[Archived] Election

[RovertheHill]

I find it repulsive that Tories are debating cutting benefits for the poorest and the weakest when their friends in the City, the rich and greedy who caused this economic crisis and black hole in the public finaces, continue to reward themselves with grotesque bonuses.

Whilst I loath some of the bonus culture in the city I have to say that the biggest friends of the City were the Labour government for the last 13 years. The loosening of regulation, particularly about bank assets, and the general way that Labour got into bed with the City was far more repulsive - you expect it with the Tories, not with Labour. I'm afraid everything you wrote in your post happened on Gordon's watch. He's as much, if not more, to blame as any single banker. He was happy to take their taxes and spend when it was going well after all. He (actually Darling) did a decent job of stopping it become a depression but its the least he could do given his culpability

[jim mk2]

Listening to the wireless today Middle England is extremely angry with the Tories for the cuts to universal child benefits none of which were flagged in the Tory election manifesto. Now people might begin to understand the pernicious nature of the Tories as they make the poorest, weakest and the hard-working middle income earners suffer for the greed of their friends at the top. Osborne said in his lacklustre conference speech that he was not minded to impose more taxes on the banks or their grotesquely overpaid employees, making a nonsense of Tory claims that the burden of the cuts will be shared by everyone. This evil government does not deserve to run this country.

[Mattyblue]

Ignored the previous two points I see james.

You don't debate, completely blinkered.

[JAL]

Listening to the wireless today Middle England is extremely angry with the Tories for the cuts to universal child benefits none of which were flagged in the Tory election manifesto. Now people might begin to understand the pernicious nature of the Tories as they make the poorest, weakest and the hard-working middle income earners suffer for the greed of their friends at the top. Osborne said in his lacklustre conference speech that he was not minded to impose more taxes on the banks or their grotesquely overpaid employees, making a nonsense of Tory claims that the burden of the cuts will be shared by everyone. This evil government does not deserve to run this country.

If people werent paid 44k and over per year in the first place, WE, wouldnt be facing such huge financial problems.

[Paul]

If people werent paid 44k and over per year in the first place, WE, wouldnt be facing such huge financial problems.

How does that work?

[Mattyblue]

If people werent paid 44k and over per year in the first place, WE, wouldnt be facing such huge financial problems.

I'm with you Comrade!

[den]

Another good move by the coalition wrt child benefit. Now they need to start undoing the damage Labour did in making it a viable career option to live off benefits rather than working.

ITV, today, eventually got Cameron to admit that he promised not to cut child benefit and apologise for lying.

The next question will have to be whether or not the government is going to continue paying winter heating allowance to millionaires.

[92er]

The next question will have to be whether or not the government is going to continue paying winter heating allowance to millionaires.

I watched Breakfast this morning, and it sounded highly likely that both winter heating allowance and free bus passes would be retained.

[den]

I watched Breakfast this morning, and it sounded highly likely that both winter heating allowance and free bus passes would be retained.

Then the question would have to be - why just hit families?

[BuckyRover]

I thought we had a coalition government?

They have to work together, hence things will happen that were not in the respective manifestos. Can people not grasp this?

Everyone was banging on about PR pre election, seems they don't know their arse from their elbow.

Then the question would have to be - why just hit families?

Spending review 20th October. Etch it on your mind and remember it the next time you consider voting Labour

[den]

I thought we had a coalition government?

They have to work together, hence things will happen that were not in the respective manifestos. Can people not grasp this?

"There are some benefits and I think child benefit is one of them, where actually I think it's quite important that everybody, rich or poor, wherever they live, feels they have got a stake in it." - Nick Clegg, The Politics Show, March 7 2010.

"There are some things we have specifically ruled out. Take the issue of child benefit. Of course any party would have to look at it but my judgment is that it is a good benefit, it goes straight to the mother, it is very simple." - David Cameron, Sky News, May 3, 2010.

Cameron apologised because it was the Tories who said they wouldn't cut child benefit. Of course, the Lib Dems lied as well. and - it's quite a reasonable question to ask - why cut child benefit for families, when winter fuel allowance still goes to millionaires? Simple question. Could the answer be that the Tories haven't really thought through their policies. Are they making it up as they go?

The problem the government are going to face with the fuel allowance, is that if they cut it, they will be accused, rightly, of another lie. If they don't cut it for millionaires, they will be accused of targetting families.

Blimey Bucky - are you going to blame Labour for all the debt, the Lib Dems for the lies and the Tories for nothing?

[BuckyRover]

Not at all. The Tories make mistakes all the time. But we are trying to address a massive budget deficit. Cuts will be made.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did cut the winter fuel allowance. It's silly to give it to everyone.

But to say they are making it up as they go along is a strange thing to say, because that is exactly what they have to do.

Gordon Brown wouldn't even talk about cuts in an attempt to get re-elected even though his chancellor said they would be even worse than under Margaret Thatcher. To hear Labour complaining about taking child benefit from top rate taxpayers was something to behold. They were the ones who removed the 10p tax band!

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Anything promised before the election would have been difficult to stick to once they took office and realised that the national debt was much higher than Labour had admitted.

Maybe I'm misguided, but if one person in a household earns £44k a year on their own and they can't afford to raise their kids without state assistance then they need to look at their personal finances, not what someone else could be doing for them. If that money is their only income then why isn't the other partner working, if they are both working then where is the money going?

Maybe it's because £44,000 would have been a fortune in the household I was raised in, but I'm completely unsympathetic. Free bus passes don't really have a great impact because elderly people who have plenty of cash usually still prefer to drive, so they don't use public transport and therefore don't contribute to the statistics that the subsidies paid to the private companies are based on.

As for changing winter fuel allowance. Based on rough figures, if the top amount of winter fuel allowance was paid to every pensioner in the country it would cost about £1.08bn a year, whereas cutting child benefit from 1.2m people will save more than that entire scheme costs, so it's not hard to see why the government came to this decision.

Sure, it's easy to point at Cameron and say "you lied to us", but haven't we been lied to by politicians long enough to expect it by now. After all, the previous government lied about a war that has cost thousands of people their lives, at least this lie only costs a couple of thousand pounds for about 2% of our population.

[RovertheHill]

To hear Labour complaining about taking child benefit from top rate taxpayers was something to behold. They were the ones who removed the 10p tax band!

If ever there was a pathetic indictment of our political system it was listening to that harridan Yvette Cooper complaining that the Tories had just introduced a policy that in ideological terms is Labour through and through. The sooner we get PR the better

[jim mk2]

Spending review 20th October. Etch it on your mind and remember it the next time you consider voting Labour

Don't worry, I've got it marked with red ink as the day when the Tories finish the job they started in the 1980s and completely destroy the fabric of this once great nation.

More nonsense from the Tory conference tonight with a minister claiming it is fair that a couple with a joint income of £80,000 are entitled to child beneifit whereas a a family with one income of £44k is not. Work that one out.

Cameron's pledge to restore married couples allowance is more ideological nonsense too.

[BuckyRover]

Also the reason it doesn't apply to households is very simple.

Simplicity. It requires no forms to be filled in and can be instantly administered.

It's a joke they are getting so much stick. Until you realise every journalist with kids has just lost about 2k in handouts (paid by people on minimum wage amongst others)

P.s. Tony said we would have gone to war with Iraq regardless of WMD. Hence it was "ideological".

Ideology, ideology, ideology. Can Labour only digest one soundbite at a time?

[Mattyblue]

Don't worry, I've got it marked with red ink as the day when the Tories finish the job they started in the 1980s and completely destroy the fabric of this once great nation.

More nonsense from the Tory conference tonight with a minister claiming it is fair that a couple with a joint income of £80,000 are entitled to child beneifit whereas a a family with one income of £44k is not. Work that one out.

Cameron's pledge to restore married couples allowance is more ideological nonsense too.

So, is taking away child benefit from those with higher earnings whilst keeping it for those on lower earnings 'progressive' or 'regressive'?(I know how much you Labour types love those soundbytes). I take it you would not have supported a Labour Chancellor proposing it? You wouldn't be posting on here in your matter of fact style stating how Labour are once again standing up for the less well off?!

Also, was the removing the 10p taxband progressive or regressive?

Your blind hatred for all things Tory means you have no credibility as a debater.

Thing is your such a WUM with your ridiculous over the top statements, I should just ignore you, but your spouting such nonsense I can't help it.

[jim mk2]

Hurrah for the Tories !

http://www.guardian....il-announcement

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-11465786

A scheme instigated by Labour of course.

Now can the Tories please reverse their ideological Beeching closures of the 1960s.

[Paul]

So, is taking away child benefit from those with higher earnings whilst keeping it for those on lower earnings 'progressive' or 'regressive'?(I know how much you Labour types love those soundbytes). I take it you would not have supported a Labour Chancellor proposing it? You wouldn't be posting on here in your matter of fact style stating how Labour are once again standing up for the less well off?!

But Child Benefit is not being taken away from those with higher earnings. It is firstly bei ng removed from those who earn more than £44,000 pa, a household with two salaries of £43,999 will not lose the benefit. It can't be called progressive when it is so badly targetted. I could agree with it being removed on a household basis but not in this very unfair way.

Also, was the removing the 10p taxband progressive or regressive?

Removing the 10p tax band was regressive, no doubt about it. Mark my words this child benefit issue will be every bit as damaging for Osborne and the Conservatives. It will only be short time before the government announce the transferable tax allowance can be applied to higher rate tax payers thus negating the whole child benefit thing anyway.

Anyone who watched Theresa May on TV tonight will have realised Osborne flew this kite without any real thought or consultation......won't be long before his strings get cut.

[BuckyRover]

A household tax rate costs money to implement. The tax system is not fit for purpose. That is why it is at the individual level. For no other reason, not bad implementation or targeting single parents earning 44k.

I suppose they could just use the tax credits system. That works well.....

[Jeru tha Damaja]

But Child Benefit is not being taken away from those with higher earnings. It is firstly bei ng removed from those who earn more than £44,000 pa, a household with two salaries of £43,999 will not lose the benefit. It can't be called progressive when it is so badly targetted. I could agree with it being removed on a household basis but not in this very unfair way.

Actually they will, the cut is being made at £43,875, people just round up to £44,000 for convenience.

[jim mk2]

Tories in turmoil.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-in-turmoil-as-child-benefit-backlash-gathers-strength-2098910.html

[AlanK]

But Child Benefit is not being taken away from those with higher earnings. It is firstly bei ng removed from those who earn more than £44,000 pa, a household with two salaries of £43,999 will not lose the benefit. It can't be called progressive when it is so badly targetted. I could agree with it being removed on a household basis but not in this very unfair way.

Removing the 10p tax band was regressive, no doubt about it. Mark my words this child benefit issue will be every bit as damaging for Osborne and the Conservatives. It will only be short time before the government announce the transferable tax allowance can be applied to higher rate tax payers thus negating the whole child benefit thing anyway.

Anyone who watched Theresa May on TV tonight will have realised Osborne flew this kite without any real thought or consultation......won't be long before his strings get cut.

Agree with Paul here. We all know there needs to be cuts but who the hell makes these decisions? No common sense what so ever.

[Rover Down Under]

Your blind hatred for all things Tory means you have no credibility as a debater.

Thing is your such a WUM with your ridiculous over the top statements, I should just ignore you, but your spouting such nonsense I can't help it.

You have to laugh at the poor man, else you begin to realise how people can become so easily polarised, irrational and deluded and how in turn the bitter hatred can eat away at your life to the point that you just spout vindictive bile, cannot listen to or comprehend reasoned argument and believe you are speaking for the ignorant masses. And then you realise that description reminds you of someone.

It's tempting to ignore him but he's just so...hypnotically amusing with his posts, this thread is better than Friday Funnies with Jim about.

[SouthAussieRover]

RDU, I'm suprised you haven't moved back to the UK given Labor are still in power here and the Tories are in charge there.