Cameron considers big cuts to benefits!
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
Caulkhead said:
......but after 13 years of labour gerrymandering ......!
Any chance we could put this myth to rest? Boundary changes nearly always favour the Conservatives.British electoral system unfairly gerrymandered in favour of Labour
Article said:
David Cameron needs to win 2 million more votes than Gordon Brown just to draw level in Parliamentary seats. Earlier research by David Butler showed that the Tories could win 40 per cent of the vote, with Labour on just 30 per cent, and the Conservatives would still be seven seats short of an overall majority.
Tories would have avoided coalition if proposed boundary changes were in place in 2010Article said:
The Conservatives may have been able to avoid entering a coalition with the Liberal Democrats had the 2010 election been carried out using the new proposed boundaries for the United Kingdom, analysis by the Guardian suggests.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Labour manipulated the boundary changes to gain extra seats between 1997 and 2010?
Countdown said:
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Labour manipulated the boundary changes to gain extra seats between 1997 and 2010?
Meaning, was I there at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party to hear the plot take shape, and have signed copies of the meeting minutes? Unlikely isn't it - just as it's unlikely that you were present at a similar meeting where a comment was minuted to the effect that there could be a 40% share of the vote for Conservatives and 30% for Labour but with the boundary changes the Tories would still lack an overall majority.
You inhabit a curious existence but I trust you find it fulfilling. In that existence, do you have any evidence to suggest that the Conservatives are manipulating boundary changes now to gain extra seats at the next General Election? Presence at a relevant Conservative Party or Coalition meeting will do as long as you have signed minutes.
I doubt it very much indeed, but I hope that the result will be like that since there needs to be a re-set when a 10% difference in share of the vote 40% to 30% results in no overall majority for the 40%.
An interesting article - imho
http://speye.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/shappenfreud...
Shappenfreude – Housing Minister admits HB cost up and HB reforms won’t save money!
Shapps admits the coalition’s HB policy and HB reforms have failed. In case you missed it, and many did, the link is here to an article in Shapps’ local paper. The Welwyn Hatfield Times is not the usual source for such a significant announcement.
The article entitled “Boris Johnson warns Welwyn Hatfield MP over housing benefits cap” is the context of a spat between BoJo and Shapps in which the Housing Minister states:
“Asked whether he would tell Mr Shapps if he was wrong, the Mayor said: “I will certainly tell Grant Shapps that he’s wrong if he does anything to jeopardise the interests of London.”
In response, Mr Shapps told the Welwyn Hatfield Times: “Boris rightly says he’d be against me doing anything to jeopardise the interests of London. I absolutely agree, and would never want to do that.
“All we’re saying is that hard working families paying their taxes must not be paying for people to be able to live in neighbourhoods that they themselves could never afford.
“That’s just unfair.”
He added: “Everyone might want to live in the finest street, in the best neighbourhood in Mayfair, although I personally don’t, but that doesn’t mean there’s a right to do so with others paying your rent.”
He also said it was wrong to say the Government was reducing the total housing benefit spend.
“In fact it’s projected to go from £21bn per year to £23bn by 2015.
“What we are doing is ensuring that it doesn’t rise even faster to £25bn,” he said”
As I have remarked frequently in many posts the coalition stated the HB reforms would save money off the spiraling HB bill. The reforms will save ‘nearly £2bn’ off the £20bn HB bill they inherited and thus set a HB target of £18bn by 2015. Shapps above in this less than nationally viewed local rag says it will now be £23bn by 2015 a rise of £5bn on the original target from 2010.
This 28% increase in the total bill is the direct result of the HB reforms and they used the cost savings as the key rationale for the introduction of their numerous HB reforms; reforms which now are projected to cost £5bn per year more!
This very quiet admittance from Shapps is so unlike him as he usually pre-announces an announcement that he is going to make an announcement on his latest housing wheeze (boats to meet housing shortage anyone?) yet he still can’t resist attempting to spin this favourably can he?
“What we are doing is ensuring that it doesn’t rise even faster to £25bn” no less. Risible is giving such an absurd claim too much praise!
The 28% increase is yet another matter. At the time of the June 2010 Coalition claim the numbers of HB claimants was £4.751m so even if the DWP and CLG didn’t anticipate an increase in HB claimants in their projections on HB costs, and they must have done, the 28% increase would be ‘justifiable’ if HB claimants rose 28% by 2015 – to over 6.08m claimants. Yet numbers of claimants have risen less than 5%. So the huge increase is not as a result of unexpectedly high number of new claimants, it’s a direct result of incompetent HB reform policies. This must be the case as many HB reforms have still to become operational yet even when they do Shapps admits the HB bill will increase from £21 to £23bn!
I, along with many others, stated back in 2010 when the HB reforms were announced that they would not save money; rather the HB bill would increase. It has.
The claimed rationale of this coalition was the HB reforms would save the public purse is exposed as the bunk it always was – Shappenfreude anyone?
http://speye.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/shappenfreud...
Shappenfreude – Housing Minister admits HB cost up and HB reforms won’t save money!
Shapps admits the coalition’s HB policy and HB reforms have failed. In case you missed it, and many did, the link is here to an article in Shapps’ local paper. The Welwyn Hatfield Times is not the usual source for such a significant announcement.
The article entitled “Boris Johnson warns Welwyn Hatfield MP over housing benefits cap” is the context of a spat between BoJo and Shapps in which the Housing Minister states:
“Asked whether he would tell Mr Shapps if he was wrong, the Mayor said: “I will certainly tell Grant Shapps that he’s wrong if he does anything to jeopardise the interests of London.”
In response, Mr Shapps told the Welwyn Hatfield Times: “Boris rightly says he’d be against me doing anything to jeopardise the interests of London. I absolutely agree, and would never want to do that.
“All we’re saying is that hard working families paying their taxes must not be paying for people to be able to live in neighbourhoods that they themselves could never afford.
“That’s just unfair.”
He added: “Everyone might want to live in the finest street, in the best neighbourhood in Mayfair, although I personally don’t, but that doesn’t mean there’s a right to do so with others paying your rent.”
He also said it was wrong to say the Government was reducing the total housing benefit spend.
“In fact it’s projected to go from £21bn per year to £23bn by 2015.
“What we are doing is ensuring that it doesn’t rise even faster to £25bn,” he said”
As I have remarked frequently in many posts the coalition stated the HB reforms would save money off the spiraling HB bill. The reforms will save ‘nearly £2bn’ off the £20bn HB bill they inherited and thus set a HB target of £18bn by 2015. Shapps above in this less than nationally viewed local rag says it will now be £23bn by 2015 a rise of £5bn on the original target from 2010.
This 28% increase in the total bill is the direct result of the HB reforms and they used the cost savings as the key rationale for the introduction of their numerous HB reforms; reforms which now are projected to cost £5bn per year more!
This very quiet admittance from Shapps is so unlike him as he usually pre-announces an announcement that he is going to make an announcement on his latest housing wheeze (boats to meet housing shortage anyone?) yet he still can’t resist attempting to spin this favourably can he?
“What we are doing is ensuring that it doesn’t rise even faster to £25bn” no less. Risible is giving such an absurd claim too much praise!
The 28% increase is yet another matter. At the time of the June 2010 Coalition claim the numbers of HB claimants was £4.751m so even if the DWP and CLG didn’t anticipate an increase in HB claimants in their projections on HB costs, and they must have done, the 28% increase would be ‘justifiable’ if HB claimants rose 28% by 2015 – to over 6.08m claimants. Yet numbers of claimants have risen less than 5%. So the huge increase is not as a result of unexpectedly high number of new claimants, it’s a direct result of incompetent HB reform policies. This must be the case as many HB reforms have still to become operational yet even when they do Shapps admits the HB bill will increase from £21 to £23bn!
I, along with many others, stated back in 2010 when the HB reforms were announced that they would not save money; rather the HB bill would increase. It has.
The claimed rationale of this coalition was the HB reforms would save the public purse is exposed as the bunk it always was – Shappenfreude anyone?
turbobloke said:
Countdown said:
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Labour manipulated the boundary changes to gain extra seats between 1997 and 2010?
Meaning, was I there at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour Party to hear the plot take shape, and have signed copies of the meeting minutes? Given how obvious you seem to suggest it was I'm guessing the evidence will be fairly easy to obtain.
And one more
http://speye.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/banning-unde...
…
Of course the government and the media don’t like to admit – or is it doesn’t know – that Housing Benefit is an in-work benefit. I mean who would know that since the coalition took office that 232,340 of the 263,120 new HB claimants since the election are in work – just a mere 88% of them. So 88% of the indolent workshy bar stewards claiming HB are also paying taxes – Not quite the same story is it Mr Cameron.
Even fewer would know or realise that the nearly £2bn per year of savings this coalition promised its Housing Benefit reforms would deliver currently see the HB bill £4.78bn OVER this target! Yes I am talking about those HB caps that the public lapped up and had 76% support until the public realised their direct impact in the attempted movement of homeless families from Newham to Stoke last month.
How convenient that back in June 2010 this Coalition stated their HB reforms would save “nearly £2bn” and today we see the same Coalition saying the under 25s cost “nearly £2bn” Anyone would think the Coalition is trying to blame the HB rises on young people under 25!! And from last month we have the Housing Minister saying the now revised HB figure is £5bn per year more than the original coalition target such is the competence of it in handling Housing Benefit!
….
Contd…
The under-25 HB issue is the Tory’s attempt to deflect blame away from their disastrous HB reforms which haven’t and won’t save money as they loudly proclaimed. They know they can’t stop under 25s from receiving HB because it will cost more AND more importantly will increase homelessness and visibly on the street rough sleeping. It will increase police and NHS costs of domestic violence and that is too much a politically sensitive area. It will mean returning soldiers, war heroes will be excluded – electoral suicide and the many Tory councils will be vociferous about additional costs of care leavers and the fact they have to pay for them rather than older persons out of social services budgets.
….
http://speye.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/banning-unde...
…
Of course the government and the media don’t like to admit – or is it doesn’t know – that Housing Benefit is an in-work benefit. I mean who would know that since the coalition took office that 232,340 of the 263,120 new HB claimants since the election are in work – just a mere 88% of them. So 88% of the indolent workshy bar stewards claiming HB are also paying taxes – Not quite the same story is it Mr Cameron.
Even fewer would know or realise that the nearly £2bn per year of savings this coalition promised its Housing Benefit reforms would deliver currently see the HB bill £4.78bn OVER this target! Yes I am talking about those HB caps that the public lapped up and had 76% support until the public realised their direct impact in the attempted movement of homeless families from Newham to Stoke last month.
How convenient that back in June 2010 this Coalition stated their HB reforms would save “nearly £2bn” and today we see the same Coalition saying the under 25s cost “nearly £2bn” Anyone would think the Coalition is trying to blame the HB rises on young people under 25!! And from last month we have the Housing Minister saying the now revised HB figure is £5bn per year more than the original coalition target such is the competence of it in handling Housing Benefit!
….
Contd…
The under-25 HB issue is the Tory’s attempt to deflect blame away from their disastrous HB reforms which haven’t and won’t save money as they loudly proclaimed. They know they can’t stop under 25s from receiving HB because it will cost more AND more importantly will increase homelessness and visibly on the street rough sleeping. It will increase police and NHS costs of domestic violence and that is too much a politically sensitive area. It will mean returning soldiers, war heroes will be excluded – electoral suicide and the many Tory councils will be vociferous about additional costs of care leavers and the fact they have to pay for them rather than older persons out of social services budgets.
….
turbobloke said:
You inhabit a curious existence but I trust you find it fulfilling. In that existence, do you have any evidence to suggest that the Conservatives are manipulating boundary changes now to gain extra seats at the next General Election? Presence at a relevant Conservative Party or Coalition meeting will do as long as you have signed minutes.
Where have I suggested that the Conservatives are manipulating boundary changes??deadslow said:
Caulkhead said:
deadslow said:
Cameron is a joke PM. Right thinking people laugh at him.
Out of the choices at the last election, who would you have prefered?Countdown said:
Guybrush said:
Remember everyone, just how bad things were under Labour - refresh your memories if you're starting to forget already.
They weren't bad for everybody. My salary tripled between 1997 - 2009. The school my nephews/nieces go to was massively refurbished. Quality of healthcare we've recieved has been fantastic. Caulkhead said:
Countdown said:
Guybrush said:
Remember everyone, just how bad things were under Labour - refresh your memories if you're starting to forget already.
They weren't bad for everybody. My salary tripled between 1997 - 2009. The school my nephews/nieces go to was massively refurbished. Quality of healthcare we've recieved has been fantastic. 
A lot of people had similar experiences to Countdown but as you say that doesn't mean it was all good when the fact remains we couldn't afford it all, and no guessing where the most complaints emanate from now that payback time is here. Still, the solution according to Labour is to borrow more, kick the can down the road, lie to the public and pretend all will be well EUSSR style. In this dreamworld there will be no impact on credit rating, or cost of borrowing, and as before Labour won't be around to see it paid back - though of course the Labour Party does have an existing relationship with the IMF in terms of going cap in hand for a bailout.
turbobloke said:
Caulkhead said:
Countdown said:
Guybrush said:
Remember everyone, just how bad things were under Labour - refresh your memories if you're starting to forget already.
They weren't bad for everybody. My salary tripled between 1997 - 2009. The school my nephews/nieces go to was massively refurbished. Quality of healthcare we've recieved has been fantastic. A lot of people had similar experiences to Countdown but as you say that doesn't mean it was all good when the fact remains we couldn't afford it all, and no guessing where the most complaints emanate from now that payback time is here. Still, the solution according to Labour is to borrow more, kick the can down the road, lie to the public and pretend all will be well EUSSR style. In this dreamworld there will be no impact on credit rating, or cost of borrowing, and as before Labour won't be around to see it paid back - though of course the Labour Party does have an existing relationship with the IMF in terms of going cap in hand for a bailout.
h about if we follow labour's plans and their mortgage rate doubles or trebles, yet so many people seem unable or unwilling to grasp this simple truth.deadslow said:
Caulkhead said:
deadslow said:
Cameron is a joke PM. Right thinking people laugh at him.
Out of the choices at the last election, who would you have prefered?And before you go on about how the system is rubbish, we did actually have a vote to change it last year and the public rejected it.
oyster said:
So if you couldn't find anyone worth voting for or if you couldn't be bothered to put yourself up for election then maybe you should accept the will of the rest of the population.
And before you go on about how the system is rubbish, we did actually have a vote to change it last year and the public rejected it.
That's a bit disningenuous, it was a system that no one really asked for nor wanted, hardly surprising it went nowhereAnd before you go on about how the system is rubbish, we did actually have a vote to change it last year and the public rejected it.
bobbylondonuk said:
He is making all the right noises!
Waiting for some action could be like Crouch without the premiership footballer status.If that bastion of 'independence' called The Independent is whining about something, the something is often a good idea.
Today they've got a front page photo of Woy Hodgson and Cole with an adjacent headline "Return of The Nasty Party" which is a bit harsh even though the penalties weren't nice.
thinfourth2 said:
powerstroke said:
More spin and bluster... will never happen
Yep its a headline grab nothing moreCaulkhead said:
The treasury claim it will save 10% of the total housing benefit budget, which is £20bn. So £2bn if you're as bad at arithmetic as you are at being bothered to google.
Can you possibly answer a question without including snide patronising remarks?Caulkhead said:
When you voted, you knew it was for five years. If there was a general election tomorrow with the current party leaders, which way would you vote this time bearing in mind
I didn't know it was for five years because the fixed term didn't come in until later. I've always known it to be four or five years depending on whether the party in charge thinks it can win or not. If there was a general election tomorrow I wouldn't bother voting or I'd vote Labour purely to see the PH clusterfk response if Labour were to win.
martin84 said:
I didn't know it was for five years because the fixed term didn't come in until later. I've always known it to be four or five years depending on whether the party in charge thinks it can win or not. If there was a general election tomorrow I wouldn't bother voting or I'd vote Labour purely to see the PH clusterfk response if Labour were to win.
Nah, say you'll vote UKIP, it sends em into apoplexy...some of the insults are awesome took response if Labour were to win.
To steer us back on topic...
From a political point of view I feel Cameron is trying to reconnect with the right of his party who have become annoyed at the level of Lib Dem influence. Things like House of Lords reform and gay marriage are taking up far too much of the political agenda, this reflects worse on the Conservative's who receive the criticism for being 'out of touch' when its the Coalition's far left focussing on these things which the public don't care about. Cameron's returning to a policy area which his party is really interested in and I'd say he's essentially launching his election campaign.
This is going to be an extremely long debate which will drag until the next election obviously because none of these reforms will come in before 2015. Cameron is right to start a debate on this issue because it is one we need to have in this country. Plenty of you on here think I'm a member of the far left which sees no problem with the status quo, well that's not the case at all. The social protection bill is too high and there is in some places a culture of dependence and entitlement, I stress it is a minority but there's more of the stereotypical chav scum who get pregnant to get a house than we'd like to believe.
The biggest problem the Government will have doesn't come from the subset of people who sit at home and do nothing, fiddle the system or fradulently claim. The biggest problem is most people on housing benefit are actually in work, Cameron is over simplifying the argument by suggesting the solution is purely to make people go to work because plenty of the welfare bill is paid to people who are in work. Large chunks are also paid to people who simply don't need it, known as the 'middle class benefits' so we need to look at that too. The problem is for many people, work doesn't actually pay; wages are too low for the majority (you can look at immigration policy as another factor there) and even people in work need state help to keep a roof over their head.
Housing benefit and tax credits for instance don't just subsidise people into houses they can't really afford, but it subsidises low paying employers and fills the coffers of many landlords. Now imagine what will happen when the benefits cap essentially takes £2billion out of the rental property market, will that force prices to fall? You could say plenty of employers profits are partly down to the welfare system providing them with cheap labour, because the state makes up the shortfall, particularly in London. If there was no housing benefit/tax credits etc there's no way businesses in London could pay £6.50 an hour and actually get anybody to do the work.
There's a long way to go, these are not concrete policies yet but the PM has launched a test balloon of sorts. There's concerns we could further lock in a North-South divide with these plans, indeed I believe the i newspaper is going with that tomorrow, so there's still danger for Cameron on this issue even though many support welfare reform. Indeed Labour will soon be under pressure to spell out their ideas on this issue too. I just feel the situation is more complicated than he's making out currently.
From a political point of view I feel Cameron is trying to reconnect with the right of his party who have become annoyed at the level of Lib Dem influence. Things like House of Lords reform and gay marriage are taking up far too much of the political agenda, this reflects worse on the Conservative's who receive the criticism for being 'out of touch' when its the Coalition's far left focussing on these things which the public don't care about. Cameron's returning to a policy area which his party is really interested in and I'd say he's essentially launching his election campaign.
This is going to be an extremely long debate which will drag until the next election obviously because none of these reforms will come in before 2015. Cameron is right to start a debate on this issue because it is one we need to have in this country. Plenty of you on here think I'm a member of the far left which sees no problem with the status quo, well that's not the case at all. The social protection bill is too high and there is in some places a culture of dependence and entitlement, I stress it is a minority but there's more of the stereotypical chav scum who get pregnant to get a house than we'd like to believe.
The biggest problem the Government will have doesn't come from the subset of people who sit at home and do nothing, fiddle the system or fradulently claim. The biggest problem is most people on housing benefit are actually in work, Cameron is over simplifying the argument by suggesting the solution is purely to make people go to work because plenty of the welfare bill is paid to people who are in work. Large chunks are also paid to people who simply don't need it, known as the 'middle class benefits' so we need to look at that too. The problem is for many people, work doesn't actually pay; wages are too low for the majority (you can look at immigration policy as another factor there) and even people in work need state help to keep a roof over their head.
Housing benefit and tax credits for instance don't just subsidise people into houses they can't really afford, but it subsidises low paying employers and fills the coffers of many landlords. Now imagine what will happen when the benefits cap essentially takes £2billion out of the rental property market, will that force prices to fall? You could say plenty of employers profits are partly down to the welfare system providing them with cheap labour, because the state makes up the shortfall, particularly in London. If there was no housing benefit/tax credits etc there's no way businesses in London could pay £6.50 an hour and actually get anybody to do the work.
There's a long way to go, these are not concrete policies yet but the PM has launched a test balloon of sorts. There's concerns we could further lock in a North-South divide with these plans, indeed I believe the i newspaper is going with that tomorrow, so there's still danger for Cameron on this issue even though many support welfare reform. Indeed Labour will soon be under pressure to spell out their ideas on this issue too. I just feel the situation is more complicated than he's making out currently.
martin84 said:
There's a long way to go, these are not concrete policies yet but the PM has launched a test balloon of sorts. There's concerns we could further lock in a North-South divide with these plans, indeed I believe the i newspaper is going with that tomorrow, so there's still danger for Cameron on this issue even though many support welfare reform. Indeed Labour will soon be under pressure to spell out their ideas on this issue too. I just feel the situation is more complicated than he's making out currently.
There isn't actually a great deal wrong with a North/South divide, so long as the cost of living and the available wages match up. It's impossible to herd sheep in Knightsbridge due to high land values and London salary weighting, and it would be difficult to site Harrods in Cumbria because nobody there can afford to buy lions. We herd sheep in Cumbria because the low costs of doing so mean it's possible to do it and live on the the proceeds, and we buy lions from Harrods in Knightsbridge because London is full of fools with more money than sense.
Most countries have poorer and richer areas, but they use them to their advantage by placing lower profitability industries into those areas, so that they can still be profitable. The regional weighting of benefits in that respect makes sense. Of course if the benefits are aiming to push people into work, there has to be work to push people into - and we haven't heard anything on those measures as yet.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff