UK Politics V - Have We Got News For You

[EnglishEdward]

That is largely because the UK's postwar welfare state expansion was not achieved by running massive deficits.

Employees contributed, employers contributed and the government raised taxes to pay for it.

 

[Samson]

I never thought I would agree with BoJo so much.

Dermot Keating, counsel for the inquiry, was asking the questions, and he has just asked Glassborow about an entry in Sir Patrick Vallance’s diary in which Vallance, the chief scientific adviser at the time, records Boris Johnson as referring to the Treasury as the “pro death squad”. Johnson reportedly used the phrase in January 2021, when he wanted the Treasury to back him in arguing for an early lifting of lockdown measures.​

 

[Gorbles]

That is largely because the UK's postwar welfare state expansion was not achieved by running massive deficits.

Employees contributed, employers contributed and the government raised taxes to pay for it.

Every modern government works with a significant deficit as I understand it. It's why we all (in the "country" sense, not an individual sense) have oodles of it. The US, UK, etc.

Especially since we've been paying the US for WW2 for decades (can't remember the last time I checked if we'd finished or not), this idealistic view of the postwar state seems rather, well, idealistic.

I never thought I would agree with BoJo so much.

Dermot Keating, counsel for the inquiry, was asking the questions, and he has just asked Glassborow about an entry in Sir Patrick Vallance’s diary in which Vallance, the chief scientific adviser at the time, records Boris Johnson as referring to the Treasury as the “pro death squad”. Johnson reportedly used the phrase in January 2021, when he wanted the Treasury to back him in arguing for an early lifting of lockdown measures.

So, presumably, the Treasury refused to back a lifting of lockdown measures (which were started late in the first place, and repeatedly flaunted by government officials and related key figures) . . . and they're pro-death?

I don't get the agreement here

 

[Samson]

So, presumably, the Treasury refused to back a lifting of lockdown measures (which were started late in the first place, and repeatedly flaunted by government officials and related key figures) . . . and they're pro-death?

I don't get the agreement here

I read it as "I want to lift lockdown measures. Let's get the treasury on board, the pro death squad are sure to agree". The agreement goes not further than the treasury, and particularly its head the current PM, were very pro death squad over the pandemic.

 

[Nick723]

UK ‘in violation of international law’ over poverty levels, says UN envoy

Poverty levels in the UK are “simply not acceptable” and the government is violating international law, the United Nations’ poverty envoy has said ahead of a visit to the country this week, when he will urge ministers to increase welfare spending.

Olivier De Schutter, the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, cited research showing universal credit payments of £85 a week for single adults over 25 were “grossly insufficient” and described the UK’s main welfare system as “a leaking bucket”.

In an interview with the Guardian five years after his predecessor, Philip Alston, angered the Conservative government by accusing it of the “systematic immiseration of a significant part of the British population”, the Belgian lawyer risked a fresh confrontation by saying: “Things have got worse.”

De Schutter said: “It’s simply not acceptable that we have more than a fifth of the population in a rich country such as the UK at risk of poverty today,” referring to government data showing that 14.4 million people lived in relative poverty in 2021-22 – a million more than the previous year. “The policies in place are not working or not protecting people in poverty, and much more needs to be done for these people to be protected.”

De Schutter said the UK had signed an international covenant that created a duty to provide a level of social protection which ensured an adequate standard of living but that it was being broken, with welfare payments falling behind costs for the poorest people.

“If you look at the price of housing, electricity, the very high levels of inflation for food items over the past couple of years, I believe that the £85 a week for adults is too low to protect people from poverty, and that is in violation of article nine of the international covenant on economic, social [and cultural] rights. That is what human rights law says.”

He said increasing universal credit would be “the single most important step that the UK could meet towards meeting its international obligations”.

According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in 2022 3.8 million people experienced destitution (struggling to afford to meet their most basic physical needs to stay warm, dry, clean and fed). This included about 1 million children. It was almost two and a half times the number of people in 2017.

£85 is grossly insufficient to live on, I would agree. However, there are two ways to reduce the number of people in this situation:
a) increase the payment
b) get people into work (£85 is barely one days work on minimum wage)

I would rather focus on the later, which would then make the former more affordable.

 

[Senethro]

£85 is grossly insufficient to live on, I would agree. However, there are two ways to reduce the number of people in this situation:
a) increase the payment
b) get people into work (£85 is barely one days work on minimum wage)

I would rather focus on the later, which would then make the former more affordable.

A sentiment heard so often that it starts to sound false.

 

[Gorbles]

As usual, the assumption is that work is something that people are somehow avoiding.

 

[Nick723]

As usual, the assumption is that work is something that people are somehow avoiding.

Absolutely I don’t think that anyone is avoiding work to live off £85/week.

All I’m saying that confronted with this issue, the focus of the government should be on
a) understanding why these people aren’t in work
b) designing policies to help address the underlying issues.

This leads to a far better outcome for the individual (a week’s work at minimum wage is around £400) and for the state.

Do you really think the government has exhausted all of these channels?

A smaller number of recipients of universal credit would mean each could receive more, without increasing the total funding pot.

 

[Gorbles]

Absolutely I don’t think that anyone is avoiding work to live off £85/week.

All I’m saying that confronted with this issue, the focus of the government should be on
a) understanding why these people aren’t in work
b) designing policies to help address the underlying issues.

This leads to a far better outcome for the individual (a week’s work at minimum wage is around £400) and for the state.

Do you really think the government has exhausted all of these channels?

A smaller number of recipients of universal credit would mean each could receive more, without increasing the total funding pot.

What if the underlying issues can't be addressed? What if they simply are?

 

[Nick723]

What if the underlying issues can't be addressed? What if they simply are?

Then we need to fund universal credit as a whole more heavily, as £85 a week isn’t enough.

But do you really believe this to be the case? Why are so many people unable to work?

Any 5 year old can ‘say a number higher than 85’. I want our government to work harder for better outcomes for these individuals and for the country (the rest of us).

 

[Gorbles]

Then we need to fund universal credit as a whole more heavily, as £85 a week isn’t enough.

But do you really believe this to be the case? Why are so many people unable to work?

Any 5 year old can ‘say a number higher than 85’. I want our government to work harder for better outcomes for these individuals and for the country (the rest of us).

I work forwards from "people are claiming benefits", instead of trying to find reasons to force people into the (overwhelmingly private sector) workforce.

Even before Covid struck, and the myriad ways scientists are still finding out it impacts us, chronic illnesses were a thing. And that's just illnesses; I haven't even touched on disabilities yet, and the ways that we (as in the government) increasingly make ill and / or disabled people jump through hoops (sometimes somewhat literally) to prove a point.

And for one final thing - the statistics mentioned 1 million children out of the 3.8 million. I probably don't have to explain why they're unable to work, aye?

 

[EvaDK]

Every modern government works with a significant deficit as I understand it. It's why we all (in the "country" sense, not an individual sense) have oodles of it. The US, UK, etc.

Especially since we've been paying the US for WW2 for decades (can't remember the last time I checked if we'd finished or not), this idealistic view of the postwar state seems rather, well, idealistic.

Not quite; as an example, some 50 odd nations/regions ran budget surpluses in 2017 and prior and up until the years of the Covid crisis; all five Nordic nations included.

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/budget-surplus--or-deficit/country-comparison/

Budget deficits are generally speaking not considered problematic, as long as that deficit remains lower than the rate of economic growth.

Also, in the current climate of low economic growth and inflation, increased borrowing to increase spending, productivity and investment, is preferable to cutting spending and borrowing, which is the fastest route to stagflation. Inflation brings some negative consequences, but stagflation is much worse. The Keynes rule of thumb is this; increase spending and borrowing during crisis times; decrease spending and pay off debt during good times.

 

[Nick723]

I work forwards from "people are claiming benefits", instead of trying to find reasons to force people into the (overwhelmingly private sector) workforce.

Even before Covid struck, and the myriad ways scientists are still finding out it impacts us, chronic illnesses were a thing. And that's just illnesses; I haven't even touched on disabilities yet, and the ways that we (as in the government) increasingly make ill and / or disabled people jump through hoops (sometimes somewhat literally) to prove a point.

And for one final thing - the statistics mentioned 1 million children out of the 3.8 million. I probably don't have to explain why they're unable to work, aye?

Well then we are comparing apples with pears, because the £85 payment quoted is for a fit single adult over 25 (and below retirement age?). If you are unable to work through disability, higher payments apply.

Of course, increasing the absolute size of universal credit is needed. But that’s super easy to do. What’s hard is to change the situation for the millions on universal credit, so that as many of them as possible no longer need to be on universal credit. And I would hope that this would be a cause everyone, regardless of their political persuasion, could get behind.

 

[Senethro]

Well then we are comparing apples with pears, because the £85 payment quoted is for a fit single adult over 25 (and below retirement age?). If you are unable to work through disability, higher payments apply.

Of course, increasing the absolute size of universal credit is needed. But that’s super easy to do. What’s hard is to change the situation for the millions on universal credit, so that as many of them as possible no longer need to be on universal credit. And I would hope that this would be a cause everyone, regardless of their political persuasion, could get behind.

Everyone has supposedly been behind it for years because it is one of those things that are obviously good.

And yet it doesn't happen - so it looks like it is an attack on benefits instead.

 

[Gorbles]

Of course, increasing the absolute size of universal credit is needed. But that’s super easy to do.

Doesn't seem to be, by dint of it not being done.

 

[Arakhor]

We are of course expecting common sense and even a crumb of compassion from the current government. I'm sure this bunch would scrap JSA entirely if they could find a way to make it seem like Starmer's fault.

 

[Takhisis]

Where is the money supposed to be coming from ?

Wherever they find it in them to afford tax cuts to power companies who just share out the results as dividends.

Wherever they found however much it took to buy the Northern Irish Protestants' support in what was euphemisticaly called a confidence and supply deal.

Or, you know, among the vast piles of cash lost to Brexit.

 

[Nick723]

Everyone has supposedly been behind it for years because it is one of those things that are obviously good.

And yet it doesn't happen - so it looks like it is an attack on benefits instead.

Then the government should try harder! And people should try harder too, individuals are not devoid of responsibility here.

Doesn't seem to be, by dint of it not being done.

What I mean by this is that you could have a meeting, agree a new figure, and someone could change something in the system. It could be done in an afternoon.

In contrast, decreasing the number of people on benefits requires hard work to understand the causes, design good policies, and time to see results.

If money can solve any problem, money easily becomes the answer to any problem. This is universal credit, but you see it all over government. Government by spending pledges is not really government. We should also be working out how to spend money more efficiently, create more money, etc.

Wherever they find it in them to afford tax cuts to power companies who just share out the results as dividends.

Wherever they found however much it took to buy the Northern Irish Protestants' support in what was euphemisticaly called a confidence and supply deal.

Or, you know, among the vast piles of cash lost to Brexit.

So the UK taxpayer?

 

[Samson]

Then the government should try harder!

Is this advocacy for a government job guarantee? If so, I am all for it. Otherwise there will always be some people on JSA or whatever we call it and the question of how much that should be is quite separate from what the state is doing to stimulate the economy.

 

[Gorbles]

What I mean by this is that you could have a meeting, agree a new figure, and someone could change something in the system. It could be done in an afternoon.

In contrast, decreasing the number of people on benefits requires hard work to understand the causes, design good policies, and time to see results.

If money can solve any problem, money easily becomes the answer to any problem. This is universal credit, but you see it all over government. Government by spending pledges is not really government. We should also be working out how to spend money more efficiently, create more money, etc.

"ut could theoretically be done" is not the same as "it actually could be done". Theory vs. practise and all that. Decreasing the number of people on benefits could be done. But the same problem applies. People don't want to do it. Just like people don't want to increase the figure.

After however many years of it, what other conclusions are we supposed to draw?