Dear Lazyweb - Lib Dem benefits policy

[wildeabandon]

Can anyone point me at a the Lib Dem policy on benefits, particularly incapacity benefit? The Tory plans to make the testing more stringent have nixed any plans I might have had to vote for them at the next election, and Labour seem to be going the same way (as well as there being the whole civil liberties problem). This makes the Lib Dems the most likely choice, but after searching through their website I've found a bunch of soundbites, and a paper about helping young people find work, but nothing else more solid, and I'd like to have a bit more of a basis for my decisions.

Comments

[robert_jones]

Is it really wise to determine your vote on this narrow issue? Cameron said yesterday, "Thirty years ago this party won an election fighting against 98% taxes on the richest. Today I want us to show even more anger about 96% taxes on the poorest." (And it got a big cheer.) High rates of marginal taxation on the poor are a difficult issue, and I'm not sure how easy he'll find it to answer once in office, but he has at least identified the right question.

Any way, surely we do think that people should only receive incapacity benefit if they genuinely are incapable? So testing the claimants in a rigorous but fair way seems like a good idea to me. (The dispute on that policy rather being, AIUI, that Labour are already implementing it, and the Tories are exaggerating the potential savings.) I mean, I don't think they're planning on raising the bar, they just want to be more certain that everyone genuinely is passing the bar.

[wildeabandon]

Is it really wise to determine your vote on this narrow issue?
It wouldn't be, if that was what I was doing, but since my preferences between the Tories and the Lib Dems are pretty close, and this is an issue that I do give quite a lot of weight to, it's likely to swing it for me, unless the Lib Dems do something else I strongly disapprove of.

I agree that in principle people should only get incapacity benefit in they're genuinely incapable, but more rigorous testing will also eliminate people with genuine but difficult to prove illnesses and disabilities such as CFS, chronic pain, depression, and other affective disorders (in fact, actually having these illnesses make make it /harder/ to pass the more rigorous tests). Obviously there has to be some balance between excluding some people who are genuinely eligible and allowing those who aren't to claim, but I think that this balance is already too far to exclusion side of the equation.

[robert_jones]

I'm not by any means an expert on this issue, but AIUI the problem (as seen by the tories) is not that the current testing regime is insufficiently rigorous, but that it was insufficiently rigorous in the past (because HMG were trying to deflate the unemployment figures by reclassifying the unemployed as incapacitated) and that these people should now be retested.

[the_alchemist]

One of the biggest problems seems to be the number of people who are successful, but only on appeal. If the initial test were fit for purpose, it would both reduce the stress and difficulty for applicants, and save taxpayer's money. I don't know whether making it fit for purpose would involve making it more or less rigorous, or a bit of both.

Having to go to appeal is much more likely to deter genuine applicants (who are more likely to have issues with energy and so on) than frauds.

[andrewducker]

Any feelings on the Tories Europe/homophobia debacle that's going on at the moment?

[jamesofengland.livejournal.com]

Are you in a constituency where your vote matters? I know that the choice about whether or not to single issue vote is likely to be easy one for me, being entirely substantive consequence free, leaving the statement as all there is.

[wildeabandon]

I don't feel especially strongly about it per se. The claims that they weren't homophobic were clearly disingenuous, but you can't really say "Well yes, we know they're homophobic, but we have to link with them because everyone else is more pro-Europe than us". I'm more concerned that no-one has gone "hrm, if they only people who agree with us on Europe are this extreme on other issues, maybe we should rethink our position on Europe".

[wildeabandon]

Last election's results were
Liberal Democrat: 20512 (43.3%)
Labour: 18117 (38.3%)
Conservative: 6014 (12.7%)
Other: 2687 (5.7%)
Majority: 2395 (5.1%)

So given that swinging towards Labour is unlikely in the current climate, and the Tories need an extra 30%, it's probably fairly safe.

[djm4]

I'm more concerned that no-one has gone "hrm, if they only people who agree with us on Europe are this extreme on other issues, maybe we should rethink our position on Europe".

Well, of course, Edward McMillan-Scott did exactly that. The Tories threw him out of the party.

[jamesofengland.livejournal.com]

Do you know of a european party that doesn't contain ghastly unconscionables? On the assumption that you're a lib-dem, I'll exclude the euro-dems from consideration so that it remains non-personal to point out the hideousness.

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

This seems the most relevant thing I could find on their website:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ld-migrated-assets/assets/0000/9364/Policy_Paper_80_-_Freedom_from_Poverty_Opportunity_for_All_-_motion_as_passed_by_conference.pdf

- and there's a little more here:
http://www.libdems.org.uk/Issues.aspx?issue=Pensions_and_Benefits&pPK=d6ab4e3b-2db4-4ba4-bc57-8def80814182&show=policy

[jamesofengland.livejournal.com]

In that case, it sounds like the sound bites are what matter, what the publically heard statement would be about, and as if you should prolly wave the yellow flag. Given that there won't be a Lib-Dem government, it's the stuff that gets into the media that's likely to influence the final statutes and interpretations thereof, any detailed policy being there purely to butter up the activists or ward off attacks.

[mirrorshard]

I generally agree with your points here, but I'd go further and say that the current bar is neither too low, nor too high, but pointing in the wrong direction. It's like assessing someone's suitability for the hop-skip-and-jump using a javelin and a jar of lemon curd.

The Tory policies are expensive and punitive and - since they're aimed not at fairness, but specifically at reducing the number of people on incapacity benefit - will cause too much collateral damage. Re-interviewing someone (or even "just" making them fill the Form of Doom in again) with an obvious eye to potentially cutting their benefit is going to be stressful and unpleasant for them, and will make a significant proportion of them more incapacitated than they were before. ("Not eligible for incapacity benefit? Six months on JSA and you will be.")

[merrythebard]

Do you really think it's a narrow issue? It affects a very large number of people. Those on benefits, those who struggle on - or fail to - without applying for benefits they are entitled to because the process is so demoralising and exhausting. And those who are turned down, in most cases as far as I can see because the bar is currently too high, and has been for the past few years. Not to mention the partners, friends and - above all - children/other dependants of all of the above.

How a society treats those unable to support themselves materially strikes me as one of the most essential questions of government and morality there is.

As a personal aside - which is irrelevant to my point but perhaps you should note it - it is an issue that strongly affects several people you know.

[wildeabandon]

Thanks. The policy paper behind that motion was pretty informative, and it sounds a lot closer to the way I would like things to be, if not perfect.

[i-am-toast.livejournal.com]

I asked my partner (Lib Dem councillor) and his response was that the news page of their website is the best place to check for particular issues if they aren't covered in the general policy documents. He added he would be happy to have a chat if you think improvements could be made for those looking for info that he could pass on.

[i-am-toast.livejournal.com]

Specifics of how benefit allowance are accorded is a narrow issue when you take into balance how the parties plan to fund National Services as a whole. For example, I would consider NHS propositions to be more important than benefit allocation policy, because it is a) a much more widely used resource, b) has a more important role to play if you value life across the board (I am not being flippant here; there are good arguments to be had about the balance between life maintanence and quality) but most importantly for this discussion, c) at a higher tier it can affect exactly the kind of situations that result in benefit allowance being necessary.

On balance, benefit allowance is a narrow issue to base your vote upon, purely because you need to have a good view of the knock-on effects of other policies.

[i-am-toast.livejournal.com]

Possibly because I have not been in the unfortunate situation of having been in need of incapacity benefit, I read the proposals rather differently. I saw them more as robert_jones suggests above; helping to get those who had been shelved as incapacitated (to reduce the number of unemployed on the books) into a position where they could work and to improve the prospects of those who cannot find work.

I am going to write a little about this at my own journal (i_am_toast on lj) so as not to sidetrack this discussion.

[meihua]

I don't have a comment to make on the Lib Dem approach towards benefits, but I do on your post in general: Thank you for being a voter who looks at policy and for considering your vote accordingly so that you vote for the party whose policies you agree with.

[mirrorshard]

About all I can say in reply, I'm afraid, is that I admire your trust in their intentions.

I'm not fond of the "shelved as incapacitated" meme; most people who need to claim incapacity benefit do so because they are incapacitated. I was offered help and support finding work I could do, and informed that it wouldn't prejudice my benefit; it wouldn't have done me any good, so I didn't take it up, but I certainly didn't get shelved or sidelined.

As for getting them into a position where they could work, I don't think that reducing their weekly income from nearly £90 to nearly £60 would do anything to help that. Bear in mind also that the Jobcentre "finding work" system is inflexible, requires a great deal of regular and systematic commitment from the claimant (you're required to inform the Benefits Delivery Centre if you're going to be away from home, even for one day) and aimed very firmly at a particular model of employment.

[i-am-toast.livejournal.com]

I think there are a number of people who can work but choose to take the, if not easier, then the less convoluted option of benefits. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't prefer to work - simply that the work offered would be like telling a dyslexic to proof read, or an anorexic to taste-test chocolates: pure anathema to the individual and a dispiriting lack of understanding on the part of the job centre. I don't think any party are going to be magic and fairies, but I have my priorities and support anything that veers close to them these days :)

I wrote a little about this here: http://i-am-toast.livejournal.com/230517.html if you are interested.

[(Anonymous)]

It is a two horse race here. Only the Lib Dems can beat Labour.

[(Anonymous)]

It does make a change, doesn't it, from the uneducated and unthinking masses. What I wonder though is whether it makes a difference finding out what the policies are when the parties seem to think of most manifesto commitments as being optional anyway. Surely it's best just to vote for the party with the prettiest leader?

Democracy - don't you just love it as a political system?

[robert_jones]

I do think Tory policy on Europe is bonkers. It's not quite clear to me what they're trying to accomplish, but whatever it is, they'll need allies of substance to accomplish it. The EPP isn't perfect, but it's clearly better than the alternatives.