For the government, the holiday period is clearly a time to carry on the assault on benefits claimants. David Cameron started it in his New Year message, covered in the Telegraph, which headlines it "We'll help the strivers, not welfare claimants". Well, that's everyone who is elderly or disabled branded, as well as those trying to find work. There's an extraordinary passage which shows just how clueless he is about the reality of unemployment: “When people say we've got to stop our welfare reforms because somehow it is cruel to expect people to work, we are saying no. Getting people into good jobs is absolutely vital, not just for them, but for all of us." Sorry? Did someone say it was cruel to expect people to work? What are you talking about? The article points out that the message echoes that put out recently by Tories in marginal constituencies "demanding whether the Government should offer more help to 'hard working families' or 'people who don’t work'. The advertisements have been criticised by Labour as taking the Conservatives back to being the 'nasty party'." Yes, and I would think they've alienated all the pensioners and disabled, too.
Iain Duncan Smith has been busy too. Since it was pointed out that around 60% of those claiming benefits are actually working, he has turned his wrath on the tax credits system. Several papers cover his attack, but the best version, perhaps, is in the Independent. Now, I have to say that I was never entirely happy with the tax credits system. It seemed to be subsidising bad employers. And it goes too far up the income scale. I knew a man with a young family who was on a good salary (I knew exactly what it was since it was partly my responsibility to pay it) who was eligible for the credits, while a single person under 50 wasn't. I also knew someone who was offered a job with variable hours who panicked at the thought that he would face the money being clawed back. But I wasn't aware that "after 2008 HMRC did not attempt to reclaim overpayments of less than £25,000. That is set to be reduced to £5,000 under the coalition, alongside moves to require proof of payments from those claiming for childcare or that children aged between 16 and 19 are in full-time education." Reform is obviously necessary.
But, as usual, IDS goes over the top. The Factcheck blog has shown that his figures are either wrong or just made up. It seems that he will claim anything to justify his hostility to people on benefits.
Happy New Year, folks.
Alas, Cameron and Smith are examples of what happens when you have populist opinion poll led politicians!
ReplyDeleteFor Cameron to say "We'll help the strivers, not welfare claimants" is as disgusting as it is cheap! Is he really saying he will be AGAINST those without a job? To say he'll help those in work as opposed to those without stupidly supposes every jobseeker is non-apparitional and does not wish to improve their lot. This is tantamount admission that the governments back to work policies are just not worth the fag packet they were originally written on.
It's all rather akin to a doctor prescribing a course of drugs. After 3 months of the drugs clearly not working, this doctor then becomes angry and blames the patient!
There's a battle over benefits heating up between Labour and the Coalition on this, with Labour voting against the benefits changes on account of the increase cap. Labour, correctly, state that most people in work are the ones who are going to suffer. I'm sure there's an ideological concern for people out of work too, although the current political climate means they need to keep it schtum.
ReplyDeleteGiven that Labour's line of attack is certainly going to be that this government is penalising working people, attacking the tax credit system is surely playing directly into their hands? Making up figures in order to justify a political strategy which proves your opponents rhetoric true? Who directs Tory strategy these days?
Happy New Year, historian, and very many thanks for all your informative articles.
ReplyDeleteI know almost nothing about Working Tax Credits but I had noticed the latest attack by IDS. I’m hopeless at any sort of arithmetic but IDS’ figures sounded too high to be credible, so I wondered what he is up to?
I’m one of A4E’s Work Programme customers. I’m over 50, claiming JSA and I have no dependent children. I also claim HB and CT.
Shortly before Christmas 2011, I was suddenly summoned to A4E’s office in great haste. Apparently it was imperative for my A4E adviser to be able to tick a box before Crimble 2011, to confirm that he had made me trudge through a “Better Off Calculation” about WTC. I phoned my local authority and got them to confirm how much I was (notionally) receiving each week by way of HB and CT, since my rent money and CT Benefit does not come to me. I e-mailed these numbers to the A4E man.
I went to A4E’s office, as agreed. The adviser got into some sort of “interactive tool” on the HMRC website. He then informed me that if I got a job for not less than 30 hours a week, paying the NMW, the Govt would give me a further £48pw, to take me up to the equivalent of the full-time NMW, which would be £216 per week. He beamed, “So, you see, you would be better off!”
I thought, “Rubbish. What about bus fares? What about free NHS dentistry and prescriptions? What about rampant inflation, and so forth?” The tool on the HMRC website did not take the bleedin’ obvious into account, it seemed to me…..
I figured out that the only solution for me would be to do without this WTC idea. A single person needs to earn more than the NMW in order to get the numbers to stack up, it seems to me. (Especially in my case, where I need quite a lot of dentistry imminently and I also take two pills a day for my blood pressure.)
I wondered what A4E were doing by trying to get me to believe porkie pies, in effect?
I didn’t know that someone can earn significantly more than the NMW and still be able to claim WTC? That said, I imagine that the whole thing is different for a WTC claimant who has small children?
Im similar to yourself. Late 40s living alone and attending a4e for two yrs from Sept 2012. £216 a week sounds nice on paper but in reality its rubbish. I too am on two lots of tablets for high bp and need glasses. Id struggle to get by on that. Its a total crock the whole business. After April it will get worse. I will lose 14% of my HB and 20% of CTB so will need to pay around £34 a fortnight out of £142 jobseekers towards it or i get evicted!!! Better get myself some rope...
DeleteIDS Hasnt a clue, he should be sacked and now! Hes out of touch with what its like to live in the real world.The tories are the most arrogant bunch ive ever seen in government carrying on like we are all in this together and camerons big society. Anyone with an iq bigger larger than a mouse knows this is all total crap.
ReplyDeleteWe have very spoilt individuals running a country which is fast going out of control. They exect the unemployed to live on next to zero and at the same time be working for multi billion pound companies,and if not then just fritter away billions paying the likes of a4e .
Just before X-mas,I was called in to meet my new adviser (7th one in 12 months) lovely lady,as I have now been with the WP for 1 year,she asked why have I still been unable to find full time work? attitude? lack of effort? did I actually want to work? "you cannot stay on benefits for ever you know" I assured her that I have taken every step possible,that I currently am working part time,although this ends on the 5th of January(just needed help over the holidays) and I would appreciate any help that she could provide. She looked a bit dumbfounded,I pulled out a copy of the DWP guidelines for Providers and asked her what I could expect for "Tailored support" and could we please come up with a written plan,as what I am doing is not working,,,,,enter the Supervisor,are you harassing your adviser? what is your problem? I am just trying to clarify what options are available...meeting over report 4th of Jan to discuss my attitude problem.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note 5 out of 8 advisers have taken other jobs within the Council,all replacement staff are temp on 3 month contracts..sinking ship? or wishful thinking.
Happy New Year!
Was also diagnosed with an "attitude problem" whilst interred with the local A4e office (now thankfully closed). On being informed of the issue, I replied,"My dear boy, I do not have an attitude problem. It is you that has the problem with my attitude."
Delete'We won't help welfare claimants'...
ReplyDeleteA truly sickening comment and one which shows Cameron and the Tories to be the most nefarious party in modern times.
Not only will his snobbish words cause distress to those people who find themselves unemployed and GENUINELY LOOKING FOR WORK but also those people dependent on the welfare system for other types of benefit, especially those on Pension Credit.
It is now clear what the objective of the Tories is. It is to dismantle the welfare state and all its component parts i.e. JSA, Pension Credit, National Insurance, the NHS, subsidized education.
The welfare state was created to tackle unemployment, poverty, sickness and ignorance precisely because these were problems which could not be tackled WITHOUT gov't help.
Cameron is consciously pushing Britain back into poverty and hardship.
It would be different if there were jobs out there, but there are less and less jobs as employers go to the wall. I am applying for any job i am remotely qualified for, because if i dont apply for jobs i will get punished. I know i am unqualified for them, the employers know i am unqualified, even A4e knows i am unqualified.On the universal jobs match site I see the same jobs advertised, 10 of them with the same details, just the location is different (by a difference of 2 miles), Zero hour contracts, jobs that you need to drive to get too. Until they realise there are not many jobs out there then this will never end and unfortunately IDS, Cameron, Grayling, hoban and their ilk who live in ivory towers will never see it
ReplyDeleteOne thing about Tax Credits that no-one seems to have noted is that it has allowed people to engage in marginal but productive activity where the UK cannot compete with imports. Market Gardening and small-scale Farming for example, both of which have had the additional whammy of years of drought followed by 9 months of constant flooding. Having read the guidelines on the new Universal Credit I, for one, am winding down with a view to giving up. "Let them eat imports!"
ReplyDeleteYet more contrived pressure on the unemployed in Westminster ..... "Obese face 'exercise or lose benefits' threat, council says" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20897681
ReplyDeleteThere's a good account of this in the Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/obesity-benefits-cuts#start-of-comments
DeleteThe comments under it are wonderful.
I detect an insoluble problem. According to the Guardian:
Delete"Obese and other unhealthy people could be monitored to check whether they are taking exercise and have their benefits cut if they fail to do so under proposals published on Thursday by a Conservative-run council and a local government thinktank."
Taken to its logical conclusion, this means no beer or munchies for Eric Pickles, Ken Clarke, that chubby youngster Alec Shelbrooke, a strict diet for the portly IDS (who spends his life chewing sweets) and all the various assorted other troughers and trenchermen amongst our august body of MPs.
Nice thought, Judi, but this measure is strictly for the plebs.
DeleteI would say, Westminster Council "Don't judge a book by its cover"!
ReplyDeleteMy grandfather smoked heavily until his death at 91 from falling and contracting pneumonia in hospital, not from smoking.
I know of a case currently where the guy concerned is in his early 70s, overweight, eats fairly sensibly but drinks a fair amount of alcohol. He collapsed just before Christmas and all the blood tests and MRI scans unbelievably are normal!
In short just because you are obese it does not necessarily mean you are ill.
Hopefully this mad mooted scheme will bite the dust. It's so so callous.
Had to sign on today,I had a adviser that I have had previously,not a fan of the WP or UJM.I was told that UJM is not mandatory yet,but is in the pipeline,as we chatted I asked how is the UJM performing? Although early days the unofficial result is less than 1%...getting hired? NO less than 1% of applicants are ever contacted about a job through the system. As the adviser said early days.
ReplyDeleteI have made a point of using UJM and where it gives the option of why you don't want to apply for the job I have truthfully ticked either "Don't have the skills" or "Too far away". I signed up for it 3 weeks or so ago now and to date I haven't found a single job I can reasonably apply for. So my applications are made, as before, via agency websites etc.
DeletePS It occurs to me that with the threat of benefit being cut that will stop obese people going to the doctor in the first place for whatever other ailment they may have .....
ReplyDeleteHow too are the Council going to know of a visit unless the doctor breaches his hippocratic oath? Or will ATOS win some lucrative contract instead?
Will overweight members of parliment, have their wages docked due to being overweight?
ReplyDeleteStill thinking about this stupidity ..... Do you remember Michael O''Leary of Ryanair proposing a "Fat Tax" for obese passengers. a couple of years ago It never happened.
ReplyDeleteA banker, a Daily Mail reader and a man on benefits are sat round a table sharing 12 biscuits. The banker takes 11 and says to the Daily Mail reader 'look out for the benefit claimant, he wants your biscuit'.
ReplyDeleteHappy new year.