Bolitics The New Condem Government

[blandy]

'Simplification and transparency'? What exactly do you mean by that?

That a simpler system is less open to fraud, less open to misunderstanding - where people miss out on what they are entitled to and where everyone can see exactly what their taxes are paying for, or what they can expect to get help with, and how much help should they need it

I don't know what IDS's motives are - whether they are to make all benefit payers get less, as you claim, but I doubt that's his motive. I would imagine a more likely motive is to get the overall cost down.

And there only two ways really to do that - firstly by reducing the amount paid to people on benefits or reduce the number of people on benefits.

Or the third thing - cut fraud, cut administration costs. If we take the lowest estimate of fraud, at 1.1 billion per year, and halve it, then 550 million quid instead of going to fraudsters can be used for genuine good.

The relevance is that the statement, "We will cap benefits at £500 per week, that's £26k a year..." puts in people's minds that it's just indolent layabouts getting a weekly giro (BACS transfer in these modern times) for this money and rocking on with their comfortable 'lifestyle choice'.

- I don't care what it puts in people's minds.

My view is that 1. the principle of a max limit to the benefits anyone can get isn't wrong, it's right. - After that it's just where you set the limit.

Even if all it does is remove the hate stories from the likes of the Daily Mail and doesn't affect more than a handful of people, that's no bad thing.

If however it is set at a level (maybe adjusted for location) where people are able to live basically, but safely, but any further improvement beyong that humane bus basic level, towards luxury is done on the back of their own efforts, plus help from agencie,s to get them into work, education, or whatever then that is also a good thing.

Ther ewill be a growing number of people on pensions and benefits and a declining number of people paying taxes to pay for all that. It's a timebomb, and the problem has to be addressed. If cuting fraud and cutting over-generous benefit payments isn't part of that effort, then a trick is being mixed.

[legov]

My view is that 1. the principle of a max limit to the benefits anyone can get isn't wrong, it's right. - After that it's just where you set the limit.

Even if all it does is remove the hate stories from the likes of the Daily Mail and doesn't affect more than a handful of people, that's no bad thing.

If however it is set at a level (maybe adjusted for location) where people are able to live basically, but safely, but any further improvement beyong that humane bus basic level, towards luxury is done on the back of their own efforts, plus help from agencie,s to get them into work, education, or whatever then that is also a good thing.

Ther ewill be a growing number of people on pensions and benefits and a declining number of people paying taxes to pay for all that. It's a timebomb, and the problem has to be addressed. If cuting fraud and cutting over-generous benefit payments isn't part of that effort, then a trick is being mixed.

Nothing much to say other than I could not agree more.

Not British but it is an issue here in Singapore as well (albeit not as big)

[snowychap]

'Simplification and transparency'? What exactly do you mean by that?

That a simpler system is less open to fraud, less open to misunderstanding - where people miss out on what they are entitled to and where everyone can see exactly what their taxes are paying for, or what they can expect to get help with, and how much help should they need it.

Again though, Pete, these are just platitudes.

To just say, I think making it simpler and more transparent will make it better is, really, no help whatsoever especially as a system like a benefits system is going to be complex (unless you do away with it or a substantial part of it like means testing which makes it really complex).

I don't know what IDS's motives are - whether they are to make all benefit payers get less, as you claim, but I doubt that's his motive. I would imagine a more likely motive is to get the overall cost down.

And there only two ways really to do that - firstly by reducing the amount paid to people on benefits or reduce the number of people on benefits.**

Or the third thing - cut fraud, cut administration costs. If we take the lowest estimate of fraud, at 1.1 billion per year, and halve it, then 550 million quid instead of going to fraudsters can be used for genuine good.

Firstly, 'pissing in the wind' springs to mind. (Half a billion quid against a wish of between 25% and 40% savings?)

Secondly, perhaps that good will be to cover the underclaimed benefits in the new transparent and simpler system.

I'm sorry if that appears a very flippant response.

I don't care what it puts in people's minds.

I think people ought to because it is that which fuels the desire in political parties to devise their policies and not actual data, facts or the real situation in toto.

It is that which will set where a cap would be and it is that which is the foundation for the attitude, "That sounds fair to me."

Rhetoric gets repeated, becomes fact, the narrative is fed back to politicians (often by gutter media), it 'informs' (policy) decisions, the central diktat gets disseminated by jobsworth civil servants to the public, reinforces the non-evidence based rhetoric and fact becomes fact just because the government says so. The bogeyman is now real because someone once shouted about him.

**And I'd suggest that one way that this is going to be done is by the migration of all IB claimants (approx 2.7 million - pretty much the level that it was in 1997) to ESA (the policy first put in place by Purnell) by making the WCA (work capability assessment) much more stringent. On the surface people might well say that this proves they shouldn't have been getting this incapacity benefit in the first place but tightening rules does not mean that those who were in receipt of this benefit and no longer will be shouldn't have been; it just means that the bar is being set higher. Apparently, so I was informed earlier, this means that 'almost all' of those people with mental health issues (however serious) will be deemed fit for work and therefore have to claim JSA (an immediate reduction in the welfare payments to them).

What I would suggest will happen next is one of two things, either the government of the day (whichever shade) will take the same kind of political decision that the Tories did in the 80s and 90s and realize that they can get the unemployment figures down (as it is a very popular stick with which to beat an incumbent government) by migrating a large proportion of those people back on to some sort of incapacity benefit or they will further tighten the rules regarding JSA to put those people whom they will have judged because of the raised bar on WCAs to be fit to work in a position where they are not even able to claim JSA (and therefore drop out of the figures - natural wastage, I expect they'd call it).

Anyway, who cares, really. **** 'em. Let's hope we all die soon and don't have to drag anyone down with us.

[thetrees]

Away from all of this highly intelligent stuff I had a quiet chuckle to myself and thought of Ian (drat01) as the shiny private jet of Lord Ashcroft blasted past my window a few moments ago. It was followed closely by Stanley Fink's.

These Tories like to show off in style, unlike those nasty socialists who siphon off the money but pretend that they haven't got it :winkold:

[drat01]

Away from all of this highly intelligent stuff I had a quiet chuckle to myself and thought of Ian (drat01) as the shiny private jet of Lord Ashcroft blasted past my window a few moments ago. It was followed closely by Stanley Fink's.

These Tories like to show off in style, unlike those nasty socialists who siphon off the money but pretend that they haven't got it :winkold:

:-)

It flew over our house and I managed to get a pic of it en-route to its Tax avoidance haven

As for the conference a quick trawl around the media web sites and it seems to have been a big failure for Cameron. The debacle of the child benefits, the admission that they are making up policy on the fly, the fact that other members of the cabinet were not informed. Cameron's speech this afternoon has had some really damning comments in areas like the Daily Mail and to try and use Kitchener was just a poor publicity stunt

God help us all when they really get going

[Awol]

On balance I thought his speech was pretty good Ian, did you see it or are you relying on the Daily Mail's take?

[TrentVilla]

Personally I thought his speech was pretty poor Awol, "lets come together", "it takes two" just made me cringe while his attempts to re-float his 'big society' idea looked like it enthused his party as much as it did the nation during the election.

[blandy]

'Simplification and transparency'? What exactly do you mean by that?

That a simpler system is less open to fraud, less open to misunderstanding - where people miss out on what they are entitled to and where everyone can see exactly what their taxes are paying for, or what they can expect to get help with, and how much help should they need it.

Again though, Pete, these are just platitudes.

To just say, I think making it simpler and more transparent will make it better is, really, no help whatsoever especially as a system like a benefits system is going to be complex (unless you do away with it or a substantial part of it like means testing which makes it really complex).

I guess we disagree. I think that platitudes is unfair. I think that it is self evident that simpler systems ought to be easier to administer, to understand and to monitor for fraud. The next step is to implement a better system, and I accept that's not easy, but I think that rather than just dismiss the whole thing as "too hard" or "platitudes" is defeatist and will lead to worsening of the situation.

On means testing specifically, I'm not overly keen on that - sometimes it's necessary, but one thing G.B. did as Chancellor was to make the system more complex by giving and taking back again. Something that required additional admin, to no overall benefit, in some instances.

I'm not looking at it politically, just as an area which could do with being improved in terms of efficiency and fraud prevention.

I don't know what IDS's motives are - whether they are to make all benefit payers get less, as you claim, but I doubt that's his motive. I would imagine a more likely motive is to get the overall cost down.

And there only two ways really to do that - firstly by reducing the amount paid to people on benefits or reduce the number of people on benefits.**

Or the third thing - cut fraud, cut administration costs. If we take the lowest estimate of fraud, at 1.1 billion per year, and halve it, then 550 million quid instead of going to fraudsters can be used for genuine good.

Firstly, 'pissing in the wind' springs to mind. (Half a billion quid against a wish of between 25% and 40% savings?)

Secondly, perhaps that good will be to cover the underclaimed benefits in the new transparent and simpler system.

I'm sorry if that appears a very flippant response.

Yes, half a billion quid isn't the solution to everything, but it's still a shed load of money. It's not pissing in the wind at all. It's well over a hundred quid for every single benefit claimant.

I don't care what it puts in people's minds.

I think people ought to because it is that which fuels the desire in political parties to devise their policies and not actual data, facts or the real situation in toto.

They've decided they want to do it, not looked at what people think and then chosen to do it. Even if they have, ultimately either way, it's a loop - policy - reaction - policy....

It is that which will set where a cap would be and it is that which is the foundation for the attitude, "That sounds fair to me."

And relying on the judgement of society and politicians combined is wrong because? and a better way is...?

I don't trust the overall motives of the tories, and I don't believe them to be competent, BUT, that doesn't mean that on certain issues I don't think a government should try and improve what is (to me) clearly an unsustainable system.

Taking more people out of paying tax, so they don't need benefit top ups, means tests, assessments and all the rest, seems simpler than the effort of taxing them, then giving them their taxes back via benefits for example. Whether that be housing allowance, heating allowance or whatever else.

And don't just concentrate on making it less unfair for the poor, concentrate on the rich, and the corporate, as well.

[drat01]

On balance I thought his speech was pretty good Ian, did you see it or are you relying on the Daily Mail's take?

Yeah I watched it - from my sick "sofa"

It was a very poor one, the Tory troops lapped it up as you would expect, but the general consensus seems to be that so much damage has been done this week anyway it was always going to be a poor one

Shallow is one word for it.

I had a quick trawl around the media pages - not the pay ones from Murdoch :-) - and there are a lot of dissenting voices from people who you would expect to be his biggest supporters.

It was a marketing speech, not inspiring for the country and to be honest very patronising. As said to try and use the Kitchener thing was crass

[snowychap]

I guess we disagree. I think that platitudes is unfair. I think that it is self evident that simpler systems ought to be easier to administer, to understand and to monitor for fraud. The next step is to implement a better system, and I accept that's not easy, but I think that rather than just dismiss the whole thing as "too hard" or "platitudes" is defeatist and will lead to worsening of the situation.

In which case I think you've misunderstood what I've said or meant to say.

I haven't said that simpler systems ought not to be easier to administer, &c.

What I have suggested is a wistful wish for a simpler system because self-evidently, it will, &c. is to some extent a platitude because it ignores the necessary complexity in a system that encompasses so many people and has to gather so much data.

That is why I suggested that a simpler system would either have to be one which drastically reduces the benefits given (and that doesn't mean as IDS seems to think, I don't believe, let's call it one and it will be one) or one which ignores means testing and becomes more like a system which gives out a basic income.

On means testing specifically, I'm not overly keen on that - sometimes it's necessary, but one thing G.B. did as Chancellor was to make the system more complex by giving and taking back again. Something that required additional admin, to no overall benefit, in some instances.

Some of those benefits (if they are to exist) will have to be means tested. Even if it is lumped all together under one umbrella a housing aspect to a benefit (again unless it becomes part of a universal basic income) will need to be means tested.

I don't see how else it could be administered.

Yes, half a billion quid isn't the solution to everything, but it's still a shed load of money. It's not pissing in the wind at all. It's well over a hundred quid for every single benefit claimant.

Even though I don't take this lot's figures about a 'structural' deficit that seriously, it is 1/208 of that.

It is a fraction of the overall welfare spending (it's less than the amount being taken off and then possibly returned to higher income married couples) and it's a tiny fraction of government spending.

It's not something to ignore but it ought not to be something which takes up so much of the interest of the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or the government.

Again, I fear that all of the shouting about it is as part of a narrative to further cement the preconception that all benefits recipients are fraudsters (and so set all of them up for little sympathy when those benefits are reduced).

I would also go back to my previous comment and would suggest that a reduction in the fraud levels in the benefits system won't occur by way of a cheaper system itself but by way of extra costs incurred (again not a reason to allow it to continue but still something to consider when talking of it in terms of cost reduction).

They've decided they want to do it, not looked at what people think and then chosen to do it.

I think that you've ignored the repetition in political circles of what appear to be Mail and Express headlines then passed on as a fair representation of the norm (for example see Osborne's £104,000 housing benefit example in the emergency budget speech).

And relying on the judgement of society and politicians combined is wrong because?

If it isn't evidence based and is based upon hoo-ha, prejudice, some people shouting very loudly that one example equals the norm then it's wrong.

Just because the majority believes something to be the case does not make it so.

I don't trust the overall motives of the tories, and I don't believe them to be competent, BUT, that doesn't mean that on certain issues I don't think a government should try and improve what is (to me) clearly an unsustainable system.

I don't believe that I've said anywhere that a government shouldn't try and improve whatever they can (including a benefits system which definitely doesn't address the poverty trap).

If what they appear to be doing is either nonsense, stupid, pandering to tabloids, done just for effect, not done with the interests of those within the system in mind (as well as everyone else) or, ultimately, wrong (in my view, obviously) then I'm not going to pat them on the back just for giving it a try.

The last government spent a number of years saying that 'at least they were doing something' - that, frankly, is no kind of a claim but it appears to be one which this new lot wish to echo.

[Awol]

Personally I thought his speech was pretty poor Awol, "lets come together", "it takes two" just made me cringe while his attempts to re-float his 'big society' idea looked like it enthused his party as much as it did the nation during the election.

The "it takes two" line was cheesy as you like, but the main thrust the speech I totally agreed with. Re-establishing the links with our traditional trading partners in the Gulf, India and the Commonwealth is the future in terms of trade and it's trade that sort the economy out in the medium term. So interesting figures on Dan Hannan's blog today that are worth repeating to put that in context and show why Cameron is on the right lines:

In 1973, Britain artificially reoriented its trade towards Europe. Until then, we had been importing food and raw materials relatively cheaply from the Commonwealth, and we generally ran a trade surplus with the six members of the EEC. Since 1973, by contrast, we have run a trade deficit with the rest of the EU in 36 out of 37 years, but a surplus with the rest of the world in 34 out of 37 years.

I also liked the support for new start up businesses, again they will provide jobs and economic growth. A levy on the banks is apparently on the way (which is more than Labour ever did) and I'm certainly not against the "big society" and devolving power back to society so people can help to shape their local institutions.

Ultimately I see that as empowerment and government getting out of peoples faces, socialists probably see it as the government shirking its responsibilities. I guess that's an ideological viewpoint that depends on your personal philosophy of what government is for.

The CB cut wasn't presented well but I agree with the principle that high earners shouldn't be claiming state benefits so the direction is good, even if the announcement and initial structure appears clumsy. Hopefully a transferable tax allowance for single income households will more than offset that loss, but it should work out fairly.

He laid out in stark terms who got us into this mess and why they should never again be trusted with the big boys train set if we wish to avoid destroying the countries finances. I'm not likely to disagree with that because it is so obviously the truth, but the myopia of former Brown supporters now moaning about the evil Tories and their cuts is pretty funny to watch.

Purely from the presentational point of view, Jackie Ashley in the Guardian has Cameron making the best of the leaders speeches. I didn't see Clegg's but DC was head and shoulders above Miliband in terms of delivery - and substance for that matter.

[drat01]

Purely from the presentational point of view, Jackie Ashley in the Guardian has Cameron making the best of the leaders speeches. I didn't see Clegg's but DC was head and shoulders above Miliband in terms of delivery - and substance for that matter.

Substance absolutely no way. Cameron's speech was full on contradiction and lie with very little in terms of anything else. As for style it says a lot about Pop Idol politics when that is even a talking point.

The conference has shown up the Tory party to be totally disorganised, with any policy seemingly made up on the back of a fag packet and targeted at anyone but the richer end of society. Cameron bleats on about this Big Society nonsense with little to explain what it is, and what little he does say seemingly has no backing from his own party members. Gideon has again shown himself up to be out of his depth and you can see why many in the Tory party would like to see him moved if you believe the twitter grapevine.

for a party that claims to have "won" an election and have been seen this week celebrating with 1500 pounds champagne, they are seemingly out of touch with so many in the UK populous. No wonder the love in with Clegg is so strong, and that was nauseating what was said by Cameron today, they need him more and more to try and take the blame for the crap that is now coming over the hill

The next few weeks will see more and more dissent towards this gvmt

[Awol]

Well Ian, that was, er, balanced....

[markavfc40]

Well Ian, that was, er, balanced....

Hark at the **** pot

[drat01]

Jon - how come areas such as ConHome are calling Cameron's speech "forgettable" - even Tory Nick Robinson said that there were areas of the speech that were greeted with silence when Cameron was obviously expecting applause. The whole "big society" waffle is just nothing more than hot air and again this seems to be the opinion of many within your lot on the right.

You infer my comments were not balanced but considering that your comments could have come from Cons HQ, that is somewhat rich ......:-) (see what I did there? :-) )

Its been a pretty piss poor week for the Tory party with all the obvious crap about the child benefits and to hear Cameron crap today about how they forgot to include that in their manifesto was toe curling. the whole defence thing wont go away and the fact that real opinions of Fox and cameron were disclosed in that leaked mail, shows that all the rhetoric to try and paint a happy picture is nothing more than marketing spin.

Also the IMF today talked about something that was very interesting and seemingly saying that Osborne does not have a green light for the level and size of the cuts.

[peterms]

Well Ian, that was, er, balanced....

To be fair, it's just a more emphatic way of saying what several commentators have been saying, that the speech was vacuous, disjointed, and generally not too good. Haven't heard it myself.

And Ian, it's "populace", for **** sake. Populous is the adjective.

[drat01]

And Ian, it's "populace", for **** sake. Populous is the adjective.

I blame a mixture of NightNurse and nice Malt whiskey :-)

[Awol]

Well Ian, that was, er, balanced....

Hark at the **** pot

I tried to give a balanced view of Miliband Juniors' speech Mark. Oh, and you forgot to call me a Tory rocket polisher.

[Awol]

Jon - how come areas such as ConHome are calling Cameron's speech "forgettable" - even Tory Nick Robinson said that there were areas of the speech that were greeted with silence when Cameron was obviously expecting applause. The whole "big society" waffle is just nothing more than hot air and again this seems to be the opinion of many within your lot on the right.

I'm giving my opinion and don't really care what ConHome, Nick Robinson or anyone else might think about the speech to be honest.

You infer my comments were not balanced but considering that your comments could have come from Cons HQ, that is somewhat rich ......:-) (see what I did there? :-) )

Hang on, I'm either parroting ConHome or they don't agree with my analysis, which is it? As for the last bit: I, am considerably poorer, than yow.

Also the IMF today talked about something that was very interesting and seemingly saying that Osborne does not have a green light for the level and size of the cuts.

Interesting, when I posted a link to the IMF praising the planned spending reductions you thought they weren't worth the paper they were written on.

I'll leave the 'H' thing to Tony... :winkold:

[drat01]

Interesting, when I posted a link to the IMF praising the planned spending reductions you thought they weren't worth the paper they were written on.

I'll leave the 'H' thing to Tony... Wink

See Jon that was the exact point. Who said the IMF things were not worth the paper they were written on? You can claim hypocrisy as much as you like but at least show it then the people can say "ah yes I meant to say it but forgot to put it in"

How can the IMF make a prediction? Gideon has not said what will be massively cut. Unless of course they are saying that the growth we are seeing now, as predicted by Darling (how embarrassing for those who questioned him) is in fact OK.

Basically I think Tony has summed it up perfectly

- Tony had said we keep hearing different things from different people and it changes all of the time. You were the one that argued that in this instance the IMF had it right, again what rules are we playing to here?

I'm giving my opinion and don't really care what ConHome, Nick Robinson or anyone else might think about the speech to be honest.

Yes but as many are pointing out when the core support are not enthused about it and are going public, it says something. Come on lets be honest Jon, you are one of the first to use Internet articles to prove your point. The Gideon cock up on the benefits thing has been a massive own goal and you can see the spin machine of the Tory party trying (and pretty much failing) to try and salvage something from it. The whole Tory party dilemma has been shown up this week, Cameron and Gideon especially would love to follow their core values of Thatcherism or even farther right wing (if that is possible), but the public in general wont buy that. The fact that Cameron tries and tries to say "Nick is with me on this" to deflect any backlash is worrying. Cameron knows that he has to go into overdrive now into deflection and spin, look how many times he says "blame Labour" rather than trying to show how his policy is actually fair (which it is being shown not to be)

I, am considerably poorer, than yow.

Speak to my accountant :-) ......................... Note: AKA my missus and the nice people at First Direct / HSBC :-)