Secret plans to slash the welfare bill by £2.5bn for people who are disabled or too ill to work are being up drawn up by the chancellor, George Osborne, documents leaked to the Observer reveal.

 

Details of the plan, spelled out in a confidential letter from Osborne to Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, sparked a furious row as Labour accused the coalition government of targeting "the most vulnerable people in the country" with "shocking, arbitrary cuts".

 

The letter, written by Osborne on 19 June to Duncan Smith and circulated to David Cameron and Nick Clegg, will fuel mounting concerns that the government's assault on spending – and particularly Osborne's determination to slash the cost of welfare – will hit those on the lowest incomes the hardest.

 

Despite official insistence that no decisions have yet been made on where the axe will fall, Osborne stated in the letter – written three days before his emergency budget – that agreement had already been reached to impose deep cuts on the budget for employment and support allowance (ESA) – the successor to incapacity benefit. ESA is paid to those judged unable to work because of illness or disability.

 

Osborne told Duncan Smith: "Given the pressure on overall public spending in the coming period, we will need to continue developing further options to reform the benefits as part of the spending review process in order to deliver further savings, greater simplicity and stronger work incentives.

 

"Reform to the employment support allowance is a particular priority and I am pleased that you, the prime minister and I have agreed to press ahead with reforms to the ESA as part of the spending review that will deliver net savings of at least £2.5bn by 2014-15."

 

In a further extraordinary development, sources within Duncan Smith's department turned their fire on the Treasury, insisting nothing had been decided and suggesting Osborne's department may have leaked the letter to bounce them into accepting the plan.

 

With under six weeks to go before Osborne's comprehensive spending review, senior ministers are growing increasingly sensitive to charges of unfairness. Last week, Nick Clegg sought to dispel anxieties by pointing out that the cuts would not fall at once, but over five years. And, in an article for the Observer, Cameron insists that the government's commitment to devolve power from Whitehall to the people is driven at least in part by the quest for greater "fairness".

 

"There's the efficiency argument – that in huge hierarchies, money gets spent on bureaucracy instead of the frontline. There's the fairness argument – that centralised national blueprints can entrench unfairness because they don't allow for local solutions to major social problems. And there's the political argument – that centralisation creates a great distance in our democracy between the government and the governed," the prime minister argues.

 

A spokesperson from the Department for Work and Pensions said Duncan Smith, who is battling with the Treasury over potentially costly plans to improve incentives to get people off welfare and into work, would agree to nothing that would hit the vulnerable. "We are looking at a range of options for welfare reform and any decisions will be made in the context of the spending review. Our reforms will ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected."

 

The leak provides an explosive backdrop to the political conference season, which opens tomorrow with the start of the Trades Union Congress in Manchester. The TUC will unveil a report on Monday claiming to show that the Conservatives have betrayed their election promise to introduce cuts fairly and protect public services, as the unions prepare a co-ordinated response to the measures.

 

Government insiders admitted that limits to the time that people could spend on ESA were being considered, as were plans to means test recipients. But they insisted nothing would be done that would affect those who were judged as having no potential future chance of getting into work.

 

Jim Knight, the shadow employment minister, said: "The budget was already going to hit most ESA claimants hard; according to government figures, by over £900 if they are also on housing benefit. Now we see the Tories and Lib Dems are conspiring to take thousands of pounds from the most vulnerable.

 

"This exposes George Osborne's rhetoric about living on benefits as a 'lifestyle choice', as being a smokescreen to hide vicious cuts on the poorest. It also shows that Iain Duncan Smith will cave in to the Treasury rather than deliver the sensible long-term reforms he talks about."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/se...ckness-benefits

 

The Nasty Party is alive and well it seems.

Well Crazy Chris is f***ED.

 

I'm going to try and reserve judgement until there are actually some details on WHERE and HOW they will make these cuts exactly, but initial thoughts - NOT GOOD, but is anyone surprised, this is the Conservative party simply reverting to type no?

Well Crazy Chris is f***ED.

 

I'm going to try and reserve judgement until there are actually some details on WHERE and HOW they will make these cuts exactly, but initial thoughts - NOT GOOD, but is anyone surprised, this is the Conservative party simply reverting to type no?

 

What I'm most disturbed about is that Osborne is going around as if the Conservatives own the place and won by a landslide in May and that they were given a blank cheque by the public to do whatever they want -- he keeps seeming to forget he's only in office by virtue of the Lib Dems, who, if they have even the remotest sense of what they stand for, won't allow benefit cuts to go through.

I'm not going to hold out a lot of hope on that count. The Lib Dems have hardly done a great job at rocking the boat so far.

I don't think that the words of a left wing rag should be taken as gospel, will reserve judgement till such time as anything official comes out.

 

The Observer is basically a sunday version of The Guardian so full of socialists, marxists, communists and loony lefties who like nothing more than to take digs at the government.

Well Crazy Chris is f***ED.

 

 

:o I hope not. ;) I'll be one of the first to be re-assessed I think as I was last seen over two years ago and was due again this June, so no doubt they're waiting for the new rules. I know someone with M.E., which a lot of Dr's still don't recognise as an illness. He gets tired with the least exertion. He's rather worried too as he was declared fit for work last year but won his case on appeal. What really angers me is that he still gets a free travel pass, for buses and tubes, yet I don't. They say depression isn't a qualifying illness any more and didn't renew mine in 2008. Very unfair. :angry:

Edited September 12, 201014 yr by Common Sense

:o I hope not. ;) I'll be one of the first to be re-assessed I think as I was last seen over two years ago and was due again this June, so no doubt they're waiting for the new rules. I know someone with M.E., which a lot of Dr's still don't recognise as an illness. He gets tired with the least exertion. He's rather worried too as he was declared fit for work last year but won his case on appeal. What really angers me is that he still gets a free travel pass, for buses and tubes, yet I don't. They say depression isn't a qualifying illness any more and didn't renew mine in 2008. Very unfair. :angry:

 

M.E is easy to fake though, sure there are genuine cases of M.E but it is easy for shirkers and wasters just to pretend they are exhausted when they get out of a chair and hey, no obligation to seek work.

 

I am sure large % of M.E sufferers make a miraculous recovery only to have a relapse just before their next DHSS examination.

 

 

The report suggests that the letter has been leaked deliberately to bounce Duncan Smith into accepting the cuts. They don't mention the possibility that it has been deliberately leaked to provoke an outcry that leads to the plans being dropped.

I don't think that the words of a left wing rag should be taken as gospel, will reserve judgement till such time as anything official comes out.

 

The Observer is basically a sunday version of The Guardian so full of socialists, marxists, communists and loony lefties who like nothing more than to take digs at the government.

I can't really think of any columnists for The Guardian OR The Observer whom I'd reckon would self-identify as Marxists and communists. The world's changed a bit in the last thirty years Craig.

I don't think that the words of a left wing rag should be taken as gospel, will reserve judgement till such time as anything official comes out.

 

The Observer is basically a sunday version of The Guardian so full of socialists, marxists, communists and loony lefties who like nothing more than to take digs at the government.

 

It's a more reliable source than the fukkin Murdoch press or the Daily Heil that's for sure.....

 

And, dont you think that Govts deserve to have "digs" taken at them, especially when they're doing rancid sh"t like this...?

The Lib-Dems should show some guts and refuse to vote for these cuts. They wouldn't get through then, assuming Labour and the others voted against them.

The Lib-Dems should show some guts and refuse to vote for these cuts. They wouldn't get through then, assuming Labour and the others voted against them.

 

The only party outside of the Coalition who might even possibly vote for them is the Democratic Unionists (although even that's debateable). Apart from that, I think all the other small parties in the Commons are to the left of the 3 main parties - which means that, if the Lib Dems do finally grow some balls, Osborne won't be able to get his programme through.

 

If you don't mind me asking, I do wonder why you were so enthusiastic about a Cameron government a few months ago when you're apparently so disapproving now...

The only party outside of the Coalition who might even possibly vote for them is the Democratic Unionists (although even that's debateable). Apart from that, I think all the other small parties in the Commons are to the left of the 3 main parties - which means that, if the Lib Dems do finally grow some balls, Osborne won't be able to get his programme through.

 

 

The Lib-Dems won't grow any balls though. :angry: They'll vote them through as they like the Ministerial salaries and chauffered cars too much.

Edited September 12, 201014 yr by Common Sense

If you don't mind me asking, I do wonder why you were so enthusiastic about a Cameron government a few months ago when you're apparently so disapproving now...

 

 

Well I didn't think these benefit cuts were going to be so severe!! They haven't even started reviewing the existing IB claimants yet. Starts in October according to some Disability forums. The new claimants are finding it almost impossible to be declared unfit for work though, despite some having severe illnesses. It's terrible.

Well I didn't think these benefit cuts were going to be so severe!! They haven't even started reviewing the existing IB claimants yet. Starts in October according to some Disability forums. The new claimants are finding it almost impossible to be declared unfit for work though, despite some having severe illnesses. It's terrible.

 

I still maintain that the absolute majority of claimants of incapacity benefit are capable of at least some kind of work, I am not talking about landscape gardening or hod carrying but IT stuff and admin and call centre work for example, there are lots of jobs where the person can work from home.

 

You for example spend many hours a day at a PC, if you have the thought process to post on at least 4 forums every day surely you have the thought process to be able to do word processing or database entering or email marketing or something like that even from home you wouldn't have to work in an office.

 

I am using you as an example not picking on you but it is right that much tougher tests are bought in to decide whether someone is capable of doing some sort of work

I still maintain that the absolute majority of claimants of incapacity benefit are capable of at least some kind of work, I am not talking about landscape gardening or hod carrying but IT stuff and admin and call centre work for example, there are lots of jobs where the person can work from home.

 

You for example spend many hours a day at a PC, if you have the thought process to post on at least 4 forums every day surely you have the thought process to be able to do word processing or database entering or email marketing or something like that even from home you wouldn't have to work in an office.

 

I am using you as an example not picking on you but it is right that much tougher tests are bought in to decide whether someone is capable of doing some sort of work

 

So you're then just moving people from one type of benefits to another? Because whilst they may be able to work in theory, I'm not sure where you think they're going to be employed to do all this Admin work!

So you're then just moving people from one type of benefits to another? Because whilst they may be able to work in theory, I'm not sure where you think they're going to be employed to do all this Admin work!

 

Exactly. The best way of getting people into work is to actually, you know, ACTUALLY HAVE JOBS FOR THEM TO GO TO. And you certainly don't get that by slashing public-sector workers at the same time that the private sector is shedding jobs (huge job losses at BAE and Connaught just in the last week).

 

Besides, Craig, I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you're so convinced that people on benefits live a life of luxury, why don't you cut your salary down to £60 a week and donate the extra to the Treasury to help cut the deficit, which according to you is the biggest problem in society?

It is more the PRINCIPLE that someone is capable of working as opposed to the actual number of vacancies out there. Incapacity benefit pays out 90 odd quid a week, Job Seekers Allowance pays what ? 60 a week ?

 

@RabbitFurCoat If out of the 2.5m that are claiming incapacity benefit even 1m of them are capable of working that is 1m that are moved to JSA thus a saving of £30 a week per claimant, I would say that more than 1m are perfectly capable of work and thus should be moved to JSA as job seekers, whether there is jobs for them to do is irrelevant it is the fact that they are CAPABLE of doing work.

 

@Danny - How can I pay myself £60 a week when I pay over a grand a months rent alone ;) it is simply not practical

Exactly. The best way of getting people into work is to actually, you know, ACTUALLY HAVE JOBS FOR THEM TO GO TO. And you certainly don't get that by slashing public-sector workers at the same time that the private sector is shedding jobs (huge job losses at BAE and Connaught just in the last week).

 

Besides, Craig, I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you're so convinced that people on benefits live a life of luxury, why don't you cut your salary down to £60 a week and donate the extra to the Treasury to help cut the deficit, which according to you is the biggest problem in society?

 

Yesterday out of curiosity I wandered around a High St quite near me, there were no fewer than ELEVEN places with notices asking for staff, 3 bars, 4 restaurants, a small pharmacy, a mobile phone retailer, a cafe and Boots and that is in a smallish town so people are still recruiting

 

You can bet your bottom dollar that most of those vacancies will be filled by poles and romanians as they make much more effort to look for work

I would say that more than 1m are perfectly capable of work

 

Give proof or shut up.

 

 

@Danny - How can I pay myself £60 a week when I pay over a grand a months rent alone it is simply not practical

Well, you can always downgrade to a small flat, like people on Housing Benefit are going to have to do due to this government, which is something you've been cheerleading for.

 

 

Yesterday out of curiosity I wandered around a High St quite near me, there were no fewer than ELEVEN places with notices asking for staff, 3 bars, 4 restaurants, a small pharmacy, a mobile phone retailer, a cafe and Boots and that is in a smallish town so people are still recruiting

 

For God's sake, everyone knows there's far more businesses and therefore far more jobs in the south east than anywhere else. Go to the north or the Midlands and try walking down High St and try and find all these jobs on offer.