ISTR Keynesian economics suggests state spending in recession to keep the economy going, then cuts in periods of growth to get spending back under control. The folk loudly decrying austerity tend to forget the second bit. Arguments over the rate and targeting aside, isn’t that pretty much what the government’s doing? Happy to be corrected!

Odd then Dr that the chairman of the independent OBR stated just this month that welfare spending is higher than the so-called cap and that disability spending is higher throughout their forecast period despite the announcement of tighter eligibility criteria. Are the OBR really just Tory spin doctors or simply lying?

Perhaps in the voting booth they can have some simple questions to pass before voting to follow your advice?

Odd then Dr that the chairman of the independent OBR stated just this month that welfare spending is higher than the so-called cap and that disability spending is higher throughout their forecast period despite the announcement of tighter eligibility criteria. Are the OBR really just Tory spin doctors or simply lying?

I couldn’t say, T. But I am wary of looking at superficial statistics. Is the disability spending higher because people are pretending to be disabled in order to qualify for handouts? Or are disabled people living in the lap of luxury? Or are there other reasons – for example, maybe support that disabled people used to get from another source is now accounted for by the disability budget. We would have to understand what is the reality behind the statistics in order to make a sensible analysis. In the meantime, real people have had their lives severely impacted by these measures while pensioners and higher-rate taxpayers get off scot-free.

disabity benefits aren’t economic stimulus. Benefits would be the worst form of Keynesian demand management.

Welfare spending has been stuck in a pretty narrow band as a percentage of GDP since the 70s, so petty party politics really does clash with the reality. And there is no guarantee that is is higher under labour than the nasty Tories. So many of the accusations made are easily falsified. The number of voters is going to be pretty small at this rate under your advice? Not good for democracy – perhaps better to let people live in on going ignorance.

Budgets are always taking from some and giving to others. Taking individual items in isolation may make nice headlines but rarely delivers the full picture that you are seeking

Under QE the only really borrowers are governments – hence we have both fiscal and (flawed) monetary stimulus at the moment. The printing press is mainly going back to support government borrowing. Doesn’t really fit the narrative does it?

Welfare spending has been stuck in a pretty narrow band as a percentage of GDP since the 70s, so petty party politics really does clash with the reality.

Not necessarily, if the components of that spending shift from support from Labour-voting segments to Tory-voting segments.

So until now what has happened to dis benefits under the nasty Tories? Let’s look at record in power.

Hmmm .. I seem to recall someone saying something about cutting PIP benefits just a few days ago?

That wasn’t the question but correct – hence the hullabaloo

But back to the question – since who knows what’s going to happen now – what happened so far under the nasty Tories? That we do know, or should be able to find out?

Well, before this it was the ESA cuts, and before that something else, but I’m sure that those things don’t count either.

I made a bit of a list a few pages ago, no one seemed to notice, too much like facts, I guess…

This enough for you THM?

So, they forced through cutting Employment support Allowance payments last week, that’s £30 gone for countless disabled people.
They continue to flip flop over the Access to Work fund, it’s certainly not a stable benefit.
They are introducing blanket caps to local housing allowances (including the Shared Accommodation Rate), essentially removing disability exemptions.
They have been constantly shifting assessment thresholds for PIP assessments since they introduced them in 2013. The new one today is

The number of points awarded for the use of aids and appliances in relation to Activity 5 (Managing toilet needs or incontinence) and Activity 6 (Dressing and undressing) will be halved from 2 to 1 from 1 January 2017. This will apply all new claimants, those whose circumstances change and those undergoing reviews.

THM in being incredibly condescending and criticising everyone else without actually saying anything himself shocker.

IDS’ new found conscience is bringing up some interesting points for those who think the Tories are being unfairly maligned:

Despite his warm words for the Prime Minister and Chancellor, his key argument he made this morning was that the Conservatives were this morning is damning: to suggest that the leadership went brutally after welfare because the working poor were not a group that had or ever would vote Tory.

Wel grum, you could help by answering ths simple question. No luck so far.

IDS for all his recent road to Damascus moment and (ironic) reputation for being an evil **** was responsible for the new system of disability payment that, under his stewardship, saw spending that went well above target (b’stard, eh?). Official source already quoted above.

So spending went up historically under the Tories and on IDS’ watch. But before patting them on the back, the was more by accident than design. But still facts are facts.

And even now with Osbourne’s latest fiasco, spending on disability is forecast to rise – yes rise – in absolute cash terms. Now make your own guess on inflation and GDP to see what that mean in real terms and versus national income. According to current forecasts (OBR and others) disability payments will be flat to v slightly down (if inflation finally returns) and ditto versus GDP. It’s all there in the OBR forecasts and the actual budget report. Pays not to focus on the headlines which need to sell newspapers and create noise.

Of course, as I mentioned above the policy is economically questionable and politically idiotic as subsequent events have shown. But that doesn’t mean at if should not be properly understood. IDS was “fingered” by Osbourne of course (yuk) in the context of Brexit and the leadership contests – as always in battle “truth” is one of the early victims as this whole argument only proves.

And the good DR was correct

Then I would respectfully suggest that you educate yourself regarding some fairly basic economic principles before continuing with this thread, and certainly before venturing near a voting booth.

Just helping out 😉

The whole thing is a farce anyway as the all of the mutters in charge are continuin to mis-diagnose the problem (excessive leverage) and what that means. Hence the range of silly policies (like official stealing, sorry QE) that cannot by defintionion work (also shown by economic history). But the cult of central bankers, precise target and the flawed supremacy of monetary policy are condemning us to this nonsense – not the nasty Tories, they are simply players in a wider game of failure.

But the cult of central bankers, precise target and the flawed supremacy of monetary policy are condemning us to this nonsense – not the nasty Tories, they are simply players in a wider game of failure.

Though I agree with this assessment, the Tories don’t help their cause by looking like they’re having such a good time doing it.

But the cult of central bankers, precise target and the flawed supremacy of monetary policy are condemning us to this nonsense – not the nasty Tories, they are simply players in a wider game of failure

Quite right @thm – they’re unable to control things the way they wish to – your statement above also explains Osbourne’s missing of targets and breaking of his own rules.

I wonder why then you support a collection of people who (as you point out) are clearly not fit for the job they are in? Very odd…..

teamhurtmore – Member

IDS for all his recent road to Damascus moment and (ironic) reputation for being an evil **** was responsible for the new system of disability payment that, under his stewardship, saw spending that went well above target (b’stard, eh?). Official source already quoted above.

As I understand it, the OBR’s statistics include the catastrophic overrun of the IT project as part of the welfare spend- actual payments to benificiaries did not go up, admin costs did, so they can say they “spent more on benefits” when they actually mean “spent more on white elephants that they bought specifically to trample benefit claimants”

I don’t – makes life easier.

Politicians and their impact are over hyped. They mostly react to events ( as latest budget shows). The world goes on in spite of, not because of them. That’s not as negative as it may sound – it’s just that expectations are overly high. Economies cannot be controlled by individuals and budgets and forecasts are useful guidelines but little else. The budget is always overhyped and you only need to look at long term fiscal trends to see why – ditto the real differences (in practical terms) between the parties. It’s just noise. The last two budgets have effectively been driven by changes to OBR forecasts not by the grinning guy at the dispatch box.

Don’t forget that Osbourne and any further CoE has to live with the forecasts and numbers provided by an independent body. Frankly it’s pretty silly to personalise any of it although the front man ultimately bears the responsibility. The world is an a mess as a result of the credit boom of our latest generations. We have unorthodox policies being implemented around the developed world which no one understand and which make forecasting and pricing risk a complete nonsense – evidenced by many professional investors simply packing the job in.

Headlines require all of this to be distorted to suit which makes politics appalling if occasionally (eg now, Scottish referendum, Jezza) interesting to observe.

Politicians and their impact are over hyped. They mostly react to events ( as latest budget shows). The world goes on in spite of, not because of them.

@thm I think you need to understand some sociology theories….your statement is grossly innnacurate.

Whilst I will agree that many forces are at play and there can never simply be a person/group at the top orchestarting everything (due to individuals/groups having their own agency and can choose how and when to use it)…politicians by the nature of the responsibilities bestowed upon them have some of the most power within society.

It is the most powerful in society who then set the terms and conditions.

Example being – in your statement it would suggest the world would be either a homogenous place OR complete chasos since no one in charge.
We all know this is not the case.

This is due to the most powerful within each section of society making certain choices to influence what happens.

Let me make a small contribution to this thread, I was sent to carry out a disability assessment on a man who claimed he couldn’t drive, never left the house, couldn’t carry out daily activities etc….talking to him his wife seemed uncomfortable and silent….he said his son walks to work (the car on the driveway was dirty and obviously used)….he was very well prepared for the questions….changing tack and using a less formal approach we talked sport, I asked him how he got through the hours of each day, what tv shows he liked etc…..he then disclosed he was an avid Cardiff city fan, had a season ticket and never missed a game….plop.

Dropped himself right in it.

Contrary to what the left leaning would have you believe he isn’t unique and there are thousands like him costing us millions.
All efforts should be made to get these shirkers back to work….or if they choose to continue to opt out of working life then cut their benefits until it’s the only option for them.

Caveat stands for the genuinely needy, a civilized society supports it’s folk who are genuinely unable to work.

Happy to read any good materials on the sociology theories and would appreciated any good recommendations.

I have a less fatalistic view and a less deterministic one. Its not grossly inaccurate either – the budget was very much a reaction to a weaker outlook and changes in forecast in contrast to the Autumn statement. Neither were proactive. Gideon certainly does little to control my personal or professional life and even as someone trained in economics I have always found budgets largely dull affairs characterised by sleight of hand more than genuine impact. Stripping out individual points within the overall package is also a futile exercise – there will always be some winners and losers at the individual level and indeed the individual impact is usually mixed. It’s was ever thus.

Individuals, groups, communities, businesses can all exercise power outside the influence of the village of Westminster. It’s very sad to believe this is not possible.

Politicians are our representatives and their owe their position to the patronage of the voters not the other way round. Unless one takes a very passive view of life. One that I do not share.

Great anecdote deviant but as we know anecdote does not equal evidence. Proper studies have found levels of benefit fraud very low. I’d rather a few slipped through the net if it means that most of those in need get the help they require.

there will always be some winners and losers at the individual level

You say this dismissively as if it doesn’t matter when the losers are the most vulnerable and the winners are the most privileged.

No I do not. I simply make an observation of the what happens. You, in contrast, are making strong value judgements that do not hold up to scrutiny.

Lets take recent trends in tax under the nasty parties (and with their forgetter friends). Overall tax take hardly changes over time but the structure does – winners and losses again 😉

So the biggest structural change in the past few years in UK taxation has been the increase in the personal allowance. Who are the winners in that?

And where have the biggest tactical hits been – property and banks. Who are the losers there? Pity it doesn’t fit the simplistic and false narrative of petty party politics admittedly.

And with the proposed changes to tax relief on pensions – Tories taking on the blue rinse brigade too. Just because they have pledged to hold the main sources of tax revenues constant for the next few years. Look out for more silly tactical changes along the way now that Osborne has tied his own hands behind his back.

@deviant ….I don’t think anybody is saying benefit fraud does not take place. It’s the context of the cuts taking place and how in the grand scheme of things it’s an unequal approach (MP’s kept their payrise and the budget was better for the richer in society).

Example being below. Quick google of “true cost of benefit fraud”. If you believe the excerpt below you have to question why they are not trying harder to tackle tax fraud?

So to get some perspective, benefit fraud represents 2% of the estimated total annual fraud in the UK. Public sector fraud, which includes benefit fraud, is £20.3 billion a year, so within this category it accounts for just under 8%. The majority of this £20 billion is tax fraud which costs the economy £14 billion annually, or 69%. So we can see that both in absolute and percentage terms tax fraud is a much bigger issue than benefit fraud. In fact, out of all the categories of fraud calculated by the UK Government, benefit fraud is the second lowest. Only identity fraud which costs individuals £1.4billion a year comes below it.

Source…http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud

@thm ..if you’re genuinely interested.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Haralambos-Holborn-Sociology-Themes-Perspectives/dp/0007245955

Thx EVB – £35 is it worth that for a general intro ? Seems like student text pricing. Appreciate the suggestion.

Contrary to what the left leaning would have you believe he isn’t unique

Let me clear something up.

The left do not deny benefit fraud. They just don’t think that ALL benefit claimants are lazy, feckless or fraudsters; and they don’t think that cutting benefits to everyone is a good idea just because SOME people are taking the piss.

Personally, I would rather everyone in need got help and accept the fraud than anyone in need go without. Of course I’d try and minimise fraud, but as shown above it’s already quite small.

deviant – Member

Contrary to what the left leaning would have you believe he isn’t unique and there are thousands like him costing us millions. All efforts should be made to get these shirkers back to work…

1) The left leaning don’t deny there’s benefits cheats; we just see it’s wrong to treat everyone like a cheat, or to collectively punish people in genuine need, for someone else’s actions

2) None of the cuts in this budget have anything to do with benefit fraud anyway, so it’s kind of weird to suddenly start talking about benefits cheats in this context. Or horribly cynical, one of them two.

Dizzily shocked that there are people willing to try and justify the cuts.

It’s a dirty business but someone’s got to do it.

Isn’t the nature of polarised, tribal politics in this country an absolute joy?

Labour get in, shore up their position by buying the votes of the poorer elements of society, screw up the economy in the process, and throw more at the poorer elements of society to hold on to their position for as long as they can.

Eventually, it goes too pear-shaped, and the Tories get in.

The Tories then have to try and fix the economy, but to shore up their position and keep in power, they need to bribe their core voters, and do so by clawing back from the poorer elements of society.

Eventually, it gets too harsh, and Labour get in. Then the whole cycle starts all over again.

To my mind, the real cause of the problem is that for decades, BOTH main parties have refused to recognise that the average Brit has been living for longer, so whilst our average time in retirement has rocketed, the contributions made to support this retirement have lagged miles behind.

Labour want to rape anyone middle class or above to get the money to pay their bribes, the Tories want to cut funding to any groups who don’t vote for them anyway so that they can continue to pay their bribes, and it’s all getting harsher and harsher in both directions, because neither are prepared to tackle the problem of the old age benefits bill.