Anne Begg, average, BBC, benefit, cap, Centre, child, committee, Conservative, crisis, Daily Mail, David Cameron, Department, Department for Work and Pensions, earning, family, government, homeless, housing, Iain Duncan Smith, income, Ipsos Mori, job, John Shield, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, New Statesman, Pensions, people, Plus, politics, poverty, social security, Tories, Tory, unemployment, Vox Political, work, workless, YouGov
The long-feared roll-out of the benefit cap happened today. There has been a great deal of shouting about it from all sides, but it is possible to get a balanced view – by linking news articles from opposing sources such as, say, New Statesman, the BBC and the Daily Mail.
Yes, the Daily Mail. I’m serious.
The benefit cap is one of the Coalition’s most popular policies – not the ONLY popular policy; believe it or not, a sizeable proportion of the population think Cameron and Co are doing a good job. New Statesman quotes a YouGov poll in which 79 per cent of people, including 71 per cent of Labour voters, support the cap – with just 12 per cent opposed. The Mail quotes Ipsos Mori, whose poll states 74 per cent support the cap.
We’ll start with the Statesman, which gives us the facts that Iain Duncan Smith – architect of the policy – won’t want people to know:
“1. An out-of-work family is never better off than an in-work family
“The claim on which the policy rests – that a non-working family can be better off than a working one – is a myth since it takes no account of the benefits that an in-work family can claim to increase their income. For instance, a couple with four children earning £26,000 after tax and with rent and council tax liabilities of £400 a week is entitled to around £15,000 a year in housing benefit and council tax support, £3,146 in child benefit and more than £4,000 in tax credits.
“Were the cap based on the average income (as opposed to average earnings) of a working family, it would be set at a significantly higher level of £31,500. The suggestion that the welfare system “rewards” worklessness isn’t true; families are already better off in employment. Thus, the two central arguments for the policy – that it will improve work incentives and end the “unfairness” of out-of-work families receiving more than their in-work equivalents – fall down.
“Contrary to ministers’ rhetoric, the cap will hit in-work as well as out-of-work families. A single person must be working at least 16 hours a week and a couple at least 24 hours a week (with one member working at least 16 hours) to avoid the cap.
“2. It will punish large families and increase child poverty
The cap applies regardless of family size, breaking the link between need and benefits. As a result, most out-of-work families with four children and all those with five or more will be pushed into poverty (defined as having an income below 60 per cent of the median income for families of a similar size). Duncan Smith has claimed that “at £26,000 a year it’s very difficult to believe that families will be plunged into poverty” but his own department’s figures show that the poverty threshold for a non-working family with four children, at least two of whom are over 14, is £26,566 – £566 above the cap. The government’s Impact Assessment found that 52 per cent of those families affected have four or more children.
“By applying the policy retrospectively, the government has chosen to penalise families for having children on the reasonable assumption that existing levels of support would be maintained. While a childless couple who have never worked will be able to claim benefits as before (provided they do not exceed the cap), a large family that falls on hard times will now suffer a dramatic loss of income. It was this that led the House of Lords to vote in favour of an amendment by Church of England bishops to exclude child benefit from the cap (which would halve the number of families affected) but the defeat was subsequently overturned by the government in the Commons.
“The DWP has released no official estimate of the likely increase in child poverty but a leaked government analysis suggested around 100,000 would fall below the threshold once the cap is introduced.
“3. It will likely cost more than it saves
“For all the political attention devoted to it, the cap is expected to save just £110m a year, barely a rounding error in the £201bn benefits bill. But even these savings could be wiped out due to the cost to local authorities of homelessness and housing families in temporary accommodation. As a leaked letter from Eric Pickles’s office to David Cameron stated, the measure “does not take account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation). In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost. In addition Local Authorities will have to calculate and administer reduced Housing Benefit to keep within the cap and this will mean both demands on resource and difficult handling locally.”
“4. It will increase homelessness and do nothing to address the housing crisis
“Most of those who fall foul of the cap do so because of the amount they receive in housing benefit (or, more accurately, landlord subsidy) in order to pay their rent. At £23.8bn, the housing benefit bill, which now accounts for more than a tenth of the welfare budget, is far too high but rather than tackling the root of the problem by building more affordable housing, the government has chosen to punish families unable to afford reasonable accommodation without state support.
“The cap will increase homelessness by 40,000 and force councils to relocate families hundreds of miles away, disrupting their children’s education and reducing employment opportunities (by requiring them to live in an area where they have no history of working).
“5. It will encourage family break-up
“Duncan Smith talks passionately of his desire to reduce family breakdown but the cap will serve to encourage it. As Simon Hughes has pointed out, the measure creates “a financial incentive to be apart” since parents who live separately and divide the residency of their children between them will be able to claim up to £1,000 a week in benefits, while a couple living together will only be able to claim £500.”
The BBC opened with a much sunnier perspective that has caused Vox Political to send a query to the UK Statistics Authority.
According to the report, “More than 12,000 people have moved into work after being told about the benefits cap, the government says.” Oh, really?
“The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) said that 12,000 claimants have found jobs over the last year, after being contacted by job centres,” the BBC report went on. “The job centres warned them they might have their benefits capped if they did not find employment.”
Didn’t Iain Duncan Smith get into trouble only a few months ago, for reporting that 8,000 people had moved into work after being told about the cap?
Only last week, his own officials told the Work and Pensions committee he had ignored small print in their reports, stating clearly that he could not use the figures to claim that any “behavioural change” had taken place.
Vox‘s article last week quoted Dame Anne Begg, who asked: “So no-one checking the written articles from the Secretary of State – from the statisticians’ point of view – actually said ‘Secretary of State – if you look at the little footnote… It says that you cannot interpret that these people have gone into work as a result of these statistics’. Nobody pointed that out?“
John Shield, Director of Communications at the DWP, responded: “In this instance it did involve the press office. I’m just trying to be clear that not everything that comes out of the department will go through us – particularly when there are political ends.”
In other words, the Secretary of State ignored his advisors to make a political point that had no basis in fact. He lied to the public.
How do we know he isn’t doing it again?
A letter to Mr Dilnot is in order, I think.
Finally, to the Daily Mail, where it was reported that “Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith today accused the BBC of launching a ‘politically-motivated’ attack on government plans to cap benefits at £26,000.
“The Work and Pensions Secretary accused the Corporation of using ‘lots of little cases’ to claim that limiting welfare payments would not get people back to work.”
Unfortunately for Mr… Smith, his story unravelled further down the piece, when it was revealed that he told the nation that HIS evidence is right because it’s from people working in Jobcentres: “This is advisers, they talk to me… I talk to people actually in the Jobcentres.”
That’s anecdotal, and may not be used to suggest a national trend. He is using lots of little cases to claim that his cap will work.
So we go from the cold, hard facts, to the comforting fantasy, to the shattering of the Secretary-in-a-State’s temper on national radio when the flaws in his scheme were exposed.
Mail readers, in that paper’s ‘comment’ column, seem to have supported his viewpoint – despite the facts.
Will their opinions change when the horror stories start appearing – or will they stick their fingers in their ears and scream, “La la la I’m not listeniiiiiing!” – as Mr… Smith did (figuratively speaking) on the Today programme?
Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
Vox Political needs your help!
This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions.
Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going.
You can make a one-off donation here:
Alternatively, you can buy Vox Political books!
The second – Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first, Strong Words and Hard Times
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Linda Bruce said:
When this cap starts to affect working families I dread to think what will happen. I feel many who are working Dont understand that they to may be affected, especially those on low incomes.
denise clendinning said:
if they don,t know now they will find out soon enough. i think people in work have been blind to this cap. it effects us all and its a bit too late as all the other changes have all gone through and could not be stopped.
Dave in Wales said:
This is nothing new. It was obvious from the start that the attack on benefits was ideologically motivated and had nothing to do with any genuine concern for the economy. IDS, Cameron and his cronies just want to continue Thatcher’s work of tearing down the Welfare State.
Of course Mail readers will continue to support his stance in the face of evidence. That is, and has always been, their raison d’etre.
Very disppointed at the use of term ‘black’ in title of piece. Using term black in this negative, perorative manner has long been critiqued by anti-racists. Good piece marred by use of unacceptable racialised language
Mike Sivier said:
I knew somebody would come out with this. If that’s all you got from the piece, good luck to you!
(Very-catchy) song out recently included the lyrics “I’ve fallen for a monster … he’s got a black heart” – it just means ‘cruel/hard to fathom’. See also ‘His Dark Materials’ (Philip Pullman); ‘Heart of Darkness’ (Joseph Conrad); ‘Back to Black’ (the late,.great Amy Winehouse) – signalling depression; [‘gone over to] The Dark Side’ etc.
See also ‘whiter than white’ often used to signal ‘pure as the driven snow’/goodness’ etc. also via parallels of light/dark signalling lightness (of mood; happiness/ darkness/evil’). Do (many) anti-racists really question these types colour-related references?
I must admit that I was horrified too when I read that bit on the BBC News website. A complaint is definitely in order.
Mike Sivier said:
Stephen Bee said:
Looking to the other side of the coin, presumably although ideologically inclined towards support for the ConDems, , presumably their will be quite a few of them on low income also. ‘Pray Silence in the room…to hear THEIR pips squeak’, when the cap hits them:-))
Stephen Bee said:
Re-Blogged on my FB Page
Don’t the words of Camerons tweet to the spoof IDS reveal the intention is to get pay down to India/China levels.
How can you increase earnings for the average UK worker by making someone else poorer.
“David Cameron @David_Cameron
We’re rolling out a cap on Benefits today – @IDS_MP and I are determined to make work pay, and help the UK compete on the #GlobalRace.”
denise clendinning said:
iv just read that Suncan smith has said that 12,000 people have moved into work after being told about their benefit,s cap what a load of rubbish. And by capping the rents that started today will only save 100,million. that,s peanuts compared to what they give other country,s.
Pingback: The benefit cap reveals the black centre of IDS’ mind | Ramblings of a Fibro Fogged Mind
Big Bill said:
Ive suggested before Duncan Smith would go mad before our eyes when it became obvious his fantasy of universal credit was exactly that and no more, a fantasy. I’d suggest what we’re seeing now from him is evidence of a breakdown.
It is patently obvious IDS is a megalomaniac of the first order!
He sound slightly Hitler-esque or at the very least mechanical/robotic this morning defending this policy in the face of any and all rational evidence/argument. Would not countenance anything other than ‘people are languishing on benefits’ (as a choice/preference) and that they would just have to ‘get a job’ in order to mitigate the negative effects of losing around £100/month and just have to move if necessary (they are living in houses that are beyond their means/it’s their fault – he is ‘helping’ people …
alan griffiths said:
Shirley not I bet you read the mail and live in the toryism fantasy land you mentioned adolf h
look at his policys pre war is that facism or toryism no difference god help the disabled if all his policys are copied hail the Grinch cameron
Mike Sivier said:
I’d really rather commenters didn’t go making assumptions about each other in public – it sets up the possibility of enmity, and I’d like to avoid that in favour of open discussion, where possible.
The 10 minute clip from todays the R4 Today Programme John Humphies vs. IDS.
I believe LOL
when is he going to be done for lying to parelemt
Pingback: The benefit cap reveals the black centre of IDS...
Pingback: Iain Duncan Smith: Big on belief – lacking in truth | Vox Political
Reblogged this on HUMAN RIGHTS & POLITICAL JOURNAL.
Norma Roberts said:
The results of the poll are in a publication by the DWP (12 July 2013) entitled Public perception of benefit cap and pre implementation impacts.
The poll was done online, 2017 people respoonded. Of those 42% knew a little bit about the benefit cap, 18% had heard of it but knew nothing about it and 8% had never even heard of it! Therefore 1371 of the 2017 did not really know what they were commenting about. Only 32% (646) sid they knew “quite a bit about it”
I therefore submit that the 74% who agreed with the cap needs to just be 74% of the 646 (although I bet the majority of those in favour came from the do not know, know a bit group) 74% of 646 is 478. therefore 478 people out of 2017 agreed with the cap, 478 is approx 24% of 2017 a far cry from 74%!
So the headlines should have read 24% agree with the benefit cap. Poor old IDS he just can’t stop manipulating the facts and figures!
Mike Sivier said:
I’m not so sure about that – you can have 74 per cent of the whole survey agreeing with it after being told just what the surveyers have to tell them about it!
I prefer the results of the Ipsos Mori poll that asked 500 of the 8,000 people IDS claimed had found jobs in order to avoid the benefit cap. Only 45 of those people had done anything at all because they knew the cap was coming – nine per cent of the total claimed.