Regional Benefit Rates

[lastlid]

I wonder if they will apply this approach to minimum income thresholds for spouse and fiancee visas? :Erm:

"Benefits rates could vary according to where someone lives, under welfare changes David Cameron is considering.

No 10 says the prime minister wants to look at whether it still "makes sense" to set payments at a national level, given differing regional pay levels.

Although he dropped the idea from the final text of his speech on welfare, No 10 says it is among ideas which also includes cutting benefits over time."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18575453

[grahamw48]

Back-peddling already. :Erm:

[Dedworth]

I hope they stop the feckless, worthless scum collecting ever increasing benefits by banging out baby after baby :angry:

[lastlid]

The worst case scenario with this is that they dish out less money to those that live in regions where the cost of living is low but don't reduce the £18600 threshold in those areas.

[lastlid]

The response form Plaid Cymru:

"Welsh ministers have accused the UK coalition government of "a great deal of confusion" over the idea of regional benefits.

The policy was mooted in the draft of a speech on welfare given by Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday, but dropped from the final version.

Shadow Welsh Secretary Owen Smith suggested it was dropped as it was "one toxic policy too many".

However Downing Street confirmed Mr Cameron did want to debate the scheme.

Reforms to welfare benefits are at the heart of the UK government's plans to cut government spending.

The policy idea involved different rates of welfare benefit being paid in different parts of the UK, to reflect the differing cost of living in each region".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-18587606

[grahamw48]

The sooner they stop profiteering (often foreign) landlords from receiving £2000 a week from us tax payers for London properties the better. :angry:

[lastlid]

Just watching the news on their plans on benefit cuts.....doesnt look good. Could lose them the election.....

[grahamw48]

May as well have The Monster Raving Loony party in next. :rolleyes:

I'll be voting UKIP again. :)

[andy222]

The worst case scenario with this is that they dish out less money to those that live in regions where the cost of living is low but don't reduce the £18600 threshold in those areas.

Cant see them budging on the £18600 lastlid.

[lastlid]

The government has confirmed it wants to explore the idea of regionally set benefits rates under which claimants in different parts of the country receive varying amounts of money.

The idea emerged just as the Prime Minister delivered a major speech on reforming the welfare state yesterday.

Potential proposals could see ministers linking the amount of benefits paid to claimants to the cost of living in their particular area or possibly to local wage rates.

Mr Cameron said in his speech yesterday: “Today, almost one pound in every three spent by the government goes on welfare. In a world of fierce competitiveness, a world where no-one is owed a living, we need to have a welfare system that the country can properly afford.

“The system we inherited was not only unaffordable. It also trapped people in poverty and encouraged irresponsibility.”

Speaking shortly before the speech was given, Mr Cameron’s spokesman confirmed regional benefit rates were something the government wanted to explore.

He said: “As you know we are looking at whether public sector pay should be more responsive to local pay rates and that is something that we should look at for benefits too and the basic same principles apply.

“It’s about local labour markets and ensuring that it’s not better to be on benefits or, in the case of public sector pay, better to be in the public sector, than being able to work in the private sector.”




http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/government_to_explore_regional_benefit_rates_1_1421463

[Iani]

Just watching the news on their plans on benefit cuts.....doesnt look good. Could lose them the election.....

Good :cwm23:

But not good of course when decent people will suffer because of their policies.

I can't believe this bunch of out of touch Bullingdon :censored: ers attacking people for not working, cutting benefits for single mothers etc. For every Daily Mail example of Somalian asylum seekers and father of 18 kids who can't work because he's on disability because he sprained an ear or something taking the piss out of taxpayers, there are many many more normal decent people who want to work, but can't because there aren't the bloody jobs!

For every single parent who got pregnant to get a council flat, there are many more who are single because the father left her for some other tart, or beat her or was some other danger

I can think of real policies which would make the benefits system fair, and I bet most on here could too.

Save millions by dealing with so called "travellers" in exactly the same manner as our Irish cousins :xxgrinning--00xx3:
Only have translators for asylum seekers at port of arrival, want to claim benefits in our cities - speak English or Welsh or Scots.
No newcomers can claim any benefits until they have paid into the pot for say five years.
Only EU citizens or people with UK settlement can use the NHS (I'd extend that to spouses of UK citizens, but then I would say that wouldn't I :icon_lol: )
Push the EU for an EU wide common benefits policy, paid for by a central EU taxation bank - this way there would be absolutely no point heading through all those safe countries to reach the UK :Erm: Although what people do need to realise is, one big reason asylum seekers and economic migrants do this, is because we speak english and have a reputation world wide for order and fair play, it's not actually just because of benefits............but come on, the benefits also help as there is evidence of rumours in third world countries of come here and be given the keys to Buck Palace.

Oh and lastly, no benefits to be given if you smoke, eat Greggs pasties, wear trackie bottoms, have children with names like "Chelsea or Bradley", drink white lightning, shop at sports shops but never play sports, have tasteless tattoos, wear burberry or say the f-word more often than you breathe ;)

[Iani]

Well if anything, regarding this £18,600 thing I could see them making that the base line in the poorest regions and putting it UP the nearer London you are - just because the tories are the nasty party, and only like you if you are rich (and preferably a donor, otherwise they will criticise your perfectly legal tax avoidance scheme)

[Trefor]

Just watching the news on their plans on benefit cuts.....doesnt look good. Could lose them the election.....

I'm not so sure. How many people on benefits vote Conservative? vs How many people with 'Conservative values' have taken their vote elsewhere because the Conservative party has not done things such as this?

[Iani]

What anyway the government doesn't get (yet another thing) is that all this regional pay difference stuff, it's for two reasons - and they aren't necessarily linked to affordability........

Firstly, it's the economic law of supply and demand. So many big companies and high power companies either want or have to be in London. Good staff then are in demand, and will not take rubbish pay.

The other reason, and this is linked to the above, again, supply and demand - the fact that the only real differences between London affordability and say Leeds affordability, is transport costs and housing costs.
London transport costs isn't as bad as it might appear, but nevertheless it isn't cheap. I know people who have to work in London, but commute in from Worthing and Guildford.
The real choker is London housing costs - nuff said, everyone knows what they are like.

Shop at Tesco in Leeds, or Tesco in London, and the food prices aren't much different. There are discount shops in London, clothes shops that normal people go to - not much different if at all.

If anyone's never been to Leeds, or Manchester centres, they are like a mini-London. The bistro areas and classy bars are much smaller concentrated, however they are there.

Anyway, I've said enough on it

[Trefor]

May as well have The Monster Raving Loony party in next. :rolleyes:

I'll be voting UKIP again. :)

I understand why you say this and wish I could support this. The trouble is this is that your vote is basically a wasted vote. At the last election UKIP voters earned their party zero seats in parliament while costing the Conservative party 29 seats (IIRC, I need to dig out the data).

Edited to add the data I just found:

Seats won by Lib Dems where UKIP vote was bigger than the gap to the Tories

Somerton & Frome
Wells
Dorset & Poole North
Solihull
St Austell & Newquay

Seats won by Labour where UKIP vote was bigger than the gap to the Tories

Southampton Itchen
Telford
Finchley & Golders Green
Derby North
Derbyshire North East
Great Grimsby
Morley & Outwood
Walsall North
Walsall East
Newcastle under Lyme
Wirral South
Bolton West
Middlesborough South & Cleveland East
Plymouth Moor View

[Trefor]

What anyway the government doesn't get (yet another thing) is that all this regional pay difference stuff, it's for two reasons - and they aren't necessarily linked to affordability........

Firstly, it's the economic law of supply and demand. So many big companies and high power companies either want or have to be in London. Good staff then are in demand, and will not take rubbish pay.

The other reason, and this is linked to the above, again, supply and demand - the fact that the only real differences between London affordability and say Leeds affordability, is transport costs and housing costs.
London transport costs isn't as bad as it might appear, but nevertheless it isn't cheap. I know people who have to work in London, but commute in from Worthing and Guildford.
The real choker is London housing costs - nuff said, everyone knows what they are like.

Shop at Tesco in Leeds, or Tesco in London, and the food prices aren't much different. There are discount shops in London, clothes shops that normal people go to - not much different if at all.

If anyone's never been to Leeds, or Manchester centres, they are like a mini-London. The bistro areas and classy bars are much smaller concentrated, however they are there.

Anyway, I've said enough on it

The real difference is in housing costs - renting or buying in London is expensive.

[lastlid]

I'm not so sure. How many people on benefits vote Conservative? vs How many people with 'Conservative values' have taken their vote elsewhere because the Conservative party has not done things such as this?

I am not on benefits but that doesn't mean that this might not make a difference to me....it could be enough to ensure that I don't vote Conservative....

[joebloggs]

I'm not so sure. How many people on benefits vote Conservative? vs How many people with 'Conservative values' have taken their vote elsewhere because the Conservative party has not done things such as this?

how many people on benefits bother to vote? all it takes is for them to get of thier :action-smiley-081: are vote, also this gov has :censored: the police, teachers, civil servants and even doctors, seeing cameron didn't have enough votes to form a Con gov last time, i doubt it will next time :rolleyes:

also UKIP will take votes from the tories.

[lastlid]

how many people on benefits bother to vote? all it takes is for them to get of thier :action-smiley-081: are vote, also this gov has :censored: the police, teachers, civil servants and even doctors, seeing cameron didn't have enough votes to form a Con gov last time, i doubt it will next time :rolleyes:

also UKIP will take votes from the tories.

If they carry on this way then it will be a foregone conclusion.

[Iani]

If I was the labour leader, I can think of a way I could collapse the government by maybe the end of the week - and I am pretty sure it would work (I can think of an offer the LibDems couldn't refuse, especially given their current popularity, it would preserve nearly all their mp's and almost guarantee them a place in future governments)
Basically say come to us and we will have a vote on full PR plus funding for political parties. Means Labour couldn't ever have full government again, but sometimes........if they think of the long term game, and what would happen if Scotland ever became independent.

Politicians are more politically savvy than me, so they must have thought of this possibility. Makes you wonder if Labour want the tories to keep on doing the damage, or don't want the responsibility of the cuts necessary.

[bigmarco]

If they carry on this way then it will be a foregone conclusion.

Couldn't agree more Lastlid.
If you look at what they've done since they came to power, they have penalised everyone from benefit claimants to £50,000 pa. Only the top rate of tax has been reduced to 35% which benefits the minority. Every policy they implement is designed to penalise the less well off.
Their policy on immigration although not affecting most is not dealing with the problems we are currently facing but once again attacking the easy targets.
They haven't got a hope in hell of winning the next election.