Election 2015 Issues

[robbieduncan]

Why is benefit reform ideallogically resisted by Labour?

You'd have to ask someone who knows or cares about Labour.

I have a lingering sentimental attachment to Labour.

I guess it's because 'benefit reform' is a euphemism for 'benefit cut', and Labour are (or were) instinctively a party who stands up for poor and marginalised people.

In the same way as "fairness" is a euphamism for "increased taxes for the middle classes"? If Labour were serious about standing up for the poor they would emrace reforming benefits as right now they don't seem fit for purpose.

[mosy]

In the same way as "fairness" is a euphamism for "increased taxes for the middle classes"? If Labour were serious about standing up for the poor they would emrace reforming benefits as right now they don't seem fit for purpose.

[my bold]
I think a lot of so-called benefits (including various social services) are not fit for purpose any more as they seem ongoingly to exclude more and more people who really need them whilst the beaucratic cost of reducing them increases. I'm not just referring to suspected fraudsters. Some of the health "benefit" tests are ludicrous.

Now, you might mean, probably do, that you think that Labour isn't fit for purpose. But what purpose since when you look behind some of the statistics repetitively churned out daily as "achievements" of this government, they often don't stand up to scrutiny so I personally just don't believe DC's future claims. Doesn't mean I believe Labour's, just that I don't believe DC any more. Tells fibs.

[robbieduncan]

In the same way as "fairness" is a euphamism for "increased taxes for the middle classes"? If Labour were serious about standing up for the poor they would emrace reforming benefits as right now they don't seem fit for purpose.

[my bold]

Now, you might mean, probably do, that you think that Labour isn't fit for purpose. But what purpose since when you look behind some of the statistics repetitively churned out daily as "achievements" of this government, they often don't stand up to scrutiny so I personally just don't believe DC's future claims. Doesn't mean I believe Labour's, just that I don't believe DC any more. Tells fibs.

No I genuinely mean the system that has been build in layers and layers over many years with many different hands tinkering here and there without looking at the whole. On the face of it UC is a good idea but it doesn't really address the problem of many different benefits being offered under different restrictions and circumstances with different means tests etc. Ideally the whole thing should be redesigned from scratch looking at what support people need and what can be afforded to come to a reasonable, simple and easy to administer system.

And then do the same with tax (tax credits for example are madness: give the government money so they can give it back shortly after but add burocracy on the top so it costs everyone money).

[_HB]

Hear hear

[mosy]

[clip]...
Ideally the whole thing should be redesigned from scratch looking at what support people need and what can be afforded to come to a reasonable, simple and easy to administer system.

And then do the same with tax (tax credits for example are madness: give the government money so they can give it back shortly after but add burocracy on the top so it costs everyone money).

Surely "ideally" is the holy grail that we all want, and politicians all claim they will find? I'd vote for them. Especially if I were a consultant earning rather more than minimum wage to be involved in the search.

[Eagle]

I 100% agree tax and rent credits should be abolished ( sorry Gordon ) .

Employers should pay a living wage that requires NO subsidy from the state.

[Nigel]

Given the factors that drive the welfare reform agenda , eg capping so that work should always be preferable , the need to facilitate people taking up short bursts of work ( rather than staying on claimant count to avoid hardship ) , disability agenda , need to improve take - up ) including sanctionable activity , particular issues for under 24s and female returners to work - and of course reducing the whole benefits cost to the country - I would say UC already IS the revamp that people are asking for.
It is radical which is why the rollout has been only partial and focused on simpler claimant categories like single males etc .

The Work Programme which preceded it was not successful and several of the smaller organisations sub contracted to the mainly large corporates that delivered the WP contracts went under . More importantly it failed many claimants .

I will follow UC with interest - I am sure that some elements will need re- thinking - particularly the self- budgeting option for claimants based on the world of work principle of monthly payment managed by claimant - but I do think it shows some ambition and focuses on getting people into work using sanction where needed - something we have shied away from for too long
A very good evening
Nigel

[Eagle]

Certainly UC has been brought in with good intentions and brainchild of Glaswegian Iain .

I hope it works and it deserves to . Welfare should be there for the deserving but not for the scroungers.


Labour seems to have objected to all Welfare changed so already another 30 plus billion they have to find. Oh well its only money .