• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Whatever Happened to all the Fuss about the £20 cut in Universal Credit ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire
The Tories seem to have got away with this one.

Despite all the huffing and puffing in the build up to it happening it seems to have been accepted and died a death in the Media.

Labour are trying to push for an increase in the minimum level of Sick Pay, again this seems to attract little interest in our Newspapers and Television content.

Can we surmise from this most people don't really care about the poorer members of society ?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
I'm not sure it's lack of caring, more like - what is there to report on? News generally requires something to be happening. At the time that the Government were making a decision on Universal credit, that was news because the Government were making a decision that affected - arguably, almost everyone in the country (either by virtue of receiving Universal Credit, or by virtue of having to pay the taxes that must ultimately pay for it). But now it's happened, there's not really any news to report about it. UC is being paid at the same rate as last week and the week before, and the same rate that it was being paid (without much controversy) before Covid hit, isn't exactly exciting news!

Besides, it's not like we've been short of other news to fill all the papers the last month or so, what with Covid-Omicron and sleaze and COP-26 and Storm Arwen and Russia doing more threatening and so on.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,689
Location
Scotland
Can we surmise from this most people don't really care about the poorer members of society ?
Most people are concerned about the poorer members of society, but truly care about taking care of their own families. Which is natural: "While my heart bleeds for others, my first priority is putting food on my own table".
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,178
Location
Fenny Stratford
Can we surmise from this most people don't really care about the poorer members of society
We can surmise the government knows that it has conditioned it's supporters to respond appropriately to dog whistles about benefits supported by the media who blow & reinforce those whistles.

Anyway: We all know people on benefits are wrong uns stealing money off decent hard working people.
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,027
Location
No longer here
Most people are concerned about the poorer members of society, but truly care about taking care of their own families. Which is natural: "While my heart bleeds for others, my first priority is putting food on my own table".
This is about right. Those who need the £20 in Universal Credit have the smallest voices, so we don't hear them very much.
 

341o2

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
1,899
but it was always supposed to be a temporary measure during lockdown, for six months
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
but it was always supposed to be a temporary measure during lockdown, for six months

And? Furlough was supposed to be a temporary measure initially for three months yet the magic money tree managed to drop plenty of dough for various extensions of that.

Given how the cost of living has dramatically increased recently keeping the £20 uplift should have been the right thing to do. There was no chance though, just look at how they voted against providing food for families with kids who were really struggling during school holidays.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,689
Location
Scotland
but it was always supposed to be a temporary measure during lockdown, for six months
But, considering the rise in prices during the time it was in place, removing it leaves people worse off than before the pandemic started. Not to mention that it's a bit much that MPs are taking away the £20/week uplift, while simultaneously arguing that they can't live on £83K/year.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
And? Furlough was supposed to be a temporary measure initially for three months yet the magic money tree managed to drop plenty of dough for various extensions of that.

But they were all still temporary extensions. I don't think anyone in the Government has suggested the aim should be permanently higher spending (other than on health/social care, presumably to be paid for by the recent tax increases)

Given how the cost of living has dramatically increased recently keeping the £20 uplift should have been the right thing to do. There was no chance though, just look at how they voted against providing food for families with kids who were really struggling during school holidays.

I actually do think that something needs to be done to ensure people can buy food etc. However, I'm not sure you can use inflation alone to justify the £20 uplift. The consumer prices index in October was 3.8%. In October last year it was 0.7%. That probably means that since the start of lockdown in March last year, prices have risen by no more than about 4%. Does 4% really equate to £20?

Not to mention that it's a bit much that MPs are taking away the £20/week uplift, while simultaneously arguing that they can't live on £83K/year.

To be clear, I believe it was one MP (out of 650) who argued that. I don't think it's fair to tar the other 649 MPs with the same brush.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
But they were all still temporary extensions. I don't think anyone in the Government has suggested the aim should be permanently higher spending (other than on health/social care, presumably to be paid for by the recent tax increases)

And another UC uplift could have been temporary too. The uplift was a direct response to the pandemic yet we are repeatedly being told the pandemic isn't over.

I actually do think that something needs to be done to ensure people can buy food etc. However, I'm not sure you can use inflation alone to justify the £20 uplift. The consumer prices index in October was 3.8%. In October last year it was 0.7%. That probably means that since the start of lockdown in March last year, prices have risen by no more than about 4%. Does 4% really equate to £20?

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it, I must say. Feeding a family isn't the only thing at play here, utility costs have dramatically risen and people do genuinely face the choice of heating their home this winter or providing sufficient food.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,689
Location
Scotland
I actually do think that something needs to be done to ensure people can buy food etc. However, I'm not sure you can use inflation alone to justify the £20 uplift. The consumer prices index in October was 3.8%. In October last year it was 0.7%. That probably means that since the start of lockdown in March last year, prices have risen by no more than about 4%. Does 4% really equate to £20?
That response presupposes that UC was enough to start with.
To be clear, I believe it was one MP (out of 650) who argued that. I don't think it's fair to tar the other 649 MPs with the same brush.
Sorry. I must've missed Labour's proposed ban on second jobs being passed by 649 to 1.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
The FT had a piece today on increasing UK inequality including UC - linked to impact of increasing inflation
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Sleaze was exposed!
And Omicron came along.

The wider issue of UC is there are people in work being paid it because their employers realise they can get away with paying them less as the state will top it up. I think also when it comes to unemployed people there should be some form of expense provided for costs related to job interview attendance; one issue is it's all well and good having high vacancy numbers, but if the unemployed and the vacancies are not in the same place, unemployed people may not be able to afford travel to a job interview on top of all other living expenses. If they are successful then maybe some support could also be provided with relocation if necessary. All this could help improve standard of living and help the economy overall through higher employment levels. A lot of thought is needed to make something like this work, but the status quo isn't working.
 

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
but it was always supposed to be a temporary measure during lockdown, for six months

That's what I was thinking, if it was temporary during lockdown and mixed signals weren't issued as to it becoming permanent then there's not really any news here

The cost of living is a problem, but it's one in it's own right (just imo)
Not to sound heartless but I think we should address it at core - if we say 'well they helped us temporarily, it should become a permanent thing' will just translate into 'never do the public a temporary favour'. That said they should have seen this coming, at some pointing doing anything temporary no matter how well intended will require a stage where it's been removed
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
Sorry. I must've missed Labour's proposed ban on second jobs being passed by 649 to 1.

I think that's really misrepresenting the arguments. I would guess that hardly anyone has argued for MPs being allowed 2nd jobs on the grounds that they need to top up their salaries. But very sensible arguments have been made that you should allow MPs to spend at least some time on 2nd jobs because they may have existing careers that they will want to return to if they cease to be MPs, they may need to keep up their skills and qualifications, and in principle it's a good thing that MPs have some continuing experience of life outside Westminster. Labour's proposal - as I understand it - was a totally ridiculous - and rather obviously politically-motivated - proposal to allow certain jobs (that happen to be the kind that left-wing people tend to approve of, like being a Doctor) while simultaneously disallowing other jobs (which by an amazing coincidence, happen to be the kinds of jobs that left wing people tend to dislike, like being a director), and doing nothing to address the real problem that needs to be addressed: Limiting the time that MPs can spend on outside jobs, so they don't interfere unduly with their work as an MP. I really don't think it's reasonable to conflate opposition to that proposal with an (alleged) belief that MPs don't get paid enough.
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,323
Location
Stirlingshire
Contributors seem to be ignoring the Minimum Sick Pay part of the post - possibly because they all qualify for reasonable schemes where they work.

If an Employer does not provide their own scheme then you are reliant upon SSP at £120 odd a week or whatever it is.

Should it not be paid at least the minimum wage level - ie £300 odd per week ? for Full Timers.

This was one of the barriers for people who should have self-isolated during the Pandemic, but couldn't afford to.
 

341o2

Established Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
1,899
But, considering the rise in prices during the time it was in place, removing it leaves people worse off than before the pandemic started. Not to mention that it's a bit much that MPs are taking away the £20/week uplift, while simultaneously arguing that they can't live on £83K/year.
Those of us whose principle source of income is our pensions also have seen costs rise but not a penny more in support.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
Contributors seem to be ignoring the Minimum Sick Pay part of the post - possibly because they all qualify for reasonable schemes where they work.

If an Employer does not provide their own scheme then you are reliant upon SSP at £120 odd a week or whatever it is.

Should it not be paid at least the minimum wage level - ie £300 odd per week ? for Full Timers.

This was one of the barriers for people who should have self-isolated during the Pandemic, but couldn't afford to.

Yes, set it to minimum wage level PROVIDED (a) the Government pays for it (funded out of taxation) - it's not really fair to expect employers to pay £300/week to someone who isn't actually working, and (b) you can put in place some system to be able to randomly check that people claiming it actually are sick
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,689
Location
Scotland
(a) the Government pays for it (funded out of taxation) - it's not really fair to expect employers to pay £300/week to someone who isn't actually working,
I suppose the Government should pay for maternity leave and paid holiday as well - not fair to expect them to pay for someone who isn't actually working.
(b) you can put in place some system to be able to randomly check that people claiming it actually are sick
Why is there a need for random checks? The current system - self-certification for short periods, doctor's note for longer ones works.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,022
Location
SE London
I suppose the Government should pay for maternity leave and paid holiday as well - not fair to expect them to pay for someone who isn't actually working.

Maternity leave... actually the Government already mostly does. Employers pay it initially but small businesses can claim it all back from the Government. Larger businesses can claim most of it back.

Paid holiday... not really the same because how much time you have to pay people holiday pay for is predictable. You basically know that each employee will (in normal circumstances) be on holiday for a certain number of weeks per year, and you can therefore reliably factor that into your decision about what salary you can afford to offer them when you first employ them. Sick leave on the other hand varies randomly from person to person - hence why it's a bit unfair to expect businesses - particularly small businesses - to foot the bill (If it was raised to about £300/week - which I do btw think is a good idea - it could be crippling to a small business that gets unlucky in terms of staff going off sick)

Why is there a need for random checks? The current system - self-certification for short periods, doctor's note for longer ones works.

Because if you raised it to £300, you have much more incentive for people to cheat, so you need stronger checks to prevent that.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,543
Location
Elginshire
Because if you raised it to £300, you have much more incentive for people to cheat, so you need stronger checks to prevent that.
Or, you could always trust people not to cheat the system! In many companies absence is a disciplinary matter, so that in itself is a "deterrent" to people taking time off sick when they're not (it's also incredibly unfair to those who do have genuine illnesses).

Having a higher rate of sick pay also allows people to properly recover without the worry of being unable to pay the bills when they're off. They may be off work for longer, but if they come back to work too early there's always the chance of them going off sick again - two absences, but same illness. What about people with "hidden" illnesses like anxiety or depression? An employer could potentially do a random check and find that the employee "looks fine". Just because someone isn't bed-ridden and sniffling into a basin of hot water with a towel over their head does not mean they're not genuinely too ill to work.

In many places you don't get sick pay for the first couple of days anyway, which is in itself a disincentive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top