Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Demitri_C]

It is large. It is a result of a number of things

large? its fecking huge!!

so again snowy i ask you how do we counter the defecit if these measures are un-necessary?

[drat01]

Interesting lack of comment re the Student announcements today.

Another shocker from the ConDem's IMO

[Jon]

Interesting lack of comment re the Student announcements today.

Another shocker from the ConDem's IMO

Many of the Lib Dem MP's are seriously unhappy about this.

I sense a revolt ..... depends how desperate they are to retain that slight glimmer of "power".

[drat01]

Yes Jon - the Tory party are pissing themselves at the LibDem part of this new Gvmt now because they know they are shafted thanks to Clegg. I wonder how many more of the Clegg promises will be shown to be lies

[snowychap]

so again snowy i ask you how do we counter the defecit if these measures are un-necessary?

As the farmer would say when giving directions, I wouldn't start from here.

But, as we are here, I don't think that aggressive, slashing of government spending due to the deficit hysteria is the right way forward if you are looking at trying to get growth.

[kidlewis]

families who are on a single income are in a position to increase their income by another person going to work part or full time. Therefore if a family is on a higher wage but struggling to cope with saving way more than £80 a week, where both parents work and where both parents work full time

and you have a family who earn less, but only one person works and they have to save £80 a week, then it's much easier for the family on a single income to achieve a saving or earning more than the family in the first paragraph because they have more room to do so, less to save and more options open to them.

there is no debating that fact, end of discussion.

'That fact'?

There doesn't appear to be a fact, there. There seem to be a lot of assumptions (two of which are that jobs grow on trees and that the non-working partner is only working because they are not 'bothered').

I'm also a little lost on this saving more/saving less business? The comparison is between two different families where one is losing some income and another is keeping it.

and I am not saying boo hoo, at the moment we need that £80 a week

so for people to say they can't cope or manage with losing £80 a month where 1 person in the family works, is quite frankly bollocks.

I'm not sure a lot of people are saying that (though I wouldn't be surprised if there are situations where it makes things quite difficult - especially with one parent families). What people have remarked upon is the apparent unfairness - something which you appear to be okay with as you fall on the right side of the divide.

You are saying ya boo. You are saying that in your situation you need the money but that other families in a different situation (who may well be worse off) should shut up as, in your opinion, they don't.

I didn't say anywhere that a partner who isn't working is because they aren't bothered. I am saying if they are bothered about losing £80 a month, then they could look towards bridging that gap by getting another income. whereas a family who already have two people on full time wages don't have the opportunity to bridge that gap, unless they save on their outgoings, or find another higher paid job.

achieving the first is easier that the second.

on the matter of saving. it's not a case of who is keeping the £80 a week and who isn't, it's a case of the people who are losing it (where there is one earner) it is easier for them to bridge that loss of income.

I am saying boo hoo to the single families who are losing £80 a month where one parent stays at home full time, because they are in a much luckier situation than many other families where both parents have to work full/part time.

they are in a much better situation than people who are keeping it but both work full time, when you take into account earnings, family life and the best possible surroundings for their children.

so if you have one income and have lost £80 a month then yes you are still very lucky.

yes they could means test it, yes they could have the cap higher, but they could also be tougher on the banks, tougher on insurance companies underwritten by them to increase car insurance by 30-40%.

there are many things that are unfair, but £80 to save a month shouldn't be too difficult. Yes it's annoying and you have to change your lifestyle, but you deal with it.

[mykeyb]

If the coalition government were to crumble and there was another election I wonder how hard Labour would try to win it.

[ChrisNichollsToe]

Im abstaining from this thread......

[LondonLax]

I am saying boo hoo to the single families who are losing £80 a month where one parent stays at home full time, because they are in a much luckier situation than many other families where both parents have to work full/part time.

And if you are a single parent?

[kidlewis]

I am saying boo hoo to the single families who are losing £80 a month where one parent stays at home full time, because they are in a much luckier situation than many other families where both parents have to work full/part time.

And if you are a single parent?

then the waters are more murkey. do they have a mortgage to pay? is the other parent still around? do they make child support payments? do they have room to pay more child support to make up the difference?

there should be the right to appeal I suppose. Like there is for incapacity benefit.

[snowychap]

I didn't say anywhere that a partner who isn't working is because they aren't bothered.

In which case I apologize for misunderstanding your comment.

I am saying if they are bothered about losing £80 a month, then they could look towards bridging that gap by getting another income. whereas a family who already have two people on full time wages don't have the opportunity to bridge that gap, unless they save on their outgoings, or find another higher paid job.

achieving the first is easier that the second.

It may be, it may not. Probably, on the whole, it is but it isn't necessarily so.

on the matter of saving. it's not a case of who is keeping the £80 a week and who isn't

It absolutely is. It is about a comparison between the two sets of people.

I am saying boo hoo to the single families who are losing £80 a month where one parent stays at home full time, because they are in a much luckier situation than many other families where both parents have to work full/part time.

I think you are now just trying to justify the 'I'm all right, Jack' approach that you appear to be taking.

there are many things that are unfair, but £80 to save a month shouldn't be too difficult. Yes it's annoying and you have to change your lifestyle, but you deal with it.

Except you aren't having to, are you?

I'm sure those people in that situation who may have difficulty (and there may only be a very few) will take the exhortation/lecture/sneering from someone who hasn't lost out very well indeed.

The point, though, isn't really whether it is going to be a hardship for them but the attitude of the people who will still be in receipt of the child benefit payments.

[blandy]

The point, though, isn't really whether it is going to be a hardship for them but the attitude of the people who will still be in receipt of the child benefit payments.

Is it? It's not the point for me. It's not about attitude of recipients or non-recipients. It's (for me) about having a system which provides support to those genuinely in real need of it and which is not overly burdensome/penalising on those paying for it.

Because the Country is piling up 150 billion pounds of debt each year - that's not the total debt, just the additiion to the total debt, it absolutely is necessary to stop spending (in totaL) exceeding total income.

Growing the income is one aspect, and cutting spending is the other. Get the balance wrong either way and the overall situation will worsen, but it is a case of doing both, and cutting benefits from people who don't genuinely need them is part of the solution.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Can someone pass the hammer to Vince Cable? He has to put yet another nail in the coffin of social mobility.

Unlimited Tuitions fees

[mykeyb]

Claire Raynor died today.

According to Twitter her last words were

RIP wonderful Claire Rayner: Her last words? "Tell David Cameron that if he screws up my beloved NHS I'll come back and bloody haunt him."

She wasn't exactly complimentary about the previous government either was she.

[TrentVilla]

So once again the Liberal party drop their beliefs as well as their trousers and bend over for the Conservatives, unlimited tuition fees lovely. Do they really think any of their traditional voters will still be behind them the next time they come to cast a vote?

[snowychap]

The point, though, isn't really whether it is going to be a hardship for them but the attitude of the people who will still be in receipt of the child benefit payments.

Is it? It's not the point for me.

It's not the point of the child benefits system, no. It is the point of the analysis of how the public reacts to public spending cuts.

Most people want cuts just as long as it doesn't adversely affect them (to the point of telling those who are/may be adversely affected to 'man up').

Because the Country is piling up 150 billion pounds of debt each year - that's not the total debt, just the additiion to the total debt

Thanks, Pete - I'm quite well aware of the difference between public sector net borrowing and public sector net debt.

For how many years have we 'piled up 150 billion pounds of debt'?

it absolutely is necessary to stop spending (in totaL) exceeding total income.

Why?

[Risso]

Why is it necessary to reduce our huge deficit? Seriously?

[Condimentalist]

So once again the Liberal party drop their beliefs as well as their trousers and bend over for the Conservatives, unlimited tuition fees lovely. Do they really think any of their traditional voters will still be behind them the next time they come to cast a vote?

I voted Lib Dem, and for the most part I have been sympathetic to the difficult situation that they are in, and I haven't blamed them for too much - and certainly not for entering the coalition (I don't think they had much choice).

I'm mightily peeved over this issue though, they have been pathetic.

[snowychap]

Why is it necessary to reduce our huge deficit? Seriously?

No, that was not the question I asked.

In response to Blandy saying, "...it absolutely is necessary to stop spending (in totaL) exceeding total income..." (which I read as him saying that we absolutely have to run a balanced budget and not run any kind of deficit), I asked why?

[TrentVilla]

So once again the Liberal party drop their beliefs as well as their trousers and bend over for the Conservatives, unlimited tuition fees lovely. Do they really think any of their traditional voters will still be behind them the next time they come to cast a vote?

I voted Lib Dem, and for the most part I have been sympathetic to the difficult situation that they are in, and I haven't blamed them for too much - and certainly not for entering the coalition (I don't think they had much choice).

I'm mightily peeved over this issue though, they have been pathetic.

I find that interesting mate because I've had two friends who voted Liberal say much the same thing to me today which prompted my post.

The situation is dire I agree with you and to an extent I actually sympathise with both sides of the coalition in terms of the what they have to deal with, I can even understand some of the shifts in stance from the Liberal party as a result.

This though? I think this one will be a step to far for many Liberal voters.