[Closed] this Iain Duncan Smith petition, whos signed it?

Well, i just signed it - 214,000 now!

So you accept he didn't call anyone a skiver then?

IDS distances himself from this language FWIW.

Its disingenous to argue that the Tories have a anything other than a lwo opinion of benefit claimants - its probably a widely held view throughout society tbh and would be equally disengenous to claim otherwise.
Why get hung up on word why not give us an example of GO priasing them if he is not ant them - should keep you occupied on google for a while

Rubbish. If you want an example of unilateral taxation, look at the one off tax on Bank bonuses a few years back (09/10).

Which we can do because we can tax resident companies or branches, we have very limited taxing rights on companies which are non resident such as most of the Amazon group. Please explain to me how you can ignore the Business Profits article in most tax treaties or indeed the Royalties one or any of the others.

No harm in the petition - if a minister claims something, then perhaps he should prove it. But, and it is a big but, the whole issue is a red herring (from political, economic and social angles) and the bile directed at IDS truly absurd.

Taking the politics first - why has the Labour party kept so quiet/abstained on so many of the issues (apart from coming up with the politically clever, if completely incorrect, notion of the bedroom tax). One because they know that the next election will focus on the simple, indeed crude, notion of which party will cut the welfare bill and which will sustain/increase it. And they know which is the vote winner of the two. Less cynically, they also combine the political aspect with an understanding of the traditions of the welfare state:

Attlee’s welfare state grew out of the British tradition that welfare had to be earned. It was rarely given unconditionally. Without a moment’s thought, that welfare state, based on contributing to a national insurance scheme that determined eligibility, was replaced by one that substitutes “need” as the entry ticket for help. If people can prove their need on grounds of low income or homelessness, help will be forthcoming. This fundamental change takes no account of human nature. Just as citizens would do their best to keep their contributory record in good spec, so, once low income becomes the gatekeeper, it literally pays to have a small enough income to qualify. The electorate recognises that some people fall by the wayside and must be helped. But most of my constituents don’t think this group should be helped more generously than those who have paid in decade after decade.

Frank Field MP

But coming to the social and economic element of this, the bile against IDS and comments such as "IDS's politics is the politics of complete ignorance and non-empathy," seem to be completely detached from reality and recent history (his very public fights with Cameron and Osbourne.) This is a bloke behind the Centre for Social Justice which states

The Centre for Social Justice aims to put social justice at the heart of British politics. Our policy development is rooted in the wisdom of those working to tackle Britain’s deepest social problems and the experience of those whose lives have been affected by poverty. Our working groups are non-partisan, comprising prominent academics, practitioners and policy makers who have expertise in the relevant fields. We consult nationally and internationally, especially with charities and social enterprises, the champions of the welfare society. In addition to policy development, the CSJ has built an alliance of poverty fighting organisations that reverse social breakdown and transform communities. We believe that the surest way the Government can reverse social breakdown and poverty is to enable such individuals, communities and voluntary groups to help themselves.

Does this really sound like a bunch of swivel-eyed right wing loonies? And what do non-partisan bodies conclude about poverty - you can quote IDS or Field - that work is the best way out of the desperation of poverty (see last line above). And yet the current welfare system is both unduly complex and creates disincentives to work - hence the weird, unholy alliances between the likes of Frank Field, Fraser Nelson and Darrel Hannen!!

IDS may be wrong, but the idea that the current reforms have no economic or social backing can best be considered with reference to Chapter 3 of:

Since this is the framework that guides his ideas and policies. Hardly the politics of ignorance.

So you accept he didn't call anyone a scrounger, shirker or skiver then?

All words that came from the Lefty outrage bus!

They're much cleverer than to actually use words like that. Thats why they are politicians. They leave their friends in the right wing press to [i]actually[/i] use those words on their behalf. While they indulge in a constant campaign of misinformation by insinuation. The end result is the same. As you are well aware. 🙄

what we dont have enough rich people to increase the tax burden and raise more money - you may not agree with it as apolicy

On the contrary - I do actually agree with it in theory, just pointing out that it won't raise the amounts we need. The rich could certainly afford to pay a lot more tax than they do, the debate is over how best to achieve that (without impacting on the economy in other ways). Where we differ is on the real world effectiveness of high rates of tax.

Not him directly but i would target all universal benefits and reduce payments to many pensioners tbh - they are no longer [ all of them anyway] amongst the most needy in our society. Not convinced by the cost claim tbh[ sure it might not save shed loads but do you think the HB change will?

We come back to Beveridge on universal benefits. I accept you have a point about the neediness of pensioners in general, but then the non-pensioner population is even less needy on average - there certainly are plenty of needy pensioners. FWIW I agree with you about the HB change - though isn't the purported reason for that to try and get people to move on from social houses which are larger than the need (a very laudable aim, just very badly executed). Again the important point of difference is on the costs involved - I agree it's not nothing, but don't believe it's enough to make a huge difference.

if you ignore history you tend to repeat it

I'm not sure how finding a pragmatic solution to the current problem rather than trying to punish somebody is ignoring history. Not attempting to change the way financial institutions are regulated would be ignoring history!

politics is the politics of complete ignorance and non-empathy

They leave their friends in the right wing press to actually use those words on their behalf.

You mean like this binners ?

[url= http://metro.co.uk/2012/04/16/david-cameron-conservatives-are-for-strivers-not-skivers-390621/ ]David Cameron: Conservatives are for strivers not skivers[/url]

IDS distances himself from this language FWIW.

Indeed. I'm certainly not about to try and defend an awful lot of the members of the government, but it's worth remembering that there are plenty of people sitting opposite the subject of this thread who are far more despicable than him.

Have a read of this THM.

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/manufacturing_ignorance_the_centre_for_social_justice_and_welfare_reform_in

Pretty scathing on the CSJ and current welfare reforms, without being overtly party political (which obviously you would never get involved in). In short they seem to be basing many of their proposals on very little/poor evidence, with a strong leaning towards apeing the American benefits system (which as we all know is a shining beacon of social justice).

Think I signed but didn't get a confirmation of such!

[s]and the bile directed at IDS truly absurd.[/s] I agree with IDS

Taking the politics first - why has the Labour party kept so quiet/abstained on so many of the issues (apart from coming up with the politically clever, if completely incorrect, notion of the bedroom tax).

One because they know that the next election will focus on the simple, indeed crude, notion of which party will cut the welfare bill

And they know which is the vote winner of the two.

Does this really sound like a bunch of swivel-eyed right wing loonies? And what do non-partisan bodies conclude about poverty - you can quote IDS or Field - that work is the best way out of the desperation of poverty

2.what is the sense in using two politicians, who have served in this government, whilst making an appeal to non partisan bodies?

FWIW I agree IDS does actually care and he does battle his govt on this and he is taking a principled stand on this for noble reasons.
he is still wrong though it is a very complicated issue to se ehow we can remove the "benefits trap"* though i would suggest a commitment to full employment is the way
it is pointless to penalise the poor and unemployed when everyone knows there are not enough jobs to go round...this makes them appear heartless to me though I accept IDS is trying to help and GO and CMD probably dont actually care very much.

Where we differ is on the real world effectiveness of high rates of tax.

We come back to Beveridge on universal benefits.

though isn't the purported reason for that to try and get people to move on from social houses which are larger than the need (a very laudable aim, just very badly executed).

You mean like this binners ?

David Cameron: Conservatives are for strivers not skivers

Precisely - Cameron never said the word skivers in the speech, but its become part of the myth...

Thats why they are politicians. They leave their friends in the right wing press to actually use those words on their behalf. While they indulge in a constant campaign of misinformation by insinuation. The end result is the same. As you are well aware.

I don't disagree one bit - but the point is that the [b]same argument goes both ways[/b], when we see politicians on the other wing playing the same game, and their own pet columnists like Polly indulging in their own campaign that insinuates that 'the tories are saying everyone on benefits are scum' and sets forth myths like the 'bedroom tax' where even people on this site are left in confusion over who it will affect (see the earlier post about dalesriders mum, who as a pensioner won't be affected!)

Yes and I am not a fan as I think they should be there for the needy and not for all

Well you'll excuse me for thinking he might be more knowledgeable about this than you. Does that make me a swivel-eyed right wing loonie? 😉

its not like i can get NHS treatemnt if I am not ill just because I have paid in this year and it makes that much sense tbh.

Given SAS can get treatment on the NHS, that is an exceedingly poor analogy!

We're in agreement on one thing then. Polly bloody Toynbee. The view of Britain as seen from Tuscany 🙄

I wish I'd lived in the country she was describing when Nu Labour were in power. It sounds brilliant! Didn't bear much resemblance to the one I saw around me at the time, mind.

We're in agreement on one thing then. Polly bloody Toynbee.

...and I thought it was just swivel-eyed right wing loonies like me who didn't think much of her (in case ernie asks again, no I don't read what she writes if I can help, but sometimes follow links which didn't come with a warning).

in case ernie asks again, no I don't read what she writes if I can help, but sometimes follow links which didn't come with a warning

Well I'm obviously more successful than you in not reading stuff I don't want to waste my time reading.
I have never read an article by Polly Toynbee beyond perhaps the title and and the first few sentences.

Well you'll excuse me for thinking he might be more knowledgeable about this than you. Does that make me a swivel-eyed right wing loonie?

Given SAS can get treatment on the NHS, that is an exceedingly poor analogy!

Oh - so now you think SAS needs to get treatment on the NHS? Presumably he doesn't heat his house in winter (though I'll give you that he probably doesn't ever travel on a bus, so giving him a bus pass would be a huge waste of public money)?

i dont think the 40 years dead person is that good an expert in terms of the current usefulness of said benefits

So can you explain to me how the fundamental reasons behind his views have changed?

I have never read an article by Polly Toynbee

That suggests a remarkable level of prejudice. Is there anybody else you've decided to avoid reading the opinions of despite having never read anything they've written?

Is there anybody else you've decided to avoid reading the opinions of despite having never read anything they've written?

Loads of people. I can't read everything so I become selective in what I read. Nothing in the title or first few sentences of Polly Toynbee's articles has ever grabbed my attention.

Do you think I should force myself to read her articles then ? What about all the other people who publish articles that I don't read - should I be reading them as well ?

Or is there something special about Polly Toynbee ?

so now you think SAS needs to get treatment on the NHS?

Presumably he doesn't heat his house in winter

So can you explain to me how the fundamental reasons behind his views have changed?

so you support a flat reate charge then just like he did etc
Many folk still support universal beneifts but i am not one of them - if you want to ask me why I can explain my view again for you if you wish

Or is there something special about Polly Toynbee ?

Not really, no.

That's a relief. I was worried from aracer's comments that by not reading Polly Toynbee's articles I might be missing out on something important.

Fro her Wiki entry:

Toynbee strongly supports state education, though partly educated two of her three children privately, leading to accusations of hypocrisy.

Accusations? Surely guilty as charged?

Wonder if she's mates with that well known 'Socialist' and champion of state education, Diane Abbot?

ernie_lynch - Member
That's a relief. I was worried from aracer's comments that by not reading Polly Toynbee's articles I might be missing out on something important.

You're just missing out on the opinions he thinks you have.

I can hardly believe it. I hope to one day get this neutral

Not even a "good try" this time, but no surprise at the personalisation from you or grum (but thanks for the link BTW). Play the ball guys - this one is big enough.

[b]Relatively Neutral[/b] - agree with OP on petition, recognise that the central issues are non-partisan (current system is overly complex, work is the best way out of poverty [for financial and non-financial reasons}, that current system has too many disincentives to achieve this therefore welfare needs reforming, that Labour is playing a smart political game etc

[b]Non-neutral[/b] - strivers v shirkers arguments (both also false), current reforms are only Tory inspired or unique to them, IDS is CMD/GO in disguise, IDS has no positive intentions or background analysis behind what he is proposing etc

So to coin a phrase, FTFY!

Perhaps more interesting is to see where people like Field and IDS actually disagree. So they both see the flaws in what we have, especially the fact that claimants can lose 90p for every extra £1 as benefits taper off. Even the new system only partially addresses this. But they differ fundamentally on means testing. Field rejects IDS' argument that universal credit is a step away from means testing. Furthermore he argues that "means testing...obviously gets extra money to hard-working families who earn low wages, but in doing so it rots the soul."

So which party representative would write the following:

The [XXX] can erect [b]no effective defence of the welfare system as it is currently organised[/b]. However, if it is the prime minister’s wish to transform the system and defend British taxpayers, he has to embark on a programme of welfare reform that [b]abolishes welfare as we have known it.[/b]

This week I will be introducing a new Welfare Bill. Its aim will be to recast our system to [b]counter our own homegrown entitlement culture[/b] and to deal with the [b]burgeoning costs of the National Health Service and benefits[/b], as a greater proportion of us age, retire and find it difficult to find employment. The bill will restore over time the contributory basis of welfare. All access to welfare and NHS care would be provided [b]on the basis of a contribution record...[/b]

...[b]newly arrived immigrants would be disqualified[/b]. It is a pity that the urgency of this reform should arise from the consequences of [b]EU expansion[/b] — welfare reform should be an ambition of the government in itself. The prime minister needs to send out the clearest message that while [b]Britain is open for business, it is not a soft touch.[/b]

UKIP, Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, Greens, A N Other.....?

You're just missing out on the opinions he thinks you have.

I wouldn't stoop so low as to suggest anybody on here shares opinions with Polly.

UKIP, Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, Greens, A N Other.....?

Well clearly not UKIP, Lib Dems or Greens as they appear to be in a position of power.

Yes, rhetorical question aracer, I admit!

As JY correctly points out, this is a "very complicated issue" and it is genuinely (IMO) interesting how different parties, and individuals within the same parties, position themselves on both the wider and narrower issues. You find odd bed-fellows and lots of apparent contradictions throughout.

No surprise in the answer as it comes from Frank Field's constituency page. Like IDS, I may not agree with everything he/they say, but would extend them the courtesy of respecting the fact that they and others (cross-parties) have worked hard and with good intention to seek answers to the problems of the current welfare system. For that they should be praised rather than vilified. Perhaps it is because they do the non-STW thing and step above party politics that leads them into falling out with their party hierarchies from time to time!

thm i am not sure IDS has broken his parties line on benefits but he is certainly fighting for his brief very well and i assume gets more freedom than others. I dont doubt he cares i just doubt whether he is effective or his right wing influenced views will bring about positive change. We dont have enough time to discuss Fields who certainly breaks party lines unlike any other politician I can think off [ well except Nick Clegg 😉 ]

the crux of the issues is this which no one can think is a good thing

the fact that claimants can lose 90p for every extra £1 as benefits taper off.

We all agree work gets people out of benefits but no one wants to discuss doing something about this. Punishing people who dont have this as an option is just punishing the poorest and most disadvantaged in your society. Without the jobs there is nothing they can do about it.
It makes little sense to only look at half the problem and try to find a solution that way. It is like [analogy stretch for aracer] having a bandage but not worrying about cleanliness when treating an infection - it might help but it is no cure.
Its is complex and it has no easy solution. Until there is work for all I see little point in doing this as it is mean spirited on the poorest. I bet if they voted in the numbers that pensioners do we would see better outcomes for them

My son is a hard working lad, he's a delivery driver at tesco. he dosent get a large amount each month and he is trying his best to support a 2 year old and his partner.She works 30 hours a week.
They were getting £230 a month working tax credit, which was a great help
My son worked 14 hours overtime over Xmas which took him over the threshold for working tax credits, without warning or tapering of the tax credits, they were stopped overnight.
There is no more overtime at the moment, so they are now £230 a month worse off, because he worked a bit of overtime for Xmas presents.
How can that be a fair system when two young people are both working hard to bring a chil up, both on minimum wage and they are penalised like that

Thanks for coming back on topic JY! The bit that we all seem to agree on is exactly the subject of Chapter 3 in the CSJ report that I copied the link from. But (genuine question) can you explain the argument about wages being too low?

I do not agree that 'no one wants to discuss doing something about it'. The media present this as punishing people who dont have an option because that makes good headlines. But that does not reflect the work on the factors that lie behind it or the huge amount of work that is being done on the topic. This is a massive area of current economic, political and social research.

Jobs are being created but the government mis-calculated on the relative pace at which private sector job creation would compensate for public sector job reductions. Nevertheless in 4Q12, private sector added 151k jobs while public sector lost 20k. For the full year, the public sector lost 117k and the private sector added 708k. So while job creation has slowed recently, it is not true to say that nothing is happening about jobs.

can you explain the argument about wages being too low?

I think , without discussing factors, that we can all agree no political party makes an issue about full employment so they all seem to accept "unemployment is a price worth paying". They may favour private over public but that is it. It is how much salt and vinegar you get on your chips not changing the dish [ aracer its catching ...... help me]
I dont agree as to how good the current situation is [ [some of ]it is better than before but that is not saying much tbh] but that is probably another topic

The ONS said that between October to December 2012, full-time employment was 378,000 lower than in the April-to-June quarter in 2008, the first quarter of the recession. But part-time employment was 572,000 higher compared with the same period.

You've made a significant leap there Junky

Due to the marginal withdrawal rates, Its possible under the benefits system for someone to be better off, or insignificantly worse off, working part time than full time compared with being on benefits - so in a number of cases, they choose to do so, and in the process have maintained a better work life balance, and in many cases a work life balance thats actually better for society (e. single parents working part time, but still able to spend time with their kids rather than throw them in after school clubs etc.

The ONS said that between October to December 2012, full-time employment was 378,000 lower than in the April-to-June quarter in 2008, the first quarter of the recession. But part-time employment was 572,000 higher compared with the same period.

Oh, that period before Christmas, when there's always a seasonal surge in the number of temporary and/or part-time jobs available. 🙄

Then factor in the reality that many employers are increasingly giving people only part time contracts (because it suits them, not their employees). and suddenly your cosy figures don't look quite so rosy. The likes of Tescos are employing [i]more[/i] people, but the reality is that there are increasing numbers of people having to rely on benefits because they aren'/t able to work sufficient hours. Tescos etc look good for employing 'more' people, but the reality is that the situation is actually worse for society.

All sorts of things can be claimed by using figures. It's the [i]reality[/i] of the situation that's a bit too difficult for many people to actually see.

You've made a significant leap there Junky

I have no issue rewarding people for being parents to their children and setting up the tax system to accommodate/ this. I am very nearly Tory on my pro family stance 😉
To get back to non party lines I dont mind grammar schools either as long as the alternative is a superb education based on ability/need- each according to their need and all that

thx1138 - Member
Oh, that period before Christmas, when there's always a seasonal surge in the number of temporary and/or part-time jobs available....Then factor in the reality that many employers are increasingly giving people only part time contracts (because it suits them, not their employees). and suddenly your cosy figures don't look quite so rosy.

Versus:

Office for National Statistics data released on Wednesday showed the number of people in work rose 131,000 in the three months to January, a slightly slower rate than seen recently. There were 590,000 more people in work than a year earlier.

In a mixed set of data,[b] the increase was driven by full-time employment[/b], up 195,000 on the previous quarter and 427,000 over the year. [b]The number of part-timers fell 64,000 in the quarter[/b].

What I mean, to put it very simplistically, is that in certain circumstances under the existing system, you can be as well off, or nearly as well off, working 16 hours as opposed to 37 hours - as the more you work, the more benefits you lose.

if you're losing 90p worth of benefits for every extra pound you earn in wages, then it provides a perverse incentive against working full time, however if you look at this another way, it can be utilised in a very positive manner, since it allows someone such as a single parent with kids to earn nearly as much as they would working full time, but still spend time with the kids.

Office for National Statistics data released on Wednesday showed the number of people in work rose 131,000 in the three months to January, a slightly slower rate than seen recently. [b]There were 590,000 more people in work than a year earlier[/b].

That's really impressive, should have full employment soon.

There have been various Labour bods on TV/radio over the last couple of days telling us that employment is decreasing. That seems to be contrary to the ONS stats, is there some selective stats usage going on or is someone fibbing ?

I assume that the population is growing faster than job creation - only thing I can think of at the moment.

Enforced contraception and culls of the elderly should help.

I assume that the population is growing faster than job creation

that plus

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9963012/900000-choose-to-come-off-sickness-benefit-ahead-of-tests.html

so perhaps employment is growing slower than the pool of 'could be employed'

Easy mistake to make allthepiers? Replace the fact that the rate of employment growth is decreasing with employment is decreasing 😉 Type of innocent mistake politicians make all the time....deficit, debt!!!!! 😉