Now then...lower benefits for the Northerners ??

BobQ

It seems this Government is intent on spending the money that is available less efficiently ensuring that more costs are incurred on a bureaucracy.

Arrangements for CB
Increasing tenfold the number of investigations into tax credit awards
Regional pay and benefits
Means testing in general
NHS reform

I suppose it keeps their consultant friends employed

davidlizard

I can just see the teachers happily working an extra 3 hours per day in a school.

Just listen to the bleating and moaning that goes on when they try to make them take an Inset day on a day the school is closed to be used as a polling station.

ash28

We moved from the Wokingham council area to the East Midlands in late 2011 - still visit the SE regularly as we have children there and we visit the NE regularly as we have family there.

Our council tax is virtually the same here for the same banding as it was in the Wokingham area, electricity is the same, our phones cost the same, our shopping costs the same, petrol costs around the same - cinema tickets cost a £1 less than they do in Reading and 95p less than they do in Newcastle (which is 5p less than Reading).

Public transport costs are higher here than they are in the Wokingham area - quite a lot higher.

The biggest difference here are housing costs - but that will be reflected in LHA - so the difference is accounted for.

Moby

coastline wrote: »

as its cheaper...looks like we'll soon have a new Hadrians Wall...£1 a pint and £2 for fags North...£4 a pint and £6 for fags South..;)

Read on...

The range of new measures – requested by the Chancellor George Osborne — include abolishing the retirement age, extending the school day by up to three hours and paying lower benefits in the North and other parts of the country where the cost of living is less expensive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9782816/Tory-manifesto-blueprint-lower-benefits-for-Northerners-and-longer-school-days.html

Read that article and thought 'By what right do these arrogant, privileged individuals think they have to discriminate between people in such a way'. At least if this direction of travel is followed there will be clarity at the next election. Such a policy document seems to indicate that in order to differentiate themselves from the Lib Dems the tory is moving further right...never a good move for electoral prospects. You firm up the base of Colonel Blimp support but lose the large tranche of moderates in the middle.

MacMickster

Why not change this around. Pay higher benefits in the north than the south.

This would tempt the professional benefit claimants to move north, freeing up housing in the south east where it is most needed.

sharnad

N1AK wrote: »

I hate to break it to you but the cost of building a road doesn't change because no one uses it.

If what you said was true then they would receive less in government spending than they pay in tax, as that isn't the case what you say is manifestly not true. Any other fictional arguments you'd like to discuss?

Roads we would like some on them n we have single carriage way between a major city and the capital of another country

N1AK

Zero_Sum wrote: »

None of which are essentials, so should have no bearing of benefits. Also Public transport is much cheaper in London than the NE

Surely by your logic public transport isn't essential they could walk!? If you take the view that benefits should be calculated to allow no leeway for any form of non-essential then benefits could be cut considerably. If however you accept that some minor frivolities are important to maintaining a positive mental state for many then you might allow for the fact that most people claiming benefits may from time to time do such wondrous things go to the cinema on an orange wednesday.

N1AK

woodbine wrote: »

most Sale is a dump,a friend of ours has recently rented a bedsit there for £400 a month,personally i wouldnt let the dog live in it

The fact that you can't get a decent bedsit for £400pm somewhere in the North East should be a pretty good sign that it's a well off area

What I will say from this debate is that the more I think about it the less benefit I can see in trying to balance benefits based on locality. I do believe that living in some areas is cheaper than others (even ignoring housing) but when that difference is worth ~£3-5 per week I have my doubts that it can be effectively administered without creating a lot of administration.

I'd rather the effort went on looking at why people are on/need the benefits in the first place.

[Deleted User]

Simple mechanism - base it on the 'average cost of a pint' in the area.

I still have palpitations having paid £4.50 for a pint of Guinness in London - and that was about 3 years ago.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Ignoring property. If costs are roughly the same in the N and S for essentials then why should the northerners be penalised?

I very much doubt the benefits police add in a big fat wodge of wonga for lots of discretionary spend because they are feeling generous. (I don't doubt that some abuse what they do get but that is a different issue.)

If high property prices in the SE are causing the problem then that is the problem that should be resolved not simply pass the problem somewhere else.

There is no logic in excluding property from comparisons, it is part of the cost of living. And as I've said before I've seen no data to demonstrate that the difference lies only in property costs.