Child support cuts

Peter Black writes in the Evening Post about the government backtracking on child care support.

It seems to me, from this, from restricting child tax credits and from similar measures, that the Conservative cabinet is of the (now discredited) Malthusian view that the poor can and should be discouraged from breeding.

Another coalition advance stopped by post-election Conservatives

I hope somebody is keeping a record of the Tory cuts in social security which were prevented by Liberal Democrats in coalition, now brought in with a vengeance by a majority Conservative government, together with the progressive policies initiated by the coalition which have been brought to a grinding halt by Cameron and Osborne now they have been given the power to do so. The latest trick not only effectively neuters a coalition Act but also betrays a Conservative manifesto pledge (http://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/Blog/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf - see page 3).

Provisions of the Care Act were based on a comprehensive review commissioned by the coalition from the distinguished economist and statistician Sir Andrew Dilnot. Norman Lamb, then a minister in the Department of Health, hailed the proposals in advance:

Scrapping the existing system which leaves people facing the fear of unlimited bills in their later years is the right thing to do.

These reforms will end an inequality that sees those with the least wealth spending the greatest proportion of their life savings and will bring protection and reassurance to everyone.

With an ageing population at a time of financial difficulties, we’ve taken tough decisions to bring about real reforms that will give everyone a more certain future.

This is what Saga said in February and May:

Around 40,000 people a year have to sell their home to pay for care

Changes to how long-term care for the elderly is funded will soon kick in, as part of an overhaul to try and stop the growing number of people being forced to sell their homes to pay for care.

The long-awaited Care Act came into force this April, when the 'deferred loan scheme', first proposed by the Royal Commission over a decade ago, became universally available in England

The 'care cap' is the second half of the overhaul, aimed at limiting what people pay for care, set at £72,000. But it won’t come into force until April 2016.

Now that 2016 date has been pushed into the blue yonder.

LD gain in Wrexham

As if to bear out what I said in my post on Kirsty Williams's speech comes news of a big win on the Wrexham unitary authority. It was clear that Rob Walsh was putting a lot of work into his campaign and that the signs were good, but the margin of victory was surprising:

Wrexham UA, Llay ward by-election

Rob Walsh (LD) 700
Labour                353
Ind Roderick       124
Conservative        64
UKIP                     60
Ind Dodd               41

Slave-owning Britain

Intrigued by the premise of this programme, I could not resist looking up Littles in https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/. We have been made aware in recent years of the extent to which many of the great fortunes of England were made on the backs of slaves. What David Olusoga exposed was how deeply into the middle-classes dependence on income from slaves descended.

I knew there must have been a namesake who was a major slave-owner in mainland colonies because of the number of African-Americans who bear the surname. (Plantation owners habitually gave all their human property their own surname as well as a forename to replace their African names, and not necessarily only those sired with female slaves.) Cleavon Little, the multi-talented actor who had just one starring role but sadly too early to catch today's colour-blind casting in American TV and film, was one. Another was a young woman who I remember as Sally Little, but whose short period of fame occurred too early to register on the World Wide Web. She had taken the life of a prison guard who had been routinely abusing her and made United States history by being acquitted of first-degree murder. (I often wonder what happened to her after the trial.) And of course Malcolm X was formerly Malcolm Little.

Little is not an uncommon name, especially in Scotland, so I have little fear that any of my direct ancestors were beneficiaries of the appalling trade. It was interesting to check the name, even so.

Indeed there were a few Littles in the West Indies compensation register, and none were significant bar one: Dorothy Little, the widow of the rector of Hanover parish in Jamaica. It seems that the Church of England saw no shame in owning slaves in the early 19th century. Looking up the names of rectors of Hanover turned up a rather less common name than mine, that of Anglin. There must be a familial link with BME and gay Liberal Democrat activist Charles Anglin.

Parliamentary representation

The Bill to redraw parliamentary boundaries was scuppered by deputy PM Nick Clegg in the last parliament because the other arm of parliamentary reform, that of the House of Lords, was obstructed by backwoodsmen on the Conservative benches aided and abetted by the Labour leadership. Now that there is a clear, if slight, Conservative majority it seems that the prime minister has decided that it is safe to fulfill a manifesto pledge and bring it back.

Consequently, there is a renewal of the old canard, trotted out by both Tories and libertarians, that we are over-represented in parliament. The usual stat trotted out is that "the UK has 650 MPs for 70m people, the US has 535 for over 3 times as many people". That is true if one thinks only of federal Congress (but to be fair one should add in the president, who has most of the powers of a prime minister, and vice-president, making a total of 537). However, the individual states have a great deal of autonomy and I suggest that more decisions affecting the everyday lives of US citizens are made in their state capitals than in Washington DC. Wikipedia gives the total of all State legislators as 7383.

I looked at the stats for the state of Connecticut, which has nearly the same population as Wales. Wales elects 40 Westminster MPs and 60 AMs. Connecticut sends only two senators and five representatives to Congress, but has its own two-chamber legislature comprising 36 senators and 151 representatives. I have not looked in detail at local government, but it seems that Connecticut has the equivalent of unitary authorities, numbering many more than Wales' 22.

It seems that England, which has only one parliament, should be complaining that it has too few legislators, not too many.

Kirsty Williams sets the tone for 2016

Today's speech was splendid and I wish I had been there to hear it. I would add only one thing: the Liberal Democrats are in a position to increase the party's representation in the Assembly. Labour's record in government is very attackable, particularly on health, as Kirsty pointed out. I also feel that Conservatives hit a high point in their general election success and will suffer as the economy - their USP - stutters in the next twelve months, pointing up how much the recovery was due to Liberal Democrat ministers in the coalition government.

There is one further factor, if the published opinion polls are to be believed. UK support for membership of the EU has reached an all-time high and we should gain as the party most associated with a positive attitude to the EU. The publicity associated with the Brexit referendum due also in 2016 will help.

I do not think we should be afraid of saying that our aim is not just to be in government again, but to be the leading voice in that government.

Tories make use of bureaucratic attitudes

Frank Field, one of the most hardline of Labour MPs on social security, draws attention to the suffering caused to genuine claimants by delays in processing payments.

It would be wrong to accuse the Conservative of directly instructing DWP to hold up claims. However, there is a natural reluctance on the part of civil servants to pay out public money, especially if they are on the front line and probably not paid much more than a claimant is due. It may also be that more paperwork is involved in authorising a claim than refusing it. There is also pressure from such as the Daily Mail to reduce the number of civil servants; reducing the number of staff in DWP slows the processing of claims, so that the government saves money in two ways: on the payroll and on social security payouts. This went on under both the coalition and the previous Labour administration.

However, changes to benefit rules under Ian Duncan Smith, added to bureaucratic delays have made things much worse. Take ESA. An experienced councillor and former council leader in Essex writes:

"Previously under the old system people when people were found through
ATOS (not medical in any true sense of the word) assessment to be fit for
work and they disagreed with the decision, they would continue to receive a
reduced benefit until the DWP had convened an appeals panel. They could
under the old system ask the DWP to review the decision before progressing
it to appeals. This has all changed. Now their benefit stops completely and
instantly. They are subjected to a mandatory review of the decision by DWP
and there seems to be no time limit upon how long this can take. Then and
only then can they take the decision forward to an appeals tribunal (and we
all know that of cases that make it that far the numbers of decisions which
have been found to be incorrect are utterly appalling) waiting for an appeals
tribunal could typically take up to 12 months.

"In the interim ESA claimants are advised (wrongly) by DWP that they will
be left without any means of support if they appeal and what they should
do is apply for JSA - which if you really are unfit for work would (a) be
an act of fraud and (b) would inevitably lead to further sanction as you
would not be able to comply with the conditions of JSA. In reality it is
possible for people to apply through their Jobcentres for hardship
payments but this is not widely known and worse DWP does not inform people
of its existence.

"Only if people find their way to CAB or similar will they be given the
information they so desperately need. This leads to many problems but the
two that I am most involved with are those who as a result try to live for
a time with nil income (it eventually collapses and then there is a huge
mess to sort out as HB and C/T allowance are also affected) and those who
end up making claims for JSA and as a result end up further sanctioned.
Both groups are vulnerable to the payday lender and worse and both groups
inevitably need intervention as a direct result of such a deeply flawed
policy.

"These are people I am regularly sending to foodbank!

"Those who are fortunate enough to be signposted to hardship payments over
time develop real problems, in particular if they are also caught in the
bedroom tax trap. The answer to this in my view ( aside from sorting out
the mess of bedroom tax) is to set a clear time limit upon just how long a
person can be made to wait for a review and appeal to be heard as the
level of income is deliberately below subsistence and is intended to be
so. It is therefore unacceptable for people to be left indefinitely in
this situation - in particular when so very many of the decisions are
wrong.

"Then there are those who are newly unemployed - the prior system through
crisis loan provided a safety net that allowed people a means to live
whilst their claims were sorted out. As this has now been abolished and
replaced with inadequate, inaccessible localised DIY systems it is pushing
more and more people to require the help of foodbanks - there really is
very little excuse."

(I can remember a time when hardship payments for essential hardware, like a basic cooker were grants, not loans. That was a change by a previous Conservative government.)

My councillor friend (who checked the details with a current DWP employee) went on:

"You may not have two active claims. In order to apply for JSA you must 

allow your ESA claim to close and in doing so AGREE you are indeed fit for 

work if indeed limited work. The criteria for approval of JSA is that you 

are able and actively seeking work. If you are not through ill health you 

are meant to be applying for or claiming ESA.

"Once you have permitted your claim to be closed and opened a new claim you 

will not be able to address any incorrect assessment - to suggest 

otherwise is not only completely against the policy, completely in 

conflict with the guidance of DWP but is a total failure of logic.

"How can any rational person argue that you may simultaneously dispute they 

are not fit for work whilst signing a declaration that they are both fit 

and actively seeking work - it does not make sense!"

The price of a pint of milk

Along with the cost of a standard loaf, the knowledge of the price of milk is supposed to be the mark of how much a politician is in touch with real life - at least, according to some broadcast journalists. It is slightly unfair, in that most busy professionals shop weekly and in bulk at the supermarket. However, I believe that MPs and especially ministers should be aware of the differential between supermarket and convenience store shopping.

I was shocked to notice that, having recently bought a four-pint container of milk in Morrisons (or was it Lidl?) for 89p, that one pint in my local corner shop now costs 60p. Even two litres - somewhat less than four pints - would set me back £1. (How much the farmer gets of any of that is another matter.) A standard sliced loaf in the mini-mart now costs over £1, while 60p appears to be the base price in supermarkets.

So the person without a car in England (at least we pensioners in Wales have the advantage of free bus travel at all times - where buses still run) pays over the odds for groceries. (This is something that should be borne in mind when one considers the minimum wage.) But at least the corner stores are there.

Now the chancellor wants to take away one of the advantages of the small shop, the ability to open late on a Sunday while supermarkets have to close at four in the afternoon. This has not been universally welcomed, even among the supermarkets.  Is it too cynical to see the decision as a result of lobbying by the US-owned ASDA, which has virtually no small stores?

My guess is that the measure announced in the budget will kill off some small shops where there is a supermarket within convenient travelling distance. Others should survive, but as economies of scale reduce further, the price differentials may well increase.