Advanced search

Article on welfare cuts

(14 Posts)
Lardylassnomore Tue 05-May-15 19:08:34

mummyonamission Tue 05-May-15 23:55:07


"Making it harder for sick people to claim state aid when they are out of work by introducing “stricter” fit-for-work tests and/or tighter limits on eligibility."

Is it not hard enough now? I took a friend to a fit for work test, In a wheel chair she couldn't have made the 50 mile journey there and back so friends and family have to book days off from their jobs to transport her the distance. it was awful and humiliating they ignored letters from consultants and GP and the state she was in, they ruled her fit to work. I couldn't believe it.

SensibleMe Wed 06-May-15 07:26:25

As there is currently no active coalition, if this had been a "plan", it obviously did not happen.

bythestairs Wed 06-May-15 07:27:51

IDS has admitted himself that he doesn't know where the 12 billion will come from.

Lardylassnomore Wed 06-May-15 07:30:11

True sensible. The guardian has changed the headline of its article to reflect the content however given that IDS has admitted that they conservatives don't know where the axe will fall in welfare the prospect of them modelling any such proposals is scary

glenthebattleostrich Wed 06-May-15 07:33:29

So typical guardian scaremongering and nonsense.

These are ideas drawn up by civil servants. The same people who will present ideas to whoever is in power.

They are not policies.

TheSultanofPing Wed 06-May-15 08:10:54

I suspect that IDS does have some idea where the 12 billion in cuts will come from, but for some reason he doesn't want to disclose that information at the moment.

Lardylassnomore Wed 06-May-15 08:16:39

They might not be policies but given that they say they are going to make 12 billion in cuts then they are potential places where the axe will fall. I think it's quite something to say you will be making cilitsnin welfare but you don't know where they will come from. I suspect 12bollion is only the tip of the iceberg given the benefit cap the article mentions

Lardylassnomore Wed 06-May-15 08:17:04


Isitmebut Wed 06-May-15 08:54:04

Wow what a scoop - every Conservative M.P/government that comes into parliament to ATTACK the "sick,poor, young and disabled", have leaked to the Guardian, that they ARE targeting again next week. P-lease.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives they are too honest in spelling out where they are looking to reform/cut spending over the next parliament - hence Labour is focusing on that £12 bill figure, around £2 bil itemised already - but much of that figure that figure could sort itself out as more people go back to work, or may not need to be cut etc.

Remember over the next 5-years the OBR's figures/assumptions are on a GDP growth of 2.5%, rather than the 2.8% before the pre election business scale back on the political/business uncertainty of an anti business Miliband coming to power.

So Conservatives are asking to be trust to 'wait and see' on £10 billion of cuts, whereas Labour in 2010 said 'wait and see' on where the cuts would come on their £157 billion overspend - so Labour (or the Guardian) is in no position to lecture, especially as Labour had no plan to INCREASE non government employment (other than impose a new N.Insurance 'jobs tax' to come in after the election) so the bills/overspend would have got a lot larger.

Has Labour outlined all these cuts they have been promising for years, in between General Elections that is?

October 2013; “Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promises new welfare chief”
“Rachel Reeves vows to cut welfare bill and force long-term jobless to take up work offers or lose state support”

August 2013; “Labour to substantially cut benefits bill if it wins power in 2015”
”Labour will cut the benefits bill "quite substantially" and more effectively than the Tories if it wins power in 2015, the shadow work and pensions secretary said on Tuesday”

”Liam Byrne, a Labour frontbencher, said the coalition's welfare reforms were failing to cut costs enough, and called for cross-party talks to "save" some of the government's key schemes.”

Isitmebut Wed 06-May-15 08:55:05

Labour in 2010, with that £157 bil annual deficit/overspend, and far from cutting back the cost of government, they were STILL hiring into their government quango and non job army and pretending the huge growth in welfare could be maintain.

If Darling had not been allowed to "cut deeper than Thatcher" - Labour would have had to call in the IMF to financially bail us out, as they did in 1976.
”Welfare spending in Britain has increased faster than almost any other country in Europe since 2000, new figures show.”

And clearly in socialist scare stories, everyone is "sick, poor, young and disabled", and this explains why when the coalition suggested everyone receiving sickness benefits had a medical, the first check in TEN years for many, 900,000 didn’t turn up?

TheSultanofPing Wed 06-May-15 09:58:25

Isitmebut You say that much of the 12 billion in cuts could be made as people go back to work. I'm sure you very well know that a significant amount is paid in benefits to those already in work, a high proportion of it I would imagine in housing benefit.

Isitmebut Wed 06-May-15 16:07:06

The SultanofPing .... I believe £2 bil has been itemised and other recent scare stories on child benefits etc categorically ruled out, housing benefits are capped anyway I believe leaving £10 bil, not £12 bil.

But my point is, unless you TRY to bring any government costs down, they just keep rising, so it is good house keeping, BUT based on 2010 until now open to revision - as Mr Milibands promises recently set in stone.

The OBR in 2010 had no idea of the growth/employment the UK would experience over 5-years, when crunching their numbers.

The Conservatives had a plan to eliminate the Budget Deficit entirely, but only ending up halving it as Labour in 2010 told us, without ANY plans at all - which may, or may not, give them any right to scoff at Osbornes,depending on people version of 'fair'.

But that growth allowed him to 'juggle', spending cuts, and more tax cuts to both companies and the people, to help provide more sustainable BUSINESS (not private sector) growth and the FIRST relief for those who saw real earning fall from 2008 - as sticking 100% to the 2010 plan to cut our expenses to what we earn, would have produced real austerity.

So arguably with such 'fluid' 5-year economic conditions, Labour were right in 2010 NOT to offer any itemised cuts in spending at all, with a £157 billion overspend, with an economy unlikely to bounce WITHOUT a fiscal stimulus help.

But if that is the case, the Conservatives now in a less 'fluid' economy, but growing faster than the OBR number cruncher assumptions/projections (or anywhere else in Europe) - may not be in a position to detail more cuts/reforms now, they may NOT have to make.

P.S. The difference between the relatively new independent OBR now and a clearly nobbled Uk Treasury back in 2010 underestimating UK tax receipts, is 'stuff' like cuts and spending has to be allocated to departments - but not necessarily cast in stone, as reality from assumptions can change priorities. IMO.

Isitmebut Wed 06-May-15 16:15:50

Has Labour itemised all their tax rises, other than low ideological hanging fruit and some on the mobile wealthy likely to raise diddly - as the sums involved there and target audience are likely to be far more widespread to raise what they need, hitting everyone including the working poor, one way or another.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now