@Red Box

When you start defending the feckless and idle you start to make those that contribute think why they contribute. If the left ever achieved a socialist state in the UK the first thing they would have to do is stop that. They do it by giving everyone a broom and tell them to sweep for 8 hours a day. It's called creating jobs in left wing jargon. This is how socialists achieve full employment. Of course the feckless and idle will sweep in circles and expend as little energy as required to full-fill they daily obligations. Pretty soon every one will sweep in circles. That's why socialism always fails because the left always reward failure. Until Matthew, et al, explain how they handle the idle and feckless there theory is just that a theory. They of course never will because there theory says these people are victims of nasty capitalists not victims of there own behaviour. What a pathetic theory.

Before my recent retirement I had a job in housing where I met literally thousands of families each year living in a variety of properties, some expensive, others not. I learnt a great deal listening to many of these people and the main lesson was that irrespective of class and wealth, the vast majority of people who put in a decent shift for their return do not like shirkers, cheats etc. etc. taking advantage of the system. And most of them usually had an example in the same street or locality of this type of person or family as a daily reminder. They got very angry when talking about them.

The Conservatives found this out a good while back and are seen to be acting accordingly through Iain Duncan Smith. Labour since 2010 have been weak/silent by comparison and foolishly pointed at the Conservatives with a blanket accusation of hitting the poor. In doing so Labour enhanced the opinion of them as a Party by instinctively conservative working people, as advocates of soppy left-leaning liberal tosh on welfare cheats.

So back to today and the Liam Byrne "initiative" is likely to be based on the results of opinion surveys that may or may not have been requested by the Labour Party, but either way will be because of their conclusions.

Once again too little, too late from Labour. It looks as though they are jumping on a bandwagon as recent converts only because it is popular.

Timing all wrong and a bad start to a difficult year.

I am not sure why we have to ask "what would Beveridge do?" if we think that he was in a different time with different problems to solve.

Byrne says:

"He would scarcely have believed housing benefit alone is costing the UK over £20bn a year. That is simply too high."

Of course this is the usual politician obfuscation absolute figures are meaningless. A percentage of tax revenues would have been a better figure. I would reply with "and what would Beveridge say to the pathetic number of council houses?" Different time.

I would also like to hear what Beveridge would say about a Liberal party in coalition with one of the most right wing governments we have seen. I suspect if he was to come back now, the Coalition would be of more concern to him than any perception of an "overgenerous" welfare state.

Byrne's article was pretty much vacuous: for example, he did not acknowledge the immense contribution that carers make.

I think Byrne is trying to address why the core vote of the white working class are not voting Labour. The danger is that he will sink into the rhetoric of Alarm Clock Britain and immigration control, rather than addressing the real issue which is the erosion of our public services and a neglected housing policy.

@Capitalist and Proud - "It does mean the feckless and idle we need to get a job or we let them to starve"

This is about unemployment and disability, which contrary to what room temperature IQ tabloid journalists might try to claim have nothing at all to do with fecklessness or idleness. So please stick to topic.

Secondly, I do know what I am talking about. There is plenty of literature out there on why usary is a threat to people of all political spectrums. Capitalist, socialist, whatever. People who simply absorb money out of the system for doing nothing (as you would call them, feckless and idle) are bad for the system. Financial "services" do just that. So do welfare recipients, the difference being that in their case it is an ethical obligation for any decent and humane society. In the case of financial instituions it is simply rich people getting even richer.

If you want a system where people do starve for being unfortunate enough to be out of work that's ok. I think it's ethically abhorrent but I can at least understand it. What I don't like is the hypocrisy of then asking such people to themselves respect laws and rights of others. If someone is starving, they should try to take food and resources from others who have it by force (such as they did during the summer riots), as society doesn't deserve their respect or obedience as it doesn't offer them a stake in that society.

With the Welfare bill increasing year on year, Welfare Reform is pointless if you fail to address the issue of the " Working Poor".

Making work pay shouldn't be a slogan, but a mean of escaping poverty.

Michael, you do not know what you are talking about.

So do welfare recipients, the difference being that in their case it is an ethical obligation for any decent and humane society.

We do not have an obligation to feed the feckless and idle. You by all means step up up to the plate and pay for out of your own pocket. Its a free society just allow me the choice to keep my money to spend on my kids.

Here is an example of the labours pathetic welfare laws. I live in a well off part of the south. The schools are filled with kids with brand new cars and all on the EMA. It seems when mum and dad split the kids stay with the mum. They of course now earn less than 30K so the kids get the EMA and other benefits. The dads of course top it up with a few goodies, ski trips, summer hols and cars. It is madness. Of course families that stay together and earn more than 30K get nothing. The joy of welfare. Good that the Tories have stopped the stupid EMA.

That's a very good point Matthew Fox. The minimum wage should be substantially increased. Furthermore, anyone unemployed for 12 months should be given a job by the state at minimum wage, paid for by heavy taxation on the the corporations with the highest profit-to-employee ratios.

Michael, No need to feed the poor they will feed themselves. The sick, we need to make sure the really are sick. We know far to many are cheating. Also, if the sick get all the medication and health for free, why should we do anything else for them.

Labour will never be tough, never check for the cheats so all this welfare nonsense is just political window dressing. Harriet Harman praised people sending welfare home to families in the third world. The fact that people here are being taxed to pay for it just went over her head.

Michael.

That's a very good point Matthew Fox. The minimum wage should be substantially increased. Furthermore, anyone unemployed for 12 months should be given a job by the state at minimum wage, paid for by heavy taxation on the the corporations with the highest profit-to-employee ratios

It's so simple, just so simple. Why did we all miss it. The solution was right in front of us, just sitting there. We just give everyone a government job and tax the productive part of the economy to pay for this job.

Not all benefits are paid to the unemployed. Working tax credits and many housing benefits mask the fundamental need for a living wage as opposed to a minimum wage. In fact, such benefits are really subsidising employers who pay low wages. It is a hidden benefit to employers, paid for by the taxpayer.
No discussion on welfare reform should ignore the need for a living wage as a way out of benefit dependence. However, I doubt that any party has the guts to take this on board, as it would go so much in the face of business interests to do so.

NOTE: I mean Dobson and crew.

"No need to feed the poor they will feed themselves"

Erm.... how? Do they go to Willy Wonkas factory? What if they can't find a job or something?

Either they are permitted to riot and take from shops because we have a free-for-all competitive 'survival of the fittest society' or those in work support them until jobs become available for them.

But logically, if the population exceeds the amount of work available we will have unemployment, and those subjected to unemployment should not be punished for that situation because there is nothing they can do about it.

Thankfully many of the public ( but not the left unfortunately who despise facts and real debate) are cottoning onto the fact that there are many thousands of families receiving enormous sums in benfits, far more than they could ever hope to get in work and far more than many similar sized families get in work, and are no longer prepared to put up with it.

I have never voted tory and disagree with many of their policies but the benefits cap is the best policy i have heard in from any party in years. Even as a public sector worker i will now consider voting conservative if it will help get this law into place. labour are the party of the lazy and the welfare dependant and the only people who say otherise do not actually know the sums being paid out or they are unable to see sense due to ideology.

Many public sector workers earn peanuts and have had no decent pay rise for going on a decade now yet we see families with 4,5 and six kids receiving in benefits what they would receive if they had a job paying 50k a year, and more. Not to mention the thousands of immigrant families receiving the same yet who have contributed absolutely nothing to this country.

It is outrageous, it has to stop and labour need to realise that ordinary folk are utterly sick of it. I will not vote labour again until they do.

Serious issues, come on C&P your attitude is bomb first think later, the Bush doctrine.

If you are stupid enough to blame the state, your going to be accountable, so deal with it.

I can't help that Redwood wants to bankroll poor employers with government money.

I am interested on your thoughts regarding Osborne failed employment policy. Read and weep.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16402105

I wonder when Cameron is going to get his story straight, we have gone from the dark days are behind us, to a year of heavy-lifting, and now it is tough times, how does that work again?

I see Peter is still angling to be a poor man's Luddite.

Fraziel1
Cut the pretence!!, You`re one of the worst kind of tories?, at least have the Bollocks to admit you`re a Tory!, The tory party suits you?, especially your profiling of EVERYONE claiming any sort of benefit!, and your OBSESSION and HATRED for Immigrants is, well let`s just say there`s a certain word for it?, I could imagine you during the 30s!, a certain guy in Germany would`ve been your hero?, you are a Nasty, Pathetic little person!!, and you certainly don`t represent the "Ordinary Person" with your Generalisations of Millions of people!!, You`re certainly an expert at telling "Terminological Inexactitudes", Nick Griffin has a (so called) party that would suit you down to the Gutter!!.

@Luddite
Labour are against all forms of reform dragging this country down to the pits. Borrowing and spending is their policy for a brighter future squandered and wasted.

The one true way for a brighter future is education and that was in decline when Labour was in government... They have truely fecked the country over.

I see the state is responsible for killing Stephen Lawrence now, smacks of desperation if you ask me.

It looks like Capitalist and Proud has never heard of Income Support, a government adminstered scheme to pay people who are in work.

That is right people a government subsidy from our friends on the Right.

Still Proud are we Capitalist?

Poor Cloddite, 5 million working class voters lost since 1997, I take it he has evidence to back this up, nope as usual.

Then again, having spent most of Christmas and New Year sobering up in a ditch, he is going to be short on analysis.

@Sir Michael

I agree with your point on US healthcare being more expensive per head than the UK. The coalition has undertook to keep NHS spending but make the processes more efficient.

"The size of the public sector doesn't matter really."

I dont agree - there has been a lot of discretionary spend in the public sector. Its nice to have premium public services, low state productivity and state employee with amazingly generous pensions that the rest of us can only dream about. It does win votes of public sector employees. But its not a net benefit for the economy.

@Capitalist - "It's so simple, just so simple. Why did we all miss it. The solution was right in front of us, just sitting there. We just give everyone a government job and tax the productive part of the economy to pay for this job."

The notion that the financial sector is "productive" is absurd. Any form of usary is inherently unproductive and damages productivity to a greater extent than any tax-and-spend policy ever could. The financial system is basically a pyramid scheme. They give money to something, then take more money out of it without ever having actually done anything to provide the service, grow the food, or manufacture the product that was created.

I am not anti-capitalist. I am anti-usary. Making banking a government run institute (although one could argue it is already) but make it none-profit. With money gained on interest either going into public infrastructure (roads, rail etc), or being used to pay for bad loans.

Indu I understand and respect your point on the pubic sector not being a leech on the private sector. It is absolute madness for any society to try to live beyond its means. What I disagree with is the notion that only the private sector can (or should) be productive. China is riding the crest of a wave while all around us crumbles, but most of its industries are state owned. Why don't we nationalize a few of our industries and use the profits to deal with the benefits bill?

So Labour are still timid, running scared from tabloid news editors and the angry right-wing, and proclaiming that societies poorest and most vulnerable (the people they are charged with protecting) should be subjected to "conditions" to be allowed to carry on living?

Why don't these politicans just actually be honest and say that they expect people who are unemployed to start selling their organs to assist societies more productive individuals? Because that is what this boils down to. The work programs and "welfare reform" is the reintroduction of slavery, and reduces the value of human life and dignity to the ability of that life to be economically productive.

It is sickening that there is absolutely no opposition to this at all from our political representitives. If Labour want to sacrifice the poor on the altar of tabloid approval - fine. But in this instance, with the Con-Libs already standing on the shoulders of the rich, what then is the purpose of the Labour movement? There is no more room on those shoulders Mr Miliband. You're at best an irrelevance and at worse an enemy to democracy by taking the voice from the victims of compassionless capitalism.

Before 2008 and the banking crisis, Labour borrowed and spent £350Bn. The money was not invested and now needs to be repaid. It was used to grow the public sector far beyond what the economy could afford to sustain.

I think even the most hardened Labour supporters are seeing that the money was used to treat voters and win support in order to propel a small elite into power. The national interest was sacraficed.

So onto benefit -- here we go again. Labour not sticking to solid principles or strategy but instead being flexible in the short term for popularity. Its the party that will concede anything, sell anything, say anything and give anything away to win power.

If the party tried harder to be consitently true to its core values it would be a lot more popular.

The yellow press has done an efficient job of demonising the poor, especially benefit claimants. So much so, that "scrounger" has now become synonymous with unemployed.

The bogus "Labour" Party (surely an infringement of the Trade Descriptions Act) is in effect collaborating with the vicious campaign being waged by the gutter press. Obviously, Byrne and his ilk smell votes to be accrued from joining in this shameful persecution of the jobless.

A statutory right of reply is long overdue to counteract the smears, half-truths and outright lies being peddled by these disgusting, mendacious rags. But if we have to rely on opportunistic Parliamentarians like Liam Byrne to pass such legislation, it will be a very long wait.

The article makes the most important point of all. The system was designed in the context of full employment and rather better employment protection. The right are very good at being selective when it comes to welfare. Labour are near enough on
message and much of what is being done just now would've happened under Labour.
It's a rigged game and Labour are as culpable as the Tories

Explain to me PJ why its ok for families on benefits to get the equivalent of 50,60,70k salaries a year and more when they could never get it in work and people in work can't get it? Why it's ok when there are pay freezes and cuts in this country and many people have not had a pay rise for years?

Explain to me why It's ok to pay the same to immigrants who have never contributed a single thing to this country since arriving? Explain please. I await with bated breath if you can or if all you can do is act like the little fascist are and abuse everyone who disagrees with you.