George Osborne's speech.

Author
Discussion

Fittster

Original Poster:

20,120 posts

212 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
The government is determined to cut a further £10bn from the benefits budget to fight the deficit, Chancellor George Osborne has told the Tory conference.

One idea he suggested was limiting the number of children in a family that should be supported on benefits.

He said the better-off would pay more in taxes, but the budget could not be balanced "on the wallets of the rich".

He also unveiled a plan for workers to give up a string of employment rights in return for shares in their employer.

The new owner-employee contract allows owners to award shares worth up to £50,000 to their staff, in return for the employee giving up their unfair dismissal, redundancy and training rights and also the right to ask for flexible working.

He said there would be no capital gains tax on the profits from the shares, so it would be "owners, workers and the taxman all in it together".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19865692

Can't really see that getting non-conservative voters to give Dave a second chance in 2015.

230TE

2,506 posts

185 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
We were in the scensored this morning, and we still are. I wasn't expecting Osborne's speech to change that. There is only one thing that might get us out of this mess and that is for everyone, from the very top of every organisation to the bottom, to get off our fat behinds, work harder for less money than we have ever done, and stop finding new ways to reward ourselves for not working.

However that isn't the sort of thing any politician feels able to say, so we will all continue to drift along in the hope that the magic money tree will spring back to life and shower us with unearned wealth like in the good old days of Tony and Gordon.

I have long since ceased to believe that this is some kind of temporary financial crisis and that if we sort out the banks / tax the rich / cut a little bit off public spending (but not enough to actually affect anyone) everything will come right. We as a nation have been spending more than we earn for at least thirty years, and borrowing to plug the gap. That particular party is now over: we've run out of beer, and a bloke from the council has confiscated the stereo. The only thing you can say in Osborne's favour is that all the alternatives on offer (at least the ones the voters would find acceptable) are worse. We're all Greeks now, we just haven't realised it yet.

BoRED S2upid

19,622 posts

239 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
Fittster said:
One idea he suggested was limiting the number of children in a family that should be supported on benefits.
Good, do it tomorrow limit it to two. So everyone on benefits that has more than two kids gets their benefits slashed tomorrow morning. Its a start at least.

Will it happen, tomorrow, next month, next year? Nope.

DJRC

23,563 posts

235 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes Tonks and you earn enough to lead a comfortable life. And knock it off with any "But thats not the point..." because its entirely the point. You are of similar age to me, you got a gaff down in France, you can waltz around in roughly whichever motor you drooled about in the 80s and 90s and you live in a nice house. Gorgeous George has bugger all room for playing to yours and my benefits. There cannot be a butchers knife taken to the public spending. It would be political death, for the Torys now and the next 50 yrs. It would also in realistic terms come as close to crippling the UK as anything since the 70s. The country would be put instantly on its financial and social knees and there *would* be riots in every city in the country.

There isnt an easy or even very viable solution right now. All there is is play the long game and try to trim the fat here and there enough that they stay in power till they have some room and then benefit us all. If they dont and the other lot get in then whatever you are currently whinging about will be but fond memories.

Either suck it up and hope to hell it gets better or get out of the country. But you know that aswell as I do.

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
So what will happen when there's literally no more moneyt to pay the benefits? That's what happened in Russia in the early 90s and short of slashing everything else - health, education etc then I can't see another way out.

A wholesale cull of government departments might help though. I know they're small fry but Culture, Media & Sport, Foreign Aid, Department of the Environment, Department of Industry - let's get rid of them all.

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

245 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What is the logic for giving the low paid a 20% incentive to buy a pension while giving the higher paid a 40% or 50% incentive?

Having said that, I entirely agree with you that it is for practical purposes impossible to deal with the government debt problem by raising taxes. As ever, the politicians can't resist relying upon inflation as the "vital tool" to solve all their problems!

I also agree that it's politically essential to target "benefits as a lifestyle choice" irrespective of the amount of hard cash involved.

BoRED S2upid

19,622 posts

239 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
AJS- said:
So what will happen when there's literally no more moneyt to pay the benefits? That's what happened in Russia in the early 90s and short of slashing everything else - health, education etc then I can't see another way out.
The way I see it there hasn't been enough money to pay the benefits for years. Would we ever get to a stage when we actually run out? I doubt it very much just keep borrowing who cares?

Digga

40,158 posts

282 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
BoRED S2upid said:
Fittster said:
One idea he suggested was limiting the number of children in a family that should be supported on benefits.
Good, do it tomorrow limit it to two. So everyone on benefits that has more than two kids gets their benefits slashed tomorrow morning. Its a start at least.

Will it happen, tomorrow, next month, next year? Nope.
Can't happen soon enough. As other posters (Countdown?) have mentioned elsewhere on PH, just about the only people who can afford to have big families these days are those on benefits.

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
BoRED S2upid said:
AJS- said:
So what will happen when there's literally no more moneyt to pay the benefits? That's what happened in Russia in the early 90s and short of slashing everything else - health, education etc then I can't see another way out.
The way I see it there hasn't been enough money to pay the benefits for years. Would we ever get to a stage when we actually run out? I doubt it very much just keep borrowing who cares?
We've tried that already!

Now the cost of servicing the debt is snowballing and soon enough just paying the interest will be a major component of government spending, while tax receipts will start falling as every tax is over optimized. Over the Laffer curve. We will then become uncreditworthy, and have to pay higher interest rates, exacerbating the problem until we have no one left to borrow from.

So yes we would get to a stage where we run out, and I would be surprised if it's more that 10 years away barring a minor miracle.

martin84

5,366 posts

152 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
God Party Conferences are boring aren't they?

After alienating most, Cameron and Osborne now supposedly have the rich in their sights. They've both stated taxes on the richest will rise - although not in the form of a mansion tax - which sends out conflicting messages to the 'roll out the red carpet for Frances richest' remarks. Look at US news channels and the snippet at the bottom is just a simple 'Cameron plans for richest Britons to pay more tax' which I'm not sure is endearing us to the outside world. Considering Cameron has banged on about making us a 'business friendly country' it's just an odd message to send.

ralphrj

3,500 posts

190 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
AJS- said:
soon enough just paying the interest will be a major component of government spending
What do you mean "will be"?

Debt interest has been no. 4 on the list for a while now (behind Welfare, NHS and Education).

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
I suspect if Labour had won again we would be in better shape now. Sounds nuts, I know but hear me out.

Broon would have won with a small majority, a Lib Lab coalition even better. They would have QE'd the currency to st, kept borrowing, soaked the rich, and the whole towering monstrosity of left wing economics would have crashed down around them, 15 years into a left wing government with no one else around to blame, and those few Tories who genuinely stuck to their guns on government spending would be looking pretty clever.

The coalition would have fallen apart and a reinvigorated Conservative party with the confidence and moral authority to implement meaningful reforms could have won the following election.

But who was to know? Except me. And anyone who has read about or can remember the 1970s.

martin84

5,366 posts

152 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
I'm not entirely sure that sounds like 'better shape' to me. The Conservative Party may have been in better shape if results went a different way in 2010, but maybe not the country.

Digga

40,158 posts

282 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There is a fundamental disconnect between the voting population (public perceptions) and our economic reality.

To it's immense credit, the guardian does for all it's other left-leaning bleatings, attempt to provide data in terms people really ought to be able to understand: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/doc...

Looking at that it's very simple to see where the really daft numbers are. Benefit spending is gargantuan and, for example, the teachers pensions budget is £7.5bn - in a similar order of magnitude as the whole Ministry of Justice budget and larger than the NHS pension spend.

IMHO the data in this diagram should be learned by heart for any cabinet or shadow cabinet member - before they even have the right to express an opinion - and it should be circulated far more widely in the public eye than it is.

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
ralphrj said:
AJS- said:
soon enough just paying the interest will be a major component of government spending
What do you mean "will be"?

Debt interest has been no. 4 on the list for a while now (behind Welfare, NHS and Education).
True but they're still a long way behind.




Actually I just googled that and it's gaining ground fast! £44bn compared to £89bn Education, £124bn on Health. Good old social security still trumps all at £194bn though. According to the first pie chart I found.


Cant post the link as I'm on some stupid, stunted device called an iPad that makes such things immensely difficult.

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
martin84 said:
I'm not entirely sure that sounds like 'better shape' to me. The Conservative Party may have been in better shape if results went a different way in 2010, but maybe not the country.
That was the part where I saidtheywould the get elected with a mandate to do something about it. Or are you being lefty?

martin84

5,366 posts

152 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
AJS- said:
Actually I just googled that and it's gaining ground fast! £44bn compared to £89bn Education, £124bn on Health. Good old social security still trumps all at £194bn though. According to the first pie chart I found.
Around half of that is pensions though isn't it? Not in and out of work benefits being sponged by the lazy feckless unemployed rolleyes


AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
martin84 said:
AJS- said:
Actually I just googled that and it's gaining ground fast! £44bn compared to £89bn Education, £124bn on Health. Good old social security still trumps all at £194bn though. According to the first pie chart I found.
Around half of that is pensions though isn't it? Not in and out of work benefits being sponged by the lazy feckless unemployed rolleyes
It doesn't really matter what it is, it's a staggering amount of money.

Jasandjules

69,787 posts

228 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
AJS- said:
It doesn't really matter what it is, it's a staggering amount of money.
Of course it matters. Social Security is seen as the benefits for the ASDA shopping Jeremy Kyle watching baby factory brigade. Whereas if 50% of that is in fact not benefits for those people then when comparisons are made to other aspects of budget spending, it is a skewed figure.

Personally I wish the Govt spending on their staff pensions was dramatically slashed. I spend a lot of my own money on a pension, why the feck should I pay for theirs too!??!


mattnunn

14,041 posts

160 months

Monday 8th October 2012
quotequote all
I do hope that this new employee share ownership has a loophole to allow company directors to get more moeny out of their companies tax efficiently.

That would be jolly decent.