Archive for April 2013
This is just the old earnings related benefit that were taken by Thatcher and successive governments- including Labour- refused to re-introduce them and now Miliband thinks he is being radical by making this suggestion.
So, I suggest, if he wants to do this, make a small change to current National Insurance contributions, higher at the richer, high waged end and re-introduce earnings related benefits as we had before.
And if the money is to be recouped once people are back in work, then it isn’t an insurance scheme, is it?
And it appears to be a ‘those that can afford it can benefit from it’ scheme, much akin to the recent suggestion by Lord Freud that the poor can afford to take more risks; they seem to be saying the very low waged can afford to lose their wages! What they should be saying is the rich can afford to subsidise the low waged benefits, at least for an interim period while the GENUINELY seek work.
And this has been the problem with our social security system for 35-40 years; nobody employed in the system, from the lowliest advisor to the highest managers have had the will to stop benefits for those refusing to take suitable employment or not genuinely actively seeking work. And because of this very tiny minority (I’ve heard 0.2% to 0.7% of claimants quoted) we all now have to suffer- and may see a two tiered benefits system that pays more to those that can afford the premiums.
Yes that’s got your attention hasn’t it reader! And its correct there is a huge issue that can be termed a loophole in the bedroom tax decision making process – it’s the Rent Officer service.This loophole gives all 660,000 a very powerful argument and ground of formal appeal to have their bedroom tax decisions quashed and their respective councils will all have to go back and do the decision again and properly this time. If that’s correct this may mean local government is hit with a bill of over a billion pounds. More importantly it means none of the bedroom tax decisions made can be relied upon in law and they should all be thrown out for that reason especially given the dire financial consequences the bedroom tax decision holds for each tenant household.
“Can you tell the difference between Stork and butter?”
“Mr Blair’s article was seized on by the Conservative Party, with chairman Grant Shapps saying the former PM was right to warn that “Labour aren’t a credible party of government under Ed Miliband”.” That, alone should warn Labour to ignore, nay do the opposite of Blair’s recommendations.
Thatcher in an interview, when asked what she thought was her greatest achievement said “New Labour”. That alone should tell us that Old Labour were right for the workers, the poor, the disabled and otherwise disenfranchised population.
To be honest, I don’t think there’s an ounce of difference between Blair and Miliband; puts me in mind of the old Stork margarine advertisement- “Can you tell the difference between Stork and butter?” Well, yes; one’s a cheap, rather tasteless substitute for a rather more expensive option that’s really doing the same job.
At the risk of becoming boring, I’ll say again it is my opinion that Blair, and many of his Blairite co-conspirators were planted into the Labour party to make this change, to ensure no ‘People’s Party’ would remove the protections and advantages handed to the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor. This is exactly what we are seeing- no effective opposition, a one party state of capitalists.
Now, with Blair’s attempt to become high profile in British politics again (has the world stage booed him off?) I fear he may make be manoeuvring for leadership, or at least a high profile position in the Labour Party again.
“Harriet Harman- in competition with the Tories for the political wilderness?”
I read this- http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/389857/Labour-reconsiders-welfare-position and was frankly shocked.
“…Government’s failure to install a proper work programme was letting some people “off the hook”.” That is frightening, if Labour think the Tories are letting people “off the hook.”
“The party is working on a policy proposals that would mean benefit payments to those out of work or on low incomes would vary according to their past contributions.”
Payment according to how much you paid in? A tiered system? What if you work in a low paid physical job, work damned hard but consequently pay little tax and get made redundant; you should receive less than somebody who has sat at a desk, earned twice as much and gets made redundant? How much more Tory can you get than that?
And will this mean one unemployed worker gets a subsistence, barely enough to survive on, while another is quite comfortable- and has little incentive to go back to work, at least in the short term? And this based not on how hard they have worked, but how much they have been lucky (or unlucky enough) to earn and pay into the system?
Our welfare system has and should be funded according to your ability to pay and should pay benefits according to your needs. Anything else is, frankly not welfare, but a contributory insurance policy (privatisation?). And it is Labour saying this?
Can somebody tell Harriet Harman that no work program will work for the VERY small minority that do not want to work? Can they also tell her she is in competition with the Tories for the country, not the political wilderness?
And if Labour wants work to pay, repeal the anti-union legislation that has contributed to workers inability to negotiate a fair days pay.
“The door’s that way…”
Much has already been said and written; much will be. I don’t intend to go over old ground, repeating what others are already saying. I think this sums it up.
Whatever your views, whatever you think of her and however you view her policies, almost all commenter’s have agreed she divided a country. Is this the job of a Prime Minister; is this democracy; is this a legacy to be proud of?
There is no doubt the perpetrators of the Philpot killings should be punished for their despicable crime.
However, the Tory attempts to try to equate being on benefits with being a criminal is equally despicable.
Look at Geoffrey Archer and Chris Huhne to name but two; by this measure of criminality, the whole of the commons should have their wages slashed because it funds a criminal lifestyle.
In fact, there’s probably a stronger case for this than highlighting one family out of millions as the de facto case for slashing benefits.