....... on the streets of Neath

We had two or three people in Neath today ask about The Brexit Party policy on Universal Credit. They seemed to be examples of the people who have lost out – due both to bad running of the system and iniquitous reworking of payments. So, for clarity this is what the “ Contract ” says: Providing a safety net for those in need is a defining mark of a civilised society. The Universal Credit system has not achieved what was intended and needs to be revisited. We pledge to:  • Support those who have paid into the system with accelerated payment processes (five-week maximum), and continue to root out fraud.  • Undertake a 12-month review of the system and bring in reforms within two years.  • Review the position of women unexpectedly short-changed by recent rises in the state pension age.  • Extend the use of dormant funds to support civil society. The review seems to be the most important part of the plan - the system has to be fair and trusted. 

I feel really sad when opponents of Brexit frighten voters with fiction - what has become known as "Project Fear". I feel bad when people are taken in by the misinformation. If you believed every scare story, your view of the world would be so distorted you'd be afraid to get out of bed. The number one fear story this week is about privatising the NHS - despite there being commitments from all the major parties not to privatise the NHS! For the record, the Brexit Party policy as set out in the contract is: "The NHS must remain a publicly owned, comprehensive service free at the point of use" and "There should be no privatisation of the NHS". OK! The reason why scare stories work is that no one can really be sure about the future. If all parties are saying something won't happen it seems unlikely to happen. That said, it could be years before we know for sure if the Tories will - or will not - "privatise" the NHS. Presenting that genu

The respected and independent Institute for Fiscal Studies passed its judgment on the Labour Party manifesto . The tax rises are huge and not as innocuous as the impression given, notably in Labour’s greybook , with higher prices, lower wages and reduced investment expected to follow. Whatever the basic maths based on ready-reckoners, the behavioural changes could be huge – and not for the better. But is this even possible? Head of the think tank, Paul Johnson,  described the claim : 'It's impossible to understate just how extraordinary this manifesto is in terms of the sheer scale of money being spent and raised through the tax system. Take it from me, these are vast numbers, enormous, colossal. They suggest that all of that will come from companies and people earning over £80,000 a year. That is simply not credible.' The IFS concluded on taxes: Labour’s proposed income tax rise for those with incomes above £80,000 would af