Bolitics The New Condem Government

[The_Rev]

It's not even a single parent though Chindie. It's a single earner household, where one person is earning for two adults and the kids who get hit the most.

I dont think the loss of child benefit is going to see us on the streets or anything, but the method of calculation just seems bizarre, especially in a country where you hear so many messages that having your kids be latchkey kids is undesirable. It should be calculated against a combined household income to be fair.

[Chindie]

Aye that was a slip of the... finger. I meant single earner households too.

Doesn't make any sense. I caught a bit of some Tory dogsbody explaining why, which from what I heard amounted 'Means testing costs too much'. Which I don't think is an excuse for half arsed legislation. Surely somebody must have heard this idea and went '...but that's just stupid' with regards combined earnings still getting it? Surely?

Worryingly, one of the Beeb's pundits reckons this legislation is basically being put through to take the edge of the really nasty cuts that will hit the much much worse off - effectively something to hide behind if critics claim the cuts disproportionally attack the poor, which they undoubtedly will.

Even more worringly, if you can make such a cock up of this, a pretty simple bit of legislation and one with comparatively few casualties... what the **** is going to happen when the big knives come out?

[snowychap]

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 believe that the higher rate threshold is due to be reduced in April 2011 (the emergency budget suggested by something like £1650 to be confirmed in the autumn - so some time soon).

[Risso]

Come and have your second child over here Nays. You'll get to keep your second lot of child benefit that way. There aren't any trains mind.

[The_Rev]

That might be an issue.

[peterms]

Come and have your second child over here Nays. You'll get to keep your second lot of child benefit that way. There aren't any trains mind.

Yes there are.

We all know it's where this was set.

[Risso]

Well yes, there is a small steam train. My kids are blissfully unaware of any other kind of train, I think watching a Nayson special thunder past would frighten the life out of them. My daughter also finds car journeys of more than 15 minutes unbearable.

Anyway, back to the child benefit.....why don't they just tax it on a sliding scale?

[drat01]

Anyone watching Dispatches? - Coulson has to resign from politics - even if he is innocent he has to walk away from the Tory party to clear his name. There are some disgraceful things being said.

[peterms]

Worryingly, one of the Beeb's pundits reckons this legislation is basically being put through to take the edge of the really nasty cuts that will hit the much much worse off - effectively something to hide behind if critics claim the cuts disproportionally attack the poor, which they undoubtedly will.

Even more worringly, if you can make such a cock up of this, a pretty simple bit of legislation and one with comparatively few casualties... what the **** is going to happen when the big knives come out?

It's a certainty that the cuts will hit the poor harder, and the tactic is to take away one of the less defensible middle-class benefits for tactical reasons, making the case that "everyone has suffered", while leaving bankers, Murdoch etc alone.

But that's only the tactical point. There's a wider strategy at play here, which is about undermining the credibility of the welfare state in order to make it easier to dismantle it. Not the whole welfare state, though, just aspects of it. So pensions will be protected, while poor people living in expensive areas will be told to move to Wigan or somewhere cheap.

Before embarking on an assault on parts of the welfare state, it's necessary to create a mindset that such a move is necessary and justified. So we are hearing all the stuff about "the size of the deficit we inherited means there is no alternative" (translated, the bankers screwed up, and we would like you to pay for their incompetence rather than them). And we are hearing horror stories about some family who are paying their landlord silly amounts of rent, covered by HB. Both of these are part of the softening up process which precedes what is meant to be the rolling back of the state which Thatcher crowed about but actually achieved the reverse.

It's a radical, ambitious, and deeply scary project.

The stuff about quangoes is a minor theme in this drama. First outsource some government functions to a specially created board with very narrowly defined powers and remit, then mock it in the tabloids for being the "Potato Inspection Committee" or some such, then abolish it. Result - one more governmental function done away with. Spend billions on consultants but do away with things like the Darwin Advisory Committee, which since no-one's ever heard of it, must be a waste of space, right?

The bigger picture is about redistribution of wealth and power away from the poorer towards the richer, and if chopping a bit of child benefit helps to create a bit of a smokescreen at the expense of a bit of angst among the core vote, well that's a price worth paying.

The whole thing depends on the tactics not being transparent, the Libs staying on board, and the support of the core vote holding firm at key moments.

The prize is redefining the role of the state and the power relationships in the country, in the interests of the already wealthy and powerful. In the end, that's what the Tory party is for.

[peterms]

On the immediate issue about gainers and losers from these changes, this is interesting:

Married couple living in Coventry with two children, both working as pharmacists earning just under the higher-rate tax band

Salary 1 before tax: £39,000

Salary 2 before tax: £41,000

Child benefit: £1,736.80

Other benefits: £0

Total income before changes: £81,736.80

Total income after changes: £81,736.80

Income unchanged

Couple with three children, living in Hatfield with one working on the average gross salary in the area as a plumber

Salary: £29,931.20

Child benefits: £2,433.60

Child tax credit: £2,867.80

Housing benefit: £5,791.24

Income before changes: £41,023.84

Income after changes: £39,528.84

Cut in income (after cuts of £28.76 a week in housing benefit): £1,495

Single mother working as an IT manager in Birmingham with two children, earning just over the higher-rate tax band

Salary before tax: £45,000

Child benefit: £1,736.80

Child tax credit: £545

Other benefits: £0

Total income before changes: £47,281.80

Total income after changes: £45,545

Cut in income (after losing child benefit): £1,736.80

Unemployed lorry driver living with his wife and three children in inner London, paying £320 a week rent. No disabilities in the family

Job seekers' allowance for couple: £5,343

Child benefits: £2,433.60

Child tax credits: £7,445.88

Housing benefit: £16,640

Council tax benefit: £1,274

Income before changes: £33,136

Income after changes: £26,000

Cut in income (after benefits capped at £500 a week): £7,136

Sources: Child Poverty Action Group, Chartered Institute of Housing

[drat01]

The Tabloids, Tories and Telephone Hacking

There were some incredible allegations made and it seems that Couson could well be in court soon. Cameron has to sack him or at least suspend him now so that these can be sorted.

Murdoch's influence is scary and C4 must be fairly certain on some of the points else there will be a big legal bill following

[peterms]

I was interested in this picture from the conference. Mr Cameron seems to be listening to Mr Osborne's speech with rapt attention, but other delegates seem less enthralled.

[Chindie]

Good post peterms. I agree wholeheartedly.

[Gringo]

I was interested in this picture from the conference. Mr Cameron seems to be listening to Mr Osborne's speech with rapt attention, but other delegates seem less enthralled.

Is that Les Dawson behind him?

[drat01]

Cameron has obviously farted judging by the reaction of that bloke sitting to his left

[peterms]

I was interested in this picture from the conference. Mr Cameron seems to be listening to Mr Osborne's speech with rapt attention, but other delegates seem less enthralled.

Is that Les Dawson behind him?

I'm not sure, but at least two of them could pass for corpses, which may account for the bloke who's holding his nose.

[PauloBarnesi]

The Tabloids, Tories and Telephone Hacking

There were some incredible allegations made and it seems that Couson could well be in court soon. Cameron has to sack him or at least suspend him now so that these can be sorted.

Murdoch's influence is scary and C4 must be fairly certain on some of the points else there will be a big legal bill following

I ve always wondered why the Tories appointed him after he left the NoTW, seemed like a pretty silly thing to do.

[leviramsey]

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. :|

The only justification I can think of is that a 2-earner household is more likely to incur additional child-rearing expenses (day care, after-school programs etc.) than a household that has 1-earner. That said, I doubt that it increases child-rearing expenses to the extent that would justify a single-earner household on 44k not getting the benefit while a dual-earner household on 80k gets it. Perhaps make it primary earner's earnings plus half-of-the secondary earner's earnings and phase it out at 55k or something.

There's also arguably a net social/economic benefit to 2-earner households, though some of that is perhaps of the "broken windows" variety.

In an ideal world, the state wouldn't be getting involved with this sort of thing and subsidizing having children or having or not having a particular familial relationship. Of course, there is a huge demographic time bomb to deal with (largely the result of anti-economic-growth policies by various governments, past and present).

[markavfc40]

These child benefit changes are the work of a mad man. They will mean that a family with one child earning 40k each ( 80k ) combined will be entitled to around £1100 in benefits but a family with 4 children with one parent working earning 44k a year will not be entitled to child benefit.

You really couldn't make it up.

[drat01]

Osborne is being shown up in a big way here, and from the comments coming from certain factions on the right of the Tory party the more you look at this you cannot help thinking that either a) Osborne is just a complete idiot or that he was setup for a fall. Probably both