Will the cruel Tory welfare reforms save any money?

First topic message reminder :

My personal opinion is that the current spate of tory reforms to the benefit system are cruel, regressive, and worst of all won't save money (the alleged intention).



In a supposedly modern civilised country one would think housing would be considered a human right.......rather than simply an investment / a chance to make a fast buck.

I note there is talk of a yacht for the biggest benefit claimee of them all. I note over £10billion has been spent on the olympics. I note £32billion is being spent on a high speed rail link (london-birmingham) - this will shave, a no doubt absolutely vita,l 32mins off the journey (essential??!!!) and be used by a miniscule % of the UK population.

How about investing this money in affordable social housing instead? Or do government no longer care to invest in those they view as peasants and serfs?

The tories efforts to turn the nation against those unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed via vile smears, and an insidious propaganda campaign, are reminiscent of Nazi germany's propaganda campaign against the jews.

Iain Duncan Smith is a disgusting human being and has blood on his hands.

Instead of kicking the weakest targets that can't defend themselves....maybe the Bullingdon bullies should try picking on somebody their own size.....like the bankers, or benefit leeching corporations like Tescos.

They currently resemble a 20st thug stamping on a little girls head.

Welfare is essential and if we are to remain a civilised country we owe it to ourselves to provide for those less fortunate; unless we want to see people starving and homeless turning into savages.

The biggest burden on the UK in recent times has not been the unemployed.....welfare is not a burden - it is an essential expense in a civilised nation.

The biggest burden, and the cause of much unemployment, has been the rich greedy bankers who have cost this country, and us taxpayers, untold £billions in order to benefit a few. They have placed the real burden on the UK.

bobby. I accept that repealing the bedroom tax is an easy move, because it will actually save money. That evil policy of the vicious bully Duncan Smith isn’t reducing benefits, it’s actually costing an extra £1.5 billion per year. People evicted from their homes are having to be re-housed by councils, usually in private rented accommodation.
 
Those duped by the Tory papers might well say “they’re all the same”, partly because Labour can’t get its message across in the press and gets very little coverage from the Bullingdon Broadcasting Corporation. To communicate with people, Labour has to rely on its ‘doorstep’ campaign by members at weekends, Facebook, Twitter, forums such as this and ‘The Daily Mirror’. If you have any suggestions as to what Labour should put in its next manifesto, you can post them here:-
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/
 
Andy Burnham pledged some time ago that the Health and Social Care Act of 2012, which facilitates privatisation of the NHS and removes the duty of the government to provide health care for all, will be repealed, but was that mentioned by the BBC or the Tory press? No. We’ve been told by Shapps that if the Tories win in 2015, they will make it easier to sack people. We also know that they would bring back foxhunting, and they’re floating the idea of a charge of between £10 and £25 for going to see your GP, something which that class traitor Shirley Williams supports. Anyone who really believes “they’re all the same” must be thick beyond belief.

Ivan wrote:  Anyone who really believes “they’re all the same” must be thick beyond belief.

There Ivan lies the rub, These thick gits have a vote.

Hello bobby boy, how are you?

Hi Mel I'm well thank you, how's your good self?.
I must admit, I personally don't go along with the keeping his powder dry school of politics. If Ed is having a problem now in getting his message (if he actually has one) out, because of a Tory tame media, what makes him think that it will get any easier after 4 years plus of Tory brainwashing and lies. If the media is hamstringing him now, after 4 years of Tory Government, it can only become even more difficult.
Perhaps it my nature, to be less patient than Ed, if someone attacks me, they can expect a full response before they reach the exit, and perhaps I expect Ed to be more like me. But in all honesty I believe he should have been on the attack over 12 months ago, as the longer you let a caught fish run, the farther you will have to reel it in, the farther you need to reel it in will give it more chances to get off the hook.

Iam well thank you bobby,

I can see your point which is the point of many I feel. However, Ivan is correct regarding Ed's lack of media/press coverage at present. As we get nearer the election, there will be coverage of party political broadcasts and the press will want to fill the pages and the media will have to be seen as impartial to some extent.
As I have said, if Ed attacks now it will all be forgotten by the time of the election. We shall see and I hope you are wrong my friend.

Ivan wrote: Anyone who really believes “they’re all the same” must be thick beyond belief.

The lack of interest in politics, ignorance, Tory propaganda and pace of life is the problem IMO. It seems to me that those who still have a job no matter how low paid or part time and are healthy are so bloody grateful that they care not if they live under a Tory regime or not. It would be interesting to find out just how many folk actually watch PM's Questions for one exaple.

 Mel wrote:  We shall see and I hope you are wrong my friend.

So do I Mel, but I think the issue's are so big that even if there is a momentary lapse of memory, it will take very little to re kindle them. Also the Tory led Coalition still have much they want to do so ammunition is being provided to us on almost a daily basis.
 I believe for the sake of credibility he needs to use the Party conference as a spring board for a full attack on the Coalition now certainly not later.

Following closely upon events in the House on August 29, the 2013 Party Conferences are all destined to be quite lively, but the important thing to look for is evidence that those allegations of them "all being the same" are indeed true.  

If the four major conferences (TUC included) adopt the customary uniform sludge-coloured self-congratulatory tone of debate, the electorate may indeed lose the will to vote.

A 30-hour working week is a reasonable ask of those receiving help from the state, writes Jonathan Isaby of the TaxPayers' Alliance

They're all heart, these right-wingers.  Mr. Isaby probably regrets the closing-down of The Workhouse with its treadmill.

Nobody has yet suggested that the unemployed could be rendered for fertiliser, but there's still time before the election.

Talking about being all heart....

http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/

It's a bloody joke chip, except it's not at all funny if you get my drift.

Put that on the front page of the Daily rag. Pigs fly?

Ivan's posted it on twitter, if that counts, Mel.

Seriously though, the Tories don't actually give a monkey's what we think about their policies - they don't expect to be around much longer, and are making hay while their sun continues to shine.

Indeed OW. Infact I think it is nothing other than scorched earth policies from now until the election,especially as as much Tory ideology has been administered over the past three years to satisfy the tyrants.

This Tory scam certainly saves money:-
 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BV_sRUTIIAA2_hx.jpg

Pity we can't have a reshuffle of the entire spiteful Coalition.

Money saved by these spitful means is only saved in the short term - in the longer term, the costs, financial and social, are incalculable.
The formation of a disenfranchised underclass is an act that many governments have lived to regret.
An example would be recruitment for WW1 when a majority of the working class recruits were I believe classified C3

The healthy manpower was simply not there — in 1917–18 only 36% of men examined were suitable for full military duties, 40% were either totally unfit or were classified as unable to undergo physical exertion. In 1918, the British Army was actually smaller than in 1917 (3.84 million to 3.9 million) and almost half the infantry was nineteen or younger.

above quoted from Wikipedia - I LOVE the internet!

IVAN.......He wont be doing it for free, he will be doing for his benefits, which will probably include....Job seekers, Housing benefit, Council tax credit and probably more. Not to mention free healthcare and education (if he has children)

I think he's getting a good deal actually. I wonder what he would get in other countries?

Since 1948, all working British citizens have paid NATIONAL INSURANCE deducted from their wages to pay for inter alia sickness and unemployment insurance, free medical attention and a pension.

Having paid those Insurance Premiums, policyholders are absolutely entitled to make legitimate claims as of right.

Payment of such claims should not be referred to as "benefits" as though an avancular government were distributing largesse in some gesture of benevolent goodwill. There is a contractual liability.

And who's job will he be forced to take? There is no surplus and so whoever the employer may be, the tax payer will be subsidising the employer AGAIN. Those on very low pay have to rely upon benefits to help them to just about survive. Who gains? the employer every time. I speak not of the small firms that the Tories do not care about, I speak of the huge profit making companies who pay the min wage and less for youngsters. Therefore, the taxpayer is subsidising the industry. Tory ideology, rich get richer poor get poorer, what a disgusting situation.
 
It's all very well for those who have good jobs or businesses, particularly when they reside on the islands and have the easy life, to sneer at the less fortunate, some of which I might add may well have only recently lost their jobs through ruthless government cuts. These unfortunate folk the government are bragging that many of the thousands who lost their public jobs have been re-employed in the private sector. For the same wages? I doubt it. In fact many many are only part time jobs and then there is the zero time employment which is a scandal to say that unemployment is falling. Just not true, but who in the media/ Press highlights this fact? Even those in the Labour Party fail to point this out.
Talk about getting away with murder, these Tory tyrants do it time and time again.

blueturando wrote:-
He wont be doing it for free, he will be doing for his benefits, which will probably include....Job seekers, Housing benefit, Council tax credit and probably more. Not to mention free healthcare and education (if he has children). I think he's getting a good deal actually. I wonder what he would get in other countries?

 
Speaking on ‘Question Time’ in May 2012, Fraser Nelson claimed that “our benefits are some of the most generous in Europe”. If that’s true, it would explain why so many asylum seekers and immigrants seem to want to come to the UK rather than say Germany or France.
 
However, a survey in 2012 revealed that the UK had below average levels of welfare spending among developed nations, with many European countries out-ranking us. It also showed that the UK is ranked significantly below many other European nations, including France, Germany and Italy, in terms of the money it spends on welfare:-
 
http://fullfact.org/factchecks/is_the_uks_welfare_system_the_most_generous_in_europe-27368
 
I hope you were just being your usual provocative self when you said that the street cleaner would be “getting a good deal” if forced to work for nothing. Why rob a man of his dignity by sacking him if his job still needs doing? As to his ‘entitlements’ (because while employed he would have paid national insurance), if he’s under 25 he’s on target for getting no financial assistance at all if the nightmare continues and the Tories get a majority in 2015. The street cleaner may well have been getting housing benefit already, as 60% of those receiving it are in work, but that now has a cap on it and council tax credit has also been reduced. If anything, our ranking in Europe must be even lower in terms of generosity than when that survey was compiled last year.
 
That does of course beggar the question – if our benefit system isn’t generous, why do so many people want to come and live in the UK? I would suggest it’s because they have relatives here and/or because, like so many people all over our old empire and beyond, they can speak English.

bobby. Point taken. Maybe I should have asked why would anyone want to come and live in the UK if they could opt for France, Germany or Italy?
 
(I apologise for going off topic here. )

By the way bluey, this in not another Country, its happening here in Britain. Do you agree that this Tory led Coalition has created a nation of people who are in a race to the bottom

Hi Bobby....I think leaving people on benefits for year after year is a race to the bottom. Ideally every person able to work would have a job, but that is not the case so if the longer term unnemployed have to do some work for their benefits then I dont see that as a bad thing...and I would bet money on it that a fair few will suddenly find a job rather than have to pick up litter for their JSA.

I will point out the contradiction here......Most on the left keep saying we need more immigration, but then say there are no jobs for our unemployed...How does that make sense????

Interestingly though, most immigrants manage to find jobs....Strange world innit!!!

Will the cruel Tory welfare reforms save any money?

We can now say with certainty that there wasn't any need to save money in the first place, because the latest Tory privatisation has been over-subscribed (eight to fifteen times, depending on expert). The City is awash with investment funds.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-mail/10365347/Royal-Mail-shares-expected-to-be-15-times-over-subscribed.html

Britain is not a poor Country, so why have we believed Osborne when he says it is - for ideological purposes.

"Most on the left keep saying we need more immigration"

That is a sweeping incorrect statement, (off topic) and probaby derived from the Daily Mail.

It may be a bit sweeping Mel, but the 2 tie in together. We keep hearing from certain quarters that there are no jobs, but the majority who step off the boat from the EU seems to be able to find jobs despite having English as a 2nd language or not at all

Hello blue. If you wish to debate immigration please go to the correct board as you are OFF TOPIC.

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t119-should-immigration-always-be-perceived-as-a-problem
 
Many thanks Mel.

blueturando said:
 ..I think leaving people on benefits for year after year is a race to the bottom.
 
What you tend to forget here bluey is that it was the Tory Government of the 80's who started the practice, when they closed down the Coal Mines, Ship Building, Steel Manufacturing and our Motor industries. As we already where suffering from Massive unemployment, the Government actively encouraged the new unemployed to go on the sick and claim sickness benefits, this just to keep their unemployment figures down. This was the root cause for the big rise in the sickness benefit claimants and started a culture of an easy ride for some on benefits.

blueturando. I accept the blame for this thread going off topic, when I posed the question "why do so many people want to come and live here?"  
 
I'll answer your 'contradiction' in the appropriate place:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t119-should-immigration-always-be-perceived-as-a-problem

Ideology meets idiocy in these brutal disability cuts
 
Extracts from an article by Polly Toynbee:-
 
Iain Duncan Smith says DLA is "spiralling" out of control as the 3.1 million claimants is triple the number since it was introduced in 1992. Without "reform", one in 17 citizens will draw it by 2018. Tories point to this "inexplicable" rise in the number of disabled claimants despite improved medical care, which at first sight does indeed look odd.

DLA is only paid to those of working age, but when they retire they keep it, so as more people since 1992 move into retirement, numbers rise fast. There has been no change in numbers with physical conditions, despite a larger population. There has been a real growth in numbers with learning disabilities: more premature babies survive but with disabilities, while those with Down's syndrome no longer die young. More people with mental illness claim DLA now, following changes in case law: there has been no increase in mental illness and only 1% of the population claim DLA. Psychosis is the commonest DLA diagnosis, hardly a trivial condition. This pattern of disability mirrors the rest of the OECD countries, with nothing exceptional here.

A report from 50 combined disability charities shows 9% of those due to lose their DLA are in work, using it for transport to their job. Over half will leave their job without that help, so instead of saving £60m from their DLA payments, the state will have to pay them more benefit while losing their NI and tax, costing an extra £200m. Osborne is right to worry that Duncan Smith lacks the brainpower – and the basic numeracy – for this job.
 
For the full article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/29/tory-disability-benefits-ideology-idiocy?commentpage=1

Not much relief for those needing support from this judgement then

Single mothers lose legal challenge to benefit cap

I particularly 'liked' the judges comment that "Dismissing their claim for judicial review, Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Bean said that no doubt many considered the cap to be "too parsimonious".  No kidding!
and followed by ""But that is ultimately a policy issue, and for the reasons we have given we do not think it can be said that the scheme is so manifestly unfair or disproportionate as to justify an interference by the courts."

What is it in this judgement that gives away the fact that these were people that have never had a days hardship in their lives?

By definition, Officers of the Court are likely to be of the same class as the current Eton-and-Oxbridge Government front bench, thereby sharing many of the same opinions and attitudes. Many of their Lordships will be property owners, with similar patterns of investment and experience of concomitant taxes affecting personal wealth.

Birds of a feather, some might say.

http://t.co/ZFvnyJfMK4

Just found this interview with a member of the DWP IT team on Twitter - guess that answers the question - no the Cruel Tory Welfare Reforms WON'T save any money - so now we know

Furthermore, if the Coalition have set in train so much growth in the economy - Why isn't there more investment by British Industry? The Big boys continue to sit on mounds of cash rather than invest in future projects.

So far there has been no "pay-back" whatever from the austerity programme.

Welcome to Tory Britain 2013. This is what can happen when you’re pregnant, you can’t get benefits so you steal £13.94 of food out of desperate hunger, and end up in a prison being run for profit. Instead of paying this woman benefits, we pay a private company to mistreat her in prison:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/woman-who-miscarried-in-private-prison-made-to-clean-up-after-herself-court-told-9002657.html

This is a horrifying story - but strangely not surprising, given the current 'moral' climate in the country - it seems we are more and more becoming a society where the essential humanity of our neighbours can be ignored and denied.

You've spoiled my Sunday, Ivan - this image will remain with me for quite a while.

Paraphrasing King Henry II, "Can nobody rid us of this turbulent Coalition?"

The growth of food banks shows why there must be no welfare cap

From an article by Natalie Bennett (leader of the Green Party):-

"Cuts to benefits have pushed thousands of families to the edge. Welfare needs to be paid on the basis of need, not within some artificial limit.

Food bank use in south east England, the region known for its wealth and relative prosperity, is up over 60% this year and thousands of families face the prospect of relying on emergency food handouts this Christmas. A decade ago, food banks were almost unheard of in this area but there are now 59 across the region."

For the whole article:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/12/growth-food-banks-shows-why-there-must-be-no-welfare-cap

Just imagine the Tory outrage if there was a salary cap......