Cutting the budget

[trousers]

So, just to summarise this thread thus far: "Life's unfair".

 

Any volunteers for starting a "Pope is Catholic" thread?

 

Sorry to interrupt. Carry on.

[Johnny Bognor]

I can't help feeling that there's a lot more pain to come in a couple of weeks time, though.

 

Maybe you're on to something. Could the child benefit cut just be a smokescreen to deflect people's attention away from other cuts / austerity measures?

[Whitey Grandad]

Maybe you're on to something. Could the child benefit cut just be a smokescreen to deflect people's attention away from other cuts / austerity measures?

 

That's a possibility, of course, but if the new proposals are as badly thought out as this one there will be ructions.

[Johnny Bognor]

That's a possibility, of course, but if the new proposals are as badly thought out as this one there will be ructions.

 

Well whatever they are, Ed Milliband clearly shows his card as to how to oppose / debate any cuts. He appoints a shadow chancellor who admits he knows **** all about economics and will need to read a book over the weekend to bring himself up to speed. Although I detest Ed Balls, he knows his stuff and would be more effective in making the economic arguments. At times like these, it has never been more important to have an effective opposition, so Ed appoints a muppet (a nice muppet, but a muppet all the same).

[bridge too far]

Well whatever they are, Ed Milliband clearly shows his card as to how to oppose / debate any cuts. He appoints a shadow chancellor who admits he knows **** all about economics and will need to read a book over the weekend to bring himself up to speed. Although I detest Ed Balls, he knows his stuff and would be more effective in making the economic arguments. At times like these, it has never been more important to have an effective opposition, so Ed appoints a muppet (a nice muppet, but a muppet all the same).

 

I'm not too sure that GO's degree in History is any more relevant to the job than AJ's previous life as a postman. Although GO has admitted he left the arrangement of the family mortgage to his wife

 

The received wisdom in Westminster is that AJ is a formidable opponent. It will be fun to watch the goings-on in the next few weeks.

[Johnny Bognor]

I'm not too sure that GO's degree in History is any more relevant to the job than AJ's previous life as a postman. Although GO has admitted he left the arrangement of the family mortgage to his wife

 

The received wisdom in Westminster is that AJ is a formidable opponent. It will be fun to watch the goings-on in the next few weeks.

 

But Labour can no longer complain about GO's lack of experience, when they appoint AJ. Missed opportunity for the lefties methinks.

[bridge too far]

But Labour can no longer complain about GO's lack of experience, when they appoint AJ. Missed opportunity for the lefties methinks.

 

Although, of course, GO (who was third choice for Shadow Chancellor) had no experience whatsoever in government until now. Whereas AJ has huge experience in government as SoS for a number of departments.

 

If I were Georgie boy, I'd be quaking in my shoes right now

[benjii]

Log on for a quick look.... oh, juvenile and petty personal snipes from the lefties. Quelle surprise.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Child Benefit is already the means of acknowledging children in the tax and benefit system. It acts as benefit for those who don't pay tax and as tax relief for those that already pay tax.

 

It is just given to families regardless of need. If it was abolished and then different tax rates applied to the number of children you have. Your tax code would be different depending on the number of children you had. That way the money could be really targetted at the people who really need it, if it was paid at a % rate then the more you earn the less of it you get. If you're on benefits you get the child benefit element added to your benefits.As benefits are means tested, then at a stroke and for no extra cost, child benefit becomes means tested.For tax payers it is based on salary, which like all tax rates is a form of means testing.It was easy enough to have a married mans allowence in the past, what I'm proposing is the same, only with children.

[Lord Duckhunter]

If I were Georgie boy, I'd be quaking in my shoes right now

 

Well he hasn't made a very good start so far, writing exclusively for the News of the World (isn't it funny how they hate the Murdoch press, but go running to them as soon as they want their "message" out-hypercrites)that the planned Govt cuts were worse than Mrs Thatchers. As Andrew Neil pointed out of the Andrew Marr show this morning, Alister Darling had already said the same about the cuts Labour was proposing. All the guests agreed that it was a gaff and that he should have spent the weekend reading up on his brief and kept his mouth shut.

[dune]

Surely if he is as red as they come, he would share his spoils with his public sector friends?

 

There's a big difference between saying something, and enacting what you claim to stand for in the real world.

[bridge too far]

A very fair and balanced piece in the Observer today:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/10/benefit-cuts-fairness-george-osborne

 

Oh and FAO Benjii - comments from the right are OK but comments from the left are 'petty personal snipes', eh? One rule for them and one for us apparently.

[Lord Duckhunter]

A very fair and balanced piece in the Observer today:

 

 

The Observer, fair and balanced towards a Tory policy,dont make me laugh.If you want "fair and balanced" what about the IMF, or do they not count on the basis that they backed George's running of the ecomony.

[bridge too far]

The Observer, fair and balanced towards a Tory policy,dont make me laugh.If you want "fair and balanced" what about the IMF, or do they not count on the basis that they backed George's running of the ecomony.

 

No, fair and balanced because it examines both parties' policies, criticises and praises various elements of those policies, and seeks the views of representatives of both right and left wing think tanks.

 

But perhaps you didn't bother to read the article?

[bridge too far]

The Observer, fair and balanced towards a Tory policy,dont make me laugh.If you want "fair and balanced" what about the IMF, or do they not count on the basis that they backed George's running of the ecomony.

 

Here's a look at what the IMF said:

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/economic_policy_1

 

Now the Economist is hardly the vessel of the lefties is it Here's an excerpt:

 

"But the push for short-term austerity seems unnecessary and unwise. Britain's fiscal credibility was not in doubt, at least as far as bond markets were concerned. "

[benjii]

A very fair and balanced piece in the Observer today:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/10/benefit-cuts-fairness-george-osborne

 

Oh and FAO Benjii - comments from the right are OK but comments from the left are 'petty personal snipes', eh? One rule for them and one for us apparently.

 

I would like to retract my previous post.

 

I don't know why I wrote it. I apologise.

[benjii]

Here's a look at what the IMF said:

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/economic_policy_1

 

Now the Economist is hardly the vessel of the lefties is it Here's an excerpt:

 

"But the push for short-term austerity seems unnecessary and unwise. Britain's fiscal credibility was not in doubt, at least as far as bond markets were concerned. "

 

That's fine if you want to issue gilts but if the Government has decided monetary expansion is not a good plan then it's to some extent a moot point.

[bridge too far]

I would like to retract my previous post.

 

I don't know why I wrote it. I apologise.

 

Accepted - thank you

[Johnny Bognor]

A very fair and balanced piece in the Observer today:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/10/benefit-cuts-fairness-george-osborne

 

Oh and FAO Benjii - comments from the right are OK but comments from the left are 'petty personal snipes', eh? One rule for them and one for us apparently.

 

I looked for balance but coudn't find any. Their unscientific poll from some online tree hugger showed that 7 out of 10 were against. A scientific poll by Yougov, found over 80% were in favour:

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/YouGov-Poll-Suggest-Public-Backs-Child-Benefit-Reforms-Figures-Are-Boost-For-Conservatives/Article/201010115752925?f=rss

[bridge too far]

I looked for balance but coudn't find any. Their unscientific poll from some online tree hugger showed that 7 out of 10 were against. A scientific poll by Yougov, found over 80% were in favour:

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/YouGov-Poll-Suggest-Public-Backs-Child-Benefit-Reforms-Figures-Are-Boost-For-Conservatives/Article/201010115752925?f=rss

 

In that article there were comments from:

 

Andrew Haldenby, director of the centre-right thinktank Reform,

Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator magazine

Neil O'Brien, director of the centre-right Policy Exchange

 

as well as from:

 

Tim Horton, research director at the Fabian Society

the thinktank Demos, whose director is former Labour MP and Treasury minister Kitty Ussher

Fran Bennett and Kate Green – former directors of the Child Poverty Action Group

 

and finally - from someone not aligned to either 'side':

 

John Hills, professor of social policy at the London School of Economics

 

That seems fairly balanced to me. The article wasn't setting out a point of view but, rather, asking people from left wing and right wing organisations for their points of view. But I guess that's what a serious paper does.

 

I did one of the YouGov polls recently on the subject of Child Benefit cuts. The questions were not as straightforward as the Sky News item suggests. Sky News - second only to the Morning Star eh

[Johnny Bognor]

In that article there were comments from:

 

Andrew Haldenby, director of the centre-right thinktank Reform,

Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator magazine

Neil O'Brien, director of the centre-right Policy Exchange

 

as well as from:

 

Tim Horton, research director at the Fabian Society

the thinktank Demos, whose director is former Labour MP and Treasury minister Kitty Ussher

Fran Bennett and Kate Green – former directors of the Child Poverty Action Group

 

and finally - from someone not aligned to either 'side':

 

John Hills, professor of social policy at the London School of Economics

 

That seems fairly balanced to me. The article wasn't setting out a point of view but, rather, asking people from left wing and right wing organisations for their points of view. But I guess that's what a serious paper does.

 

I did one of the YouGov polls recently on the subject of Child Benefit cuts. The questions were not as straightforward as the Sky News item suggests. Sky News - second only to the Morning Star eh

 

Sky reported it, but the source was Yougov. Are you suggesting that a Yougov poll is not scientific and not independent? Whereas the founder of netmums is?

 

Andrew Haldenby (who said dismantling universal benefits is unstoppable), Fraser Nelson (who said a lot could be saved by cutting middle class benefits) and Neil O'Brien (who said the welfare system was framed for a different age) did not make a single comment as to the rights and wrongs of cutting of child benefits. You could argue that what they said was totally irrelevant and that they were only included in order to give a perception of balance (that the odd blinkered leftie would fall for), but the crux of the article was how everyone is against the cut and the only basis for this is some tree hugging netmum.

 

That's about as balanced as a wheel that needs wheel balancing

Edited 10 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[bridge too far]

Sky reported it, but the source was Yougov. Are you suggesting that a Yougov poll is not scientific and not independent? Whereas the founder of netmums is?

 

Andrew Haldenby, Fraser Nelson and Neil O'Brien did not make a single comment as to the rights and wrongs of cutting of child benefits. You could argue that what they said was totally irrelevant and that they were included in order to give a perception of balance (that the odd blinkered leftie would fall for), but the crux of the article was how everyone is against the cut and the only basis for this is some tree hugging netmum.

 

That's about as balanced as a wheel that needs wheel balancing

 

Which is why I said that the reporting of the poll was not as straightforward as the poll's questions. I did the poll. I don't think YouGov is anything other than independent but I can't say the same about Sky News (owned by whom, remind me).

 

Indeed, the director of YouGov was one of those giving an opinion in the Observer piece.

 

NetMums were very much in favour of the Conservatives in the run-up to the election. Given that mothers are likely to be more severely affected by the cuts than any other section of society, I bet that won't be the case for long. However, you're right - NetMums isn't representative or scientific. Nor are any of the think-tanks interviewed for that piece.

[aintforever]

I looked for balance but coudn't find any. Their unscientific poll from some online tree hugger showed that 7 out of 10 were against. A scientific poll by Yougov, found over 80% were in favour:

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/YouGov-Poll-Suggest-Public-Backs-Child-Benefit-Reforms-Figures-Are-Boost-For-Conservatives/Article/201010115752925?f=rss

 

"There were hundreds of posts before the school bells had rung," says Freegard. Her children safely behind their desks, she decided to set up an online poll. Soon there were 2,500 responses. The message was clear: seven out of 10 mums opposed the change, believing it to be unfair on those who had paid their taxes and relied on their benefits."

 

You couldn't get a more pointless poll, anyone annoyed at the cuts (obviously the middle class mums sat at home doing **** all) immediately logged on to make a point. Those in favour/not bothered about the change or at work would have had better things to do than go on some daft website.

[Whitey Grandad]

"There were hundreds of posts before the school bells had rung," says Freegard. Her children safely behind their desks, she decided to set up an online poll. Soon there were 2,500 responses. The message was clear: seven out of 10 mums opposed the change, believing it to be unfair on those who had paid their taxes and relied on their benefits."

 

You couldn't get a more pointless poll, anyone annoyed at the cuts (obviously the middle class mums sat at home doing **** all) immediately logged on to make a point. Those in favour/not bothered about the change or at work would have had better things to do than go on some daft website.

The bigger polls are just as pointless. All those not affected or unlikely to be affected by the removal of child benefit are going to think it's a wonderful idea.

[aintforever]

The bigger polls are just as pointless. All those not affected or unlikely to be affected by the removal of child benefit are going to think it's a wonderful idea.

 

We are all effected because it's our tax being handed out and cuts in other areas effect everyone.

[View From The Top]

Surely if he is as red as they come, he would share his spoils with his public sector friends?

 

What a very strange thing to say.

 

Actually the man is incredibly generous and is very grateful to be in the position he is so to be able to help out family and friends.

[Johnny Bognor]

"There were hundreds of posts before the school bells had rung," says Freegard. Her children safely behind their desks, she decided to set up an online poll. Soon there were 2,500 responses. The message was clear: seven out of 10 mums opposed the change, believing it to be unfair on those who had paid their taxes and relied on their benefits."

 

You couldn't get a more pointless poll, anyone annoyed at the cuts (obviously the middle class mums sat at home doing **** all) immediately logged on to make a point. Those in favour/not bothered about the change or at work would have had better things to do than go on some daft website.

 

 

Indeed. If you had a poll of turkeys voting against Christmas and then went with the headline "100% are against Christmas", it is skewed somewhat.

 

 

 

The bigger polls are just as pointless. All those not affected or unlikely to be affected by the removal of child benefit are going to think it's a wonderful idea.

 

There are many without kids who are in favour of the cut strangely enough. I will be affected and agree with the principle. I do think, however, that the execution could have been better.

 

What a very strange thing to say.

 

I guess it was in retrospect, so will hapily take back my comment.