The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

So, tomorrow sees the unveiling of Chancellor George Osborne's Comprehensive Spending Review...

Early news, not yet official until tomorrow, includes the decision to freeze the TV Licence for six years, & make the BBC cover the cost of the World Service and S4C: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11572171


Meanwhile, the science budget will be spared from "deep" cuts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...-budget-spared


... And the Government expects a reduction in public sector workforce numbers of 490,000 by 2014-15: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ument-job-cuts



In the meantime, have some fun conducting your own Spending Review! Can you save more money than George Osborne, or make the same savings elsewhere? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/i...P=NECNETTXT766

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Sack the Government and let anarchy rule!

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Bit of a short term solution, if you ask me. i think we need to invest heavily, before we can save.

I'd suggest giving Barbara Harris a seriously massive wad of cash, and have her make every politician in the land, a similar offer, to the one she recently made to drug addicts. http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20...terilised.html

It'll cost more than £200 a time for sure (greedy SOB's that they are) but think of the long term savings..

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Difficult to invest, when doing so will mean spending money the country doesn't have, and by doing so lessen our credit rating, thus increasing the cost of borrowing the money to spend, thus ratcheting up the deficit further - repeat ad nauseam....

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Might be a bad day for a lot of people, let's how it doesn't affect to many people suddenly.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

The problem will be that we will just get approximate time periods ,few specifics and the actual redundancies will take time to come into effect, and in the meantime everyone within the areas concerned will be sitting under the threat of the guillotine until they are actually told by their employer, "you are surplus to requirements".

It's a horrible position to be in.Been there and done that already.:(

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

This adds strength to Osborne's case - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11579979

We're also still waiting on Labour's long overdue alternative version, the only information being they would plug the gap 60:40 between spending cuts and tax rises as opposed to the 70:30 on the coalition side.

It'll be interesting to see what the response is from Labour especially and if it has genuine substance, as was promised months ago with claims they would be producing a shadow budget and a shadow PSR, neither of which have emerged.

EDIT: More good news - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...high-september

Certainly the economists the Guardian spoke to seem pretty clear - Nasty but necessary seems to be the general view, no consolation to those directly affected though.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Well said :clap:

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------

If Mr Prudence had done his job instead of infighting and plotting to get Blier out, We might not be in the horrid position we are in. Labour was the big version of Viv Nicholson the pools winner spend spend spend, However in this case it was Labour inheriting a grow economy when they came to power which as is the norm for Labour then turned it into the horrid position we are in. Its fine for Labour and there supporters shouting about what the tories are about to do but NEVER forget which party put us in this position in the first place.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Just like it's easy for the government to cut more than they need too and use the previous government as an excuse. You can blame the previous government all you like but it is now the government of the day that will have to be responsible for the implementation of these cuts, the effect it will have on the economy, and the services that get cut.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Can we please put to bed the fiction that things would somehow have been easier had Labour got another term. When Alan Johnson stands up and wails "It's worse than Thatcher!" as he did in the Grauniad the other day ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...atcher-johnson ... all he's doing is echoing Alistair Darling's own concession last March that a re-elected Labour government would have had to have done the same ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8587877.stm

And while I am happy that neither of them is currently the chancellor, I know which one of them I trust with a calculator. And it's not the one that didn't even take a maths O-level at school, much less pass it.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Let's not forget that austerity measures are in place/planned throughout Europe. The Germans plan to cut £66 Billion, the French $65 Billion, The Italians €25 Billion, and let's not even mention Spain, Greece and Iceland. Do you want to blame Labour for that too?

Fact is: there was an international financial crisis that has hit most countries. The UK may have been in a worse position to start with and may have been more exposed to it due to the importance of the financial sector in the UK, but the reality is that the UK is not alone in having to make tough cuts.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Just about to get underway.

Ed Milliband is lucky the headlines tomorrow will be about the cuts. He got his backside handed to him on a plate today at PMQ's

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

He was useless absolutely useless, Wonder if the unions are already thinking of who they can get to replace him.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Police budgets down 4% a year - Could be worse I suppose, if the cuts are made in the right place the public won't see a difference.
Justice Ministry down 6% a year - New prisons put on hold, closure of courts and reductions of legal aid.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Question

Will that hit the no win no fee scammers

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Government spending was way too high, long before any international financial problems. They were having to borrow to finance the excessive spending long before then.

In a household, if you are having to borrow in order to support your standard of living even though times are good(eg bonuses, overtime), you should be cutting back, as there will inevitably come a time when the overtime etc stops. Even if times remained good, you would have to take out ever increasing loans just to maintain the repayments on the previous loans, never mind the existing spending commitments.

Borrowing in bad times is one thing, but your spending & standard of living has to be such that when good times return, you can repay the loans and not have to borrow even more.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

A nice BBC roundup of the scale of cuts in Europe.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

And a nice round-up from the beeb about the winners and losers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11569160

Bloody tories eh? Destroying the NHS and schools...

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

For the record: You never heard me say that. I dislike Partisanism regardless of orientation. We could do with less of it.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

If it was too high under labour it was even worse under the Conservatives.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Measuring things as a % of GDP is very misleading, as when GDP is high any measure looks artificially low. When GDP is high, borrowing should be negative(ie paying back loans) as in IIRC Jan 97, paying back £8billion. If you don't, when exactly are you intending to pay off the debt?

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

It wasn't directed at you, rather at some folk who immediately pounce on any conservative idea as being evil yet are somewhat less vocal when asked how they would tackle the problem.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Exactly. And when GDP is low - such as it is during a recession, the measure looks high.

The British economy entered recession in late 1990 and stayed there until 1993. Coincidentally the only period on Horace's graph when you could claim the budget deficit was 'even worse under the Conservatives'.

But let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good old fashioned partisan stat-swapping fight.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Well Derek that has happened in either direction across decades of a two party, first past the post, political system.It's tedious coming from either side.;)

If we could get past party political posturing and actually take what is good from all parties we might just survive and thrive.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

^^

This.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

In a recession you tend to have to borrow because revenue(ig taxes) goes down, and you have to protect core spending such as the NHS The idea is, that when in a boom time you pay off the loans, so that you can borrow again when the next inevitable recession arrives.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Bloody hell i thought Arthur had turned up then to enlighten us all on his view. :LOL:

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

No - it had a link.....

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Give it time ... ;)

On another note - I just saw PMQ's and my word, Ed Miliband is so out of his depth, cannot see him lasting long at all as Labour Leader.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

all can say reap what you sow is my motto on this fiasco.

Thatcher put millions on the dole to threaten unions. then we had air of atitude of telling them get a job when none was around. What happened we got first tory new leaders then labour come up with brainwave ways of job creation.

Private sector was not budging to create massive new jobs there interest in profits for rich in paying dividends and noone going to muccle in there confort zone of playing rich. What else options where there goverments had this atitude make jobless work for there money.

Well yes but you cant give them dole money for 40 hours week they have to have minimum wage. So the quango's was born and mega public sector jobs creation. Reap what you sow.

Both tories and labour have since thatcher destruction have had embattled to reduce unemployment while private companies job shed like it had lepracy. Often when big companies was scared they was reducing giving dividends to filthy rich investors. When seriosly they should been keeping it for recessions.

Now I will say why its high there is simply too many working people for jobs now and the population rising. Manufacturing in this country is dieing bigtime needs to be addressed while predominatly third world nations get stronger they become threat for contracts with cheaper labour/costs.

Then we have the work moving to mechinism computers/robots are taking jobs away in alarming rate as its more cost effective but makes companies massive profits which go to rich shareholders in dividends. Bosses cream more of the cake while the little man is squeezed. These rich people dont want to share this ill gotten wealth then spread it all these tax havens so the tax dont snaffle it.

Then we have the forcing to work longer in life because the companies/governments wont pay fairer pensions.

Simple greed self centred atitudes is got this country in mess. That GREED and self centred atitude is also driving this review. There nothing in this review which tackling root causes the RICH.

Close those tax havens whats earned in this country is spent in this country give and take obviously holidays. If they dont want to live here then fine them 75% of there entire uk earnings. Encourage the businesses to employ instead making workers 2 to 3 jobs flogging the poor workers. I do this on business by business if they got the money they should employ further staff and regulate so it dont come out workers wages in cuts.

Make laws to stop this stupid waste of money going to rich in dividends CAP it so companies have the funds to cover ressions if business cant do it themselves we have to bottlefeed them sensible fiascal planning.

We have to stop mechism for the sake off profiteering. I fear this is a massive contribitory to our unemployment.

Another is if you enough money to live your life then dont work it takes jobs away from others it selfish atitude. I dont mean if they have few thousand in bank for a rainy day I am talking these who win mega money like a lottery then stay in work. Go out enjoy your life why would work when you can do anything. I understand they possible friends and you like the job but I see it as selfish thought when people are desperate for jobs.

It might hurt people some will disagree but its what wrong with this country

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Wow!

If only life (and economics) were that simple....

You do realise that the biggest shareholders in a lot of companies are pension funds, don't you? (which use the dividends to pay pensions).

Re computers/robots taking away jobs - are you really proposing we go back to rooms full of comptometer operators and typists, and building everything by hand (with the impact on quality that this brings)?

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Mmmm .... socialist fridge magnet poetry. You should patent that.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

btw, can I point out (as others have) something the last Labour Chancellor said in March this year
In the mid-1970s - that would have been under the Wilson/Callaghan Government, then?

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

He's only a caretaker PM until it's time for another General Election, then the old guard will vote in someone they want as leader.

:dunce:

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Should that not have been "The Unions"

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

.....or David (M) will seize his moment and pounce

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Unlikely. Had he any talent in the seizing and pouncing department, he'd have been throwing Gordon the Moron out of No.10 in 2008.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Hugh not totally proposing going all that way but we have to stop this profiteering, the greed mentality. We have to find also a way to encourage manufacturing growth too. Its a balance the scales are uneven we need to balance between where we cant avoid mechism progress to where we dont lose that much if its done by employer. Just an example a company had 2,000 employees today would have less than 200.

I saying that many businesses have scrapped jobs needlessly some went because of inovision but some went due to simply profiteering reasons. The balance between bosses wages to the ordinary worker exscalated out of control GREED far far too much. Have the these tax havens swanning it up. I want businesses to use profits expand not use it to pay dividends. Companies have lost sight what is important a strong workforce.

Either way we either goto do something to create jobs or we simply accept there will forever be massive unemployment. Which until ALL see the issue will get far far worse.

On pensions Yes I have problems using the city as gambling tool for pension schemes thats why we in mess mucking around like that in the city stock market. The bloody evil thing it is because there prats who gamble other peoples money. Its folly to try push it to go too far. Just about every pension failing because this senseless practice. Even safe shares are gambles as been proven with this recession and the banks are just as stupid. See above businesses hound them for expansions because all there profits go to investors instead going to expansion needing less capital from banks to expand.

It should be state protected in state bank earning interest funds not gambled by teenage idiots in the stocks.

Chris lets carry on with this head in the sand see where this country ends if it dont start forcing/encouraging companies to help job create.

You may think its socialist but mark my words the TORIES will destroy this country with there protection of the rich milking us to death. I can only see more downward spiral of panick when the see they got more burden to fork for. Private sector will be hit when people start stop spending because the torries has hammered the working class. Double pain coming thats for sure both sectors will be hurt by there actions.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Nice to see class warfare alive and kicking ("protection of the rich" and "hammered the working class").

Happy to have a rational discussion, but that takes two.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

I am pretty happy with the 2bn extra for Social care actually. I was certain that as it's not public facing it would be drastically cut but credit to them for that! Actually protecting a lot of our most vulnerable people there!

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Perhaps they're not such nasty hammer the working-class barstewards after all....;)

Interesting radio interview today with Tony Blair's Chief of Staff

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

What's going to happen to people after twelve months on the Employment and Support Allowance?

Will they have their benefit cut?

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

On BBc website,,reaction

A pub regular called Amanda said: "Don't cut the benefits for the people who are really, really struggling. I don't think it's fair - we are struggling enough as it is.

"I live on £174 a fortnight and it's not fair.

Sorry, but can't be that hard if pub regular...unless she gets the guys to buy all the drinks...:D

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

For the ones in the 'Work Related Activity Group', it will be reduced to the JSA level. It's just the extra they lose, not the basic benefits.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

"The devil is in the detail". Despite the promised comprehensive speech which detailed 'almost' everything people and businesses can expect to lose/gain. There are still several reports/reviews that remain outstanding.

I can see there will be a lot of column inches printed, blogs, extended news progs and speculation. Happening for the next day or so. But this will die down. The outstanding reports/reviews will be published, hidden underneath a royal engagement or somthing. At the end of it, this time next year, we'll be paying more, getting less the same as it always has been.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

mertle.

Just for you.

You evidently missed the 900mn that's going towards combating tax evasion I guess.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

I'm not sure about this but those that are on incapacity benefit at the moment will be put onto ESA (Employment and Support Allowance) sometime soon and those will only be able to claim that for 12 months then automatically put onto Jobseekers allowance. If you are still sick and can't find employment after 12 months you would also lose some housing benefit as you move into a different type of JSA.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-benefit.html (sorry it's a Daily Mail link, but there are others stating the same).

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

I imagine the 37% increase to the Overseas Aid budget will rankle at the Mail and Telegraph, this increase actually makes the UK the first country to meet the 0.7% of GDP obligation agreed upon forty years ago.
Whatever the motives behind this, this is good news for some of the poorest people on the planet.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

That is of course if the money actually reaches them. And isn't just syphoned off by the govenments of the countries the money is sent to.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

What I'm trying to work out is how people whom are permanently incapacitated/disabled through illness or injury are to be funded..Or are they to be retested every 12 months as well?

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

I think they may get a crisis loan to buy a begging bowl.

---------- Post added at 15:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:31 ----------

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_191696.pdf

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Nick Robinson doesn't like people protesting behind him when he is doing a bit to camera.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...d=644049937001

Still professional to the end he waited till the cameras stopped before loosing his temper.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Good on him. :rofl:

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

How's the reaction from Scotland / Wales / Northern Ireland?

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Still in shock and denial in Scotland...they want their cake, and eat it

But Scottish Budget details are not released until 18 November..will know details then

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

To be fair, Wee Alex has a twofer - blaming the Sassenachs and the Tories....:)

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Threesome...and labour for the sins of the past

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

A couple of things I don't like the sound of..

From the BBC
It seems that parents will be stuck with the kids for a lot longer than they thought.

And
That sounds scary if that's the case. What will really be the point now of social housing? This won't affect those already in social housing, but what if you want to move, does it mean you go onto this new contract?

As for the new sickness benefit, I thought that they said they wanted to make it easier and fairer for all. The new system sounds a whole lot more complicated and much more unfair for a lot of people (I know they have to do something), but until they come up with fairer way of doing it I can't see how it's going to work, but I'm sure that doesn't really matter as it's not designed to help anyone.

Sorry rant over. :(

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Will any of this lot be reversed when the country is back in the black again?

would civil unrest or even riots have any bearing on the decisions being made?

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

I hope the answer to both of those is a big no. The point of these are to get the country in the black and keep it there so that the government can support the economy effectively when it needs to again. This means not throwing 49% of GDP at public spending while taxing less than 40%.

This is purely rolling back the growth of the state between 2006-7 and now, not stripping to the bone to the point where the country can't operate anymore.

Not that scary public spending going back to 2006-7 levels despite Comrade Crow's calls for civil disobedience and mass action.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

But it can turn out that we can keep having 'cuts' and it will all be in the guise of saving money and fixing what's broke.
it'll be like the first ever government that can do what they want. and people will suffer as a result, but it's all for the best?
they won't have to look after the old and vunurable anymore. the old and vulnurable will understand that they have to go without for the sake of the country.

I think at the moment people are ok about it as it's not actually affecting them. but give it time and who knows what will happen.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

I think it's fair to say that that is highly unlikely and there is nothing to suggest that it may be the case.

These policies have a lot in them to try and mitigate their impact on many of the most vulnerable.

Again also note my comments on the scale of these cuts, for all the comments about how massive they are the only reason they are massive is because of the amount of extra people and money added to the public sector. They are only rolling the state back to where it was in 2006-7 which, again, was hardly doom and gloom time.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

I have to say whats more amusing than being proved right is how easy it apears to have been for the government to pass the buck of the failings in particular with reference to poor econimics of past governance from all parties onto the general populous and in turn, turn that populous against each other, absolutely remarkable, however it has always been said, never underestimate the stupidity of the general public, I guess on that point I have failed too.

As a disabled couple with 2 teenage children on approximately 19k a year including housing plus low level dla where child benefit is deducted from our suplemetary benefits to be forced to live in fear like we are now is abhorent, if this is a modern civil society then I would hate to meet its less civil counterparts. I thought we won the second world war, must have read that wrong aswell.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

my very cut down thoughts are.

this is an agenda against the poor, particurly the unemployed poor. benefit cuts during a recession is not common sense as people cant be forced into jobs that dont exist, and in particular attacking those who cannot work due to ill circumstances.

cameron has outright lied claiming the richest are taking the biggest hit as % of income when published figures disagree. clearly he is assuming people will just take his word for it. What he means is richest workers pay more as a % than the poorest workers so basically the tories are discounting welfare claimants as people. Similiar to that they disregard the welfare buget a sa budget as the chancellor claimed the budget cuts were reduced by adding more to welfare cuts, he forgot welfare is a budget.

if we were in true financial crisis then things like the nhs we wouldnt be able to afford to ringfence. The fact we can shows they have overhyped the situation to push their agenda. We have an elitist government now.

one has to wonder how thatcher can get admitted for a week with flu, yet anyone else off the street would be laughed at for wanted a bed for flu. in my hospital people dont get admitted even after surgery.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

And the relevance of that comment to the current economic situation is?:confused:

---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

You are mistaken - they talk about household income (including benefits), not about salaries, so they are including non-working people.

Re the NHS, it is all about balance - what will affect/benefit most people; it's not binary, it's fuzzy.

Re Thatcher - two things; 1) when my mum-in-law had flu (she's 82), she was admitted to hospital, and 2) You will probably find that Mrs T has Private Health, so she is not being a drain on your taxes/the NHS ;)

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

if they are including benefit claimants then cameron lied or is misinformed.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Or you have misread/misinterpreted what was said.....

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

in what way, am happy for you to explain.

the way I understood it cameron said the highest earners pay the biggest % of income towards the deficit. Have I misunderstood that?

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

If you could point out to me where you read it, I am happy to discuss.....


Update - found the link - BBC, and there's an explanation on BBC's Stephanie Flander's blog why the Government and the Treasury think that way (it's disputed by others). And from the Comprehensive Spending Review document, page 98
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...1&d=1287948116

and on page 100
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...2&d=1287948267

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Who benefited from the grossly artifical boom of the new millenium decade which some warned about through knowledge based on past experience several years ago but were often ridiculed and laughed at for spreading a doom phylosophy even though it mounted to little more than the most basic of maths and general econmic knowledge to know it was never sustainable ?

The corporations, the politicians and the bankers, the countrys tax money bailed them out of bankrupcy and now its the population being penalised, hundreds of thousands thrown onto to the dole que through redundancies and other job loss methods whilst those putting people out of work are then pointing their fingers at the people who have suffered at the hands of corporate industry and political failure, blatantly accusing them of scrounging and whipping up a frenzy of deflected contempt that should with very good reason be directed at those who played their part in this and benefited.

The bankers in essence committed fraud on an unprecedented scale of which house prices have still yet to fall to an affordable level for the majority of regular working couples as stated by Mr Osbourne himself on an appproxiamte average of 29k net per year and 10k in thier pocket would struggle and rightly so to obtain a responsible mortgage above 91k so even with approximately 10% deposit under normal mortgage criteria the vast majority of proffessional couples could not afford a house above £105k, it is the bankers who should be writing off with full impunity any debts arising as a direct result of their folly especially where secured lending went beyond normal mortgage lending criteria, it is the bankers who should be investing responsibly into the countries future to ensure the people who can work will have sufficient placements of suitable employment and it is the politicians who should be ensuring the bankers fulfil their obligations, otherwise all the past decade has proved is the bankers and largest corporations can and will commit fraud any time they like as they are beyond reproach due to their sheer size and our politicians will do nothing but benefit from continued insider trading whilst patting their good buddy corporates on the back.

We're in this together ? Like hell we are, I dont see those in power taking a paycut, I dont see those in power scrounging a second house of the tax payer handing it back to the country, I dont see those earning money on false pretences being threatened with job loss. Looks to me like they are after deflecting the blame away from themselves and hoping for a wider multicultural civil unrest whilst they sit pretty with their ammassed wealth.

Hug a hoody ? Thats got to be the biggest joke of all because Mr Osbourne is round the corner waiting to shank them in the back, (This is just a variation on the phrase to be stabbed in the back and should not be taken litterally).

Tough on crime tough on the causes of crime, another joke as we are about to see such an increased level of poverty it will without doubt raise crime levels exponentially. The impending increase in poverty is a direct result of the current governments policies, previous governments blunders, failings within the banking sector and overall general corporate greed.

These are the people who should be footing the bill of their past discrssions, not the middle working classes or lower who can barely afford their home and regular billsand a general mediocre lifestyle. Any working family below a sultry income of say £50k or less simply should not be affected by any cutbacks, and those who have fallen foul to a wide variety of unfortunate circumstances as a direct result of our often abusive society, in particular the corporate sector and other workplaces should not ever be scapegoated, the general public should never allow themselves to be motivated to persecute those who have already had significant misfortunate brought upon them at no fault of their own, otherwise the government may aswell start supplying tickets to Switzerland instead (hence the reference to the second world war) as the drastic measures currently being implemented by the new government will almost certainly mount to some level of involuntary euthenasia. Its one thing to see if anything can be done to aid the more vulnerable people into a more fulfilling and contributary lifestyle, its something else to enforce it with a whip.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

PLease note the final paragraph in the above post is incorrect and should begin:

"These are the people who should be footing the bill of their past indiscretions"

Apologies for the error it was late at time of posting and I was unable to edit the post later.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

We're being a little over-dramatic now, don't you think?

I actually agree with some of your points re the Bankers and House Price inflation, but when you descend into emotive harangues using terms like "involuntary euthanisia" and "enforce it with a whip", you are drifting off the beaches of reality and dabbling your feet in the shallow waters of fantasy (imho). What's your next proposition - that the Government are setting up "death panels" and "internment camps"? You may wish to contact Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - they have said it all before......

btw, as I said before, I agree with some of your points re Bankers, but you seem to have missed out the flagrant over-spending by the previous Government of monies they (and the country) didn't have - or doesn't that fit in with your world-picture?

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Hugh, you watched that dispatches that ignition linked to in the other thread? Shows the true face of the tories, not enforcing taxation on tax havens as a requirement for loans.

The "we all in this together" is a load of nonsense.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

No, I haven't - I will try to watch it on Catch-Up or On Demand this week. Can I point you in the direction of the C4 comments page where one repondent states Also on the comments page is an interesting debate between the two tax accountants featured on the programme - it starts at October 21st, 2010 at 18:21.

Can I point out that "The Tories" are not one amorphous mass - there are lots of differing viewpoints, just like in any large movement/organisation; I am a Tory, but I am a One-Nation lefty Wet fiscally conservative socially liberal Tory, who is poles apart for the Bone-Dry extreme monetarist Libertarians, who are poles apart from.... you get my drift.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Social clensing started, they moving poor people to B&B's outside of london.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Strange - when I left the RAF (through no fault of my own), and had to give up a three-bedroomed house and move into a bedsit in Leeds (because that was all I could afford), I don't remember it be called "Social Cleansing"....

Can I just state for the record that I find the use of the phrase "Social Cleansing" totally abhorrent, and Jon Cruddas should know better (and I think he does) than to use a term that most people immediately connect to "Ethnic Cleansing" - it's a very cheap emotive shot, and below the standards I thought Jon Cruddas had.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Yes there's been quite a lot of that sort of language emanting from various opposition MPs and union leaders lately. I don't suppose they could just be trying to stir up trouble to suit their own agenda though..... :rolleyes:

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

What else would you call policy creation knowing it will result in a near certain level of poverty driven premature death ?

As for enforcement with a whip, what else do you call forcing people who are no longer comercially viable in a capitalst state to work placements who have become ill and disabled at the hands of our industrious state with the threat of removal of their benefit ?

Nothing melodramatic here, past experience with various government departments tells me I should look to the worst case scenario and judging by the words of the current administration this is perhaps going to be the worst administration since Hitler.

"Britain needs Leadership not Partisanship" proof we are not in this together by Mr Camerons own words by trying to set himself and his so called coalition apart from the rest of the nation, further more I put it these measures are in fact "an act of blatant political partisanship" as political leadership is nothing without a political cause to look towards, however this was to me a clear and concise message now he is in power he cares not for the interests of the general public or their support in these measures or anyone else that dares to stand against his parties policies.

And when the going gets tough, lets just point our fingers at the failings of the previous government to detract from our own bad policies.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Calm down, calm down - you'll blow a blood vessel.

btw, I invoke Godwin's Law on this.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

On one hand you have a type of person like Hugh, who reminds us at any opportunity to let us know just how good his life is and how well he's doing, from how big his projects are and how much they are worth right down to his lovely sounding diet of fine food, wine and single malts. Though saying that, I can't blame him one bit, he's earnt it so why not. I'd say he's smug but that's how the other half live so fair enough and I can accept that no probs.

And on that same hand those type of people really don't know how it feels it live in fear when things are already far more worse than they can already comprehend. I suppose 'those' other people (the genuine sick etc) are just collateral damage and it's okay and seemingly totally acceptable to be ignored at the same time. As long as they are okay and their lifestyles aren't too affected, the others don't stand a chance.

I do have my own thoughts, and they'll probably go against those more affluent obviously, but my opinions at the end will mean less than the words from my others. That's how it feels. I don't care much about the causes, the bankers, politicians etc, I care about how I'm going to live or if I can, I don't have the luxury of the blame game to worry about.

I now feel at a point where I already feel worthless, now I will have to justify that and be told that I am now fit and healthy (miraculously) because I can turn on a tap, pick up a coin, reach in my top pocket and for me to be able to that, everything else doesn't matter. And if that's the case then how I feel now is just the beginning of the end.

(This is in no disrespect to Hugh I must add).

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

one thing for sure is the lib dems are dead.

they werent voted in to savage the public sector and attack the poor.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Then why name him? I think your post sounds totally disrespectful towards him.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Erm, I know exactly how the "other half" live, because that is the background I come from, and worked very hard not to stay in (that does not make me better than anyone else, just more fortunate in that I have some abilities (including the one to work very hard and long hours), and have been given the chance to use those abilities, and be comfortable); my mum, before she passed away, lived in those circumstances, and was supported by her family (when we could convince her to take help), and my sister still does, in Glasgow.

For many years in the 80s and 90s we as a family went without, because we ploughed everything we had into our house and family - so no holidays (except for visiting family in other parts of the country), no going out for meals, and very few "toys".

Fortunately, in the last ten years or so, I have progressed up the career ladder, and have some spare money (well, up to this year I did - with two kids at University, we are eating in to our savings), so this has enabled my wife and I to enjoy life a bit more, for which I feel no shame - it's one of the reasons why I work long hours.

I do not think I am better than anyone else, just slightly better off - I refuse to feel guilty because I have been able to do reasonably well for myself and family, but I do not think less of others who have not been able to.

"One size fits all" condemnations are not appropriate, whichever part of the socio-economic or political scale one is; they just lead to deceptive ad hominem attacks and sweeping simplistic prejudical judgements, imho.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11627021

He may deny it, but an exodus will happen.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Just repeating it doesn't make it so.....

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

From that link:

Sounds eminently sensible to me. £21k a year is nearly an average full-time salary before tax. I can see no justification for any family receiving housing benefits on that scale. In fact, I think it could be lowered quite a bit. If that means people have to move, then so be it.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

I would find paying 400 quid a week rent pressurising. I am apparently in the top decile of income. Why is it ok for the tax payer to be paying more than this to keep people with no income of their own living in areas I cannot afford to?

This will reduce rents, supply of housing will go up as there will be less 'Palace de Welfare' in high cost areas and demand will drop as welfare won't cover them.

This is entirely fair and appropriate. It is an insult to those tax payers who live in the 'burbs as they cannot afford the city that their taxes are paying welfare to cover the rents of people in precisely the areas they cannot afford.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

It should also be noted that £21k is pretty much the median full time salary (before tax) in the UK. For the uninitiated: this means that 50% of the people in full time employment in the UK earn less than £21k. I consider myself firmly left of centre, but I cannot see any justification for benefits of that order being paid out to a family just because they have lots of children and live in an expensive area. It's a travesty...

Why should anyone be paid benefits so they can live in an area they could not afford if they were working? What incentive is there for these people to get back into work? As Ig says: it's an insult to the 50% of the UK population that earn less than that. Given the levels of deprivation that we have in the UK we really have worthier causes to spend this money on.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

It being so late I'm feeling rather lyrical.

Welfare is a safety net, to catch people when they fall and stop them hitting the ground. It must never be a trampoline that puts people in places they wouldn't normally go.

Housing Benefit is the big thing here. Some who previously made 300GBP/week couldn't have afforded 400GBP/week rent, why should they be able to live in a property of that cost when others are paying for it for them?

As a disclaimer though I think that benefits such as HB and JSA for the unemployed should be paid as a sunsetting % of the previous 2 years income prior to becoming unemployed and this fund should be ringfenced, that way at least some of an individual's taxes feel more like an 'insurance' and less like throwing money into a bottomless pit and people neither gain nor lose massively from spending a brief period on welfare, with the sunsetting encouraging a return to work sooner rather than later.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

This is standard practice in many European countries (and I think it's a good thing). It'll mean higher taxes though, particularly for the higher earners who are less likely to claim this 'benefit'. Personally, I'd welcome it.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

If higher earners are less likely to claim it there's less need to tax them highly as they are a lower 'risk'.

Taxes aren't higher in Canada with this and compulsory health insurance, single payer, contributions ring fenced directly from payroll taxes.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

for what its worth I do think child related benefits are too generous, their needs to be a cap on number of children it will add support for.

in regards to housing costs there also needs to be a limit but it needs to be sensible, eg. the tories plan to have local housing allowance be set to the average of the bottom 30% of rents, that is not realistic. Simply setting as the average is enough it will cut off the most expensive places still.

---------- Post added at 01:47 ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 ----------

NI is supposedbly like that in that if you fall ill eg. the government will take care of you with IB(ESA) but as we have learned with that they dont like to keep their word, will take the taxes but renegade on their side of the deal.

If I understand you right you propose JSA is paid out at a level based on previous income? (sort of like france) and also capped to 2 years? currently JSA is capped at 6 months if contribution based.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Correct, say 75% of previous income for 6 months then kicking in additional back to work assistance programmes in addition to continuing to pay the 75. After say 12 months reducing the benefit by 5% per month.

This flexible only if job market conditions are critical in which case extensions to the 75% period are doable but only with authorisation via a Parliamentary vote, not just because the DWP say so.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Just to clarify, it's 30% of the local market rate, not the average of the bottom 30% - that would setting 30% as the top of the scale, and working out the median below that, which isn't happening.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

if its what you say that makes no sense.

so if the average rent for an area is eg. £400 a month they would only get about £133 a month in rent support?

no one is going to find a property for rent £133 a month in an area with an average of £400.

I am fairly sure its the average of the lowest 30%, and that is bad enough on its own as it is also not realistic.

local housing allowance itself I think hasnt suffered from this abuse, its only the old housing benefit system, so they have no real reason to reduce local housing allowance. I looked for my sister and found out the LHA rate for an area she wanted to move to, the LHA rate for a 2 bed house (on current benefits before this kicks in) was way too low for 'anything' on the market. The LHA rate was £520 a month, the cheapest property we found was £590 a month and the average I would say was about £650 a month. The reason been is they include housing association properties which moves it down a lot.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

No - if the median (please see below for the difference between median and average, which are different even though some papers use them interchangeably) rent is £400 per month, that is the median (it is halfway along the line of values); you don't then take 30% of that to get the 30th percentile.

The Guardian explains it much better than I could
*Average: add up all the numbers and divide by the number of numbers. example: 1-3-8-10-19; add them up equals 41. Divide 41 by 5 and the answer is 8.2.

Median: is the middle number or the average of the two middle numbers if there is no exact middle number. Example: 1-3-8-10-19; the middle number is the third number which is "8" which is the median. In this case the median has exactly two numbers on each side of it. Now if there is no middle number, such as 1-3-8-9-10-19 then average the two middle numbers, which would be an average of 8 and 9 which is 8.5.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

The way I understand this works (in Europe anyway) is that you pay a fixed percentage of your salary towards insurance for unemployment. This means that higher earners will contribute more, but are less likely to claim, thereby subsidising lower earners. I don't object to this (being a higher earner), but I can see how some would. Incidentally, the way this works (or worked) in Holland is that you get 80% of your salary for a year, then 60% for another year, which seems a bit more costly than the Canadian example.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Hugh that makes grim reading.

People without children dont get child benefit and child tax credit to fall back on.

The idea of housing benefits is to cover 'full' cost of rent assuming there is not excess income. If this is a deliberate change to force people to use other income to pay towards rent it is wrong based on past principles of social responsibility. Basically they want to take down "the cost of living" allocation of benefits but would have been too damaging politically so this was done by the back door instead. Government's getting very sly now days.

Local housing allowance is becoming more and more of a bad idea, housing benefit should have been kept with the simple change of a hard cap put in place to prevent people living in rich mansions. If the government doesnt want to pay out high private rents they can either regulate the rental market or build more council housing.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

just seen this on the bbc news website, another one that I didnt know about.

"From April 2012 the age threshold for the shared room rate will rise from 25 to 35"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11633163

That is quite a change, if I understand it right it means anyone under 35, will no longer get rent to cover a 1 bed flat they will be expected to live in shared accomodation. The tories understand very little, there is numerous research that shows young single childess adults are the most worst off financially in the country. The age discrimination should be removed not raised.

Re: The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread
 

Sounds like we'll never get our kids to move out then..... so they can hang about and look after us in our old age.... then get booted out when we die as they won't be able to take over the tenancy...