From the BBC:
Alcoholics face having their benefits docked if they do not get treatment, under government plans. Minister James [Photoshop] Purnell has announced a review into the idea to be carried out jointly by the Department of Health and Department for Work and Pensions.
That's a clever bit of Indian Bicycle Marketing, actually, what can the authoritarian Tory party do to out-bid the authoritarian Labour party? Hmm. As ever, I wonder, how are they going to enforce this? Will dole claimants be breathalysed at random intervals? Nope - this is actually all just an excuse to hand over more cash to a fakecharity:
A spokesman for drug and alcohol treatment charity Addaction said that, historically, help for people with alcohol problems was under-funded. "We support measures to get treatment to the people who need it, but that treatment needs proper funding to be effective," he said.
The Tories, wary of being outflanked in the authoritarian stakes, show that they can really get to grips with tricky abstract concepts like 'big numbers':
Theresa May said this latest review was "another smokescreen" to "deflect from Labour's failure to get to grips with our welfare system ... Under James Purnell the system has gone into meltdown with more than 100,000 people claiming benefits because they are drug addicts or alcoholics. That's more than doubled from 48,700 since 1997."
Right. Let's assume that one hundred thousand is correct, and that half of those are alcoholics, so there are fifty thousand people getting £3,000 dole a year plus a free council flat, a total cost to 'society' of £300 million. Part of the reason for having alcohol duties (and VAT on top of the duty!) is to cover the external costs, which I suppose includes alcoholics on benefits.
My magic fag packet says total alcohol duties plus VAT is in the order of £12 billion, i.e. if you have a pint in the pub, out of the 80 pence duty plus VAT, 2 pence is needed to fully cover the costs of the people we're talking about. That seems perfectly fair to me, plus if it comes to it, I'd rather give somebody £60 a week cash to drink himself to death (half of which goes straight back to the government as alcohol duties plus VAT, of course!) than pay some meddling busybody quangista £500 plus index linked final salary pension to shove his or her nose in.
UPDATE: in a rather bizarre twist to the tale, the BBC had Antonia Bance on the telly just now, speaking on behalf of Oxfam and not on behalf of the Labour party, saying that this was all a bit harsh.
View from Middle England has a slightly different take on this, also worth a read (via LFAT).
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Yes, but how are they going to enforce it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
How do you define an alcoholic anyway? I'm sure I read somewhere that the number of people getting Incapacity Benefit on the grounds of their alcoholism was only a few thousand anyway, and if this came in I'm sure doctors would find an alternative condition for them to own up to.
Dunno & exactly, in that order.
If our antonia was trying to stop something would that be banceturbation?
I'll get my coat.
G-B, probably yes, but I can't wait for Labour to put forward their spokesperson to condemn the flippant attitude of Oxfam's spokesperson.
Oxfam's Antonia Bance and her pal Tom Watson loathe the Blairites, and they have a particular dislike for DWP, as they consider that department to be a Blairite stonghold. All this became clear last evening when Bance appeared to BBC on behalf of Oxfam. Tom Watson has an article on Oxfam's campaign on UK poverty, in which the Government minister and Brown ally approves of Oxfam's recommendations: The report makes a number of recommendations:
1. Make the tax system more progressive, including by increasing the threshold at which income tax is paid and lowering tax and benefit tapers
2. Invest in infrastructure, including a comprehensive energy efficiency programme, an expansion of free, high quality childcare and social care and a social house building programme
3. Introduce an emergency increase in out-of-work benefits and tax credits
4. Put further welfare reform on hold, and renew the welfare state so it becomes a genuine safety net for all
5. Effectively enforce existing employment rights
6. Set a maximum level of interest and widen eligibility for social fund hardship loans
7. Give more help to struggling homeowners and private tenants
8. Redouble government’s commitment to equality, anti-discrimination and community cohesion".
And then he says that he admires Oxfam for having the courage to run this campaign....it makes one want to vomit!
There is something rather fishy about a Government minister agreeing with every recommendation that a charity is asking the Government to act on in its campaign report, and even murkier that this report is given high billing in the Government minister's blog. Welcome to the world of Antonia Bance of Oxfam and Tom Watson of the cabinet Office, and if you read carefully the congratulatory messages Bance and Watson send each on their blogs, you will no doubt notice that these 2 valiant souls are fighting not just the Tories, but their more immediate enemies: the Blairites. One can't help thinking whether Councillor Bance is using Oxfam for her political fights...clearly she has the ears of MacBride, Draper and Watson, who are also using her for their warfare against their enemies. And Oxfam is allowing all this to happen!
To answer "Curmudgeon's" question... The practical definition of "an alcoholic" is "someone who drinks more than his doctor". :-)
Curmudgeon, indeed yes, that has always been the govt's argument, that alcoholics and druggies have other conditions which would also stop them working.
Chicken or egg?
Post a Comment