I wonder what the real reason is behind welfare reform?

[Peahentailfeathers]

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.

'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'

But that is exactly what has happened, because the elephant in the room about welfare has not been addressed by the progressives. The public has lost faith in some of the welfare system. They see people getting benefits that they think should not, they hear of people living in Belgravia where rent costs £4000 a week of public money, when they can't afford to heat their homes or run their cars due to increasing fuel costs.

People do believe that there really are "shirkers" even though New Labour et al refuse to address these things. That is why New Labour did so poorly in Eastleigh even though the Coalition is so unpopular.

The welfare reforms are partly about increasing checks in order to restore faith in the contributory system, because people feel they are being "squeezed" to pay for some people who are taking the piss - the type of disco dancers reported on in Daily Mail articles who calim they have bad backs. People down the pub really believe that some of this is going on.

'Raise wages. Don't cut benefits. That is nasty, vindictive, cruel and unnatural'

This is New Labour style policy, but it will not get public support.

You can't tell businesses to raise wages because we are in the midst of teh worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Businesses are in crisis and unemployment is rising, raising wages would increase costs and reduce salkes and profitability and lead to more job losses. This is a crisis.

Labour's policy (so they say now) is not to cut the benefits that the Tories are cutting. But teh public thinks that some benefit claimants are swinging the lead and jiving and swinging in dancehalls with supposedly bad backs and teh public wants something done about it. New Labour are once again out of touch with public sentiment.

During the lead up to the London Olympics there were news stories about how it was having little effect on local unemployment because a lot of the service jobs were going to Eastern Europeans. Apparently, after tax, travel expenses etc what was left wasn't enough to encourage local people to come off benefits.

There has to be something wrong with a benefit system where a job is attractive enough for someone to come over from Eastern Europe but not for someone who lives a 30min bus ride away.

MTSgroupie, you are right. But it is worse than that. Some people felt they were being denied work opportunities, that agencies preferred non-;locals to them and that large contractors often dealt with these agnecies. Whether that is right or wrong I don't know.

But many people feel they are being "squeezed", not treated fairly, and that they are paying taxes out of their "squeezed" income in order to benefit people who are not contributing like they are.

www.dmo.gov.uk/index.aspx?page=CRND/CRND_Portfolio/NIFIA

I've had a look at this link, that OP referenced earlier and it does seem that National Insurance is held in a separate account and is effectively untouchable. It is an insurance and not a tax. The amount is set at 2bn minimum in case of emergencies such as an epidemic but the HMRC can only borrow out of it and put back into it - the government cannot decide to reduce it or change its value. So saving money for the NI account does not mean extra goes into the HMRC coffers.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Why does 'the public' think all these things, Claig? I don't. But maybe that's because I don't read the Daily Mail.

A better question. Why does the Daily Mail print such stories? What good does it do, to stir people up in hatred against each other? Why are its stories so different from what I read in the Guardian? And who is 'right'?

Could it be that neither is accurate unless it shows the other side of the question? In which case, in order to be fully informed, wouldn't you have to read both? Who has time for that?

So how do we know what to believe? I suppose we only see what we want to see, don't we?

'Why does 'the public' think all these things, Claig? I don't. But maybe that's because I don't read the Daily Mail.'

You are right, not all of the public thinks that, but I think the majority do think that, and we will find out when election time comes. Elections are about majorities. What New Labour bigwigs think will not matter, because at the end of the day, what matters is what the public thinks.

'A better question. Why does the Daily Mail print such stories? What good does it do, to stir people up in hatred against each other? Why are its stories so different from what I read in the Guardian? And who is 'right'?'

We live in a pluralist society with many different opinions. The Oxbridge educated Primrose Hill progressives and Etonians are a small minority. The Daily Mail does not speak for any of them. They all want carbon taxes and ring-fenced overseas aid etc etc. The Daily Mail speaks for the silent majority (which is why it has such high sales figures and why its online paper is teh number one internet news site in the world). In a democracy, it has a valuable function. It represents and gives voice to the silent minority, the "squeezed middle" and teh middle classes.

Why does this matter? Because public policy matters, because politics matter, because the people and the country matter. Maybe teh spinners and the progressives have got things wrong, maybe they are not carrying out or listening to the wishges of the silent, powerless majority. That is why a different voice needs to be heard, soi that issues can be debated from both sides and the best solution can be found.

'What good does it do, to stir people up in hatred against each other?'

It does not stir up hatred, it holds a mirror to society and asks people "have you seen this? Do you think this is right?" Is it right that a benefit claimant should be paid £4000 of public money per week to live in Belgtavia and should then sublet that property out? That is not hate. That is news and is about our society and politics. It is the spinners who smear the Daily Mail journalist with the tag of haters in order to shut them up and stop them informing the public and teh result is that public funds are wasted because of this.

'Why are its stories so different from what I read in the Guardian? And who is 'right'? '

That is obvious and needs no answer. The Daily Mail is right.

'So how do we know what to believe? I suppose we only see what we want to see, don't we?'

We know what to believe by using our experience. We listen to debate and all opinions and we spot spin and lies and look at what works. We use judhement and information from all sides. We don't only see what we want to see. The public don't like the Tories, they don't like what they "see", but they don't care about what they "see", what they care about is that it is with the Tories that they agree. They don't have to like them, but they can still back them.

The Daily Mail is like the canary in a coal mine. It warns the public of mistakes, errors and policies that are going wrong. It is a treasure trove that dispenses nuggets of information to a hungry public.

The Guardian is a different beast entirely - it is a multi-headed hydra, a fire-breathing Gorgon that frazzles the brain and catches good, unwary people in its net as it writes about "saving the planet".

The TV License is the only hypothecated tax in this country. Other than everything goes in and out of one big pot.

Now, what is the OP talking about?

OP is talking about NI revenue being held in a seperate fund and being unavailable for any other spending.

Okay, here's another link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance_Fund

There is a lot more information out there if you care to look for it.

Ha ha at your description of the DM, Claig. It's a silly rag, the quality of journalism is awful and it's editorial obsession is royals and celebs.

'Ha ha at your description of the DM, Claig. It's a silly rag, the quality of journalism is awful and it's editorial obsession is royals and celebs.'

If that were really the case, then the progressives and their higly paid spinners would not fear the Daily Mail. They would not fear its high sales figures, they would not fear the way just one of its headlines can sink their entire spin campaigns.

There is no paper that the spinners and progressives fear more than the Daily Mail. They prefer their tame pussycat papers and TV news stations. What they fear is the lion that roars. What they fear is the truth. What they fear is the public seeing through the lies and spin and discovering the truth. The Daily Mail speaks for the public and not for the progressives. That is why they fear the Daily Mail and that is why it has such high sales.

Read the comments of the silent majority at the bottom of Daily Mail articles. That is why they fear the Daily Mail. They wish it would shut up exposing the truth. The Daily Mail is much more than being about royal and celebs.

It speaks for the public and not the progressives. That is why they don't like it. That is why the millionaires, the spinners, the great and the good and the progressives don't like it.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301757/Governments-climate-watchdog-launches-astonishing-attack-Mail-Sunday--revealing-global-warming-science-wrong.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

They go on TV and spin and weave and lie through their teeth without a by your leave and totally ignore the elephant in the room.

All that the Daily Mail does is say there's Nellie the elephant, what are you going to do about it?

Of course they don't like that, it puts a spanner in their spin and makes them fear they might not win.

morethanpotatoprints

Flatpack

Are you on the same planet. NO government does not have a say in how you treat your body, whether you smoke or drink or are overweight.

Since when? If you go to the doctor they now have to ask if you smoke and if you do they'll ask you whether you'd considered giving up. There are government programmes for cutting smoking. The same applies to alcohol. Haven't you seen the TV adverts and posters?

They and society in general also have no say in how anybody lives, what they spend their remaining money on.

That simply isn't the case as 13 years of Labour bullying and hectoring showed us. Endless bloody nagging programmes. Eat this, don't eat that. Drink this, not that. Don't smoke. Exercise. Government clearly believes it has every right to tell us how to live and what to do.

Tax payers also have no say in where their tax goes because it isn't their money it belongs to the government. Unless I have missed an important questionnaire they have sent me grin

Well, this is where we disagree and where there's a big difference between 'left' and 'right' (for want of better terms). Left traditionally believes that all money is inherently owned by the government and that people - particularly hard-working, wealthy people - are merely holding it temporarily before government confiscates it and does what it wants with it. Right traditionally believes that government doesn't automatically own all the money in the country and doesn't have an inherent right to it.

Isn't it fascinating how Labour seem to oppose every cut that the Tories make or suggest, except for one?

There is one policy that Labour applaud the government for and do not want cut - overseas aid.

And that is in spite of the wishes of the public. The Guardian and the great and the good won't talk about it. The TV media give full publicity to organised campaigns of people leaving tube stations with George Osborne masks on and carrying red budget briefcases on budget day who oppose cuts to foreign aid.

Do the Guardian and the great and the good really represent public opinion, so they really represent teh workers in high-vis vests that Osborene addressed yesterday? Or is it the papers that th e progresives deride that are truly in touch with the public?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293620/Voters-want-cuts-overseas-aid-More-half-want-Chancellor-reduce-spending-ahead-Budget.html

'Isn't it fascinating how Labour seem to oppose every cut that the Tories make or suggest, except for one?'

Should have been every government policy about cuts rather than every cut.

Below is what people say they want in opinion polls. But when did the great and the good ever listen to ordinary people in high-vis vests?

[Lord Ashcroft] said: ?People show compassion by giving of what they have, of their own accord. If people want to support charities that provide real help to those in need, I admire them. But governments cannot be compassionate with money they have confiscated from their citizens on pain of prison.?

Benefit payments is another area that the public want to see reduced. Some 44 per cent want a cut in welfare payments, while 28 per cent want to see a reduction in spending on defence at a time of austerity.
A majority of Tory supporters, 65 per cent, want to see a reduction in benefits while even 43 per cent of Liberal Democrats want to see lower payments, just behind the 50 per cent of Ukip voters.

However just over one in four Labour supporters - 26 per cent - want lower benefits.

Some 84 per cent of Ukip supporters want to see spending on overseas aid slashed, followed by 61 per cent of Conservatives, 49 per cent of Labour voters and 47 per cent of Lib Dem supporters.

The poll shows voters are strongly against cuts to frontline services, with just three per cent wanting a cut in state pensions, two per cent agreeing with a cut to schools and one per cent in a reduction on spending in care for the elderly

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293620/Voters-want-cuts-overseas-aid-More-half-want-Chancellor-reduce-spending-ahead-Budget.html

We are seeing the progressives play out their latest trick of highlighting the benefits that go to pensioners and saying it is "unfair" that they should not share a burden of the cuts. And the "intergenerational divide" propaganda is the progressives' latest trick (but those promoting it aren't just Labour MPs, there are lots of Tory progressives promoting it too).

But as this shows
one per cent [of the public believe] in a reduction on spending in care for the elderly

this will not win them any votes, because teh public believe that is "unfair" since pensioners have contributed and paid in all of their lives.

The election is still in the balance and it really depends on the leadership and whether they can sell the policies and messages that the public want to hear.

There are many Tories who question how many Conservative values teh leadership really believe in. They don't seem to be able to sell the right message to the public. They seem to want to play more to the progressive gallery than to the public gallery. That is why some people are talking about leadership challenges before it is too late.

However, Osborne did very well yesterday in addressing ordinary workers on the shopfloor in high-vis vests rather than bankers in City mansion halls. Osborne's message is not as bad as the TV media and progressives like to portray and if he starts going above the mediua bosses heads by speaking to workers directly, then I think he will win the public over.

Even though the BBC started their Newsnight programme last night with a report on Russian orphanages, only then followed by Osborne talking about welfare reform, on the day after the biggest shakeup in welfare since the founding of the welfare state, Osborne still won through and got his message across.

People whinge about benefit claimants because they are angry that whilst they work, they don't feel that well off. In fact that anger should be directed at people who work less, in more cushy environments and get paid several times what someone in a working class job does, but because a) The mail are desperate to push that hatred away onto someone else.. their headline journalists earn £60k or more (Melanie Philips, Littlejohn etc)
b) we still have a notion of class-based subservience to the better off and this makes working class and lower middle class fawn upwards and hammer downwards. This continues into the underclass where the working class condemn the benefit class, the benefit class condemn the criminal class, the criminal class condemn alcoholics, the alcoholics condemn the junkies, the junkies condemn the crack addicts.

All we see in the mail is a 'don't look at me! Its Him!' attitude - the kind of attitude which at school pegged you as untrustworthy, lying, bullying and devious. When the journalists at the mail make their accounts open and transparent, have their sex lives and drug habits laid bare and their tax manipulations exposed, we will see who really takes out of the system, and it ain't people taking £53 a week we need to worry about, its the far greater number of gravy train I'm alright jacks who are frantically pointing the finger at anyone except themselves.

Behind the face of many Mail journalists is the thug who beats up 'the weak' with the twisted notion that it makes them look strong.

Promoted, I don't think that that is how teh majority of people think. Most people are not envious of the salaries of Melanie Phillips or Littlejohn. I read an article which said that Littlejohn apparently earns in the region of £1 million. Good luck to him. He has earned that through a unique talent. If someone has a better talent then they could easily displace him and do the job for less.

The public do not object to talent and high wages based on merit. What they object to is publicly funded fat cats on expenses and first class train ticllets with high salaries paid for out of the public purse who sometimes preside over failure.

The public do also object to paying tax which in part goes to fund a benefit claimant being housed in Belgravia on somewhere in the region of £4000 per week of public taxpayer money.

The public believe in "fairness" and do not want their hard-earned money wasted or spent unwisely.

It is the same for Polly Toynbee and George Monbiot. I don't know what they earn and I don't care because they are talented individuals who contribute to public debate by addressing political issues. Just like Melanie Phillips and Littlejohn, they think their own ideas up, they don't need think tanks and spinners to tell them what to think or how to colour coordinate their suits and ties.

Sorry, I was wrong about the £4000 a week cost, it is actually £4000 a month.

Claig, do you work for or own the DM? Not a catty question, just slightly taken aback by your very passionate defence of it.