Benefit or a curse?

Benefits are controversial. They provide the most basic example of the social debate between the left and right, with the left advocating that the government should intervene to help people and the right that social issues are the responsibility of the individual. Clearly as different administrations come and go these things will change. However, when you couple ideology with economic issues you have perfect conditions for controversy.

Under the Labour government welfare in the UK was significantly increased, with benefits being given for almost everything from child tax credit, to EMA, to job seeker's allowance. However, the system was costly; not just for the money that it paid out but for the cost of a complex administrative system to run out.

Iain Duncan Smith is proposing a new benefits system where one payment would encompass all the needs of the individual. Although fringe benefits, such as the EMA, would be cut, essential benefits, such as disability allowances, would not be significantly cut. Clearly this would cut down on administrative costs and thus achieve the primary goal of the coalition at this time, which is economic recovery.
However, is this system really that streamlined? If someone needs a new payment is it any less complex to add this into their total payment? Or, more importantly to remove a payment. And as we've seen from the student demonstrations cutting something inessential such as EMA will meet with fierce resistance anyway.

Benefits by definition will always be economically damaging. However, if the key is reducing administrative costs it may be that there is no easy answer to the question curbing the controversy.

3 steps back

Cuts, cuts and cuts are required, nay mandatory, when you're running a deficit of massive proportions. There are only two areas which are exempt from this and that is core education and healthcare.

Now note that i said core education. By this I am not referring to higher. This is because higher education is not a right it is a privilege that should be affordable for everyone but not necessarily free or cheap. Let's take the US for example; there are multiple options for the type of university you go to from cheap community colleges, to more expensive state universities, to the most expensive private universities.

With this the federal government and the colleges each give each student a tailor made amount of aid to help fund their studies, from grants, to loans, to campus work. The poorest, and the middle classes, can afford to go to university. It is clear then that increasing tuition fees can work if they are coupled with a balancing aid program.

Students in the UK are rather misled on what rising tuition fees mean. But that is not necessarily their fault; it is the role of government after all to justify their means. However, when protest turns violent you achieve nothing. Last week students made themselves appear immature and without a clear message and counter argument to distract from the violence this supposed 'minority' became the focus.

Three steps back, everytime.

Women in politics: Christine O'Donnell

I'm going to start off this series on women in politics with one of the most controversial, and unpopular, Christine O'Donnell.


It is not simply her view points that make Christine O'Donnell unpopular. After all Marco Rubio has the same ones and has now won the Florida Senate seat. Extremism is never an issue if it is conveyed in a knowing and comprehensive way. However, Christine O'Donnell irritates many women through her own ignorance and naivety; from the constitution to former comments she has made.

Let's look at some examples. Ms O'Donnell was widely unknown prior to running for the 2010 elections in Delaware. As a result there has been a lot of scrutiny of her past revealing several surprising factors. The first of these were extremist statements made by her some years ago. These include references to dabbling in witchcraft and masturbation being a sin. In the case of the former Ms O'Donnell's response was to release a rather awkward advert declaring herself, rather than as a witch, as the individual watching. This ad was not well received to say the least.

Secondly investigations into her educational claims on her LinkedIn profile have revealed several discrepancies including an additional degree being claimed and a period of study at Oxford University also being cited.

Finally, Ms O'Donnell has made simply ignorant claims about the Constitution of the United States, in particular the separation of Church and State. However, it is important to not that this may not be Ms O'Donnell's own fault. There are a number of misled histories widespread within the Tea Party that may have affected her understanding.

The issue is that as a woman in politics Ms O'Donnell is being made a mockery of and thus is misrepresenting the powerful affect that women can have, as well as the major role we need, as well as want, to have. And it is apparent that other male figures within the Tea Party are not coming under anywhere near as much scrutiny as the women.

However, there is a silver lining. Christine has lost the Senate seat for Delaware to a Democratic candidate so maybe people can still perceive ignorance in these fractured times.