The Benefit Cap – whats the point? No – what the hell is the point?

The overall benefit cap (OBC) is the Coalition’s big idea to limit benefit expenditure and comes into force in April 2013.  It has set an OBC of £350pw for single persons and £500pw for families.  Yet the Coalition have known since July 2011 when it was announced that it will actually cost more. That is more to the taxpayer, more to the public purse and simply means it wont work and wont achieve the aim of reducing benefit expenditure.


What you don’t believe it will cost more?  How can it? Don’t take my word for it. No you can’t do that can you?  How about the word of the government?  Below is an extract from a letter sent by Cabinet Minister Eric Pickle’s private secretary to the private secretary of David Cameron back in July 2011 about the overall benefit cap.

“Firstly we are concerned that the savings from this measure, currently estimated at £270m savings p.a from 2014-2015 does not take account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation). In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost. In addition Local Authorities will have to calculate and administer reduced Housing Benefit to keep within the cap and this will mean both demands on resource and difficult handling locally.”

I have highlighted “In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost”

Use any interpretation of that sentence you choose but it means two simple things:


I make no apologies for stating the obvious or for using capital letters.  The simple basic point is that the overall benefit cap will not save the public purse any money at all and it will cost the taxpayer more.  So the question becomes what is the point of enacting the OBC?

What the hell is the point? The policy is not a ‘Ronseal’ one is it? It doesn’t do what it says on the tin (or should that be rightly it doesn’t do what it says on the spin?)

Because it will cost more and because it also won’t save a penny to the public purse you can raise very pertinent political questions such as… Why has the Coalition gone ahead with it knowing it wont save a penny?  You can ask very pertinent questions about the economic competence of the Coalition.  You can look at the impacts it will have such as tenants will get their HB cut and wont be able to afford the rent and so be evicted.  Social landlords will get less money and some may may go bust.  Private landlords will see this as a risk too far and not accommodate anyone on benefits…and so many more issues such as it could have the consequence of moving 500,000 people away from their homes, locales and support and family networks.  It has some scandalous and outrageous social implications for those unfortunate to be out of work and on benefits.

Yet, it comes back to the simple basic question.  Why the hell is this policy going ahead when it  will cost more money?

  • The government loses. 
  • The tenant loses. 
  • The landlord loses.
  • It has disastrous social consequences.
  • Is there any point in a policy when nobody benefits?

The reader with a fanatical left-wing political bias will be (rightly) appalled at the consequences.  The reader with a fanatical right-wing political bias will be (rightly) appalled it will cost more. All others inbetween will be (rightly) appalled it costs more and the social consequences.

I ask again – just what the hell is the point?

No doubt as the time draws nearer to the OBC going live we will see plenty of articles from the ‘left’ about the social consequences and from the ‘right’ about responsibility and morality – the ‘this will prevent feckless workshy benefit scroungers from simply having another baby to get more benefit’ – type of stories certain sections of the media like to write about and the local know-it-all in the pub or on the bus likes to state.

BUT when they appear as they inevitably will ask a simple question…What’s the point of the benefit cap if it costs more?  That will save a lot of heated arguments and people being branded ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing.’

Whats the point of this blog? So you see the real point which is what IS the point?


2 thoughts on “The Benefit Cap – whats the point? No – what the hell is the point?

  1. This is the information age. Certain things are coming to light, like the fact banks don’t actually lend money, instead they create it out of thin air as credit, using computer keyboards. They used to use pens back in the days when a bank ‘loan’ would be presented to you in the form of a cheque. It costs them nothing, now or then, and they do this under license from those same governments who then borrow money from banks at interest which we, the ignorant, dullard population, have to work very hard to pay back with real money we’ve had to earn in the real world. Where’s Blair these days? Works for a bank. Where’s Mandelson? Works for a bank. What’s Cameron’s family line? Banking. Goodness.
    Let’s talk about who owns this green and pleasant land. Ah. Past a certain point we can’t because, er, we don’t know. What we can determine from what we do know is there’s a handful of families who own huge parts of this country worth fortunes on which they pay no taxes yet they receive, from our taxes, billions in subsidies. How did they get that land? Through violence against their fellow-countrymen, mostly, centuries ago. They stole it, basically. Some is still in the hands of ancestors of the Normans. They definitely stole it. In other EU countries they’ve had revolutions of one sort or another and the land’s been handed back to the general population. Not here though.
    Given we’re a bit cramped for space, the rest of us, it’s really about time we had it back. It’s also time we took back the right of money creation from the handful of private bankers who have it, and restored it to public ownership along with the other utilities. Instead of sensible discussions along these lines, however, the dialogue today, carefully managed, is all about the minor dishonesties (allegedly) of benefit claimants and the like (though tax-dodging is beginning to appear admittedly)!
    Despite that, knowledge is breaking through of those other matters I’ve mentioned above.
    How can we be persuaded to turn our attentions elsewhere? By introducing chaos to our everyday lives ius the answer. We’re forced then to devote our attention to our immediate circumstances. That’s the point of these bizarre taxes, social upheaval. It’s an attempt by the Establishment, well-positioned just now with strong representation in all three major political parties, to maintain the status quo. I’d suggest this is why there’s only muted opposition from Labour.
    I don’t think it’ll work, myself. I think the backlash, when it comes, will end the British Establishment. That will change the world indisputably for the better. Can’t come soon enough for me.

Please leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s