[Archived] Election

[Paul]

Fully agree with Bucky this why it's being done in this way, surely this makes it even more unfair?

Yes tax credits does seem to work well and would seem the more sensible route

[JAL]

Tories in turmoil.

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

Westminster idiots the lot of them Tories, Labour, Lib Dems our once proud nation is on the brink, sinking like the cardinal said into a third world country whilst the Germans march on from strength to strength.

[Yorick]

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.

I'd have expected they want to Den but they've got in such hot water for taking child benefits from the wealthier people that I'd expect them to scrap any thought of tinkering with the winter heating allowance on the off chance that anybody with a valuable property and few assets worth £999,999 will survive a cold snap whilst anybody with property and assets worth £1,000,001 will freeze to death.

[Yorick]

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

Not yet. How could we? The first is without any doubt, the second is because for a century the Liberals have said what they want safe in the knowledge that they would never get the chance to back up their hot air and rhetoric and the third is way too soon, the tories are having to start from an impossibly bad position created by the labour legacy. Give them a couple of years and they'll be making their own cock ups. Then you can have a go.

It's all quite a parallel with the Ince Allardyce situation at Ewood. Allardyce inherited a total car crash from Ince, like the country the club is skint, there can be no quick fix and so to survive he has to take unpopular measures which are unpalatable to many.

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.

Of course Jim. If that is the case than credit where it's due.

So why are you being so selective and in total denial about the catastrophic damage to the economy and country caused by 13 years of Labour misrule?

[adopted scouser]

Ignored the previous two points I see james.

You don't debate, completely blinkered.

This thread is a good read but Jim, you should respond to this instead of 'selective' replying.

[den]

Not yet. How could we? The first is without any doubt, the second is because for a century the Liberals have said what they want safe in the knowledge that they would never get the chance to back up their hot air and rhetoric and the third is way too soon, the tories are having to start from an impossibly bad position created by the labour legacy. Give them a couple of years and they'll be making their own cock ups. Then you can have a go.

They're not doing too bad with their cock ups now. From that Independent article:

The concern about the controversy extends to the Cabinet. The Independent understands that Iain Duncan Smith, who as Work and Pensions Secretary is responsible for benefits, was not consulted in advance of Monday's announcement. It is believed to have been finalised by Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne on the eve of the conference.

My how it shows. I asked if they were making these policies up as they go. I was partly joking, but it seems as though they are.

[BuckyRover]

Do you remember the fuss over the cost if the millennium dome? How it was a waste of money?

We are paying the equivalent of 1 Millennium dome every 5 days on interest payments. If we weren't paying this would have been able to "waste" money on 73 millennium domes this year.

To think people are complaining about child benefit being removed from the top 15% if earners in the country.

You need to take a long look at yourself

[thenodrog]

They're not doing too bad with their cock ups now. From that Independent article:

The concern about the controversy extends to the Cabinet. The Independent understands that Iain Duncan Smith, who as Work and Pensions Secretary is responsible for benefits, was not consulted in advance of Monday's announcement. It is believed to have been finalised by Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne on the eve of the conference.

My how it shows. I asked if they were making these policies up as they go. I was partly joking, but it seems as though they are.

Maybe people should look at this from another angle. If there was no child benefit and never had been and the government had decided to implement it now then there would be no problems. In fact there would be a huge hue and cry if it was made available to everybody.

Personally I'd have scrapped it completely but if that is unpalatable then certainly after a max of 2 kids.

Just as an aside it begs the question why do some people expect others to pay for them and their families through life? It's completely wrong.

[den]

Do you remember the fuss over the cost if the millennium dome? How it was a waste of money?

Sure do Bucky and I'm quite happy to say what a waste of money it was. I thought so at the time as well.

To think people are complaining about child benefit being removed from the top 15% if earners in the country.

You need to take a long look at yourself

Not many are complaining about that, although there is the point that only families are being hit, which goes against the way many people want society to evolve. They are mainly complaining about the fact that a single mum on £40k, with possibly a big mortgage and kids to boot, who are in no way part of the countries richest, will lose their Child benefit - while other families far, far better off will keep it. If you had any sense of reason, you would say that's not right.

Maybe you need to look beyond and through the Blue spectrum.

One thing this all proves, is that it's so easy to criticise the government of the day, as lots on here have been doing for years now.

[BuckyRover]

So you want to spend more money to make it conpletely fair?

The reason it was universal for so long was because it cost money to means test it. We wouldn't save any money. Hence there would be no point. This is an immediate 1bn saving. Just another 164bn to go. (at which point we wouldnt be adding to our debt, we would still be paying £120m+ per day on interest)

I'm not a Tory btw. This is the first time I have voted for them.

[LeChuck]

No-one is complaing about that. They are complaining about the fact that a single mum on £40k, with possibly a big mortgage and kids to boot, who are in no way part of the countries richest, will lose their Child benefit - while other families far, far better off will keep it. If you had any sense of reason, you would say that's not right.

The inequality is not right and definitely needs addressing.

But no-one on £40k should be getting hand outs to pay for their kids. Actually I agree with theno, very few people should.

People need to take more responsibility for themselves and their children. If this hypothetical single-mums problem was the 'big mortgage' then that's a problem of her own making.

[jim mk2]

So why are you being so selective and in total denial about the catastrophic damage to the economy ?

Not the case. See my earlier posts about the reasons for the budget deficit.

[BuckyRover]

Exactly LeChuck.

Personal responsibility. It's something new for the 21st century!

People are struggling to adapt to it

[jim mk2]

Those who call for child benefit to be axed completely should be careful what they wish for.

If all tax reliefs were abolished there wouldn't be any company cars on the road.

Hang on a minute ......

[den]

The inequality is not right and definitely needs addressing.

But no-one on £40k should be getting hand outs to pay for their kids. Actually I agree with theno, very few people should.

People need to take more responsibility for themselves and their children. If this hypothetical single-mums problem was the 'big mortgage' then that's a problem of her own making.

Absolutely right, the inequality is wrong.

There is another side to this, that's being missed here. In my 60 years, there has always been a recognition from all governments, that bringing up a family is a very costly business. Because of that, governments have been prepared, no happy, to make financial allowances to the families [and lately mums] that helps those parents look after their children. Governments of all persuasions have acknowledged that the best way to bring children up is through a solid family upbringing.

Cameron and Clegg both acknowledged this before the election and promised that they were happy to continue with child benefit because they believed in supporting families. Somehow though and for some unseen reason, they have decided, without even consulting IDS or anyone else, to hit families. There are a thousand ways to reduce benefits, so why go for families? More so, why do it in an unfair way? That's the reason so many of their own party are unhappy.

So you want to spend more money to make it conpletely fair?

First and foremost it has to be the right thing to do and it then has to be fair.

[Paul]

The inequality is not right and definitely needs addressing.

But no-one on £40k should be getting hand outs to pay for their kids. Actually I agree with theno, very few people should.

People need to take more responsibility for themselves and their children. If this hypothetical single-mums problem was the 'big mortgage' then that's a problem of her own making.

Quite right it is the inequality which is wrong. Someone earning £40k should be sufficiently capable of organising their finances not to need this money and I support the principle of removing the benefit. The second point would be this is not happening tomorrow, if a family really feels this will make the difference they have THREE years in which to plan and budget for the income reduction.

The worrying issues here are significant:

1. The Conservatives have shown, by apologising for the omission, that whatever the manifesto said this was always on the agenda. What's next?

2. Osborne and Cameron clearly cooked this up between them

3. It is a very unfair policy and does not, as is claimed by the government, mean the better-off middle classes are making a contribution. All that will happen is a section of society will be more harshly penalised than others. Now WHERE does that lead us to and WHO is next?

I'm all for a bit of pain being equally shared out and happy for those more able to avoid the pain to pay a higher share than the lower paid but for goodness sake do it fairly.

The major positive is just a few months into a new government we can see the spots haven't changed.

Absolutely right, the inequality is wrong.

There is another side to this, that's being missed here. In my 60 years, there has always been a recognition from all governments, that bringing up a family is a very costly business. Because of that, governments have been prepared, no happy, to make financial allowances to the families [and lately mums] that helps those parents look after their children. Governments of all persuasions have acknowledged that the best way to bring children up is through a solid family upbringing.

Cameron and Clegg both acknowledged this before the election and promised that they were happy to continue with child benefit because they believed in supporting families. Somehow though and for some unseen reason, they have decided, without even consulting IDS or anyone else, to hit families. There are a thousand ways to reduce benefits, so why go for families? More so, why do it in an unfair way? That's the reason so many of their own party are unhappy.

First and foremost it has to be the right thing to do and it then has to be fair.

Just want to mention something, which IMV is important, Child Benefit grew out of Family Allowance (I'm sure den and I both remember our mother's having those little green and white books!) which was paid to mothers. I believe Child Benefit is still paid to mothers. Years ago this was a very important principle and remains so today. My Mum often saved up several weeks worth to buy us school shoes etc.

[den]

(I'm sure den and I both remember our mother's having those little green and white books!) which was paid to mothers.

No, actually I don't. I do take your word for it though.

As for Child benefit being paid directly to the mother - isn't that a fairly recent thing? [by recent, I mean the last 20 years or so!].

[Paul]

No, actually I don't. I do take your word for it though.

and there's me thinking I was younger than you!!

As for Child benefit being paid directly to the mother - isn't that a fairly recent thing? [by recent, I mean the last 20 years or so!].

My eldest is 24 now and CB was in his mother's name. I have always understood Family Allowance and the CB was payable to the mother and not to the father. I can recall my mum's name being on the little green / white book, she often sent me to the post office to collect it on the payout day which was Tuesday, those were the days. On occasions we've needed to ring the CB office and they would only speak to my wife. Presumably if the parents seperate or the mother dies the parent with caring responsibility gets the benefit?

[92er]

and there's me thinking I was younger than you!!

I have always understood Family Allowance and the CB was payable to the mother and not to the father.

I'm pretty sure you're correct-1 possible exception could have been in cases where the children were living with the father rather than the mother.

[den]

I'm pretty sure you're correct-1 possible exception could have been in cases where the children were living with the father rather than the mother.

Ah well. When you get to my age, not only do you forget things that happened, you forget things that didn't happen.

[BuckyRover]

UK Debt

[JAL]

UK Debt

All while the government of the day fanny about talking about stopping a small payment in THREE years time.

Run for cover bucky because that bomb is going to explode sooner rather than later.

[roversmum]

All while the government of the day fanny about talking about stopping a small payment in THREE years time.

Run for cover bucky because that bomb is going to explode sooner rather than later.

To be fair, as usual it's the media who have blown this out of all proportion. Given that the changes to child benefit are not going to happen for three years there is time to sort out the discrepancies. The knee-jerk reaction is exactly what the media wanted to happen.

[JAL]

To be fair, as usual it's the media who have blown this out of all proportion. Given that the changes to child benefit are not going to happen for three years there is time to sort out the discrepancies. The knee-jerk reaction is exactly what the media wanted to happen.

Wouldnt say the media have blown this out of proportion roversmum, they've gone and done an accurate job in conveying the political message of the day, to the nation, free from from any twisted truths, would you not say.

But we as a nation spiral out of financial control and this is what we get from the governemnt of the day. Knee and jerk, would like to think that its the politicians who are the jerks and the nation would like to put their knees into these jerks.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Wouldnt say the media have blown this out of proportion roversmum, they've gone and done an accurate job in conveying the political message of the day, to the nation, free from from any twisted truths, would you not say.

But we as a nation spiral out of financial control and this is what we get from the governemnt of the day. Knee and jerk, would like to think that its the politicians who are the jerks and the nation would like to put their knees into these jerks.

The media have done their interpretation of the proposal, even though they know full well there is 3 years until the changes would be implemented- plenty of time for amendments or even for it to be dropped especially if the economy recovers and its not needed.

Let's wait and see what the CSR comes up with on the 20th October, there was talk or recognising marriage in the tax system to compensate.

The cuts are going to be painful but what do you expect when you had a previous administration that recieved the proceeds of growth when the economy was booming, spent it all then used the strong financial position at the time to borrow more. Labour followed strict Conservative spending plans until 01-02? After that they spent like there was no tomorrow. Labour historicaly have more often than not come into government when the books are in a decent state and pretty much every time left them in a right mess.

Take Cameron’s speech at Conference yesterday and this particular section of his speech highlighting what a dire state we are in:

Back in May, we inherited public finances that can only be described as catastrophic. This year, we will borrow more money than we spend on the NHS. Just think about that.

Every doctor's salary. Every operation. Every heating bill in every hospital. Every appointment. Every MRI scan. Every drug. Every new stethoscope, scalpel, hospital gown.

Everything in our hospitals and surgeries – paid for with borrowed money, much of it from abroad. And then think about the interest.

This year, we're going to spend £43bn on debt interest payments alone. £43bn – not to pay off the debt – just to stand still.

Do you know what we could do with that sort of money? We could take 11 million people out of paying income tax. We could take every business in the country out of corporation tax.