Spending Cuts & Economy - Austerity Forever!

[SiHart]

Rise in regulated cap on rail fares to 3% above RPI from 2012, so expect big rises in the fares. This will apparently help cover investment in new rolling stock and maintenance costs.

Si xx

[Si Hunt]

Average 19% four-year cut in departmental budgets

Phew!

What does "permenant bank levy" mean?

Si.

[SiHart]

The purpose of the levy is to encourage the banks to take fewer risks in how they fund themselves and will be placed on that part of a bank's balance sheet which regulators and HM Revenue and Customs believe poses a systemic risk.

This levy differs from the previous chancellor's one-off bonus tax - and will raise more money, the chancellor said.

Legislation to bring in the levy will be introduced to parliament on Thursday

Si xx

[Si Hunt]

Rise in regulated cap on rail fares to 3% above RPI from 2012

ARGHH! THEY GOT ME!

Si.

[Si Hunt]

Bob Crow has piped up:

"We will need community protests and coordinated action to fend off these cuts and we should look accross the channel to the kind of resistance being mobilised by the French trade unions as an example of how to resist attacks on standards of living."

[Larry]

I still don't know the full facts but from what I understand the government want to stop all incapacity benefit for people after 1 year and move them onto JSA. This is effectively moving all claiments no matter how genuinly ill or disabled onto unemployment benefit which would pay less than incapacity benefit thus forcing them into workk.

I have a progressive neurological illness, plus several other illnesses that have a big effect on my health because of that I took ill health retirement from the civil service - I have the full backing of my consultant neurologist, my Consultant Endrocronologist and my G.P . So I can't see how the government can take my inapacity benefit away and force me back into work especaily when you consider that it was their own doctors who agreed that I was unfit to work.

I am understandably terrified of losing my benefit because with out it I simply would have no money left after I had paid my rent and other bills each month .

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Out of interest what's been the LibDems take on this?

Traditionally they've been against savage cuts to services.

[Andrew Curnow]

I think the benefit issue seems, to me, the thing most likely to come back to bite the government - according to the BBC site, "A new 12-month time limit for the one million people on employment and support allowance to find work or face benefit cut". To me, that doesn't sit comfortably with the official announcement of around half a million public sector jobs being axed; to increase the unemployed numbers and at the same time potentially restrict benefits to them is 'dodgy'.

Mind you, I did hear them discussing this on the radio at lunchtime (and specifically the incapacity benefit, Larry) and the suggestion there was that at the moment it's a very big, sweeping statement. There seems no, or little, detail available at the moment as to how, practically, this will be done - who is to decide that individual X's illness should only prevent them from getting work for a year, while individual Y's illness is a permanent prevention to employment. I suspect there'll be a bit of 'back-pedalling' on today's rather firm statement.

To my, rather naive, mind, either you have an illness and can't work; or you don't. It shouldn't be down to some arbitrary time limit IMHO.

[Andrew Curnow]

The pension thing is a real 'no news' story isn't it - it was inevitably going to creep up, indeed I can see people my age and younger finding the age moving again and again, so by the time I get near to 66 I suspect it'll have moved again.

As far as I can see on the BBC news page, there's been little if any 'outcry' about the pension age - contrast that with the French who are rioting over an increase to 62. Definitely a very different nation!!

[SiHart]

Satire! http://www.whofix.net/?p=317

Si xx

[Larry]

I think the benefit issue seems, to me, the thing most likely to come back to bite the government - according to the BBC site, "A new 12-month time limit for the one million people on employment and support allowance to find work or face benefit cut". To me, that doesn't sit comfortably with the official announcement of around half a million public sector jobs being axed; to increase the unemployed numbers and at the same time potentially restrict benefits to them is 'dodgy'.

Mind you, I did hear them discussing this on the radio at lunchtime (and specifically the incapacity benefit, Larry) and the suggestion there was that at the moment it's a very big, sweeping statement. There seems no, or little, detail available at the moment as to how, practically, this will be done - who is to decide that individual X's illness should only prevent them from getting work for a year, while individual Y's illness is a permanent prevention to employment. I suspect there'll be a bit of 'back-pedalling' on today's rather firm statement.

To my, rather naive, mind, either you have an illness and can't work; or you don't. It shouldn't be down to some arbitrary time limit IMHO.

yell my mum, said she was going to write tou our local MP about it but I told her to hold fire untill we know more about it - we have heard in the last few weeks the government say w"we will look after the ill and disabled" lets hope they are true to their world.

I can fully understaand why the government are doing this because there are many thousands of people screwing the system claiming ESA with the usual mythical; bad back . But it's these people the government should be going after and not those people who have a genuin illness or disability.
there are going to be a lot of genuinly ill/disabled people feeling very distressed and upset this morning.

[SiHart]

This sums it all up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...n-2112069.html

Si xx

[WhiteCrowNZ]

This sums it all up:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...n-2112069.html

Si xx

An amazingly well written article - and it is disturbing to know just how much bonuses the banks that have caused all this crisis are getting in comparison to our social services cuts.

Sorry but for the first time I have to say how wrong I was for saying it was to get the Tories back. So much for Cameron's ideal of compassionate Conservatism. I have to say how very glad I am to not live in the UK right about now ...

[Andrew Curnow]

Maybe we should all email that article to our MPs.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I wouldn't bother, as if they're Tories or LibDems you'll get an utterly patronising ...

Of course we're not heartless ... but you've got to live in the real world, and giving banks a free hand will help with wealth creation which will help us all. By "us" of course I mean those of us Conservatives with trust funds ... not you little people.

It's only natural for us as a country to try and tighten our belts a little to manage our debts a little.

So I think I'll just carry on what we're doing.

But thanks for writing!

P.S. What recession? I've just put my deposit on a third Jag - beat that Prescot ...

[WhiteCrowNZ]

An interesting article - this is how the NZ press, who are of course neutral in this matter think of the proposed cuts ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/...ts-to-hit-poor

Britain's poor and powerful clashed Thursday over who will lose out most under austerity measures that will slash benefits, jobs and government services to reduce the country's crippling debts.

Treasury chief George Osborne has announced £81 billion (NZ$170 billion) in spending cuts through 2015 that will cost as many as half a million public sector jobs and trim welfare payments to families and the disabled.

Government departments will, on average, have their budgets cut by about 19 percent, forcing them to lay off staff and limit the scope of their work.

It means Britain will have fewer police, pay less to those without jobs and send fewer criminals to prison. Embassies will be shuttered, as will courts and military bases. Britons will lose billions in benefit payments, retire later, and pay more for day-to-day items like train tickets.

Even the Royal Mint faces cutbacks: It will use cheaper metals in British coins in an attempt to make savings.

Osborne had said Wednesday in an address to Parliament that "those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden," saying Britain's highest earners would be worst affected by the cuts.

But economists and the public disagree, believing the measures will cause most hardship for lower-paid government workers and Britons reliant on welfare checks.

And interestingly later on ...

His stance was backed by US media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, who used a speech Thursday in London to praise the austerity measures.

"Strong medicine is bitter and difficult to swallow. But unless you stay the political course, you will be neither robust nor popular," Murdoch told the Center of Policy Studies, a think-tank.

He gets more and more like Elliot Carver every day! Where's James Bond when you need him ...

[Si Hunt]

With regard the huge rail fare hikes to come... I'm not complaining as such because I know others have it worse than me, even though this will cost me a lot of money as it's my big travel expense and already costs me £300 a month but...

... I don't really understand why this is part of the "cuts". It's not a spending cut is it? Everyone else is having benefits or jobs slashed and you can see why they would save them money, but arn't the rail companies private? How will increasing the income of a private company decrease the Governments deficit?

Si.

[SiHart]

As I understand it Si (and I may be wrong), the railways infrastructure under railtrack is owned by the Government still, and the companies pay to use the miles of track around the country. I think the idea is to increase the levy they pay to the government for usage and that putting the cost of fares up above the rate of inflation will help them recoup the costs.

But I could well be wrong.

Si xx

[Andrew Curnow]

We were talking about this at work today, or at least the cuts in general. My boss is 62 and therefore gets the Winter fuel allowance - but as he himself said, he doesn't need it, he's working, etc. Surely an obvious cut would have been to make that means tested, like other benefits - where it's needed, of course pay it, but to people earning a good wage, or retired on a huge pension, stop it.

Would it be too cynical to suggest that this wasn't touched because the Government thought 'cutting fuel allowance to old people' wouldn't look very good in the papers...

[Dino]

I went to my first local MP's constituency coffee afternoon.
(I had tea of course)
The local MP in question was Angela Eagle and the spending review was discussed at great length. As well as the boundary commissions idea to change constituency boundary lines to get rid of 85 Labour MP's.... and make it harder for small estates like mine to get their voices heard amongst the other voices of people forced together etc...
The main arguement was this debt was going to be attempted to be fixed over five years, with spending cuts & VAT increases coming along next year.
(She used a good analogy, you wouldn't do a deal to pay off your mortgage and not leave anything to feed yourself with?)

But she did say there will be tax cuts!... In 2015... In an uncynical election bid by the Conservatives.
The Lib Dems have done their job. U-Turned on everything they said before the election and now the "sacrificial lamb" to get Cameron a second term.

(My political random: A poll in America claims many see Obama as a "One Term President". While I am sad to see that, if he does go then I hope Cameron becomes the "British Obama" even though there is a whole universe of wrong in typing that sentence!)

I was silent throughout the meeting. I meant to pipe up and ask about VODAPHONE who had a £6bn tax bill which George Osbourne WROTE OFF but I never had the nerve, Labour probably did the same when they were in power, Rupert Murdoch doesn't seem to be bothered by VODAPHONE having their £6bn tax bill written off by George Osbourne.

A pity really, that could have been Vodaphones "Ratners" moment...
Amnesty for Vodaphone users, I'll look the other way while you change your mobile service!
My Planet Skaro special!

I'm not leaving the forum, but I seriously wish you all to have the very best Christmas this year... because the next few years are going to be

[Captain Tancredi]

I went to my first local MP's constituency coffee afternoon.
(I had tea of course)
The local MP in question was Angela Eagle

Hmm, you're in Wallasey then?

[Dino]

Hmm, you're in Wallasey then?

Close! Leasowe the "thing" next to it! I've never been a "Wallasey Lad" (Obscure dodgy Liverpool joke)

[Captain Tancredi]

Aha! Spent many a school swimming lesson in Leasowe baths having been born and brought up in Birkenhead.

[Rob McCow]

MP Sir Ian Bowler is rapidly becoming my favourite political commentator -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL1WF...layer_embedded

No new insights, just blisteringly amusing.

[Perry Vale]

I don't really understand these things, but can someone explain why, instead of savage cuts, they couldn't just raise income tax by say, 1%, for a year, to raise taxes to plug the black hole in the budget.

Oh, and on the subject of cuts, it seems Gideon/George is pursuing another one, cutting the amount of tax he himself pays....

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/o...taxes#petition

When it comes to cuts, George Osborne likes to say "we're all in this together". But Channel 4 has just revealed that along with two other Cabinet ministers, he's avoiding paying tax. [1] He pays accountants to find loopholes which help him dodge £1.6 million.

"Legal" tax dodges like this cost the rest of us billions. [2] They mean some of the richest people in the UK get away with paying less tax than the poorest. How can we trust George Osborne to be doing all he can to close tax loopholes when he is using them himself?