The Indy Scapegoats The Poor!

This balderdash from The Independent newspaper really gets my goat!

“Reeves stealth taxes ‘hammering’ workers while pensioners and benefits claimants ‘better off’” 02.01.2026

There is zero balance to the article, but rather a deliberate anti-social neoliberal slant.

40% of folk on benefits are in employment, but jobs pay so badly that the State is topping up their income. It ought to be pointed out that UK benefits pay mere survival rates no where near reaching the level of a Living Wage, with many foregoing food, heating &/or medications. Most users of food-banks are benefit-recipients with disabilities, severe illnesses or children.

Yes, children! Some 4,500,000 children in the United Kingdom live in poverty. Scrapping the two-child limit means that more Child Benefit will be paid out, a desperate fillip that in no way makes up for the ever-ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

As to pensioners, UK pensioners are by far the worst-off in Western Europe, and below average for OECD countries.

That the once-balanced and fair Indy cites an example of someone earning £50,000 (£31,602 is the median UK annual income per O.N.S.) per year having to pay £505 p.a. more tax without explaining that those receiving Social Security are on such low levels of support and have experienced real-term cuts* for years, absolutely disgusts me.

* Increases based on general inflation do not recognise the above-inflation increases in food & energy prices, let alone medications & prescriptions & optician & dental-care & mobility-aids, etc. that force folk in the lower income deciles to often borrow money to pay for basic necessities of life.

Link to description of data of DWP benefit claims.

Non-Governmental ESA & WCA Research

Ekklesia are researching how Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)‬ & the notorious and much-hated ‪Work Capability Assessment (‎WCA)‬ might be reformed or replaced. To this end they have devised an online questionnaire. Most of the questions are multi-choice with optional boxes.

I only wrote one long answer in respect to how any future benefit ought to look. My answer for Q. 30:

"I think it should be far more tiered, with the more points you get the higher the benefit awarded in order to account for extra costs - or if not tiered then with the addition of non-refundable grants. For example, someone with impaired mobility should be given an award towards a wheelchair and with each additional impairment an extra grant; someone who is sight-impaired should be given a grant to cover the costs of technology. At the top would be quadriplegics awarded grants to cover all necessary equipment.

Alternatively, the State should have a centralised purchasing body in order to save money through mass purchasing. Or a mixture of the two, so if someone wishes to pay more for equipment or does not want the State-offered product, they are free to choose.

Those requiring care, ought to receive additional components to cover such costs or the State ought to be obliged to pay for necessary care as in Sweden, for example. The additional benefit to society is the creation of employment opportunities and thus more folk boosting the economy.

There may also need to be a way for folk to receive grants or extra benefit to access private health-care which the NHS will not/cannot provide. E.g. I need physiotherapy, which I have to pay myself, as due to very variable conditions I cannot keep appointments, thus the NHS refuse to provide. Similarly, I cannot access mental-health support, etc."

If you have been through the WCA-process, please do help out with this research. One is given plenty of opportunities to save and go back at a later time, if one so wishes.

[Image description: Ekklesia logo ©]

Spain for the Elderly, Disabled and Infirm?

This past week the wonderful disability & welfare rights advocate, Sue Marsh, blogged about a great idea she had and which was supported by several well-known economists. See here for more details as it is well worth a read.

The article prompted me to add my two pennies worth:

Criquaer 2 July 2012 20:38

I've been going to Southern Spain for more than a decade for my health on GP's advice. In a similar vain, I do not understand why Govt./LA's do not send well-ish elderly/disabled to Spain to be cared for during the winter - cheaper than costs in UK, less need for fuel allowance, carers, meals-on-wheels, etc. Also benefit from better climate and social activities - thus less loneliness. I believe Germany & Denmark (???) send some folk there to recuperate.

[Image description: the author shuffling along the esplanade in Benalmádena, Andalusia.]

More than a decade ago, my then G.P. advised me to winter in southern Spain for health reasons. My osteoarthritis (inter alia other conditions) is greatly affected by Manchester’s (north-west England) damp climate to my detriment. This results in my not being able to walk and so needing to use a wheelchair, and, worse from my perspective, being confined to my bed for approximately two in every three days. Being bed-bound unsolicited is no slacker’s dream; but rather a Kafkaesque nightmare of imprisonment within the same four walls and exile from social contact (well, prior to facebook anyhow!). Despite the current Government's media approved scrounger narrative: no-one in their right mind would willingly choose this as a lifestyle. However, once in Spain my condition considerably ameliorates as it does for many OAPs (retirees) who also winter there themselves.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is desperate to find ways of saving money. Spain is desperate to create jobs and boost its economy.

I suggest that Britain sends those of its elderly, disabled and ill-health sufferers who are willing and able to Andalusia during the autonomous region’s off-peak tourist season, roughly October to March. The Junta de Andalucía could co-ordinate consortia consisting of hotels, medical establishments & town councils to bid for contracts and/or they could calculate a fair rate to charge the UK Government or individual local authorities.

The advantages to the UK might include:

A reduction in excess winter deaths;

A reduction in the need for winter fuel allowance;

A reduction in CO2 emissions due to reduction in energy use;

A reduction in water use;

A reduction in winter pressure on the NHS;

A reduction in the need for ‘flu jabs;

A reduction in the need for (humane) social care;

A reduction in the need to import foodstuffs;

A reduction in the number of travel journeys made & use of public transport, thus reducing stress on the transport infrastructure;

A reduction in the need for meals-on-wheels;

A reduction in the demands on the charity sector;

A reduction in the workload of social services departments;

A reduction in crime against the person;

A reduction in loneliness for those sent out to Spain;

An increase in health & well-being for those sent out to Spain;

An increase in employment and/or job-security in the airline industry;

An increase in employment and/or job-security in the policing/security industry.

Disadvantages might include:

An increase in property crime;

A reduction in spending locally.

The advantages to Andalusia might include:

An increase in hotel room occupancy rate and thus income of hotels;

An increase in employment and/or job-security in the tourism/hospitality industry;

An increase in spending in the local economy by those sent out to Spain;

An increase in spending in the local economy by those newly employed and/or retained in employment;

An increase in employment and/or job-security in the medical industry;

An increase in demand for locally- or nationally-grown or reared foodstuffs;

An increase in use of public transport and/or taxis, so supporting the transport industry;

An increase in employment and/or job-security in the airline industry;

An increase in employment and/or job-security in the waste management industry;

An increase in teaching jobs to give all those sent out to Spain the opportunity to learn Castilian Spanish;

An increase in Spanish cultural awareness;

An increase in cultural activities for both locals & those sent to Spain;

An increase in employment and/or job-security in the cultural industry;

An increase in the need for policing/security thus an increase in employment and/or job-security for the security industry;

An increase in well-being of locals gaining employment and/or increasing their hours/job-security;

A reduction in the need for benefits for those obtaining jobs and/or those with extended hours.

Disadvantages might include:

An increase in the use of precious water resources;

An increase in CO2 emissions;

An increase in pollution;

An increase in waste;

An increase in pick-pocketing, muggings, etc.

[Image description: the author on a two-stick day in Míjas, Andalusia.]

I understand other countries have similar schemes: but I believe what I am suggesting is on a scale not previously contemplated. Is it worth a go? Or am I being hopelessly naïf and idealistic?