where Nick Clegg walks through the streets of London, strewn with the broken promises of previous Governments?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTLR8R9JXz4
As one of the commenters so accurately notes: “Oh what a sick joke this is now”. So yes, I am a member of the Liberal Democrats. For the moment. Will I still be a member after next May? Right now, it’s not looking very likely at all.
On the subject of Housing Benefit, if you had indeed said: “It would just be really pleasant, for once, if one of our “Labour friends” were to acknowledge that on the £21,000 (etc) overriding limit, the Coalition Government are working towards implementing a policy contained in the Labour Manifesto.” I would agree that is partially true, though still somewhat misleading, as Labour had already announced the figure for their cap in the March Budget, and the Coalition policy goes much further than that (to say nothing of all the other changes such as cutting it by 10% for those on JSA for more than a year). Your statement also implies that reducing the cap even further in the future is a goal of the Coalition. I certainly hope that is not the case; do you have any evidence to suggest that implication? If you changed the wording as you suggested your statement would still be, in a word: spin. Which I am not a fan of, whichever party it comes from.
So yes, if you withdraw your previous statement I will withdraw my previous comment that you were being “disingenuous and misleading”, I would say that your new, revised statement would fall into the category of common spin, and would therefore not really be worth commenting on in the first place. And what a sad indictment of our politics that is.
We can say goodbye to broken promises, and welcome back to hope.
We can make Britain, the fair country we want it to be.
So, choose fairness.
Choose real change that works for you,
Choose, The Liberal Democrats.
I am sorry, but Mwah ha ha ha ha.
I would like to see Nick Clegg, repeat those sentiments, in a room full of students.
Or to stand in front of the those Ghastly tower blocks in that film, and tell the residents, that if they are not employed within 12 months, they will lose 10% of their Housing Benefit.
I would like to see him, visit a nursing home, and tell the patients there, We are removing your entitlement to the Mobility Componant of DLA. Look at these 4 walls, because your going to be stareing at them for a long time.
As Catherine Tate “gran” would say
“A new way of doing politics” “what load of old S*@T”
Saying “Labour would have done it anyway” is hardly a defence.
It amounts to nothing more than “we’re just as crap as them”.