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.

Private firms taking over work that belongs in the public sector has a surprisingly long history. More than one Minister has left Parliament to become a Director of one of the very Companies that his department had been working with.

Jobs for the boys OW.

Ivan wrote:"Who is making the money as private firms move in on the public sector?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/25/emma-harrison-family-tsar?commentpage=2

The friends and family of this Tory Gov't Ivan that is who will benefit, in fact if Labour get into power at the next election they will be in for a shock trying to unravel all the double dealing of the Tories, and that will cost plenty too get out of these contracts and I hope that Labour force or bring fraudulent charges against the ones responsible for the MESS.

The Welfare Reform Bill was signed off by the Lords yesterday and will soon be law.

Its two main features are a benefits cap of £26,000, which means that no household can receive more in handouts than those in work on average pre-tax wages of £35,000 a year, and merging all benefits into a single universal credit, intended to ensure that work always pays more than staying on the dole.

Given all his problems, it was no wonder that the PM was singing the praises of the Bill's architect Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith this morning and hailing the reform package as "marking the end of the culture that says a life on benefits is an acceptable alternative to work".

What Cameron may not appreciate is the extent of public support for cracking down on the £111 billion a year social security bill.

A new survey, conducted by YouGov and published in the March issue of the left-of-centre magazine Prospect, demonstrates how strongly people endorse the kind of changes in Duncan Smith's Bill.

Asked if the Government pays out too much in benefits and if welfare levels overall should be reduced, 74 per cent of the public agree and only 17 per cent disagree.

Among Labour and Lib Dem supporters, there is also strong backing. Labour voters back the proposal by 59 to 32 and Lib Dems by 74 to 15. Among Tories, there is almost universal endorsement, by 94 to 3.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2108762/Welfare-Reform-Bill-David-Cameron-winner-public-wants-further.html#ixzz1nunxCVDH

blueturando wrote:The Welfare Reform Bill was signed off by the Lords yesterday and will soon be law.

Its two main features are a benefits cap of £26,000, which means that no household can receive more in handouts than those in work on average pre-tax wages of £35,000 a year, and merging all benefits into a single universal credit, intended to ensure that work always pays more than staying on the dole.

Given all his problems, it was no wonder that the PM was singing the praises of the Bill's architect Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith this morning and hailing the reform package as "marking the end of the culture that says a life on benefits is an acceptable alternative to work".

What Cameron may not appreciate is the extent of public support for cracking down on the £111 billion a year social security bill.

A new survey, conducted by YouGov and published in the March issue of the left-of-centre magazine Prospect, demonstrates how strongly people endorse the kind of changes in Duncan Smith's Bill.

Asked if the Government pays out too much in benefits and if welfare levels overall should be reduced, 74 per cent of the public agree and only 17 per cent disagree.

Among Labour and Lib Dem supporters, there is also strong backing. Labour voters back the proposal by 59 to 32 and Lib Dems by 74 to 15. Among Tories, there is almost universal endorsement, by 94 to 3.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2108762/Welfare-Reform-Bill-David-Cameron-winner-public-wants-further.html#ixzz1nunxCVDH

Well it all sounds like the heady days of the CSA...lets see how long everyone stays happy with it?

Stox 16 wrote:

blueturando wrote:The Welfare Reform Bill was signed off by the Lords yesterday and will soon be law.

Its two main features are a benefits cap of £26,000, which means that no household can receive more in handouts than those in work on average pre-tax wages of £35,000 a year, and merging all benefits into a single universal credit, intended to ensure that work always pays more than staying on the dole.

Given all his problems, it was no wonder that the PM was singing the praises of the Bill's architect Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith this morning and hailing the reform package as "marking the end of the culture that says a life on benefits is an acceptable alternative to work".

What Cameron may not appreciate is the extent of public support for cracking down on the £111 billion a year social security bill.

A new survey, conducted by YouGov and published in the March issue of the left-of-centre magazine Prospect, demonstrates how strongly people endorse the kind of changes in Duncan Smith's Bill.

Asked if the Government pays out too much in benefits and if welfare levels overall should be reduced, 74 per cent of the public agree and only 17 per cent disagree.

Among Labour and Lib Dem supporters, there is also strong backing. Labour voters back the proposal by 59 to 32 and Lib Dems by 74 to 15. Among Tories, there is almost universal endorsement, by 94 to 3.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2108762/Welfare-Reform-Bill-David-Cameron-winner-public-wants-further.html#ixzz1nunxCVDH

Well it all sounds like the heady days of the CSA...lets see how long everyone stays happy with it?

That will not last long Stox once the people realize the truth behind these Bills and they have been swallowing Tory drivel and B/S.

Did you see Cameron yesterday? . . . . I did not ride that horse

Have you seen Cameron today? . . . . . Yes I did ride the horse

And this is the person with his finger on our Nuclear Button?

astra wrote:Did you see Cameron yesterday? . . . . I did not ride that horse

Have you seen Cameron today? . . . . . Yes I did ride the horse

And this is the person with his finger on our Nuclear Button?

And it has just came out he rode it more than once, plus these horses are not supposed to ride these horses your given them to look after in the later years of there life.

Now it's slow privatisation of the police force.

Police are poised to bring in private companies to investigate crimes and patrol neighbourhoods,

Why not privatise everything? then the Tory rich could end up paying no tax at all.

All this is worse than Thatcher doctrine. It took her about 13yrs to do her damage. This lot will do twice as much in 5yrs. When will the public wake up and stop it all before it's too late?

Mel wrote:Now it's slow privatisation of the police force.

Police are poised to bring in private companies to investigate crimes and patrol neighbourhoods,

Why not privatise everything? then the Tory rich could end up paying no tax at all.

All this is worse than Thatcher doctrine. It took her about 13yrs to do her damage. This lot will do twice as much in 5yrs. When will the public wake up and stop it all before it's too late?

I've always considered myself to be a moderate in all things but I believe that this Government is going too far without thought for those in genuine need.

Back to the subject.

While I believe it is the Police Forces that have put forward these tenders they surely would not do it without Government acquiesence.

Haven't we had enough of Private Companies who seem to employ anyone. How many employees of these companies have been found to be - untrustworthy. I know that the Police Force is not perfect, but at least they are fully trained, and we have to accept failures. But what guarantee have we that a Private firm is capable of fulfilling the tasks asked.

I remember one large security firm, which I shall not name, who had a succession of 'losses' of 'secure' personnel.

Another Government contracted firm whose head has just rolled after fraud was discovered.

We are discovering the misuse of Government money in all walks of 'industry'. Particularly by those supplying the Emergency services, in exhorbitant prices for all sorts of items. Let's sort that out and save money.

These companies are locked into secure contracts. Stuff these contracts. If the people (we) are being ripped off, rip up the contracts. I believe this may be possible under legislation - maybe? Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. You may know of some other legislation as I am not a Lawyer. At least with the Police we have control, either centrally (Parliament) or locally (Police Authority), and can take action as necessary.

I don't care what anyone says. These companies will be out to make money as their priority. That is understandable as they need to survive. But not at the risk of the public's safety.

For what it's worth my priorities are

Those in genuine need.

The Emergency Services

Most important of all - ME:oops:

Sorry about the rant. Mild tempered me is getting mad.

Hello Trev,

In case you are perhaps still under the impression that this is police instigated and not government policy, read this------

The home secretary, Theresa May, who has imposed a 20% cut in Whitehall grants on forces, has said frontline policing can be protected by using the private sector to transform services provided to the public, but this is the first clear indication of what that will mean in practice. May said on Thursday that she hoped the "business partnership" programme would be in place next spring.

No "hope" about it, consider it done and dusted just like everything else this private enterprise loving money/profit loving and nothing slse Tory led shower are implementing, irrispective of any amount of public opinion against their railroaded measures.

The home secretary, Theresa May, who has imposed a 20% cut in Whitehall grants on forces, has said frontline policing can be protected by using the private sector to transform services provided to the public, but this is the first clear indication of what that will mean in practice. May said on Thursday that she hoped the "business partnership" programme would be in place next spring.

OOOPs Missed that somewhere. Hearing Aid battery running down

Thanks.

Extracts from a ‘Daily Mail’ article by Sonia Poulton:-

"We, as a nation, manage to find millions of pounds to pay Cameron's army of advisers and assessors, including the allegedly fraudulent activities of back-to-work company A4E which was set up by the Coalition's 'families czar' Emma Harrison.

If this is really a cost-cutting exercise to fill the billion pound deficit, when is the Coalition going to start from within? The DWP spend over £25,000 per month on travel, hotels and stationery - surely there is something that could be curbed there rather than taking 20% from disability which, according to their own figures, only has 0.5% of fraud?

People on disability benefit are not living it up. If only. According to the group ‘Family Action’, some families survive on less than £2 per day. Quite a contrast when you compare it to the Peers in the Lords who receive £300 a day just to show up and then get to enjoy smoked salmon in the tax-payer subsidised cafeteria (cost to the taxpayer is a mere £1.44million a year. Bargain). Oh how the other half live.

So where will the disabled and sick have to turn to now in their greatest hour of need? Well they can forget the Social Fund because that was viciously axed in these reforms, too. For millions of people, a Social Fund loan - yes it was repayable, it wasn't a gift - was the difference between sleeping on a bed or a floor. The MPs who voted to banish this have no understanding of such destitution and poverty. Not while they are able to subsidise the purchase of their country mansions with their parliamentary expenses."

For the full article:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2110900/Suicide-training-Job-Centres-Cancer-patients-scrubbing-floors-Welcome-Cameron-s-Brave-New-World.html#ixzz1oWjIfsOQ

Hmmm. How long do you think it might take to eliminate "Jobs For The Boys" from parliamentary practise?

Redflag wrote:

Stox 16 wrote:

blueturando wrote:The Welfare Reform Bill was signed off by the Lords yesterday and will soon be law.

Its two main features are a benefits cap of £26,000, which means that no household can receive more in handouts than those in work on average pre-tax wages of £35,000 a year, and merging all benefits into a single universal credit, intended to ensure that work always pays more than staying on the dole.

Given all his problems, it was no wonder that the PM was singing the praises of the Bill's architect Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith this morning and hailing the reform package as "marking the end of the culture that says a life on benefits is an acceptable alternative to work".

What Cameron may not appreciate is the extent of public support for cracking down on the £111 billion a year social security bill.

A new survey, conducted by YouGov and published in the March issue of the left-of-centre magazine Prospect, demonstrates how strongly people endorse the kind of changes in Duncan Smith's Bill.

Asked if the Government pays out too much in benefits and if welfare levels overall should be reduced, 74 per cent of the public agree and only 17 per cent disagree.

Among Labour and Lib Dem supporters, there is also strong backing. Labour voters back the proposal by 59 to 32 and Lib Dems by 74 to 15. Among Tories, there is almost universal endorsement, by 94 to 3.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2108762/Welfare-Reform-Bill-David-Cameron-winner-public-wants-further.html#ixzz1nunxCVDH

Well it all sounds like the heady days of the CSA...lets see how long everyone stays happy with it?

That will not last long Stox once the people realize the truth behind these Bills and they have been swallowing Tory drivel and B/S.

I have a feeling you could be spot on with that Red...

Mel wrote:David Laws, the former chief secretary to the treasury, said Mr Osborne should start "ending austerity" for millions of households by moving towards the coalition's goal of raising the income tax threshold to £10,000.

Seems Balls call for tax cuts is rubbing off on some. One expects deaf ears from Gideon and Camer-con.

Hi Mel
yes I remember hearing Laws calling of the end of Austerity... Its very odd that the Tory party leadership are digging in over there only economic policy of any note. you would think after two whole wasted years the message that an Austerity policy without a fiscal Growth policy can never work...

out of interest Mel...can you think of any government in the UK that had such a small economic policy? as this one?

Stox 16 wrote:

Mel wrote:David Laws, the former chief secretary to the treasury, said Mr Osborne should start "ending austerity" for millions of households by moving towards the coalition's goal of raising the income tax threshold to £10,000.

Seems Balls call for tax cuts is rubbing off on some. One expects deaf ears from Gideon and Camer-con.

Hi Mel
yes I remember hearing Laws calling of the end of Austerity... Its very odd that the Tory party leadership are digging in over there only economic policy of any note. you would think after two whole wasted years the message that an Austerity policy without a fiscal Growth policy can never work...

out of interest Mel...can you think of any government in the UK that had such a small economic policy? as this one?

You would of thought that the 1930s experience would have told them that Austerity on its own does not work, where is there brains wait don't tell me in there A**E.

These kind of jobs are ok, but they are not going to do anything towards stopping a reliance on welfare and state help because you simply cannot live on these wages unless you live with parents or go into house-share.
 
Quite right there witchfinder, in fact we even have people on £40k applying for benefits. I think if we stopped NI and loaded it on the back end (profits) this would stimulate the job market and improve the economy. At present the average wage (£26,000) earner pays £43 a week in NI and the employer pays £50, that's £93 a week and not a penny profit made. This way will give the employer the chance to take on more staff and so increase his profits then the exchequer can take out NI.

With regards to the average wage of £26,000. People bandy that figure around as if most of our workers actualy earn that ammount. If you take 99 ordinary working people ie shop workers, Factory workers (in the factories the Tories haven't yet closed) and many public sector workers, add their incomes together and see what the average is. Then you put just One highly paid banker into the equasion, and do the same sum. The picture you will have is that everyone is doing well.

bobby wrote:With regards to the average wage of £26,000. People bandy that figure around as if most of our workers actualy earn that ammount. If you take 99 ordinary working people ie shop workers, Factory workers (in the factories the Tories haven't yet closed) and many public sector workers, add their incomes together and see what the average is. Then you put just One highly paid banker into the equasion, and do the same sum. The picture you will have is that everyone is doing well.

 
I agree entirely, for far too long this figure is thrown at people yet, the majority of people I know are only earning £350-£400 top line, even at £400 this is still £67 a week between employee and employer that is taxed before any profit is made(NI is a taxation). With reference to bankers, the average of £200,000pa is equal to £650 a week in joint NI contributions, leaving a lot more scope in the profits side for redress. If you see what I mean.

Absolutely Rollo.

bobby wrote:With regards to the average wage of £26,000. People bandy that figure around as if most of our workers actualy earn that ammount.

 
This is also why we have people on £40k+ claiming benefits, the tax payer is subsidising business! It has to stop!! Business must be seen to be working for the people it supplies. i.e. public transport, this has been in private hands for almost 30 years, yet the taxpayer put in millions a year into share-holders pockets?

"...public transport .... has been in private hands for almost 30 years, yet the taxpayer put in millions a year into share-holders pockets..."

It's not generally appreciated that it was in fact our friends in Brussels who directed that Railway operators were to be separated from the owner of the Track. (EU Directive 91/440.)

Those of us who watched open-mouthed in 1993 as the Tory government generously subsidised privatisation, realised that it was offering to PAY people to take the Railways off their hands. The applicants to be "Railway Operators" were of course the usual City Spivs.

Nothing changes.

It's not generally appreciated that it was in fact our friends in Brussels who directed that Railway operators were to be separated from the owner of the Track. (EU Directive 91/440.)

OW, any idea if this is what happens in Spain France Germany and Italy?

I cannot find any details.

OW, any idea if this is what happens in Spain France Germany and Italy?
 
I cannot find any details.
 
This from wikipedia: n many countries in Europe the railway systems developed as separate privately owned companies operating regional networks with permission to construct and operate a line being granted or instructed by government legislation, or by royal decree or license. During the 20th century the railways became organised and run through a country wide organisation often through nationalisation. These entities in general had total or virtual monopolies
These national companies were vertically integrated organisations and it was difficult or impossible for private or regional enterprises to run their own trains on the national networks, or to compete in other EU country's railway systems. Thus in 1991 EU Directive 91/440 was created to make it a legal requirement for independent companies to be able to apply for non-discriminatory track access (running powers) on a European Union country's track.

oftenwrong wrote:"...public transport .... has been in private hands for almost 30 years, yet the taxpayer put in millions a year into share-holders pockets..."

It's not generally appreciated that it was in fact our friends in Brussels who directed that Railway operators were to be separated from the owner of the Track. (EU Directive 91/440.)

Those of us who watched open-mouthed in 1993 as the Tory government generously subsidised privatisation, realised that it was offering to PAY people to take the Railways off their hands. The applicants to be "Railway Operators" were of course the usual City Spivs.

Nothing changes.

And nothing will until we change this Gov't, and Im wondering if that is what will be happening to the NHS when the next Gov't gets in?

I am reproducing this article in full with the written consent of the author, my good friend Jill Segger:-

Chloe Smith and the 'two nations'

“Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.”

Those words from Disraeli's 1845 novel 'Sybil' could have been written for Norwich MP Chloe Smith. It is ironic that Ms Smith, Economic Secretary to the Treasury and formerly a Conservative Whip, cites Disraeli as a politician whom she greatly admires, as she has just exemplified the division of which her idol wrote.

The government's changes to working tax credits (WTC) which are scheduled to take effect in April, mean couples currently working for 16 hours a week must increase their hours to 24 (with one partner working at least 16 hours) in order to continue to receive WTC. Failure to do so will remove up to £4,000 a year from families who are already, by definition, low earners. Most families who find themselves in this position would gladly increase their hours if the work was there to be undertaken.

The organisation Working Families carried out a survey of employers representing a quarter of a million employees to ascertain their responses to a request from employees for more hours of work. It found that only 17% of employers were able to say with confidence that they could meet such a request. A further 33% said they might be able to offer some hours, but not the eight required to meet the new minimum, while another 17% said it was "unlikely" or "impossible" that they could accommodate such a request.

David Crausby, the MP for Bolton North East, which is an area of higher than average unemployment, challenged Chloe Smith about the effect of these changes on many of his constituents who are part time workers. Her response was to suggest that they could look for the extra hours at the Nissan factory in Sunderland where the Japanese car company has just announced a major new investment.

That a government minister should display such risible ignorance of the geography of the country in which she is a legislator is in itself worrying. But the underlying indifference to the realities of life for so many of her fellow citizens who live in the post-industrial north goes beyond not knowing that Sunderland is 150 miles from Bolton. It has its roots in a carelessness about the 'other' and about experiences which differ very greatly from the comfortable circles in which government ministers move.

It is very difficult indeed to imagine the ambitious Ms Smith – at 29 years of age, the youngest minister in the government – being either so careless as to the difficulties or needs of her former colleagues at Deloitte Touche, for example, or so blasé about the criticism she has faced since making this damaging and revealing error, if those slighted had belonged to the influential and government-supporting stratum of society.

It would seem that little has changed in some quarters since Disraeli's analysis of the society of his day. Chloe Smith is described as a "rising star” in the Conservative Party. If negligent indifference to the hardships and worries of so many voters is a mark of what is admired in the party and career structures of our legislators, we are in even worse case than I had feared.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/16378

Sonia Poulton writes:-
"British people are committing suicide to escape poverty. However, it may be that much of the Welfare Reform Bill will prove to be illegal, as it appears to clash with a number of human rights and could certainly face legal challenges."

Please read the full article:-
http://poultonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/people-are-choosing-suicide-to-escape-poverty-is-this-the-states-final-solution.html

I cannot quite remember the last time the torys tried this on!

Take a Bill, Pass it, and push it out to mainstream. The Law Lords kick it into touch and the Torys take it to the dusty backrooms, roll it out 9 months later in another name and we suffer the consequences. CSA, Poll Tax sumfin' of that order!

Kinda reminds us of Brown signing us up to more EU regulations knowing he was going to lose the election, it would seem that when one government is displaced it gets replaced by an equally inept alterego.

Can't wait until the next election when the tories bin the libels and go it alone, then we'll get change.

tlttf wrote:

Can't wait until the next election when the tories bin the libels and go it alone, then we'll get change.

No need to use active voice there for Tory intentions, Landy, the Lib-Dems must surely be expecting annihalation the next time the Public are invited to express an opinion. That's what keeps Clegg and Co. adhering to Cameron's posterior for the time being. Sometimes referred to as making hay while the sun shines.

Miliband's Budget Challenge Hits the Target

(blogs.telegraph.co.uk)

" Hands up who doesn't want to put his hand up...."

Was brilliant Phil. At last Ed comes out of his shell.


Will the cruel Tory welfare reforms save any money?

Yes of course, it has enabled Gideon to cut the top rate of tax as indended as a priority.

I thought Osborne's Budget was absolutely terrific.

It will prove to be a millstone round the Tory's necks for simply ages and also regularly embarrass the LibDumbs...

The fact is of course that a lot was said about very little in the Chancellor's speech. The key is whether a proposal affects taxation in terms of Millions, or Billions. Only the latter affects the economy. Smaller amounts are a matter for individuals.

But freezing Pensioners' allowances reminds us how close this Government is to the Thatcher way of thinking.
That will save the Treasury ONE BILLION POUNDS a year when it takes effect.

Yeah, but what have they done for us recently?

OW, you recently said Ed was "biding his time".
You were right-------------- as ever.

Ah the good old days when *king Brown gave the pensioners 75p and everybody here thought it was good. Strange world innit.

Ah the good old days when *king Brown gave the pensioners 75p and everybody here thought it was good. Strange world innit.

I wonder if the level of inflation at that time was the same as last September when the pension rise is set (at the level of inflation)?

If only Gideon had presented the VAT on Pasties as a blow against obesity in the lower classes, he might have got away with it.