Looking at both sides of the equation. And still coming to the wrong conclusion.

The BNP have laid into UKIP's welfare policy.

On means testing, this:

Under the heading ‘Benefit Fraud, Error and Administration’, the UKIP paper states that it “proposes to replace a myriad of complicated means-tested benefits with straightforward universal benefits, the running cost of the entire welfare and pensions systems will be no more than £1.7bn, giving a saving to the taxpayer of £8bn.”

Mr Barnes pointed out that this was the “exact opposite of what is required. All universal benefits should be scrapped and all benefits means tested. Furthermore, these figures are nonsense. The billions paid out every year to those in jobs and earning high wages in universal benefits is a disgrace (1). Prince Charles was entitled to claim universal benefits for William and Harry, therefore such a system is farcical (2)”.

On the contributory principle, this:

The UKIP paper states that it would “only allow entitlement to welfare benefits after a minimum waiting period of ten years and on obtaining British citizenship for those who originally entered the country with a valid work permit or for reasons of marriage to a British citizen. Anyone who had entered the country under any other circumstances would not qualify.”

Mr Barnes dismissed this as typical fake Tory doublespeak. “Only those who were born here and have paid in all their lives should get paid out,” Mr Barnes said.

I understand the knee-jerk idea that benefits should be means-tested (to reduce the cost to the taxpayer) and the knee-jerk idea that if you've paid more in, you get more out (these prejudices are prevalent across the political spectrum), but actually, the two ideas cancel each other out:

Consider two workers who are made redundant, through no fault of their own. Mr A has worked in the factory for twenty years, moved up the career ladder a bit, was earning a decent wage and has all but paid off his mortgage and built up some modest savings in the bank. Mr B has only worked there for one year as his first ever job and was earning a very modest wage, barely enough to cover his living costs.

The means-testing principle says that as Mr A has some assets to fall back on, Mr A should get less than Mr B.

The contributory principle says that as Mr A has been paying tax for twenty years, Mr A should get more than Mr B.

So which one is it to be? As a simplification campaigner and libertarian, it seems to me to make most sense to pay them both the same amount of welfare, which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the best way forward is flat-rate, non-contributory, non-means-tested and hence universal benefits.

(1) No it's not a disgrace. You have to remember that universal welfare payments = tax refunds. So a paying out a flat-rate child benefit to people on high incomes is similar to giving them an extra tax-free personal allowance for each child, only simpler - they will still be paying vastly more in tax than they receive in benefits. Similarly, if we went with the BNP's suggested personal allowance of £15,000 (not without its merits, but I'd like to see their costings) then that would save everybody earning more than that about £3,000 a year in tax, whether they are postmen or Premiership footballers.

(2) Why shouldn't people like Prince Charles be able to claim a couple of thousand a year in Child Benefit? It is far more important to remember that Prince Charles, as a large landowner, also receives about half a million quid a year in agricultural subsidies; those are the subsidies we ought to scrap first before we worry about a few thousand quid in Child Benefit.