Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

" and where fraud cannot hide behind complexity.

I didn't realise he hated Ashcroft so much

Fraud, are you sure?

[Awol]

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

Totally different? As in "if we share power with X party we'd do this, if we share power with Y party we'd do this...etc etc". I think that's very unlikely, what if the current situation in Holland comes up where the balance of power is held by the far right, are Labour (for example) going to sit down with the BNP before a PR election and work out what their joint programe would be? No, a coalition is a coalition and your position is totally contradictory I'm afraid - whether you'll admit it or not.

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.

[drat01]

Totally different? As in "if we share power with X party we'd do this, if we share power with Y party we'd do this...etc etc". I think that's very unlikely, what if the current situation in Holland comes up where the balance of power is held by the far right, are Labour (for example) going to sit down with the BNP before a PR election and work out what their joint programe would be? No, a coalition is a coalition and your position is totally contradictory I'm afraid - whether you'll admit it or not.

Sorry Jon - you can try and try and justify the downright lies (or call them broken promises if you want), but the facts are there, the Tory party and LibDems have totally gone arse about face with their commitments on so many things. To try and somehow justify it by saying that it would happen under PR is deflection on a big scale. We do not have PR or AV and as such each party published a manifesto on which they were elected. The facts are that the coming together of the Cons and the Dems has meant that they have ripped the mandate on which they were elected.

You're talking about saving a minimal amount and creating a bit of a quagmire in terms of measurement and probably sucking up the minimal saving in increased administration costs (assuing they actually get it right anyway)... Sounds like a solidly Labour policy tbh. Wink

A minimal amount? So under your, and the god awful IDS and Gideon scheme you have that stupidity of one person earning 45K who gets penalised while their neighbours earning 86K get the money. And that will save how much exactly? Yes a typical Tory scheme, half thought through, full of rhetoric and basically favouring the richest :-)

I do think we need major reductions very quickly, most people outside of political far left and the union movement agree. Tinkering as you suggest will achieve bugger all imo.

when you say people outside the far left and the Unions, I am interested to see how you get to that, IMO flawed, argument. We see on a nearly daily basis now warnings from professional bodies about the impact on severe cuts. To call the BMA far left or part of the Union is interesting. We are seeing the impact just across the Irish sea on what ill thought out and far too severe immediate cuts bring to an economy. Considering that Gideon has all his eggs in one basket he is basically gambling on success in other world areas to backfill.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas do they?

What a strange thing to say. So your faith is now back in the hands of your Tory gvmt rather than professionals who actually know a lot more about their relative industries? That does not then reconcile with your views on the Tube strike

Sooner it's done, the sooner the problem is fixed. It's like pulling off a plaster stuck on some hair, a short sharp pain or drawn out eye watering pain. The former starts feeling better, sooner.

Wrong, you cannot live your life using that as rule. You assume that what you will be left with will be able to sustain a reasonable society, while the reality is that it wont. For my headache I'd rather take an aspirin than have the head cut off

[blandy]

Ahhh the return of Thatcher - this time its worse

Borsi demands that strikes are not allowed to happen

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.

No it doesn't - it;'s not the way for example that elections work, in this country, is it? It's generally about votes cast, and what proportion of them are for or against. General elections, local elections, workplace elections, school elections, all kinds.

Abstentions at the moment count as neither for not against, to change that to count all abstentions as "No" votes puts a pre-supposition on the don't knows, don't cares, don't want to vote, and can't vote due to illness or absence.

[snowychap]

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.

The proposal as per the Treasury website:

Benefits Cap

From 2013 household benefit payments will be capped on the basis of median earnings after tax for working households, which we estimate to be around £500 per week by 2013. All Disability Living Allowance claimants, War Widows, and working families claiming the working tax credit will be exempt from the cap. The cap will apply to the combined income from:

* The main income replacement benefits (Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income Support, Employment Support Allowance);

* Other means-tested benefits (including Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit);

* Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit;

* Other benefits (including Carer’s Allowance and Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.

...

Notes for Editors

1. Benefits Cap

* One-off benefits and non-cash benefits, such as social fund loans and free school meals, will not be affected

* 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.

* Median income earnings after tax for working households is currently £479 per week (Family Resources Survey). It is estimated to rise to £506/week by 2013.

* The Government will introduce legislation in the Welfare Reform Bill, and will set out detailed plans for delivery, including costing, at the Spending Review.

Looks rather fleshed out to me and I dare say that the treasury has done calculations on how many people are likely to be affected and by how much. I wonder if they've also done some projections of evictions, costs for local authorities of rehousing people, &c.

It appears to be a little like Duncan Smith earlier on; it doesn't appear that they have thought through the potential consequences of what might seem on the face of it to be a fair policy and it appears that they are pursuing the narrative that all people on benefits have made a 'lifestyle choice' as they have devised a policy that treats all people as though they have.

I also wonder whether they have done any projections on how this will impact people across the country (I would have thought it would have a disproportionate effect upon those in areas where the cost of living - mainly the cost of housing - is higher).

[blandy]

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?

40% isn't the top rate of tax. 50% is.

That pedantry aside, I don't see why the public sector should not be looked at in terms of value for money, efficiency and all the rest of it.

To ideologically exclude all Governemnt (i.e.e taxpayer) funded work from an absolutely necessary spending review would be madness.

Seeing as the Gov't (of whatever colour) can only directly affect the work it does and the people who work for it, it seems like a fine place to start.

The same goes for looking at benefits.

The issue isn't what areas they are looking at, its the decisions they take that need questioning and examining.

I agree with Ian that all parties have let off the banking industry too lightly.Regardless of government errors the banks f*cked us over buig time, but almost no condequences have been felt by those directly responsible. meanwhile most of the rest of the country is getting a shafting. That's not natural justice, and people know it.

Labour let them off, and now the Blue Yellow lot are letting them off.

[Awol]

Ahhh the return of Thatcher - this time its worse

Borsi demands that strikes are not allowed to happen

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.

No it doesn't - it;'s not the way for example that elections work, in this country, is it? It's generally about votes cast, and what proportion of them are for or against. General elections, local elections, workplace elections, school elections, all kinds.

Abstentions at the moment count as neither for not against, to change that to count all abstentions as "No" votes puts a pre-supposition on the don't knows, don't cares, don't want to vote, and can't vote due to illness or absence.

I take your point but I'd add that if you abstain then you are not actually voting for strike action. To take the entire (unionised) work force out on strike should (IMO only) require at least 50% of that work force to vote for it, in which case - as you say - an abstention is as good as a "no" vote. I doubt that enough people would be off sick on the day of the ballot to make a quantative difference to the outcome. If they can't be bothered to vote or feel intimidated into not voting for some reason then they should go in the "no" column imo.

[Richard]

To take the entire (unionised) work force out on strike should (IMO only) require at least 50% of that work force to vote for it, in which case - as you say - an abstention is as good as a "no" vote

50% +1 surely?

[drat01]

I see that the think tank setup by IDS even thinks that the benefit scheme is ill thought out.

Ill thought out scheme

A think tank founded by welfare secretary Iain Duncan Smith has urged the government to explore "alternative options" to axing child benefit for high earners.

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) said it understood the reasons for the move but was "concerned" by it.

CSJ chairman Samantha Callan told a Tory fringe meeting alternatives should be explored before it came into effect.

Chancellor George Osborne says the move - due in 2013 - will save £1bn a year.

Under the changes, any couples where one parent earns about £44,000 - roughly the 40% tax level - and above will be affected.

'Latte money'

At a Centre for Social Justice fringe meeting in Birmingham, one Conservative member said that for people like him, who just qualify for the top rate of tax, child benefit can mean the difference between going into debt at the end of the month and "getting by".

Continue reading the main story

Conservative Party conference

* Live: Conservative conference

* Higher earners lose child benefit

* Landale's View: Osborne's message

* Mayor Johnson's jibe at Parisians

It would particularly hit those families where the mother chooses to stay at home and bring up the children - undermining the coalition's aim to be the "most family friendly government" ever, he added.

Responding to concerns about the benefit cut, Ms Callan said "the axe has to fall somewhere" and pointed out that "an awful lot of people earn an awful lot more than 44,000".

"We think it is probably appropriate but we want to see other options looked at. It won't happen for two years and there is time to look at other alternatives to it," she told the meeting.

She added that she had heard child benefit "referred to by wealthy mothers as 'my latte money on the school run'."

'Target audience'

CSJ executive director Gavin Poole said: "We understand when the chancellor says it is a very simple, and quick and dirty way, of trying to pay the debt off."

But he added: "We would say you have got two years to change the system."

He said there were costs associated with axing the benefit which could "negate" the £1bn it would save and the wholesale shake up the benefits system being planned by Mr Duncan Smith might provide an opportunity "to revisit this question".

Continue reading the main story

Spending review branding

A special BBC News season examining the approaching cuts to public sector spending

* The Spending Review: Making It Clear

He stressed that the CSJ had not seen the detail of Mr Osborne's proposals but it was clear that it would not affect their "main target audience", which is "lower socio-economic groups".

Mr Duncan Smith, who has earned praise from across the political spectrum for his work on social justice, began the meeting by explaining how one of the biggest factor in family breakdown was personal debt.

He said: "We have to get ourselves off the idea that the UK's economy is dependent upon everybody borrowing as much as they can and spending as fast they can. That has been the road to ruin for very large numbers of people."

The work and pensions secretary had to leave for another fringe meeting before the question and answer session, which was when the child benefit plans were debated.

Also as some of the dust settles on these ill thought out schemes as one caller to local radio pointed out, the Gvmt have said that local councils will "police" these schemes. As the councils are having massive cutbacks forced upon them, will this "policing" be privatised out?

[Chindie]

I very briefly caught the child benfit announcement on the Beeb earlier.

Can someone run by me why it's fair to take away benefit from a household with a single £44k income, but OK to let a household with a combined income of higher than that keep it?

I mean personally I'd say that if you're earning £44k you can probably do without the benefit anyway but it does seem rather unfair, to the point that it seems idiotic.

Sorry if it's already been mentioned but I can't be arsed to trawl through the tit for tat rubbish.

[snowychap]

Mr Duncan Smith, who has earned praise from across the political spectrum for his work on social justice, began the meeting by explaining how one of the biggest factor in family breakdown was personal debt.

He said: "We have to get ourselves off the idea that the UK's economy is dependent upon everybody borrowing as much as they can and spending as fast they can. That has been the road to ruin for very large numbers of people."

Ha ha ha. Priceless stuff.

[Awol]

Sorry Jon - you can try and try and justify the downright lies (or call them broken promises if you want), but the facts are there, the Tory party and LibDems have totally gone arse about face with their commitments on so many things. To try and somehow justify it by saying that it would happen under PR is deflection on a big scale.

It's not a deflection, I accept completely that in order to work together they have had to go back to the drawing board and try to mesh two differen agendas. Inevitably the result will be substantially different fro either single manifesto.

My point, which you won't answer, is that you oppose this situation if Labour are not involved (if this was a Liblab coalition I suspect you'd be singing a totally different tune) and yet support PR which would effectively lead to this same situation in perpetuity.

You're talking about saving a minimal amount and creating a bit of a quagmire in terms of measurement and probably sucking up the minimal saving in increased administration costs (assuing they actually get it right anyway)... Sounds like a solidly Labour policy tbh. Wink

A minimal amount? So under your, and the god awful IDS and Gideon scheme you have that stupidity of one person earning 45K who gets penalised while their neighbours earning 86K get the money. And that will save how much exactly?

It will save one billion pounds a year apparently. Now for the fourth time (and it's getting tedious) I agree that they have structured it badly but the premise of removing free money for people that don't need it is (imo) right. What do you think about that fundamental issue?

Wrong, you cannot live your life using that as rule.

Yes I can, it's exactly how I cleared my personal debt after Uni. It wasn't fun but you make sacrifices to get back onto a good footing again.

You assume that what you will be left with will be able to sustain a reasonable society, while the reality is that it wont.

How do you know? Define "reasonable"?

[mykeyb]

Mr Duncan Smith, who has earned praise from across the political spectrum for his work on social justice, began the meeting by explaining how one of the biggest factor in family breakdown was personal debt.

He said: "We have to get ourselves off the idea that the UK's economy is dependent upon everybody borrowing as much as they can and spending as fast they can. That has been the road to ruin for very large numbers of people."

Ha ha ha. Priceless stuff.

Seems about right to me.

I know of 3 families in the last 5-6 months who have split. All 3 had a considerable amount of debt but could handle it if both parent were in work, and you can guess the rest.

[drat01]

My point, which you won't answer, is that you oppose this situation if Labour are not involved (if this was a Liblab coalition I suspect you'd be singing a totally different tune) and yet support PR which would effectively lead to this same situation in perpetuity.

I will answer it, but that is a totally different subject. The thing we are talking about again is the total lies that were told pre election, something any supporter of the new Gvmt and especially those in it seem to ignore. As I said before, which sort of dispels your wont answer allegation, is that this Gvmt was never voted in on a PR basis. If you look at political agenda's from countries where any sort PR scheme is in place there is clear indication of overlap on policy and potential alliances. The fact that this hotch botch pairing that we have no have effectively totally ripped up everything they were voted in for is something they chose to conveniently forget, their Day 0 if you like.

It will save one billion pounds a year apparently. Now for the fourth time (and it's getting tedious) I agree that they have structured it badly but the premise of removing free money for people that don't need it is (imo) right. What do you think about that fundamental issue?

I don't understand your question. I have said all along that a phased approach is a more fair one. It should be something that is extended across many areas in society, but it wont happen because the Tory part of the Gvmt have a duty to protect their core support which is typically from the very wealthy.

Yes I can, it's exactly how I cleared my personal debt after Uni. It wasn't fun but you make sacrifices to get back onto a good footing again.

A apples and oranges situation, if you are honestly saying that the UK economy can be compared to your personal debt after Uni, then that is a very naive way of looking at things. Society is a bigger issue and has many more factors that need to be considered than a person forgoing a few pints down the pub etc.

at the end of the day Jon - you are seemingly happy with the way that this Gvmt are going about things, and I am not and neither will convince the other. (Note: According to C4 today it seems that Gideon's announcement has caused a lot of problems and more than a few MP's are peed off with him - link )

[peterms]

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

The less we choose to spend on train safety, the more we will need to spend on nurses, perhaps?

[snowychap]

Mr Duncan Smith, who has earned praise from across the political spectrum for his work on social justice, began the meeting by explaining how one of the biggest factor in family breakdown was personal debt.

He said: "We have to get ourselves off the idea that the UK's economy is dependent upon everybody borrowing as much as they can and spending as fast they can. That has been the road to ruin for very large numbers of people."

Ha ha ha. Priceless stuff.

Seems about right to me.

I know of 3 families in the last 5-6 months who have split. All 3 had a considerable amount of debt but could handle it if both parent were in work, and you can guess the rest.

Ah, sorry, that wasn't where my 'priceless' comment was aimed.

It was specifically aimed at IDS's comment We have to get ourselves off the idea that the UK's economy is dependent upon everybody borrowing as much as they can and spending as fast they can, coming as it does the week after the BoE had to explain to us that they want us to get out and spend, spend, spend (in order to help the recovery/fuel growth/cover up for lack of private companies' investment/restart the merry-go-round).

[The_Rev]

Well, we got **** by the child benefit thing. I'm fairly sure I'll be on 44k by the time 2013 rolls around. It's also quite likely that we will have a second child by that time too.

I can appreciate the need for savings, but the criteria seems to be hugely unfair. It really hits single earner families hard, and if you think it's important that the missus is at home with the kids (there to see them off to school, at home when they come back) then you are being penalised. The fact that the people next door can both work and be part of a £50-£80k household and still get the break just doesn't sit right. I haven't quite figured out the justification for this, it doesnt seem to work on a financial level, or a family values level. :|

[andyh]

I very briefly caught the child benfit announcement on the Beeb earlier.

Can someone run by me why it's fair to take away benefit from a household with a single £44k income, but OK to let a household with a combined income of higher than that keep it?

I mean personally I'd say that if you're earning £44k you can probably do without the benefit anyway but it does seem rather unfair, to the point that it seems idiotic.

Sorry if it's already been mentioned but I can't be arsed to trawl through the tit for tat rubbish.

What the **** does that mean ?

Try turning it around and say if you need CB, you shouldn't have kids.

See how that goes down.

[Risso]

He means that if you're earning over £44k a year then the loss of £20 a week isn't going to see you on the bread line.

[Chindie]

What the **** does that mean ?

Try turning it around and say if you need CB, you shouldn't have kids.

See how that goes down.

More or less as Risso says above.

I think if you're earning £44k a year, you can probably afford to live rather well with a child even without the benefit. Of course the benefit would still be useful but I'm not sure it's desperately required at that end of the income bracket.

The loss of benefit isn't going to see you destitute if you're on £44k a year.

I don't mean anything of the sort that you are suggesting.

Rather like the Rev above though, I'm completely flummoxed as to why it's not done on a complete household income. A couple earning £80k certainly don't need child benefit, yet would get it, while a single parent earning £44k wouldn't get it but would certainly have greater claim to it (though, imo, probably still shouldn't be getting it).