Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

I wonder what the real reason is behind welfare reform?

139 replies

Peahentailfeathers · 01/04/2013 08:15

Welfare (pensions, OOW benefits etc) and the NHS are paid for solely by NI contributions. The government is not allowed to touch this money but it may borrow from any surplus; the yearly surplus is around £2bn.

The coalition rhetoric of "taxpayers are sick of seeing blinds closed when they go out to work" and all the other rubbish they spout is either ignorant stupidity or malevolent divisiveness, because tax has nothing to do with it.

NI contributions may not be used for any other purpose than welfare, so why does the government want to cut benefits and introduce private pensions for everybody? Gideon Osborne spoke in 2011 of possibly combining tax and NI. This would give him access to a huge pool of money that is specifically earmarked, by Statute, for healthcare and welfare - he would want to use it for other purposes.

Tax credits, on the other hand, do come out of the tax budget; however this money doesn't subsidise poorly paid workers, it arguably subsidises businesses so they do not have to pay a living wage.

Basically, I don't see how the government can legally include the welfare budget in its programme of cuts. There may be an argument for making the welfare system more efficient but any cuts or changes would not affect the government's budget.

OP posts:
claig · 03/04/2013 00:03

Our TV news and media is mainly with Labour and the public message and Duncan Smith's message and Osborne's message does not get across well on our TV scrreens.

Tonight on Newsnight, they started the programme with a report on orphanges in Russia and disabled children and families giving up children because they could not cope and afford to look after them. The message was about benefits being very important, about state care being very important, which is true.

The second report was on the benefit cuts by the Tories. However, Blair's ex-adviser couldn't make a strong enough case for Labour's position even though our media is helping Labour.

The reason is that their argument is not credible. The elephant in the room is only discussed and can only be seen in newspapers such as the Daily Mail, and unfortunately for Labour, the majority of the workers in high-vis vests on teh shopfloor can see the elephant in the room and are in agreement that changes do need to be made.

Solopower1 · 03/04/2013 00:15

Strange way you have of looking at things, Claig. I would see the BBC's juxtaposition of the two programmes as a straightforward attempt to remind us just how important welfare is. That's a good message to get across, benefits all of us, don't you think?

(If you think it benefits the Labour Party, then you are saying that the Labour Party also thinks welfare is important and the Tories don't).

'th epublic knows that and will only vote for people who are honest and stop the spin'

Do you think so? Do you really think so? Who are the people who are honest? How can we tell them apart from the ones that are not honest? How do we know that even the honest ones won't break their promises?

The Daily Mail is part of the problem, imo.

claig · 03/04/2013 00:16

Osborne may be a toff and he does get a bad press from much of our TV media and press and that is why he was booed at the Olympics. But when election time comes, when he increasingly speaks to workers in factories and shopfloors, they will not see a toff as the New Labour spinners try to paint him, they will see someone who says what they think.

The public knows that both parties are full of Oxbridge educated millionaires and some toffs, but none of that will count. The public aren't stupid, they have already formed their opinions, they know what they want and they will vote for whoever gives it to them, and the way it is looking now, that will be the Oxbridge educated Eton toffs rather than the Oxbridge educated Primrose Hill progressives.

It won't matter what the BBC does, it won't matter how much they try to help Labour, because the public have already made up their mind.

Solopower1 · 03/04/2013 00:17

So the elephant in your room is that the Labour party don't have any better ideas?

Solopower1 · 03/04/2013 00:18

We'll see.

claig · 03/04/2013 00:21

'I would see the BBC's juxtaposition of the two programmes as a straightforward attempt to remind us just how important welfare is.'

That is exactly why they did it. But ask yourself why they made that headline news today and not two weeks ago? I think it was significant that it was followed by Osborne next talking about cuts. They were showing us how important benefits were and they then followed it by people who wanted to cut benefits.

I think they know all the tricks, but their weakness is that they are probably also Oxbridge educated Primrose Hill progressives on generous expenses and large salaries paid for by the public, and have never met a worker in a high-vis vest. The public is not stupid and they woke up to Blair's spin. Spin is not the way to win.

Promotedbymailinglist · 03/04/2013 00:24

By the way the 'get up in the morning' dog whistle is all about the working class jobs in London - the ones who pay less than enough to live on in the capital but are essential to the capital functioning - get the early tubes and see who are on them, not the higher-earners, the graduate trainees etc.

The 'blinds down' will be heard by all those people as 'nearly everyone in the country who earns more than me' - its a fake appeal to say to the working class in london, cleaners etc that the conservatives are supporting them more than the office workers.. i.e. its sheer spin.

(for what its worth, my main room curtain is not only down all day, but its velcroed around the edges (saves on the heating fact fans!).

This budget is a weirdy one to say that they are motivating the poor by taking away all their money - the poor are not the people who are using the welfare budget - its mostly middle class pensioners with higher life expectancy who are spending the welfare budget, the amount spared for people who are unemployed and working tax credits is teeny tiny compared to it.

The conservatives pride themselves on allowing business owners to take priority over staff, and on blaming the poor for not earning a decent wage 'you should work harder' - but in middle class occupations this becomes 'you should ask for a pay rise' or 'you should play the market to get paid more'. BUT When working class people demand higher wages or move employers for better conditions they are seen as trouble makers, lefties and nuisances. Its a difference in perception and based largely on who makes the money from paying low wages - the sectors that do so, service sector, manufacturing, retail are dominated by large businesses, and these recruit disproportionally from private schools.

Private schools still have a perception of class that its difficult to get your head round unless you have been close to it, its pretty much Edwardian/Victorian. (for evidence see which film and series i.e. cultural mirrors still get the most funding still and think of Mary Poppins. How often do we see Jane Austen and Dickens? remade and remade??)

Most clearly though this is a budget that reflects the still very old fashioned class-based education received in private schools. The recent 'pub quiz' education being advocated perpetuates this idea, i.e. that we should instill into our children the 'horrible histories' version of the poor being brutalised stupid and industry, agriculture or army fodder and the Jane Austen country house idea of the middle class 'leaders' who have all the intellectual discussion, strategic power plays and have all the emotions.

Sadly this perception is still so ingrained into public school life that its not a surprise that these people cannot view the world differently - the House of Commons is an extension of private schools and is steeped in the same traditions of the eras they believe we still exist in. It makes us laughable in the world, but still it continues because so many routes to power and money are still designed by men of that type, surrounded by other men of that type.

Conservative MPs who complain about welfare excesses, unionisation, lazy poor people etc would do well to remember that they are the most protected and most successfully unionised group in the public sector - their wages and wage rises are guaranteed and decided upon collectively not by contribution, but by need, their expense accounts and living expenses allow them to keep a good chunk of their salary untouched, they have the best healthcare, pension and in work benefits of any single group in the private sector.

Solopower1 · 03/04/2013 00:24

It worked for Blair.

They all do it. That's why it's so hard to trust anything they say, and why we are always second-guessing them. Even the title of this thread: what's the real reason behind the welfare cuts?

Why don't they trust us, the public, with the truth?

claig · 03/04/2013 00:24

No the elephants in the room are the Daily Mail headlines, which they all criticise and refuse to discuss.

The public can see the elephant in the room because they don't live on Primrose Hill.

Solopower1 · 03/04/2013 00:28

Excellent post, Promoted. My reply was to Claig (X posted).

claig · 03/04/2013 00:29

''th epublic knows that and will only vote for people who are honest and stop the spin'

Do you think so? Do you really think so? Who are the people who are honest?'

You ar eright and I am wrong about honest. The public won't vote for someone who is honest if they are also wrong. It is really about the public voting for someone who agrees with what the public already thinks. The public is not stupid, it listens to teh spin, but in the end it chooses the person who says what the public thinks. It does not choose the spinner who is not in tune with public thinking. That is what I mean by dishonest - the spinner.

Solopower1 · 03/04/2013 00:32

I think I see what you mean, Claig.

You see things very strangely. So the Daily Mail is the one and only speaker of truth to power?

It might speak for some, but it doesn't say anything about my truth. Tbh, for me, the DM is like the negaitve of a black and white photo. It sees the black where I see the white and vice versa.

claig · 03/04/2013 00:34

'Why don't they trust us, the public, with the truth?'

Because the "truth" they want to implement is often unpalatable to teh public, so they disguise the truth and spin it.

The Tories are doing a terrible job of media management and spin. They are incompetent. Ever since teh past tax it has been one disaster after another and now there is even talk of possible challenges to Cameron. They are terrible spinners even though they pay money to hire the so-called experts in spin.

But even with all of that and even if teh BBC helps Labour, the Tories will still win, because the public deep down agrees that cuts need to be made and all that New Labour can do is spin about "tax cuts for millionaires".

Solopower1 · 03/04/2013 00:34

My last post was in response to your 00:24 one, not the most recent. I must speed up my typing.

What about what Promoted says?

claig · 03/04/2013 00:35

Ever sonce the pasty tax

claig · 03/04/2013 00:40

'So the Daily Mail is the one and only speaker of truth to power?'

No the power od teh Oxbridge educated Etonians and Primrose Hill progressives. They wouldn't be seen dead reading the Daily Mail and they disagree with nearly everything it says on climate change, overseas aid and everything else. But the Daily Mail is teh speaker of truth of majority public opinion (inclding teh workers in teh high-vis vests).

On the news today, it said that the number one cut that the public wanted was in "overseas aid". The Daily Mail reflects that view, it does not lead it, but the Primnrose Hill progressives and power recoil in horror at those type of Daily Mail headlines that reflect public opinion.

Solopower1 · 03/04/2013 00:42

I'm getting a bit sleepy here, but it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself. If the truth is unpalatable, ie not what the public wants, and if the public are not stupid, why can't they see through the spin? Because if they did see through it they wouldn't vote for a govt that was doing things they didn't want, would they?

But if the people agree that cuts need to be made, why would the govt need to spin it?

Sorry, a bit picky, probably. Don't answer if you don't want to.

I don't agree with your bottom-up view of things anyway. I think the govt invests so much time and money into spinning precisely because they think they can shape public opinion. They listen to us, but only so that they can refute our arguments or scheme against us.

claig · 03/04/2013 00:47

I think Promoted has teh wrong emphasis.

'the poor are not the people who are using the welfare budget - its mostly middle class pensioners with higher life expectancy who are spending the welfare budget'

That may be teh case, but it does not matter to the public, because the key fact that the public agrees with is that the pensioners have paid in all their lives they have contributed all their lives. New Labour does not care for teh pensioners, but the public believe that the pensioners are more deserving than young people with 10 kids on a benefit lifestyle. That is teh harsh reality of what the public really think and that is what Osborne tells the workers about the shirkers. Unless New Labour can speak for the majority, they will lose the public vote.

Promotedbymailinglist · 03/04/2013 00:50

by the way he is saying 'make work pay' - presumably trying to sound like what he is doing is making work a real incentive by encouraging employers to pay a wage that is livable on and an incentive to come off benefits.

He is comparing benefits with work and trying to say that if you work you will be better off, but he is doing that by only fiddling with one side of the equation - reducing benefits. The impact that has is absolutely tiny - better would be to encourage businesses to offer jobs that will motivate people to apply for them because it will be better than the 'minimum the government has decided you can live on'.

If employers aren't offering jobs at a wage that competes with this shockingly low benchmark then that is where the fire needs to be concentrated. A tiny increase in wages at the bottom end would free up spending, reduce the negative psycholgical spiral we are in, and allow small businesses who rely on employees buying stuff to survive would also benefit.. and be able to pay better wages..

Its shocking that this virtuous cycle is being disregared in favour of ideology. I hope I am wrong, but it keeps looking like this. Didn't I see today that borrowing is 33 billion more under the coalition than it was under labour??

claig · 03/04/2013 00:51

Solo, the Tories are useless spinners. Osborne is booed and not many people seem to like Duncan Smith. There is no decent spin from the Tories. They are losing in the opinion polls. But when the time comes to vote, what appears to be their weakness now, their lack of ability to spin their message, will paradoxically be their strength, because even though the public don't like it or like Osborne or Duncan Smith, they will still vote for them, because deep down they agree that cuts need to be made.

Promotedbymailinglist · 03/04/2013 00:55

?? How do we know that benefit claimants aren't largely people who have formerly contributed or who will contribute in the future? The trouble is with collective benefit is that once you start saying I want to pay into collective benefit, but get out in proportion to what I put in, is that you disrupt the whole idea, its like saying 'we all contribute to the heating bill, but when I'm out I want the heating off' its crazy.

claig · 03/04/2013 00:56

'But if the people agree that cuts need to be made, why would the govt need to spin it?'

They are useless at spinning it. But they have to try to spin it, because New Labour does nothing else but spin against the Tories with their tricks about "tax cuts for millionaires" and "our of touch toffs".

The Tories can't just sit back and let New Labour spin on the BBC all night, so they have to try and spin. But they are useless at it and have a "nasty party" "uncaring" image, but even with allof those disadvantages, they will still win in the final analysis because the public dislike them but agree with them.

MTSgroupie · 03/04/2013 00:59

Confused at all the talk about surpluses

Retired people are living longer so are drawing benefits for longer. The baby boomers are retiring and large families are out of fashion. Net effect? The proportion of people contributing/receiving is slowly getting worse.

We cannot continue without wholesale changes to the system.

claig · 03/04/2013 00:59

'Didn't I see today that borrowing is 33 billion more under the coalition than it was under labour??'

Yes, because they are paying more unemployment benefits because their econonmic policy is not yet working. They are not prepared to cut those payments further, so they have to borrow more.

Solopower1 · 03/04/2013 01:04

H'mm. I agree with Promoted. Raise wages. Don't cut benefits. That is nasty, vindictive, cruel and unnatural, imo. It's been shown, time and again that the vast majority of people on benefits are there as a last resort, are in work and struggling. Why make things even harder for them? How can you (we) bear to do that?