Party failed us (except Sarah Teather et. al)

Sarah Teather stood against the BUB

Last night the headsman's axe fell missed the target and hacked at the body rather than a clean slice through the neck. This Government has taken a step to far in freezing benefit rise.

Don't get me wrong, there are elements of this bill that I think are just and fair. For example drawing a line where income exceeds a certain point and then scaling back child allowance, tax credits etc.

Boris Johnson was quoted as saying that he could have spent his child allowance etc on expensive holidays and champagne and estimated that his wife had received around £50k over the years for their children. Although a flippant remark, it is illustrative of the point that certain incomes don't require assistance. The level the government have is using is £50k PA which seems a fair amount to begin scaling back but it is also arbitrary in the fact that if ONE parent is earning 50K then they are eligible but two parents earning £49K each are not eligible - this is madness!

Although I do not subscribe to the scroungers vs. Strivers point that Iain Duncan Smith has put out on the whole, I do agree that such a "Scrounger" culture exists - just not in the scale that the Government and especially the DWP are suggesting. Moreover I think that the Government should go through an extended process of reform and legislation to combat this culture, the minority of people, and get them in work. Instead of cutting out the tumour with careful incisions they have attacked the whole damn system like Leather face in Texas Chainsaw massacre and everyone has been hit.

It seemed fair to us to distribute some of the pain in a more equitable way.

I agree, I also agree that the welfare bill cannot be insulated and should not be insulated. The problem is the way this bill seems to go about it.

Statutory Paternity/Maternity pay, Sick pay, Jobseeker's allowance, income support, family tax credits, adoption leave pay, couple and loan parent allowances - all frozen at a 1% rate in line with the public sector pay freeze of 1%.

Sounds fair... it isn't.

Inflation is still higher than 1% a year which means, before you get out of the blocks you are already losing when prices go up by inflation. You are then penalised if enterprising companies decide to make a little extra ON TOP of inflation. Look at train fare rise for example at RPI +1 or Sophie's nursery bill which went up by 5% and yet my pay stays at going up by 1% a year and now, the Child tax credits that low income families like mine rely on to help pay the way are also getting frozen at a 1% PA.

According to the IFS if the groups were sorted all of the groups were equal in size the averages work out thusly:
The lowest earning 10% will see 1.6% of their income lost,
Those on £9k a year will lose 1.67% (£150s a year)
The richest 10% will only see 0.03% of their income lost --> This percentage isn't entirely clear as the richest 10%, the Rio Ferdinand and Boris Johnson's of the UK earn so much that they aren't always eligible for certain benefits like income support and earn so much that the 0.03% is lost in a sea of other income.

Low income families are dependent on these little wavers of help from the government - it gives freedom to live and do things, spend money on other goods that generate VAT like days out, more expensive food stuff, alcohol or Cigarettes, electronics etc. The Government need the people to spend money to help the economy. Our family put the child tax credits straight into the nursery fund which alleviates the pressure from our wages and gives us financial freedom to take the children out, buy things for their education like books and educational toys, or to treat ourselves and for both of us to WORK. I don't remember the last time Sam and I went out to dinner, just the two of us because we simply can't afford it.

Those at the bottom are getting crushed by those who do not know what it is like to live at the bottom, £150s a year doesn't sound like much but that extra £10 is a lot when you don't have it. People are going to find themselves priced out of simple things and the only winners will be budget supermarkets and charity shops as people tighten their belts even further into a Warlike rationing or Victorian lifestyle of wage slavery, working under the lash of our betters until we fall into the dust.
It also further gets up my nose that some MPs are still working the expenses system (Helen Grant is an example) and getting away Scot free yet those of us who go to work and have always worked are getting screwed over by having our much needed support held back.

I'm also further disappointed that my party didn't stand up on this, other than Sarah Teather,(Read her comments as to why here) Julian Huppert, John Leech and David Ward with abstentions from Andrew George, Charles Kennedy and Adrian Saunders. We are supposed to be the listening party and this time the pleas of countless people across the UK and in communities such as Gillingham and Chatham where the average wage is well below £20K people are getting forgotten and ignored. Hard workers have been whitewashed as "Scroungers." In a very Victorian discipline;

The Innocent will suffer with the guilty.

When you can't run you walk, when you can't walk you limp and when you can't do that you need someone to carry you and that is where the Welfare system should come and help - those who can't keep up (though not those who won't).

Attack on the Scroungers maybe misplaced

After a debate on Twitter the other evening followed by some time to reflect I came up with this.

There are two stereotypes that are hyped up by Politicians and the Media at the moment and are two of the biggest scourges of today’s society.

They are:

The Multi-national Rich who hide their money to avoid paying tax – be they company or individual

The Benefit Scrounger

The former clearly exist and quite notable cases have been named and shamed.

The latter is a harder subject.

There are benefits cheats, undeniably so. Many of us low paid peons know of someone or a friend of a friend of a friend who is a clamant. There is also an almost urban mythology sprung up about the benefit scrounger and the amounts they are claiming.

The media, especially the Daily Mail and The Sun publish sensationalist stories of extreme cases, the former is often quick to bring up Foreign Nationals who are draining our resources and tax payers money. Yes, there are genuine cases of this happening that need to be addressed but how many cases like this actually like this?

It is something common in history, usually minority groups used as scapegoats by a state: Kulak landlords in Soviet Russia, communists in Fascist European states and an idea of “them” and “us” could be developed. The core parallel is the Russian example. Kulak landlords were demonised as taking the wealth from the poor farmers and economy. The Agricultural and working classes became so incensed that a class war was waged and the state was able to appropriate the land for its communised lands.

In the UK, tighter controls on benefit and an attack on working tax credits is being moved under the banner of tackling Benefit scroungers.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that tightening the loop holes is a good thing to an extent. I, like the majority of people get out of bed, go to work, pay my taxes and exist on the remainder, I too am angered by those who don’t want to play the same rules, who cheat the system and make the rest of us look stupid.

However, I do not believe the number of scroungers is as high as is being suggested. It seems like the DWP is making a sweeping generalisation to save money and wielding the axe like a drunk headsman to reach a target and worse yet it will gain support for going after the banner of “Scroungers” and catch lots of innocents in the process without the proper assessments being done first.

What is needed is a gradual cut with Liberal empathy and understanding is needed and the deft hand of a surgeon.

Working tax credits are vital for many families, including mine, and help pay for child care so both parents can go back to work.

My wife and I had already been balancing our days off with childcare – one at home, one at work and Sophie at nursery three days a week so we could squeeze more hours in and live outside of work rather than just subsist and only spend our time toiling away to pay for our mortgage, train fares, utilities.

The accusation that elements of this government seem to be aiming for a return to Victorian lifestyles looks like it is gradually gaining substance.

Liberal Democrats in Parliament need to be careful to review the legislation coming out of the DWP and to make sure that sweeping and potentially harmful policies are not just being carried along under the hyperbole and demonization of a social “evil” that will also persecute those in need.

Benefits to be cut for Criminals - Pros and cons

When I was a younger man I would have welcomed the Government's new measures.

Those who commit crimes will have their benefits cut.

Seventeen year old Chris would totally agree.

"Hear, Hear!"  he would have said briefly looking up from his Star Wars cards. He was a little more right wing than I am with an immovable belief in the letter of the law and his superiors. He was the voice that wanted to see martial law declared during the riots, deployment of live rounds against the Student protests...

He was thoroughly odious person at times - I'm no longer that person, although I sometime hear his voice.

The Government proposal to cut benefits from criminals sounds like the policy he would have written.

The policy plays to a populist bandwagon of people who watched the riots and wanted action and retribution. It shows the government are listening and the state will strike with vengeance to show the criminal masses there is a cause and consequence and you will pay for your crimes and hit them where it hurts - their wallets.

On paper it is a good scheme, demonstrates the law and will act as a deterrent and according to local MP Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) whom I tweeted on the subject on Sunday, suggested it would be run in tandem with stiffer custodial sentences.

My younger self is ecstatic - greater punishments, order restored to chaos.

As I said though, I'm not him anymore. A few questions have been raised.

* Benefits are there to help the poor, not just to pay the utility bills but also to support the families and their children. In Medway we have seen a rise in the amount of children going into care and a rising cost to the tax payer and to local councils. By taking away an adult's benefits you will also be effecting their children and families. The Innocent will suffer with the guilty.  Can the Conservatives really back potentially taking food out of the mouthes of children?

* If the stronger custodial sentences kick in you will also be taking away a parent from the family, something the "Political Experts" think is vital to a stable family. Is that not contradictory?

Also if in Prison for a long time they are not working.

* The Prison system is already broken, overcrowded and in need of serious reform. Where are we to house an influx of long haul criminals? This is something that the public forget. As the warden in Shawshank redemtion said the Public only want money spent on higher walls, more cells and more guards but the State doesn't have the money to do that. Prison reform is low on its list of priorities.

* What of the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family? Its an age old dilemma but it still goes on, would you take his benefits away even though his family is already starving and send him to prison? 

We are meant to be reaching out to the people in the nation, the ones who don't believe the state cares for them and that Politics is broken and for the rich. Yes we need to demonstrate the state and law is there and MUST be adhered to but taking away their benefits or housing is not the way, it will only cause more resentment as the Rich trample the poor, so it will look.

Yet again the Government seem to be pushing through a popular policy that will get support but without much thought for who will suffer or the consequences. Might be time to "Stop, listen and think again."