Billions to be cut from welfare services

Let's look at it this way, how many people from Rwanda have come across in boats to claim asylum, yes only 40, since 2020. Or do we have to have nil asylum seekers from a country to declare it safe. Albania, some still claim asylum here, most are sent home. Is that safe. Funny old world.

There will be a minority of people who will take advantage of the benefits system; but equally there are very rich people who take advantage of tax loopholes/dodges and make sure they pay the minimum in tax - but who is hounding them? Not the government, as they are their rich donors.

It shames us all to be living in a society where the poor and disadvantaged are targeted, and the rich and shady dealers are allowed to live their lives as they wish.

Anyone would think that living on benefits opened the doors to a life of luxury - living on benefits is no rest cure; it is a daily challenge.

Germanshepherdsmum

Their policy is to make work pay, and to get as many unemployed people as possible who can work back into work. I’m sure we all acknowledge that there are some who could work but don’t want to - it isn’t fair that the taxpayer pays those people to stay at home.

Dr Sarah Hughes, Chief Executive of Mind, said:

“It is clear the UK government’s proposals are based on false assumptions, and motivated by a desire to save money. Our findings prove that their arguments for cutting support don’t reflect reality and risk leaving people trapped between a broken benefits system and a jobs market which doesn’t exist.

“Poverty and ill health form a vicious cycle. To tackle the root causes of the number of people out of work, and to empower those who can get back to work to do so, the answer is to ensure that people can access financial support which covers people’s essentials and put in place better employment support.

Well said, Dr Hughes.
My Local Authority has just published a report about support for the vulnerable. It amounts to getting various organisations to work together with better liaison and greater transparency. Full of business-speak jargon like “co-production”. I wonder how much that report cost and how much difference it will make in practice. The most important part was a short video from 3 or 4 individuals on how one of the organisations had helped them out of mental illness, unemployment, use of substances, homelessness.
Support is what is needed, not sanctions.

Cabbie21

Well said, Dr Hughes.
My Local Authority has just published a report about support for the vulnerable. It amounts to getting various organisations to work together with better liaison and greater transparency. Full of business-speak jargon like “co-production”. I wonder how much that report cost and how much difference it will make in practice. The most important part was a short video from 3 or 4 individuals on how one of the organisations had helped them out of mental illness, unemployment, use of substances, homelessness.
Support is what is needed, not sanctions.

There's a young wheel-chair bound man in my local garden-centre. He works on the tills. Everyone tries to join his queue because he's quick-witted, and, if necessary, can move around the centre at speed to find whatever it might be that the customer wants.

I've chatted to him a couple of times - he loves the job and gets lots of support from his employers.

... and that's the point - support. And finding the right job for your ability.

I doubt sanctions will fill the vacancies. It might shave a bit off the benefits bill - but will that be outweighed by the cost of these new proposals?

I used to work for an organisation called Shaw Trust which finds and supports work for disabled people. I was a sort of peripatetic support worker visiting the placements. This is what is needed - but - guess what? - it is costly and the government would not want to fund it. But it works ....

It's classic Tory tactics - demonize the sick, disabled and poor, cut their benefits, don't build social housing and find a tax cut for the dim voters. Simples.

Not forgetting the pensioners & their greedy triple lock, Grantanow.

I imagine the triple lock would stop if they got back in Delila.

Yes, I think it’s likely.

DaisyAnneReturns

I imagine the triple lock would stop if they got back in Delila.

Most likely.

And lots of platitudes to explain why it was necessary. Neatly rounded of with, "of course, we will always look after those most in need", or words to that effect.

Probably "inter-generational fairness" will be the likely route they'll go down - because that very subtly pits one generation against the other. And social media will be buzzing with the usual "greedy pensioners" or "young people waste their money and want everything now" rhetoric.

It's all so tediously obvious, and depressing.

And, most depressing for me is that I'm politically homeless. I want a party that is committed to a fair and equitable society, that invests in the nation's people but also understands fiscal responsibility. However, I'm assured that that is simply idealism.

It shouldn't be tho' - should it?

What do you see as 'fiscal responsibility', Dickens?

Probably "inter-generational fairness" will be the likely route they'll go down - because that very subtly pits one generation against the other. And social media will be buzzing with the usual "greedy pensioners" or "young people waste their money and want everything now" rhetoric.
Yep. It's predictable and unfair. It needn't be one or the other. The other trope is 'targeting', which suggests that if they give most people less, they can give more to those in need, which conveniently forgets that nobody knows what anyone else 'needs', and that people have made decisions based on the promise of a pension that keeps pace with inflation and wages. We have already had one massive pension blow with the added 6 years. If the triple lock goes it will be another. I haven't even got my pension yet, thanks to the first blow, but I retired on the assumption that when it kicks in my SP would top up my reduced occupational pension and planned accordingly. It is dangerous for a government to lose the trust of people like that.

MaizieD

What do you see as 'fiscal responsibility', Dickens?

Policy decisions which prevent inflation.

Other than that, ???

And, most depressing for me is that I'm politically homeless. I want a party that is committed to a fair and equitable society, that invests in the nation's people but also understands fiscal responsibility. However, I'm assured that that is simply idealism.

I don't think that is idealistic. Indeed I would call it pragmatic. I can't see why an alignments of Democrats cannot work. I do think you would need PR to do it, however.

A government of Democratic Centrists, Democratic Labour and Democratic Conservatives and others Democrats if voted for in sufficient numbers would have to compromise and could produce just what you describe.

What does not work is the extremes. An extreme Conservative or extreme Labour addition will destroy any chance of compromise as, at the extremes of all parties, you move into anti- democratic thinking.

Oops, that was in reply to Dickens

DaisyAnneReturns

^And, most depressing for me is that I'm politically homeless. I want a party that is committed to a fair and equitable society, that invests in the nation's people but also understands fiscal responsibility. However, I'm assured that that is simply idealism.^

I don't think that is idealistic. Indeed I would call it pragmatic. I can't see why an alignments of Democrats cannot work. I do think you would need PR to do it, however.

A government of Democratic Centrists, Democratic Labour and Democratic Conservatives and others Democrats if voted for in sufficient numbers would have to compromise and could produce just what you describe.

What does not work is the extremes. An extreme Conservative or extreme Labour addition will destroy any chance of compromise as, at the extremes of all parties, you move into anti- democratic thinking.

Yes, I think we've had enough of the lurch towards extremism, even if that isn't quite where we're at now.

And so much of what this government is doing - and saying... it's inflammatory rhetoric - is down to the in-fighting between them. Sunak attempting to prove his 'tough-boy' credentials after the scathing attack by Braverman, which, of course, he knows will go down well with some of the voters.

Johnson, Truss, Sunak - have they once contemplated the nation as a whole rather than play to the gallery of their supporters, not - I don't believe, because they respect them but because they all wanted that position of power and keeping their majority onside was for that reason. Populism in other words... and I don't think that ever ends well.

It's often said tho' that the country is collectively more middle of the road politically and doesn't like or want any extremes of Left or Right... so there is that.

Dickens

MaizieD

What do you see as 'fiscal responsibility', Dickens?

Policy decisions which prevent inflation.

Other than that, ???

Fair enough, Dickens 😄

Though I don't think we've seen any inflationary fiscal decisions made by a government for a long, long time.

The intergenerational fairness notion (it's hardly an argument) seems nonsensical as used by the Tories because we pensioners paid the pensions of those pensioners before us when we were taxpaying workers. Therefore current workers should pay our pensions. And they will expect their pensions to be paid by the workers who succeed them. Of course pensions have varied in value but so have the wages and salaries taxed to pay for them. If current workers want to contribute less to our pensions then the 'fairness' notion implies they should expect lower pensions when they retire. 'Fairness' was an elusive concept used by Cameron in his election campaign but it doesn't seem to have surfaced recently apart from in the pensions issue.

Grantanow

The intergenerational fairness notion (it's hardly an argument) seems nonsensical as used by the Tories because we pensioners paid the pensions of those pensioners before us when we were taxpaying workers. Therefore current workers should pay our pensions. And they will expect their pensions to be paid by the workers who succeed them. Of course pensions have varied in value but so have the wages and salaries taxed to pay for them. If current workers want to contribute less to our pensions then the 'fairness' notion implies they should expect lower pensions when they retire. 'Fairness' was an elusive concept used by Cameron in his election campaign but it doesn't seem to have surfaced recently apart from in the pensions issue.

I think that they would counter your fairness argument by pointing out that today's pensioners were paying for a far smaller group of pensioners than current taxpaying workers are, due to the huge increase in life expectancy.
In fact, on Mumsnet, you also regularly see the fear that this combined with a falling birth rate will almost certainly mean that there will be no such thing as the state pension by the time they reach that stage of life.

If people would let go of the mistaken idea that all state spending is funded by taxes the intergenerational friction might be greatly lessened.

A little understanding of how money flows from the government through the economy and ultimately returns to the government via taxation might help.

I think that they would counter your fairness argument by pointing out that today's pensioners were paying for a far smaller group of pensioners than current taxpaying workers are, due to the huge increase in life expectancy.
But to counter that is the fact that current contributors will be in far greater numbers as most women work and pay tax for most of their working age lives, unlike in previous generations where that was less usual. The majority of younger pensioners will have paid in far more (collectively) than earlier generations, when the ratio between workers and pensioners was also skewed by the fact that fewer women contributed, but lived longer and retired earlier. The contributor/claimant balance will have evened out now, surely?

MaizieD

If people would let go of the mistaken idea that all state spending is funded by taxes the intergenerational friction might be greatly lessened.

A little understanding of how money flows from the government through the economy and ultimately returns to the government via taxation might help.

Maybe if the financial journalists, analysts, tv/radio presenters and MP’s didn’t perpetuate the there is no more money in the pot along with your taxes pay for all government spending myths it would help the electorate to understand how government funding works.

I absolutely agree with you, GG13

Well quite. Mrs Thatcher sewed the seeds of the idea that national budgets can be equated to domestic budgets and successive governments have used this as an argument not to fund welfare and health.