Quote of the Day - 27 Oct 2010

Commenting on John Rentoul's PMQs Cam/Ed Mili encounter, and in particular the government reforms on Housing Benefit, this from Merlin007:

"The idea that denying people rents on the state above £400 a week will make them homeless is like arguing that refusing to feed them at The Dorchester will make them hungry."

Absolutely right! The vast majority of those actually bothering to go out and earn their money couldn't afford that level of rent, yet they are subsidising (through taxes) those who don't yet are living the life of Riley at others' expense. They certainly aren't "poor" by any sensible definition of the word! It's all part of Labour's anti-work pro-state dependency culture that was intended to "bribe" millions of non-working voters to support them at the ballot box.

There are attempts being made by Labour people to muddy the waters by mentioning that many folk in work also receive Housing Benefit (why, though?) but it still doesn't change the underlying argument: a lot of us are subsidising others' enhanced lifestyles on some pretext of necessity; but that has never been a necessity before in our history.

With today's technologies and other advances it is even less significant than it could have been (but apparently wasn't) in the past. It has certainly become apparent that, although there are a fair number of supporters of the status quo who are prepared to state their case publicly (e.g. in such newspaper comments threads), there are far, far more who support the government's reforms.

Interestingly, as this exchange between Iain Duncan Smith and the then Housing Minister, James Purnell, shows (starting half-way down this page), back in 2008 the Labour government of the day was aiming in the same direction as the current proposals, and had even introduced a White Paper!

Child Benefits changes

The ever-sharp Mark Wallace (yes, he of Tax-Payers' Alliance fame) seems to have sussed out the real reaction to the government's changes to child benefit eligibility, and believes they will turn out to be vote-winning.

Yes, there were slip-ups in the rush to get everything ready in time for party conference - and I have a strong feeling that was the real cause, especially after hearing David Cameron's rapid-fire list of the coalition's achievements during the last five months - but the public-at-large are hugely in support of the idea, even if the policy needs some tweaking in places.

As "Crash Bang" Wallace reveals, part of the disproportionate media attacks on the government probably stem from their own writers' incomes placing them into the affected bracket, which he found at Guido's site. Oh yes, a lot of those names we see in newspapers and in other parts of the media are paid very well indeed. It isn't just the Guardian's Polly Toynbee and her now-(in)famous villa in Tuscany, and the Mirror's chauffeur-driven Kevin Maguire living in London's Mayfair: it is widespread.

Five out of six ordinary people polled by YouGov recently are in favour of this benefits change idea, and there are sixty million of us. There is even some pressure for full means-testing of child benefit, but that would be expensive to administer so it would be better if it could be avoided via a set of clear and sensible rules/thresholds. Dizzy has his own take on this, incorporating some of the above (in his inimitable style, of course) and adding his own thoughts as well.

I don't think the views of a hundred or so self-interested media hacks count for much in the real-world context, and they ought to be treated accordingly. Money saved on those not needing it (if they were to be honest with themselves and us) will end up back with us all, in one form or another (hopefully reduced taxation), once the country's financial crisis is behind us.