New alliance against Universal Credit aims to create Poll Tax style movement

[treelover]

New alliance to scrap universal credit aims to mirror anti-poll tax campaign

Disabled activists have called for opponents of universal credit (UC) across the country to help mirror the campaign that led to the poll tax being abandoned in the early 1990s, by joining a new na…

www.disabilitynewsservice.com

Disabled activists have called for opponents of universal credit (UC) across the country to help mirror the campaign that led to the poll tax being abandoned in the early 1990s, by joining a new national alliance that is demanding UC is scrapped.


They announced the new alliance at an online meeting organised by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) that focused on the ongoing campaign to “stop and scrap” UC.


Scrap Universal Credit Alliance (SUCA) will include disabled activists, disabled people’s organisations (DPOs), unions and allies.


Mark Harrison, from Norfolk Against Universal Credit (NAUC) and the Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance, said UC was “the 21st century workhouse” and was leaving people imprisoned in their own homes, in debt and reliant on food banks.


He said it was “urgent that we step up the campaign” to stop and scrap UC.


He said that was why DPAC, NAUC and others had set up SUCA, which will act as an umbrella campaign for all local campaigns around the country that are dedicated to scrapping UC.

Good news, but wonder how successful it will be, the bedroom tax campaign was limited, i also believe that such economic based movements just don't have the same import with people, especially M/C activists, i am aware of at least one person who was prepared to lose her home in the P/T rebellion, can't see that happening now. However, we are seeing huge amounts of people, many never before unemployed, signing on, this may give it fresh impetus

 

[Pickman's model]

it would be a damn sight easier to have something which resembled the poll tax movement if it relied on everyone being on a register, paupers paying the same as millionaires, and so on. the poll tax angered so many people in so many different ways that it enabled a broad coalition to emerge. and there were anti-poll tax groups going from at least 1988 (from the haringey aptu minute book i saw), a great head of steam had built up before the tax was introduced. so tbh i see the grandiose ambitions in this campaign as something which is very unlikely to reproduce the 1980s/90s campaign it seeks to emulate. they are two different creatures, they aren't really comparable, the local focus which was present in the poll tax isn't now...

 

[platinumsage]

it would be a damn site easier to have something which resembled the poll tax movement if it relied on everyone being on a register, paupers paying the same as millionaires, and so on. the poll tax angered so many people in so many different ways that it enabled a broad coalition to emerge. and there were anti-poll tax groups going from at least 1988 (from the haringey aptu minute book i saw), a great head of steam had built up before the tax was introduced. so tbh i see the grandiose ambitions in this campaign as something which is very unlikely to reproduce the 1980s/90s campaign it seeks to emulate. they are two different creatures, they aren't really comparable, the local focus which was present in the poll tax isn't now...

Indeed. I know two disabled people on UC who are very happy with it as they're getting more than they did previously and had no problems applying and being accepted.

 

[Pickman's model]

Indeed. I know two disabled people on UC who are very happy with it as they're getting more than they did previously and had no problems applying and being accepted.

i think they're setting themselves up for disappointment

 

[platinumsage]

yeh there's people who gain and people who lose

That's why I think reforming it rather than scrapping it is probably a more effective campaign target for those who are losing out. Poll tax was opposed in principle by many, so reform wasn't really a possibility.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's why I think reforming it rather than scrapping it is probably a more effective campaign target for those who are losing out. Poll tax was opposed in principle by many, so reform wasn't really a possibility.

yeh it was the principle which allowed such great coalitions to form. i just can't see this getting as far or having the success the cause they espouse deserves.

 

[platinumsage]

The principle of UC actually seems quite sound, the main problems appear to be 1) some people being worse off than they were previously, which in some cases might be argued to be fair but in most cases probably couldn't be so argued, and 2) delays in making payments, which is down to both the long wait for the initial payment due the way the system is designed, and also administrative incompetence in not making payments on time that people are entitled to.

I don't know the best way to get the incumbent Tory government to improve things for people adversely affected, but I'm pretty sure campaiging for it to be scrapped won't be effective until Labour get into power.

 

[souljacker]

scrapped won't be effective until Labour get into power.

Labour don't want to scrap it though, just 'fix' it which, with Starmer in power, probably means tweak it a little bit maybe.

 

[Pickman's model]

The principle of UC actually seems quite sound, the main problems appear to be 1) some people being worse off than they were previously, which in some cases might be argued to be fair but in most cases probably couldn't be so argued, and 2) delays in making payments, which is down to both the long wait for the initial payment due the way the system is designed, and also administrative incompetence in not making payments on time that people are entitled to.

I don't know the best way to get the incumbent Tory government to improve things for people adversely affected, but I'm pretty sure campaiging for it to be scrapped won't be effective until Labour get into power.

also the monthly payment, which leads many people to get into debt. there is no reason it couldn't be paid fortnightly. and the labour party told people in the 1990s to vote labour and they'd scrap the poll tax. that worked well.

 

[smokedout]

The principle of UC actually seems quite sound, the main problems appear to be 1) some people being worse off than they were previously, which in some cases might be argued to be fair but in most cases probably couldn't be so argued, and 2) delays in making payments, which is down to both the long wait for the initial payment due the way the system is designed, and also administrative incompetence in not making payments on time that people are entitled to.

I don't know the best way to get the incumbent Tory government to improve things for people adversely affected, but I'm pretty sure campaiging for it to be scrapped won't be effective until Labour get into power.

The biggest problems are the conditionality/sanctions regime which underpins it and which mean claimants somehow have to prove that they are engaged in actively seeking work for up to 35 hours a week as well as mandatory training and work related activity for many sick and disabled people, repeated health assessments and the prospect (although currently not policy but in the legislation) of part time and low paid workers being forced to jobsearch for more or better paid work or face sanctions. Most of these measures are currently on hold due to Covid, but when they kick in are going to affect a lot of people.

The other big problem is the Minimum Income Floor for self employed people (again currently on hold due to Covid). This means anyone who is self employed will be assumed to be earning the equivalent of the minimum wage for 35 hours a week. If they don't earn that then their benefit will not reflect their lower income, and that will include benefit intended to pay rent as Housing Benefit is now bumdled into UC. Earnings will have to be reported monthly, unlike annually now under Tax Credits, meaning if you have a bad month of earnings, or particularly high expenses for a month your benefits will not take this into account but if you have a good month the next month your benefits will still be cut to bring down your income. Also if your earnings fail to meet or are often below the 35 hour minimum wage level the DWP will not consider you self-employed and will be able to force you to carry out jobsearch and work related activity (which could include workfare) instead of carrying on with self employment. .

This hasn't really hit yet as this is the last group of claimants to be transferred from Tax Credits so only those who have had a change in circumstance, and new claims have been put onto this system, but there's probably around a million people who will face this over the next couple of years (me included unfortunately).

 

[josef1878 2.0]

also the monthly payment, which leads many people to get into debt. there is no reason it couldn't be paid fortnightly. and the labour party told people in the 1990s to vote labour and they'd scrap the poll tax. that worked well.

UC can be paid twice monthly and even weekly if the person claiming requests an Alternative Payment Arrangement (APA). Rent can also paid direct to a landlord under the same APA

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

The biggest problems are the conditionality/sanctions regime which underpins it and which mean claimants somehow have to prove that they are engaged in actively seeking work for up to 35 hours a week as well as mandatory training and work related activity for many sick and disabled people, repeated health assessments and the prospect (although currently not policy but in the legislation) of part time and low paid workers being forced to jobsearch for more or better paid work or face sanctions. Most of these measures are currently on hold due to Covid, but when they kick in are going to affect a lot of people.

The other big problem is the Minimum Income Floor for self employed people (again currently on hold due to Covid). This means anyone who is self employed will be assumed to be earning the equivalent of the minimum wage for 35 hours a week. If they don't earn that then their benefit will not reflect their lower income, and that will include benefit intended to pay rent as Housing Benefit is now bumdled into UC. Earnings will have to be reported monthly, unlike annually now under Tax Credits, meaning if you have a bad month of earnings, or particularly high expenses for a month your benefits will not take this into account but if you have a good month the next month your benefits will still be cut to bring down your income. Also if your earnings fail to meet or are often below the 35 hour minimum wage level the DWP will not consider you self-employed and will be able to force you to carry out jobsearch and work related activity (which could include workfare) instead of carrying on with self employment. .

This hasn't really hit yet as this is the last group of claimants to be transferred from Tax Credits so only those who have had a change in circumstance, and new claims have been put onto this system, but there's probably around a million people who will face this over the next couple of years (me included unfortunately).

yep, I was in receipt of housing benefit before COVID but this has forced me onto UC as pretty much all my work suddenly vanished, I always stayed away from it because of the minimum income floor stupidity, I also never claimed tax credit because of too many horror stories I'd read in the past.
I think in principle a one stop benefit makes a lot more sense ubt the implementation is a disaster.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

UC can be paid twice monthly and even weekly if the person claiming requests an Alternative Payment Arrangement (APA). Rent can also paid direct to a landlord under the same APA

well, I guess this is not very widely known, first I have heard of it.

 

[pseudonarcissus]

The biggest problems are the conditionality/sanctions regime which underpins it and which mean claimants somehow have to prove that they are engaged in actively seeking work for up to 35 hours a week as well as mandatory training and work related activity for many sick and disabled people, repeated health assessments and the prospect (although currently not policy but in the legislation) of part time and low paid workers being forced to jobsearch for more or better paid work or face sanctions. Most of these measures are currently on hold due to Covid, but when they kick in are going to affect a lot of people.

for a lot of people the last time they would have been down the DHSS was to renew an E111 form in the 90s. maybe the current crisis and a lot of people engaging with the system for the first time will change attitudes. I received contribution based JSA 2.5 years ago and the process was ok. Engaging with the home office for spousal rights to live In the country encouraged me to leave. The principle of UC sounds ok until you meet with the reality of dealing with British bureaucracy .

 

[pseudonarcissus]

Poll tax hit everyone, I wonder what proportion of the population has ever dealt with UC.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

The problem with this is that people could/can choose not to pay poll tax or bedroom tax as a protest (although many couldn't/can't afford to), so it was possible to undermine the system and make it unworkable.

That won't work with Universal Credit, because if you protest by not engaging with the system, you don't get paid, you lose out. So on an individual level, that tactic won't work. But to get to a level where things might change, it would take a lot of people agitating for change. Maybe as furlough monies run out and more people get made redundant and sign on as unemployed as the economy tanks, then there might be such a critical mass of people over the next few years?