The Labour Government

[hilts]

There is a really easy solution to all of this. Pay the WFA as a direct credit or discount on an energy account and then we'll see who moans and who actually does need/use it for energy..

Most people I've spoken to use the WFA for a holiday or Christmas... Long before it even gets cold.

Well that does it then, cool story from bluemoon poster sinks pensioners holiday scam.

 

[PPT]

Different as they have only just got through the door after 14 years of Tory failure - will take time to reduce numbers and resolve this, at least another couple years.

They will get 12 months at best. Then the difficult questions will start to get asked.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Plenty of other benefits not means testing PIP, Attendance allowance single occupancy council tax for instance would you also be in favour of removing these for people who don't qualify for means tested benefits?

Attendance allowance is the same situation as PIP. It's for disabled people, so don't see the point of means testing when people already have the disability test being applied.

Means testing it would also give legitimacy to people to squirrel or fritter away money rather than pay their own care costs. Something which I've already said is wrong. It would also add another level of bureaucracy and might not actually save money anyway.

Bit of semantics but single council tax is a discount not a benefit. It's probably not a good idea if it doesn't actually raise money without creating lots of debtors who can't afford the uplift and pissing lots of people off and turning them against voting Labour.

The pensioners have tended to vote Tory because of patronage (WFA, triple lock) an and obsession with keeping property prices high. Labour can't lose voters It didn't already have and doesn't need to win their vote.

Council tax discounts and exemptions are also a lot more complicated than giving people who don't necessarily need it, free money to heat their home.

 

[Postman Pep]

"Universalism" seems to be used in different ways, and may not be incompatible with the aim of meeting need. I think there may be an illogical leap in the bit you quote from the article.

Universal social security provided a floor designed to catch anyone who fell on hard times. Welfare was never a luxury.....The fact of universalism gave other layers in society a stake in the social security system.
THEN
Better off families might not have needed child benefit, for example, but it gave them extra spending power they could splash on extra clothes, treats for the children (and treats for themselves). But by extending them a stake, it was hoped opposition to their losing an entitlement would protect those who really needed it.

The leap is from saying what social security was designed for - and the stake everyone had in it (first bit) to a different sort of universality (that everyone should receive benefits).

Does "universal benefit" mean that anyone who needs a benefit will get it, or does it mean that everyone should get it? There may be political advantage in getting a "buy-in" (everyone gets a bit out of the welfare state) but if, as stated, welfare is to provide a floor for anyone who falls on hard times, that's where universality comes in. The state pension may be the only "universal benefit" (paid regardless of income, though taxable) - child benefit only goes to people with children (though may benefit the whole community as an incentive to maintain the population), and no-one is suggesting that disability benefits should go to people who are not disabled. We pay taxes/NI for benefits which we may or may not need in the future (e.g. if we should qualify as disabled) - it's effectively an insurance policy.

Can benefits accessible to only certain demographics, in the truest sense of the word,be described as "universal" ? Course not. I think that is you making a leap tbh.

The argument is that the way the WFA is administered is based on the idea of universal provision. Accessibility to all regardless of need to ensure nobody falls through the cracks. The inevitable trade off being people get stuff they don't necessarily need.

The counter argument, that it is an inefficient allocation of resources is clearly a valid one but is the trade off, people potentially falling through the cracks, worth it?

[The stuff about council tax and who should get a discount is mostly wide of the mark, as the bulk of council spending is also on care for those who need it, not on running libraries or emptying bins. Local services used to be funded from rates, which threw up some anomalies, and Thatcher's poll tax replaced it - saving the landed gentry many millions of pounds - and the council tax is a Tory cobbled compromise based on size of house, leaving the landed gentry still saving many millions of pounds. The rates might have been flawed, but it was a tax hard to avoid, and based on how much land people occupied - and taxing how much land people occupy seems eminently sensible when it's scarce.]

Totally agree on rates being a fairer system but it is not even remotely part of the political landscape so I guess both a leap and wide of the mark ;-)

 

[Chippy_boy]

He sexually assaulted a prison officer, and was then promptly arrested and immediately recalled to prison.

The consequences of not releasing people as part of that scheme would be that offenders couldn't be jailed because there was no where to put them.

Or Labour could cram them all in and have no safe limits and prison officers would be at greater risk of serious violence due to the unsafe staff to prisoner ratios.

But sure take it in a silo rather than consider the trade-offs.



Have you considered driving the prison bus?

How about not jailing people for reposting tweets?

Still, I am more than happy that Starmer's branded anyone unhappy with the levels of uncontrolled immigration as a far right racist, since it's alienated the other half of the northern working towns who are not alienated by the removal of WFA.

His "no-one must vote for us ever again" mission is well on track.

I wonder if he is a Tory agent?

 

[Chippy_boy]

My aunt uses it to buy her 4 grandkids Christmas presents.
And yes, that's a good idea....sounds worth exploring anyway.

There is "waste" in every area of the Welfare State and it has become an almost unstoppable juggernaut.

For example, I know of someone who uses her PIP for facials and Botox injections and has no shame in saying it.
That's the type of waste we need to stop, and it detracts from those in genuine need of the payments.

Absolutely agreed!

 

[Chippy_boy]

Different as they have only just got through the door after 14 years of Tory failure - will take time to reduce numbers and resolve this, at least another couple years.

It will take a fuck of a long time given they won't do diddly to prevent it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Most people I've spoken to use the WFA for a holiday or Christmas... Long before it even gets cold.

Duly outed as a champagne socialist. Clearly you never mix with poor people.

Seriously.

 

[hilts]

How about not jailing people for reposting tweets?

They have been naughty though so they had to free a naughty person to incarcerate another naughty person.

Starmer is determined to clamp down on the naughtiness that reflects badly on him.
I believe also some naughty pensioners have been buying their grandkids some Xmas presents and have been caught out by a full and extensive investigation by a bluemoon poster.

Those naughty pensioners needed bringing down a peg or two, they get more pension than some Eastern Europeans greedy twats.

Thank god we have someone willing to stand up to retweeters and old folk rather than picking on train drivers, armed robbers and people assaulting or touching up folk.

 

[mackenzie]

They have been naughty though so they had to free a naughty person to incarcerate another naughty person.

Starmer is determined to clamp down on the naughtiness that reflects badly on him.
I believe also some naughty pensioners have been buying their grandkids some Xmas presents and have been caught out by a full and extensive investigation by a bluemoon poster.

Those naughty pensioners needed bringing down a peg or two, they get more pension than some Eastern Europeans greedy twats.

Thank god we have someone willing to stand up to retweeters and old folk rather than picking on train drivers, armed robbers and people assaulting or touching up folk.

My aunt and uncle are quite capable of financing their grandkids Christmas presents by themselves, without the need for the taxpayer to do it

The WFA is not there to fund Sam or Luke's latest bloody video game. And why should it be??