MSE News: Benefits cap comes into force

gettingready

Morlock

"Duncan Smith will be grilled by MPs in September over misuse of benefit statistics

IDS will appear before the work and pensions select committee on 4 September to answer questions over his misrepresentation of welfare figures.


Duncan Smith has already been criticised by the Office for National Statistics for claiming the cap had led to 8,000 people finding work. He was told by the ONS it was not possible to find any causal link between the cap and those finding work."

"He clashed with John Humphrys, presenter of Radio 4’s Today programme, who reminded him of the Statistics Authority’s ticking off. Mr Duncan Smith replied: “No. What they said was that you can't absolutely prove that those two things are connected.”

Mr Humphrys then quoted the independent authority as saying the minister’s statement was "unsupported by the official statistics published by your own department". Mr Duncan Smith replied: “Yes, but by the way you can't disprove what I said either.”

“You can make any claim on that basis,” Mr Humphrys replied.

“Well, I am. I believe this to be right. I believe that we are already seeing people go back to work who were not going to go back to work until they were short of the cap,” Mr Duncan Smith countered."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/15/iain-duncan-smith-statistics-benefits-cap

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/benefits-cap-row-iain-duncan-smith-accused-of-relying-on-dodgy-statistics-to-justify-household-cutoff-8708937.html

God definitely exists, because...prove that he doesn't. This man has no concept whatsoever of what constitutes 'proof'. Apparently anything that cannot be disproved, is proof that it is so.

dktreesea

Ben_Reeve-Lewis wrote: »

No need to apologise for voicing an opinion, I certainly wont shoot you.

I have this argument with my missus everyday, she shares your views, as do many others so it is a familiar argument and my angle on this isn’t to disagree with you. Why should people who do nothing in return for their income get more help than I would when I spend all my working hours either saving people’s homes from repossession or training others how to do it?

That isn’t the point. The morality of the situation is neither here nor there. Its about the practicalities of it.

OK. Cut their benefits….why not? Make them appreciate that you don’t get owt for nowt. Then what? Who picks up the pieces? Who pays? We do.

A single mum with 4 kids is never going to be able to work because she cant afford the childcare. You could take the view that she shouldn’t have had the kids, you could also say “where is their dad in all this”? both valid questions but what happens then?

The law wont allow them to sleep on the street so if landlords wont rent to them where do they go? As I said above, the homelessness unit that’s where and who pays for the homelessness unit? We do.

All I ask when people voice this opinion is that they step aside from an outraged position and just look at it from a practical perspective. If benefit caps mean landlords wont rent to benefit tenants what then?

Of course you could take the view that they should move somewhere where the cap wont hit them but that is a very naïve and simplistic argument. A great debate stopper that denies a lot of inconvenient truths

If benefits caps means private landlords won't rent to DSS tenants (and plenty stipulate no DSS anyway) maybe the councils have to set up their own hostel accommodation, one room per family with shared bathroom and kitchen facilities, to accommodate such families.

We could build more social housing, enough to accommodate the needs of low income families. Or we could lower benefits sufficiently to ensure that working, rather than being on benefits, really does pay better.

Morlock

zagfles wrote: »

The point is that base amounts are the same. That is the issue which distinguishes us from other countries in the EU.

It is easy to pick and choose policies from other EU members to justify policy changes, but ignore factors such as EU rent controls. With which the benefit cap would probably be unnecessary as most of the controversy surrounding the cap stems directly from high levels of housing benefit, hence why it is housing benefit that will be cut to maintain a level of payment under the cap.

osdset

IDS is certifiable, if he ever had a plot it's long lost.
The man has had a massive chip on his shoulder after his 'ides of March' moment when his pals buried their knives his back, since then he has been on a mission to do something to be remembered for.

History will remember him as a pathological liar whose ideology caused untold misery and suffering.

zagfles

Ben_Reeve-Lewis wrote: »

Sorry I dont know what a DT or a strawmen thread is but I take note about my reference to the Daily Mail What a curse haha .

DT is the Discussion Time board made up mostly of political loony types who don't have a clue about benefits and just want to use them as a political football. A strawman is where you skew or vastly exaggerate an opposing argument in order to counter it.

Should people be immune from moving for financial reasons?

No but working in a homelessness unit I am mindful that it isnt the sole arbiter for a relocation. If you try to discharge a homeless duty on the basis that it is simply more affordable for them you are going to come unstuck in a county court.

I was born and bred in South East London, Deptford to be precise. I currently live 1 mile from my home town and pay 64% of my take home pay on rent. My family live here, my friends live sort of local, if you count Galway and Marbella . I dont have small children but I am tied to the area by having a disabled mother in law, whose close family live in Barbados, apart from her daughter (my partner) and her son, who also live local. (Sorry to Top trump you with a wheelchair :rotfl:)

Frazzy and I could certainly move north. I really like Birmingham and we could have a better quality of life there but it aint gonna happen because we have her mum to look after.

That is a basic example of why it isnt just a case of "You cant afford it so move".

Going across the river for a London tenant doesnt solve the problem because London rents are pretty much the same anywhere within the M25 ring. Moving for affordability stakes means a major relocation and our situation isnt a particulalry complex one.

Really? Let's have a look at some LHA rates, which are based on the 30th percentile of market rents (these are 3-bed rates):

Westminster: £347.48pw
Southwark: £305.77pw
Hillingdon: £259.43pw
Dartford: £170.99pw

All the above are within the M25. A massive variation in rents across London.

Of course there is another possibility.......rent control for London landlords??????????????? Sorry to raise the heresy but you could just as easily argue that publicly funded subsidies are putting cash in private pockets charging extortionate rents simply because the market warrants it

So who's going to pay extortionate London house prices and then be told they have to rent it out for a "reasonable" amount? House prices need to come down first, tackle that problem then you can tell landlords they're charging too much rent.

xSamii

The opinion of 'oh just reduce their benefits, make work pay, bet they'll all get jobs then!' is great and all except, where are these jobs? While I am sure there are MANY people out there happy to not work, sit on their bums all day etc etc I bet there are just as many people applying for any job they can find and being knocked back/ignored.

Example - My partner visited an employment agency a few weeks ago to register (as his father works in a factory that employ via this particular agency, he was confident he could help get him employed there) We were in there for approx an hour, during this time nine separate groups (yes, groups) of people, all of which were European and incapable of communicating more than "huh...no...yes...I work" came in to register. Even one mother and her son, who just about managed to explain he has just finished school and has come over here to work. The lovely Polish receptionist dealt with them all and was busy finding them jobs to be sent too - whereas my partner got a "oh, well they don't need anyone right now, we'll be in touch in a few months when they start hiring again" funny that, when we knew for a fact they were in need of people.

Long story short - partner had to go to the company directly and they had to specifically ask the agency to send him. Now he will hopefully be employed directly with the company in a couple of months, how many other people have not been so fortunate and get instantly dismissed because they are not European?

It happens I'm afraid, especially around here. Good luck finding a factory/warehouse/labourer job in Nottinghamshire that isn't through an agency.

Easier to paint everyone with the same brush though it seems.

Dunroamin

xSamii wrote: »

Long story short - partner had to go to the company directly and they had to specifically ask the agency to send him. Now he will hopefully be employed directly with the company in a couple of months, how many other people have not been so fortunate and get instantly dismissed because they are not European?
.

Very few I would expect, given that all the indigenous people from Nottingham are also European!;)

neverdespairgirl

Morlock wrote: »

Any single, unemployed person receiving £350 per week in benefits would need to be paying rent of around £280 per week, which is not an unusually high rent in the South East for a one-bedroom property. Rent controls should be enforced, not benefits cut.

That's pretty daft - even in London, £280 is quite a chunk for a 1 bed flat per week. True, it won't get you much in Chelsea or Mayfair, but you could be in Bloomsbury, Clerkenwell or Angel for that sort of money.

dktreesea

Ben_Reeve-Lewis wrote: »

...the issue facing us is "Will benefit capping achieve what the government says it wants? My answer is twofold

1. Maybe - in which case how long will it take and how much will it cost the nation in real terms to get there, or
2. No - because they have a simplistic strategy based on popular prejudice that is no real strategy at all

Benefit capping at the current level will not achieve what the government wants. It's set too high. Not enough people are affected by it.

If it was capped at one single full time NMW income after tax, then maybe it would have a chance, along the lines of making the taper really gradual but if you want more that you have to work. And yes, it may well be that £200 a week is only enough to cover the rent, with £50 a week left over for utlities and food. A bare bones existence to be sure.

But the government won't be doing that, not even if the Conservatives get into power on their own at the next election, because they are not able to guarantee at least one person per household a minimum wage job, i.e. so they could boost up their incomes to a liveable standard.