Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

Further Child Benefit cuts admitted by the Tory party

Conservative Party Conference: George Osborne to take another bite out of child benefit

The Coalition is planning to raid the child benefit budget again by reducing the age of children who qualify for the payout

Ministers are close to agreeing plans that will see the age at which children receive benefit fall from 18 to 16.

The change would save up to £2 billion and is considered "an easy win" for George Osborne, the Chancellor, as he prepares to unveil the comprehensive spending review in two weeks' time.

On Monday, Mr Osborne announced that higher rate taxpayers would no longer receive child benefit.

The decision provoked anger among mothers and Conservative supporters. Despite the uproar, it seems the Chancellor and David Cameron are preparing to go further.

A senior Cabinet minister said: "We have not finished yet. We are still looking at lowering the age.

"It would be another sizeable chunk of money saved."

Another Cabinet minister confirmed: "We haven't announced it – yet."

William Hague, asked on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme if people facing cuts would just have to "lump it", replied: "Yes, because this is a situation we have to deal with.

"Is this going to cause some people some pain? Yes, it is, but what alternative is there for the United Kingdom to rescue itself?" He added: "This is tough but it is fair and higher rate taxpayers, better-off people, have to do their bit as well.

"Many, many people in the country will have to contribute to this process of reducing the deficit."

The Daily Telegraph reported yesterday that a senior Cabinet minister had confirmed that the Coalition had not finished with its plans for cutting universal benefits further and that "nothing will remain intact."

That raises the spectre of the winter fuel allowance, free TV licences and bus passes for the elderly all being targeted.

It is expected that the lowering of the age of those eligible for child benefit could be announced as part of the spending review, if it is agreed by Treasury officials and No 10.

The money saved would help Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, to implement his radical plans to reform the welfare system. The welfare bill is close to £200 billion a year.

Mr Duncan Smith has backed the plans to end child benefit for those earning more than £42,000, but will demand as part of his deal with the Treasury that he can use savings to pay for his plans to get people off benefit and back to work.

Despite his backing for the plan, Mr Duncan Smith, a former party leader, expressed surprise at the way the announcement had happened and suggested Mr Osborne may have rushed it out to halt media speculation.

The tip of the iceberg? **** me its a pretty big one then that's coming.

If you voted LibDem did you really vote for this?

If you voted Tory did you really vote for this?

Ironic that a pic of one of Thatcher's leading people is next to the article - Tebbit

[Awol]

Interesting, when

I'm giving my opinion and don't really care what ConHome, Nick Robinson or anyone else might think about the speech to be honest.

Yes but as many are pointing out when the core support are not enthused about it and are going public, it says something.

I'm not even sure that is true. Most Tory voters accept the need for substantial cuts in public spending. Now, were many of those guilty of the thought process that it would all happen to someone else? Quite probably. Will many of those on £44K plus a year be homeless now that they will lose £20 per week? Absolutely not. The furore over CB will soon pass when the CSR comes out and the media can't keep up with what to be outraged about, but a massive roll back of the State is exactly what people who voted Tory were signing up to, and they've never hidden that basic agenda. I think the fact lower income earners will still receive CB is a good thing and shows responsibilty, however badly it may have initially been presented (besides which, I thought presentation wasn't the important thing in politics?? ).

The whole Tory party dilemma has been shown up this week, Cameron and Gideon especially would love to follow their core values of Thatcherism or even farther right wing (if that is possible), but the public in general wont buy that.

I'm sorry but what evidence do you have to support the assertion that they would like to be to the right of Thatcher, and that the country don't "buy" what they are doing? They said broadly what they were going to do before the election and they received the largest share of the vote on that basis.

In reality the country has become accustomed through habit to the left wing agenda of an ever more powerful and intrusive nanny State, the pendulum is now swinging back the other way as that State is rolled back. In think that's a very good thing and ensures that the next time Labour get in the new political status quo will mean them starting from a much more central position, thus maintaining a more centerist political position for the country in the long term.

The fact that Cameron tries and tries to say "Nick is with me on this" to deflect any backlash is worrying.

Why is it worrying? If the Lib Dems weren't with them on this then they could simply resign. The fact that they are not suggests that indeed they ARE with them on this.

look how many times he says "blame Labour" rather than trying to show how his policy is actually fair (which it is being shown not to be)

Of course he says blame Labour becuase it's Labour that arse raped the national finances. I'll illustrate that with a small example from defence spending: We need a new fleet of air-to-air refuelling aircraft, the military told the MoD, the MoD told the Treasury and the Treasury Minister said 'the only way you can have them is on PFI'. Result? A PFI contract costing 14 billion pounds for 10 aircraft. Genius.

This kind of fantasy economics was going on across government under Labour and the note left by Liam Byrne stating "there is no money left, good luck" has proven to be completely accurate. Leaving aside the situation with the banks (and the take up of non-voting share options, *facepalm*) the economy was comprehensively mis-managed and we are up shit creek - that's just fact. Dealing with that is going to make this government massively unpopular as people are weened off the tit of State handouts but it has to be done, "in the national interest".

[ender4]

Of course he says blame Labour becuase it's Labour that arse raped the national finances. I'll illustrate that with a small example from defence spending: We need a new fleet of air-to-air refuelling aircraft, the military told the MoD, the MoD told the Treasury and the Treasury Minister said 'the only way you can have them is on PFI'. Result? A PFI contract costing 14 billion pounds for 10 aircraft. Genius.

This kind of fantasy economics was going on across government under Labour and the note left by Liam Byrne stating "there is no money left, good luck" has proven to be completely accurate. Leaving aside the situation with the banks (and the take up of non-voting share options, *facepalm*) the economy was comprehensively mis-managed and we are up shit creek - that's just fact. Dealing with that is going to make this government massively unpopular as people are weened off the tit of State handouts but it has to be done, "in the national interest".

As someone who voted for Labour & Tony Blair in both general elections they won, i have to say that is completely correct. Labour totally f*cked it up.

[snowychap]

The change would save up to £2 billion and is considered "an easy win" for George Osborne

An easy win - how do they work that one out? :?

[drat01]

Of course he says blame Labour becuase it's Labour that arse raped the national finances. I'll illustrate that with a small example from defence spending: We need a new fleet of air-to-air refuelling aircraft, the military told the MoD, the MoD told the Treasury and the Treasury Minister said 'the only way you can have them is on PFI'. Result? A PFI contract costing 14 billion pounds for 10 aircraft. Genius.

This kind of fantasy economics was going on across government under Labour and the note left by Liam Byrne stating "there is no money left, good luck" has proven to be completely accurate. Leaving aside the situation with the banks (and the take up of non-voting share options, *facepalm*) the economy was comprehensively mis-managed and we are up shit creek - that's just fact. Dealing with that is going to make this government massively unpopular as people are weened off the tit of State handouts but it has to be done, "in the national interest".

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Firstly use a "joke" that Liam Byrne made as some sot of fact to back up your logic. Secondly the whole defence thing, I am seriously interested in how you see this as being a Labour thing and let me explain that a bit further. As we have seen from day 1 with the whole Fox vs Cameron battle there is a serious difference of opinion on who / what / where should be funded. This started way before they were elected into Gvmt. Defence spending has been interesting under both Labour and previous Tory gvmts in that figures show that spending has increased under Labour. Now again before you jump in with "war" argument, the Iraq war was one that was clearly wanted by Cameron et al, and many in the Tory party said more should have been done and quicker too. There has never been any comment as to how they would have funded that differently.

There was many a comment made from the Tory rank and file about defence budget vs GDP and where the UK sat in relation to countries like Italy, Spain etc. Now the boot is on the other foot, the stance has changed again, why is that exactly?

The Tory message this week was "Blame Labour, Blame Labour" and nothing else. Again the old ground of totally ignoring the world events that caused financial issues, or even when Cameron did acknowledge the real causes of financial problems he quickly contradicted himself and showed himself up

Let's start by being honest with ourselves. The mess this country is in – it's not all because of Labour.

Yes, Labour failed to regulate the City properly. But they didn't force those banks to take massive risks with other people's money.

The above are quotes from Cameron yesterday, and as expected he went back on them within seconds of the words passing his lips.

Jon sorry but the comments about being homeless because of the child benefit cuts are just silly. The facts are, and backed up by a quick read across many of the media outlets that are traditional Tory supporters, there are many in this group who will be affected and are voicing a negative opinion on how these have been explained and the complete mess that Gideon has made (again) in trying to explain these. Cameron can try and try as much as he likes but the true nature of the cuts and the targets is being shown and people are not happy with the way they are being handled. Gideon is way out of his depth, the obvious differences in opinions with people within the Tory party are again there for all to see. He is clueless, but Cameron will not get rid of him, that old "boys network" is a strong one

They said broadly what they were going to do before the election and they received the largest share of the vote on that basis.

No they didn't. Jon as you have admitted yourself, the lies they told in their manifesto have now been thrown away. Even Cameron said this week that they "had forgotten" to include some things, what a complete and utter tosser. If you look back at the many quotes from the Tory party (and Lib Dems) and especially the scare tactics that they used, so much of it is being shown to be lies, lies and more lies.

In reality the country has become accustomed through habit to the left wing agenda of an ever more powerful and intrusive nanny State, the pendulum is now swinging back the other way as that State is rolled back. In think that's a very good thing and ensures that the next time Labour get in the new political status quo will mean them starting from a much more central position, thus maintaining a more centerist political position for the country in the long term.

That does not make sense. You are saying that under Labour it was a left wing agenda (ironic as you and others have said that they were not left wing - but another subject) and to address that the pendulum needs to swing to the right. But as you then said this is not a Gvmt that is right wing like Thatcher? Either they are or they are not? The ideas that Cameron and his backers want are Thatcherism in its purest form. The LibDems under the cuckold have abandoned any principles they had for their andy Warhol moment of fame, but their help is allowing these ideas to happen. The electorate didn't want them, else the would have given Cameron a majoity.

I really don't expect you to agree with any of the above by the way

EDIT: Do NOT google Cameron Fox - apparently he is a porn star :-)

[blandy]

Whoever was to blame for the humungous mess the Country's finances are in, they are in a chuffing mess. Before the election ALL the parties said there will have to be really big cuts.

Stuff like Child benefit, pensions, spending on all kinds of departements would have been hacked at whoever got im.

Part of the accusation being levelled at the Tories and Lib Dems about doing stuff not in the manifestos applies equally to Labour - None of them 'fessed up before the election as to the detail of what was going to be cut. It was the elephant in the room that they all ignored.

There's a genuine isue whether the Rories are going to cut to hard, too fast, and an even bigger issue regarding Osborne's basic economical competency, but a lot of the tit for tat about Labour this Tory that is guff, because they all refused to tell the full truth in their manifestos.

[drat01]

There's a genuine isue whether the Rories are going to cut to hard, too fast, and an even bigger issue regarding Osborne's basic economical competency, but a lot of the tit for tat about Labour this Tory that is guff, because they all refused to tell the full truth in their manifestos.

Bloody racing car ....................... (you need young kids for that one :-) )

[blandy]

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies" ~ Groucho Marx

[drat01]

Murdoch to honour Thatcher

News Corporation chairman and chief executive to praise Baroness Thatcher's contribution to the British economy

Rupert Murdoch will deliver a rare public lecture in London later this month in honour of Baroness Thatcher.

The News Corporation chairman and chief executive will make his address on 21 October at an event organised by the Centre for Policy Studies, the rightwing thinktank founded by the former prime minister and the late Keith Joseph, one of her political mentors.

Murdoch will give the inaugural Baroness Thatcher lecture at a key moment for News Corp, which is trying to take full control of pay-TV company BSkyB. He is expected to use the speech, "Free Markets and Free Minds", to praise Thatcher's contribution to the British economy.

The takeover has alarmed Murdoch's critics, who claim it will consolidate his dominant position in UK media. News Corp is expected to formally notify the European Commission of its intention to buy the 61% of Sky it does not already own in the next fortnight.

That will trigger a regulatory process which is likely to lead to the proposed takeover being referred by the business secretary, Vince Cable, to the competition authorities and media regulator Ofcom. Cable has the power to veto the deal on public interest grounds.

Murdoch's UK papers, the Sun, News of the World, Times and Sunday Times, offered the former prime minister unstinting support throughout her time in office.

The News Corp chairman has made relatively few set-piece speeches in the UK, despite owning media assets here for more than 40 years, and some of his public interventions has backfired.

In 1993, he told an audience in London that information disseminated on the internet threatened the power of totalitarian regimes, a comment which angered the Chinese government at a time when News Corp was trying to make inroads into the country.

In 1989, Murdoch delivered the annual MacTaggart lecture at the Edinburgh TV festival, chastising the British broadcasting establishment for making programmes he claimed were "no more than a reflection of the value of the narrow elite".

[drat01]

I am surprised at this .............. or am I

B'ham Tory councillor - stays in B'ham hotel and then charges this back to the taxpayer!!

CITY leader Coun Mike Whitby is at the centre of a furious row for using taxpayers’ cash to pay for a room at the plush Hyatt hotel for the conference – even though he lives less than four miles away and has a chauffeur-driven car.

Coun Whitby booked a three-night stay at the Hyatt in Broad Street, which has a room rate that starts at £219 per night.

It was branded “completely outrageous” by Unison spokesman Tony Rabiotti and comes at a time when the city council has launched its biggest ever economy drive and put 26,000 workers at threat of possible redundancy. But Coun Whitby defended the move, citing tight security, long working days and the chance to showcase the city to senior government ministers, who only give 20 minutes’ notice of meetings.

But Mr Rabiotti, regional full- time official for Unison, the council’s biggest union, said: “This is a kick in the teeth for taxpayers and public sector workers who face job losses.

“Coun Whitby lives in the city and the Council HQ is a few hundred yards from the ICC. It is outrageous that he feels the need to check in to a hotel on Broad Street.”

Labour’s Deputy Leader in Birmingham, Coun Ian Ward (Lab, Shard End) said: “If the taxpayer has put the leader of the Conservative Council up in a hotel during a Conservative Party Conference then this should be looked at by the Standards Committee.

“To be paying for accommodation for someone to attend a conference within the city, when that person lives in the city, is beyond belief and seriously needs to be looked at.

“He even has a car and chauffeur to ferry him wherever and whenever he wants.

“This is also all happening at a time when there are huge budget cuts, threats of job losses and a 30 per cent reduction in revenue budgets.” A spokesman for Coun Whitby said: “For four days we have the majority of the elected government in Birmingham, the biggest showcase the city has this year.

“Because of the time taken to enter the security zone we elected to have some meeting space in the Hyatt for four days. The leader’s working day starts at 7am and ends towards midnight. In addition we are offered meetings with senior cabinet members at short notice and we need to be able to respond to these opportunities and help shape policy for the future benefit of Birmingham”.

[Ads]

Whitby is a dick. In fact, every council bod Birmingham has had since the early 90’s has been an ambitionless twerp and doing Birmingham a great disservice, regardless of political colour.

[peterms]

Oh dear.

Government's 'bonfire of the quangos' plan will cost as much as it saves

Exclusive: Private papers reveal multi-billion pound bill to close up to 180 quangos – and savings might not be felt for 10 years

I wonder whether any of these chappies have ever tried to do anything like this in any remotely comparable context? If they had, then perhaps things like this wouldn't come as such a great surprise to them.

Could it be that they're learning on the job as they go along, at our expense? Surely not. They are men of experience, who understand business and the big wide world. Aren't they?

From here.

[OutByEaster?]

“Because of the time taken to enter the security zone...

It never took me more than two minutes each time.

[snowychap]

Starkey raised an interesting point about social housing on This Week in relation to the benefits cap (and that it is intended to be applied via lcal authorities and housing benefit), the LHA change and 'mobility' (in his rant about all the poor clearing off and walking to and fro between Oldham and London).

I posted the following in the emergency budget thread in June:

Just thinking about the budget proposals about those in the social housing sector (from the same budget document link as earlier in the thread):

From April 2013, housing entitlements for working age people in the social sector will reflect family size.

I assume that it is the case throughout the country as it is in my local authority, that this is already the case for new applicants.

For those already in social housing, they would be assured tenants which would mean that a court order is required to evict and that would only be the case after a Section 8 notice.

From what I can see from my housing benefit, for those in social housing the maximum is based upon the actual rent charged - which is obviously below market rate and well below the LHA.

So, if someone already in social housing is in accommodation that does not reflect their family size (i.e. it is larger - perhaps because children have left or families have broken up), in order to pursue this policy, a new basis for calculation of housing benefit for the social sector would have to be devised as the only way a housing association would really be able to evict these tenants would be for non payment of rent (as I'd assume they weren't going to be in any other breach) and the policy could only really be driven by reducing those housing benefit payments and forcing those tenants in to arrears.

That's all without even going in to whether housing associations would be keen on taking a load of tenants to court on this basis and then whether the courts could cope.

I'm sure peter(ms) (and maybe others) will put me right where I've made incorrect assumptions (probably everywhere :winkold:).

Starkey's point was about the concentration of social housing in areas where there used to be work (industry) where there probably isn't now and that it traps people in a certain position of welfare dependency because there is less (or no) work. I'm not quite sure what he is suggesting people doing (apart from echoes of Tebbit) but I'm a bit more interested in his comment about looking at this in conjunction with the benefits cap and LHA change.

Could we not be looking at an intention of trying to get increased numbers of people having to be rehoused by local authorities (and housing associations) after being evicted from their private sector rented accomodation (or whose homes may have been repossessed) as a way of putting pressure on the local authorities to deal with those people who might be the social housing version of bed blockers or to make it so that they have to implement a new (probably costly) policy for constant review of new tenancies?

I've not really thought this all the way through yet (in keeping with the theme of the week).

[markavfc40]

One of the problems with the two main players we now have running this country is that they haven't been brought up in the real world. They were both born into vast wealth and have riches way beyond what they have earned. The people that they have grown up alongside will have been from wealthy backgrounds. They won't have felt or been close to the dilemmas most ordinary working - middle class people will have faced in terms of having to make decisions on what to spend a few pounds on. Never mind the decisions that a poor person has to make on deciding what to spend there last pennys on. They were both born into wealth. I actually find it very patronising when I hear these pricks say we are all in this together. We're not.

They are still letting there pals in the City get away with murder, or in this case wrecking the economy and continuing to reward themselves handsomely for it.

The cuts they are making and will continue to make are going to be far more savage than many realise. We all accept cuts have to be made but the speed at which they are trying to cut the deficit is way beyond reasonable. They are using the deficit as an excuse to implement changes that are down to there fundamental beliefs and they think we are all stupid enough to not see that they are using the deficit as an excuse to do so.

This country isn't in a great place right now. Unfortunately due to having these too toffee nosed pricks in charge we are heading into a far worse one.

God, or some Liberal Democrats with some balls, help us!

[blandy]

I'm not sure that blaming their privileged upbringing or circumstances for their actions is the right thing, Mark. Blair was equally as posh, as was Tony Benn.

Certainly their views will, as with anyone, be shaped by their experiences, but the detail - things like the mess on the child benefit thing, is not a product of them being "toffee nosed" it's the product of stupidity and lack of experience. If you have an idea, first discuss it with your colleagues, then get the civil service to cost it, look at the potential pitfalls and so on. It seems Osborne just basically announced it, without doing any ground work.

Regarding the bankers being allowed to get away with murder - well sort of, but it's really the banks, rather than the recipients of the bonuses. Regulation is needed on the structure and behaviour of state owned banks. If they pay bonuses, rather than don't pay bonuses, we the tax payer are better off. - Reason being a banker given a million quid bonus will pay 50% tax on it, whereas if the bank keeps the money, they would pay 28% corporation tax on the million. Also the banker spending his bonus on whatever, gives further income in VAT, plus maybe work for a decorator, or car salesman or whoever, or stamp duty on a house move.

I totally agree about the fatuousness of the "all in it together" thing. It's clearly bollocks.

On the other hand, the idea that cuts and stuff should be applied "fairly" is, er, fair. Whether they actually do that is another matter. I beleive that the Liberal Democrat part of the gov't will temper some of the more bonkers ideological nastiness and that in the end, the outcome for people lower down the scale will not be as bad as feared at the moment.

But there is a need to address the bill for benefits and pensions, there is a need to address fraud - both benefit fraud, and at the other end banking fraud and tax wheezes.

When the Tory conference is on, your going to get their views, but a couple of weeks ago we had the Lib Dems and the stuff about attack on unbridled capitalism and short-term decision-making and gambling in the banking industry being far worse than loony Union leaders.

Somewhere between the two, or maybe a bit of both will get implemented.

[mykeyb]

So this gist of this thread (sorry I havent been in for a while) is that the new government is as useless and inept as the previous one and surprise surprise there are just as many morally bankrupt MPs / councillors on all sides of the political spectrum as there has ever been.

I do wonder why Labour didnt fight harder to form a coalition government with the lib dems - well actually I dont as they must have known that who ever was in charge for the next term of government would have to make some pretty unpalatable decisions and kept well out of it.

[snowychap]

I totally agree about the fatuousness of the "all in it together" thing. It's clearly bollocks.

Oh, I don't know. I thought the following email to The Daily Politics yesterday probably just about summed it up:

We are all in it together only some of us, as usual, are deeper in it than others.

[blandy]

Maybe the letter in the Indie the other day will persuade you otherwise Apparently the Prime Minister is urging us to keep the public spending cuts in perspective. I've started looking at them from the perspective of a millionaire armchair economist who's never needed a job, and never will – and he's right; everything's going to be fine.

[snowychap]

Maybe the letter in the Indie the other day will persuade you otherwise Apparently the Prime Minister is urging us to keep the public spending cuts in perspective. I've started looking at them from the perspective of a millionaire armchair economist who's never needed a job, and never will – and he's right; everything's going to be fine.

He he.

That ought to be a Viz top tip.