Blair .... Good Or Bad.

[Steve Walker]

The only reason that happens is that it's cheaper to adminster that way, rather than making it a targeted or means-tested benefit.

 

I don't object to administering it through the tax system. I object to the tax break being extended to people who don't need it.

 

 

You could also argue that the way the demographic profile of the country is going (along with most of Western Europe), people need to be actively encouraged to have children...

 

Well you could, but it's hard to support when while the UK's population may be ageing, it's too large. Look at the balance of supply and demand for housing, the congestion problems, etc. The single greenest decision an individual can make is not to breed, or at least to breed less, yet it's the option which is actually penalised by the tax and benefits system.

 

(At this point, someone will usually ask who will look after me when I'm old. The honest answer is probably "some immigrants from wherever the dispossessed live then", the mischievous answer is "So you're public spiritedly raising your kids to be geriatric arse wipers?")

[barry luxton]

The Miners' Strike was a rough old time, too - there was certainly a north-south divide in opinion on that one, which was ironic really, as the Kent miners were the first (along with the Yorkshire ones) to go out on strike. There was violence on both sides, but in those days (unlike now) the news media only tended to show one side of it (and it wasn't the SPG (Special Patrol Group) wading in with riot truncheons).

 

British employment practice was certainly in need of reform, but what ended up happening went way beyond that. Perhaps increasing globalisation would have meant the loss of our industrial base eventually anyway, but to effectively shut down whole areas like the South Wales mining valleys and give them nothing in return but a Garden Festival was harsh to say the least.

 

I remember Cwm and Ebbw Vale in the 1950s and it was a thriving and happy community, despite the occasional pit disaster. It's a ghost town now (I've still got family living in the area).

 

It was also a very hard tough living as a lot of my relatives in and around Aberfan suffered lung problems and have spent years on the sick, personally i'm glad that period is history. The place now looks a lot cleaner and healthy.

[Steve Walker]

so Steve

 

How do these feckless ones house their family in this modern utopian Britain?

 

Is that a rhetorical question? I don't know how you disincentivise such people from deliberately condemning themselves to a life of benefit dependence. I wish I did. People are better off working, but some people are lazy and selfish. The Clinton administration's welfare reforms which were widely held at the time to be the road to casting the poor deeper into poverty are now widely admitted to have succeeded, even by many of those who opposed them at the time. Maybe there's a lesson to be learnt there.

[DavyR]

It was also a very hard tough living as a lot of my relatives in and around Aberfan suffered lung problems and have spent years on the sick, personally i'm glad that period is history. The place now looks a lot cleaner and healthy.

 

I know what you mean about the ill-health. The place is just as unhealthy now, though - but the chest problems have been replaced by depression, drug abuse and obesity-induced diabetes and heart disease.

[DavyR]

(At this point, someone will usually ask who will look after me when I'm old. The honest answer is probably "some immigrants from wherever the dispossessed live then", the mischievous answer is "So you're public spiritedly raising your kids to be geriatric arse wipers?")

 

Young people are not just needed to care for the elderly, though. I know the government's expecting everybody to work into their 70s, but can you really see it? People may be living longer, but they're not necessarily capable of working at the same level. You might be able to keep bodies going, but brains are a different matter.And who's going to fight the next localised war - Dad's Army?

 

I'm not sure why child benefits are not paid through the tax system as credits, but I wonder why it's still a universal benefit if it's not cheaper to do it that way?

[kleinboet]

There are an awful lot of people on here praising Blair and his policies and Damning Thatcher!

Thatcher is, and always will be known as "the iron Lady" What will Blair be known as,

The pension thief?

Look at what is happening, the ground around the Iron Bridge is collapsing and blair says there IS NO GOVERNMENT MONEY (Surely that is OUR money to pay) to have it repaired. The pensioners live on a pittance, every thing that is a problem is given a "target" to work to, we are fleeced daily with stealth taxes. So where is this money going? Well there's £5.5 billion pound given to Africa for books, there's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, money for Ireland, money for Iraq etc, etc.

It would appear (and I KNOW I am going to be crucified for this) that if it is ENGLAND ignore it!

[DavyR]

There are an awful lot of people on here praising Blair and his policies and Damning Thatcher!

 

Looking back through the thread, I think there are more anti-Blair than anti-Thatcher comments, although probably there are more still that are "apolitical".

[nick]

Is that a rhetorical question? I don't know how you disincentivise such people from deliberately condemning themselves to a life of benefit dependence. I wish I did. People are better off working, but some people are lazy and selfish. The Clinton administration's welfare reforms which were widely held at the time to be the road to casting the poor deeper into poverty are now widely admitted to have succeeded, even by many of those who opposed them at the time. Maybe there's a lesson to be learnt there.

 

I wish it was rhetorical. But no it is a question to which I would love to see an answer from someone that believes that one needs to be lazy and selfish to be in receipt of benefits. Some are, of that there is no doubt.

 

But many many families find themselves trapped on benefits because they cannot find a way to work and house themselves. The system does not work. The amount of housing benefit a claimant can receive is set by the rent officer. This is rarely the full amount of the rent, but rather the amount the rent officer decides a typical property in a particular area would be rented out for.

 

So given that a benefits claimant is given the amount of money needed to live on - not for luxuries, but for basic living standards they then find that they are dipping into these meagre payments to pay the rent that the government say is paid from housing benefit. Councils can pay the full amount of rent, but the government only reimburse the council with what the rent officer allows. So councils don't pay the full amount.

 

So the claimant gets some low paid work - possibly only part time (lets assume 16+ hours per week), or several jobs to make up to full time. So straight away they get the working tax credit - which gives a little more money, and then they lose the housing and council tax benefit, or get it vastly reduced. They still need to pay the rent, but now it is taking away more than the increased money they got by working. In addition they no longer have any right to free school meals for their kids, which used to ensure that the children got a decent meal each day.

 

So the end result is that they don't bother working because to do so results in a reduction of the money they have available to house, clothe and feed their family.

 

If councils had decent housing to offer to people at affordable rents then some of this may ease. But they don't because over 40% (in some areas as much as 70%) has been sold to people at vastly reduced prices. many of whom now rent out these houses at private sector rents. These houses were originally built at public expense! (A legacy of the Thatcher years)

 

The poorest sector of society have faired extremely badly under all recent governments. The shift from direct tax to indirect tax has a disproportionate impact on the poor, another Thatcher legacy.

 

There are many many people currently subsisting on benefits that would rather do something than nothing, but the system does not allow it to happen. Who would choose to have less money than the minimum level the government says they need to keep themselves and their family?

 

How many people here can imagine keeping a family of 5 fed properly on £50 per week? There are lots having to do it on a long term basis.

[snakey1]

It would appear (and I KNOW I am going to be crucified for this) that if it is ENGLAND ignore it!

I would agree with you on that kleinboet but what do you expect from a government run by the scottish(blair,brown,reid) and the welsh(prescott) and as for sharing parliamentary space with former IRA terrorists what next invite Al-qaida to join in just so we can have their point of view as well. Just look at most official forms nowadays when you have to declare your nationality there are boxes for irish,scottish and welsh but not english sorry you'll just have to be white european instead, is this because tony has sold us and our rights down the river to the EU

[Steve Walker]

So the end result is that they don't bother working because to do so results in a reduction of the money they have available to house, clothe and feed their family.

 

Nick, I'm aware of the benefits trap and I do appreciate that people find themselves in situations where they literally cannot afford to work. I do have to question whether they would have got themselves into such a situation in the first place if the welfare system did not facilitate it. I have heard people say that they can't take a job because they would be worse off than on benefits. I believe that may well be true, despite repeated tweaking of the system to eradicate it. I would make two points though; firstly, that the benefits system should ensure that people are not significantly worse off for working, and secondly that if someone is no better off for working or even worse off but still able to manage, they still have a moral obligation to support themselves.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Steve Walker