Benefits freeze for which #ReesMogg voted & over which #IDS resigned to be extended by #Corbyn’s #Labour

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes. should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

Only a Tory #Corbyn would pledge #Labour to enact free university tuition at expense of kids in poverty

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes. should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

#Labour pledged to end child poverty by 2020. In 2017 #Corbyn plans to increase it to fund free tuition

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes. should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

Difference between #Conservative & #Labour austerity? #Corbyn’s inane grin & him saying he really cares

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes. should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

Under Thatcher Greed was Good! Under #Corbyn’s #Labour Selfishness is Socialism!

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes. should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

#Labour under #Corbyn plan to extend the benefits freeze past date when Tories set to end it …

Standard

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes, should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS resigned, in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

I, Daniel Blake is no longer backing #Labour under #Corbyn, the Master of Sanctimony …

Standard

3752EF9D00000578-0-image-a-17_1471431787464

Ken Loach’s fictional Daniel Blake was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.  In the real world, JSA has been frozen since April 2015.  On Planet Corbyn, Daniel no longer exists.

On the Friday before the August Bank Holiday 2017, Labour sneaked out a press release in the name of Jeremy Corbyn, stating that Labour would not end the benefits freeze on taking up office.

JSA for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Income Support for lone parent Daniella Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015

Employment and Support Allowance for a Daniel Blake has been frozen at £73.10 per week since April 2015.

Labour will, however, enact free university tuition for mostly white, mostly middle and upper class youth on its first day in office.

Labour will make Daniel Blake, a real victim of austerity, foot the bill for free university tuition.

People on JSA, IS and ESA all have children as dependants.

Child poverty has been rising under the Tories and it would continue to rise under a Corbyn led Labour Government, not incidentally or accidentally, but as a deliberate policy choice.

Labour, under Blair and Brown, pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Labour, under Corbyn, in 2017 pledges to enact free university tuition and let child poverty rise during his premiership.

The Tories were nasty, vile people for making those without a voice suffer through having their benefits frozen.

What then is Corbyn, who made so much out of the plight of Daniel Blake at PMQs, but who has now said, in an under hand, cowardly way that he would not end the benefits freeze on his first day as Prime Minister?

Does his decision make Corbyn a sanctimonious onanist?

What does it say about Ken Loach that he has not spoken truth unto Corbyn over his plan to extend the freeze of Daniel Blake’s JSA?

A purveyor of poverty porn to Islington Socialists?

Whilst not committing Labour to end the benefits freeze, Corbyn has pledged Labour, without caveat, to maintain the (State) Pension Triple Lock.

Whilst the JSA of Daniel Blake, jobseeker, has not increased by a penny since April 2015, the State Pension of Charlie Blake, pensioner, has increased by 2.5% each year in the same period.

Daniel Blake’s JSA has not risen, even in line within inflation, since April 2015.  His JSA would remain frozen indefinitely under a Corbyn led Labour Government.

Charlie’s State Pension has risen by 2.5% per year and if inflation increases by more than 2.5% then Charlie’s pension goes up by more than 2.5% per year.

Inflation has been rising for over 18 months now:

Inflation measured using the Consumer Prices Index reached 2.7% in August 2017.

Were benefits rising in line with inflation then they would be increasing each year in April, using the previous September’s CPI figure.

Daniel Blake cannot wait to claim his State Pension, because the real value of his weekly JSA payment is falling with every passing day.

No one has yet said at what date Corbyn expects sufficient savings to have been made to end the freeze.

No one has yet said what Labour lifting the freeze would actually mean for a Daniel Blake.

Would Blake’s JSA begin to rise in line with inflation from the lifting of the freeze?

Or would he, instead, receive a backdated increase, taking into effect inflation since April 2015?

Does Corbyn hope to find the savings to end the benefits freeze before April 2019?

April 2019 is the date when the Tories currently plan to end their benefits freeze.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think we should focus on helping people off welfare into work, but we, Labour under Blair and Brown, managed that between 1997 and 2010 without freezing people’s benefits.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think the benefits freeze is disagreeable, that we cannot help everyone and that free university tuition is a priority.

I know there are Corbyn supporters out there who think that benefits are not earned in the first place by recipients and are the state’s generosity.

In all my Civil Service career and in my over thirty year membership of the Labour Party, I have never heard anyone, even people not sharing my politics, call JSA, IS or ESA generous, unless they were a dyed in the blue wool Tory.

There are a lot of Tories or neo-Tories or people who think selfishness is socialism numbered amongst Corbyn’s supporters.

Their common link?

Free university tuition for them and theirs.

In the 1980s, under Thatcher, Greed was Good.

In the 2010s, under Corbyn, Selfishness is Socialism.

Most of Corbyn’s fans have never claimed benefit, expect to claim benefit, know anyone who has claimed benefit, know anyone who is claiming benefit and/or worked with people in receipt of benefit.

Does this explain their callousness, their lack of empathy?

It certainly suggests that saying they had seen I, Daniel Blake was more of a chance to virtue signal than it was anything else.

And have those ardent Corbyn fans forgotten, if they ever knew that Iain Duncan Smith, yes, Iain Duncan Smith resigned over the benefits freeze?

If Corbyn’s youthful supporters were truly selfless idealists then surely they would be campaigning against the benefits freeze and not for free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s youthful, and not so youthful, acolytes, should be saying they do not want free university tuition at the expense of the working age poor?

Surely Corbyn’s progressive fans should be demanding that their idol find another way to fund free university tuition?

Surely Corbyn’s fans should be saying, to prove their ideological purity, that they would rather do without free university tuition, if it may only be funded through the increasing suffering of children living into poverty?

Surely Corbyn’s followers should be asking themselves, as much as Corbyn, if there is much to connect maintaining the benefits freeze to fund free university tuition with, well, Socialism?

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze, for which Jacob Rees-Mogg voted and over which IDS, resigned in order to find the money to fund free university tuition.

Corbyn will maintain the benefits freeze in order to find the money to fund free university tuition so as to honour a pledge, yes, another Corbyn pledge, not to raise Income Tax and National Insurance on the income of anyone whose earnings are less than £80,000 per annum.

Corbyn has pledged that his Income Tax and National Insurance freeze, for the 95% whose incomes are less than £80,000 per annum, will last at least five years.

I leave the last word to Benjamin Disraeli.

Labour is definitely not the PARTY OF THE POOR any more.

#WOWPetition & #DPAC betraying cause for which they were founded #Corbyn4All? #LabourLeadership #Labour

Standard

DWP

In all the hysteria, rhetoric and hyperbole being generated by the Labour leadership campaign, the following comments should not go unnoticed:

WOW10

Anita Bellows is a spokesperson for and leading light in Disabled People Against Cuts.  Then there is this from a spokesperson for the War On Welfare Campaign:

WOW1.JPG

and:

WOW3.JPG

slightly contradicted by, but Twitter’s format does make caveats difficult to Tweet:

WOW4

Surely groups representing disabled people and carers should not be endorsing any political party without clear sight of the policies affecting their areas of concern, and without taking into account whether or not the party proposing them has any chance of actually getting them enacted?

As Dr Frances Ryan pointed out recently in an article in the Guardian, a newspaper, incidentally, read by around 40% of the Labour Party’s membership:

“This goes to the centre of the existential questions Labour – and perhaps the entire left – is facing. Is pragmatism the antithesis of principle? Can we stay true to an increasingly leftwing base while reaching a wider conservative public? What is the true test of a leader: a belief system or an ability to put it into action?”

WOW5.JPG

Taking sides in a internal party leadership campaign surely invites criticism of those campaigning groups doing so?  Particularly when those groups make clear they are not seeking to represent all carers and disabled people, just those who share their minority political standpoint?

One of the concerns about how the Labour Party’s membership has changed, and is changing, is that it has given undue predominance and voice to a minority group within wider society, namely the affluent middle class.  Rather than seeking to address that concern, some Corbyn supporters, ostensibly Labour voters remember, either argue that matters of class are not particularly important in 2016 or seek in some way to re-define the term working class to include those most voters would regard as middle class:

WOW6.JPG

It is also noticeable that some Corbyn supporters are now happy to turn a blind eye to the many shortfalls of some fellow Corbyn supporters:

WOW7.JPG

Will they be as equally sanguine if disablism is discovered amongst their ranks?  May be it already has, but has gone unnoticed by a disabled, working class, lesbian single parent of Afro-Caribbean descent?  You will be hard pressed to find anyone who is not white, male, middle class and sound in wind, limb and mind amongst those whom Jeremy Corbyn has appointed to work in his own office, but feel free to have a try:

It was George Orwell who observed in 1984 that the middle class have a habit of exploiting the working class to extend and defend their, the middle class’s, perquisites.  Once they have achieved their aim, Orwell remarked, they have a tendency to leave the working class where they found them, albeit may be a bit better off.

Are the middle class doing the same today and to what advantage?  By and large, the middle class do better under Tory Governments.  They got the recently proposed Personal Independence  Payment changes overturned,  but then what is not to like about a non means tested, untaxed benefit that is not counted as income, when being assessed for other financial support?  Beats Employment Support Allowance for sure.  The cut in the Work Related Activity Group rate of payment is still on the cards.

Who am I backing in the Labour leadership election?  Owen Smith.  I think the best way for Labour to improve the quality of life for all disabled people, carers and the ever increasing number of homeless people with mental health conditions, whatever their station in life, is to be in Government.  I also think it is high time we started to discuss improving the quality of life of disabled people and carers, given our current system of Social Security is mostly built around a subsistence level of existence.

Oh, and the man wanting to scrap the Department for Work and Pensions which, as he puts it, has become a byword for cruelty and insecurity?  Replacing it with a muscular Ministry for Labour and a dedicated Department for Social Security.

The man wanting to rewrite Clause Four of Labour’s Constitution, the Party’s mission statement, “to put tackling inequality right at the heart of everything that we do”?

The man wanting to introduce Wage Councils in the care sector to tackle poverty pay, poor terms and conditions?

Owen Smith.

If you have a vote in Labour’s leadership election, I trust you will take the opportunity to consider in the round the qualities of the proposed candidates, their policies and the likelihood of those policies ever being put into practice, before you vote.

Make no mistake in deciding for whom you vote, because, like me, I am sure you know that the Tories are self motivating, they need no encouragement, when it comes to cracking down on those on low incomes, whether they are in or out of work.

Ten more years of Tory Government will be a steep price to pay for voting in a man who will only ever get to wield a mike and hold a placard  at a demo outside of 10, Downing Street.

I will leave the last word to Tim Roache, GMB General Secretary who has said:

“The Labour Party is at a crossroads. I’m under no illusions that we’re living through dangerous political times – the like of which I haven’t seen during my three decades in our movement. It’s time for us to face up to reality.

Mr Roached balloted his members (will DPAC and WOW do the same?) as to whom the GMB should endorse for Labour leader.  Owen Smith got 60% of the votes cast.

John McDonnell, Jeremy Corbyn’s right hand man and leadership campaign undermined the Labour Party’s review into Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

#DWP #WOW To Use Fraud Staff To Harass People Off #ESA In #Birmingham #IDS

Standard

An informed source within the geographical area of DWP, wherein I used to work, recently informed me that fraud staff were being redeployed to conduct robust interviews with people claiming Employment and Support Allowance.

Yesterday, I was Tweeted a link to this website and specifically this post:

“DWP management target disabled  benefit claimants.

Over the next 24 hours DWP management will ‘invite’ close on 2,000 benefit claimants from Birmingham to attend interviews, with a goal of getting at least 10% off the benefit register.

The group of benefit claimants being targeted are in the majority waiting for assessments to decide if they are able to be deemed ‘fit for work’. (The assessment formerly and controversially run by ATOS). Those waiting assessments are often disabled or vulnerable adults.

The ‘invitation’ letter issued makes no suggestion that the attendance to these interviews is purely voluntary, indeed DWP staff in Birmingham (and Central England) have been advised verbally and by email from management to keep it to themselves that attendance to these interviews is not mandatory. One manager in a city based office was overheard saying that the way to deal with these claimants is to ‘hassle, hassle them off benefit’.

Andrew Lloyd, PCS Midlands regional secretary that represents DWP staff said, “It is outrageous that the DWP are duping the most vulnerable by issuing this letter, and then worse still setting a target to get those off benefits, it could be argued that this approach is unlawful. Our members are totally opposed to this approach but are faced with inferred disciplinary action unless they act upon these targets.”

[Press Release from PCS Union on 14th November 2014]”

Where did I use to work?  Birmingham!

Does #MichaelWhite, #Guardian Know What Grown-up Migration Debate Would Look Like? #RochesterandStrood

Standard

“Downing Street is seeking to respond to the threat from the right from Ukip.  But Cameron also wants to show Tory Eurosceptics he is serious about reform.  They have said in recent weeks that the plan to crack down on benefit tourism showed No 10 was not serious about introducing major reforms because there is relatively little evidence of benefit abuse by EU citizens.”

Barroso warns Cameron that arbitrary migration cap would breach EU law

(Guardian, Sunday 19th October, 2014)

Michael White of the Guardian thinks thatPaul Collier, a distinguished Oxford professor of public policy, a weighty, progressive intellectual of international repute, author of Exodus,” “has thought about” migration “harder than most of us.”

White refers to this article by Collier as an example of Collier’s weighty pondering.  Pondering that at one point refers to assimilation and at a later point, integration.  White may be unaware that these are two very different concepts, not in any way interchangeable and that assimilation is something for which the BNP calls and which, since Doncaster (see ‘Culture’), ukip is demanding too.  I would expect Collier to know the difference and know just how inflammatory calls for assimilation happen to be.

When it come to attitudes towards Social Security, Collier says, “As to diversity, it involves a trade-off: as it increases, variety is enhanced but cohesion reduced.  Variety is good but, unfortunately, as cohesion erodes voters become less willing to support generous welfare programmes.

There is a universal psychological tendency for inconvenient truths to be denigrated, and this is certainly inconvenient for the left. But it is not speculation: I describe some of the supporting research in my book Exodus, and rigorous new experimental research by the Oxford political scientists Sergi Pardos and Jordi Muñoz finds that immigration has just this effect, especially on benefits that are targeted at the poor.”

Firstly, when was there a time in the last forty years or so that the United Kingdom has had “generous welfare programmes”?  Moreover, this is not the United States of America, we do not have welfare programmes.  The word programme is used in the UK in connection with back to work support, for example the fatally flawed Work Programme.

Secondly, attitude surveys going back 30 yerars show that voters have, starting then, become less tolerant of recipients of what many, like the Daily Mail, parts of ukip and IDS, believe to be generous welfare hand outs.  Bizarrely, some of those holding those views are themselves long term beneficiaries of Social Security.  Was there a lot of (im)migration going on in the early 1980s or was Mrs Thatcher ramping up the rhetoric against people signing on?

Thirdly, where is this law of nature that says as diversity increases, variety is enhanced, but cohesion reduced?  Does that not suppose that there was cohesion at the outset?  For the record, for reasons more than simply their discriminatory attitudes, me and mine have precious little in common with ukip’s supporters, except where we were born.  We would, regardless of their views about migration and their attidudes towards the presence of locally born ‘foreigners’, still not be cohering with this group.  We are, for example, opposed to foxhunting.  Bearing the latter in mind, may I observe that I find ukip’s support, from top to bottom, to be unspeakable?  They are a pack of economic and social Luddites.  Let me be frank, I find it hard not to think about them, in the way that they think about migrants, as much as I try not so to do.

As an aside, are migrants from other European Union countries remaining in the United Kingdom indefinitely?  We are using the words, migration and immigration, as meaning the same thing, but an immigrant is someone who arrives with the intention of staying.  Surely we should be using migrant to describe people who behave like migratory birds do?  Surely that is surely a grown up way to debate this issue?  Collier, as shown above, uses the word immigration.  Migrant is, in the mouths of some, becoming anyone who is not white British, period.

White says that, “Unlike most of us, Collier even has a practical remedy for David Cameron as he makes a poor fist of trying to slow down inward migration from Eastern Europe without overtaking Angela Merkel’s patience or the limited imagination of rules-bound Brussels apparatchiks. As another Labour MP whispered to me during the Eastleigh by-election, one reason why would-be migrants of the poorer kind risk freezing at Calais is that Britain’s welfare payments are not all determined by past contributions: “We could change that without EU permission.” ” Collier actually says, “Perhaps it is that, unlike in the rest of Europe, access to our welfare system is not determined by past contributions.”  in other words, Collier has no evidence for his ‘solution’, but White turns it into one!

We may, of course, change how one becomes eligible for Social Security payments without EU permission.  The Coalition started a major round of doing just that on coming to power.  Those changes apply to all seeking to claim, regardless of country of origin.  One might think that Collier and White (sounds like a 1950s department store) had not heard of Personal Independence Payments and Universal Credit.

White should perhaps check Collier’s weighty article of 16th March, 2012, “My fiscal nightmares” wherein Collier says, “A prudent government protects the balance sheet while running a large fiscal deficit. It does so by drastically changing the composition of public spending. Public consumption is massively reduced, concentrating on components that commit spending far into the future. The top priority is therefore to reduce entitlement spending: benefits and pensions.”

Is the current debate providing Collier with cover for arguing again for his top priority?  Collier also buys into the idea that the UK faced, in 2012, the same position as Greece.  I beg to differ and I have got Robert Skidelsky, Professor of Political Economy at Warwick University and the author of the definitive biography of John Maynard Keynes, on my side:

“The national debt is a burden on future generations: This fallacy is repeated so often that it has entered the collective unconscious. The argument is that if the current generation spends more than it earns, the next generation will be forced to earn more than it spends to pay for it.

But this ignores the fact that holders of the very same debt will be among the supposedly burdened future generations. Suppose my children have to pay off the debt to you that I incurred. They will be worse off. But you will be better off. This may be bad for the distribution of wealth and income, because it will enrich the creditor at the expense of the debtor, but there will be no net burden on future generations.

The principle is exactly the same when the holders of the national debt are foreigners (as with Greece), though the political opposition to repayment will be much greater.”

Post-crash economics: some common fallacies about austerity

As we hold our own debt, we have a vested interest in not calling it in lest we bring down our economy, down around our ears.  I am assuming Collier is not necessarily a Keynesian when it comes to National Debt?

Whatever else Collier may be, he seems to know as much about Social Security systems both here and elsewhere in Europe as the Mayor of Calais.  You may still be able to claim some benefits if you travel or move abroad, or if you are already living abroad.  What you’re entitled to depends on where you are going and how long for.  This is where you, as a United Kingdom citizen, can claim benefits:

European Economic Area (EEA) countries

The following countries have benefits arrangements with the UK:

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bulgaria
  • Croatia
  • Cyprus
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Latvia
  • Liechtenstein
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Malta
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden

Switzerland is not a member of the EEA but is treated as an EEA country for certain benefits.

Other countries with UK benefits arrangements

The following countries have social security agreements with the UK:

  • Barbados
  • Bermuda
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Canada
  • Channel Islands
  • Macedonia
  • Israel
  • Jamaica
  • Kosovo
  • Mauritius
  • Montenegro
  • New Zealand
  • the Philippines
  • Serbia
  • Turkey
  • USA

Let us not forget moving or retiring abroad and, of course that you have the right to live and work in any European Economic Area (EEA) country, if you are a UK citizen.

For the record, Collier and White, no one is assessed for entitlement to tax credits on the basis of National Insurance Contributions, regardless of where they come from within the EEA, including the UK.

I have already written in some depth about the Social Security contributory principle here so please treat that post as an addendum to this one.  I would add that making changes to our own systems in order to seek to deny non contributory Social Security to migrants would be costly, particularly if the aim were to run, for example, three types of Jobseeker’s Allowance (Contribution Based, Income Based and Migrant Income/Contribution Based) alongside each other.  There would be even greater potential for under and over payments and, arguably more potential for fraud amongst people receiving MICB JSA.  Not forgetting, of course, that JSAPS and ESAPs are sinking as Universal Credit grinds to a halt on the slipway.

I have spoken to Michael White via Twitter about means testing the free bus passes for old people.  He was waxing lyrical about means testing entitlement to the pass saving money, apart from the fact he had no evidence from a Social and Economic Cost Benefit Allowance to prove his point, he was blithely unaware of the costs involved in means testing.  Costs that would have to be offset against any savings.  He nearly went all Mcvey over me, along the lines of when she said that, although the bedroom tax was not saving money, it was a matter of principle to carry on with it.

Collier says, “The economic consequences of a” migration “pause would be negligible as long as students were exempted.”  Unsurprisingly, someone nestling in the groves of academe does not want those groves denied of any income, whether home grown or from abroad.  Good to see though that Collier, like I, value students from abroad studying here, but I expect that we will reap significant benefits from their, hopefully, happy time here at some future date and not in the here and now.  Where is Collier’s evidence, given his concern with the here and now, that migrant students are a benefit to UK plc whilst studying here? More of a benefit, say, than migrants working and paying Income Tax and National Insurance whilst they work here?

Also, I have news for Collier and White, there is, once again, a skills shortage in the construction industry:

Bricklayers’ boom highlights ‘skills timebomb’ in UK construction industry

SMEs: is enough being done to tackle the UK’s skills shortage?

Skills shortage fears temper surge in UK construction

Construction sector skills shortage blamed for holding back housebuilding

Kipper Williams on the construction skills shortage

I would like to make a couple of points with regards to the first two articles.  “As builders take on new work, a shortage of skilled tradespeople has allowed subcontractors to ramp up their hourly rates” (first article).  The Polish plumber and his friend, the bricklayer will be stepping in to take up some of the slack, one presumes.  A colleague of mine in the mid 2000s had an uncle working in the building industry in the east of England.  His relative said that the British bricklayers were good, they could put up a brick wall, leaving a space for a gate, perfectly well.  The Poles were better, they could build a brick arch over the gap between the two walls.  The British had been trained by the UK taxpayer to NVQ2 and the poles to NVQ3 by the Polish taxpayer.

Did ukip have to import that out of work Irish actor to appear in a poster, posing as a bricklayer, because British bricklayers did not share ukip’s stance and/or were too busy?  If you are a bricklayer and out of work at this time may I suggest, tactfully, that it is because no one thinks you are employable?  Moreover, that if there were no migrants you would still be at the back of the queue? I would go so far as to say that there is an overlap between that tiny minority of UK residents defrauding the UK Social Security system and ukip’s unemployed supporters.  They have been presenting themselves at the door during party canvassing exercises in the same way they used to down at the Jobcentre.  We know who you are, chaps, because some of you are the real (not Daily Mail) scroungers we used to sanction back in the day.  There is a certain irony in that ukip, one group of whose supporters favour going further thah IDS, is being supported by another group that would be the main target of their version of the War on Welfare!

Colier says, “It would be salutary for business to find that it had to train the existing workforce rather than poach trained workers from poorer countries: what is good for business is not necessarily good for the rest of us.”  Good to know he remembers some basic labour market economics, except British companies have a century old tradition (pre dating our entry into the EU) of poaching from each other.  In addition, Enoch Powell, when Minister of Health in the late 1950s was actively recruiting medical staff from the Caribbean to work in the NHS.  And, London Transport recruited Afro-Caribbean people to work on the Underground and the buses.

Amusingly, Collier, desirous of reducing migration to save the public finances, forgets that too often employers expect the taxpayer to train their existing workforce.  Meanwhile, whilst we await the Second Coming of Learning and Development and many British companies renouncing their devotion to ‘tried and tested’ Anglo Saxon business methods, the cost of building projects, many funded by the taxpayer will rise and rise.  And that is without factoring in the labour market impact of major construction projects like HS2.  And, every time we go into a recession, the first thing businesses usually cut is their learning and development budgets.

“The skills shortage problem is not unique to the UK.  Federation of Small Businesses national chairman, John Allan, says, “Many businesses across Europe are struggling to fill vacancies with appropriately trained staff.  The problem can’t be addressed until the education system does a better job of preparing young people for the world of work.” ” (second article).  Translation, there are increasing  job opportunities opening up for UK residents elsewhere in the EEA.  As an aside, I must find the Guardian article, wherein a careers adviser of 30 year’s standing remarked that employers at the start of his career had been saying, “The problem can’t be addressed until the education system does a better job of preparing young people for the world of work!”  Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, Collier and White?

Michael, I am up for a grown-up debate on migration.  May be we may have one when you stop throwing out lines like, “Neither the right’s “crowding out” complaint about competition for low-skilled jobs (my Labour friend’s complaint too), nor the left’s “good for growth and tax receipts” scenario – shared by the City and big business – has much real evidence to support it.”  Comment is free, but facts are sacred, but not to the point where they must never be deployed, surely?  Where is your evidence to disprove either or both assertions?

Back in 2005, well before all this talk of swamping kicked in, there were 600 Cuban nurses working at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham.  Why?  Because of the demographic time bomb.  An aging population means an aging workforce.  ukip’s pensioner supporters are going to need to accept the fact that a migrant may be the only person available to clean up their sick in their care home? We are not talking about people elbowing others out of the way for jobs.  After all, migrants are rarely of pension age so they will in part compensate for the fall in the number of people in the working age population and, by paying tax, contribute towards the cost of the pensions of elderly people, including ukip supporting pensioners.

Collier of course says, “There is a good case for confronting their delusions and racism, and countering the misleading drizzle of anti-immigrant anecdotes, but this would not make them accepting of continued high immigration.”  How about, no migrant, no pension?  I think that might be the kind of sound bite that would hit home on the doorstep.

I was at a meeting with the QE Human Resources staff about six or so years ago.  A senior nurse recruiter said we have projected that very soon the NHS will need to recruit 50% of all school leavers to maintain its current staffing level.  Recessions come, recessions go and demographic changes remain relatively unaffected.  Of coursed, tightening public sector pension entitlement and raising the state pension age may go some way to responding to this issue.  however, actuaries have predicted that for every year working over 60, teachers reduce their life expectancy.  If they retire at 65 they run a significant risk of dying within a year.  I suspect neither Collier nor White expect to find themselves working to a point where it affects their life expectancy in such a dramatic way.

Michael, Collier is proposing that we engage in managing decline rather than take advantage of the benefits to UK plc of exploiting the opportunities presented by free movement of labour.  Opportunities for jobseekers happy to work abroad and vice versa.

By the way, Michael, that graduate you mentioned herein, “At one point in those 17 years a Labour MP, now dead, said to me: ”How can my young, unskilled constituents hope to compete for jobs with bilingual and highly-motivated foreign graduates?” It was a good point and I think of it every time I buy a beer or a coffee from one of those young graduates.”  Was he or she fluent in English?  Does it follow that he or she is at least bilingual?  That lots of tourists come to London (and Birmingham) and that having skilled, versatile staff who speak good English is good for the tourist industry (and UK plc)?  And if tourism spend increases then jobs growth results?  Have either you or Collier heard of the Multiplier Effect (see page 58)?  Incidentally, I am a Treasury standard Green Book Appraiser.

Might it not be a bad idea, if we helped “those (stereotypical) young, unskilled constituents to learn” a few other languages so they might look for work elsewhere in the EU?  Also, Michael, most employers do not look for vocational qualifications before recruiting so perhaps we should not be so quick to describe these stereotypes as lacking in soft skills?  And while we are on the subject of Europe, business and jobs why not read this post.

May be I am getting a bit cynical, but Paul Collier seems to be setting out to follow the trail blazed by Goodwin and Ford of Revolt on the Right Fame.  What they know about psephology and political campaigning, he seems to know about labour market economics and the UK Social Security system, but they are still making a mint out of ukip (and migration).  Migration is certainly improving the income of some people!

ukip Out To Worsen Conditions Of Temporary (Farm) Workers!

Migrants Price Local People Out Of Agricultural Jobs?