Bishop of Bradford backs protest over benefit changes

The Bishop of Bradford is among 43 Bishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who have written an open letter condemning Government plans to change the benefits system, saying it will have a “deeply disproportionate” effect on children.

The letter, signed by the Right Reverend Nick Baines, has warned that 200,000 children will be pushed into poverty if plans to change the system go ahead in their current form.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, who is attempting to steer the reforms through Parliament, said the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, which will cap benefit rises at one per cent a year until 2016, is needed to help get spending “back under control” and create a fairer deal for taxpayers. But in the letter the Bishops have called on the House of Lords to take for action to “protect children from the impact of this Bill” when the proposed legislation is debated this week.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Justin Welby, who will be enthroned at Canterbury Cathedral on March 21, said the legislation would remove the protection given to families against the rising cost of living.

He said: “As a civilised society, we have a duty to support those among us who are vulnerable and in need.

“When times are hard, that duty should be felt more than ever, not disappear or diminish.

“It is essential that we have a welfare system that responds to need and recognises the rising costs of food, fuel and housing.”

In response, a spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “In difficult economic times we’ve protected the incomes of pensioners and disabled people, and most working age benefits will continue to increase one per cent.

“This was a tough decision but it’s one that will help keep the welfare bill sustainable in the longer term.

“By raising the personal allowance threshold, we've lifted two million people out of tax altogether, clearly benefiting people on a low income.”

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said Labour would go ahead with a benefits increase linked to inflation this year, which would be paid for by restricting pensions tax relief on high earners.

She said new mothers would lose £180 a year as a result of the one per cent cap.

Miss Cooper said: “I think it is pretty simple on Mother’s Day to say that the Government should help mums not millionaires.

“They are cutting taxes for millionaires and yet they are taking away money from mums at a time when they really want to be able to stay at home with their new-borns.”

Comments(15)

BertSanders says...
9:46am Mon 11 Mar 13

Are the Bishops well situated to make the judgement? Most have never done a days work, and themselves live on inheritence or church funding - they certainly do not work or understand the
working class who are unlikely to represent much of their flock.
Just asking the question and interested in the answer.

webess says...
10:16am Mon 11 Mar 13

The Church of England has billions in assets and has tax free status. I can think of one place where funding for extra welfare spending might come from...

Baildonboy says...
10:54am Mon 11 Mar 13

it's a tough call to restrict benefit increases to just 1% when inflation is approaching 3% but I guess the Bishop is no economic guru !! We can't continue to increase benefits in line with inflation anymore as the costs are massive & the debt is heading out of control.

I'm afraid it's time for some tough decisions & am sure the Bible will have some reference somewhere about making sacrifices - whether in work or not ?

Mojohappy4 says...
12:05pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Wages are not and have not been increased at the same rate of inflation for years so why should benefits be any different!

Sacrifices need to be made by all.

BertSanders says...
12:41pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Baildonboy wrote:
it's a tough call to restrict benefit increases to just 1% when inflation is approaching 3% but I guess the Bishop is no economic guru !! We can't continue to increase benefits in line with inflation anymore as the costs are massive & the debt is heading out of control.

I'm afraid it's time for some tough decisions & am sure the Bible will have some reference somewhere about making sacrifices - whether in work or not ?
True - but I understand that Civil Servants - some who administer these benefits have not had a salary increase for three years and their work has become more demanding with less personel. Benefits have to be comprehensively investigated - there is not a never ending pot of money.
The Bishops will have no more knowledge than I and are interfering in political judgement. Even if the millionare tax is to produce more revenue it would never be believed and contested by the likes of Yvette Cooper and with her husband she will not be feeling the pinch at all.- the expenseses scandal showed them to be very adept at looking after themseves.
I expect all this will bring about another Labour Government and the ramifications of this to the ecomomy will be disasterous - but then - they did not bring about the huge deficit - did they?.

Not so simple says...
1:10pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Some of these so called public servants or civil servants are not fit for purpose....I know I've worked with the useless people. They have no respect or loyalty to the people who pay their wages and top up their private pensions.

Ever heard a public job for life. That really means "any job so long as I get a decent pension at the end". Loyalty or value for money is not their priority....just look at the council and the various departments, some of which are now privatised or stock transferred....beyon
d a joke!

Not so simple says...
1:22pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Mojohappy4 wrote:
Wages are not and have not been increased at the same rate of inflation for years so why should benefits be any different!

Sacrifices need to be made by all.
Errm not really.


Think about the real facts.

The banks have, with their fraudulent lending and investments( derivatives) placed this countries tax payers under trillions of pounds worth of debt/tax.

Had these big banks been allowed to fail as per the capitalist system norms, then the billions used to bail them out and billions used by the govt to purchase these toxic derivative debts( fraudulent debts that only exist as thin air): the money sould have been paid to the taxpayers to repay part or all of their mortgages and debts.

Read again...instead of bailing out their bankster mates and their non existent debts, the govt should have bailed out each and everyone of the citizens with a mortgage.

This way everything in Britain would have been cashed up and debt free. The only losers would have been billionaire bankers/fraudsters!

The nation would have been debt free, the govt and the people could have setup new publicaly owned banks which would have resulted in a huge cash flow increase into the economy by the billions saved in repaying non existent debt.

This is a common sense way of running a capitalist economy. The way this moronic,sell out govt did things was to help their mates in banks whilst treating the taxpayer of the UK as a slave!

This is treason and neglect of their duty to the people of this land.

The govt knows this and is 'poohing" itself behind the scenes should the people of the UK actually start using their common sense instead of slagging each other off via the various ego boosting media outlets.

Wake up people...one for all and all for one

BertSanders says...
1:30pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Not so simple wrote:
Some of these so called public servants or civil servants are not fit for purpose....I know I've worked with the useless people. They have no respect or loyalty to the people who pay their wages and top up their private pensions.

Ever heard a public job for life. That really means "any job so long as I get a decent pension at the end". Loyalty or value for money is not their priority....just look at the council and the various departments, some of which are now privatised or stock transferred....beyon

d a joke!
Maybe - but who are you to make the judgement. You appear to imply no increase to wages is correct - benefits should be at the inflation rate. I am no longer a tax payer - but I do not see why you should expect the taxpayer to top up benefits beyond wages. Some then receive benefits beyond which they could ever earn and will remain a drain on public resources for ever
Are you fit for purpose? What purpose?.

Not so simple says...
1:45pm Mon 11 Mar 13

BertSanders wrote:
Not so simple wrote:
Some of these so called public servants or civil servants are not fit for purpose....I know I've worked with the useless people. They have no respect or loyalty to the people who pay their wages and top up their private pensions.

Ever heard a public job for life. That really means "any job so long as I get a decent pension at the end". Loyalty or value for money is not their priority....just look at the council and the various departments, some of which are now privatised or stock transferred....beyon


d a joke!
Maybe - but who are you to make the judgement. You appear to imply no increase to wages is correct - benefits should be at the inflation rate. I am no longer a tax payer - but I do not see why you should expect the taxpayer to top up benefits beyond wages. Some then receive benefits beyond which they could ever earn and will remain a drain on public resources for ever
Are you fit for purpose? What purpose?.
I'm a tax payer. Unlike you. Enjoy your retirement and NHS on the taxpayers expense. Enjoy your cheap subsidised food products at the tax payers expense.

I do not claim benefits and don't want em.

I speak my mind and will express my opinion in my country.

I will not allow morons who do not understand basic economics to tell me what I should or shouldn't think.

Talking about fit for purpose, learn to read!

BertSanders says...
2:26pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Not so simple wrote:
BertSanders wrote:
Not so simple wrote:
Some of these so called public servants or civil servants are not fit for purpose....I know I've worked with the useless people. They have no respect or loyalty to the people who pay their wages and top up their private pensions.

Ever heard a public job for life. That really means "any job so long as I get a decent pension at the end". Loyalty or value for money is not their priority....just look at the council and the various departments, some of which are now privatised or stock transferred....beyon



d a joke!
Maybe - but who are you to make the judgement. You appear to imply no increase to wages is correct - benefits should be at the inflation rate. I am no longer a tax payer - but I do not see why you should expect the taxpayer to top up benefits beyond wages. Some then receive benefits beyond which they could ever earn and will remain a drain on public resources for ever
Are you fit for purpose? What purpose?.
I'm a tax payer. Unlike you. Enjoy your retirement and NHS on the taxpayers expense. Enjoy your cheap subsidised food products at the tax payers expense.

I do not claim benefits and don't want em.

I speak my mind and will express my opinion in my country.

I will not allow morons who do not understand basic economics to tell me what I should or shouldn't think.

Talking about fit for purpose, learn to read!
Thank you - I did pay taxes in my 44 years of work which helped support yours and my forbears. You are so clever but idiotic too - can you tell me how to unsubscibe so I am not tempted to communicate with the likes of you.?
Forgive me for being old - but I cannot find an unsubscribe - no doubt you will know precisely.

webess says...
2:36pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Not so simple wrote:
Mojohappy4 wrote:
Wages are not and have not been increased at the same rate of inflation for years so why should benefits be any different!

Sacrifices need to be made by all.
Errm not really.


Think about the real facts.

The banks have, with their fraudulent lending and investments( derivatives) placed this countries tax payers under trillions of pounds worth of debt/tax.

Had these big banks been allowed to fail as per the capitalist system norms, then the billions used to bail them out and billions used by the govt to purchase these toxic derivative debts( fraudulent debts that only exist as thin air): the money sould have been paid to the taxpayers to repay part or all of their mortgages and debts.

Read again...instead of bailing out their bankster mates and their non existent debts, the govt should have bailed out each and everyone of the citizens with a mortgage.

This way everything in Britain would have been cashed up and debt free. The only losers would have been billionaire bankers/fraudsters!

The nation would have been debt free, the govt and the people could have setup new publicaly owned banks which would have resulted in a huge cash flow increase into the economy by the billions saved in repaying non existent debt.

This is a common sense way of running a capitalist economy. The way this moronic,sell out govt did things was to help their mates in banks whilst treating the taxpayer of the UK as a slave!

This is treason and neglect of their duty to the people of this land.

The govt knows this and is 'poohing" itself behind the scenes should the people of the UK actually start using their common sense instead of slagging each other off via the various ego boosting media outlets.

Wake up people...one for all and all for one
Regarding your "real facts".

The last Labour government was running a deficit BEFORE the credit crunch....

Yorkshire Lass says...
4:22pm Mon 11 Mar 13

webess wrote:
Not so simple wrote:
Mojohappy4 wrote:
Wages are not and have not been increased at the same rate of inflation for years so why should benefits be any different!

Sacrifices need to be made by all.
Errm not really.


Think about the real facts.

The banks have, with their fraudulent lending and investments( derivatives) placed this countries tax payers under trillions of pounds worth of debt/tax.

Had these big banks been allowed to fail as per the capitalist system norms, then the billions used to bail them out and billions used by the govt to purchase these toxic derivative debts( fraudulent debts that only exist as thin air): the money sould have been paid to the taxpayers to repay part or all of their mortgages and debts.

Read again...instead of bailing out their bankster mates and their non existent debts, the govt should have bailed out each and everyone of the citizens with a mortgage.

This way everything in Britain would have been cashed up and debt free. The only losers would have been billionaire bankers/fraudsters!

The nation would have been debt free, the govt and the people could have setup new publicaly owned banks which would have resulted in a huge cash flow increase into the economy by the billions saved in repaying non existent debt.

This is a common sense way of running a capitalist economy. The way this moronic,sell out govt did things was to help their mates in banks whilst treating the taxpayer of the UK as a slave!

This is treason and neglect of their duty to the people of this land.

The govt knows this and is 'poohing" itself behind the scenes should the people of the UK actually start using their common sense instead of slagging each other off via the various ego boosting media outlets.

Wake up people...one for all and all for one
Regarding your "real facts".

The last Labour government was running a deficit BEFORE the credit crunch....
So why is our Government being told how to run the Country by the church. Is it just a way of getting publicity seeing that the churches' are not doing too good? Leave politics to the politicians, thats what they are paid for and leave preaching to the Church.

RollandSmoke says...
6:39pm Mon 11 Mar 13

How much UK tax were the banks that we bailed out in the City of London paying through the boom years? How much UK tax are those banks in the City of London paying now after holding out the begging bowl to the UK taxpayer then saying oi plebs we want some more?

webess says...
9:31pm Mon 11 Mar 13

RollandSmoke wrote:
How much UK tax were the banks that we bailed out in the City of London paying through the boom years? How much UK tax are those banks in the City of London paying now after holding out the begging bowl to the UK taxpayer then saying oi plebs we want some more?
The UK financial sector was paying about 12% of the entire UK tax take (far more than North Sea Oil) prior to the credit crunch - that's one reason why Gordon Brown rode the tiger of a credit boom...and knighted Fred Godwin of RBS.

The figure now is about 10% of total tax take. About a billion pounds a week, but even this is only a quarter of the welfare bill - hence the Govt is trying to re-balance matters.

RollandSmoke says...
10:21pm Mon 11 Mar 13

So why do they base themselves in the City of London then? Is it not because it is an independent soverign state and therefore not subject to UK taxes?

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree