Osbourne Announces Benefit Changes for manifesto
Discussion
Telegraph said:
BENEFITS FROZEN FOR TWO YEARS
Britain can't afford £100 billion of working age welfare payments a year, Osborne says. Benefits have risen ahead of earnings: not sustainable and not fair, he says. He announces benefits will be FROZEN for two years after the next election, saving £3 billion. Disabled and elderly excluded. It follows a reduction in the uprating of 1 per cent, that passed with relatively little complaint.
As briefed over the weekend, the benefits cap will be cut by £3k to £23k, and housing benefit removed for young people, with the money saved used for apprenticeships to "pull up young people". Osborne is carving out clear dividing lines with Labour.
It seems like a good start at the leastBritain can't afford £100 billion of working age welfare payments a year, Osborne says. Benefits have risen ahead of earnings: not sustainable and not fair, he says. He announces benefits will be FROZEN for two years after the next election, saving £3 billion. Disabled and elderly excluded. It follows a reduction in the uprating of 1 per cent, that passed with relatively little complaint.
As briefed over the weekend, the benefits cap will be cut by £3k to £23k, and housing benefit removed for young people, with the money saved used for apprenticeships to "pull up young people". Osborne is carving out clear dividing lines with Labour.
With a structural deficit estimated at £25 billion eliminating it without real term benefits cuts seems impossible.
Adrian W said:
Why didn't they do this four years ago? when implementing cuts and blaming labour for everything, populist polices for the stupid voters.
Maybe they needed to gauge reaction to the £26k cap and let the dust settle before going a bit further.I'll be the first to agree that change to benefits needs to happen, but I also believe that change to any system is often better if done gradually.
Adrian W said:
Why didn't they do this four years ago? when implementing cuts and blaming labour for everything, populist polices for the stupid voters.
The fact they have been in coalition with the Lib Dems has restricted them in a number of areas. Just because a policy is popular does not make it stupid.
IDS speaking just now:
"I can announce that we are going to accelerate the delivery of universal credit" - 2015/16 "to the whole of Britain"
They've missed lots of welfare targets during this parliamentary term (various DLA/PIP/ESA targets for example) so I wonder if this is a deadline they plan to meet or if it's just pre election talk?
"I can announce that we are going to accelerate the delivery of universal credit" - 2015/16 "to the whole of Britain"
They've missed lots of welfare targets during this parliamentary term (various DLA/PIP/ESA targets for example) so I wonder if this is a deadline they plan to meet or if it's just pre election talk?
I heard on the news that Labour plan to cut spending but not to the point whre they run a balanced budget or surplus. So they intend to keep borrowing to pay for their largesse.
What could possibly go wrong?
Sadly a lot of voters thnk borrowing has no consequences and it's free money. They will vote for it because they either are ignorant of what it means for the future or don't care.
What could possibly go wrong?
Sadly a lot of voters thnk borrowing has no consequences and it's free money. They will vote for it because they either are ignorant of what it means for the future or don't care.
I'm in two minds. Interesting point made on LBC last night - it's not weighted by area. Someone could happily live on £23k up north but a similar family in South London could be in serious trouble.
The ATOS/disability benefits cuts was a great idea in principle but the execution was typically piss poor and people in genuine need are now suffering (although fewer than originally thought due to suicides - I guess that's a success of sorts!).
However, I really object to having to pay for some unemployed mother who insists on having 20 kids. I bet that under any implementation of this new idea, this mother of 20 will still be fine whilst people who have genuinely fallen on hard times will really suffer.
Edit: f
kem. They shoulda worked harder at school. 
The ATOS/disability benefits cuts was a great idea in principle but the execution was typically piss poor and people in genuine need are now suffering (although fewer than originally thought due to suicides - I guess that's a success of sorts!).
However, I really object to having to pay for some unemployed mother who insists on having 20 kids. I bet that under any implementation of this new idea, this mother of 20 will still be fine whilst people who have genuinely fallen on hard times will really suffer.
Edit: f
kem. They shoulda worked harder at school. Edited by Hoofy on Monday 29th September 16:39
Fittster said:
And these freezes will also be applied to state pensions?
Looks like the tory party desperately trying to protected its dying electoral base from any pain.
Don't mention pensions, they are not so stupid are they. I can't see any Party proposing to hurting the grey vote, unless they really are stupid. Looks like the tory party desperately trying to protected its dying electoral base from any pain.
crankedup said:
Fittster said:
And these freezes will also be applied to state pensions?
Looks like the tory party desperately trying to protected its dying electoral base from any pain.
Don't mention pensions, they are not so stupid are they. I can't see any Party proposing to hurting the grey vote, unless they really are stupid. Looks like the tory party desperately trying to protected its dying electoral base from any pain.
Hoofy said:
However, I really object to having to pay for some unemployed mother who insists on having 20 kids. I bet that under any implementation of this new idea, this mother of 20 will still be fine whilst people who have genuinely fallen on hard times will really suffer.
+1I'd have it that after some fixed number of kids (4? 6?) then getting state handouts
would be conditional on mandatory use of contraceptives. No ifs, no buts,
you want the money, you get a note from the doctors saying you've been done.
Shame it'll never happen, the liberal press wouldn't like the social engineering
aspect of it and various religious groups wouldn't like it either, but it would
certainly reduce the amount of money most of us would have to shell out in taxes
to those who like to breed in a profligate fashion.
Back on topic, good to see the benefits cap coming down from 26K to 23K.
Hopefully 20K in a few years time.
Hoofy said:
I'm in two minds. Interesting point made on LBC last night - it's not weighted by area. Someone could happily live on £23k up north but a similar family in South London could be in serious trouble.
So they should get jobs then. Universal Credit is set up in such a way that, with the cap involved, any money they earn from a part time minimum wage job will go straight into their pockets without affecting their benefits. If they can't find minimum wage employment in the most buoyant job market in Europe, they probably do deserve to be sent to a sink estate in the north, and let someone from a sink estate in the north have their flat and opportunity.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff