I know where @Hugal lives - and no, that's not a threat, and I'd define it as a small urban hub within a semi-rural area.
The buses go east-west or west-east along the coast road but if you went north of that for a mile or two you wouldn't find any public transport whatsoever.
It's a semi-rural area which bleeds into suburbia and urban fringe at the eastern and western ends.
It would feel less semi-rural to someone who lived on one of the Scottish Islands but very rural to someone from inner-city London or Birmingham.
That is much better than I could have put it. Thanks
I won't try to summerise it but here's what the Prof, himself said by tweet today:
October Budget 6: Thanks to Truss, bond market scare stories are back
The idea that if Reeves wanted to borrow an extra £30 billion, say, the markets would refuse to lend that to the UK government and precipitate a crisis is just ludicrous.
In his autobiography, Bill Clinton has various 'rules of politics.' I mention that here as in the two decades or so since I read it, I've found them to be consistently apposite to contemporary events. One such rule is that in order to have good governance you need both good policy and good politics.
I have very little complaint about policy choices made by Labour so far. (And I bet most of their detractors have no clue about what they have already done). However, the politics has not been up to scratch.
All this is a lead up to saying that Reeves has an incredibly difficult job. She must present a budget that is both good policy and good politics. The level of scrutiny and pressure on a Labour Chancellor is at least ten times that on a Conservative one.
However, the state of the nation is such that she must be very brave.
We shall see. However, so many of the critics of what they think she will do are wilfully naive of how difficult it actually is.
AFZ
I do know what they have done. The good and the bad. I am aware of a good number of their proposals. I am still a detractor. There is never an excuse to make pensioners and kids worse off. Ever. I can’t prove it but from what I have seen and heard they were told about the hole in the finances. If they didn’t know they were not listening to advice. I know that the chancellor talked about cutting Universal Pension Credit in opposition. It looks suspicious now that she is saying she is using it to help fill the hole. As I said in a previous post I keep my ear to the ground.
I don't know if it's still running but back in the day in the West Midlands they was a 'Ring and Ride' service for those that needed it
We had one until last year then funding freezes made it impossible for the operator to continue and when they didn't renew the contract the council pulled all the funding.
We also have a version of Ring and Ride - Dial-A-Ride is a local charity that's been going for about 25 years, but it is restricted to over-60s and disabled local people. They also do things like taking people to the nearest bank once a week, now there is no bank here, and collecting people's prescriptions and delivering them from the local pharmacy. Sometimes they do trips to the theatre or days out, too.
[
I am still a detractor. There is never an excuse to make pensioners and kids worse off. Ever.
This is where your argument goes off the rails. 27% of pensioners live in households with a net worth of over £1m. Making said households worse off by £200 per year is hardly a crime.
And now they have to deal with the drivers on the Tube going on strike. Yes, I know in theory that isn't a problem for central government but with a Labour mayor any deal cut will be laid at the door of Westminster when it comes to affordability.
[
I am still a detractor. There is never an excuse to make pensioners and kids worse off. Ever.
This is where your argument goes off the rails. 27% of pensioners live in households with a net worth of over £1m. Making said households worse off by £200 per year is hardly a crime.
No it doesn’t. It is only 27%. Are you saying those who just miss out on pension credit should suffer because 27% can afford it? As I said the easiest and cheapest way to get money to those who need it is to give it universally. So 27% get money they don’t need. It is better that those who need it get it.
[
I am still a detractor. There is never an excuse to make pensioners and kids worse off. Ever.
This is where your argument goes off the rails. 27% of pensioners live in households with a net worth of over £1m. Making said households worse off by £200 per year is hardly a crime.
No it doesn’t. It is only 27%. Are you saying those who just miss out on pension credit should suffer because 27% can afford it? As I said the easiest and cheapest way to get money to those who need it is to give it universally. So 27% get money they don’t need. It is better that those who need it get it.
No. You're twisting my words. You made an absolutist statement.
Ms Reeves said the Restoring Your Railway fund needed to be cut, saving £85 million in committed funding, to plug a £21.9 billion black hole in public finances.
[
I am still a detractor. There is never an excuse to make pensioners and kids worse off. Ever.
This is where your argument goes off the rails. 27% of pensioners live in households with a net worth of over £1m. Making said households worse off by £200 per year is hardly a crime.
No it doesn’t. It is only 27%. Are you saying those who just miss out on pension credit should suffer because 27% can afford it? As I said the easiest and cheapest way to get money to those who need it is to give it universally. So 27% get money they don’t need. It is better that those who need it get it.
People had been enouraged to pay for a small pension to boost their old age pension. Many did and they are now worse off.
[
I am still a detractor. There is never an excuse to make pensioners and kids worse off. Ever.
This is where your argument goes off the rails. 27% of pensioners live in households with a net worth of over £1m. Making said households worse off by £200 per year is hardly a crime.
No it doesn’t. It is only 27%. Are you saying those who just miss out on pension credit should suffer because 27% can afford it? As I said the easiest and cheapest way to get money to those who need it is to give it universally. So 27% get money they don’t need. It is better that those who need it get it.
No. You're twisting my words. You made an absolutist statement.
Sorry didn’t mean it to come across like that. Looking back I see. Sorry again
[
I am still a detractor. There is never an excuse to make pensioners and kids worse off. Ever.
This is where your argument goes off the rails. 27% of pensioners live in households with a net worth of over £1m. Making said households worse off by £200 per year is hardly a crime.
No it doesn’t. It is only 27%. Are you saying those who just miss out on pension credit should suffer because 27% can afford it? As I said the easiest and cheapest way to get money to those who need it is to give it universally. So 27% get money they don’t need. It is better that those who need it get it.
No. You're twisting my words. You made an absolutist statement.
Sorry didn’t mean it to come across like that. Looking back I see. Sorry again
No worries.
It's a sensitive issue. Governments must, must, must take care when making decisions that affect vulnerable people. It is objectively true that the various administrations from 2010-24 did not do this. It is also true that simply being not quite as bad as the Tories is not a meaningful standard to hold the current government to. We should expect more than that.
My point was simply that there are a lot of very well off pensioners and reducing their incomes very slightly is far from evil and arguably a moral good. I.e. why should taxpayers who often have a lot less than this group subsidise their lifestyle?
I don't think you and I disagree at all about the moral imperative to look after the poorest pensioners and those who are slightly better off but still at significant risk of fuel poverty.
As I said on another thread, I think the argument is not the winter fuel payment, but far wider than that.
I have a feeling Ms Reeves is going to "allow" local councils to do away with the single occupant discount - an easy way to boost the coffers of councils that won't cost the Treasury a bean. And of course, you can pretty much guarantee that every council in the country (excepting Scotland) will take full advantage.
What you want is a cheap self-driving electric taxi that will come and get you, and adjust its route to pick up other people conveniently on the way.
It's interesting to think about the interface for that. @Arethosemyfeet points out the issue of people that don't want strangers getting in their taxi (women, minors, ...), or don't want to get in to a taxi with a random stranger in it. Even if the taxi has video recording etc.
Often you have time constraints - do you say "I need to be at 125 Main Street by 5pm", and that allows the taxi to take a small detour only if it will still get you to your destination on time? Or does the service guarantee that it won't increase your journey time by more than 20%, or 10 minutes, to accommodate someone else? Or does it offer no promises, and you'll have to put up with whenever you arrive at your destination, unless you pay a premium for a private ride?
All trains seem to end up in Crewe anyway so might as well make it official.
Hee hee.
I think Lord Adonis summed it up best. I'm paraphrasing but he said that HS2 with both it's northern legs will be built, the only question is when. And the longer we leaving the more it will cost us in lost opportunity.
And this is because it's ALL about rail capacity. The reinstitution of these parts of it are a good start.
The one thing our economy needs more than anything else is capital investment.
Ultimately, it's a lot more expensive not to do these things.
No magic. No tree. Just real economics. We have just lived through a decade and a half of a government that chose to ignore reality. The end result is a public realm that is falling apart despite a higher tax burden.
It will take a long time to fix but rail investment is a key part of this. Especially when we also need to reduce our CO2 production.
I mean, perhaps taxes are not necessary. Perhaps it is possible to exert Keynesian influence on the economy through government borrowing and spending only.
The one thing our economy needs more than anything else is capital investment.
Ultimately, it's a lot more expensive not to do these things.
No magic. No tree. Just real economics. We have just lived through a decade and a half of a government that chose to ignore reality. The end result is a public realm that is falling apart despite a higher tax burden.
It will take a long time to fix but rail investment is a key part of this. Especially when we also need to reduce our CO2 production.
I doubt that manual workers use much rail travel and many white collar workers like to work from home.
But in that case the money supply is a constraint. The government cannot add too much to the money supply because that would cause too much inflation. So the degree to which government expenditure can outstrip government income is limited.
It only causes inflation at the point where demand exceeds the productive capacity of the economy.
At the moment the UK is at relatively full employment, so yes, in this case they are probably going to have to reduce consumption somewhere else (and tax) in order to be able to invest in infrastructure.
The one thing our economy needs more than anything else is capital investment.
Ultimately, it's a lot more expensive not to do these things.
No magic. No tree. Just real economics. We have just lived through a decade and a half of a government that chose to ignore reality. The end result is a public realm that is falling apart despite a higher tax burden.
It will take a long time to fix but rail investment is a key part of this. Especially when we also need to reduce our CO2 production.
I doubt that manual workers use much rail travel and many white collar workers like to work from home.
@Telford wherever I go the roads are clogged with millions of cars. Whoever these millions of people are, and wherever they're going, there's an obvious CO2 benefit modal shift towards rail (not to mention other modes such as trams, buses, cycling and walking).
And before someone says it, obviously not all journeys can be accomplished by other means. But many could, which is the point here.
And that's quite apart from the benefits in reduced KSI, reduced road building/maintenance costs, and public health (inactivity is a significant cause of ill health directly and via obesity - shifting journeys up to a few miles from car to active travel would have a significant impact there. Yes, again I must clarify, for those people capable of doing so, who number in the millions). Even a shift to rail has a health benefit - generally speaking one has to get to the railway station first, and that getting to the station can be done in active manner. I regularly cycle to the station, put the bike on the train then cycle from the destination station to work.
Yes, I know not everyone can do this, but there are benefits if more who could, did.
The one thing our economy needs more than anything else is capital investment.
Ultimately, it's a lot more expensive not to do these things.
No magic. No tree. Just real economics. We have just lived through a decade and a half of a government that chose to ignore reality. The end result is a public realm that is falling apart despite a higher tax burden.
It will take a long time to fix but rail investment is a key part of this. Especially when we also need to reduce our CO2 production.
I doubt that manual workers use much rail travel and many white collar workers like to work from home.
@Telford wherever I go the roads are clogged with millions of cars. Whoever these millions of people are, and wherever they're going, there's an obvious CO2 benefit modal shift towards rail (not to mention other modes such as trams, buses, cycling and walking).
The one thing our economy needs more than anything else is capital investment.
Ultimately, it's a lot more expensive not to do these things.
No magic. No tree. Just real economics. We have just lived through a decade and a half of a government that chose to ignore reality. The end result is a public realm that is falling apart despite a higher tax burden.
It will take a long time to fix but rail investment is a key part of this. Especially when we also need to reduce our CO2 production.
I doubt that manual workers use much rail travel and many white collar workers like to work from home.
@Telford wherever I go the roads are clogged with millions of cars. Whoever these millions of people are, and wherever they're going, there's an obvious CO2 benefit modal shift towards rail (not to mention other modes such as trams, buses, cycling and walking).
@KarlLB By and large the public transport of the UK has never been particularly helpful for people who live outside the biggest cities. Our rail and bus routes tend to be arranged like a spiders web, with routes fanning out from the centre but few moving across the web. The loss of many branch lines, and some pretty major links too, in the 1960s might have made economic sense but has created many transportless black-spots, aided and abetted by the loss of rural buses. The potentially most helpful development in recent times was the introduction of post-buses, but they were never properly funded and, of course, relied on the Post Office being properly compensated for their running, which didn't happen.
Hiking fuel duty will be a head-on attack on people who have no alternative but to use their own car - trying to dress it up as an opportunity for them to use "active" transport is just cynical nonsense. Someone with an outpatient appointment 10 miles away with no access to bus or rail cannot be expected to get on their bike, nor can the fit middle-aged person who needs to get shopping home when they are faced with a mile+ walk from a bus-stop down roads with no footpath or lighting. There are far more people reliant on private cars than the government realises: their ignorance about the reality of life for those without their own transport shows them to be out-of-touch, and placing increased fuel duty onto them will be unfair.
I just scanned my last post and still can't find the bit where I said fuel duty should be increased.
Cars are however not the complete answer even in rural areas - they're no use for people who can't drive, for example. The individual problem with car dependency comes when that individual can no longer drive, or insists on doing so despite being a danger to everyone around them.
My most recent experience of our bus service went as follows:
I went into Aberdeen to access an archive which closes at 4. If I was driving, I would have been home sometime between 4.30 and 4.45. But I had stuff to read, which I could read on the bus, so I took the bus.
It's a 15 minute walk to the bus station from the archive. The buses are once an hour; the next bus was at 4.50. I had a browse round a couple of shops, then waited at the bus station with my book. All good. The bus arrived at 5.05, due to depart 20 mins late at 5.10. I got on, only to be told that in order to make up time, the bus was missing out my village! I had the choice of getting off either 4 miles before, or 4 miles after my village, waiting for the 5.50, or heading for the train station to catch the next train.
I phoned my husband, who agreed to drive to pick me up from the stop 4 miles before our stop, so I caught the delayed 4.50.
On the plus side I was sitting next to a Turkish man on the bus who showed me photos of his baklava, and some sort of lamb dish. You don't get that sort of interesting experience, learning about Turkish cuisine, whilst driving.
I'm a fan of public transport, but it needs to be reliable. This experience just underlined the fact that we need a car.
Yep public transport can be unreliable. If my train to Cardiff is late it will go two more stops then straight to Cardiff. Those who want the stations in between are kind of ok because the Barry Island train will stop at all stops in between, but people have either to get off at Barry and change or go to Cardiff and back. Our buses are more often than not late because they have long routes and can get caught in traffic. The train to Cardiff takes 45 mins. The bus takes nearly 2 hours.
The DWP has been busy. They plan to stick with Tory plans for benefit cuts as well as retain changes to the 'Workplace Capability Assessment' introduced under Sunak:
Of the first, the point is made that this will be negative for the groups affected:
"David Finch, assistant director at the Health Foundation think-tank, said: “It’s largely a cost-saving exercise. If that change goes ahead . . . it will effectively place that group into hardship very quickly.”"
And writing in the Telegraph Kendall announces plans for further crack downs, including enhancing the powers of the DWP to access bank accounts:
The DWP has been busy. They plan to stick with Tory plans for benefit cuts as well as retain changes to the 'Workplace Capability Assessment' introduced under Sunak:
Of the first, the point is made that this will be negative for the groups affected:
"David Finch, assistant director at the Health Foundation think-tank, said: “It’s largely a cost-saving exercise. If that change goes ahead . . . it will effectively place that group into hardship very quickly.”"
And writing in the Telegraph Kendall announces plans for further crack downs, including enhancing the powers of the DWP to access bank accounts:
The DWP has been busy. They plan to stick with Tory plans for benefit cuts as well as retain changes to the 'Workplace Capability Assessment' introduced under Sunak:
Of the first, the point is made that this will be negative for the groups affected:
"David Finch, assistant director at the Health Foundation think-tank, said: “It’s largely a cost-saving exercise. If that change goes ahead . . . it will effectively place that group into hardship very quickly.”"
And writing in the Telegraph Kendall announces plans for further crack downs, including enhancing the powers of the DWP to access bank accounts:
And writing in the Telegraph Kendall announces plans for further crack downs, including enhancing the powers of the DWP to access bank accounts:
Fraud and dishonesty are bad things. Preventing people from dishonestly claiming benefits they shouldn't be entitled to is, in itself, a good thing. There is an open question about whether the costs spent on preventing fraud are proportionate to the reduction in fraud.
If actions against fraud also serve to prevent legitimate benefit claims, then that is a bad thing. People not getting benefits they should be getting is just as much of a problem as people getting benefits they shouldn't be getting, and you could make a case for it being a larger problem.
It's also worth noting that committing benefit fraud is fundamentally an identical crime to tax evasion.
And writing in the Telegraph Kendall announces plans for further crack downs, including enhancing the powers of the DWP to access bank accounts:
Fraud and dishonesty are bad things. Preventing people from dishonestly claiming benefits they shouldn't be entitled to is, in itself, a good thing.
Allowing a government department to directly garnish someone's bank account may not a precedent worth setting in the pursuit of that aim. That's even before dealing with the DWPs propensity for error - they've just got off dealing with the aftermath of taking literally thousands of carers to court for overpayments due to incompetence - the incremental sums were generally small but were paid out for years at a time.
It's also worth noting that committing benefit fraud is fundamentally an identical crime to tax evasion.
Of course the amount spent on detecting the latter is constantly under budgetary pressure, and those caught are often able to cut sweetheart deals with HMRC, which perhaps rather undermines the message.
The law needs to be very specific if government going to be able to access people’s bank accounts. Abuse is always possible. Even if it has the best intentions, you need to be sure that everyone who deals with it is trustworthy.
The DWP has been busy. They plan to stick with Tory plans for benefit cuts as well as retain changes to the 'Workplace Capability Assessment' introduced under Sunak:
Of the first, the point is made that this will be negative for the groups affected:
"David Finch, assistant director at the Health Foundation think-tank, said: “It’s largely a cost-saving exercise. If that change goes ahead . . . it will effectively place that group into hardship very quickly.”"
And writing in the Telegraph Kendall announces plans for further crack downs, including enhancing the powers of the DWP to access bank accounts:
This is a mixed bag. Ms Kendall is taking liberties here.
She states that £10Bn is lost to fraud and error. That is true. But the majority of that is error not fraud. Moreover, they are playing the political game of talking up cracking down on fraud and error which plays well but doesn't help with the huge issue we have with stigmatisation of welfare claimants.
However, despite the widely-reported potential for the government to monitor bank accounts that it not what's actually proposed here. We will have to see what the final language in the bill says what she's proposing is something quite different.
I’ll focus DWP’s energies on more serious case reviews, and new measures to send alerts from banks and financial institutions when people may be breaking the rules.
She goes on to say that this is not 'snooping' or 'too intrusive.' OK, forget the spin for a second, this is not anyone accessing the bank account information from the outside. It is currently the case that for potential money laundering and fraud issues, the banks monitor all accounts and unexpected transactions trigger alerts that the banks follow-up on. Assuming this is the same as how HMRC works, the DWP will not have access to bank account information but the banks will be required to notify the DWP if there's anything suspicious, which could then trigger an investigation.
I have seen this in action when I got a relatively large deposit from the sale of a property I was renting out and I had to confirm to my bank some more information. This relates to money-laundering and tax legislation.
We'll have to see what the actual bill says. There is a small amount of organised benefit fraud which this should capture better. Although the total saved is probably only going to be about £1Bn. Dealing with error could save a lot more but it's not clear from the article what measures will be used. From a financial and moral perspective, there is nothing wrong with doing this and probably it's good policy. However, playing the game of talking tough on benefits is 'good' politics but there are a lot of vulnerable people who don't appreciate further unjustified attacks on them that this adds fuel to.
If they are going to do this, it has to be accompanied by a revolution which makes benefits survivable. At the moment, "fraud" is essential to claimants' survival in a far from trivial number of cases. This is true especially of the benefits which cut off at particular "cliff edges" - those just over the cliff sink without trace, and scrabble by any means available to get back on the precarious ledge on which they were previously perched.
IOW the system can be fraudulent in its claim to support those in need, and this fraud needs investigation and remedy too.
Comments
Indeed.
I do know what they have done. The good and the bad. I am aware of a good number of their proposals. I am still a detractor. There is never an excuse to make pensioners and kids worse off. Ever. I can’t prove it but from what I have seen and heard they were told about the hole in the finances. If they didn’t know they were not listening to advice. I know that the chancellor talked about cutting Universal Pension Credit in opposition. It looks suspicious now that she is saying she is using it to help fill the hole. As I said in a previous post I keep my ear to the ground.
We had one until last year then funding freezes made it impossible for the operator to continue and when they didn't renew the contract the council pulled all the funding.
This is where your argument goes off the rails. 27% of pensioners live in households with a net worth of over £1m. Making said households worse off by £200 per year is hardly a crime.
No it doesn’t. It is only 27%. Are you saying those who just miss out on pension credit should suffer because 27% can afford it? As I said the easiest and cheapest way to get money to those who need it is to give it universally. So 27% get money they don’t need. It is better that those who need it get it.
No. You're twisting my words. You made an absolutist statement.
Ms Reeves said the Restoring Your Railway fund needed to be cut, saving £85 million in committed funding, to plug a £21.9 billion black hole in public finances.
People had been enouraged to pay for a small pension to boost their old age pension. Many did and they are now worse off.
Sorry didn’t mean it to come across like that. Looking back I see. Sorry again
No worries.
It's a sensitive issue. Governments must, must, must take care when making decisions that affect vulnerable people. It is objectively true that the various administrations from 2010-24 did not do this. It is also true that simply being not quite as bad as the Tories is not a meaningful standard to hold the current government to. We should expect more than that.
My point was simply that there are a lot of very well off pensioners and reducing their incomes very slightly is far from evil and arguably a moral good. I.e. why should taxpayers who often have a lot less than this group subsidise their lifestyle?
I don't think you and I disagree at all about the moral imperative to look after the poorest pensioners and those who are slightly better off but still at significant risk of fuel poverty.
As I said on another thread, I think the argument is not the winter fuel payment, but far wider than that.
AFZ
It's interesting to think about the interface for that. @Arethosemyfeet points out the issue of people that don't want strangers getting in their taxi (women, minors, ...), or don't want to get in to a taxi with a random stranger in it. Even if the taxi has video recording etc.
Often you have time constraints - do you say "I need to be at 125 Main Street by 5pm", and that allows the taxi to take a small detour only if it will still get you to your destination on time? Or does the service guarantee that it won't increase your journey time by more than 20%, or 10 minutes, to accommodate someone else? Or does it offer no promises, and you'll have to put up with whenever you arrive at your destination, unless you pay a premium for a private ride?
Well this is good news.
All trains seem to end up in Crewe anyway so might as well make it official.
Hee hee.
I think Lord Adonis summed it up best. I'm paraphrasing but he said that HS2 with both it's northern legs will be built, the only question is when. And the longer we leaving the more it will cost us in lost opportunity.
And this is because it's ALL about rail capacity. The reinstitution of these parts of it are a good start.
AFZ
Finding the magic money tree is good news
The one thing our economy needs more than anything else is capital investment.
Ultimately, it's a lot more expensive not to do these things.
No magic. No tree. Just real economics. We have just lived through a decade and a half of a government that chose to ignore reality. The end result is a public realm that is falling apart despite a higher tax burden.
It will take a long time to fix but rail investment is a key part of this. Especially when we also need to reduce our CO2 production.
The constraint is the available productive capacity of the economy not the money supply.
I can see the appeal of this idea: however, if it is really true, why should taxes be necessary?
To keep inflation under control (and secondarily as a means of solving distributional effects).
At the moment the UK is at relatively full employment, so yes, in this case they are probably going to have to reduce consumption somewhere else (and tax) in order to be able to invest in infrastructure.
@Telford wherever I go the roads are clogged with millions of cars. Whoever these millions of people are, and wherever they're going, there's an obvious CO2 benefit modal shift towards rail (not to mention other modes such as trams, buses, cycling and walking).
And before someone says it, obviously not all journeys can be accomplished by other means. But many could, which is the point here.
And that's quite apart from the benefits in reduced KSI, reduced road building/maintenance costs, and public health (inactivity is a significant cause of ill health directly and via obesity - shifting journeys up to a few miles from car to active travel would have a significant impact there. Yes, again I must clarify, for those people capable of doing so, who number in the millions). Even a shift to rail has a health benefit - generally speaking one has to get to the railway station first, and that getting to the station can be done in active manner. I regularly cycle to the station, put the bike on the train then cycle from the destination station to work.
Yes, I know not everyone can do this, but there are benefits if more who could, did.
Millions of cars. You really did go to specsavers
https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#a1
Now, do you have anything to actually contribute to the discussion?
Hiking fuel duty will be a head-on attack on people who have no alternative but to use their own car - trying to dress it up as an opportunity for them to use "active" transport is just cynical nonsense. Someone with an outpatient appointment 10 miles away with no access to bus or rail cannot be expected to get on their bike, nor can the fit middle-aged person who needs to get shopping home when they are faced with a mile+ walk from a bus-stop down roads with no footpath or lighting. There are far more people reliant on private cars than the government realises: their ignorance about the reality of life for those without their own transport shows them to be out-of-touch, and placing increased fuel duty onto them will be unfair.
Cars are however not the complete answer even in rural areas - they're no use for people who can't drive, for example. The individual problem with car dependency comes when that individual can no longer drive, or insists on doing so despite being a danger to everyone around them.
I went into Aberdeen to access an archive which closes at 4. If I was driving, I would have been home sometime between 4.30 and 4.45. But I had stuff to read, which I could read on the bus, so I took the bus.
It's a 15 minute walk to the bus station from the archive. The buses are once an hour; the next bus was at 4.50. I had a browse round a couple of shops, then waited at the bus station with my book. All good. The bus arrived at 5.05, due to depart 20 mins late at 5.10. I got on, only to be told that in order to make up time, the bus was missing out my village! I had the choice of getting off either 4 miles before, or 4 miles after my village, waiting for the 5.50, or heading for the train station to catch the next train.
I phoned my husband, who agreed to drive to pick me up from the stop 4 miles before our stop, so I caught the delayed 4.50.
On the plus side I was sitting next to a Turkish man on the bus who showed me photos of his baklava, and some sort of lamb dish. You don't get that sort of interesting experience, learning about Turkish cuisine, whilst driving.
I'm a fan of public transport, but it needs to be reliable. This experience just underlined the fact that we need a car.
https://www.ft.com/content/78887399-8235-4063-9848-27a827441863
Of the first, the point is made that this will be negative for the groups affected:
"David Finch, assistant director at the Health Foundation think-tank, said: “It’s largely a cost-saving exercise. If that change goes ahead . . . it will effectively place that group into hardship very quickly.”"
And writing in the Telegraph Kendall announces plans for further crack downs, including enhancing the powers of the DWP to access bank accounts:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/19/labour-has-a-plan-to-tackle-the-scourge-of-welfare-fraud/
Nah. That runs from Cardiff up to Llandudno. Not along the South Wales coast.
All that work to get shut of the Tories and what was the feckin' point?
Fraud and dishonesty are bad things. Preventing people from dishonestly claiming benefits they shouldn't be entitled to is, in itself, a good thing. There is an open question about whether the costs spent on preventing fraud are proportionate to the reduction in fraud.
If actions against fraud also serve to prevent legitimate benefit claims, then that is a bad thing. People not getting benefits they should be getting is just as much of a problem as people getting benefits they shouldn't be getting, and you could make a case for it being a larger problem.
It's also worth noting that committing benefit fraud is fundamentally an identical crime to tax evasion.
Allowing a government department to directly garnish someone's bank account may not a precedent worth setting in the pursuit of that aim. That's even before dealing with the DWPs propensity for error - they've just got off dealing with the aftermath of taking literally thousands of carers to court for overpayments due to incompetence - the incremental sums were generally small but were paid out for years at a time.
Of course the amount spent on detecting the latter is constantly under budgetary pressure, and those caught are often able to cut sweetheart deals with HMRC, which perhaps rather undermines the message.
Is this improvement? Not as far as I can see.
This is a mixed bag. Ms Kendall is taking liberties here.
She states that £10Bn is lost to fraud and error. That is true. But the majority of that is error not fraud. Moreover, they are playing the political game of talking up cracking down on fraud and error which plays well but doesn't help with the huge issue we have with stigmatisation of welfare claimants.
However, despite the widely-reported potential for the government to monitor bank accounts that it not what's actually proposed here. We will have to see what the final language in the bill says what she's proposing is something quite different.
She goes on to say that this is not 'snooping' or 'too intrusive.' OK, forget the spin for a second, this is not anyone accessing the bank account information from the outside. It is currently the case that for potential money laundering and fraud issues, the banks monitor all accounts and unexpected transactions trigger alerts that the banks follow-up on. Assuming this is the same as how HMRC works, the DWP will not have access to bank account information but the banks will be required to notify the DWP if there's anything suspicious, which could then trigger an investigation.
I have seen this in action when I got a relatively large deposit from the sale of a property I was renting out and I had to confirm to my bank some more information. This relates to money-laundering and tax legislation.
We'll have to see what the actual bill says. There is a small amount of organised benefit fraud which this should capture better. Although the total saved is probably only going to be about £1Bn. Dealing with error could save a lot more but it's not clear from the article what measures will be used. From a financial and moral perspective, there is nothing wrong with doing this and probably it's good policy. However, playing the game of talking tough on benefits is 'good' politics but there are a lot of vulnerable people who don't appreciate further unjustified attacks on them that this adds fuel to.
As I said, a mixed bag.
AFZ
IOW the system can be fraudulent in its claim to support those in need, and this fraud needs investigation and remedy too.
Yes I understood that. It seems there is very little change. Labour has not covered themselves in glory. Particularly their comms department.