Osborne now targets universal credit in his attack on the poor.

What does it take to get this government to realise the suffering they are inflicting on those reliant on benefits. Failing to get his way with cuts in Tax Credits it is now suggested that the Chancellor, George Osborne has now his sights on cutting the new universal credit.

Apparently, the Work and Pensions Secretary has threatened to resign if the Chancellor cuts the new benefit.

Universal credit was launched by Mr Duncan Smith with great fanfare in 2013, combining previous means-tested benefits such as jobseekers allowance, tax credits and housing benefit into a single payment which is currently being phased in across the country.

It is a controversial scheme, not least because it makes the assumption that benefit need is uniform and not specific to circumstance such as mental health. Universal Credit will mean people with mental health issues will no longer have their claims supported by a specialist health assessment but instead through meetings with a general job centre work advisor.

Such a move is likely to be detrimental to those with mental health issues as they are often the least likely to be picked up in a general assessment by an unqualified advisor. There is no system in place at job centres to provide such professional advice. It is already clear from those on the Work Programme that it is making their health issues worse. The DWP refuses to reconsider the impact of the new assessment on those with mental health issues. They wish to remain blind to the problem and ignore the concerns expressed by organisations such as the mental health charity MIND.

Instead we have Lord Freud, the Government’s welfare reform minister, proffering the incredulous notion that Universal Credit would make life easier for mental health problems because 'generic work advisors would become more adept at dealing with mental health issues'. The suffering of those wrongly assessed will no doubt be a lesson to those making the assessments!

Universal benefits has some cross party support, but the devil is not so much in the detail but in the purpose. I am always wary of the all embracing reason given for changes in benefit that it is 'to make work pay'. What that translates into is more people being forced into low paid, insecure jobs. We create a cycle of 'dependency' - locking people into low pay jobs.

Nonetheless, the Work and Pensions Secretary is concerned that change in universal credit, particularly if it affects the tapering of the benefit will mitigate its intention. Currently the taper is set at 65% – meaning that for every extra £1 claimants earn above a threshold, they lose 65p – but Osborne is looking at a proposal to increase this to 75%.

But all this begs the question wether there should be cuts in benefits at all. The government says it is necessary to 'cut the deficit', but if that is so then why did Osborne cut tax on beer? If he intends to cut the deficit then revenue should be considered. The stated imperative of cutting the deficit is not consistent with cutting such taxes. It was a cynical move to win votes.

The government argues that the benefits bill is 'out of control', but you can't have a system designed to 'make work pay' and then grumble about the cost of it. The cost is increasing because too many people are pushed into low pay.

The best way of tackling the benefits bill is to increase pay. Duncan Smith was delighted by Osborne’s decision to announce a national living wage in the summer budget, and famously responded to it with a double fist pump in the Commons. For once I can agree with him that a move to a genuine living wage is what is necessary to lift people out of poverty and benefits.

We need a budget for growth not a budget that hurts the poorest. We need a budget that encourages proper contracts and skills, not one that pushes hard working people deeper into poverty. We need a budget that tackles the cost of housing, a major factor in poverty, and a major hindrance to jobs.

It is time the Chancellor understood you can't cut your way out of a crisis - crisis of his own making. But you can stimulate real economic recovery and productivity growth, creating more jobs and rejuvenating many areas of industrial decline.

Lifting people out of poverty with decent wages and jobs is economic sense. Pushing more people into poverty is economic madness.

Follow @Ray_Noble1

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...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'. Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...

The Thin End

Search This Blog