The Politics Thread

[Athers]

Shall we take guesses at when the "Come back David" plea gets an airing?

[Bruce Rioja]

It's just said ont' news that under new government proposals, to stop it being advantageous for people to stay on benefits rather than work (they're being hard on freeloaders, apparently) it's going to cap benefits at £26K per year. So, help me here please because I'm sure I must've fecked this up, but to me that means that in order to garner a nett income of £26K then the gross income must be in the order of £38K or so. I'd have thought that it'd still be considerably easier for an otherwise casual labourer to keep on claiming benefits than it would for him to walk into a £38K PA position, no?

[William the White]

It's just said ont' news that under new government proposals, to stop it being advantageous for people to stay on benefits rather than work (they're being hard on freeloaders, apparently) it's going to cap benefits at £26K per year. So, help me here please because I'm sure I must've fecked this up, but to me that means that in order to garner a nett income of £26K then the gross income must be in the order of £38K or so. I'd have thought that it'd still be considerably easier for an otherwise casual labourer to keep on claiming benefits than it would for him to walk into a £38K PA position, no?

Like you, Bruce, I lack the detailed knowledge to understand the issues fully... But I am as close to certain as I can be that you are unlikely to find a 'casual labourer' (other than one with a good accountant pretending not to really work for the BBC or with a bank account in the Cayman Islands) actually earning £26k or more... The ones in brackets, above, are casual labourers who don't pay their proper tax, we should have a close look at them...

[bedwetter2]

How many have received Dave's questionnaire? This was sent out in the last week. Everyone or a few?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

A couple of things that I don't like in the current welfare reform package.

I think this is a particularly bad time to be cutting legal aid and CAB funding. I'm broadly in favour of the reforms and their intentions, but they are quite complex and difficult to understand - these things tend to have teething problems and uncertainties, which are often ironed out (if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor) with some early test cases. And I do think it's particularly unfortunate that the CAB is losing resources to help some vulnerable people navigate the changes, especially with the likes of Wonga circling in the water.

The other thing is this under occupation subsidy - again, I support the idea of more efficient use of our housing stock, but it does seem a bit unfair to impose this penalty if it is not contingent on turning down the offer of a smaller, more appropriate property!

[thebish]

And I do think it's particularly unfortunate that the CAB is losing resources to help some vulnerable people navigate the changes, especially with the likes of Wonga circling in the water.

agree wholeheartedly... Maybe a feather for Dave's big society - but the church is starting to pick this up. One of the lead voluntary sector debt counselling agencies is now CAP - "Christians Against Poverty" - a serious and credible player now, often lauded by media money/personal finance commentators like martin lewis...

[Il Pirate]

Christians Against Poverty"; The church against poverty, people against poverty, et al. All very noble institutions indeed. But wouldn't it be nice, just once, that's all I ask, to have a fvcking government who act against poverty?

[BWFC_Insane]

Christians Against Poverty"; The church against poverty, people against poverty, et al. All very noble institutions indeed. But wouldn't it be nice, just once, that's all I ask, to have a fvcking government who act against poverty?

So what you're asking for is a GAP?

[thebish]

the FT says today that it has heard a whisper that the govt's next step might be to cut the minimum wage...

[mrkint]

It's direct from number ten, isn't it? Though it says 'changes' rather than cuts. Though one certainly makes for a more dramatic headline than t'other.

Bemusing but slightly amusing electoral suicide should it happen.

Anywho, if anyone has a chance - this quote from the article from number ten. Does anyone know what the actual demographics etc are behind this?

“It is something we need to make sure works and continues so that it supports people,” Number 10 said. “Changes are being made to the tax and benefits system that mean a couple with two children on the minimum wage will be £340 better off per year.”

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And what the article actually says is that the Government is 'considering' in the sense of 'reading' a report on the issue produced by the independent Low Pay Commission.

But Downing Street said on Tuesday morning the business department was mulling over a report from the Low Pay Commission, which recommends the wage level, and could end up reducing the rate.

“It is something we need to make sure works and continues so that it supports people,” Number 10 said. “Changes are being made to the tax and benefits system that mean a couple with two children on the minimum wage will be £340 better off per year.”

The wage, presently at £6.19 an hour, is usually set each spring and comes into force in September.

Jo Swinson, Liberal Democrat employment minister, told the Low Pay Commission in January that the government believes it should take the UK’s stagnant economy into account when setting the rate.

“The level of employment is now above its pre-recession peak, but the employment rate is below the pre-recession peak,” she said. “This means that we believe that caution is required, particularly as the minimum wage rate is now at its highest ever level relative to average earnings for adults and remains high for young people.”

[mrkint]

Aye, that's what I said - just that one headline will get more clicks than its alternative

[Worthy4England]

When the NMW was bought in, it was on the prediction of some sort of employment Armageddon from the Tories at the time that would lead to massive job losses.

Unemployment continued its downward trend for the next 6 years.

All 145 of the feckless bastards voted against it.

[Beefheart]

the FT says today that it has heard a whisper that the govt's next step might be to cut the minimum wage...

What, because those earning minimum wage obviously aren't working hard enough or obviously they'd be in higher paid jobs? So the plan will be to cut the minimum wage to encourage these lazy scroungers into higher paid jobs.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

the FT says today that it has heard a whisper that the govt's next step might be to cut the minimum wage...

What, because those earning minimum wage obviously aren't working hard enough or obviously they'd be in higher paid jobs? So the plan will be to cut the minimum wage to encourage these lazy scroungers into higher paid jobs.

You'd have to read the Low Pay Commission's reasoning when it is published here, if this is what they have suggested: http://www.lowpay.gov.uk/lowpay/rep_a_p_index.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thebish]

When the NMW was bought in, it was on the prediction of some sort of employment Armageddon from the Tories at the time that would lead to massive job losses.

Unemployment continued its downward trend for the next 6 years.

All 145 of the feckless bastards voted against it.

i would have thought that if the govt wants to cut the welfare bill - given that (excluding pensions) most of it goes to people are are in work and low-paid - it would make more sense to introduce what has been called a "living wage" so that the govt doesn't then have to subsidize businesses who pay wages that are too low for people to live on...

[bobo the clown]

... it would make more sense to introduce what has been called a "living wage" so that the govt doesn't then have to subsidize businesses who pay wages that are too low for people to live on...

Confused here bish (seriously. I'm not point-scoring).

It's Companies who will have to pay this amount, not Government. How are Government subsidising (Engkish spelling) business' to pay low wages ?

[thebish]

... it would make more sense to introduce what has been called a "living wage" so that the govt doesn't then have to subsidize businesses who pay wages that are too low for people to live on...

Confused here bish (seriously. I'm not point-scoring).

It's Companies who will have to pay this amount, not Government. How are Government subsidising (Engkish spelling) business' to pay low wages ?

because they top-up low wages with income support and in-work benefits.

[Lord Kangana]

Actually, and more pertinently, taxpayers are directly indirectly subsidisng a whole raft of businesses and shareholders by the part privatisation of many aspects of government and local government. The very long list starts with the train companies and heads right the way through to Adult Care services, the NHS, running through the utterly ludicrous like PFI etc etc etc etc ad infinitum.

Don't believe the hype, as they say.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Actually, and more pertinently, taxpayers are directly indirectly subsidisng a whole raft of businesses and shareholders by the part privatisation of many aspects of government and local government. The very long list starts with the train companies and heads right the way through to Adult Care services, the NHS, running through the utterly ludicrous like PFI etc etc etc etc ad infinitum.

Don't believe the hype, as they say.

There's nothing inherently wrong with public money being used to buy services from private companies (and delivering a profit to their shareholders) as long you construct the right contract and get a good deal for the taxpayer. I doubt you would expect the government to build its own houses or make its own stationery and computers, for example.

Oddly enough, the G4S failure to provide security staff at the Olympics was a good example of why outsourcing is useful - they didn't deliver, and so were on the hook for all of the additional cost of putting things right.

It is disappointing that the recent announcement about Alder Hey Hospital on the Wirral shows that big PFI deals haven't died off, however.