Gransnet forums

News & politics

How Can A Government That Spends Billions On Mass Testing Quibble Over Helping The Low Paid?

(116 Posts)
PippaZ Tue 19-Jan-21 08:27:21

I've pinched the Waugh Zone headline because I don't think I can put it any better.

When politicians appear to defend the bureaucracy of a system rather than the needs of the public, they can sound tone deaf. When that defence involves matters of life and death, they risk coming across as robotic at best, callous at worst.

We have just seen the Government challenged, and thankfully six MPs have voted against plans to cut the Universal Credit £20 per week uplift. This is a non-binding vote but has, at least, shown some Tories have a conscience.

However, there still test and, 'if we've got time', trace. Dido Harding expects 90% of the massive £22bn budget would go on testing, not tracing. And the bulk of the new tests would be lateral flow tests and, we are told, that 900 staff from consultants Deloitte are working for Test and Trace, at an average cost of £1,000 a day.

As well as stopping the £20 a week uplift, which we now know makes even some Tory MPs uncomfortable, Sunak surely has to face the issue of people not self-isolating because of money worries.

Large numbers of low paid or self employed are not covered by the £500 payment and yet, knowing many of these people may then feel they have to work, no one has attempted to solve this - so the spreading continues for the want of £500. The horse shoe nail of the pandemic.

lemongrove Tue 19-Jan-21 12:28:04

When things do back to something approaching normality,
Pubs and restaurants, cafes and cinemas and theatres and all leisure jobs that are presently furloughed or lost will be back in business, and we don’t know what will be in the budget as yet.
As you say, it may well be extended until July anyway.

MaizieD Tue 19-Jan-21 12:35:41

There should be no return to 'normality' until the greater part of the population is properly vaccinated (with 2 doses where applicable). Which will probably be by the Autumn at the very earliest. I understand that we need at least 80%+ coverage to achieve herd immunity. People are already thinking that the vaccination is going to make them invincible (see the other thread on here) Opening up too soon (again)would be a very rash move, particularly in view of the development of antibody resistant mutations of the virus.

trisher Tue 19-Jan-21 12:40:02

So who is going to have the cash to eat out or go to the cinema/theatre? Not many people. It won't happen by magic you know. Loads of small businesses are already closed, more will go. Pubs were already struggling. The idea that they will suddenly find the money to open up is ridiculous.

PippaZ Tue 19-Jan-21 12:58:38

I hear some of this idea that there will money that "people" have saved going back into the economy from the odd Tory politician. They seem to be referring to all the expensive holidays people haven't been able to take hmm

Where people have been used to such holidays it really doesn't mean the money has been under the bed all this time. Many people, with the ability to do so, may have been living off this because their earnings have been cut or disappeared. Others have invested in their homes, gardens, home office, etc. You certainly couldn't get a bathroom fitter for love nor money at one point, lockdown or no lockdown. Others were simply never in that income bracket and a few will have realised there is no point in getting into debt when the world feels so precarious. I think there will have been a lot of rethinking - I understand the applications to adopt have risen. Family and community (I know that's a dirty word to a Tory) has become more important to many.

Obviously if you never normally wash your own hair you may be in a different income group to the vast majority of people. wink

MaizieD Tue 19-Jan-21 13:16:07

There are also people who have been working from home and who have saved money on travel and subsistence.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to think that there will be very little spare cash at all once restrictions are lifted, but the contention that uplifting benefit payments will help to maintain the 'real' economy is a valid one.

PippaZ Tue 19-Jan-21 13:17:54

It has to be Maizie. Rather like giving a decent basic pension.

MaggsMcG Tue 19-Jan-21 13:19:15

Alegrias1

Nope - number 8 by deaths per million. Italy, Slovenia, Belgium and others all higher.

As of today we are the highest per capita apparently for deaths but when you look at the size of the country we have less opportunity to spread out so that must have an effect too.

growstuff Tue 19-Jan-21 13:22:01

Pippa It's the discredited idea of "trickle down economics".

growstuff Tue 19-Jan-21 13:25:50

PippaZ

It has to be Maizie. Rather like giving a decent basic pension.

But, Pippa, I'll be receiving my state pension from April and will be better off than I am now with some self-employed income and Universal Credit. I'm not claiming that the state pension is generous, but it's actually worth more than working age benefits, which should give a clue as to how inadequate Universal Credit is.

Alegrias1 Tue 19-Jan-21 13:29:20

Oh dear, really sorry, this is an interesting discussion but as I've been addressed by name I will respond to MaggsMcG.

We are not highest per capita for deaths. We're 8th. 8th is not good, but we are not highest. Here are the stats. Why do people keep repeating this when it isn't true?

Source is Worldometer.

growstuff Tue 19-Jan-21 13:31:26

trisher

So who is going to have the cash to eat out or go to the cinema/theatre? Not many people. It won't happen by magic you know. Loads of small businesses are already closed, more will go. Pubs were already struggling. The idea that they will suddenly find the money to open up is ridiculous.

Some people will have spare cash and the government will be reluctant to tax them. The result will be an even more unequal society. So much for levelling up!

lemongrove Tue 19-Jan-21 13:38:57

MaizieD

There are also people who have been working from home and who have saved money on travel and subsistence.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to think that there will be very little spare cash at all once restrictions are lifted, but the contention that uplifting benefit payments will help to maintain the 'real' economy is a valid one.

I agree with all these points MaizieD
The only thing is that the extra top up of £20 is supposed to be just because of Covid, if it’s extended for a while it will be a good thing but I can see how giving 6 million people ( not sure of actual figure) an upgrade of £20 per week forever would cost a massive amount to the country. I have much sympathy for those on very low wages and will wait to see what happens for them this year.
Covid is an absolute disaster for everything, economically, mental and physical health, and even we are hearing, the law courts with a backlog that will take ages to clear ( more mental health problems with stress.)

trisher Tue 19-Jan-21 13:51:33

This government has squandered £57 billion on useless contracts leftfootforward.org/2020/08/the-government-is-using-the-pandemic-to-give-contracts-to-cronies/
There are currently 2.3 million people on UC giving them £20 is not only a comparable cost it is something which benefits the economy far more.

MaizieD Tue 19-Jan-21 14:12:16

ed to be just because of Covid, if it’s extended for a while it will be a good thing but I can see how giving 6 million people ( not sure of actual figure) an upgrade of £20 per week forever would cost a massive amount to the country.

But, if you read my post of 12.04 you will see that the £20 upgrade will be spent in the 'real' economy. That is, in the every day, buying food and fuel and basic necessities (and a few 'luxuries', such as some beers or a takeaway pizza) type of economy. This money won't be squirreled away in 'savings' because it's desperately needed for daily existence.

And just about every penny that is spent in the 'real' economy is taxed either directly or indirectly, so returns to the Treasury. This is an incontrovertible fact of how money circulates. This being so, the extra money not only provides a small stimulus to the economy (keeping businesses and employment going) , but it also comes back to the government coffers once it's done so.

I really, truly and honestly can't see how people cannot understand this.

It's the people with loadsamoney who don't contribute much to the circulation of money in the economy. Once they've satisfied basic needs they still have loads left. They squirrel a lot of the excess away or circulate it among themselves by way of 'investment' in equity and property. Neither of which things produce so much tax...

The basic proposition is:

Govt gives money to poor people, they'll get just about all of it back

Govt. gives money to rich people (all those 'contracts') , they'll get far less back.

EllanVannin Tue 19-Jan-21 14:13:08

Wait until the unemployment bubble bursts after this pandemic ! There'll need to be more than £20 " top-ups " needed for those who've skipped mortgages/ rents and bills !!

MaizieD Tue 19-Jan-21 14:15:15

Even if they 'squandered' the extra money on beer and fags and flatscreen tellies, it would still come back to the government because all those things are taxed. It's not going to disappear into a black hole somewhere...

This is really basic Keynesian economics...

growstuff Tue 19-Jan-21 18:50:44

EllanVannin

Wait until the unemployment bubble bursts after this pandemic ! There'll need to be more than £20 " top-ups " needed for those who've skipped mortgages/ rents and bills !!

There certainly will! People need to get it into their heads that poverty isn't always caused by so-called fecklessness.

growstuff Tue 19-Jan-21 18:55:00

MaizieD

Even if they 'squandered' the extra money on beer and fags and flatscreen tellies, it would still come back to the government because all those things are taxed. It's not going to disappear into a black hole somewhere...

This is really basic Keynesian economics...

In some ways it would be better for the government if they did spend it on booze and fags because they're heavily taxed. As it is, the poorest are likely to have to spend all their money on rent, utilities and food with technology, travel and clothes as extras.

Dinahmo Tue 19-Jan-21 18:58:06

Alegrias1

It is and I'm sorry for derailing it. But I won't let misinformation go uncorrected when it is such an important topic.

They've been saying on the news, all day, that the UK has the highest death rate.

Dinahmo Tue 19-Jan-21 19:04:18

Lemongrove

"On the continuation of the £20 top up for the duration of Covid, perhaps by April things will have changed for jobs and the economy and won’t be quite as needed, or perhaps Sunak will be unveiling something else at the Spring Budget".

Do you really think that in 2 1/2 months time, businesses will be back to working at sufficient strength to take on new staff? Rose coloured specs comes to mind.

Dinahmo Tue 19-Jan-21 19:05:19

PippaZ The short sharp answer to your question is - they don't give a toss about the poor people.

Hetty58 Tue 19-Jan-21 19:21:15

Apologies all - I really should have said 'the worst death rates in the World' shouldn't I?

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/uk-covid-death-rate-coronavirus-b1788817.html

PippaZ Tue 19-Jan-21 20:22:16

growstuff

Pippa It's the discredited idea of "trickle down economics".

I find it hard to believe anyone still believe that is actually what happens, growstuff but I suppose generations take their beliefs forward with them.

growstuff Tue 19-Jan-21 20:26:05

PippaZ

growstuff

Pippa It's the discredited idea of "trickle down economics".

I find it hard to believe anyone still believe that is actually what happens, growstuff but I suppose generations take their beliefs forward with them.

You can see it even on this thread.

Alegrias1 Tue 19-Jan-21 20:29:37

Hetty58

Apologies all - I really should have said 'the worst death rates in the World' shouldn't I?

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/uk-covid-death-rate-coronavirus-b1788817.html

Ah, OK - more people are dying per day in the UK just now that in any other country - just now.

Overall more people have died per head of population in several other countries.

I do apologise if that sounds crass, I don't mean it to.