Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
Benefits in Future: advice now? - Adviser 163
Can I commend to all readers to Gareth Morgan’s article (titled as above) in Adviser 163 - May/June 2014. A very thought provocing article!
Gareth - given the ‘mess’ that the implementation (and direction, or lack of clarity thereof) of much of welfare reform policy is in, the near collapse of WCA’s, and the growing administrative chaos that surrounds DWP/HMRC/HMCTS it would be interesting to have your thoughts on how any future incoming government (inc. devolved govts.) might seek to address the issues (do they appreciate the scale of the problem or will they continue to deny there is a significant problem ?).
Given the ever growing scale of the task facing advisers in giving advice (both now and in the longer term) and resolving administrative problems with DWP etc. the practical issues facing any incoming government in actually delivering welfare reform to the tens of millions of people affected should be top of the political agenda.
Your fiver is in the post Peter, thanks for the review.
I think that the real problem with benefits is not for future governments but for the people who claim them.
All the parties who are likely to form all, or part, of a government seem to be committed to reducing benefits.
The electoral pressure (real or imagined) for benefits cuts, caused I’m sure by the relentless tabloid vitriol, means that we don’t have any party that believes the welfare state is a good thing any more. The Labour Party, and the Lib Dems, ought to be defending and promoting the proud history of support from cradle to grave but, instead, they’re competing in a race to demolish it.
With that as the current state, and inefficiencies and chaos reducing expenditure, why should they worry? The result suits all the parties.
The impact on claimants is a given.
Claimant bashing is a vote winner for all parties at the moment and is bound to continue into the election. Although the Lib Dems (! - well they might hold the balance in a hung parliament) and the SNP have a slightly different tune - possible impact of SNP social security policy under devomax and impact on Labour policy at least north of the border?). These things tend to go in cycles - a week (or a year in this case) is a long time in politics (we can but hope). Surely at some point a future govt. has to address the administrative chaos of welfare reform even if only because of the amount its costing and their solution is an even bigger cut? The chaos with WCAs got good coverage on Radio 4 this morning.
Although I suspect the task of actually simplyfying the system is to big for any govt. (and has no votes attached). Like Topsy the system has just growed and growed. I’m looking wistfully at the slender size of the CPAG handbooks on our book shelf from 1980 (the year after I started working in a benefit office). At what point does the system simply grind to a halt (remember the chaos in the early eighties when DHSS couldn’t issues giros or new orderbooks and emergency measures to pay claimants were introduced at Post Offices etc).
What concerns me more is where claimants are going to get advice and support through the chaos in the meantime. Wishing to be contravercial I am appalled by the increasingly poor quality of advice clients have recieved from other advice agencies (I include certain national organisations) who give incomplete or wrong advise or simply refer claimants to us with what is a simple enquiry or administrative delay. Yet at the same time the organistaions claims to provide advice on benefits. In my humble opinion such organisations do not have the capacity / competence to provide benefits advice. Given the complexity of the system now (with the old and new running in parrallel for years to come) that is hardly surprising. Even benefits specialists can have difficulty keeping up to date!
Agreed with Peter - an interesting read. After reading and hearing so much about welfare reform over recent years it is useful to see the various aspects collated in one article.
...
All the parties who are likely to form all, or part, of a government seem to be committed to reducing benefits.The electoral pressure (real or imagined) for benefits cuts, caused I’m sure by the relentless tabloid vitriol, means that we don’t have any party that believes the welfare state is a good thing any more. The Labour Party, and the Lib Dems, ought to be defending and promoting the proud history of support from cradle to grave but, instead, they’re competing in a race to demolish it.
...
This is certainly my reading of the situation. Sometimes I wonder whether I am being too cynical but scarily I do not think that we are…
The electoral pressure (real or imagined) for benefits cuts, caused I’m sure by the relentless tabloid vitriol, means that we don’t have any party that believes the welfare state is a good thing any more. The Labour Party, and the Lib Dems, ought to be defending and promoting the proud history of support from cradle to grave but, instead, they’re competing in a race to demolish it.
.
Are you sure? Currently thanks to the redtop press scrounger bashing is de rigeur and the Overton Window is a long way to the right.
With the right party in place and a moderate message from the press the govt might not be so keen to continue the bashing, the public might chill out and we could move to a more progressive approach. It is the tories that have inspired the scrounger bashing to fuel Welfare Reform, other parties are stuck with it for now. We can encourage a more progressive approach only once the electorate will accept it; in the meantime we’re stuck with parties that must look through the window, so to speak. I’m not sure it represents their long term desires, just the short term necessity.
I’d not come across the Overton Window before - is there a formalised set of values? As to its application here ... Hmm; isn’t there an element of Emperor’s new clothes here?
How do you square the circle of parties needing alternative policies if it’s a competition to be the same?
I’d not come across the Overton Window before - is there a formalised set of values? As to its application here ... Hmm; isn’t there an element of Emperor’s new clothes here?
How do you square the circle of parties needing alternative policies if it’s a competition to be the same?
No set values I’m aware of, just a political concept.
I don’t think it’s a question of a competition to be the same, simply a competition to appear similar enough that people will vote for you. Once you’ve their hearts their minds will follow as has amply been illustrated by the vitriol inflicted up the claimant class and attendant reforms.
A progressive government could, over time, steer those hearts and minds in a more progressive direction. The reverse has surely been true; we’ve seen it in operation over the last 4 years.
They’d have to have a manifesto saying ‘cut’ and a change of policy when in government. How likely is that?
They’d have to have a manifesto saying ‘cut’ and a change of policy when in government. How likely is that?
What like a policy saying “we won’t cut funding for the NHS” or ” we won’t increase tuition fees”?
I for one, want to cut welfare spending…...
I would like to do this by spending money building new social homes, creating new jobs and investing in proper training…...