Reggie_Perrin
gorefidel wrote:Reggie Perrin wrote:gorefidel wrote:Why is it wrong? Where do you think the 3bn a month we're spending more than we are taking in revenue goes? 30% of government expenditure goes on welfare in one form or another.Either pay more tax or spend less. spending less and spending only on those in need works for me. I have as little inclination to sub a middle manager as I do a smack head. A least someone in work can go and work a bit harder to make up the money if they can be arses, rather than just be on the take the same way they criticise the doleys.
Child benefit can't be part of that fuck up as it's not new and additional. Why can't they just cap it at two kids and freeze any increases for starters see where that takes us.
It's not different in any way, save you get rewarded for breeding. It's social security under different name. The only reason it was never means tested was because of the expense of admim. We pay for it in tax anyway, so I don't get the angst other than the fact a few of us will be out of pocket. It's the right thing to do. If they move allowances up to 10k, you'll get it back.
Well we'll see what amount of sugar is heaped upon this to get it voted through.I'm staggered that we have not long spend hundreds of billions bailing out banks and are now accepting that both public services and things like child benefit which is, in most cases, spent on children must be cut severely.I can see the phrase "rewarded for breeding" being apt for those who treat children as additional income but that could have been sorted in a wholely different way. Many of us use it to raise our children and factor it into tight monthly budgets.
gorefidel
Reggie, couple of points:1- The bank bail out money is excluded from the run rate monthly overspend of £3bn. Its also excluded from the projected £113bn debt by 2014. As is the PFI shit and the unfunded public sector pension deficit. If you put it all in their like poor Ireland did and treated it as a now debt, then you'd see some nightmares as people ran for cover.2 - Child care is benefit. Its supposed to go to people in need. Not people on nearly twice the average wage. The whole double income dodge is bollocks, but that aside its cutting peoples benefits who can afford not to have it. If we weren't such fuckwits we'd have the ability to easily relate peoples means to what they can claim. Right now we can't.3- They can't sort out tax until they sort out #1 above. Not the bank bail out, but the structural chronic overspend every single month from the governments normal spend budgets4 -the whole IDS/Frank field welfare reform approach should be accelerated. It can't because of #1 and the fact that every single vested interest group will try and make it fail. I'd rather some poor cunt on minimum wage got a bit extra than people who can afford a little less. If I had to make the choice of where limited state subsidies go. They seem to have made that choice to help the less well off. Surely as a Labour man you'd welcome that?5- if at the end of this, people who work their rocks off for very little do better, the rest of us are no worse off net or only a little bit worse off and those who really need help, get it at a rate that is equitable then that can only be a good thing can't it? I heard one of the union bods going on about 'universality' of the welfare system. Why? Why shouldn't it be a safety net rather than a lifestyle choice? How can anyone justify £2k a month rent on the state? I'd welcome the next election fought on some clear differences and the truth.They could start by an alternative to sorting out the debt and finding out who would lend us even more than they are already - remember we need to borrow at least another additional 50bn over the next 3 years.
Reggie_Perrin
[quote=gorefidel]Reggie, couple of points:1- The bank bail out money is excluded from the run rate monthly overspend of £3bn. Its also excluded from the projected £113bn debt by 2014. As is the PFI shit and the unfunded public sector pension deficit. If you put it all in their like poor Ireland did and treated it as a now debt, then you'd see some nightmares as people ran for cover.2 - Child care is benefit. Its supposed to go to people in need. Not people on nearly twice the average wage. The whole double income dodge is bollocks, but that aside its cutting peoples benefits who can afford not to have it. If we weren't such fuckwits we'd have the ability to easily relate peoples means to what they can claim. Right now we can't.3- They can't sort out tax until they sort out #1 above. Not the bank bail out, but the structural chronic overspend every single month from the governments normal spend budgets4 -the whole IDS/Frank field welfare reform approach should be accelerated. It can't because of #1 and the fact that every single vested interest group will try and make it fail. I'd rather some poor cunt on minimum wage got a bit extra than people who can afford a little less. If I had to make the choice of where limited state subsidies go. They seem to have made that choice to help the less well off. Surely as a Labour man you'd welcome that?5- if at the end of this, people who work their rocks off for very little do better, the rest of us are no worse off net or only a little bit worse off and those who really need help, get it at a rate that is equitable then that can only be a good thing can't it? I heard one of the union bods going on about 'universality' of the welfare system. Why? Why shouldn't it be a safety net rather than a lifestyle choice? How can anyone justify £2k a month rent on the state? I'd welcome the next election fought on some clear differences and the truth.They could start by an alternative to sorting out the debt and finding out who would lend us even more than they are already - remember we need to borrow at least another additional 50bn over the next 3 years.[/quote]If there is "jam tomorrow" then we need to be told what flavour it is. What do we get for the price we are paying or is it simply unless we do it we all die in a massive financial shitball? I don't buy that.
gorefidel
Right now I think its the financial shitball. If theres an alternative then no one has managed to present it so far.If as a by-product they kill the dependency culture once and for all, and make welfare something not to boast about fine by me. They aren't going far enough or fast enough for me - but I can understand politically and economically why they are being so timid. Just a shame that they are as this is one in lifetime chance to blow the whole thing up.
Reggie_Perrin
I hear what you say and in a way it's refreshing that they must know they risk electoral meltdown by doing some of the things they are doing. I think they might explain the real and practical risks of not doing what they are doing sometimes. Surely it will send some back bench LibDems (are there about 10 of them?) scurrying for the "No" box when it comes before Parliament. There will be loads of amendments to it before it goes through, IF it goes through.
seacroft_crime_wave
This cut in child benefit will not happen in its current proposed form - Think about it the next election in 4/5 years away - Do you really think the tories are going to shaft approximately 15% of the population that are almost guaranteed core tory votes - 3 years from now - 1 year before the next election- they will start announcing modifications etc -
Reggie_Perrin
seacroft crime wave wrote:This cut in child benefit will not happen in its current proposed form - Think about it the next election in 4/5 years away - Do you really think the tories are going to shaft approximately 15% of the population that are almost guaranteed core tory votes - 3 years from now - 1 year before the next election- they will start announcing modifications etc -
You are right it's almost certainly a stalking horse and in the final analysis there will most likely be a watered down version. That's if the coalition lasts that long with ill thought out shit like this. Apparently it has not even been discussed with Cabinet and legal experts are suggessting it might not even be legal as it's so blatantly unfair to single earners. Joke announcement by a Chancellor I was almost warming to. Add to this Vince Cable's massive gaffe regardign our liability for Banks' whole balance sheets on QT and I think we might be in some very unsafe hands.
gorefidel
seacroft crime wave wrote:This cut in child benefit will not happen in its current proposed form - Think about it the next election in 4/5 years away - Do you really think the tories are going to shaft approximately 15% of the population that are almost guaranteed core tory votes - 3 years from now - 1 year before the next election- they will start announcing modifications etc -
The gamble is dead simple. Cut early, cut deep and get the economy moving again so that the pain is a distant memory by the time the election comes round and people only remember it worked. The electorate generally have short memories and the media never look backwards to what was said and done a couple of years ago, so if the economy turns round, they'll be in a strong situation in probability.Its the execution of the plan thats the fucker. That and making it actually work in a global economy where there are so many factors beyond the governments direct control. The child benefit is really a side issue in that its to balance the books to fund the welfare changes - they are trying to make it self contained in the one department I think as they still need to deliver cuts and the changes cost money upfront.
seacroft_crime_wave
gorefidel wrote:The gamble is dead simple. Cut early, cut deep and get the economy moving again so that the pain is a distant memory by the time the election comes round and people only remember it worked.
It wont be a distant memory... because its not going to come into effect for 3 years ...
Travis_Bickle
Having seen and heard Cameron and Theresa May today, there is an air of 'making it up as we go along'. That and dodging the question on means testing. You'd be forgiven for thinking that DC was ruling it out for high earners, for the poor however........Last figures I saw suggested they'll need £7 billion to fund the welfare reforms, the child benefit cut is £1 billion or so.
Reggie_Perrin
seacroft crime wave wrote:gorefidel wrote:The gamble is dead simple. Cut early, cut deep and get the economy moving again so that the pain is a distant memory by the time the election comes round and people only remember it worked.
It wont be a distant memory... because its not going to come into effect for 3 years ...
Very good point. Will this coalition last 3 years? I have my doubts. By elections, LibDems walking out. Mmmm. I wouldn't draw the line at some Tories walking out either. Imagine the constituency surgeries int he south east int he next few weeks? Full of mums reckoning they would be better off going on the dole for an "average" wage rather than work and get fucked over.
Mitaman
gorefidel wrote:seacroft crime wave wrote:This cut in child benefit will not happen in its current proposed form - Think about it the next election in 4/5 years away - Do you really think the tories are going to shaft approximately 15% of the population that are almost guaranteed core tory votes - 3 years from now - 1 year before the next election- they will start announcing modifications etc -
The gamble is dead simple. Cut early, cut deep and get the economy moving again so that the pain is a distant memory by the time the election comes round and people only remember it worked. The electorate generally have short memories and the media never look backwards to what was said and done a couple of years ago, so if the economy turns round, they'll be in a strong situation in probability.Its the execution of the plan thats the fucker. That and making it actually work in a global economy where there are so many factors beyond the governments direct control. The child benefit is really a side issue in that its to balance the books to fund the welfare changes - they are trying to make it self contained in the one department I think as they still need to deliver cuts and the changes cost money upfront.
I agree with the above. This is what Canada and Sweden did and the UK govt are trying to copy the model. The only change, and it is a major change, is that the rest of the world was not also in a whole heap of shit when they did it. I think the only solution is to stop all benefits completely and tell everybody to fuck off to Poland, get a plumbing job or something.
gorefidel
The thing that I am finding hysterical is the outrage from the very same people who froth at the mouth about benefit junkies. Like my missus. She doesn't get the irony of her outrage. Funny as fuck 'child allowance isn't a benefit' - discuss. :lol::lol::lol:
gorefidel
Reggie Perrin wrote:seacroft crime wave wrote:gorefidel wrote:The gamble is dead simple. Cut early, cut deep and get the economy moving again so that the pain is a distant memory by the time the election comes round and people only remember it worked.
It wont be a distant memory... because its not going to come into effect for 3 years ...
Very good point. Will this coalition last 3 years? I have my doubts. By elections, LibDems walking out. Mmmm. I wouldn't draw the line at some Tories walking out either. Imagine the constituency surgeries int he south east int he next few weeks? Full of mums reckoning they would be better off going on the dole for an "average" wage rather than work and get fucked over.
It will last the whole five years if its down to them alone. The sandal wearers may not like actually having to do instead of gob off and fuck off to the other side, but the ones in parliament know this is their only chance to ever have influence and will cling on for dear life as long as possible.They have 2 years to have it start to work - provided we don't double dip. 'Events' as always are the killer.
Reggie_Perrin
gorefidel wrote:Reggie Perrin wrote:seacroft crime wave wrote:It wont be a distant memory... because its not going to come into effect for 3 years ...
Very good point. Will this coalition last 3 years? I have my doubts. By elections, LibDems walking out. Mmmm. I wouldn't draw the line at some Tories walking out either. Imagine the constituency surgeries int he south east int he next few weeks? Full of mums reckoning they would be better off going on the dole for an "average" wage rather than work and get fucked over.
It will last the whole five years if its down to them alone. The sandal wearers may not like actually
having to do instead of gob off and fuck off to the other side, but the ones in parliament know this is their only chance to ever have influence and will cling on for dear life as long as possible.They have 2 years to have it start to work - provided we don't double dip. 'Events' as always are the killer.
Surely it's not about "doing" though. LibDems were voted in on a set of principals they have swept to one side now call me old fashioned but there is value in MP's having principals not just accepting that they need to implement a set of policies they were not voted in to support. Some policies that even Tory voters would not have voted for.
gorefidel
Reggie Perrin wrote:gorefidel wrote:Reggie Perrin wrote:Very good point. Will this coalition last 3 years? I have my doubts. By elections, LibDems walking out. Mmmm. I wouldn't draw the line at some Tories walking out either. Imagine the constituency surgeries int he south east int he next few weeks? Full of mums reckoning they would be better off going on the dole for an "average" wage rather than work and get fucked over.
It will last the whole five years if its down to them alone. The sandal wearers may not like actually
having to do instead of gob off and fuck off to the other side, but the ones in parliament know this is their only chance to ever have influence and will cling on for dear life as long as possible.They have 2 years to have it start to work - provided we don't double dip. 'Events' as always are the killer.
Surely it's not about "doing" though. LibDems were voted in on a set of principals they have swept to one side now call me old fashioned but there is value in MP's having principals not just accepting that they need to implement a set of policies they were not voted in to support. Some policies that even Tory voters would not have voted for.
Its a cabinet government probably for the first time since before Thatcher. They all signed up for it 'collective responsibility'. So the Libs have their policies as do the Tories.What changes the pre election promises is the reality of;1- the global economy and the real state we are in2- the reality about the previous spending commitments and the actual lies told by labour about the finances.The signing of multi billion contracts just months before the election is borderline criminal and should be highlighted and if of the previous government personally benefit from companies awarded those contracts, through directorships or consultancy they should be done for fraud.The election wasn't fought on truth or reality by anyone, so to hold anyone to it is problematic. Even Ed Milliband who wrote Labours manifesto has pretty much disowned all of it.
Reggie_Perrin
gorefidel wrote:Reggie Perrin wrote:gorefidel wrote:It will last the whole five years if its down to them alone. The sandal wearers may not like actually having to do instead of gob off and fuck off to the other side, but the ones in parliament know this is their only chance to ever have influence and will cling on for dear life as long as possible.They have 2 years to have it start to work - provided we don't double dip. 'Events' as always are the killer.
Surely it's not about "doing" though. LibDems were voted in on a set of principals they have swept to one side now call me old fashioned but there is value in MP's having principals not just accepting that they need to implement a set of policies they were not voted in to support. Some policies that even Tory voters would not have voted for.
Its a cabinet government probably for the first time since before Thatcher. They all signed up for it 'collective responsibility'. So the Libs have their policies as do the Tories.What changes the pre election promises is the reality of;1- the global economy and the real state we are in2- the reality about the previous spending commitments and the actual lies told by labour about the finances.The signing of multi billion contracts just months before the election is borderline criminal and should be highlighted and if of the previous government personally benefit from companies awarded those contracts, through directorships or consultancy they should be done for fraud.The election wasn't fought on truth or reality by anyone, so to hold anyone to it is problematic. Even Ed Milliband who wrote Labours manifesto has pretty much disowned all of it.
I accept that lies are pretty much universal but lies to get elected (albeit easily swept aside using the unprovable argument you just have) are inherently dishonest. Ed Milliband may have written the manifasto but he was not responsible for it's total content as he was not the man in charge. Yes he was part of the Government but unless we are suggesting he is a total fraud he is allowed to move the party in a different direction now he is leader and make some decision he could not do before.
Travis_Bickle
The talk on Radio 4 last Friday was not 'if' a Tory cabinet member resigns but 'when'. I know Robinson and his ilk love a bit of tittle tattle and I've no time for most of them but, trust me, there are plenty of Tory MPs that are not happy with their position. They saw the polls a few months out and the jobs they expected haven't materialised. They are not happy.You can repeat 'in the national interest' all you want, wait until they have to raise tuition fees for example, can't and won't make it work. And the old 'now we know the real picture' is wearing pretty thin. Cameron's deceit in this regard is well-documented. Months out from the election he was trotting out figures that were way higher than even his 'newly-discovered' reality. Spin is spin, even when you say it in an earnest voice in front of a Union Jack. I'd have more time for them if they were honest, they've got 3-5 to dismantle the state and they're getting on with it.
gorefidel
I think the situation was worse than anticipated and the previous lied, but I also think they are redefining the state. Not enough, but a start. They'll last the distance I think, if only because to go earlier is to lose.
Reggie_Perrin
gorefidel wrote:I think the situation was worse than anticipated and the previous lied, but I also think they are redefining the state. Not enough, but a start. They'll last the distance I think, if only because to go earlier is to lose.
But what are they sweetening it with for the LibDems? It was supposed to be electoral reform but the Tories will campaign against it.