[boogers]

But when you reach a stage of saying he is 'even more stupid' for advocating a less worse policy then its getting a bit churlish.

I don't see you defending May in the same way

The compulsory purchase option is both a terrible use of taxpayer money and ideologically inconsistent with positions he claims to hold. So he's either rabble rousing, or just too thick to understand the implications of the policies he suggests.

[althusser]

The compulsory purchase option is both a terrible use of taxpayer money and ideologically inconsistent with positions he claims to hold. So he's either rabble rousing, or just too thick to understand the implications of the policies he suggests.

I think you are 'straw-manning' his ideological beliefs on that...

...but even if not then you seem to agree compulsory purchase would be less bad than unrecompensed seizure.

So the argument that he is even more stupid to suggest the former dosen't seem to make sense.

[Caz]

I disagree. The welfare system isn't simply a way of giving out free money to anyone. Each benefit comes to cover some specific cost claimants have which they cannot afford themselves. How does it make sense to have a cap?

There are two rationales usually mentioned for having a cap:

1) The populist reason - "why should those scroungers get more money then hard-working taxpayers". Despite the government now concentrating on the second reason, this was the original reasoning (as you can see by the idea of limiting it to the average wage, and that originally the cap was intended to apply even to employed people, which makes the second reason nonsensical).

This is stupid for so many reasons. For example, it ignores the fact that employed people on this sort of wage also get a certain level of benefits. It also ignores the fact ultimately the welfare system is needs-based, and some people in certain circumstances need more to be able to live at an acceptable standard.

2) The (fake) altruistic reason - that it would encourage people into work, since that would stop their benefits being cut.

I don't agree with this. It's true, it probably has encouraged a certain number of people to work, but it doesn't make sense to cap benefits to do that. It's simply arbitrary and unfair. Someone who's needs are low or who lives in a cheaper area can happily stay unemployed, because he anyway receives benefits below the cap level, whereas someone with higher needs - often because of a larger family - has to find employment. If anything, someone with a larger family would have better reasons why they can't work.

Encouraging benefit claimants to work/work more is complicated and shouldn't be done in such a rough, arbitrary way.

 

[boogers]

It also ignores the fact ultimately the welfare system is needs-based, and some people in certain circumstances need more to be able to live at an acceptable standard.

That's a good post, but I'm going to pick out this particular point because I think it highlights the problem with the current system. In theory welfare is needs-based, but the current system is disjointed and coarse. Without radical reform (such as UC promised before it got Duncan Smithed), a cap is necessary.

All calls made should be on a case by case basis.  Not some arbitrary call that one size fits all.

Sure, I agree with the principle behind this. In practice the system is a mess, and administering it in this way is impossible.

[tamila]

When I worked in a doctor's surgery we received letters from the DHSS saying that someone who was on benefits could work. Some did not go to work but others did. The ones that did actually used to tell me how much better they felt and also had self-respect. It can work but we do now need assessors who know what they are doing. Some of the assessors now are not adequately trained.

[Aileen]

^ Yep.  All calls made should be on a case by case basis.  Not some arbitrary call that one size fits all. 

I agree.  I've a friend who works part-time simply because he can't get a full-time job, but gets hammered for doing so by having his housing benefit halved.  He'd actually be better off if he was unemployed, so where's the justice in that?  Also it makes a mockery of the government's claim (not heard for a while due to being overtaken by events) that their aim is to get everyone back into work.  Also where are all these jobs anyway?

[boogers]

Also where are all these jobs anyway?

Not in manufacturing... however, employment is at a historic high and unemployment is very low. One could certainly ask how many of these jobs are high quality (however you'd define that...), but the fact that more people are employed than ever before is factually accurate.

[boogers]

I'd define a high quality job as being one that doesn't bore you half to death doing it and nor would I put certain labouring and other menial jobs into that category

Hm. A few decades ago there were a lot a mining and manufacturing jobs that were either dangerous or highly repetitive and boring. I wonder what the proportion of "good" vs "bad" looks like now, compared to then?

perhaps it could be the case that more people are now willing to do jobs they'd never have considered doing before simply because they need the money

Given the noises that are already being made about there not being enough low paid workers for things like fruit picking due to Brexit, I think this is unlikely.