I have been meaning to mention this for a week but keep getting distracted (Well OK. I distract myself by watching the c0mplete set of Resident Evil films and stuff like but that’s not the point here) but I really did appreciate this post from DonPaskini over at Liberal Conspiracy about the possible erosion of universal benefits.The reason I am greatful is that I have, at times, been seduced by the idea of restricting these. When times are tight it is very easy to wonder why we are paying child benefit to people who can afford a team of round-the-clock nannies, or giving a free bus pass to Michael Winner. I now realise I was wrong and I am happy to change my mind.
All the reasons are in Don’s post, but the main one is that it is the thin end of the wedge and the likely to be the first step towards dismantling a lot of the welfare safety blanket. I don’t know whether the series of events described in the US was planned as part of some conspiracy or just happened in a series of logical consequences, but the end result is the same. Likewise I don’t know if there are forces here deliberately plotting to repeat the experience here, or just misguided voices not realising they are asking to knock down the first domino – but the outcome here is the important thing.
There is a further practical reason to oppose reductions, which perhaps is not stressed enough. Having a universal benefit means no means testing.  Not only does this make those who need the benefit more likely to take it up, but it must save a fortune in administration.
Imagine coming up with some threshold for income or savings – something ridiculously high – that took 5% of pensioners out of entitlement for winter fuel allowance. While that 5% would not notice it, the other 95%, including the poorest of the poor, would still be filling out forms to prove they are not millionaires. There would be delays. There would be people unable to complete forms. There would be computer cock-ups. There would inevitably be cases of freezing to death that would not have happened otherwise.
And the cost of processing all those forms would probably be higher than the combined allowances of that 5%.
That alone is reason enough to resist the calls, although the conspiracy theory that this will ultimately lead to deeper divisions stirred up by the tabloids is also quite compelling and scary and if it means paying child support to Posh & Becks then that is fine by me.
[i]”Having a universal benefit means no means testing.”[/i]
Yes, and?
Expansion of means testing has been a core Labour Policy for the last 12 years surely it’s a bit late to say you were wrong?
No, expansion of benefits and tax credits was a key policy of Labour. Winter fuel payments to senior citizens are not means-tested, for example.
What’s more, Skuds is not the same as ‘the labour government’, and if you read the above (as opposed to just jerking your knee at it), you’d see that he’s saying that he generally supported universal benefits the whole time, but has been tempted by other arguments. What’s he got to say he was ‘wrong’ about that he hasn’t already?
Tax credits were a massive expansion of means testing – almost 50% of the population and 90% of families with children are now eligible for some sort of welfare benefit
As for Skuds not being in the government, well that is true, but I did hear that he is their candidate somewhere so kinda expected him to support their policies.
If the Labour Party is now going back to it’s old opposition to means testing then they will get three cheers from me.
I think it is no secret that I personally favour increasing tax thresholds to take lots of people out of the tax regime completely. Tax credits seems like an unnecessarily complicated way to do things.
I was gutted when Vince Cable suggested it at the Lib Dem conference making it less likely to happen.
The labour party and movement is a broad church, containing a variety of opinions on different policies, despite the popular and lazy stereotype of us all being ‘New Labour’ robots. When I was selected there was no quiz to make sure I toe the party line.
Fortunately.