Seventy-seven per-cent of the public want the hunt ban to be enforced, according to a new poll published today.
The League Against Cruel Sports has challenged its opponents by using their own questions to “prove the point” against repeal, according to a poll published in the Independent on Sunday today.
The poll, by YouGov for the League Against Cruel Sports, found that 77% of the public think that, “Where there is clear evidence of people breaking the Hunting Act, the police should investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute" whereas only 15% thought they should not. Less people thought that enforcement of the smoking ban should be a priority.
The poll came as hunts around the country met yesterday for the first time in this hunting season. The polling results are a clear slap in the face for the hunting community.
For years, the hunters have said that opinion polling was flawed; claiming that if only the ‘right’ question were asked the outcome would be very different. Their challenge was taken up by the League, and the results of this poll demonstrate that less than one in five people support repeal of the Hunting Act.
The Hunting Act 2004 came into force in February 2005. The League now employs a team of investigators to monitor hunts and collect evidence of illegal activity which is then passed to the police.
And this hunting season begins with representatives of four hunts about to stand trial for Hunting Act offences. So the message is clear. If hunts break the law, the League Against Cruel Sports are very likely to be there to bring them to justice.
Cases are ongoing against persons linked to the Fernie Hunt in Leicestershire, the Sinnington Hunt in North Yorkshire, the Quantock Staghounds in Somerset and the South Devon Hunt. Earlier this year a terrierman linked to the Ullswater Foxhounds in Cumbria was convicted under the Hunting Act.
Unsurprisingly the vast majority of MPs on the ConDem government benches support hunting, but not enough to win a vote to repeal the Hunting Act. This is a totemic issue and says a lot about the values each of the parties represent, with Labour supporting a progressive and compassionate society and most of the ConDem coalition wanting to take us back to a barbaric past.
Sunday 31 October 2010
Saturday 30 October 2010
A PROFOUNDLY DANGEROUS GAMBLE WITH THE ECONOMY
The Comprehensive Spending Review has now been completed and the chancellor has made his statement in the house trying to justify the most vicious cuts in living memory.
But in spite of the harmful implications for millions of ordinary people, and the ConDem government’s profoundly dangerous gamble with the economy, Thursday’s parliamentary debate on the CSR was curtailed.
The ConDem coalition stuck to the line that the public sector is irrelevant to the economy. They believe the private sector will lead us to the economic promised land.
At PMQs on Wednesday, David Cameron claimed that growth figures were “twice as good as market expectations” and that it was “largely driven by the private sector.” Of course the reality is official figures indicate that growth was barely half what it was in the second quarter of 2010. But the construction sector is critical to a private sector led recovery. It provides a £223m trade surplus to the UK, employs 3m workers (8% of the workforce) and 300,000 firms work in the sector. And 92p in every £1 spent on construction is retained in the UK.
Furthermore, every £1 invested by the public sector in construction yields a return of 56p to the exchequer and generates £2.84 in total economic activity.
Coincidentally, on the morning of the CSR debate I met with representatives of the UK Construction Group. This body speaks for the country’s leading construction contractors with an annual turnover of more than £36bn – some 30% of the construction industry’s total. Its representatives told me that the published growth figures for turnover in the construction sector were “unbelievable”. Their members actually expect to see output falling over the next couple of years, not least because public sector investment represents around 40% of the industry’s turnover. The ConDem coalition’s decision to scrap the Building Schools for the Future programme has severely knocked confidence in the construction sector.
It’s not just the evidence from the UK Construction Group that demonstrates George Osborne and Danny Alexander’s prospectus is based on false premise. On October 13th, PricewaterhouseCoopers published a report into the impact of the fiscal squeeze. PWC suggested that the construction sector could see a reduction in output of 5% directly leading to the loss of 100,000 jobs and a further 900,000 in other areas.
Of course the ConDem coalition continue to repeat their clichéd mantra that “there is no alternative”. But writing in the New Statesman, David Blanchflower said a Harvard economist had told him the ConDem coalition’s fiscal deficit reduction programme is the biggest macroeconomic experiment in any of our lifetimes – and that was before the Comprehensive Spending Review. Blanchflower says economists and policymakers from around the world are astonished that the UK government is ignoring the risks and are proceeding to slash public spending and raise taxes during a once-in-a-hundred-years financial crisis.
Of course the Tories actually supported Labour’s spending plans until the economic recession started to bite and the duplicitous Lib Dems did so until they took their 30 pieces of silver. But the Tories have used the downturn as a cover to revert to the nasty Tories of old, committed to harsh social policies and a small state.
It’s worth remembering that when the last recession hit, poverty increased, record numbers of people lost their homes, public services were ravaged and unemployment reached almost 4 million. By contrast the last Labour government intervened to reduce poverty, support homeowners, maintain employment levels and protect frontline public services.
When the market fails, it is vital that the public sector intervenes to promote growth and assist the private sector to grow. Such an approach reduces the social security bill, maximises tax revenues and stimulates demand in the economy thereby creating an economic virtuous circle.
The ConDem coalition constantly talk about taking difficult decisions as if it’s some sort of macho badge of honour. But the only people that their decisions are difficult for are hard pressed low paid and middle income families along with the most vulnerable groups in society. In other words most of the population, but not the numerous millionaire former Bullingdon Club members sitting on the government benches. These individuals haven’t got a clue what life is like for ordinary people and don’t seem to care about the impact of their cuts on the population at large.
The UK economy is heading for a perfect storm and George Osborne’s hand is firmly on the tiller. My worry is that millions of our fellow citizens could be washed overboard and drowned after the crazed skipper destroyed the lifeboats.
But in spite of the harmful implications for millions of ordinary people, and the ConDem government’s profoundly dangerous gamble with the economy, Thursday’s parliamentary debate on the CSR was curtailed.
The ConDem coalition stuck to the line that the public sector is irrelevant to the economy. They believe the private sector will lead us to the economic promised land.
At PMQs on Wednesday, David Cameron claimed that growth figures were “twice as good as market expectations” and that it was “largely driven by the private sector.” Of course the reality is official figures indicate that growth was barely half what it was in the second quarter of 2010. But the construction sector is critical to a private sector led recovery. It provides a £223m trade surplus to the UK, employs 3m workers (8% of the workforce) and 300,000 firms work in the sector. And 92p in every £1 spent on construction is retained in the UK.
Furthermore, every £1 invested by the public sector in construction yields a return of 56p to the exchequer and generates £2.84 in total economic activity.
Coincidentally, on the morning of the CSR debate I met with representatives of the UK Construction Group. This body speaks for the country’s leading construction contractors with an annual turnover of more than £36bn – some 30% of the construction industry’s total. Its representatives told me that the published growth figures for turnover in the construction sector were “unbelievable”. Their members actually expect to see output falling over the next couple of years, not least because public sector investment represents around 40% of the industry’s turnover. The ConDem coalition’s decision to scrap the Building Schools for the Future programme has severely knocked confidence in the construction sector.
It’s not just the evidence from the UK Construction Group that demonstrates George Osborne and Danny Alexander’s prospectus is based on false premise. On October 13th, PricewaterhouseCoopers published a report into the impact of the fiscal squeeze. PWC suggested that the construction sector could see a reduction in output of 5% directly leading to the loss of 100,000 jobs and a further 900,000 in other areas.
Of course the ConDem coalition continue to repeat their clichéd mantra that “there is no alternative”. But writing in the New Statesman, David Blanchflower said a Harvard economist had told him the ConDem coalition’s fiscal deficit reduction programme is the biggest macroeconomic experiment in any of our lifetimes – and that was before the Comprehensive Spending Review. Blanchflower says economists and policymakers from around the world are astonished that the UK government is ignoring the risks and are proceeding to slash public spending and raise taxes during a once-in-a-hundred-years financial crisis.
Of course the Tories actually supported Labour’s spending plans until the economic recession started to bite and the duplicitous Lib Dems did so until they took their 30 pieces of silver. But the Tories have used the downturn as a cover to revert to the nasty Tories of old, committed to harsh social policies and a small state.
It’s worth remembering that when the last recession hit, poverty increased, record numbers of people lost their homes, public services were ravaged and unemployment reached almost 4 million. By contrast the last Labour government intervened to reduce poverty, support homeowners, maintain employment levels and protect frontline public services.
When the market fails, it is vital that the public sector intervenes to promote growth and assist the private sector to grow. Such an approach reduces the social security bill, maximises tax revenues and stimulates demand in the economy thereby creating an economic virtuous circle.
The ConDem coalition constantly talk about taking difficult decisions as if it’s some sort of macho badge of honour. But the only people that their decisions are difficult for are hard pressed low paid and middle income families along with the most vulnerable groups in society. In other words most of the population, but not the numerous millionaire former Bullingdon Club members sitting on the government benches. These individuals haven’t got a clue what life is like for ordinary people and don’t seem to care about the impact of their cuts on the population at large.
The UK economy is heading for a perfect storm and George Osborne’s hand is firmly on the tiller. My worry is that millions of our fellow citizens could be washed overboard and drowned after the crazed skipper destroyed the lifeboats.
Wednesday 27 October 2010
PATHWAYS INTO POVERTY
The Government have made much of the importance of ensuring sufficient financial support is provided to low income working households. In the first paragraph of the recent “21st century welfare” paper, the Government stated:
“We want to support people to move into and progress in work, while still supporting those in greatest need.”
But the reality is very different. In truth the Tories haven’t changed and the Liberal Democrats are utterly duplicitous. A wide range of welfare reform announcements have been made across the emergency budget in June, and the Comprehensive Spending Review, which will substantially cut many benefits paid to low income working families.
Analysis by Family Action indicates that at least 8 welfare cuts announced in the comprehensive spending review directly hurt low income working families. When combined with cuts announced in the budget, the analysis identifies 21 key welfare cuts will hurt the finances of low income working families.
Changes to eligibility rules for working tax credits could lead to some couples with one person working 16 hours per week losing up to £3810 per year in Tax Credit entitlement. Indications suggest that the changes could leave them worse off in than out of work – and push these families into poverty.
Changes to the eligibility rules for Working Tax Credit also penalise couples, and could discourage stable families.
Reductions in help with childcare costs through the childcare element of working tax credit could cost working families up to £30 per week - £1560 per year.
Freezing entitlements to Working Tax Credits, could lose low income working households £153 from their Working Tax Credit entitlement next year relative to uprating WTC elements with current RPI. By 2013/14 this could increase to £483.
Making Education Maintenance Allowance and (potentially) Council Tax Benefit discretionary locally managed funds, could lead to low income working households losing eligibility to these important benefits.
Changes to the contributory Employment and Support Allowance could lead to income losses of up to £91.40 per week for couple households where one member is working, and where the other is too ill to work. The changes could lead to households such as this being pushed into poverty.
Extending the age threshold for the shared room rate for Housing Benefit will push many low income working households into severe low income poverty. One example shows that single person aged 30, working 30 hours per week and living in an average price privately rented studio flat (£107 per week), could see their income after housing costs fall from £111 per week, to just £75 per week.
“We want to support people to move into and progress in work, while still supporting those in greatest need.”
But the reality is very different. In truth the Tories haven’t changed and the Liberal Democrats are utterly duplicitous. A wide range of welfare reform announcements have been made across the emergency budget in June, and the Comprehensive Spending Review, which will substantially cut many benefits paid to low income working families.
Analysis by Family Action indicates that at least 8 welfare cuts announced in the comprehensive spending review directly hurt low income working families. When combined with cuts announced in the budget, the analysis identifies 21 key welfare cuts will hurt the finances of low income working families.
Changes to eligibility rules for working tax credits could lead to some couples with one person working 16 hours per week losing up to £3810 per year in Tax Credit entitlement. Indications suggest that the changes could leave them worse off in than out of work – and push these families into poverty.
Changes to the eligibility rules for Working Tax Credit also penalise couples, and could discourage stable families.
Reductions in help with childcare costs through the childcare element of working tax credit could cost working families up to £30 per week - £1560 per year.
Freezing entitlements to Working Tax Credits, could lose low income working households £153 from their Working Tax Credit entitlement next year relative to uprating WTC elements with current RPI. By 2013/14 this could increase to £483.
Making Education Maintenance Allowance and (potentially) Council Tax Benefit discretionary locally managed funds, could lead to low income working households losing eligibility to these important benefits.
Changes to the contributory Employment and Support Allowance could lead to income losses of up to £91.40 per week for couple households where one member is working, and where the other is too ill to work. The changes could lead to households such as this being pushed into poverty.
Extending the age threshold for the shared room rate for Housing Benefit will push many low income working households into severe low income poverty. One example shows that single person aged 30, working 30 hours per week and living in an average price privately rented studio flat (£107 per week), could see their income after housing costs fall from £111 per week, to just £75 per week.
Thursday 21 October 2010
ConDem MPs Cheer the Deepest Public Expenditure Cuts in Living Memory
In his response to George Osborne's appalling Comprehensive Spending Review statement, Alan Johnson, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, criticised it as a huge gamble from a government with no plan for growth and jobs.
This is the text of his speech:
Mr Speaker, members opposite are cheering the deepest cuts in public expenditure that have taken place in living memory.
Today is the day that an abstract debate about spreadsheets and numbers turns into stark reality for people’s jobs and services.
Their pensions, their prospects.
Their homes, and their families.
The day that the statistics which were sitting so comfortably in the lap of the Chief Secretary yesterday, become uncomfortable reality for hundreds of thousands of families.
The deficit deceivers opposite have peddled a series of myths to the British public.
The most incredible is that the biggest global economic crisis since the great depression i s the fault of the previous government.
Perhaps the Chancellor will confirm three facts.
Fact one, when the global crisis hit the UK had the second lowest debt of any G7 country.
Fact two, that the last government inherited a debt interest level of 10p in every pound of tax received. And that even after a world recession, bequeathed a figure 15% lower.
Fact three, that the interest rates the UK pays on its debt have been falling since the beginning of the year.
The last CSR was in 2007, when the Chancellor was at this despatch box complaining not that we were spending too much, but that we were spending too little.
He complained that we were slowing the growth in health and education expenditure.
Indeed his party supported every penny of our spending plans until well after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in America set off a disastrous chain reaction around the world.
The Chancellor described his Emergency Budget in June a s unavoidable and fair.
It was actually unfair, as the IFS pointed out in a devastating critique within 48 hours.
And it was also avoidable.
The deficit has to be paid down.
But today’s reckless gamble with people’s livelihoods runs the risk of stifling the fragile recovery.
The ridiculous analogy of credit card debt insults the intelligence of the British public.
If countries around the world hadn’t run up debts to sustain their economies people would not have lost their credit cards, they’d have lost their houses, their savings and their jobs.
The Liberal Democrats know this.
Because it’s what they argued when seeking the support of the electorate.
Before the Deputy Prime Minister discovered Greece, in the period between the ballot boxes closing and the door of his ministerial car opening.
They, like us, argued that in the context of reducing the deficit, speed kills.
The Chancell or repeats a list of organisations that support his swift cuts.
Curiously he fails to mention the opposing views of the other nations that make up the UK – Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps that’s what he means when he describes himself as a one nation Tory.
And here’s another supportive quote.
"The measures we have taken have been commended by international bodies such as the European Central Bank, the European Commission, the IMF and the OECD. They have also won the approval of the international markets."
That was the Irish Minister of Finance last December, telling the Irish Parliament that his austerity plan was working, just four months before they slid back into recession.
After months of overblown rhetoric from the Chancellor, the concerns of those watching his announcement today will be about :
• staying in work,
• staying in their homes
• and staying safe on our streets.
We are told that the expected job losses from this spending review amount to 490,000, in the public sector alone.
And a Pricewaterhouse Coopers report last week told us that a million jobs are at stake - because the impact on the private sector will be just as severe.
Isn’t it the case that, at the same time as they throw people out of work, the government is reducing the support to help people return to the workplace?
They’ve already cancelled the Future Jobs Fund.
Now, whilst the Work and Pensions Secretary tells us that the system must ensure that people are better off in work, the changes to Working Tax Credit announced today will have the opposite effect.
Reducing childcare support for working parents adds to the problem.
This isn’t a strategy for jobs. It’s a recipe for unemployment.
On housing the Chancellor has announced the retreat of central government from any role in building new affordable homes.
So I ask the Chancellor can he tell the House, how many jobs will be lost in the construction sectors as a result of his decision to all but end capital funding for housebuilding?
And on crime which has fallen dramatically over the last 13 years - how on earth can the government think they are in tune with people’s priorities when a substantial cut in the Home Office budget is bound to result in police officers being taken off the streets?
Spending does have to be reduced.
But the frontline services on which people rely must be protected.
The public do not want to see teacher numbers fall, fewer police officers on their streets, or hospitals short-staffed.
So we support moves to protect schools and the NHS.
However, it seems clear that the Deputy Prime Minister has failed to meet his pledge that the pupil premium would not be funded from within the schools budget – a clear case of robbing Michael to pay Liam.
On the NHS, the small re al terms increase will be more than swallowed by the waste of £2 to £3bn on a top down reorganisation they promised in the election not to undertake.
And while we’re on the NHS, will the baseline for the Department of Health resource spending be reflected in the actual 2010/11 budget?
Mr Speaker, without growth the job of getting the deficit down becomes impossible.
A rising dole queue means a bigger welfare bill.
And less tax coming in.
A cost of at least half a billion pounds for every 100,000 people thrown out of work by the government's approach.
So to get the deficit down the starting point must be jobs, jobs, jobs.
And that is the core of the difference between us and the government.
The Ministry of Justice tells us that they will see 14,000 staff go. Does he agree with the department’s assessment that the vast majority of those,11,000, will be from the frontline?
Can he confirm that £230m of taxp ayers funds have been earmarked for redundancy costs in that department alone?
What is the total scale of redundancies expected across the public sector? What will the total redundancy bill be?
Thanks to the Chief Secretary we know that the Treasury has provided him with estimates. He should share them with the House.
I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to revisit his plans for capital spending and support for science.
The Business Secretary has rightly fought to partially protect the science budget, and to put more money into regional development.
It’s true that he had to switch overnight from opposing any graduate contribution to their education to support for unlimited fees, but such contortions are nothing new for the Rt Hon Member and his colleagues.
But given the warning signs in the UK and global economies, we believe the case for going further on infrastructure is clear.
The banks that benefit from the ending of the b onus tax, and the cut in Corporation Tax, can well afford to take more of the strain.
This additional would mean that vital infrastructure projects could go ahead – keeping people in work now, and creating the environment for growth in the years to come.
And we call again on the government to change their perverse decision on Sheffield Forgemasters
It is right that the government looks for savings from the welfare bill.
Where changes are fair, proportionate and encourage work we will support them as we have shown in respect of incapacity benefit, a reformed gateway for Disability Living Allowance and on upratings.
We will look at the other changes announced today.
But there is nothing fair about Child Benefit changes that leave a single earner on £45,000 losing thousands of pounds, while a family on £80,000 gets to keep every penny.
As things stand the government is looking for a bigger contribution to reducing the deficit to come from children than from the banks.
That can’t be right.
Will the Chancellor confirm that his change to Child Benefit equates to a 6p increase in income tax for a single earner family on £45,000?
Perhaps because of the consternation caused on this issue he has dropped plans to remove child Benefit for older children. Can he rule this our completely, or is it still under consideration?
And, while we accept that Housing Benefit should be reformed, how can anyone on the benches opposite suggest that removing 10% of the rent for a family’s home from someone who has been looking for work for 12 months is fair?
Can the Chancellor confirm that the poorest will bear a greater burden than the richest – with the middle squeezed even further?
And that women are shouldering three quarters of the cuts?
Does he still claim that these measures are progressive and fair?
Mr Speaker. There is an alternative to this slash and burn approach.
This Spending Review is not about economic necessity, it’s about political choice.
The Chancellor argues that Labour would have done nothing about the deficit.
But he goes on to say that his cuts are no worse than ours.
He can’t have it both ways.
But he’s wrong on both counts.
The government is removing almost twice as much from departmental budgets as we think is wise, before we consider the further welfare reforms he has announced today.
It is our firm belief that the rush to cut the deficit endangers the recovery and reduces the prospects for employment in the short term, and prosperity in the longer term.
We believe we can and should sustain a more gradual reduction. Securing growth.
I don’t believe that the Chancellor or the Prime Minster sufficiently understand the worries and concerns of families up and down the country.
And I think those worries will have multiplied as a result of the spending review statement today.
This is the text of his speech:
Mr Speaker, members opposite are cheering the deepest cuts in public expenditure that have taken place in living memory.
Today is the day that an abstract debate about spreadsheets and numbers turns into stark reality for people’s jobs and services.
Their pensions, their prospects.
Their homes, and their families.
The day that the statistics which were sitting so comfortably in the lap of the Chief Secretary yesterday, become uncomfortable reality for hundreds of thousands of families.
The deficit deceivers opposite have peddled a series of myths to the British public.
The most incredible is that the biggest global economic crisis since the great depression i s the fault of the previous government.
Perhaps the Chancellor will confirm three facts.
Fact one, when the global crisis hit the UK had the second lowest debt of any G7 country.
Fact two, that the last government inherited a debt interest level of 10p in every pound of tax received. And that even after a world recession, bequeathed a figure 15% lower.
Fact three, that the interest rates the UK pays on its debt have been falling since the beginning of the year.
The last CSR was in 2007, when the Chancellor was at this despatch box complaining not that we were spending too much, but that we were spending too little.
He complained that we were slowing the growth in health and education expenditure.
Indeed his party supported every penny of our spending plans until well after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in America set off a disastrous chain reaction around the world.
The Chancellor described his Emergency Budget in June a s unavoidable and fair.
It was actually unfair, as the IFS pointed out in a devastating critique within 48 hours.
And it was also avoidable.
The deficit has to be paid down.
But today’s reckless gamble with people’s livelihoods runs the risk of stifling the fragile recovery.
The ridiculous analogy of credit card debt insults the intelligence of the British public.
If countries around the world hadn’t run up debts to sustain their economies people would not have lost their credit cards, they’d have lost their houses, their savings and their jobs.
The Liberal Democrats know this.
Because it’s what they argued when seeking the support of the electorate.
Before the Deputy Prime Minister discovered Greece, in the period between the ballot boxes closing and the door of his ministerial car opening.
They, like us, argued that in the context of reducing the deficit, speed kills.
The Chancell or repeats a list of organisations that support his swift cuts.
Curiously he fails to mention the opposing views of the other nations that make up the UK – Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps that’s what he means when he describes himself as a one nation Tory.
And here’s another supportive quote.
"The measures we have taken have been commended by international bodies such as the European Central Bank, the European Commission, the IMF and the OECD. They have also won the approval of the international markets."
That was the Irish Minister of Finance last December, telling the Irish Parliament that his austerity plan was working, just four months before they slid back into recession.
After months of overblown rhetoric from the Chancellor, the concerns of those watching his announcement today will be about :
• staying in work,
• staying in their homes
• and staying safe on our streets.
We are told that the expected job losses from this spending review amount to 490,000, in the public sector alone.
And a Pricewaterhouse Coopers report last week told us that a million jobs are at stake - because the impact on the private sector will be just as severe.
Isn’t it the case that, at the same time as they throw people out of work, the government is reducing the support to help people return to the workplace?
They’ve already cancelled the Future Jobs Fund.
Now, whilst the Work and Pensions Secretary tells us that the system must ensure that people are better off in work, the changes to Working Tax Credit announced today will have the opposite effect.
Reducing childcare support for working parents adds to the problem.
This isn’t a strategy for jobs. It’s a recipe for unemployment.
On housing the Chancellor has announced the retreat of central government from any role in building new affordable homes.
So I ask the Chancellor can he tell the House, how many jobs will be lost in the construction sectors as a result of his decision to all but end capital funding for housebuilding?
And on crime which has fallen dramatically over the last 13 years - how on earth can the government think they are in tune with people’s priorities when a substantial cut in the Home Office budget is bound to result in police officers being taken off the streets?
Spending does have to be reduced.
But the frontline services on which people rely must be protected.
The public do not want to see teacher numbers fall, fewer police officers on their streets, or hospitals short-staffed.
So we support moves to protect schools and the NHS.
However, it seems clear that the Deputy Prime Minister has failed to meet his pledge that the pupil premium would not be funded from within the schools budget – a clear case of robbing Michael to pay Liam.
On the NHS, the small re al terms increase will be more than swallowed by the waste of £2 to £3bn on a top down reorganisation they promised in the election not to undertake.
And while we’re on the NHS, will the baseline for the Department of Health resource spending be reflected in the actual 2010/11 budget?
Mr Speaker, without growth the job of getting the deficit down becomes impossible.
A rising dole queue means a bigger welfare bill.
And less tax coming in.
A cost of at least half a billion pounds for every 100,000 people thrown out of work by the government's approach.
So to get the deficit down the starting point must be jobs, jobs, jobs.
And that is the core of the difference between us and the government.
The Ministry of Justice tells us that they will see 14,000 staff go. Does he agree with the department’s assessment that the vast majority of those,11,000, will be from the frontline?
Can he confirm that £230m of taxp ayers funds have been earmarked for redundancy costs in that department alone?
What is the total scale of redundancies expected across the public sector? What will the total redundancy bill be?
Thanks to the Chief Secretary we know that the Treasury has provided him with estimates. He should share them with the House.
I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to revisit his plans for capital spending and support for science.
The Business Secretary has rightly fought to partially protect the science budget, and to put more money into regional development.
It’s true that he had to switch overnight from opposing any graduate contribution to their education to support for unlimited fees, but such contortions are nothing new for the Rt Hon Member and his colleagues.
But given the warning signs in the UK and global economies, we believe the case for going further on infrastructure is clear.
The banks that benefit from the ending of the b onus tax, and the cut in Corporation Tax, can well afford to take more of the strain.
This additional would mean that vital infrastructure projects could go ahead – keeping people in work now, and creating the environment for growth in the years to come.
And we call again on the government to change their perverse decision on Sheffield Forgemasters
It is right that the government looks for savings from the welfare bill.
Where changes are fair, proportionate and encourage work we will support them as we have shown in respect of incapacity benefit, a reformed gateway for Disability Living Allowance and on upratings.
We will look at the other changes announced today.
But there is nothing fair about Child Benefit changes that leave a single earner on £45,000 losing thousands of pounds, while a family on £80,000 gets to keep every penny.
As things stand the government is looking for a bigger contribution to reducing the deficit to come from children than from the banks.
That can’t be right.
Will the Chancellor confirm that his change to Child Benefit equates to a 6p increase in income tax for a single earner family on £45,000?
Perhaps because of the consternation caused on this issue he has dropped plans to remove child Benefit for older children. Can he rule this our completely, or is it still under consideration?
And, while we accept that Housing Benefit should be reformed, how can anyone on the benches opposite suggest that removing 10% of the rent for a family’s home from someone who has been looking for work for 12 months is fair?
Can the Chancellor confirm that the poorest will bear a greater burden than the richest – with the middle squeezed even further?
And that women are shouldering three quarters of the cuts?
Does he still claim that these measures are progressive and fair?
Mr Speaker. There is an alternative to this slash and burn approach.
This Spending Review is not about economic necessity, it’s about political choice.
The Chancellor argues that Labour would have done nothing about the deficit.
But he goes on to say that his cuts are no worse than ours.
He can’t have it both ways.
But he’s wrong on both counts.
The government is removing almost twice as much from departmental budgets as we think is wise, before we consider the further welfare reforms he has announced today.
It is our firm belief that the rush to cut the deficit endangers the recovery and reduces the prospects for employment in the short term, and prosperity in the longer term.
We believe we can and should sustain a more gradual reduction. Securing growth.
I don’t believe that the Chancellor or the Prime Minster sufficiently understand the worries and concerns of families up and down the country.
And I think those worries will have multiplied as a result of the spending review statement today.
Saturday 16 October 2010
STUDENTS DECEIVED BY SHAMELESS LIB DEMS
Following the publication of Lord Browne’s proposals for the future funding of universities in England, a key question is whether universities will be better-off under the proposals. The answer seems to be an emphatic ‘no’.
The Browne Review assumes that the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) will cut 80% of the annual teaching grant that is currently allocated to universities via the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce). This teaching funding allocation amounts to £3.5bn and Browne recommends that this should be reduced to just £700m with a further proposal that this funding should be targeted at ‘strategically important and vulnerable subjects’.
If Browne’s recommendations are adopted in the CSR, public investment in teaching (which has already been reduced by £1bn) would fall by £2.8bn per annum. As a result, million+ and London Economics have estimated that universities, whether they like it or not, would have to levy an average fee of £7,400 per annum to make-up for the loss of teaching funding which Browne recommends. Even if the CSR does not accept Lord Browne’s recommendations in full, any significant reduction would impact on the level of fee that universities would have to levy – the greater the reduction, the higher fee which all universities will have to charge.
Fee levels: no race to the bottom
The Browne Review also recommends a taper so that if a university charges more than £6000, they will only receive a proportion of the additional fee levied – for example, a university would only receive 94% of a £7000 fee or 89% of an £8000 fee. The result is that universities will have to charge even more to recoup funding lost as a result of the taper.
The majority of students (80%) are currently studying subjects which are in Hefce Price Bands C and D. These are by no means just classroom-based subjects. Many are practice-based and professionally or vocationally focused and require state-of-the-art facilities to ensure that they are at the standard being used by industry and employers.
million+ surveyed universities to estimate the percentage of teaching funding that they would lose in the event that all funding was removed from subject Bands C and D (i.e. the effect on individual institutions bearing in mind that teaching funding is not evenly spread by subject band amongst all institutions).
Many universities reported that they would lose between 95% and 97% of all teaching funding. Once Lord Browne’s recommendations were taken into account, universities reported that they would have to levy fees of up to £8000 per annum. Even if the reductions recommended by Lord Browne are implemented in a different way i.e. not using the current subject price bands, the scale of the reductions envisaged will mean that all universities will have little option but to consider uplifting fees significantly.
There is likely to be little merit in universities in England engaging in a race to the bottom in terms of fee levels which, in the case of universities with the most socially inclusive student profiles, would simply end up in them having less resources for students who benefit the most from the opportunity to study at university.
Differential impact on universities and students
It is well-known that some universities have much more inclusive social profiles than others. Those institutions which make the biggest contribution to social mobility commonly have up to 40% of their students from socio-economic groups 4-7. These universities also make the most significant contribution to social mobility by offering opportunities to first-generation students and to students who enter university later in life. They also educate the over-whelming majority of students from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.
It would be unwise to conclude that these universities will not seek to replace current levels of investment for teaching through higher fees if teaching funding is cut substantially in the CSR. These universities are engaged in world-leading research and high quality teaching which otherwise might otherwise be at risk. However, there is an obvious concern that even with a progressive student support system, the prospect of high fee levels will deter students from widening participation backgrounds.
Moreover, universities which have a higher proportion of students from wealthier backgrounds are very likely to end up receiving more resources – either because their students can pay upfront more easily or are not so likely to be deterred by higher levels of loans. These universities are also much less likely to have to provide large numbers of students with bursaries compared to other universities.
‘Subsidy’ vs public investment
The Browne Review enters new territory in describing the public funding of teaching as a subsidy rather than an investment. If the ConDem Coalition Government accepts the approach that this terminology implies, this will signal a major shift in policy. Effectively, public investment is being removed from higher education and the responsibility for the future funding of universities in respect of teaching is being transferred to the individual. Lord Browne describes this as ‘funding following the student’. In reality, the funding is not being transferred directly to the student - rather the student is required to take out a loan and repay it.
This is very different to the partnership approach advocated in the Robbins and the Dearing Reports. It is also very different to the approach being taken in the UK’s competitor countries where the need for the government to invest directly in higher education through public funding of universities for teaching as well as research is recognised even where countries have a student fee regime.
Although the system proposed by Browne is a modification of the 2004 HE Act which introduced the current variable fee system in England, it effectively abandons the principle of ‘additionality’ i.e. the income provided through the repayment of graduate contributions by students was additional to the public funding provided by government.
Rather the assumption of Browne is that the fee-loan system for students and repayments by graduates will substitute for public funding. Moreover, Browne assumes that the unit of resource for teaching will be reduced. As a result, the foundation of the 2004 Act (additionality) is replaced by substitution and a cut in resources for teaching.
The Browne Review, the CSR and the deficit
The recommendation by the Browne Review that teaching funding is cut by 80% supports the Government objective of reducing the deficit principally because teaching funding is counted against the PSBR. However this is not the whole story. Unless they can pay upfront, students will take out state-funded loans to pay fees and will repay as graduates (as now). The government will therefore have to continue to borrow to fund the higher fees loans to cover the higher fees which universities will be forced to levy. So why will this not increase the deficit?
The Treasury accounts for fee loans in a different way from the direct funding of universities through the Hefce teaching grant. Only the ‘RAB charge’ - the amount that the government estimates will not be recovered from graduates over the 30 year period of the loan - goes down in the Treasury books. As a result the Treasury is inclined to spend extra money on loans whilst making substantial cuts to teaching funding and arcane Treasury accounting rules will make it appear that greater savings have been made.
Of course, it would be open to the ConDem Coalition Government to amend the Browne recommendations and to make different decisions in the CSR about investment in teaching funding in English universities.
However, judging by their record so far, I don’t think anything this awful coalition does is likely to improve on the Browne recommendations.
The Browne Review assumes that the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) will cut 80% of the annual teaching grant that is currently allocated to universities via the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce). This teaching funding allocation amounts to £3.5bn and Browne recommends that this should be reduced to just £700m with a further proposal that this funding should be targeted at ‘strategically important and vulnerable subjects’.
If Browne’s recommendations are adopted in the CSR, public investment in teaching (which has already been reduced by £1bn) would fall by £2.8bn per annum. As a result, million+ and London Economics have estimated that universities, whether they like it or not, would have to levy an average fee of £7,400 per annum to make-up for the loss of teaching funding which Browne recommends. Even if the CSR does not accept Lord Browne’s recommendations in full, any significant reduction would impact on the level of fee that universities would have to levy – the greater the reduction, the higher fee which all universities will have to charge.
Fee levels: no race to the bottom
The Browne Review also recommends a taper so that if a university charges more than £6000, they will only receive a proportion of the additional fee levied – for example, a university would only receive 94% of a £7000 fee or 89% of an £8000 fee. The result is that universities will have to charge even more to recoup funding lost as a result of the taper.
The majority of students (80%) are currently studying subjects which are in Hefce Price Bands C and D. These are by no means just classroom-based subjects. Many are practice-based and professionally or vocationally focused and require state-of-the-art facilities to ensure that they are at the standard being used by industry and employers.
million+ surveyed universities to estimate the percentage of teaching funding that they would lose in the event that all funding was removed from subject Bands C and D (i.e. the effect on individual institutions bearing in mind that teaching funding is not evenly spread by subject band amongst all institutions).
Many universities reported that they would lose between 95% and 97% of all teaching funding. Once Lord Browne’s recommendations were taken into account, universities reported that they would have to levy fees of up to £8000 per annum. Even if the reductions recommended by Lord Browne are implemented in a different way i.e. not using the current subject price bands, the scale of the reductions envisaged will mean that all universities will have little option but to consider uplifting fees significantly.
There is likely to be little merit in universities in England engaging in a race to the bottom in terms of fee levels which, in the case of universities with the most socially inclusive student profiles, would simply end up in them having less resources for students who benefit the most from the opportunity to study at university.
Differential impact on universities and students
It is well-known that some universities have much more inclusive social profiles than others. Those institutions which make the biggest contribution to social mobility commonly have up to 40% of their students from socio-economic groups 4-7. These universities also make the most significant contribution to social mobility by offering opportunities to first-generation students and to students who enter university later in life. They also educate the over-whelming majority of students from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.
It would be unwise to conclude that these universities will not seek to replace current levels of investment for teaching through higher fees if teaching funding is cut substantially in the CSR. These universities are engaged in world-leading research and high quality teaching which otherwise might otherwise be at risk. However, there is an obvious concern that even with a progressive student support system, the prospect of high fee levels will deter students from widening participation backgrounds.
Moreover, universities which have a higher proportion of students from wealthier backgrounds are very likely to end up receiving more resources – either because their students can pay upfront more easily or are not so likely to be deterred by higher levels of loans. These universities are also much less likely to have to provide large numbers of students with bursaries compared to other universities.
‘Subsidy’ vs public investment
The Browne Review enters new territory in describing the public funding of teaching as a subsidy rather than an investment. If the ConDem Coalition Government accepts the approach that this terminology implies, this will signal a major shift in policy. Effectively, public investment is being removed from higher education and the responsibility for the future funding of universities in respect of teaching is being transferred to the individual. Lord Browne describes this as ‘funding following the student’. In reality, the funding is not being transferred directly to the student - rather the student is required to take out a loan and repay it.
This is very different to the partnership approach advocated in the Robbins and the Dearing Reports. It is also very different to the approach being taken in the UK’s competitor countries where the need for the government to invest directly in higher education through public funding of universities for teaching as well as research is recognised even where countries have a student fee regime.
Although the system proposed by Browne is a modification of the 2004 HE Act which introduced the current variable fee system in England, it effectively abandons the principle of ‘additionality’ i.e. the income provided through the repayment of graduate contributions by students was additional to the public funding provided by government.
Rather the assumption of Browne is that the fee-loan system for students and repayments by graduates will substitute for public funding. Moreover, Browne assumes that the unit of resource for teaching will be reduced. As a result, the foundation of the 2004 Act (additionality) is replaced by substitution and a cut in resources for teaching.
The Browne Review, the CSR and the deficit
The recommendation by the Browne Review that teaching funding is cut by 80% supports the Government objective of reducing the deficit principally because teaching funding is counted against the PSBR. However this is not the whole story. Unless they can pay upfront, students will take out state-funded loans to pay fees and will repay as graduates (as now). The government will therefore have to continue to borrow to fund the higher fees loans to cover the higher fees which universities will be forced to levy. So why will this not increase the deficit?
The Treasury accounts for fee loans in a different way from the direct funding of universities through the Hefce teaching grant. Only the ‘RAB charge’ - the amount that the government estimates will not be recovered from graduates over the 30 year period of the loan - goes down in the Treasury books. As a result the Treasury is inclined to spend extra money on loans whilst making substantial cuts to teaching funding and arcane Treasury accounting rules will make it appear that greater savings have been made.
Of course, it would be open to the ConDem Coalition Government to amend the Browne recommendations and to make different decisions in the CSR about investment in teaching funding in English universities.
However, judging by their record so far, I don’t think anything this awful coalition does is likely to improve on the Browne recommendations.
Thursday 14 October 2010
CONDEM TAX PLANS ON PENSION TO HIT FAMILIES
The ConDem’s announcement on pensions tax today will hit families on modest incomes extremely hard.
Now everyone's at risk because the Government is taxing on the basis of people's wish to save for a pension, rather than because they are high earners.
But there was an alternative. Labour supports the principle that pensions tax relief should play a part in getting borrowing down. But under our plans no-one earning under £130,000 would lose out.
This was a key part of the fair taxes with which we planned to halve the deficit over four years. Labour opposed to the Government’s approach because it’s less progressive than our plan – which only affected people earning over £130,000. Furthermore, it sends the wrong message by taxing people because they are saving a lot into their pension, rather than because they are on high incomes.
Tax relief on pensions exists to help people save for an income in retirement.
But the cost of pensions tax relief in the UK has doubled over the last decade and the proportion of tax relief going to those on the highest incomes has risen markedly.
The introduction of the additional rate of income tax of 50 per cent applying to individuals on incomes of £150,000 and over would have exacerbated this.
The Labour Government’s aim was to deliver a system of pensions tax relief that was fair, affordable and sustainable. In the context of our commitment to halve borrowing over the next four years, Labour acted to address the disproportionate levels of relief going to high income individuals. This approach raised £3.5bn as part of our deficit reduction plan.
This meant that from 2011/12 onwards those with incomes of over £130,000, and gross incomes of £150,000 would see their pensions tax relief restricted from the current overly generous level.
The restriction took the form of a taper to apply for those on gross incomes between £150,000 and £180,000, gradually reducing tax relief on pension contributions until it is restricted to the level received by basic rate taxpayers - 20 per cent.
The restriction would apply to only 300,000 individuals, about 2 per cent of pension savers, or around one per cent of working-age taxpayers.
These individuals currently receive around a quarter of all tax relief on pension contributions – on average receiving £20,000 per person in tax relief, compared to £1,000 for basic rate taxpayers. Individuals with incomes of less than £130,000 were completely unaffected by this change.
But the ConDem coalition argues that Labour’s restriction of tax relief for the richest individuals is too complex. They have set out an alternative approach which that restricts the annual allowance to £50,000, significantly below its current limit of £255,000. On top of that, the lifetime allowance will be reduced from £1.8 million to £1.5 million – which caps the total someone can put into a pension.
The Government has said its will raise around the same amount of revenue as our approach – peaking at £4bn a year. They also say that 100,000 people will be affected and estimate that 20% of these earn under £100,000.
Their approach means that the revenue is being raised from those that make significant pension contributions, rather than simply those on very high incomes as under Labour’s plans.
Because some individuals make very large pension contributions relative to their income levels, this potential alternative approach would affect people on incomes well below the £130,000 cut-off in our approach.
There are also other questions to be raised about the ConDem’s approach. Given that the Government’s proposals will affect some on much lower incomes that would be affected by Labour’s plans, they need to say what is being done to raise awareness of this change. They should also identify how did those without financial advisors have a voice in the development of this approach, to match the lobbying by the very rich that has persuaded the Coalition to water down the impact on them?
Now everyone's at risk because the Government is taxing on the basis of people's wish to save for a pension, rather than because they are high earners.
But there was an alternative. Labour supports the principle that pensions tax relief should play a part in getting borrowing down. But under our plans no-one earning under £130,000 would lose out.
This was a key part of the fair taxes with which we planned to halve the deficit over four years. Labour opposed to the Government’s approach because it’s less progressive than our plan – which only affected people earning over £130,000. Furthermore, it sends the wrong message by taxing people because they are saving a lot into their pension, rather than because they are on high incomes.
Tax relief on pensions exists to help people save for an income in retirement.
But the cost of pensions tax relief in the UK has doubled over the last decade and the proportion of tax relief going to those on the highest incomes has risen markedly.
The introduction of the additional rate of income tax of 50 per cent applying to individuals on incomes of £150,000 and over would have exacerbated this.
The Labour Government’s aim was to deliver a system of pensions tax relief that was fair, affordable and sustainable. In the context of our commitment to halve borrowing over the next four years, Labour acted to address the disproportionate levels of relief going to high income individuals. This approach raised £3.5bn as part of our deficit reduction plan.
This meant that from 2011/12 onwards those with incomes of over £130,000, and gross incomes of £150,000 would see their pensions tax relief restricted from the current overly generous level.
The restriction took the form of a taper to apply for those on gross incomes between £150,000 and £180,000, gradually reducing tax relief on pension contributions until it is restricted to the level received by basic rate taxpayers - 20 per cent.
The restriction would apply to only 300,000 individuals, about 2 per cent of pension savers, or around one per cent of working-age taxpayers.
These individuals currently receive around a quarter of all tax relief on pension contributions – on average receiving £20,000 per person in tax relief, compared to £1,000 for basic rate taxpayers. Individuals with incomes of less than £130,000 were completely unaffected by this change.
But the ConDem coalition argues that Labour’s restriction of tax relief for the richest individuals is too complex. They have set out an alternative approach which that restricts the annual allowance to £50,000, significantly below its current limit of £255,000. On top of that, the lifetime allowance will be reduced from £1.8 million to £1.5 million – which caps the total someone can put into a pension.
The Government has said its will raise around the same amount of revenue as our approach – peaking at £4bn a year. They also say that 100,000 people will be affected and estimate that 20% of these earn under £100,000.
Their approach means that the revenue is being raised from those that make significant pension contributions, rather than simply those on very high incomes as under Labour’s plans.
Because some individuals make very large pension contributions relative to their income levels, this potential alternative approach would affect people on incomes well below the £130,000 cut-off in our approach.
There are also other questions to be raised about the ConDem’s approach. Given that the Government’s proposals will affect some on much lower incomes that would be affected by Labour’s plans, they need to say what is being done to raise awareness of this change. They should also identify how did those without financial advisors have a voice in the development of this approach, to match the lobbying by the very rich that has persuaded the Coalition to water down the impact on them?
Friday 8 October 2010
IMF Says ConDem's cuts have slowed UK recovery
The Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury was reelected to the Shadow Cabinet last night.
Earlier this week he wrote about the IMF confirming that George Osborne’s cuts have put the UK recovery in the slow lane – and warned that cuts would need to be rolled back if growth comes in lower than expected. The Independent Office of Budget Responsibility has warned that there is just a 40% chance of the UK hitting its new growth projections.
Here’s the three top-lines:
1. The recovery delivered by Labour is one of the best in Europe. Growth in 2010 for the UK beats France, Italy and Spain – and is largely based on strong growth in the first and second quarter of the year.
2. The IMF has revised up its forecasts for growth in 2011 across the Eurozone – but cut its forecast for the UK by 0.1%. Euro-area growth estimates on the other hand have been revised up 0.2%. The IMF’s chief economist Oliver Blanchard said:
“Unless advanced countries can count on stronger private demand, both domestic and foreign, they will find it difficult to achieve fiscal consolidation.”
In the UK, however, the government has hit private sector demand hard with the VAT hike and big threats to jobs from fast public spending cuts this year. Indeed, the IMF’s report concludes:
“In the United Kingdom, domestic demand is expected to remain relatively subdued, particularly following the recent measures to cut the budget deficit”.
3. A focus on getting people back to work is now the key says the IMF;
"To spur a stronger recovery and more employment growth, government policies need to become more proactive and coordinated”
In the UK, the government has cut back on back-to-work programmes like the Future Jobs Fund which has been praised by frontline JobCentre staff. George Osborne’s budget hits UK growth so hard that an extra 100,000 will be put on the dole – and the benefits bill will go up by nearly £1 billion. That means bigger cuts are needed elsewhere.
Earlier this week he wrote about the IMF confirming that George Osborne’s cuts have put the UK recovery in the slow lane – and warned that cuts would need to be rolled back if growth comes in lower than expected. The Independent Office of Budget Responsibility has warned that there is just a 40% chance of the UK hitting its new growth projections.
Here’s the three top-lines:
1. The recovery delivered by Labour is one of the best in Europe. Growth in 2010 for the UK beats France, Italy and Spain – and is largely based on strong growth in the first and second quarter of the year.
2. The IMF has revised up its forecasts for growth in 2011 across the Eurozone – but cut its forecast for the UK by 0.1%. Euro-area growth estimates on the other hand have been revised up 0.2%. The IMF’s chief economist Oliver Blanchard said:
“Unless advanced countries can count on stronger private demand, both domestic and foreign, they will find it difficult to achieve fiscal consolidation.”
In the UK, however, the government has hit private sector demand hard with the VAT hike and big threats to jobs from fast public spending cuts this year. Indeed, the IMF’s report concludes:
“In the United Kingdom, domestic demand is expected to remain relatively subdued, particularly following the recent measures to cut the budget deficit”.
3. A focus on getting people back to work is now the key says the IMF;
"To spur a stronger recovery and more employment growth, government policies need to become more proactive and coordinated”
In the UK, the government has cut back on back-to-work programmes like the Future Jobs Fund which has been praised by frontline JobCentre staff. George Osborne’s budget hits UK growth so hard that an extra 100,000 will be put on the dole – and the benefits bill will go up by nearly £1 billion. That means bigger cuts are needed elsewhere.
Tuesday 5 October 2010
BIGGEST ASSUALT ON FAMILIES IN POST WAR HISTORY
So the ConDem coalition has agreed to make £9 billion cuts in benefits after George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith “struck a deal”.
The reforms will see the current welfare system replaced with a universal benefit with millions of welfare claimants having their benefits scrapped and replaced with one “universal credit”. Housing benefit, income support, incapacity benefit and dozens of other payments are set to go.
It remains to be seen how Iain Duncan Smith’s plans compare with Labour’s proposals for a ‘better off in work’ credit to ensure everyone would be at least £40 per week better off. No doubt we’ll hear warm words from IDS about how much he cares about poverty. But I was a Welfare Rights Officer in the 1980s and 1990s and I remember how the Tories impoverished millions of people with their callous welfare reforms. I also remember Nigel Lawson giving a £4bn tax handout to the UK’s richest families in 1988 while simultaneously cutting £4bn from the country’s poorest families.
David Cameron is apparently going to get in on the act. I hear he is planning to use the Tory Party conference to say that there is a purpose to the pain of deficit reduction because Britain will emerge a fairer society following the spending cuts. Meanwhile, George (Slasher) Osborne says his decision to cut child benefit was "difficult but fair". But the reality is it’s the first phase of the ConDem’s plans to residualise social security as part of their attack on what they pejoratively refer to as the ‘big state’.
I remain extremely sceptical that the Tories will do anything to help the poorest people in Britain. My fear is their plans to marginalise social security will lead to even bigger cuts if it is made the preserve of Britain’s poorest people.
I’m not the only one to have expressed doubts about the Tory proposals. When the ConDem coalition launched the consultation about their plans they were criticised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies for “ducking difficult decisions”. The IFS concluded that the proposals were “likely to be accompanied by financial losses for significant numbers of families”. The Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) concluded it was “difficult to see how the [Tories’] plans will tackle the real causes of worklessness.” And Shelter expressed concerns about the impact of the “brutal cuts” to housing benefit.
It is yet another example of the 1984 style Ministry of Truth tactics being pursued by this ConDem government that is trying to portray itself as the champions of the poor.
But the ConDem coalition has already…
• Cut the Future Jobs Fund
• Ended the Young Persons Guarantee
• Slashed funding for job centres
• Increased marginal tax rates for at least 85,000 of Britain’s poorest people as revealed in the Treasury’s Red Book
• Reduced tax credits and child benefit by changing the index from RPI to CPI
• Chopped entitlement to tax credits for families earning £50,000 down to just £30,000
No doubt Cameron will deploy the usual verbal contortions in his conference speech to convince people that he’s building a fairer society by making the same old Tory cuts. But the truth is Britain’s poorest people are being sacrificed on the altar of deficit reduction, just as they were in the 1930s, 1980s and 1990s.
The reforms will see the current welfare system replaced with a universal benefit with millions of welfare claimants having their benefits scrapped and replaced with one “universal credit”. Housing benefit, income support, incapacity benefit and dozens of other payments are set to go.
It remains to be seen how Iain Duncan Smith’s plans compare with Labour’s proposals for a ‘better off in work’ credit to ensure everyone would be at least £40 per week better off. No doubt we’ll hear warm words from IDS about how much he cares about poverty. But I was a Welfare Rights Officer in the 1980s and 1990s and I remember how the Tories impoverished millions of people with their callous welfare reforms. I also remember Nigel Lawson giving a £4bn tax handout to the UK’s richest families in 1988 while simultaneously cutting £4bn from the country’s poorest families.
David Cameron is apparently going to get in on the act. I hear he is planning to use the Tory Party conference to say that there is a purpose to the pain of deficit reduction because Britain will emerge a fairer society following the spending cuts. Meanwhile, George (Slasher) Osborne says his decision to cut child benefit was "difficult but fair". But the reality is it’s the first phase of the ConDem’s plans to residualise social security as part of their attack on what they pejoratively refer to as the ‘big state’.
I remain extremely sceptical that the Tories will do anything to help the poorest people in Britain. My fear is their plans to marginalise social security will lead to even bigger cuts if it is made the preserve of Britain’s poorest people.
I’m not the only one to have expressed doubts about the Tory proposals. When the ConDem coalition launched the consultation about their plans they were criticised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies for “ducking difficult decisions”. The IFS concluded that the proposals were “likely to be accompanied by financial losses for significant numbers of families”. The Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) concluded it was “difficult to see how the [Tories’] plans will tackle the real causes of worklessness.” And Shelter expressed concerns about the impact of the “brutal cuts” to housing benefit.
It is yet another example of the 1984 style Ministry of Truth tactics being pursued by this ConDem government that is trying to portray itself as the champions of the poor.
But the ConDem coalition has already…
• Cut the Future Jobs Fund
• Ended the Young Persons Guarantee
• Slashed funding for job centres
• Increased marginal tax rates for at least 85,000 of Britain’s poorest people as revealed in the Treasury’s Red Book
• Reduced tax credits and child benefit by changing the index from RPI to CPI
• Chopped entitlement to tax credits for families earning £50,000 down to just £30,000
No doubt Cameron will deploy the usual verbal contortions in his conference speech to convince people that he’s building a fairer society by making the same old Tory cuts. But the truth is Britain’s poorest people are being sacrificed on the altar of deficit reduction, just as they were in the 1930s, 1980s and 1990s.
Monday 4 October 2010
RMT ASK PM TO INTERVENE IN TUBE STRIKE
The RMT has written to the Prime Minister today to request that he personally inetervenes in the tube dispute.
This is the text of the RMT's letter:
Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA
Dear Mr Cameron
London Underground Dispute
We are writing to ask you to intervene to ensure direct talks take place between the trade unions and the Mayor of London.
We are taking this unprecedented step because the Mayor is more interested in using the dispute to shore up his standing amongst the Tory faithful than addressing the genuine fears of passengers and tube staff.
We hope you would agree that instead of barracking tube workers from Birmingham he should be listening to London and the real concerns of passenger, pensioner and disability groups who are saying the cuts on London Underground will disproportionately hit the more vulnerable in the capital.
Only last week the independent passenger group London Travel Watch warned,
“...we know that passengers feel safer and more secure with a staff presence and many passengers - the elderly, those with physical impairments or learning difficulties, as well as those unfamiliar with the system – will still rely on help to buy tickets. We are very worried that their needs will be neglected.”
This strike is not about "irresponsible militants” taking on the Coalition, it is about London Underground staff giving up a day’s pay to put safety first. Indeed, if the Mayor simply kept to his election promises regarding adequate staffing on London Underground there would be no dispute.
Only direct talks with the Mayor can solve this dispute because there has been a complete breakdown in trust with London Underground. Tube staff are asking if Boris Johnston lied to Londoners during his election about cuts to ticket offices how can they believe a word his managers are saying now?
Nonetheless we are prepared to sit down any time, any place with the Mayor to talk for as long as it takes to resolve this dispute.
We hope you agree that is the responsible approach and we look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.
This is the text of the RMT's letter:
Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA
Dear Mr Cameron
London Underground Dispute
We are writing to ask you to intervene to ensure direct talks take place between the trade unions and the Mayor of London.
We are taking this unprecedented step because the Mayor is more interested in using the dispute to shore up his standing amongst the Tory faithful than addressing the genuine fears of passengers and tube staff.
We hope you would agree that instead of barracking tube workers from Birmingham he should be listening to London and the real concerns of passenger, pensioner and disability groups who are saying the cuts on London Underground will disproportionately hit the more vulnerable in the capital.
Only last week the independent passenger group London Travel Watch warned,
“...we know that passengers feel safer and more secure with a staff presence and many passengers - the elderly, those with physical impairments or learning difficulties, as well as those unfamiliar with the system – will still rely on help to buy tickets. We are very worried that their needs will be neglected.”
This strike is not about "irresponsible militants” taking on the Coalition, it is about London Underground staff giving up a day’s pay to put safety first. Indeed, if the Mayor simply kept to his election promises regarding adequate staffing on London Underground there would be no dispute.
Only direct talks with the Mayor can solve this dispute because there has been a complete breakdown in trust with London Underground. Tube staff are asking if Boris Johnston lied to Londoners during his election about cuts to ticket offices how can they believe a word his managers are saying now?
Nonetheless we are prepared to sit down any time, any place with the Mayor to talk for as long as it takes to resolve this dispute.
We hope you agree that is the responsible approach and we look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.
Saturday 2 October 2010
BRITAIN’S POOR BEING SACRIFICED ON DEFICIT REDUCTION ALTAR
Reports in today’s newspapers suggest the ConDem coalition has agreed a £9 billion cuts in benefits after George Osborne and Ian Duncan Smith “struck a deal”.
Ian Duncan Smith is expected to make an announcement giving details tomorrow – Sunday. The reforms are expected to see the current welfare system replaced with a universal benefit with millions of welfare claimants having their benefits scrapped and replaced with one “universal credit”. Housing benefit, income support, incapacity benefit and dozens of other payments are set to go.
It remains to be seen how Ian Duncan Smith’s plans compare with Labour’s proposals for a ‘better off in work’ credit to ensure everyone would be at least £40 per week better off. No doubt we’ll hear warm words from IDS about how much he cares about poverty. But I was a Welfare Rights Officer in the 1980s and 1990s and I remember how the Tories impoverished millions of people with their callous welfare reforms. I also remember Nigel Lawson giving a £4bn tax handout to the UK’s richest families in 1988 while simultaneously cutting £4bn from the country’s poorest families.
That is why I’m extremely sceptical that the Tories will do anything to help the poorest people in Britain. David Cameron is apparently going to get in on the act. I hear he is planning to use the Tory party conference to say that there is a purpose to the pain of deficit reduction because Britain will emerge a fairer society following the spending cuts.
I’m not the only one to have expressed doubts about these Tory plans. When the Con Dem coalition launched the consultation about their plans they were criticised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies for “ducking difficult decisions”. The IFS concluded that the proposals were “likely to be accompanied by financial losses for significant numbers of families”. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) concluded it was “difficult to see how the [Tories’] plans will tackle the real causes of worklessness.” And Shelter expressed concerns about the impact of the “brutal cuts” to Housing Benefit.
It is yet another example of the 1984 style Ministry of Truth tactics being pursued by this ConDem government that is trying to portray itself as the champions of the poor.
But the ConDem coalition has already…
• Cut the Future Jobs Fund
• Ended the Young Persons Guarantee
• Slashed funding for job centres
• Increased marginal tax rates for at least 85,000 of Britain’s poorest people as revealed in the Treasury’s Red Book
• Reduced tax credits and child benefit by changing the index from RPI to CPI
• Chopped entitlement to tax credits for families earning £50,000 to just £30,000
No doubt Cameron will deploy the usual verbal contortions in his conference speech to convince people that he’s building a fairer society by making the same old Tory cuts.
The truth is Britain’s poorest people are being sacrificed on the altar of deficit reduction, just as they were in the 1930s, 1980s and 1990s.
Ian Duncan Smith is expected to make an announcement giving details tomorrow – Sunday. The reforms are expected to see the current welfare system replaced with a universal benefit with millions of welfare claimants having their benefits scrapped and replaced with one “universal credit”. Housing benefit, income support, incapacity benefit and dozens of other payments are set to go.
It remains to be seen how Ian Duncan Smith’s plans compare with Labour’s proposals for a ‘better off in work’ credit to ensure everyone would be at least £40 per week better off. No doubt we’ll hear warm words from IDS about how much he cares about poverty. But I was a Welfare Rights Officer in the 1980s and 1990s and I remember how the Tories impoverished millions of people with their callous welfare reforms. I also remember Nigel Lawson giving a £4bn tax handout to the UK’s richest families in 1988 while simultaneously cutting £4bn from the country’s poorest families.
That is why I’m extremely sceptical that the Tories will do anything to help the poorest people in Britain. David Cameron is apparently going to get in on the act. I hear he is planning to use the Tory party conference to say that there is a purpose to the pain of deficit reduction because Britain will emerge a fairer society following the spending cuts.
I’m not the only one to have expressed doubts about these Tory plans. When the Con Dem coalition launched the consultation about their plans they were criticised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies for “ducking difficult decisions”. The IFS concluded that the proposals were “likely to be accompanied by financial losses for significant numbers of families”. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) concluded it was “difficult to see how the [Tories’] plans will tackle the real causes of worklessness.” And Shelter expressed concerns about the impact of the “brutal cuts” to Housing Benefit.
It is yet another example of the 1984 style Ministry of Truth tactics being pursued by this ConDem government that is trying to portray itself as the champions of the poor.
But the ConDem coalition has already…
• Cut the Future Jobs Fund
• Ended the Young Persons Guarantee
• Slashed funding for job centres
• Increased marginal tax rates for at least 85,000 of Britain’s poorest people as revealed in the Treasury’s Red Book
• Reduced tax credits and child benefit by changing the index from RPI to CPI
• Chopped entitlement to tax credits for families earning £50,000 to just £30,000
No doubt Cameron will deploy the usual verbal contortions in his conference speech to convince people that he’s building a fairer society by making the same old Tory cuts.
The truth is Britain’s poorest people are being sacrificed on the altar of deficit reduction, just as they were in the 1930s, 1980s and 1990s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
