Skip to main content

Clegg misses the point about pensioner benefits

Nick Clegg has set his eyes on major reform. A defining moment for Liberal Democrat politics; removal of free bus passes and TV licenses from 'wealthy' pensioners. So now we know what the Liberal Democrats stand for. I expect it will include the automatic fuel allowance. Is this really what Liberal Democrats have been in politics for? And do they not understand why some benefits are universal?

It may appear unfair that rich and poor alike can receive the same benefits. But there is a good reason to give some benefits in this way. Targeting involves means testing and it involves setting thresholds. Thresholds can create a worst kind of unfairness; those just above, those just at the margin, losing the benefit. Two elderly neighbours one receiving and the other not, all for the sake of being a penny above the threshold; one neighbour now 'richer' the other now 'poorer'. But there is something more worrying about means testing. Many elderly people tend not to apply for benefits even when they qualify and deserve them.  Each year, a staggering £5.5 bn of benefits that pensioners are entitled to go unclaimed.

Four million pensioners are entitled to pension credit, yet a third of them are not claiming it. This means they may be missing out on hundreds or even thousands of pounds of benefit they are entitled to, and yet Mr Clegg chooses to focus on bus passes and TV licenses. What kind of priority is it? 

The Liberal Party had a proud history since they introduced state pensions in the UK at the beginning of the 20th Century.  Now Mr Clegg wants to define them by taking away bus passes and TV licenses.

Comments

  1. What kind of priority is it?
    The priority of a man who has lost his way. He knows his party has made a huge mistake. He thought he would stand alongside Cameron as a joint leader but instead he finds himself marginalised. Not only in Government but now, in the Country as a whole. He feels he has to say "something" indeed, "anything" to assert his authority. I suspect however, even he knows it's too late.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I think it probably is too late. Trying to define your party by focussing on these issues suggests they no longer have anything definitive to say about the bigger picture.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As