iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Welfare Reform: Who's For And Against The Benefit Cap Proposal?

Ids Welfare Reform Bishops

The Huffington Post UK   Dina Rickman First Posted: 23/01/2012 12:10 Updated: 23/01/2012 15:38

Amazing
 Inspiring
 Funny
 Scary
 Hot
 Crazy
 Important
 Weird

The government's proposed £26,000 cap on benefits, one of the coalition's most divisive policies since coming to power, is facing a challenge from Liberal Democrats and Bishops in the Lords.

The bill will mean no family can claim more than £500-a-week in welfare, the equivalent amount of a £35,000 salary after tax.

As ministers face a showdown at the House of Lords, we take a look at who is for and against, and why.

FOR: Iain Duncan Smith, and the government. The work and pensions secretary insists the changes won't push families into poverty - and his policy is supported by 76% of the public according to YouGov polling.

IDS was backed up by the prime minister's official spokesperson who said on Monday "The key incentive we are trying to change is the incentive around work.

"We can't have a system where people are claiming benefits which are greater than you would get if you were in a job paying £35,000."

Quick Poll

Should benefits be capped at £26,000 a year?

VOTE

SITTING ON THE FENCE: Labour have taken a mixed position saying they support the camp in principle but are concerned about how it is being implemented. Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne has said Labour will support the bishops' amendment to exclude child benefit from the cap if the party's own amendment is defeated.

AGAINST: So why is it so controversial? In a blog for the Huffington Post CentreForum's chief economist Tim Leunig explains how an average family would have "only £1.64 to live on" under the cap.

"No alternative figures will make any difference: this is simply not a living income for a family with four children in private rented accommodation in a cheap part of outer London."

The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, Rev John Packer, is attempting to change the bill to mean child benefit is excluded. He is supported by the child poverty action group, who argue that the policy is "based on a foundation of myths" and could push 210,000 children into "severe poverty and homelessness.

Chief Executive Alison Garnham added the Bishops' changes were sensible. "We hope a government that promised to be the most family friendly ever will prove it today by following their lead."

Take a look at our slideshow for a run-down of who's for and who's against the cap.

Against.. Lord Ashdown
1  of  11
PLAY
FULLSCREEN
ZOOM
SHARE THIS SLIDE 
"I voted with the Government on everything until now [but] I will not support the benefit cap in its present form...

"The work and pensions Secretary Duncan Smith has said that he accepts the transition arrangements have to be put in place. I know, I know, that Nick Clegg is fighting very, very hard for those transition arrangements to be put in place."

The former Liberal Democrat leader added: "As the President of UNICEF, I think the effect on children across the country of a cap in its present form will be in my view completely unacceptable."
MORE SLIDESHOWS NEXT >   |   < PREV

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

The government's proposed £26,000 cap on benefits, one of the coalition's most divisive policies since coming to power, is facing a challenge from Liberal Democrats and Bishops in the Lords. The ...
The government's proposed £26,000 cap on benefits, one of the coalition's most divisive policies since coming to power, is facing a challenge from Liberal Democrats and Bishops in the Lords. The ...
Related News On Huffington Post:
 

Welfare Reform: Activists Plan 'Daring And Disruptive' Day Of Protest Benefit Cap Defeated By Lords On Bishops Amendment After Labour Flip-Flop Welfare Reform: Labour Could Back Bishops Benefit Cap In House Of Lords Rebels With A Cause: The Biggest House Of Lords Rebellions Iain Duncan Smith Vows Welfare Reforms Will Not Punish Or Force Families Into Poverty Benefit Cap: Ministers Set For Lords Showdown With Bishops And Crossbenchers Lord Ashdown To Vote Against Government On Benefit Reform Iain Duncan Smith Urges Bishops To Back Off In Sunday Times Interview Ahead Of Lords Vote PMQs 18 January 2012 Liveblog Lib Dem Simon Hughes - Benefit Reforms Will 'Break Up Families' Liam Byrne Signals Step-Change In Labour's Attitude To Welfare Anglican Bishops Call For Welfare Cap To Be Eased Tory MP Proposes Benefit Cap For Jobless Households RCMP threat suggests Ottawa doesn't want to protect B.C.: NDP critic
Read more from Huffington Post bloggers:
Ed McRandal

Ed McRandal: Welfare, Fairness and Elections: Has a Government Ever Been So Happy to Lose a Vote

Last night the government lost a vote in the House of Lords on one of its flagship policies- capping the value of benefits that one family can receive to £26,000. You'd expect this to anger, frustrate and irritate Number 10, but I doubt it.
Stuart Bonar

Stuart Bonar: Why I Would Back a Benefits Cap

If, instead of being plain old Stuart Bonar I was swiftly ennobled to Lord Bonar of [my home city] Plymouth, I wouldn't vote alongside Paddy later today, I'd be backing the coalition.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
dancingqueenjo
6 Fans
10:49 on 01/02/2012
wish i got £26.000 a year my pension brings in about £5.000 i would love to live in poverty if i got £26.000
Permalink  |
vchiverton
7 Fans
08:17 on 29/01/2012
this cap is unfair, most of the monies are paid to greedy landlords who have purchased property sold off by tory councils at very cheap rates' they charge hundreds of pounds more than local authorities and pocket massive amounts of monies from dhss claimants and the government, a policy introduced by the so call iron lady.
Permalink  |
photo
MacfarlaneRobin
231 Fans
 
14:25 on 28/01/2012
BSCParty is against the benefits cap as it is presented by the Coaltn. The benefits given to people only amount to £6,000 p/a. Two pensioners are given £10,000p/a and are below the poverty line.The Coalition are misrepresenting the situation by adding the cost of housing to the benefit. This housing cost in London & many inner cities is costing £20,000p/a due to Gov's of all colours ignoring the need for rented accomodation which has suffered a lack of investment since the policy of selling public council houses was started by the Thatcher Gov.It is criminal misrepresentation to knowingly suggest that the benefits of housing costs which are paid direct to private landlords in some cases be seen as part of the benefits system when they are the fault of Parliamentry neglect,amounting to lies on a grand scale. They are lies Equivalent to the lies about the last gov. causing the economic crisis, which we all know was caused by criminal actions of the Rating Agency's and some Banks.
Permalink  |
PlutoPete
2 Fans
17:51 on 26/01/2012
I keep hearing people moaning about the amount paid in benefits but people forget that most of the benefit doesn''t stay with the claimant, it goes to fatcat landlords. A simple return to the fair rent act would slash the amount of housing benefit paid out far more than the current proposals. Lots of working families have to claim housing benefit because rents have gotten out of control, a Fair Rent Act would help every tenant and the treasury.
Permalink  |
Call Me Dave57
59 Fans
10:59 on 27/01/2012
The rent money could go to the local councils in council house rent?

Er....... sorry I forgot the Tories started selling council housing off in the 1980's and Councils haven't had the money to rebuild at the same rate as the houses have been selling.......
Permalink  |
celticflanker
2 Fans
16:56 on 25/01/2012
Politicians do not listen to us, the electorate. Also, Labour under Blair was as bad so picking on one party over these problems is futile. Employers have to pay (or did so as I did the job) working tax credits out of their own cash flow to their employees who qualify and thendeduct those amounts when the monthly PAYE cheque goes off to the Inland Revenue around 6 weeks later, but people moan about the level of wages employers give - are you surprised, they are doing the work of the government? The job I did in the accounts office many years ago can still be obtained on the same level of salary that I had -now that is progress, I don't think. Your job will only last as long as the company has the money to pay your salary, once the customers have gone, so has your job and that is so evident intoday's world.
Permalink  |
Disgruntled1967
0 Fans
10:02 on 24/01/2012
The main stopping point here is that housing cost in certain areas would swallow up the majority of the benefit . so surely if you on a benefit and cannot afford to live in the area where you currently live you should move to a cheaper area, it makes sense if you cannot afford to live somewhere you move to somewhere cheaper it is what those of us not on benefit have to do
Permalink  |
Call Me Dave57
59 Fans
11:01 on 27/01/2012
It doesn't apply to MP's and their gold plated expenses though does it?

Can we see MP's expenses pegged at no more than £26k a year then, 'cos I've a funny feeling, MP's will be listed by the Government as a "special case"?????
Permalink  |
Disgruntled1967
0 Fans
12:29 on 27/01/2012
I completely agree with you, MPs should have to provide receipts and justification for the expense claims they make exactly the same way that I do. they should be based in their constituencies and travel to parliament when and if they need to, claiming the standard milage rate or second class train fare as appropriate. additionally they should make use of modern technology such as video conferencing to reduce the need to travel to london saving the country a fortune and not wasting my taxs
Permalink  |
photo
MacfarlaneRobin
231 Fans
 
14:36 on 28/01/2012
The people we are talking about will have to be uprooted from the support of their families.Making the children also uprooted.They would never find jobs and the schooling of their children would be affected.If you are not on benefits you have considerable advantages, when moving to a new area, over those people who are on benefits. Be thankful you havn't been made redundant yet.
Permalink  |
pkbel2
0 Fans
20:33 on 23/01/2012
just look at the likes of mr eric pickles??????????????????
Permalink  |
pkbel2
0 Fans
20:32 on 23/01/2012
i duncan smith and the rest of the cabinet nor any mp`s have ever done a real day`s graft in there lives, put them on a building site and they`d be dropping like stones from heart attack`s due to the silver spoon lives they`ve enjoyed,,,,
Permalink  |
Call Me Dave57
59 Fans
10:56 on 27/01/2012
"most MP's" - I'll agree with, not "all MP's" however after taking the filty lucre of MP's expenses. I agree nearly all couldn't do a hard days graft on a building site.
Permalink  |
dancingqueenjo
6 Fans
10:51 on 01/02/2012
How many people on benefits have worked a day in their lives
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ben Wilson
Might as well laugh while you still can.
318 Fans
 
19:40 on 23/01/2012
This isn't fair. Who exactly is on more than 26K? We dont know. Certainly not 2.4 children families. More like families of 8 with children who suffer from disabilities. Is this figure bumped up by the cost of living in London and the South and does it also factor in housing benefitts? That could seriously change the face of the situation if your rent is £500+ a month in an area where that is relativly cheap.
I feel very sure the average family on benefitts once you take out housing benefitt doesn't get much more than 9K a year.
Permalink  |
karen1963yorks
My micro bio was empty. Good.
354 Fans
17:47 on 23/01/2012
I wish I was on £26,000 a year even before tax. Not to mention what it cost me to get to work.
Permalink  |
dancingqueenjo
6 Fans
10:52 on 01/02/2012
i agree karen
Permalink  |
taffy terrier
56 Fans
15:18 on 23/01/2012
I am not a tory supporter but I think to a certain extent they are right on this. Why should people who go out to work each day be worse off than a lot of people who just cannot be bothered. I know there are a lot of genuine people on benefits but lets be honest there are also thousands who do not deserve or need the benefits. However if firms were to pay decent wages for a decent days work maybe just maybe people would not be claiming benefits.
Permalink  |
karen1963yorks
My micro bio was empty. Good.
354 Fans
17:48 on 23/01/2012
Well balanced sensible with a LOT of good points.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
UKVisitor
420 Fans
18:33 on 23/01/2012
Firms pay people what they're worth, if the state didn't subsidise housing like this, firms would have to cut the number of staff and pay the ones they kept on more
Permalink  |
photo
William Forbes
6 Fans
14:40 on 23/01/2012
Look at the poll. I think this is a no-brainer. They should seriously consider pushing it down in line with minimum wage. This will stop benefit tourists, make working pay and save the taxpayer money - killing two birds with one stone.
Permalink  |