Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Clarry]

Loving the positive thinking fellas. Maybe your right, if people lose their jobs they should give up, sit on their arses and not make every effort to find new work - particularly if that means actually doing something proactive like moving or making a lengthy commute. It's not like there isn't plenty of money to pay people to sit about doing rock all, right?

You're ex-military, am I right? I'm from a military family too, so it was part of life to be uprooted every three years, or have Dad away from home for months at a time. When I see people getting upset about having to move to another town or city, I think "why?", but then some people would find it very disruptive if they are not used to it.

Shaun Maloney did!

[peterms]

...although that may involve physically moving to an area where there is an opportunity.

You are Norman Tebitt I claim my five pounds.

And when they lose that job they will be forced to move back to a poor area as the housing benefit cuts dictate that the areas with jobs will have less social housing available.

Loving the positive thinking fellas. Maybe your right, if people lose their jobs they should give up, sit on their arses and not make every effort to find new work - particularly if that means actually doing something proactive like moving or making a lengthy commute. It's not like there isn't plenty of money to pay people to sit about doing rock all, right?

Obviously that won't work for everyone, but it amazes me how many people seem to think personal responsibility doesn't extend to making every effort to find yourself gainful employment. The Government does owe people a living even if too many now believe the reverse.

(Like your last sentence)

We have available housing in existing communities with little work, and we have little housing in other places with more work.

We could use regional economic support to encourage and direct work to where it is needed, or we could let the market sort it out, and watch as shanty towns emerge of the edge of London, while communities elsewhere crumble.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[peterms]

Didn't take long to unpick the facts from the rhetoric, then.

Spending review cuts will hit poorest harder, says IFS

Thinktank warns that George Osborne's spending cuts are the deepest since the second world war and will hit the poorest harder than the better off

George Osborne's claims that his spending cuts are fair have begun to unravel after the country's leading tax and spend thinktank revealed the poorest will be hit harder than the better off.

In its analysis of the chancellor's spending review, the Institute for Fiscal Studies described the public spending cuts as the deepest since the second world war and said welfare benefits would suffer the biggest squeeze since the 1970s.

The IFS also rebutted Osborne's claim that cuts to Whitehall spending would be lower than Labour's and dismissed figures showing education had survived the cuts relatively unscathed.

It said a package of cuts unveiled yesterday would reinforce the "regressive" nature of the government's plans to tackle the deficit, including the £7bn of welfare cuts.

Detailed analysis by the IFS undermining the government's case is expected to put intense pressure on Liberal Democrat ministers in the coalition who have stressed the need for tax rises and spending cuts to be progressive.

The chancellor, who acknowledged that his package of £81bn of cuts had involved "hard choices", insisted yesterday that they are fair and would be borne by "those who have the broadest shoulders".

But the IFS said that with the exception of the richest 2% of the population earning more than £150,000 a year, the less well off would be proportionately the hardest hit, with families with children the "biggest losers".

Carl Emmerson, the IFS acting director, said: "The tax and benefit changes are regressive rather than progressive across most of the income distribution. And when we add in the new measures announced yesterday this is, unsurprisingly, reinforced.

"Our analysis continues to show that, with the notable exception of the richest 2%, the tax and benefit components of the fiscal consolidation are, overall, being implemented in a regressive way."

James Browne, an IFS analyst, added: "Overall families with children seem to be the biggest losers."

Browne said that while the Treasury had claimed the overall package was "progressive" – as a result of measures previously announced by former chancellor Alistair Darling - it had ignored a third of the welfare changes.

"The poorest are losing more as a proportion of their income as a result of these changes," he said.

The IFS challenged Osborne's claim that the government's cuts to those departments whose budgets were not protected averaged 19% compared with 20% implied by Labour's plans.

It said the Osborne's figures failed to take into account the £6bn of cuts already announced by the government this year while the actual figure under Labour would have been 16%.

While education emerged as one of the winners yesterday, with a small real terms increase in schools spending, the IFS said that rising classroom numbers meant that spending per pupil would fall by 2.25% over the next four years.

It said the 60% of primary school pupils and 87% of secondary school pupils were attending schools where spending would fall in real terms.

The IFS also criticised plans to scrap council tax benefit and replace it with a system of locally administered council grants. It said that it would create a "postcode lottery", providing an incentive to councils to award grants in a way that encouraged poor families to leave the area.

"The incentive it provides to local authorities to encourage low-income people to move elsewhere is undesirable," Emmerson said.

As the IFS briefed journalists on the report, David Cameron and his deputy, Nick Clegg, were answering voters' questions in Nottingham.

Clegg insisted the rich were "genuinely paying the most" and urged voters to "have a little bit of perspective" about the cuts package.

He told the audience it was important to see yesterday's benefit cuts in the context of other coalition policies designed to help the less well-off.

"People do not only think of themselves as recipients of benefits. There is also, 'How much does it cost to get childcare? What kind of education is my child getting at school? What am I getting back if I am doing some low-paid, part-time work?'" he said.

"That is how people live in the real world, and in the real world it is the richest that are paying the most – about that there is not doubt at all."

Fairness was "literally the question I have been asking myself every single day of this very difficult process we have been going through", the deputy prime minister said.

"I honestly would not have advocated this if I didn't feel that, notwithstanding all the difficulties, we tried to do this as fairly as possible.

"Of course I understand people are very, very fearful, and fear is a very powerful emotion and it kind of sweeps everything else aside.

"But I would ask people to have a little bit of perspective: if you look at some of the announcements we made yesterday, and add that to some of the announcements we made in the budget, I think the picture is a little bit more balanced than people are saying."

[PauloBarnesi]

I've said elsewhere, the State is like a parent. Labour are an over-indulgent parent spoiling the child. Conservatives are an abusive, nasty parent.

Why should the state be the parent? Isn’t this the problem that the state is being asked to provide beyond what it should provide? Its unsustainable. And whilst some may be spoiled under a Labour government, I wouldn’t say the vast majority were, nor under a Tory government are the majority abused. Its a simplification that doesn’t add up.

[blandy]

More analysis

....Meanwhile, as the effects of the spending cuts become clear, Britain's middle classes last night expressed an interest in buying a f**king great rottweiler.

Julian Cook, an architect from Finsbury Park, said: "I do think the cuts are necessary, but at the same time I've got a very nice Bang and Olufsen stereo. To a hungry poor person that will take on the appearance of a delicious roast chicken, fresh from the oven, a bit like when Sylvester the Cat looks at Tweety Pie. And that's when I deploy this terrifying bastard."

And as half a million public sector workers were set to lose the argument about the vitally important contribution they make to society, there were warnings of violent protests and mass rioting with millions taking to the streets to demand random amounts of other people's money.

Tom Logan, professor of politics at Reading University, said: "Luckily the warnings do seem to be coming exclusively from Guardian columnists who are wrong about everything, all the time."

[snowychap]

According to the IFS powerpoint presentation, the treasury's analysis did not include the following cuts/changes in their assessment:

1. 
   [*:939a8eee19]Housing benefit
   [*:939a8eee19]Employment and Support Allowance
   [*:939a8eee19]Disability Living Allowance
   [*:939a8eee19]How in-year income changes affect tax credits
   [*:939a8eee19]Council Tax Benefit
   

[peterms]

According to the IFS powerpoint presentation, the treasury's analysis did not include the following cuts/changes in their assessment:

1. 
   [*:daabceb4ca]Housing benefit
   [*:daabceb4ca]Employment and Support Allowance
   [*:daabceb4ca]Disability Living Allowance
   [*:daabceb4ca]How in-year income changes affect tax credits
   [*:daabceb4ca]Council Tax Benefit
   

Worth reproducing their conclusions, too:

• Welfare cuts announced yesterday are regressive, less so once child benefit cut fully in place
  Overall, richest tenth lose most, but because of Labour’s tax rises
  HMT say that package of tax and benefit reforms to be introduced by 2012-13 is progressive (apart from bottom income decile)
  We disagree. Having considered all welfare cuts:
  Reforms by 2012–13 are slightly regressive or flat within bottom nine-tenths of households
  Reforms by 2014–15 are more clearly regressive within bottom 90%
  The regressive impact is the result of reforms announced by the current Government both in the June Budget and in SR
  Families with children the biggest losers
  HMT said that reforms will not increase relative child poverty over next two years. Maybe, but what about future years?
  Of course, this all omits cuts in public services…

[snowychap]

We are due to see how 'independent' Mr Chote remains next friday, apparently. Though why someone having 'extensive interaction with treasury officials and those of other departments', their numbers and in the same building requires another week to come up with his analysis, god alone knows.

[Clarry]

I've said elsewhere, the State is like a parent. Labour are an over-indulgent parent spoiling the child. Conservatives are an abusive, nasty parent.

Why should the state be the parent? Isn’t this the problem that the state is being asked to provide beyond what it should provide? Its unsustainable. And whilst some may be spoiled under a Labour government, I wouldn’t say the vast majority were, nor under a Tory government are the majority abused. Its a simplification that doesn’t add up.

Simplification, yes. But, the poorest have been abused in the latest spending cuts.

If you're happy with that, say so and defend it.

[Clarry]

"Families with Ccildren the biggest losers" gets the biggest laugh from me.

Labour, Conservative, whatever political party, this is often one of the core things they fight over.

[leviramsey]

A lot of comment fails to distinguish between the tax take, and tax rates.

Very true.

Increasing the level of economic activity would increase the tax take without increasing tax rates. The question is how that's to be achieved.

Depending on where along the Laffer/Wanniski (or Ibn Khaldun/John Maynard Keynes...) Curve the UK is, then decreasing tax rates would be the most effective way to increase economic activity.

[leviramsey]

So, economic experts of VillaTalk, what effect would having single mothers put into communes rather than given their own houses etc have on the economy as a whole?

My belief is it would seriously lower the amount of kept, unwanted pregnancies - particularly if coupled with state provided child care at each commune to allow the mother to go to work.

Of course, they could live with their parents... but I'm on about the baby factory types who do it for the houses they get.

OTOH, the UK may well need more baby factories, given the demographic time bomb...

(whether the current baby factories are producing babies that will actually defuse the bomb is a question for another thread)

[drat01]

Loving the positive thinking fellas. Maybe your right, if people lose their jobs they should give up, sit on their arses and not make every effort to find new work - particularly if that means actually doing something proactive like moving or making a lengthy commute. It's not like there isn't plenty of money to pay people to sit about doing rock all, right?

You're ex-military, am I right? I'm from a military family too, so it was part of life to be uprooted every three years, or have Dad away from home for months at a time. When I see people getting upset about having to move to another town or city, I think "why?", but then some people would find it very disruptive if they are not used to it.

Shaun Maloney did!

IDS does a great impression of Tebbitt with his calls for "on your bike" style of life

Just as an aside, a conversation I had with a resident of Pompey today who will both directly and many of his family and friends be impacted by this Gvmt's attacks. He said that how come Cameron and Osborne were both aides to a failed Gvmt and now employ two people in Hague and IDS to make major decisions, both of whom were rejected when leaders of the Tory party. Is this really the make up of a successful team?

I felt sorry for the chap as he was obviously moving now from the shock to the real anger phase as to how he had been let down by the Tory and The Lib Dems.

I also see that Clegg and Cameron really did put up a toe curling performance trying to justify the lies they told and the attacks they have now made as reported here in the Grud Grud link

I have heard a couple of Tory members say today about deficit deniers, obviously some sort of deflection "name" they are using now. But when challenged as to who this was, they say Labour. Now correct me if I am wrong but Labour (along with the Lib Dems) said before the election that there needed to be cuts to address the situation but the severity and the timing had to be managed, something echoed by many still now. Now we know that the Lib Dems basically lied as did the Tory party, so this new "label" is that just a deflection or is it pure ignorance?

The impact of these cuts in terms of the severity and the idealogical attacks on certain parts still haven't really been seen yet. Couple these with the other impacts in the next few months and boy are a lot of people in for a bad surprise. The impact will be massive.

Font line services are now being shown to be hit, something the ConDem's said they never would do, its basically been a pack of lies since before the election, maybe all politicians are like that, it just seems that some are bigger and better

Tory MP admits to telling lies

[leviramsey]

We could use regional economic support to encourage and direct work to where it is needed, or we could let the market sort it out, and watch as shanty towns emerge of the edge of London, while communities elsewhere crumble.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Better still, regionalise/federalise the UK. Give different regions of the country the authority to set VAT (if they choose, though I believe the EU would mandate a minimum VAT), income tax (if they choose), council tax (if they choose), local rates (if they choose), etc. while also devolving most government services to those regions. Scotland, NI, and Wales are already most of the way there, why not divide England into eight-to-ten regions with the devolved powers? There are no one-size-fits-all solutions.

[leviramsey]

I realize now that you English aren't exactly a very mobile people... the ones of you with the predisposition (which does, IMO, generally arise from one's upbringing) to move to make a better life for yourselves have, over the past few centuries, left the country! :D :D

(seriously, I suspect that most Americans, Canadians, and Aussies think nothing of relocating great distances for a job (and this is all the more amazing when I consider that Land's End to Newcastle is a 500 mile drive... that's shorter than Dayton, Ohio to Philadelphia))

[PauloBarnesi]

Tory MP admits to telling lies

After the expenses scandal didn’t you realise it doesn’t matter the colours, they tend to be economic with the truth?

[markavfc40]

Regardless of where your political allegiances lie I am sure most would agree that there is something seriously wrong in the fact that these cuts have hit the poorest in society the hardest, aside from the richest 2%. This all at the same time as the banks, who most would agree were the cause of this mess, have got off lightly with a levy of only 2.5billion a year.

Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green etc wherever your allegiance lies surely we should all agree this just doesn't sit right.

[peterms]

I realize now that you English aren't exactly a very mobile people... the ones of you with the predisposition (which does, IMO, generally arise from one's upbringing) to move to make a better life for yourselves have, over the past few centuries, left the country! :D :D

(seriously, I suspect that most Americans, Canadians, and Aussies think nothing of relocating great distances for a job (and this is all the more amazing when I consider that Land's End to Newcastle is a 500 mile drive... that's shorter than Dayton, Ohio to Philadelphia))

I doubt that's true.

I suspect that in any country there are people who will travel long distances for work, and others who never set foot outside Nether Wittering or Hicksville Ohio.

In fact I would bet that on any long-term assessment, you would find that the greatest distances, and probably the greatest average distances, have been travelled by people from the UK and Ireland; it's not a form of social conditioning which emigrants have taken with them, so it's now possessed by the USA and Australia, and stripped bare from the UK.

Of course I have no statistical evidence whatever for this wild claim. But if that's good enough for George Osborne, it's good enough for me.

[peterms]

We could use regional economic support to encourage and direct work to where it is needed, or we could let the market sort it out, and watch as shanty towns emerge of the edge of London, while communities elsewhere crumble.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Better still, regionalise/federalise the UK. Give different regions of the country the authority to set VAT (if they choose, though I believe the EU would mandate a minimum VAT), income tax (if they choose), council tax (if they choose), local rates (if they choose), etc. while also devolving most government services to those regions. Scotland, NI, and Wales are already most of the way there, why not divide England into eight-to-ten regions with the devolved powers? There are no one-size-fits-all solutions.

We're going the other way.

We will soon do away with regional police forces, for example - something argued for by some of the police for many years because it means shared information, common databases, and probably enhanced powers, and argued for first on the grounds of "better protection from terrorists" and later this year and next on the basis of "cutting the back office".

The devolved parliaments/assemblies are not greatly loved, and I don't yet detect any great loyalty towards them.

Breaking into regions, in our context, would probably mean magnifying the relative advantages and disadvantages of each region, with accompanying redistribution of wealth according to the temporary whims of the market. I think the US is again feeling the impact of some of those effects - 1.5m people spending at least one night in a homeless shelter in 2009, and no, not as a fundraising event. No thanks.

[PauloBarnesi]

Regardless of where your political allegiances lie I am sure most would agree that there is something seriously wrong in the fact that these cuts have hit the poorest in society the hardest, aside from the richest 2%. This all at the same time as the bankers, who most would agree were the cause of this mess, have got off lightly with a levy of only 2.5billion a year.

Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green etc wherever your allegiance lies surely we should all agree this just doesn't sit right.

To blame the bankers negates that they weren’t regulated properly and that the government themselves failed to see what was going to happen. Brown as chancellor and prime minister believed his prudence had ended boom and bust; had he been a bit more like the humble minister at the kirk he might have actually been better.

What worries me is not that the poor will be hit hardest, but the vulnerable. I think one has to make a distinction; some people cannot help themselves through no fault of their own. These are the people that society should protect. In the traditional English village these are the people that charity supported.

What we have to hope is that the global economy picks up, or we are more buggered than I think we are already...