Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

Ahhh the return of Thatcher - this time its worse

Borsi demands that strikes are not allowed to happen

Except that isn't what he said at all Ian!!

50% voting in favour of strike action means they down tools. Why should less than a majority of the work force voting for a strike mean that the actual majority have to walk out?

Seems perfectly sensible.

Serious question, do you really think that public sector workers going on strike can reverse the necessary public spending cuts?

[drat01]

Yes he is saying that Jon and you know it. He is basically trying to make any strike action impossible to happen.

Look at the Tube strike today, safety will be seriously compromised if Boris's plans are allowed to happen and that is just not acceptable.

Interesting that he calls for a 50% participation also - Hmmm remind me again how this Gvmt was elected?

[Awol]

The same people were Labour's "friends" too (like Murdoch), or have you forgotten that?

Eh?

Have you forgotten how much Blair and Brown fawned over the City and the bankers? Trying to pretend that sucking bankers off is a purely Tory occupation is ridiculous. If you at least try to have some balance in your views it makes them more credible.

The fact that Gideon will attack only the Public Sector and the Labour party for the problems that this world faces. Why was his primary announcement today attacking benefits?

Many private sector firms have been shedding jobs, taking pay cuts and/or extending hours for the past two years in order to try and remain economically viable, or did you miss that? Now it's the turn of the public sector which is unfortunate but necessary.

If he had abolished child benefit for all then you'd have a point but taking it away from high earners doesn't seem so bad, in fact it seems like exactly the sort of proposal you'd be defending if Labour had done it.

[Awol]

Yes he is saying that Jon and you know it. He is basically trying to make any strike action impossible to happen.

He's saying that strikes are acceptable if 50% of the workforce back them. How is that making strike action impossible? It also makes it more difficult for militant unionists to intimidate people who don't wish to strike (bloody scabs) into abstaining from the vote and nullifying their opinion.

Look at the Tube strike today, safety will be seriously compromised if Boris's plans are allowed to happen and that is just not acceptable.

Don't know enough about the Tube strike to comment Ian.

[drat01]

Have you forgotten how much Blair and Brown fawned over the City and the bankers? Trying to pretend that sucking bankers off is a purely Tory occupation is ridiculous. If you at least try to have some balance in your views it makes them more credible.

So those massive contributions from Hedge funds to the Tory party coffers never happened? The fact that the Tory party only blame the Public Sector and the Labour party is just a coincidence of fate?

Yes private sector are shedding jobs but you (conveniently) miss the key point about public sector working and what it is there to do. They are not companies, they are not there for profit for a few shareholders, they are there to help for everyone. Again look at the Tube strike, cutting back on staff will compromise safety, justify that!

And again Jon you are far too quick to jump in - Gideon has announced a cock eyed scheme this morning, ill thought out again. Why is this not phased? As you go up the income ladder then it is reduced? - As it is being described today it is totally ill thought out

[Awol]

Have you forgotten how much Blair and Brown fawned over the City and the bankers? Trying to pretend that sucking bankers off is a purely Tory occupation is ridiculous. If you at least try to have some balance in your views it makes them more credible.

So those massive contributions from Hedge funds to the Tory party coffers never happened?

I don't know what hedge funds donated to the Tory party or how much but I don't doubt that it happened. So what? I also know that Labour secured funding from various sources including from non-dom's, by flogging peerages, offering influence, taking tax payers money through the Union Modernisation Fund and generally being totally shady.

Please tell me what the difference is Ian because it seems to me they are all at it?

The fact that the Tory party only blame the Public Sector and the Labour party is just a coincidence of fate?

Or that Brown blamed the banks/the Americans/Thatcher and didn't acknowledge that the bloated public sector was part of the debt problem?

Yes private sector are shedding jobs but you (conveniently) miss the key point about public sector working and what it is there to do. They are not companies, they are not there for profit for a few shareholders, they are there to help for everyone.

Many public sector workers do a great and valuable job for society and many do not. Having shared an office with people from Birmingham City Council for a few years they didn't all appear to be great value for money.

Again look at the Tube strike, cutting back on staff will compromise safety, justify that!

I thought they were cutting the numbers of ticketing staff? Seeing as there are automated machines at every tube station that doesn't seem like the end of the world, or should retailers going down the route of automation also be pilloried for putting people out of work?

And again Jon you are far too quick to jump in - Gideon has announced a cock eyed scheme this morning,

Did you read the post where I agreed with those exact words or not?

ill thought out again. Why is this not phased? As you go up the income ladder then it is reduced?

How much higher can you go than the top rate of tax? No one below that will be touched by this, will they? Are you suggesting the child benefit for people on lower incomes should be reduced as well? You'll have them in work houses next.. :winkold:

As it is being described today it is totally ill thought out

Given the work IDS has been putting into comprehensive benefit reform that doesn't seem likely.

[drat01]

Phillip Hammond on 27th April

We have made a decision to rule out means testing child benefit because it is a universal benefit. Talking to people, one of the things they appreciate about child benefit that it is universal and easily understood. To start to means test it would erode it ... It reassures them about the availability of the benefit. If you start means testing it, if you start slicing away at that universality, then people are going to ask where you are going to stop".

Clegg on April 12th

"We are not putting child benefit into question. I never have and he hasn't either" said Clegg, giving an unequivocal commitment to universalism and claiming that neither he nor Vince Cable had ever suggested anything else.

JP: Can we just clear up something on child benefit: in September last year, you said you wanted to get rid of child benefit for high earners. At the start of ...

NC: No I didn't say get rid of it. I didn't say; I've never said that.

JP: You've never wanted to get rid of it for high earners.

NC: No, I've never said that.

JP: But Vince Cable said in the Chancellor's debate,only a matter of two or three weeks ago, that he did want to get rid of it.

NC: No, he made quite clear, within minutes I think of the debate , that he misspoke, and that what he meant was the child component of the child tax credit system.

We are not putting child benefit into question. I never have and he hasn't either.

So basically more and more lies. And Jon to somehow say because IDS has been involved makes it OK, raises a smile or three.

As for the Tube strike, the right wing media are claiming it to be about Ticket offices, but if they actually did a bit more homework they would know its not, its about staffing levels in general and with that come many safety issues

[drat01]

Given the work IDS has been putting into comprehensive benefit reform that doesn't seem likely.

:-) - even Gideon has admitted that its screwed :-)

9.10am: In an interview on the Today programme, George Osborne acknowledged Sunder Katwala's point (see 9.02am) about a couple who earn £40,000 each still getting child benefit, while a family with one person earning £50,000 would lose it. There were "anomalies", Osborne said.

The reason that that is the case is that the alternative would be to introduce a very complicated means test where we would assess the household income of every house in the country and change child benefit entirely as we know it. It is part of the system we've introduced in order to try and keep this as simple as possible. And actually, the average income of someone in a household with a higher rate taxpayer is more like £75,000.

grud

[Awol]

Phillip Hammond on 27th April

We have made a decision to rule out means testing child benefit because it is a universal benefit. Talking to people, one of the things they appreciate about child benefit that it is universal and easily understood. To start to means test it would erode it ... It reassures them about the availability of the benefit. If you start means testing it, if you start slicing away at that universality, then people are going to ask where you are going to stop".

Clegg on April 12th

"We are not putting child benefit into question. I never have and he hasn't either" said Clegg, giving an unequivocal commitment to universalism and claiming that neither he nor Vince Cable had ever suggested anything else.

JP: Can we just clear up something on child benefit: in September last year, you said you wanted to get rid of child benefit for high earners. At the start of ...

NC: No I didn't say get rid of it. I didn't say; I've never said that.

JP: You've never wanted to get rid of it for high earners.

NC: No, I've never said that.

JP: But Vince Cable said in the Chancellor's debate,only a matter of two or three weeks ago, that he did want to get rid of it.

NC: No, he made quite clear, within minutes I think of the debate , that he misspoke, and that what he meant was the child component of the child tax credit system.

We are not putting child benefit into question. I never have and he hasn't either.

So basically more and more lies.

Presumably you acknowledge that as a coalition gov neither the conservatives or the lib dems will be able to implement their individual manifestos in full? Therefore compromises will have to be reached and child benefit for those who don't need it is clearly one of those issues.

You still haven't answered as to whether or not you think it's fair for it to be removed from the wealthiest and it seems like you are just moaning for moanings sake.

Do you even accept that cuts are needed yet and if so where do you think they should fall?

As for the Tube strike, the right wing media are claiming it to be about Ticket offices, but if they actually did a bit more homework they would know its not, its about staffing levels in general and with that come many safety issues

As I said I'm no expert on the required staffing levels for an underground rail system, are you?

I would however be interested in The Rev's take on it, being that he has some actual knowledge of the subject.

[drat01]

Presumably you acknowledge that as a coalition gov neither the conservatives or the lib dems will be able to implement their individual manifestos in full? Therefore compromises will have to be reached and child benefit for those who don't need it is clearly one of those issues.

Jon - that is the best ever mate, I actually applaud you for that one. So what you are saying is that basically everything they were elected on can be ignored? Mandate?

You still haven't answered as to whether or not you think it's fair for it to be removed from the wealthiest and it seems like you are just moaning for moanings sake.

I did answer Jon. A phased approach is much better, because under this scheme that was apparently so well thought out by IDS and Gideon, you have the stupidity of a couple who earn 85K getting it, while a couple with only one person working earning 46K not. A phased approach above the 45K join threshold is much fairer.

Do you even accept that cuts are needed yet and if so where do you think they should fall?

The bog standard answer of the Tory supporters these days. You talk about "cuts" as they are something that needs to be massive and immediate and bollox to the repercussions. The timing and the impact are essential. The targets for these are massively important. The ConDem led ones - and of course we now know we can ignore everything they said before and probably last week, are too much too quick and we will see many millions of people being hammered. The wealthy wont though because the impact will be lessened if they are hit at all

As I said I'm no expert on the required staffing levels for an underground rail system, are you?

I would however be interested in The Rev's take on it, being that he has some actual knowledge of the subject.

No I am no expert, but when examples are given about safety checks that will be removed as a result of staff reductions, I am naturally concerned and would listen to people in that industry - you know people in the RMT.

[Awol]

Presumably you acknowledge that as a coalition gov neither the conservatives or the lib dems will be able to implement their individual manifestos in full? Therefore compromises will have to be reached and child benefit for those who don't need it is clearly one of those issues.

Jon - that is the best ever mate, I actually applaud you for that one. So what you are saying is that basically everything they were elected on can be ignored? Mandate?

If you feel that they don't have a mandate (and I can see the logic in that) then I have to ask why you support Proportional Representation? If under PR a Coalition Gov' was formed that consisted of parties which had campaigned seperately, then by your logic they would never have a mandate.

If that is how you feel then fair enough but at the moment you appear to hold two totally opposite views of the same situtation.

You still haven't answered as to whether or not you think it's fair for it to be removed from the wealthiest and it seems like you are just moaning for moanings sake.

I did answer Jon. A phased approach is much better,

So means tested then?

because under this scheme that was apparently so well thought out by IDS and Gideon, you have the stupidity of a couple who earn 85K getting it, while a couple with only one person working earning 46K not.

For the third time...I agree with you. I don't think it will be implemented in it's current form and we still have a while until the CSR is released.

A phased approach above the 45K join threshold is much fairer.

But will that save enough money?

Do you even accept that cuts are needed yet and if so where do you think they should fall?

The bog standard answer of the Tory supporters these days. You talk about "cuts" as they are something that needs to be massive and immediate and bollox to the repercussions.

Is 2013 for child benefit cuts really "immediate"?

The timing and the impact are essential. The targets for these are massively important. The ConDem led ones - and of course we now know we can ignore everything they said before and probably last week, are too much too quick and we will see many millions of people being hammered. The wealthy wont though because the impact will be lessened if they are hit at all

The child benefit cuts ARE targetted at the (relatively) wealthy though? Besides is it not better to get things back on track quickly, stimulate growth and reduce the 120 million per day debt interest payments that will only prolong the situation?

I notice you make zero suggestions as to where the cuts should come though. Colour me shocked

No I am no expert, but when examples are given about safety checks that will be removed as a result of staff reductions, I am naturally concerned and would listen to people in that industry - you know people in the RMT.

The RMT...Lol..

[Demitri_C]

Ahhh the return of Thatcher - this time its worse

so its ok what london underground are doing to people?

[drat01]

If you feel that they don't have a mandate (and I can see the logic in that) then I have to ask why you support Proportional Representation? If under PR a Coalition Gov' was formed that consisted of parties which had campaigned seperately, then by your logic they would never have a mandate.

If that is how you feel then fair enough but at the moment you appear to hold two totally opposite views of the same situtation.

Different subject altogether though Jon. The Tory party and the LibDems were elected based on their manifesto and comments made pre election. Just because they have now become this merged entity does not then automatically remove those ideas. In a PR / AV or whatever based system, then manifesto's and the like will be totally different

So means tested then?

If you want to put a label on it then probably that is the closest. The simple idea is for families above a certain wage you then introduce a sliding scale of this benefit. A couple earning 40K get full whack, 45K get 97%, 50K get 90% and so on. The ill thought out idea that IDS and Gideon have put forward, is a broken promise from the election (and the budget of a few weeks back) and has more holes in it than a tramps underpants

But will that save enough money?

Again Jon its about you wanting this immediate full impact and bugger the consequences. A reduction would occur with a phased approach certainly

Is 2013 for child benefit cuts really "immediate"?

Look at the reports this morning from Health professionals on the speed of cuts and changes there. Look at various reports over the past few weeks from differing professional bodies on the impact of immediate and severe cuts. The impact of these is just going through its final warm up ready to be unleashed on to the UK.

The child benefit cuts ARE targetted at the (relatively) wealthy though? Besides is it not better to get things back on track quickly, stimulate growth and reduce the 120 million per day debt interest payments that will only prolong the situation?

I notice you make zero suggestions as to where the cuts should come though. Colour me shocked

Woah there - 2 things, where did you say I had to make suggestions on cuts and secondly see point 1. You embrace this, IMO totally flawed idea, of the massive impact cuts. This is something that many don't agree with - ironically including the LibDems before they got all gooey with power. I saw something the other day about kids discipline that was used as an analogy. The ConDem's are proposing that we beat the naughty kid with a cane, whereas others are saying that discipline is better dished out in a more civilised way, the impact will still be felt but not in such a barbaric way. I sort of know where they are coming from, because you don't make a horse run quicker by stop feeding it (yeah another analogy from the same article - read in a hospital waiting room for 4 hours zzzzz)

The RMT...Lol..

Why laugh? You are happy to call on Nayson, a Union member, I just said the RMT - a union that represents the Rail workers, would have lot better idea than you or me I suspect, but again because they are a Union they should be ignored? Now that is LOL

[drat01]

Ahhh the return of Thatcher - this time its worse

so its ok what london underground are doing to people?

What London Underground are proposing is not acceptable Dem, No. When I travel on that, I like to think that at least safety is not being compromised for the sake of a few headlines and saving a couple of quid

[snowychap]

What has he said that has pissed you off because I can't see a specific underlying complaint in your post? Is it the single unified benefit thing, because I thought that looked like a pretty good idea so far (although I'm hazy on the detail)?

I shouldn't have just limited it to Osborne (I should also have included the Smith twins).

As Peter said the 'detail' does appear to be hazy but from what I've seen and heard so far (and I'm listening to that numpty Duncan Smith at the moment) what detail has leaked out sounds pretty badly thought out.

Firstly, they seem to be suggesting that because it will be called a 'universal' single benefit that this will automatically make it less complicated, less bureaucratic, less wasteful and contain fewer errors. As a way to help this it seems that it is going to be connected to PAYE data (and we all know that is completely and utterly reliable and no information is ever wrong there, don't we?). It also appears that all of the benefits will become one which tends to suggest that each person is going to be paid the same level as the next person (unless it will depend upon circumstances which would mean returning some of the complexity that they say they are going to take out); reading between the lines, it would also point towards means testing of everyone on this universal credit (some benefits are not means tested but most are) and, by its nature, means testing increases the complexity of a system.

It would appear that the suggestion is to call something a universal benefit but still have it made up of constituent parts (covering out of work benefits, housing benefits,, &c.). I might be wrong and it might be the intention just to have a single payment of £x (the exact level of which is determined by the income one may get) which would make very important the level at which that payment is set. If the level of that payment is not set according to the circumstances of the individual, e.g. whether they are unable to work, due to health problems; where they may live (and therefore the cost of housing); in which housing sector they live (private rented or social), then one might think that some are either going to 'lose out' or some do unfairly well.

It is hardly likely to be the latter, therefore I would reckon that the level is going to be set at a point which will cause problems for people (most likely those who are the ones who actually most need that help) and, as a result, cause problems for society.

p.s. My post in the early hours was more of a general underlying letting off of steam about the silly little cock Osborne.

[Demitri_C]

What London Underground are proposing is not acceptable Dem, No. When I travel on that, I like to think that at least safety is not being compromised for the sake of a few headlines and saving a couple of quid

i work in hospital they are cutting staff you dont see all the nurses walking out do you? i think its quite pathetic really ian im afraid

[drat01]

What London Underground are proposing is not acceptable Dem, No. When I travel on that, I like to think that at least safety is not being compromised for the sake of a few headlines and saving a couple of quid

i work in hospital they are cutting staff you dont see all the nurses walking out do you? i think its quite pathetic really ian im afraid

Dem - I fail to see how Nurses and Train safety issues can be compared.

Interestingly though the changes to the NHS that the ConDem's are proposing are being challenged by all areas of the health profession.

If you are happy though in the thought that safety may well be compromised on the Tube because of penny savings by Boris, then so be it. Personally I think that safety should always be up there as high priority and that should never be compromised in order that Boris can save a few more pennies

[drat01]

" and where fraud cannot hide behind complexity.

I didn't realise he hated Ashcroft so much

Well Gideon that was not worth turning the channel over from the Ryder cup for. Interesting that the conference delegates gave a massive round of applause on soundbites against benefits but muted on banks and bankers.

Pissed myself laughing when he talked about not being SE centric, when the bias of the Gvmt announcements to date show them to be just that. Not one mention of Forgemasters when he talks about innovation, Oh I wonder why that was, maybe the man who complained was too busy donating again :-)

[snowychap]

Does this £500/wk cap include housing benefit?

To answer my own question: yes.

The treasury says:

The cap will be delivered by Local Authorities. Local Authorities will assess the total benefit income of all new and existing Housing Benefit (HB) claimants, and reduce HB to ensure that they do not receive more than the cap.

I wonder whether the bods at the treasury have any predictions for the numbers of evictions.

[Awol]

I wonder whether the bods at the treasury have any predictions for the numbers of evictions.

As was noted earlier this process of reworking the benefits system has yet to be fleshed out fully in terms of detail. However I thought the gist was that if an unemployed person secures part-time work, they would still retain their benefits? Furthermore they'd pay no income tax on the first £7,500 of income per annum.

Is that not an incentive for those who can do some form of work but currently don't to actually give it a go and supplement their benefits?