Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Avfc96]

All in it together eh, George?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516362/Chancellor-George-Osborne-spent-10-2m-modernising-Whitehall-HQ.html

 

 

Chancellor spent £10.2m 'modernising' Whitehall HQ: Osborne splashed taxpayers' money on space-age furniture from Big Brother house chair makers

• Firm makes Diva Stools for Big Brother, Mr Impossible chairs for X Factor
• Two-year design makeover ordered to 'smarten up' Treasury
• Osborne forced to reveal details days before Autumn Statement 
• MPs blast Chancellor for 'luxury' spend as new wave of cuts looms

By MIA DE GRAAF

PUBLISHED: 11:50, 1 December 2013 | UPDATED: 15:20, 1 December 2013

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

503 shares

135

View 
comments

George Osborne has spent £10.2million of taxpayer's money modernising Whitehall with space-age furniture from the suppliers of the Big Brother house and the X Factor set.

Known for its 'quirky' style, Panik Design provides 'Diva Stools' for informal meetings and the shiny, white 'Mr Impossible' chair that X Factor's judges and contestants sit on in the boot camp.

The two-year design makeover was commissioned by the Chancellor to update his department in the grand, centuries-old Westminster landmark.

 

 

 

Redesign: Osborne has signed off on a spend from his department on cutting edge furniture from companies such as Panik Design and Ferrius. Panik's products include the Mr Impossible chair (left) from the X Factor

Emerging just days ahead of the Autumn Statement, it has sparked outrage as the nation braces itself for a new wave of cuts.

 

More...

• Osborne gives £1,000 to all home-buyers: Coalition seizes energy bills initiative in mini-Budget
• Energy firms set to curb bills as Osborne is expected to cut 'green' and social levies

 

Mr Osborne was forced to reveal details of the renovation when questioned in the House of Commons.

It has now emerged the Treasury invested at least £1,300 in an item from Panik, which counts designers such as Calvin Klein New York, Vivienne Westwood and Christian Dior Paris among its loyal customers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516362/Chancellor-George-Osborne-spent-10-2m-modernising-Whitehall-HQ.html#ixzz2mGjtKtI0 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Faceboo

[snowychap]

The Heil runs that kind of story on a Tory chancellor four days before the 'Autumn' statment? That's an agenda.

Edited December 2, 2013 by snowychap

[snowychap]

In other news, Cameron's off to China to push his 'ethical' foreign policy stuff. 

[drat01]

In other news, Cameron's off to China to push his 'ethical' foreign policy stuff. 

Taking his father in law, neighbour and many Tory party donors

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10486861/David-Cameron-accused-of-cronyism-as-Conservative-donors-join-him-on-China-trip.html

[MakemineVanilla]

you can get all pious about it

 

 

or you can do your little bit

 

if more people did their little bit, we'd all be in a better place

 

Reading his notice is like looking at an Escher print, the contradictions are very disconcerting.

 

But it is pleasing to see that he still thinks America's underclass has something to be grateful for.

 

And isn't Thanksgiving a celebration of the ultimate betrayal and murder of people who helped the poor?

[drat01]

So a Tory councillor thinks that 50 to 80 K per year is the average salary? :-)

 

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

All in it together eh, George?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516362/Chancellor-George-Osborne-spent-10-2m-modernising-Whitehall-HQ.html

 

 

Chancellor spent £10.2m 'modernising' Whitehall HQ: Osborne splashed taxpayers' money on space-age furniture from Big Brother house chair makers

• Firm makes Diva Stools for Big Brother, Mr Impossible chairs for X Factor
• Two-year design makeover ordered to 'smarten up' Treasury
• Osborne forced to reveal details days before Autumn Statement 
• MPs blast Chancellor for 'luxury' spend as new wave of cuts looms

By MIA DE GRAAF

PUBLISHED: 11:50, 1 December 2013 | UPDATED: 15:20, 1 December 2013

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

503 shares

135

View 

comments

George Osborne has spent £10.2million of taxpayer's money modernising Whitehall with space-age furniture from the suppliers of the Big Brother house and the X Factor set.

Known for its 'quirky' style, Panik Design provides 'Diva Stools' for informal meetings and the shiny, white 'Mr Impossible' chair that X Factor's judges and contestants sit on in the boot camp.

The two-year design makeover was commissioned by the Chancellor to update his department in the grand, centuries-old Westminster landmark.

 

 

 

Redesign: Osborne has signed off on a spend from his department on cutting edge furniture from companies such as Panik Design and Ferrius. Panik's products include the Mr Impossible chair (left) from the X Factor

Emerging just days ahead of the Autumn Statement, it has sparked outrage as the nation braces itself for a new wave of cuts.

 

More...

• Osborne gives £1,000 to all home-buyers: Coalition seizes energy bills initiative in mini-Budget
• Energy firms set to curb bills as Osborne is expected to cut 'green' and social levies

 

Mr Osborne was forced to reveal details of the renovation when questioned in the House of Commons.

It has now emerged the Treasury invested at least £1,300 in an item from Panik, which counts designers such as Calvin Klein New York, Vivienne Westwood and Christian Dior Paris among its loyal customers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516362/Chancellor-George-Osborne-spent-10-2m-modernising-Whitehall-HQ.html#ixzz2mGjtKtI0 

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Faceboo

 

Meanwhile

 

Autumn Statement 2013: Britain can no longer afford welfare state, warns Osborne George Osborne will set out more details on his planned cap on welfare spending in the Autumn Statement on Thursday

 

Advertisement

 

The welfare state is unaffordable, George Osborne will tell MPs this week, and permanent cuts will be required to make the public finances “sustainable”.

The Chancellor will use his Autumn Statement on Thursday to set out more details of a new cap on welfare spending after the next general election.

It is an attempt to put permanent limits on around £100 billion a year of spending on items such as Housing Benefit and some unemployment payments.

Mr Osborne yesterday hinted that, even after the current austerity programme, more fundamental changes will be needed to give Britain an “affordable state”.

The Chancellor will also use his set-piece economic statement to Parliament on Thursday to update MPs on the state of the public finances.

The economy is recovering and currently growing more quickly than any other developed economy. That will allow Mr Osborne to borrow up to £20 billion less this year than he had expected and some economists have suggested that borrowing over the next five years could be up to £70 billion lower than expected.

The modest improvement in public finances has raised hopes that Mr Osborne will be able to offer tax cuts and higher spending.

But he will tell MPs that he will still borrow around £100 billion this year and that his goal of eliminating the deficit is still several years away.

Treasury plans show austerity will have to continue until at least 2018. “People know the job is not done. There are going to have to be more difficult decisions. I’m going to have to take more difficult decisions this week because ultimately you can’t will your country’s public finances to be in better shape,” the Chancellor told the BBC.

Welfare payments account for around £120 billion of the £720 billion the Government spends each year. Mr Osborne suggested that even after the current round of cuts is complete, more fundamental change will be required.

“The cost of welfare is one of the things that makes the public finances unsustainable,” he said, adding: “We need an affordable state.”

The Chancellor earlier this year sketched out plans for a permanent cap on welfare spending from 2015. Under the plan, an annual ceiling for welfare would be set every four years. Ministers spending more than the limit would have to explain the overshoot to Parliament.

 

 

Whitehall sources said the Autumn Statement would include more details, setting out how the limit would be set.

The cap is expected to cover welfare payments that do not fluctuate in line with the economy, meaning that most unemployment benefits are excluded. But most housing benefit – which currently costs more than £20 billion a year – will be included.

Treasury sources said no new welfare cuts are likely before the general election in 2015.

The Liberal Democrats have said they will not allow the Coalition to cut welfare further during this Parliament, meaning more reductions would only come in if the Conservatives win the next election.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/10487295/Autumn-Statement-2013-Britain-can-no-longer-afford-welfare-state-warns-Osborne.html

Edited December 3, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[MakemineVanilla]

So a Tory councillor thinks that 50 to 80 K per year is the average salary? :-)

 

 

I think £50-80k is the next tier down from the super-rich in the central London demograph.

 

These are the people who are going to be squeezed out by the government's policy on non-doms which drives central London's housing inflation.

 

It will just mean the further gentrification of places like Brixton, which is already happening.

 

Poor people will inevitably be displaced by a mixture of market forces and caps on housing allowance.

 

The government need to get on with building the new cities they know are required to house the displaced poor and the imported poor.

[drat01]

Seems like Boris did not do too well on the radio

 

[Eames]

I find those stupid spot quizzes we subject politicians to completely irrelevant. It has no bearing on anyones ability to do their jobs. 

 

I don't know the price of milk, the cost of a tube ticket, the name of 3 olympic women gymnastics, or what the Saints Day is on the 5th Sunday After Pentecost. 

 

Boris is essentially CEO of a very large company. I doubt the CEO of Tesco's know the price of milk or bread or a 4 pack of Stella. I wouldn't expect him to.

 

Their lack of detailed information is no indication of their abilities but rather a somewhat pointless stick to beat them with.

 

(I make no judgement on Boris as Mayor since I'm not a Londoner and couldn't give two shits how good/bad he is). Personally I think he is a very intelligent guy who holds some pretty weird views on life skewed by his education/upbringing. Sadly, because he is a bit of a clown he is forgiven for a multitude of sins.  

[Eames]

 

So a Tory councillor thinks that 50 to 80 K per year is the average salary? :-)

 

 

I think £50-80k is the next tier down from the super-rich in the central London demograph.

 

These are the people who are going to be squeezed out by the government's policy on non-doms which drives central London's housing inflation.

 

It will just mean the further gentrification of places like Brixton, which is already happening.

 

Poor people will inevitably be displaced by a mixture of market forces and caps on housing allowance.

 

The government need to get on with building the new cities they know are required to house the displaced poor and the imported poor.

 

Quick Question - do you live in London or the South East? 

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

So a Tory councillor thinks that 50 to 80 K per year is the average salary? :-)

 

 

I think £50-80k is the next tier down from the super-rich in the central London demograph.

 

These are the people who are going to be squeezed out by the government's policy on non-doms which drives central London's housing inflation.

 

It will just mean the further gentrification of places like Brixton, which is already happening.

 

Poor people will inevitably be displaced by a mixture of market forces and caps on housing allowance.

 

The government need to get on with building the new cities they know are required to house the displaced poor and the imported poor.

 

Quick Question - do you live in London or the South East? 

 

 

Yep!

[Eames]

And you still think 80k a year in London makes you one step below "Super Rich?" (shall we just say "rich" then?)

 

The average London house price is c.450k a year (according to R4 yesterday). 80k a year in London I would describe as comfortable at best. 

[MakemineVanilla]

And you still think 80k a year in London makes you one step below "Super Rich?" (shall we just say "rich" then?)

 

The average London house price is c.450k a year (according to R4 yesterday). 80k a year in London I would describe as comfortable at best. 

 

Yes, I over-did the hyperbole there.

 

I would say that £50-80k would get you into the top 10% in London (its around £43k nationally).

 

These are the group I was predicting would gentrify places like Brixton as prices rose.

 

I should have used the "top 1%" instead of "super rich".

Edited December 3, 2013 by MakemineVanilla

[Awol]

 

 

Autumn Statement 2013: Britain can no longer afford welfare state, warns Osborne George Osborne will set out more details on his planned cap on welfare spending in the Autumn Statement on Thursday

 

The real question is whether he has a point or not? Can the UK afford the cost of a welfare state the cost of which increases exponentionally into the future, or does the shape, structure and cost of that system have to change?

 

Is it better to trim the system now and ensure it will function into the future for the truely needy, or is the welfare state to be used as a system of redistribution by the back door?

[bickster]

Autumn Statement 2013: Britain can no longer afford welfare state, warns Osborne George Osborne will set out more details on his planned cap on welfare spending in the Autumn Statement on Thursday

 

The real question is whether he has a point or not? Can the UK afford the cost of a welfare state the cost of which increases exponentionally into the future, or does the shape, structure and cost of that system have to change?

 

Is it better to trim the system now and ensure it will function into the future for the truely needy, or is the welfare state to be used as a system of redistribution by the back door?

This is George Osbourne you're talking about, he wouldn't know a point if someone took his eye out with a pencil.

It is yet another idealogical cut

The welfare budget will not grow exponentially at all, yes it will get bigger with time but this can be countered by getting many more people back into work on at least a living wage. If Osbourne is saying this it is an admission that this and future governments will fail in getting people back to work

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

 

Autumn Statement 2013: Britain can no longer afford welfare state, warns Osborne George Osborne will set out more details on his planned cap on welfare spending in the Autumn Statement on Thursday

 

The real question is whether he has a point or not? Can the UK afford the cost of a welfare state the cost of which increases exponentionally into the future, or does the shape, structure and cost of that system have to change?

 

Is it better to trim the system now and ensure it will function into the future for the truely needy, or is the welfare state to be used as a system of redistribution by the back door?

 

The vast majority of increases of welfare state spending has actually been on pension age benefits, I believe the next biggest rise has been in Housing benefit which can be explained with the reduction of low cost council housing that has effectively been converted percentage wise into high cost private landlord rentals, Other benfits such as, JSA, disability benefits etc have actually risen very little in real terms over an awful long time. But there is a current ideological agenda to blame all of the current economic crisis on welfare spending when it just isn't simply true.

The other problem with this statement is the definition he and his party might use of the truly needy and those that are seen as not seems more than a little strange.

Edited December 3, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[chrisp65]

500 years since the publication of 'The Prince'

 

an aide to Tony Blair just said that when Blair was giving his speeches, if there was a piece of the speech he didn't want broadcast widely he would look down at his speech and read it out. He knew this was legitimate, to read one's speech, but also knew the tv media would never use a clip of him looking down talking to his paperwork.

 

(perfectly legitimate to include in the tory govt thread)

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

 

Autumn Statement 2013: Britain can no longer afford welfare state, warns Osborne George Osborne will set out more details on his planned cap on welfare spending in the Autumn Statement on Thursday

 

The real question is whether he has a point or not? Can the UK afford the cost of a welfare state the cost of which increases exponentionally into the future, or does the shape, structure and cost of that system have to change?

 

Is it better to trim the system now and ensure it will function into the future for the truely needy, or is the welfare state to be used as a system of redistribution by the back door?

 

 

Osborne's options seem quite limited.

 

Obviously his first priority is to remain in power and to obtain some kind of mandate which he will be free to overstep once he's back in office.

 

So he has to tell all potential Tory voters that cuts won't be directed at them but only at the feckless and idle underclass which all Daily Mail readers can agree to hate.

 

He will continue his diatribes against the whole idea of the welfare state in an attempt to create the right moral atmosphere, in the hope that voters will enjoy their moment of epiphany and conclude that welfare is bad and that removing benefits amounts to some greater good.

 

For his dream to come true he obviously requires that there are enough people stupid enough to set aside their own self-interest to vote him back in.

 

There is no doubt that there will be substantial numbers but will it be enough? 

[meregreen]

The real question surely should be , can Britain afford to see so much of her national wealth siphoned into an ever smaller number of rich hands. If the price of that is the re emergence of Dickensian poverty then the answer is no. Targeting the poor is merely a deflection of the real problem of low wages and unfair wealth distribution.