Johann Hari: A colder, crueller country - for no gain - Johann Hari

These attitudes have real consequences. We're not in this together. Who isn't in it with us? Them, their friends, and their families. They were asked to pay nothing more in this CSR. On the contrary: they are being let off left, right and centre. To pluck a random example, one of the richest corporations in Britain, Vodafone, had an outstanding tax bill of £6bn - but Osborne simply cancelled it this year. If he had made them pay, he could have prevented nearly all the cuts to all the welfare recipients in Britain. You try refusing to pay your taxes next time, and see if George Osborne shows the same generosity to you as he does to the super-rich.

There is one stark symbol of how unjust the response to this economic disaster caused by bankers is. They have just paid themselves £7bn in bonuses - much of it our money - to reward themselves for failure. That's the same sum Osborne took from the benefits of the British poor yesterday, who did nothing to cause this crash. And he has the chutzpah to brag about "fairness."


If true that really is shocking.
While some will argue that Vodaphone, for example, will contribute jobs (and we need plenty of those given Ozzy's Axe), they must pay their bill. That £6million could have saved massive welfare payments. I think it's important to get people into work so I would cut national insurance and get the money from income tax.
As for bankers bonuses, it's beyond obscene.

bearded socialist on the defcit and the CSR

ok, what gets me is that the deficit is about £150 billion. The cost of bailing out the banks is well over £100 bn. The deficit excluding the bank bailout is about £30bn, which is nothing compared to just about any other country. still too large i'd argue, but not really significant comparitvely (SP?).

the defcit is due to bailing out the banks, which admittedly the Tories opposed, but would have left us without an economy. Waste, bureaucracy and benefits cheats did not lead to the deficit we currently have. sadly, i honestly do think the coalition have done what they wanted to do for purely ideological reasons i.e. shrink the state. that's an arguement, fair enough. but a marginal increase or decrease in the size of the state is a completely different thing from the deficit we have at the moment which was caused by bailing out the banks, not public sector pay rates

My own personal Spending Review

the coalition government has used the comparison with household budgets to make the case for its own cuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11552869

Which is plainly bollocks, but something the right are very fond of trotting out

my worst time of year

i hate having to sit through Tory conference at the best of times, but with these smug hypocritical bastards In Government (!, looking at you Clegg) they are unbearable. Quote of the day: "Conservative party traditionalists tell the chancellor his benefit cut for high earners could discourage marriage and hit middle-class single mothers". Now i thought they were against single mothers, but apparently it's only poor ones. Middle class single mothers are to be defended. Hypocrites

today's benefit reforms

i agree that people should be better off in work than on benefits.
however, AxeMan Osborne does not give me any confidence he will do anything other than attack the poor and vulnerable.
anyone who thinks his measures are not ideological are mental. they must be pretty grateful for the Lib Dems to take much of the fire for them from both sides.

ideally, wages should be of a level that means people are decently off in work, but there's in work poverty as well as benefit affluence.


Update: "A government source has just told Nick Robinson that the chancellor's benefits cap is more a "symbol" than a policy whose implications have been fully worked out and will produce real savings. "
oh there's a surprise

today's Tory proposals

i woke up this morning to Tory proposals to cut benefits and all but out law strikes.
i don't have a problem with the cut to 'universal' benefits. benefits should go to those most ni need, and i'm afraid top-rate tax payers are not most in need so, given the current financial position, it seems fair enough.

on restricting strikes, i think it's a tactic to back Ed Miliband into a corner

alternatives to the budget cuts

left foot forward, while discussing the challenges facing Ed Miliband as leader, identifies the Spending Review as key.
I, like them, would like to see a different approach to economic policy from the the coalition. no shit.
by sticking to Alistair Darling’s timetable but switching to a 50:50 ration with no protection for the Health budget, departmental cuts can be reduced to 8 per cent – in stark contrast to the Coalition’s 25 to 40 per cuts.
sounds good, so long as the tax rises bring in enough without hurting people and the economy.

doing the coalitions bidding

Sadly, for the first time today i saw, i'm sure well-meaning people, taking the heat of the government and blaming innocents for the government's cuts.
there has been a lot of noise around New Cross recently about the possible closure of the library. Now, i've spoken to a mate who is on the council and the situation is that the government has handed down cuts of around 25%. as a result, the council MUST look at ALL and ANY possibilities to make the necessary savings. So i blame the central government for cuts to the budget. but there is a banner near my house accusing the local mayor personally of trying to close the library, no mention of anyone else.
this to me is taking the heat off the government and placing it on innocents, and to me that's not right. it is, after all, the central government's fault for their cuts, not the local council's for having to make the decisions on the front line.
and round here the banner is far more likely to have been put up by the socialist party than anyone further right. if that's the case, it's Socialists defending the Tories (and tory Lib Dems) and attacking Labour. wouldn't surprise me, to be fair, but they are missing their target whoever they are

the economy

from reading Larry Elliot and others it seems there is a real and significant risk of the world economy folding like a crap chair. one that's made of paper, in the rain.
a double dip is a worry, and what with the looming cuts too, it looks like Keynesianism is our best bet.
but our chancellor, Clueless George, has other ideas.

"Osborne's belief is that hacking away at public spending will create space for the private sector to flourish. Britain will cease to be so dependent on consumer spending and the state for its growth; instead, resources will shift to manufacturing and exports, thus reducing both household debt and the size of the UK's current account deficit.

Such an outcome is much to be desired but, as today's trade figures show, it remains a long way off. Far from benefiting from the 20% drop in sterling over the past three years, the trade gap in the three months to July was the worst on record. Only the efforts of the City, which boosted the UK's surplus in service sector trade, prevented an even worse outcome. Not much sign of rebalancing there."

i personally think his belief in crowding out is based more on ideological conviction than any fact. the private sector is weak, confidence is fragile. like a 16 year old virgin boy with acne trying to chat up a girl. that fragile. so pulling masses of money out of the economy in order to go on an ideological crusade is madness, utter madness. the deficit is too big, and that is Labour's fault. but ranting at the past won't solve the present, and making things worse is a hell of a risk in the hope of a better future, to say nothing of the consequenes (see Mr G. Howe in the 1980s)

cuts

"George Osborne: Ministries face cuts of over 20%

Welfare, tax credits and pensions among areas to be included in fundamental spending review, warns chancellor"

having been made unemployed as a direct result of the new government's actions, i won't be too impressed if they then come along and cut my dole too. if they then do the thing of blaming me for being unemployed, i will be distinctly unimpressed with the tory government

goverment cuts

Cameron has outlined what he thinks needs to be reduced: massive welfare bills", public sector pay and "the bureaucracy .
no change there then

i recently lost my job due to the recruitment freeze, and judging by the above the Tories are still the same old Tories so i'm not too hopeful for much help

Councils 'will struggle with ageing population'‏

Things are only going to get harder.
I am inclined towards the view that people having to sell their houses to pay for their care is no bad thing. What matters more in the care.
This is a tough situation, one where no-one will be happy because everyone will want the best care possible at no cost, but that's not realistic. General direction taxation (income tax) is the fairest and best way to pay for all things because it is levied according to ability to pay.

Branson backs 2010 spending cuts‏

Aye, it's a tough one. To cut now and risk sending the economy into a downward spiral, or wait in the hope of tackling the hole in the public finances before the international money markets go nuts.
Now, the rating agencies are a significant part of the reason we're in this mess, but none the less they still have significant power and influence. As a result governments must dance to their tune. But cuts now would bring the economy into recession, possibly a very severe one. Maybe even worse than the current/most recent one. The cumulative effect would be devastating. On the other hand, wait may get the economy going enough to reduce the hole by growth in part, thus taking significant pressure off the need to cut everything. But if cuts need to be made, they need to be made. And there probably will be some. I trust Gordy and Darling with the economy, Darling slightly more.
Cameron and Osborne worry me.

Shortages in social services

There's a story about Birmingham social services being short of cash, lacking staff etc.
The things are
1) cuts will be terrible and make things worse than they are
2) where will the money come from?

Benefit cuts

My take:
The usual attack on the poor and vulnerable. It's hard enough to get benefits when they're needed, this is just motivated by a heart-less cull of those least able to defend themselves

Tory attacks on benefit claimants

"Sickness benefit cheats to face tough Tory test" from the Telegraph.
Usual Tory rubbish - attack those most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves against the mulit-million pound Tory and media attacks.
Labour rubbish it, of course. Their line being: "a rehash of what we're already doing, but without the investment needed to make them work."

I agree with the Lib Dem line of Steve Webb: “This is yet more Tory posturing ... Much of what David Cameron is proposing is happening already. But the central assumption – that unemployment is simply about the workshy not applying for jobs – is ridiculous in the middle of a global recession.”
I thank you