Lucky you’ve got a safety net
There’s an old maxim that serves all writers well: “Perfection is when there’s nothing left to take away”. With that in mind, let’s see how few words we can render the complex issue of the future of welfare in the UK in.
But in case those aren’t enough, we’ll expand just a little.
Here’s what the Institute for Fiscal Studies reckons will be the state of people’s finances as a result of coalition tax and benefit changes by 2015.
Here’s a graphic from the Daily Record showing what Holyrood’s welfare reform committee (chaired by Labour MSP Michael McMahon) thinks the UK government’s cuts will cost Scottish families. These figures are per working-age adult, not per family, so amount to up to £1,300 a year for each family in Scotland, depending on location, or a national average of £960.
Last week, Ed Balls told BBC Breakfast that “I would like to go further, though, on welfare reform… a much tougher approach than George Osborne’s approach”.
(The word “tough” is never far away from the Shadow Chancellor’s lips when the subject of welfare reform is mentioned.)
At the weekend, Liam Byrne announced in a piece for the Observer that Labour planned to introduce a new tiered system of benefits focused on levels of contribution (Harriet Harman also backed the principle recently). The New Statesman noted:
On the same day, Scotland on Sunday reported what it claimed to be the preliminary findings of Johann Lamont’s commission establishing Scottish Labour’s position on future devolution in the event of a No vote. It said:
(Our emphasis.)
So there you have it. Whether you vote Tory, Lib Dem or Labour in 2015, welfare reforms will be “tougher” than they are now. That can only mean that the average Scottish family will lose MORE than £1000 a year over the term of the 2015-2020 Westminster government, over and above the £1000 a year they’re already losing.
Under Labour, if you don’t live in London (which is everyone in Scotland) you’ll receive lower benefits than people who do, and if you’re long-term unemployed or ill or seriously disabled you’ll receive lower benefits than people who’ve only just lost their job. Under the Tories – well, we don’t even want to think about what they might do if they get re-elected after what they’ve done to welfare already.
These aren’t our interpretations. They’re what UK politicians are freely and openly saying they’ll do. Scottish Labour say they’ll keep almost all welfare controlled by Westminster. If you like the sound of that Scotland, by all means vote No in 2014.
How could anybody in their right mind, vote No?
Here is a good link also from the FT:
link to ig.ft.com
Cuts to welfare payments will hit the local economies of northern towns and cities as much as five times as hard as the Conservative heartland southern counties, according to research commissioned by the Financial Times into the impact of austerity.
The government’s radical reform programme, aimed at reducing one of the largest fiscal deficits among OECD nations by moving people off the benefit rolls and into work, is taking £19bn a year out of working-age social security between now and 2015.
The data Graphic is very interesting and highlights the Conservative policies being supported down south by the Liberals and Labour parties.
Vote YES for a hopefull future, where the government elected by the Scottish people do their best for the Scottish people.
Vote NO for whatever Westminster decides to give, OR take away from you.
I now kind of wish I just worked through my lunch and didn’t read. This is why I think voting No is the equivalent of punching a child in the face!
link to newstatesman.com
Actually probably worse since one will only do short term damage, with all the neo-librals at the top of Labour I doubt Blair has much to worry about.
Had a look at the front page of the Times in Scotland today and it has an amusing new positive case for the union: Scotland will “suffer less” under the benefit cuts than other parts of the UK. In “only” losing £1.6 billion from the economy, we won’t be made to suffer as much as some areas in the North or some of the poorest in London.
Good-oh.
I didn’t read far enough to see what figures they’d used, or whether that’s simply because there are more people in London and housing is vastly more expensive.
What I can’t understand is anyone claiming to be a socialist but still voting labour!!
They have moved so far from their original policies, even during my lifetime -:
link to politicalcompass.org
I have stated before (as have others) my confidence of a YES vote. We can all navel gaze and make intellectual argument until the cows come home.
However, people are just about to be hit with benefit cuts to an extent never experienced before. The victims represent the poorest in our society. Some will not have realised the extent until now. Others will have. But all are now literally feeling it in their pockets.
How difficult will it be to persuade to vote YES?
It’s okay, because at some point Ed Miliband will do an interview where he will state, quite categorically, that “what I say is this: these cuts are wrong”. Numerous times. Then we can all vote Labour again, safe in the knowledge that Ed Miliband says (but not necessarily THINKS) that these cuts are wrong.
The depth of blind bitterness in Ms Lamont’s statement that devolved benefit payments, if that ever happened, would bypass Holyrood and go straight to Councils, must be assuming she will never be in any position of power in Holyrood ever again.
“If I can’t have it then you’re not getting it”.
This hatred has become pathological among Labour politicians: Ian Davidson frothing about no Nationalist being allowed near the Commonwealth Games. I wonder if any of the Commonwealth athletes have Nationalist feelings in their own countries, and how they ever became Independent countries. Presumably he would ban them all for this behaviour.
Lord Robertson making up stuff about NATO membership, along with Carrell making up NATO officials.
Yup, better and much, much poorer together.
Vote YES, it really is the only way to avoid this criminal carnage. These creatures aided and abetted in this mess and are now insisting upon ‘tougher’ measures visited upon the public in order to clean it up. Not really seeing that positive case yet.
Excellent.
Now on the jumping thru hoops theme…
Can someone please do a cartoon of the ‘Mighty Unionist Better Together Circus’
Picture the scene…
Cameron as RingMaster, Clegg as Clown, Milliband as the rubber man
All three holding up a referendum hoop with a paper Union Jack
Shouting to the Scotty Dog to jump through…..
“Here’s a good wee doggy” etc “It will be better this time”
And what’s waiting for the wee dog on the other side???
Answers on a postcard please.
Best answer wins a years subscription to the Hootsmon. Second best answer gets a copy of PMQT after Wednesday.
@Brian
“The depth of blind bitterness in Ms Lamont’s statement that devolved benefit payments, if that ever happened, would bypass Holyrood and go straight to Councils, must be assuming she will never be in any position of power in Holyrood ever again.”
Many of us suspect that after a ‘No’ vote, should Labour be elected in Westminster they will attempt to dismantle Holyrood and vest power in agglomerated rotten boroughs in Scotland (controlled, of course, by them) because a) they recognise the unlikelihood of being re-elected in Holyrood and b) more pressingly, they need, post a May 2015 GE victory, to neuter what little power would be retained by the incumbent SG pretty damn quick, and put an end to the nuisance Holyrood has become to Westminster once and for all.
Kudos to the Reid Foundation, who I think were first to cotton on to the fact that Scottish Labour were clearly positioning themselves to call for more powers to be devolved directly from Westminster to council level, bypassing Holyrood. They’re being proven correct in this assessment.
It’d be interesting to know what the public thinks about benefits being devolved to councils. We know from polls that people trust Holyrood more than Westminster when it comes to things like benefits, but would the same be true if you then chucked councils into the equation? I’m not sure the public has a massive amount of confidence in councils (which I would like to see changed, but let’s sort one tier of government at a time), so I’m not convinced this “we would only devolve things that can be devolved to councils” idea is a winner. And it most certainly wouldn’t happen unless the benefits were similarly devolved to councils in England and Wales, so it’s not something that Scottish Labour can present as a policy – it would have to be done at a UK level.
In short, it’s just more proof that “Vote No, Get Nothing” is correct.
Sometimes the best way to break the system is to obey its rules.
I’ve worked (and therefore contributed) about 95% of my working life of about 20 years, so under these rules I should get decent money if I become Unemployed, and of course, I live and work in Scotland at the moment but would get more if I was unemploeyed in London.
What would happen if everyone like me resigned thier job and moved to London to live off Benefits?
The hope is that any devolution of benefits would be directly from the UK to Scottish local authorities, bypassing Holyrood.“
What is it with these Labour MSPs at Holyrood with their Sewel Motions and wanting powers retained/returned by/to Westminster.
Seems to me they’re content to take the money, expenses and perks being an MSP brings them, but want to shirk the responsibility – happy to leave that to their London masters.
Excellent example of Tom Peterkin’s high journalistic standards in that article, by the way:
“Similarly, there are no plans to devolve VAT.”
Well DUH! VAT has to be uniform across an EU member state. Scotland can only control VAT if it becomes independent – that’s why it can never be devolved.
I increasingly get the feeling that Labour is only speaking to its own membership and traditional support. It’s like they’ve given up trying to convince the Scottish electorate in general that they can be trusted, but instead are trying to shore up their support where they still cling on to power. They must be worried.
Unfortunately I am one of Michael McMahons constituents. Hamilton North and Bellshill. He has a majority of 714. Knowing the demographics of this constituency I would guess that his slim (labour) majority comes from the voters in Bellshill.
He described the findings of the report as “dramatic” and more so in the areas that can least afford it. (I’m thinking that perhaps Bellshill might fit that description)
I can visualise one of his Bellshill constituents on benefits when sitting down to calculate there monthly income and realising that they will be almost £50 a month worse off describing it as “dramatic”
I think that McMahons size X/L jacket is on a very shoogly nail. I hear that his daughter Siobhan McMahon (Labour) MSP for Central Scotland and campaigner to get Johann Lamont to be Scottish Labour leader. She has been in a spot of bother lately. Apparently she has great difficulty with keeping a civil tongue in her head.
Hopefully soon he will find out what it is like for a whole family to be on benefits, the hard way.
I think there’s a wider truth in what you say, Major. Labour and Bitter Together have fallen into the trap of believing that the tone and content of their own private discourse actually reflects the way the wider public perceive the situation. They thus come on TV and simply spout the same nonsense they’d spout to each other over a pint or a twitter conversation.
It’s all very well for them to tell each other that it’s all a concerted campaign personally orchestrated by Alex Salmond (and probably that Nicola Sturgeon herself applied the graffiti), in just the same way Ian Davidson probably has conversations in which he truly believes the BBC are biased to the SNP and refers to “Newsnat Scotland”. However, that’s pillow talk, really. It’s not real.
But they seem to think it is real, and that they can go on Newsnicht and talk just the way they talk to each other, and everyone listening will be onside and recognise the truth of what they’re saying. That is frankly delusional.
the metaphor of a wounded one legged duck springs to mind.
@ Major,
I increasingly get the feeling that Labour is only speaking to its own membership and traditional support. It’s like they’ve given up trying to convince the Scottish electorate in general that they can be trusted, but instead are trying to shore up their support where they still cling on to power. They must be worried.
Labour seem to have a number of real problems boiling away, just under the surface, around Glasgow is giving them some real problems that they have been trying to grasp/get under control for some time now. Below the water line there is some real problems. Can they patch things up? will they stop the lid from blowing off? non of my concern right now, but if it blows we will all be talking about it.
@Ericmac
A sausage roll?
@Morag
Correct. It they wrote out on a piece of paper the things they are coming out with on a regular basis, then they would see that it was completely mental. That they are defending Ian Taylor is a case in point. His past is well documented by the MSM, let alone by the indy blogs. The fact that they are coming out with these fantastical accusations and smears shows that there is no rational case for the Union. They have lost the plot completely, and do not seem to have realised it.
“Similarly, there are no plans to devolve VAT.”
Ah, but you forget; Scottish Labour is going to reverse the VAT rise and reduce it to 5% for home improvements!
link to scottishlabour.org.uk
@The Man in the Jar – You have my sympathy. I note that your MSP addressed certain groups of Celtic supporters at their ‘demonstration’ against the Scottish Government’s anti-sectarian legislation a couple of weeks back. Any stick to beat the SNP with, even if it means fanning the flames of sectarianism.
The Nationalist conspiracy brings down another good man
link to local.stv.tv
@ John Lyon, while I think it would certainly be a good idea in principal, in reality they will tell you that you left your job voluntarily and therefore do not qualify for JSA. this is what happened to my wife when we relocated to the Highlands from the centralbelt andshe resigned to go with me.
@BillC
Personally I think the ‘sectarian’ laws are unecessary BUT the real irony, surely, is that Jack McConnell introduced the 2003 Law which led to where we are today, and let’s be frank had he, JMC still had power he’d have also led us to this point.
Morag,
They realise it ok, remember Labour, being part of the Unionist trio conspiracy, only care for their own vested interests.
To that end, they will lie,cheat,manipulate, pretty well anything, to get their way. They are taking the Scottish people for a ride, but too many are too blind to see it.
BT are in a panic about something. What, though, is the question? Are their focus groups and internal polling showing slippage. Probably. Their hysteria this week must be based on something. They must also be worried about the sheer quantity of activities that Yes campaigners are involved with. There are new groups, meetings and events taking place everywhere.
LeeMacD says:
The Nationalist conspiracy brings down another good man
Oops. Criminal offence.
You’d have thought he could afford a hands free kit on his salary.
@Michael
Their hysteria this week must be based on something.
I’ve been wondering about that too. Is this just long term stress reaching breaking point or are e.g. the Tories about to stick the boot into BT big style?
I’m ignorant of the whole polling system. Is there a body that checks the polling firms results?
MajorBloodnok @2.34pm – if this is how they’re intending to convince their socialist support, they’ve obviously got a collectively detached brain. What self-respecting labour voter will be oblivious to what the Labour Party is doing in their name; Benefits clampdown, Bedroom Tax, NHS abandonment, Workfair, support illegal wars, enforce student fees, cotton-wool the rich and infamous and be more Tory than the Tories, etc, absolutely etc!!
What we have in the rUK political system is the the three main parties vying for middle England, if it’s possible to describe these ‘three’ as cheeks of the same arse, that is what has developed and only Scotland has the legal position ‘as a right’ to distance itself from this cess-pit.
I hope to God we take it!
By passing Holyrood is a huge concern especially for example if you look at say Falkirk Council.
When the ‘full’ council meets ,if all Councillors are present ,the ruling coalition can count on a majority of only 2.
They have set up ‘an Executive Committee’ consisting of 9 members of the Labour/Tory administration with only 3 members of the opposition BUT to balance it ,they have set up a ‘Srutiny Committee ‘ consisting of 6 members of the ‘administration with only 4 members of the opposition.
So a scrutiny committee (members running the Council ,will ‘scrutinise -themselves (runnning the council )
Politics Labour style ,of course we could always ask Grahamski( although he does’nt vote bloc style )if I have misunderstood the situation ?
This is quite a frightening developement considering something like the consultation for fracking at Airth is already underway -I only hope the public in that area are scrutinising the scrutiny commitee.
Michael,
I think a clue was when Alistair Darling issued a statement asking voters not to base their vote in Sept 2014 on the bedroom tax changes.
That is wholly consistent with Lamonts thinking (instructions from Westminster) though Molly.
There is no Scotland, so devolution from Westminster should go to (Labour Unionist) councils.
@scottish_skier
It can’t be long now before Cameron makes clear that in the event of a No vote there is no jam for tomorrow and in fact there isn’t even a jam jar, despite the impression Labour, the Lib-Dems and the MSM are trying to give that we only have to vote No and there will be devo-something afterwards sure there will.
And as you note on another thread, Labour’s support is declining and this will continue I think, particularly after the last few months when the facts about their duplicity over welfare, the bedroom tax, their ever closer relations with the Tories and now revelations about this dodgy financial backer for BT (who also bankrolls the Tories!), are sinking into the collective consciousness (plus all the other things Barontorc notes above).
Losing their place in the UK will mean no more sinecures and gravy train courtesy of Westminster, but rather at least a decade in the political wilderness without real power in Scotland. This campaign is a lose-lose situation for Labour. Oh dear, no wonder they’re worried.
There is one way out for sensible Labour types I suppose – bail out to Labour for Independence, and do it loudly. As far as I can see it’s the only dignified option.
Lamont dismissed Labour for indy as a small irrelevance last time I heard her mention it. They were only about 2000 members at the time. Given they’ve probably grown since and represent 10% of her party I think She’s daft to continue ignoring them, but I expect her to do so.
Burying your head in the sand is one Labour policy we can rely on them to stick to!
Don’t forget the most recent Holyrood intentions polling had the SNP winning another ‘statistically impossible majority’ again…..and on the list vote showed 55% support for Pro Indy parties….with the Greens moving clear of the Lib Dems into 4th and closing in on the Tories.
And on Westminister voting intentions, just like in 2011 the SNP are set to pretty much eat the Lib Dems whole (with only Charlie K’s personal popularity saving him) and Labour are now within striking distance on the popular vote….
Essentially the Unionists have finally woken up to the fact that even if they win….they lose and will have little if any control North of the Tweed post 2014….
So despite throwing pretty much everything they have into smearing the SNP and the FM in particular…….to put it mildly, it’s no lookin good for them
Can anyone tell me if the following site is for real?
link to facebook.com
They sound like the sort of people that should be expatriated to the Bass Rock.
@Seasick Dave.
They aren’t using the new tory double-cross symbol, so make your own mind up.
Great post and salient comments.
Would someone please tell the rest of us by what mechanism – apart from the Barnetted Block Grant – these reduced funds would be transferred from the centralised ConLabLibservative’s Treasury?
Is it perhaps via personal Tax Codes which would take a single composite universal benefit that is weighted for registered voting location into account?
Or is/are there another/other way(s).
Both National Collective and Labour for Indy Wiki pages have been suggested for deletion, btw – as of yesterday. Interesting timing.
“Together have fallen into the trap of believing that the tone and content of their own private discourse actually reflects the way the wider public perceive the situation.”
Exactly this. And they’re sounding more and more crazed. The BT FB page yesterday had their usual suspects seriously talking about there being no suggestion Salmond would hold any more elections after a Yes vote, so a no being entirely a vote for a dictatorship. Delusional barely touches it.
@ Seasick
That page was put up on 1st April….. read the community declaration!!
Boorach
Are you sure?
A lot of the dates are from January.
Its p*sh anyway
@Cath
Exactly this. And they’re sounding more and more crazed. The BT FB page yesterday had their usual suspects seriously talking about there being no suggestion Salmond would hold any more elections after a Yes vote, so a no being entirely a vote for a dictatorship. Delusional barely touches it.
Who were the usual suspects? Have they now come to believe all their rhetoric about Salmond being a dictator? If they have then that is crazy…
However, people are just about to be hit with benefit cuts to an extent never experienced before. The victims represent the poorest in our society. Some will not have realised the extent until now. Others will have. But all are now literally feeling it in their pockets.How difficult will it be to persuade to vote YES?
My fear is that the people hardest hit will be disenfranchised and not vote at all, feeling that they are wasting their time, I’ve already heard this argument at work “none of them are worth my vote, and I certainly would not vote for that Alex Salmond”
this was a comment made by my own supervisor, I’m not sure if my point that a yes vote was not a vote for the SNP got through her thick head
what I did say was the if you want rid of Salmond vote yes
“Davidson frothing about no Nationalist being allowed near the Commonwealth Games.”
the commonwealth games are off guys Ian Davidson wont let any nationalists attend, well, that’ll be that then, no commonwealth country will be allowed, who knew?
“Who were the usual suspects? Have they now come to believe all their rhetoric about Salmond being a dictator? ”
They’re not hard to spot now: there are only 3 or 4 of them and, once everyone questioning or debating is banned, they’re generally the few people left on any thread. It would be rude to name names though.
But yes, where before the Salmond’s a dictator stuff all looked like smears, the other day it sounded like they had genuinely convinced themselves Salmond is a power-crazed dictator in waiting who only wants independence so he can cancel democracy in Scotland and keep the SNP in power forever with himself as King. Utterly bonkers. Aside from anything else, if he was bothered about power, he wouldn’t have spent his entire life in the SNP, long before there was even a Scottish parliament.
There is a difficulty with the narrative here if Yes want to attract those who are undecided and those who are currently no.
not all scots want to have high taxes and high benefits. An independant scotland will inherent these reduced benefits, how is an independant scotland going to pay for this.
“none of them are worth my vote, and I certainly would not vote for that Alex Salmond”
Sounds like a potential NO voter who will not vote. And I think there are lots of those and it will be a real problem for the NO campaign.
how is an independant scotland going to pay for this.
—–
1. By keeping all the revenue it raises for a start and not handing a proportion over to Westminster.
2. By not spending billions on nuclear deterrents that are obscene and inneffective.
3. By not wasting billions on ineffective and off balance sheet PFI schemes.
4. By investing our massive oil revenues in an oil fund similar to Norway.
Do some creative thinking and I’m sure you will find that Scotland has a very bright and affordable future ahead of it.
That’s the beauty of Independence; the future is ours.
Vote YES.
“none of them are worth my vote, and I certainly would not vote for that Alex Salmond”
Luckily, Alex Salmond’s name will not be on the Referendum.
Neither will the SNP.
Its about Scotland’s future; vote YES to progress, NO to regress.
You choose.
No response, so I must not have been clear and wish to try again (changes in bold):
Great post and still more salient comments.
Would someone please tell the rest of us by what mechanism these much reduced funds would be transferred between now and the Referendum from the centralised ConLabLibservative’s Treasury to Scotland’s councils apart from through the Barnetted block grant?
Is it perhaps via our personal Tax Codes which would take a single composite universal benefit that is weighted for registered voting location into account?
Or is/are there another/other way(s)?
Seasicck Dave
Scottish government should undertake t o introduce legislation to reduce pension management fees on pension plans given that private pensions in the Netherlands are 50% higher than the UK for the same contibutions
“Its about Scotland’s future; vote YES to progress, NO to regress.”
the trouble is seasick dave the main bulk of the public see a vote for inde as a vote for Alex Salmond in some cases that will work in our favour but in a great many cases it will work against us, it like fighting against the tide trying to explain the difference,
sorry to be so negative