Welfare should be available to everyone that needs it in a civilised society, which means there has to be a limit on what an individual or a family can have.
Welfare should be available to everyone that needs it in a civilised society, which means there has to be a limit on what an individual or a family can have.
I agree and think the cap should be on the individuals, meaning that they still don't go without.
Welfare should be available to everyone that needs it in a civilised society, which means there has to be a limit on what an individual or a family can have.
They are not voting for a cap on individual or family benefit.
They are voting for a cap on the total benefit spending for the whole country.
It would not be so high if there was not a need for in work benefits and housing benefits were not so high due to extortionately high private rents.
Welfare should be available to everyone that needs it in a civilised society, which means there has to be a limit on what an individual or a family can have.
This is not about a cap on individual people, this is about capping the whole benefit bill. Which is never going to work as 2 problems i see are workers dont control wages, and tenants dont control rents
Welfare should be available to everyone that needs it in a civilised society, which means there has to be a limit on what an individual or a family can have.
This is not about a cap on individual people, this is about capping the whole benefit bill. Which is never going to work as 2 problems i see are workers dont control wages, and tenants dont control rents
That's why I was wondering how it would work. What happens to people who need to claim after the money earmarked runs out?
That's why I was wondering how it would work. What happens to people who need to claim after the money earmarked runs out?
it's not a target.
the idea is that you address the problem before it occurs. that if, as a country, we are facing a welfare bill higher than the limit we have to do something to stop that requirement, not cut welfare.
The issue is just being debated in Parliament at the moment.
Diane Abbott is doing a good job.
A very strong contribution from Diane Abbott this afternoon. I couldn't stand all of the rowdiness and she managed to get some proper order. A lot of the Tories suffer from personality issues. I wondered at one point if the MP for Elmet should in future be paid only in vouchers. Osborne seemed a bit more human than usual but still doesn't wholly convince me as a parliamentary performer. I thought Ed Balls was again a bit strange but I tend to want to back him. Often I am not sure if he has won an argument or not. The spat with Ben Gummer was a case in point.
On the issue, I am instinctively with Labour while also accepting the need for sensible constraints. There are some reasonable arguments on all sides but they all deliberately leave out at least one major factor as they are biased.
Its a Labour policy - the Coalition only nicked it. ;-)
Yes I guess so. Miliband in 2013.
The 13 rebels - Diane Abbott, Ronnie Campbell, Katy Clark, Michael Connarty, Jeremy Corbyn, Kelvin Hopkins, Glenda Jackson, John McDonnell, George Mudie, Linda Riordan, Dennis Skinner, Tom Watson, Mike Wood.
I do have a soft spot for some of them on issues of this kind. I like John McDonnell a lot, Tom Watson is very good value and the only one with whom I have ever actually had a conversation was fantastic on Morecambe and Wise.
Its a Labour policy - the Coalition only nicked it. ;-)
The trouble is what are Labours policies for reducing benefits?...they have voted against every change.....until we know what they will cut or reduce then we can have a proper debate about it......when their supporters find out what they will cut...probably after the next general election...and to my view they will keep the vast majority of the cuts already bought in......
The trouble is what are Labours policies for reducing benefits?...they have voted against every change.....until we know what they will cut or reduce then we can have a proper debate about it......when their supporters find out what they will cut...probably after the next general election...and to my view they will keep the vast majority of the cuts already bought in......
Their policy for reducing benefits is to try to create more employment and the jobs guarantee scheme.
A very strong contribution from Diane Abbott this afternoon. I couldn't stand all of the rowdiness and she managed to get some proper order. A lot of the Tories suffer from personality issues. I wondered at one point if the MP for Elmet should in future be paid only in vouchers. Osborne seemed a bit more human than usual but still doesn't wholly convince me as a parliamentary performer. I thought Ed Balls was again a bit strange but I tend to want to back him. Often I am not sure if he has won an argument or not. The spat with Ben Gummer was a case in point.
On the issue, I am instinctively with Labour while also accepting the need for sensible constraints. There are some reasonable arguments on all sides but they all deliberately leave out at least one major factor as they are biased.
Yes I think Diane hit the nail on the head, both in the way the Tories were playing games and in the way they were trying to be shown as being hard on benefits.
The I had to put up with Mark Reckless talking a load of rubbish.
The trouble is what are Labours policies for reducing benefits?...they have voted against every change.....until we know what they will cut or reduce then we can have a proper debate about it......when their supporters find out what they will cut...probably after the next general election...and to my view they will keep the vast majority of the cuts already bought in......
Labour will cut the number of benefit claimants. That is what they did last time they were in power the working age out of work benefit claimant count went down in part due to substantial changes in the benefit's system, everything from eligibility criteria to conditionality terms and incentives/help to work. Labour also introduced ESA which the Coalition has since rolled out nationality, ESA has continued the fall in numbers of claimants and Labour backs the increase in the state retirement age which will decrease the number of people on retirement benefits in comparison to what they would have been.
The problems with a benefit cap on all working age benefits except JSA that goes up in line with inflation are many.
Increasing by inflation means the funding for benefits does not increase in line with growing prosperity of society, as incomes rise. Despite the fact that people pay for the benefits via NI contributions and income tax both based on income. And regardless of if the nation can afford it as there is no link to GDP.
Due to an increasing population and a ageing population and the rise in the state retirement age, there is likely to be a substantial increase in the numbers on illness/disability benefits in the future, but the benefit cap is not linked to the number of people in need claiming. So as the number of claimants increase funding per claimant will fall, and as total funding is inflation linked that means a fall in real terms for individual benefit payments.
The benefit cap amounts to the very slow phasing out of the welfare state, if the cap remains indefinitely the standard of living for those on benefits relative to the average worker would fall even if claimant numbers remained static, but with an increasing population, aging population and increase in state retirment age the number of claimants is bound to rise and that means benefits having to fall in real terms. At some point it would fall below a life worth living, and eventually below the level of subsistance.
Pisces Cloud
Posts: 30,239
Comments
It should pass because the Labour Party approves of it with only a few against.
They are not voting for a cap on individual or family benefit.
They are voting for a cap on the total benefit spending for the whole country.
It would not be so high if there was not a need for in work benefits and housing benefits were not so high due to extortionately high private rents.
This is not about a cap on individual people, this is about capping the whole benefit bill. Which is never going to work as 2 problems i see are workers dont control wages, and tenants dont control rents
it's a nice idea. but you have to pay for it.
it's not a target.
the idea is that you address the problem before it occurs. that if, as a country, we are facing a welfare bill higher than the limit we have to do something to stop that requirement, not cut welfare.
Diane Abbott is doing a good job.
A very strong contribution from Diane Abbott this afternoon. I couldn't stand all of the rowdiness and she managed to get some proper order. A lot of the Tories suffer from personality issues. I wondered at one point if the MP for Elmet should in future be paid only in vouchers. Osborne seemed a bit more human than usual but still doesn't wholly convince me as a parliamentary performer. I thought Ed Balls was again a bit strange but I tend to want to back him. Often I am not sure if he has won an argument or not. The spat with Ben Gummer was a case in point.
On the issue, I am instinctively with Labour while also accepting the need for sensible constraints. There are some reasonable arguments on all sides but they all deliberately leave out at least one major factor as they are biased.
Its a Labour policy - the Coalition only nicked it. ;-)
Yes I guess so. Miliband in 2013.
The 13 rebels - Diane Abbott, Ronnie Campbell, Katy Clark, Michael Connarty, Jeremy Corbyn, Kelvin Hopkins, Glenda Jackson, John McDonnell, George Mudie, Linda Riordan, Dennis Skinner, Tom Watson, Mike Wood.
I do have a soft spot for some of them on issues of this kind. I like John McDonnell a lot, Tom Watson is very good value and the only one with whom I have ever actually had a conversation was fantastic on Morecambe and Wise.
The trouble is what are Labours policies for reducing benefits?...they have voted against every change.....until we know what they will cut or reduce then we can have a proper debate about it......when their supporters find out what they will cut...probably after the next general election...and to my view they will keep the vast majority of the cuts already bought in......
They also include pensions in the total which is the largest section of the budget and in my opinion an attempt at misdirection.
Yes but pensions and JSA will be exempt from the cap. So it is a double whammy.
Their policy for reducing benefits is to try to create more employment and the jobs guarantee scheme.
Yes I think Diane hit the nail on the head, both in the way the Tories were playing games and in the way they were trying to be shown as being hard on benefits.
The I had to put up with Mark Reckless talking a load of rubbish.
Turning his back, and walking off, when faced with some real questions
https://twitter.com/SoniaPoulton/status/448915073990270976/photo/1
The problems with a benefit cap on all working age benefits except JSA that goes up in line with inflation are many.
Increasing by inflation means the funding for benefits does not increase in line with growing prosperity of society, as incomes rise. Despite the fact that people pay for the benefits via NI contributions and income tax both based on income. And regardless of if the nation can afford it as there is no link to GDP.
Due to an increasing population and a ageing population and the rise in the state retirement age, there is likely to be a substantial increase in the numbers on illness/disability benefits in the future, but the benefit cap is not linked to the number of people in need claiming. So as the number of claimants increase funding per claimant will fall, and as total funding is inflation linked that means a fall in real terms for individual benefit payments.
The benefit cap amounts to the very slow phasing out of the welfare state, if the cap remains indefinitely the standard of living for those on benefits relative to the average worker would fall even if claimant numbers remained static, but with an increasing population, aging population and increase in state retirment age the number of claimants is bound to rise and that means benefits having to fall in real terms. At some point it would fall below a life worth living, and eventually below the level of subsistance.
I think Universal Credit is going to be exempt as well, so the whole thing was a complete farce.