Scrap sanctions targets and keep the bottom rung

There are a lot of things in the Scottish Labour manifesto which Calton does not agree with, however, scrapping benefit sanctions targets is one policy he can wholeheartedly support. It is totally iniquitous to set sanctions targets for job centre staff when they are supposed to be helping folk into work. It is a system open to abuse and is one of the reasons for the rise in foodbanks we have seen recently. There is nothing wrong with sanctions for those who are claiming jobseekers allowance while having no intention of looking for work. Such people are actually a tiny minority. What is wrong is sanctioning people who genuinely want to find work for things like not turning up to the job centre because they were at a job interview! The success or otherwise of job centres should not be measured by the number of sanctions they dish out but by the number of people they help back into work, and by "work" Calton means a proper job with a decent number of hours and job security, not a zero hours contract. Job centres also need to end the practice of pushing the unemployed into self-employment when they don't actually have a viable business plan which will earn them a sufficient income. Starting your own business is not an easy route out of unemployment, as many failed entrepreneurs can testify. It is not for the faint-hearted and what bothers Calton about all the calls for a higher minimum wage from Labour and other parties is that, if implemented, it could well either discourage employers from taking on more staff or put them out of business altogether. We need to be making it easier for businesses to employ people, not harder because, at the end of the day, if we knock out the bottom rung of the employment ladder (ie minimum wage jobs), we will consign ever more people to endless unemployment and that is not a good thing for any of us.

HOW much?

Why are the Scottish Government spending taxpayers' money on a report which will only kick in if Scotland becomes independent? Talk about pre-empting the referendum result! Sounds to Calton more like a bribe to vote YES - if you are on minimum wage - and this from the selfsame government which refused to mandate the living wage for government contracts in the recent procurement bill. At the time they used the EU as their excuse, which is a bit rich from a party committed to an independent Scotland remaining in the EU.

The scourge of the working poor is one which Calton would like to see removed from our society but we need to be careful that hiking the minimum wage does not cost jobs. Trying to mitigate the hike by reducing employer's NI contributions will not always work, particularly for the likes of cleaning employers who typically employ people on part-time contracts where the hours are so low that they do not pay NI.

As for the rest of the report, the only positive measure is the proposed increase in carer's allowance - the rest is just a return to the bad old days of a bloated benefit system where many were better off on benefits than in work and, as usual, it is unclear how the Scottish Government would pay for it all. Calton is just thankful that it is unlikely to be implemented as, even with blatant bribes such as this, the Yes campaign are still failing to make any headway in the polls. They just don't get that canny Scots want to know how much something will cost before committing themselves! And, while we're on the subject, how much did the expert group on welfare's report cost us?

Don't forget the poor singles

Calton is not at all surprised that those in poverty are now more likely to be working than on the dole. He's also not surprised that they are likely to be single, childless adults. If you don't have children, you lose all benefits as soon as your income goes over about £100 a week but you don't qualify for working tax credit unless you work at least 30 hours a week. That is becoming increasingly difficult in these days of zero hours contracts and part-time work. The result - a lot of single people stuck in a poverty trap. It is good that child poverty has fallen, according to the latest Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, and pensioners are also better off, however a truly just, fair society will look after all its members, something which British society is currently failing to do. If we don't end the scourge of low wages and under-employment, we are stoking up a problem for the future when poor single people reach pension age and do not have anything apart from the state pension to fall back on. Perhaps the new Universal Credit should recognise the reality that full-time employment remains a dream for many people and include a graded benefit rather than the current step-change at 30 hours a week. Now that would be progressive.

How not to get washed away

The SNP want independence but they want to keep the pound. And the Queen. And the pensions and benefits system, at least for a while, provided they can change it to suit their own agenda. What is the point? The more we think about independence, the more it becomes obvious how intertwined we are with the rest of the UK and how difficult it would be to separate. That is why Calton is planning to vote No next year, even although he believes in the principle of self-determination in general. When it comes to the specifics, it is just too risky, especially in the current economic climate, and it seems unnecessary when we have so many devolved powers, with more possibly on the table. Even the Scottish Tory leader seems to be coming round to that idea, thus provoking the ire of some Conservatives who elected her on the basis of her 'line in the sand'. Looks like the tide has well and truly washed that one away, leaving Davidson looking ever so slightly tottery. Better to build your foundations on a rock, Ruth.

The nanny state - colluding in child abuse?

Calton does not think for a minute that all those on benefits are swinging it or are having kids just to get the child benefit, however you don't have to knock on too many doors in our towns and cities to find out that quite a lot of people know of at least one family in their neighbourhood who are doing quite nicely on the state, thankyou very much. Like the single mum with five kids who was given a privately rented 5 bedroom house, opposite a lady Calton knows, and who had enough money to afford regular taxis here, there and everywhere, plus a boyfriend who, although not living with her, put in a fairly regular appearance. Philpott was an extreme but there are plenty of others who have made a career out of not working, assisted by the state. We know that there is now a problem with generational unemployment - no wonder when kids see their parents doing well without having to go out to work. Such children may be well-looked after and well-behaved but they are learning to be dependent on welfare, not on their own efforts. Is that not a subtle form of child abuse, colluded in by the nanny state?

We need to talk about benefits

George Osborne is quite right in saying that we need to have a debate on whether the state should be paying for those who clearly do not want to work. In seeking to ensure that children do not have to go to bed cold and hungry in modern Britain, we have created a situation where, instead, they are being used as income sources by the likes of Mike Philpott. Which is more damaging, Calton wonders? Children should be valued for themselves, not for the money they bring into the home, and some are still going to bed cold and hungry in 2013. Scrapping the subsidy for renewables which we are all paying through our fuel bills would be a good start to solving that particular problem, as would reducing fuel duty, which affects the price of nearly everything we buy in our supermarkets. Shifting the focus away from topping up the earnings of the low paid via tax credits to supporting businesses to pay a higher hourly rate would also help. The increase in the tax-free allowance to £10k is already helping to take many low-paid workers out of the tax system and Calton is very much in favour of it - one of the few things he agrees with the Westminster Libdems on. Work needs to pay and welfare should only be for those who really need it, not the work-shy.

No easy answer

The UK is in debt up to its neck and it's predicted to more than double in the next two years. We are in serious shit. We need to either cut spending or raise taxes, or both. We've already tried printing money via quantitative easing and we're still in the shit, plus the value of our savings is being eroded by low interest rates and rising inflation. That's why Calton has little sympathy with those who are protesting against the latest benefit cuts. Our welfare system is bloated and unaffordable. It desperately needs reform, which is going to be painful. What is being ignored in the current arguments is the pain also being suffered by pensioners who see their life savings being eroded by low interest and high inflation. The pain suffered by workers who have not had a pay rise for years, for whom 1% would seem like a dream. Yes, we should be looking after the old, the sick and the vulnerable but we also seem to be looking after a lot of other people who do not fall into those three categories and that has to stop. The under-occupancy reduction in housing benefit needs to have some discretion built into to it for disabled people and for those who can't immediately find a smaller property but we really need to free up larger properties for families on the waiting lists and that seems to be getting forgotten about in all the hoo-ha. There's no easy answer to our nation's problems but one thing is for sure - spending our way out of debt is not an option.

Get real, folks

Calton is in favour of reducing housing benefit for under-occupancy, for the reasons he outlined in an earlier post, and it is interesting that no-one seems to be mentioning examples of young single people in two bedroom flats in the recent media coverage of the 'bedroom tax'. He does, however, think that there needs to be exceptions for those with disabilities. He also thinks that social housing tenants should not be penalised if their local authority or housing association cannot provide them with a smaller home. As long as they are on the waiting list for a smaller house they should continue to get full housing benefit. Surely that would not be too difficult to administer? What is clear is that, for far too long, people on housing benefit have had carte blanche to stay in whatever size of house they like, in whatever area, all paid for by the state and the piggy bank is now empty. Welcome to the real world folks - Calton would love to have a bigger eyrie (with super-fast broadband) but, at Edinburgh prices, his funds won't stretch to it. Why should you be any different?

Scottish values

So the SNP have set up a team of experts to look at alternatives to the benefit cuts being brought in by the Westminster Government. Nicola Sturgeon, in an interview in the Sunday Herald, makes it clear that the Coalition Government are being unfair and are out of step with "Scottish values" when it comes to welfare. They may well be but they are also trying to cut the deficit racked up by Labour, some of which Scotland will inherit if we become independent. The experts are expected, among other things, to "provide assurance" on the Scottish Government's cost estimates for its welfare plans. Sounds like they have already been told what the answer should be. Will any of them dare to stick their head above the parapet if the SNP's sums don't add up? Calton is sure that most Scots would like things like free personal care for the elderly and free prescriptions to continue but we have to be able to pay for them. Calton wonders if, in her eagerness to distance her party from Westminster, Nicola has forgotten that being careful with the pennies is also a good old "Scottish value".

Calton's 1p worth

Calton fully supports the idea of a national discussion/debate/call it what you like as long as we talk about how best to spend our money so that it benefits the most/most needy in society. So here's his tuppence ha'penny worth (or 1p in new money):

Given that no-one now gets a state pension on their 60th birthday, and in a few years no-one will get one before their 65th birthday, it does not make sense to be giving out free bus passes to 60 year-olds. If we decide to keep free bus travel for pensioners it should start on the date they actually get their state pension.

Payment for local services should be based on ability to pay ie income, not on the size of house you live in. The so-called 'mansion tax' idea being touted south of the border penalises elderly people who are equity rich but cash poor because all their money is tied up their home. We don't want that up here. Tax earnings, not assets.

If we keep free personal care for the elderly, we need to understand that the cost will be cuts in other services for the elderly, such as subsidised gardening or day care centres.

Let the debate commence.

Fat chance Alex

If Calton were Alex Salmond he would not be quite so quick to rubbish the idea that an independent Scotland would not be able to afford current levels of welfare without raising taxes. On a recent visit to a hospital, Calton was shocked at the number of obese people he saw as he sat in the reception area, and that was just the staff. Add to that Scotland's drink problem, our failed methadone program, the number of people who still smoke plus an aging population and high unemployment and you don't need a maths degree to work out that a dwindling healthy workforce is paying for an increasing number of welfare claimants. The cost of caring for the elderly is soaring and the NHS is quite literally buckling under the weight of fat patients. If the SNP wants to keep its flagship policy of free personal care it will have to raise taxes sooner or later unless it can persuade the people of Scotland to adopt a more healthy lifestyle (fat chance). The First Minister's comments today may well come back to haunt him.

The poor ones

Lest anyone should think that Calton is totally against benefits, after his rant on Monday, he would like to say that he is behind Save the Children's latest campaign to get more help for low-paid families. They are the ones who are really suffering at the moment as their income fails to keep up with inflation. It is truly shocking that children are going hungry in 21st century Britain and an indictment on our benefit system. We should be supporting those who are working rather than paying for the unemployed to stay in houses bigger than they need. Iain Duncan Smith's reforms are a step in the right direction however it will take more drastic action than has yet been proposed to reverse the benefit culture bequeathed to us by Labour. The best route out of poverty is work, not benefits.

The Young Ones

Calton has just been given a copy of Fife Council's advice about benefit changes. In it, they have an example of two unemployed young men, aged 22 and 23, who each live alone in a 2-bedroom rented flat paid for by the taxpayer. When the benefit changes come into force next April their housing benefit will be reduced by 14% because their flats will be classed as 'under-occupied'. If Calton had his way their benefit would be slashed by 50% and they would be told to move in together. If they want to have a 2-bedroom flat all to themselves they should get a job and put up with anti-social flatmates until they have saved enough money to put down a deposit on a home of their own, helped by the Government's new scheme. That's what Calton and many of his peers did when they were in their early 20's. Why should this generation be any different? How did we end up in the situation where guys that age expect to be given flats for nothing? Thirty years ago you counted yourself lucky if you had a room of your own in a shared flat! This benefit nonsense has to stop.

End of the line for the tax credit gravy train

There's been a predictable outcry today about the tax credit changes which come into force tomorrow but the question Calton wants to ask is how on earth we got into the situation where we were paying child tax credit to 90% of families, including some with a household income of more than £40,000, in the first place? Of course those who are now losing the benefit are going to scream but they shouldn't have had it to begin with. It was part of a big tax giveaway by Gordon Brown designed to keep the country voting Labour and it failed. The great British public are not that stupid. Is it really so unfair to ask that a couple with children work at least 24 hours a week between them in order to qualify for working tax credit? A single parent has to work at least 16 hours a week to qualify and someone without children has to work at least 30 hours. The tax credit gravy train is running out and about time too. It is a fundamentally flawed system, with all or nothing cutoffs, which has grown like topsy and now urgently needs to be replaced. Increasing the personal tax allowance is a good start.

The great benefits black hole

There's been a bit of a hoo-ha tonight over the Lords' vote to exclude child benefit from the Government's proposed household benefit cap but Calton thinks it's a bit of a distraction, given that the real black hole into which benefit money is disappearing is excessive rents on large private properties rented by unemployed families. Properties which working families can only dream of owning (or renting). Many working families have to relocate to find or keep a job. What's so wrong about unemployed families having to do the same in order to find a cheaper place to live and so be less of a burden on the taxpayer? The current situation, where a single mother can live in a privately rented 5-bedroom, double-garage house in a nice area all paid for by the state, while a few doors down, an elderly woman who has worked all her life, along with her husband, to bring up a family has never been able to afford more than a small 3-bedroom home, cannot be allowed to continue. It's just not fair.