Skip to main content

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. 

Comments

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

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they