Bolitics The New Condem Government

[blandy]

I really, really dislike people getting fired or losing their jobs over their personal sex lives (as long as they are legal & consensual etc.).

Me too...unless for example they are hypocritical - as in say, for example, politicians heavily promoting "christian family values" while secretly living a life that, er, wouldn't be described in that way.

You seem to get the same thing with people and drugs, or gayness and a few other subjects as well. The sin, really is in in being untruthful/rank hypocrisy, rather than in taking part in whatever lifestyle.

[snowychap]

Ha ha. Grant Shapps has a go at someone else for being a liar.

[HanoiVillan]

Ha ha. Grant Shapps has a go at someone else for being a liar.

 

I agree, very bold for Michael Green Sebastian Fox Grant Shapps to accuse other people of deception. 

[ender4]

Freezing benefits for 3 years saving £3.2billion if Tories get back into power.

 

good or bad? popular with the electorate?

[villaajax]

Is that to make up for their expected second cut to the top rate of income tax?

[HanoiVillan]

Freezing benefits for 3 years saving £3.2billion if Tories get back into power.

 

good or bad? popular with the electorate?

 

For someone with my politics, obviously bad, but YMMV. The second question will be interesting - I suspect the measure will poll brilliantly, but won't actually win them many votes, because it's mainly a core vote strategy. Most people in poverty in Britain are in work, and the general move to extremely low pay and low job security means this is a direct assault on those in-work poor. This group have already been resisting returning to the Tories, confounding pollsters who expected to see economic growth reflected in better government figures in the opinion polls. This is probably because GDP figures don't make much difference if your own personal finances aren't improving. 

[chrisp65]

The official spokesman for the conservative party within the BBC, Nick Robinson, heavily criticised the Labour Party a few days ago for coming up with policies and speeches that 'only catered to their core vote' he was worried that they appeared more interested in protecting their core vote than attracting others.

 

Days later, a speech by the tories stating that we need to cut benefits because we can't have hardworking families having smaller income rises than people on benefits gets a rapturous response at conservative conference and squinty Nick feels this has tapped into the zeitgeist.

 

Let's gloss over the fact that most 'benefits' are paid to people in work. Let's gloss over the fact that the tory voting demographic is largely very very old and the pensions have been protected and will continue to be protected. Let's gloss over the fact that the speech actually said £25 billion of cuts of which about 10% will actually be from benefits and I'll gloss over how I cut the other £22 billion.

 

But don't worry folks, if you're due a windfall from a rich relative with large savings and an over generous pension, that's being protected.

[Jon]

That rocket polisher Robinson is from Macclesfield. You really shouldn't allow to peddle such biased views as Chief Political Editor of the BBC.

 

Freezing benefits for 3 years saving £3.2billion if Tories get back into power.

 

good or bad? popular with the electorate?

 

For someone with my politics, obviously bad, but YMMV. The second question will be interesting - I suspect the measure will poll brilliantly, but won't actually win them many votes, because it's mainly a core vote strategy. Most people in poverty in Britain are in work, and the general move to extremely low pay and low job security means this is a direct assault on those in-work poor. This group have already been resisting returning to the Tories, confounding pollsters who expected to see economic growth reflected in better government figures in the opinion polls. This is probably because GDP figures don't make much difference if your own personal finances aren't improving. 

 

I really like your posts Hanoi. You should do more of them.

[snowychap]

Also from that pillock Smith (IDS), a rehash of the old 'pre-paid benefits' cards nonsense.

In the same speech, he apparently reaffirmed the 'accelerated' (that's accelerated from now but way, way behind any original schedule) roll-out of the universal credit scheme (this is the scheme whereby all benefits, including housing benefits, are paid in one monthly cash sum to the household).

Sounds like the two don't quite mesh.

 

Without reading the detail of Osborne's proposal, I would suggest that the headline will not affect 'disability benefits' doesn't quite tell the whole story and it will, as with the current 1% rise, affect a huge proportion of any ESA payments (the premiums won't be included).

 

Also, new powers to ban people for their views.

 

What a bunch of spanners.

 

[markavfc40]

Chrisp that is a superb post.

 

It’s same old Tories isn’t it. Give more to the already haves and take away from those who have very little.

 

As much as I think the lib dems have been an absolute disgrace in being little more than Tory lap dogs you have wonder just how much more savage the Tories would have been had they have been elected with an overall majority.

 

For the good of the many in this country, especially those struggling to make ends meet and those most reliant on public services, I hope it’s a long time before we get to see another Tory government. Unfortunately though due to Ed Milliband doing his best to shoot wide of an open goal the election in 2015 won’t be the cake walk for Labour that it should be.

[MakemineVanilla]

[snowychap]

A couple of things about the above graphic:

(as above) I'm not sure it affects the premium part of ESA (WRAG) and I think they've missed out the basic component of ESA (Support);

I guess when they say 'Housing Benefit' - they are saying that the capped LHA is frozen?

Edited September 30, 2014 by snowychap

[ender4]

With child benefit being frozen, maybe they should cap it at a certain number of children?   maybe paid to 2 kids maximum.

Also, not sure if its fair to do that in retrospect to families who already have had lots of kids, but should be done for any new babies born.

Not sure if that will save much money though - probably not. 

 

Big savings could be found in housing benefit if they built more social housing?  But that would require up-front spending.

An additional benefit of that would be helping the general housing shortage in this country.

 

Thats 2 policies of the top of my head when i become Emperor of England. 

[bickster]

If they upped the minimum wage to a living wage they'd slash the benefits budget overnight. Only 3% of the benefits budget goes to people who are unemployed but they never seem to mention that. Nope they prefers their mates in business to reap the rewards whilst tax adds to the peoples income. Its bonkers logic and an economy based on a falsehood

[Eames]

If they upped the minimum wage to a living wage they'd slash the benefits budget overnight. Only 3% of the benefits budget goes to people who are unemployed but they never seem to mention that. Nope they prefers their mates in business to reap the rewards whilst tax adds to the peoples income. Its bonkers logic and an economy based on a falsehood

All that is true in theory. I fear the practice would be a massive whack on the stock market and associated big business meltdown. No government regardless of colour will ever sanction such a move because their own business supports would run a mile. 

[colhint]

If they upped the minimum wage to a living wage they'd slash the benefits budget overnight. Only 3% of the benefits budget goes to people who are unemployed but they never seem to mention that. Nope they prefers their mates in business to reap the rewards whilst tax adds to the peoples income. Its bonkers logic and an economy based on a falsehood

Here's a thought on this, If they raise it, but the increase could be offset against corporation tax, that way the only people out of pocket really would be the Amazons of this world, who pay little or no tax at all

[ender4]

 

If they upped the minimum wage to a living wage they'd slash the benefits budget overnight. Only 3% of the benefits budget goes to people who are unemployed but they never seem to mention that. Nope they prefers their mates in business to reap the rewards whilst tax adds to the peoples income. Its bonkers logic and an economy based on a falsehood

All that is true in theory. I fear the practice would be a massive whack on the stock market and associated big business meltdown. No government regardless of colour will ever sanction such a move because their own business supports would run a mile. 

 

 

There isn't that big a difference between the minimum wage and the living wage.  

 

Living wage - £7.65

Minimum wage - £6.50

 

So a rise of 30p a year would bring them into line over 4 years.

[Eames]

 

 

If they upped the minimum wage to a living wage they'd slash the benefits budget overnight. Only 3% of the benefits budget goes to people who are unemployed but they never seem to mention that. Nope they prefers their mates in business to reap the rewards whilst tax adds to the peoples income. Its bonkers logic and an economy based on a falsehood

All that is true in theory. I fear the practice would be a massive whack on the stock market and associated big business meltdown. No government regardless of colour will ever sanction such a move because their own business supports would run a mile. 

 

 

There isn't that big a difference between the minimum wage and the living wage.  

 

Living wage - £7.65

Minimum wage - £6.50

 

So a rise of 30p a year would bring them into line over 4 years.

 

That may be the case but as we know with the stock market for example investor confidence is not based in facts, rather than opinions and guesswork. 

 

No government would take the risk and formally declare a policy of pushing for a living wage"

[TrentVilla]

If they upped the minimum wage to a living wage they'd slash the benefits budget overnight. Only 3% of the benefits budget goes to people who are unemployed but they never seem to mention that. Nope they prefers their mates in business to reap the rewards whilst tax adds to the peoples income. Its bonkers logic and an economy based on a falsehood

 

I agree regarding the fact that a lot of benefits go on those in work yet those out of work are the targets in the media, which is clearly because of agenda's and lazy journalism although I'm not certain on the percentages.

 

On the point about increasing the living wage to the minimum wage you are right it would have an impact on benefits, no question.

 

I'm just less sure that the overall result would be what you think, in terms of big business taking the hit.

 

I'm fairly sure that big business would pass the hit on to consumers rather than take a hit in their margin/profits which would in turn hit people in the pocket and potentially damage the economy. While their is a potential for smaller companies to be either priced out of their markets (I'm thinking specifically in the temporary work force/recruitment industry) which would have an impact in all sorts of areas.

 

The other potential unintended consequence may be that companies employ less workers, pay them more but ask a lot more of them. Again this would be bad for the economy and employment figures.

 

So while in principle I agree with the living wage and I agree with the basic logic of what you are saying in its simplest terms but I'm just not sure about the overall conclusion.

 

While the benefits paid to people in work are a drain on the state and while some friends of the government high up in industry and commerce indirectly benefit from it, it is essentially more of a economy subsidy than it is one of big business. In my personal opinion anyway.

Doesn't mean that morally I disagree with it but on an economics basis I suspect that it is somewhat of a necessary evil in a financial climate where a lot of people simply can't or won't pay more for their every day goods and services. A move to living wage from NMW needs to be done in a really healthy economy and we don't have that right now.

 

[MakemineVanilla]

Increasing the minimum wage definitely seems like a fairer system of redistribution than benefits because it benefits everyone on a low wage, not just the 'hard-working families' ie victims of their own fecundity.

 

Obviously, higher wage costs will be passed on, which amounts to a regressive tax, but from opinions on here, people seem willing to pay for it.

 

Higher wage costs will encourage companies to invest to cut their wage costs, which will make them more efficient in the long run.

Edited September 30, 2014 by MakemineVanilla