In praise of Iain Duncan Smith's Welfare Reforms

There isn't a safe pair of hands in the Tory party, papaoscar. Every time I write on here, I feel quite ill at the heading. Need to start another thread on him.
The strange thing is that IDS was in the forces. He should realise that everyone is important, and needs to be able to live. His job was an extension of the welfare state. He was supposed to be protecting the people in this country, not making them worse off.
However like most of the rest of the government he has always been in the 1%. He has no idea how the majority of people live in this country.

No praise for Smith from me: an unpleasant little man doing a sneaky, unpleasant job on behalf of his equally unpleasant and inadequate master. Yes, there is benefit abuse and yes, it is necessary to tighten up the system. But, no, it is not right to harass the weakest members of our society whilst letting the real crooks, be they benefit scroungers, bankers, or massive tax-avoiders, get away with it. But then what do you expect from Smith, failed leader of his party, massager of the truth about his own past, and lucky enough to enjoy a soft living thanks to his wealthy in-laws. Not exactly a safe pair of hands to sort out the nation's welfare problems, I would have thought.

https://fullfact.org/live/2014/jun/statistics_authority_work_pensions_complaints-33473

The statistics authority sends more letters to the DWP complaining that it's got its statistics wrong than any other government department.
I am actually close to feeling sorry for IDS as he's got himself so much in a mess.

Five years ago when I retired, you needed to have paid NI for 39 years, so the 30 years now is an anomaly for the lucky few who are between 60 and 65. 35 years is still less than people older than me had to pay in for.
We also do not get the guaranteed flat rate pension.

Five years ago when I retired, you needed to have paid NI for 39 years, so the 30 years now is an anomaly for the lucky few who are between 60 and 65. 35 years is still less than people older than me had to pay in for.
We also do not get the guaranteed flat rate pension.

IDS is hitting poor pensioners with welfare reform as much as working poor of all ages, who are the bulk of those going to food banks.

Welfare reform is not only about the unemployed, which includes those lost or sanctioned off benefit (and so no vouchers to food banks) over 60 and disabled / chronic sick lost benefits.

If you get a state pension and benefits, you get taxed even if between them still below the basic tax allowance.

Unemployment benefit is only 3 per cent of the benefits bill, and includes those raised retirement age women 60 from 2013 and men from 65 to 66, yet people over 60 are not listed in the unemployment statistics by government.

97 per cent of the benefits bill is the working poor and poor pensioners, which includes half of women over 50.

You get your state pension payout even if remain in your job.

Winter Fuel Allowance is threatened after 2015, but if below retirement age and lose benefit, also lose access to Cold Weather Payments.

These are your children, to the great grandparent generation alive today.

Worse is to come from 2016 with the Flat Rate Pension, that is not more, but less or nil state pension for life for your children from 60/65 from 2016:

- End of Pension credit new claimants from 2016

- End of State Earnings Related Pension and State Second Pension, so no triple lock guaranteed annual rise for these additional pensions

- End of housewife's 60 per cent state pension from husband's contributions new claimants from 2016, with housewife no state pension of her own from too low waged / less than 14 hours each job to qualify to pay for NI credits and no state pension pro rata if less than 10 years NI credits

- End of widow inheriting husband's state pension

- End of divorcees having a state pension from husband's contribution, when none of her own

- Less state pension as need 35 years NI credits instead of now 30 years and to be fully paid up in SERPs / S2P. Will not be able to top up NI credits from 2016.

Once again no thought for the small business durhamjen RTI reporting (by law within 7 days of a payment)means that I am unable to have a two week holiday. Our business pays wages on a weekly basis. We always have and the guys simply refuse (or probably cannot afford) to change to monthly. This means that I am legally obliged to report a payroll payment within 7 days of the said payment in "real time" so I cannot do this two weeks in advance like I can the payroll. Another wonderful gift to the small business from this sh*tty government !

falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/exclusive-coalitions-pursuit-turns-nasty-as-debt-collectors-hound-poorest

Is this what we really want?
Should they not be hounding the richest for the taxes they do not pay?

www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/chartered-institute-of-taxation-ciot/article/ciot-serious-concerns-for-business-over-universal-credit-pro

Another problem for employers and the self-employed caused by IDS.

www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/05/21/iain-duncan-smith-continues-to-hide-reports-showing-failure

Stll hiding the facts from the public. Another man with no shame.

Mamie

I'm sorry but your last post in standing up for those I mentioned is absolutely the right thing to do.

It does NOT matter a hoot what their background is, nor their wealth or eduacation, so class warfare if and when it is used is a crass, puerile worthless tactic that has had it's sell by date. I agree. That is what I have repeatedly said. So why does Labour keep using class in the obvious way it does.

As for Nadine Dorries she is just as bad, she uses class for self promotion in my opinion but then again I lost respect for her a little while ago to be honest.

Anno

I know you have opposite views on politics to myself but honestly if you have never heard
Labour MP's sneering at the 'Tory Toffs'. ''Upper class Twits' etc. etc.then I have to believe what you say, I suppose. Might I suggest you watch BBC Parliament it is a mantra from the opposition benches and I think they are beating a worn out drum to be honest.

As for your comment that I am personaly beating a worn out drum, I couldn't agree more. I keep getting posters asking me to answer a question I thought I had made perfectly clear where I stood, it would be very rude to ignore them, wouldn't it?

I don't remember hearing much about class warfare from Labour politicians though much more of the clichéed old mantra of 'hard working families' from both government and opposition and 'the squeezed middle' from Ed Milliband. I think you are beating a worn-out drum, Pogs.

I don't remember hearing much about class warfare from Labour politicians though much more of the clichéed old mantra of 'hard working families' from both government and opposition and 'the squeezed middle' from Ed Milliband. I think you are beating a worn-out drum, Pogs.

I don't remember hearing much about class warfare from Labour politicians though much more of the clichéed old mantra of 'hard working families' from both government and opposition and 'the squeezed middle' from Ed Milliband. I think you are beating a worn-out drum, Pogs.

Elegran yes Uriah!

I thought you might not have meant that POGS, but I honestly couldn't see what the fact that Harriet Harman's aunt (the daughter of an eye surgeon) was married to Lord Longford had to do with anything. Similarly I don't see what Tristram Hunt's background has to so with anything either. (Also, just as a point of information he was not employed to teach in any school. As a visiting academic he has done some specialist lessons with the school's own teachers. Good secondary schools bring in additional experts, it has nothing to do with employing unqualified teachers to teach full time. There is a difference.)
As far as I know Fiona MacTaggart is a hardworking and well-respected MP. What does her father's money have to do with that?
Do we have any evidence that the people you list have used their background as a canvassing strategy?
I do remember Nadine Dorries talking about posh boys who haven't a clue though.
What I do see and hear in British politics is the constant trivialisation of serious messages by a lightweight and vacuous media.

True, POGS, and Labour do not seem to have anything positive to offer any more so resort to scoring an own goal.

"I'm ever so 'umble!"

It is inverted snobbery to claim that "I am better than you because I am not posh" - particularly when you come from a privileged background and chose to join the ranks of Labour, not being "born into it" and to use it as a canvassing strategy is cynical hypocracy.

A good political policy that benefits the vulnerable is good for the whole country, toffs as well as plebs, and all in between, and that should be reflected in their campaigning. It might even get them more votes from those who are put off by the false "humility" bandied about.

Mamie

Absolutely not!

You are missing my point or I am not explaining myself well.

It is the fact that Labour continually use class warfare as their mantra, trying to say Labour are not like the Conservatives. 'We aren't like them, we aren't posh' 'We aren't like them with their wealthy mates' 'We aren't like them, we understand the lives of the working man, how can the posh boys know what you are going through, in THEIR million pound homes'

This all started when I was asked why I called Labour hypocrites and I am stating why.

I detest the use of class warfare. It is puerile and is used when you have nothing progressive to say. It is a method of differentiating between the two parties that has little relevance in today's society.

Contrary to what you have assumed I do not care who is privately educated, I don't think it matters. I don't understand why those who have had a private education elect to sneer at or try to distance themselves in their line of thought private education belongs to toffs and that is a Conservative domain and there for must be a factor why you shouldn't vote Conservative. It's ridiculous.

I do not care what social background a person comes from. Labour do. They refer to the Conservatives as the party of the wealthy and social snobs. Labour know only too well they have exactly the same Lords, Ladies, MP's, backers in their ranks but they use class to differentiate their party from the Conservatives. It doesn't fool anybody it just shows rank hypocrisy.

It is a good thing that parliament has MP's from all backgrounds, I celebrate that fact.

What does class warfare and inverted snobbery used by Labour mean, the desire for a parliament of MP's who had to attend state school only. A parliament that has MP's that earn the minimum wage and live in social housing. Of course not that is a totally ridiculous thing to say. So why is class, wealth or social background used by Labour in such a crass way?

You don't have to be from any social background or education system to have a conviction or be principled surely. You mention the likes of Lord Salisbury. If he was in parliament today he would be called a toff and public school boy who doesn't have a clue how the other half lives. He would be sneered at by the Labour front benches, the BBC and the left wing press. Not because of his deeds or actions but because of his class and background which Labour abhor in today's society.

That is a sad world and that is what we live in today.

Whatever their background it is true that, yet again, Labour made a balls-up of the ecomony.

So are you saying POGS that nobody is allowed to become a socialist out of conviction or principle?
If you come from a family that has money, are educated at an independent school, go to a "top" university, then is it by definition hypocritical to become a Labour MP or to vote Labour ?
Are working-class Conservatives similarly hypocritical?
Should the great reformers like the Earl of Shaftesbury not have bothered with welfare reforms on Victorian child labour?
That sounds like a very sad world to me.

DJ

The point is Labour use class warfare to deceive the public into thinking the Labour Party is ' for the working man'. The Tory Toffs don't understand you because they are all wealthy, with wealthy mates, public school boys and sons and daughters of Lords and Ladies. Not us, vote for us we are nothing like the nasty party. Bull!

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Harriet Harman.

Went to a Russell Group University, she went to St Paul's private school, the same as George Osborne ???. Her aunt is The Countess of Longford.Her cousins are Lady Antonia Fraser and Lady Rachel Billington. She owns high value properties.

Her hypocrisy over the 'all women short lists' is well known, very good for hubby Jack Dromey. There good but only when it suits me brigade. Her connections to the Paedophile Information Exchange and the National Council for Civil Liberties left a nasty taste in the mouth. Even the odius Labour MP Tom Watson asked for an investigation into PIE.

Tristrum Hunt.

His real name is the Honourable Tristram Julian William Hunt. Son of Lord Hunt of Chesterton. He was privately educated and went to University College School, part of the Eton Group of 12 Independent schools, which make up the most elite in the country. Trinity College Cambridge.

He is a hypocrite for saying teachers should be qualified when he himself teaches/taught in school whilst NOT being a trained teacher himself.

Fiona Mactaggart.

Cheltenham Ladies College, Kings College. Her father is Sir Ian Mactaggart She inherited one fifth of her father's £6.5 million pound estate. She owns homes in London, Slough and the I.O.W.

Ed Balls

Started in a state school but then attended the prestigious, private school, Nottingham High. Same school as Kenneth Clark?? Keble Oxford and Harvard.

Could go on and on, Multi millionairess Margaret Hodge. Multi millionaire Shaun Woodward, Multi millionaire Job Cruddas, Multi millionaire. Tom Baldwin Multi millionaire. Michael Meacher, he rants on about the bedroom tax. He owns 9 properties some he rents out. etc. etc.

No I'm sorry but you can't call the Tories hypocrites because they don't try to make out they do not have some wealthy, well educated MP's. They do not try to make out they are something they are not.

It isn't the fact anybody thinks Labour have no right to be rich or well educated but why do they stupidly use class warfare when the make up of the Labour Party is no different to the Tories in many ways.

As for Blair. You'll never know what wealth that man has.

So you hope you are fairminded, but you do not think labour politicians should be rich.
The ones who are richer than Blair are all in the House of Lords and made their money in business before becoming Lords.
Lord Sainsbury is not allowed to have money because he supports the Labour Party, is that right? Not very fairminded of you.
I do not think you can accuse Tony Benn of sacrificing his children's education by sending them to bog-standard comprehensives. I wish all politicians would be as concerned as he was about the state of the comprehensive.
If everyone paid the taxes they owed, the education system would not be in the state it is in. We could have lots more teachers and equipment in state schools, so rich people would not need to pay more for their children to have a privileged education. They would be able to see that every child got an equal chance at a good education in state schools.

I meant richest Labour politician - should have clarified that. So there are 3 other Labour politicians who are even richer? have they no principles?

I was merely asking why, if you are very rich, you would not buy the best education possible for your child, thus relieving the tax payer of the cost of educating them and consequently providing more of the stretched resources for those who cannot afford to pay. I do not think that is silly in the slightest. I would not use my child as a political tool and send them to a 'bog-standard comprehensive' if I could afford to do otherwise. Even in communist countries the 'political elite' send their children to top schools, often in Britain!
Of course, in communism all are equal but some are more equal than others.
I would disagree that the whole system of education would be better if public or private schools were done away with. That is a scary prospect indeed if your only choice is a comprehensive in special measures. Of course, the political elite would live in much posher areas and if necessary bus their children to the best schools, having manoeuvred their way to a place for their child.

I would not call anyone silly even if I disagreed with them, nor even misguided. I try to see another's point even if I would argue against it. But I hope that I am fair-minded.