The nasty party is back
Posted by Kate Green, MP for Stretford and Urmston, at 09:32, Fri 11 January 2013:
This was the week when the Tories showed us that the nasty party is back with a vengeance.
The debate on welfare benefits uprating was an acrimonious and dispiriting affair.
Before the debate, Tory spindoctors were out in force, spreading their divisive message of shirkers and strivers. Images on their website portrayed benefits claimants as lazy, overweight slobs.
That isn't the reality for most claimants. The majority of those who are being hit by the cap on benefits uprating are in work. Capping in-work benefits means it will be even harder for those on low pay.
Benefits to help meet the cost of raising children are being hit, and women are bearing four times the burden of men. Lone parents are hit hardest of all.
The Government's own impact assessment shows that disabled people and their carers are also hit - despite Ministers' claims to the contrary.
Sadly, none of this came as a surprise to me, but perhaps what was surprising was a clear sense of unease among some on the government benches that the nasty party's over-reached itself.
People understand what's going on. The poorest are paying more and the richest are getting off lightest of all. And the public really don't like that. They don't think it's fair.
They don't think it's fair that nurses, teachers, members of the army will be hundreds of pounds worse off.
They don't think it's fair that a new mum, hit by the cap on maternity pay, along with the cuts to tax credits, the Sure Start maternity grant, the health in pregnancy grant and child benefit, will be on average £1300 a year worse off. Meanwhile, someone on over £400,000 a year will be more than £13,000 better off as a result of the cut in top rate tax.
It was absolutely right for Labour to stand up to this injustice. I didn't go into parliament to vote to make poor people poorer, nor did my Labour colleagues. But that's what this bill does.
The Government's whole argument is that the deficit has to be paid down, and cutting benefits is the way to do it.
That's just economically illiterate. But it is also vindictive and unprincipled. 80% of the cost of reducing the deficit is coming from cuts, just 20% from tax increases. In the recession of the early 1990's, John Major spread the cost equally between cuts and taxes.
But today's Tories aren't interested in fairness. They'd rather see low income households, in and out of work, pay more. It really is the nasty party. And when the bill comes back for further debate in a couple of weeks, my colleagues and I will be ramming the message about that unfairness home.
Kate Green
Member of Parliament for Stretford and Urmston
Shadow Spokesperson for Equality
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Jonathan Homer, 10:38, Fri 11 January 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #
Kate
I agree that the Tories, as usal, have managed to make a complete shambles in terms of delivery and of PR. I think it was the BBA who scored them 8/10 for theory, 5/10 for delivery .
I think what is not being reported, that is something that needs adressing is that 9 out of 10 British households receive some sort of welfare, and that £1 of every £3 collected in taxes is spent on Welfare (over £1 in £2 in Scotland). My understanding is that welfare should be given only to those who need it. Labour created a welfare system where people earning upto £60,000 a year get some form of benefit. My household's income is £24,000 and we manage, i have had to listen to people on £40K+ complaining about losing their child benefits, and even worse, Labour defending them!
Did Labours 'lets throw money at Welfare work'? In 2008/09, for the second consecutive year, income inequality measured by the Gini coefficient was at its highest level since comparable statistics began in 1961, and the UK ranks above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average.
I accept that between 1997 and 2008 the levels of poverty fell, but they only fell marginly, this is not proof that a system works.
This bill I believe is right, we have created dependance on a the welfare system, subsidised wages created a false illusion of employment, employers couldnt really afford it and now it is endemic in the system.
Capping benefits in this way will help to ease the burden on the Treasury and we can start to cope with our out of control Welfare bill. Do you think it's right that we spend more on Wlefare than we do on education?
Labour portray this bill well, but it shouldnt been seen as a standalone item, with the rising of the lower tax threshold my household is better off now than it was in 2008, including this change.
You say "I didn't go into parliament to vote to make poor people poorer, nor did my Labour colleagues. But that's what this bill does." I know you only became an MP in 2010, but how many of your colleague voted to scrap the 10p tax rate? I remember clearly this made me poorer!
And finally, i think the biggest question of all is, what would Labour do differently? And an answer to this isnt "We wouldnt tax the poor" or "We wouldnt aid the rich". What exactly would you do? What would your policies be? I hear a lot of grandstanding from Labour, but no actual real life alternative solutions.
Posted by Mr Clive Gibson, 11:33, Fri 11 January 2013: (Is this post abusive?) #
I agree that the Tories are bad - but what alternative do you offer? Labour has already made it clear that they agree with the basic Tory argument that we need to cut public spending so you are open to the question - what cuts would you make? I also think that the Labour expansion of in work benefits - in effect the state subsidising employers paying low wages - was a mistake which has left millions dependant on welfare in work now vulnerable to cuts at any political whim.