It's beyond belief that Health and Social Protection are out of scope of this. £11.5 billion in cuts versus an £80 billion deficit in a year that will likely be the top of the cycle, if not already a year of bust. Oh dear, if you thought the last election was a good one to lose, it will have nothing on 2015.
This spending review is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It's a bit rich, after all the fuss that the Conservatives made in 2010 about Labour having failed to lay out its spending plans, for them now apparently to decide consciously to do the same thing for the next election.
Treasury leak to the press "£100 million Capital boost".
Less than an hour after Gideon sits down:
Danny Alexander has just clarified that no new capital expenditure has been announced, despite talk of £100bn spending.“We are allocating the budgets that we set out in March,” he tells the BBC's Daily Politics special. Alexander also says there is no new capital expenditure in his announcement tomorrow.
The sangria tax (copyright RichardNabavi) is surely only the start. Will any major political party go into the next election promising to protect any of the extras for higher rate tax paying pensioners? I seriously doubt it. That ship sailed when CB caused so little stir.
The idea that you get anything more for the tax or NI you pay is on its way out. The concern that that would undermine the general acceptance of such levels of taxation and commitment to the welfare state is about to be tested. I expect a fairly large shrug to be honest.
Edit: "The countries where recipients will be affected by the new "temperature test" are Portugal, Spain, Greece, France, Gibraltar and Cyprus, the BBC understands."
Perhaps someone soon will have the bright idea of simply incorporating the Winter Fuel Payment into the state pension which has the useful side effect of making it taxable and thereby avoiding armies of civil servants deciding whether x or y is a hot country or Labour's equally stupid suggestion of civil servamts means testing it
Treasury leak to the press "£100 million Capital boost".
Less than an hour after Gideon sits down:
Danny Alexander has just clarified that no new capital expenditure has been announced, despite talk of £100bn spending.“We are allocating the budgets that we set out in March,” he tells the BBC's Daily Politics special. Alexander also says there is no new capital expenditure in his announcement tomorrow.
This is unravelling faster than omni-shambles.
That' how a Comprehensive Spending Review works. You do understand the difference between a Budget and a CSR?
This spending review is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It's a bit rich, after all the fuss that the Conservatives made in 2010 about Labour having failed to lay out its spending plans, for them now apparently to decide consciously to do the same thing for the next election.
Eh? They just have laid out spending plans, earlier than usual, in stark contrast to Labour, who postponed the normal Comprehensive Spending Review.
I think the earlier projection of UKIP seats was based on the wrong idea of where the bulk of their support was likely to come from i.e. that a seat like Buckinghamshire was best. Their support is more coming out of the middle imo i.e. seats that aren't weighted mostly posh or mostly rough but balanced nearer the middle.
Then on top of that the potential voters in those seats need a reason to believe that problems which contradict the PC narrative will be ignored by the current political establishment.
The distribution pattern you get from that is: - the grooming circle centred on the midlands stretching from say north of London to Yorkshire (i.e. excluding most of the NE and NW) - the outer edges of London where there's a lot of people who moved there for the weather (and not because of a very stabby gang culture that doesn't exist) - south coast towns for reasons that would be obvious if there wasn't a PC filter on the news - east coast (i don't know those areas but i assume agricultural immigration?)
I thought the SW would be a particularly good spot for the first reason but i guess lacks the second. NE and NW similar. Scotland, North Wales, NI also.
South Wales could potentially be a good spot but might not be for perception reasons (edit: too English seeming). I wonder if UKIP came out as leave EU and also reform UK into a 4-way federal structure if that might make a difference in South Wales? Dunno.
Even on a big surge the most likely outcome would be a very large number of 2nd places but i think they could easily snatch a few on a lower vote just through quirks i.e. seats weighted more to the socio-economic middle are most likely to have a very split liblabcon vote already.
@RichardNabavi For a year, for trivial amounts, for partisan reasons and avoiding all the difficult decisions that will need to be taken after the next general election.
This spending review is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It's a bit rich, after all the fuss that the Conservatives made in 2010 about Labour having failed to lay out its spending plans, for them now apparently to decide consciously to do the same thing for the next election.
Don't get your point there antifrank. At the last election the Labour party would not tell us what they were planning to spend for the next year. The government has just set out its spending plans for the year after next.
The sangria tax (copyright RichardNabavi) is surely only the start. Will any major political party go into the next election promising to protect any of the extras for higher rate tax paying pensioners? I seriously doubt it. That ship sailed when CB caused so little stir.
The idea that you get anything more for the tax or NI you pay is on its way out. The concern that that would undermine the general acceptance of such levels of taxation and commitment to the welfare state is about to be tested. I expect a fairly large shrug to be honest.
Sangria tax is rather good, Richard N.
Surely better to roll all the pensioners benefits into the old age pension. Why should i spend my retirement on buses or watching an elderly noel edmonds on the the box, when i could spend my dosh surfing PB, and trainspotting?
The best map I can find of average European winter temperatures is not the most informative, but it looks to me as though English residents of Spain might be able to keep their winter fuel payments, when you account for cold temperatures on the high Spanish plains.
I hope the Treasury did their homework on this, rather than looked at the winter temperatures of the coastal resorts.
@EdConwaySky "This announcement is not very significant for the economic outlook..." Michael Saunders of Citi's withering verdict on the Spending Round
@RichardNabavi For a year, for trivial amounts, for partisan reasons and avoiding all the difficult decisions that will need to be taken after the next general election.
Hardly trivial amounts, it's not 'partisan' to put in place budgets long enough ahead to allow departments time to actually do some planning on implementation, and (in contrast to the criticism of Labour), there's plenty of time to set out the difficult decisions for 2016-2017 and later financial years. The point about Labour's failure was that there was, quite deliberately, virtually no planning done because Brown wanted to protect his mythical 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' nonsense.
In any case, future plans for April 2016 onwards depend on the make-up of the government. The coalition partners won't necessarily agree on the balance of measures; it should be their manifestos which lay out their individual party positions.
Treasury leak to the press "£100 million Capital boost".
Less than an hour after Gideon sits down:
Danny Alexander has just clarified that no new capital expenditure has been announced, despite talk of £100bn spending.“We are allocating the budgets that we set out in March,” he tells the BBC's Daily Politics special. Alexander also says there is no new capital expenditure in his announcement tomorrow.
This is unravelling faster than omni-shambles.
That' how a Comprehensive Spending Review works. You do understand the difference between a Budget and a CSR?
So why leak it as a capital "BOOST", why not just say....well actually it is not a "BOOST" it is what we said in the budget .Or....capital spend is the same as we said last time?
@RichardNabavi I'm just grumpy because George Osborne hasn't taken up Boris Johnson's idea on Monday of offering financial help to swimming pool owners.
@RichardNabavi I'm just grumpy because George Osborne hasn't taken up Boris Johnson's idea on Monday of offering financial help to swimming pool owners.
... and have you been checking the average temperature in Hungary?
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a central portion of a federal law that restricted the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples in a major victory for the gay rights movement.
"I do not make this charge lightly. But an hour after the spending review, I think we may have seen the most egregious statistical chicanery I have witnessed in a Treasury fiscal event in 13 years of covering economics for newspapers and TV"
Can the temperature test legally be applied only to people living outside the UK? As I understand it, things like this have to apply to all or none. A peculiarly warm UK winter, could exclude everyone in the UK.
"...I think there are two problems with Unite’s attempted hijacking of Labour selections, neither of which are actually based on any great abuse of principle. The first is that this is not actually being done in the name of any grand political strategy. Oh, that’s the pretext: more good, honest working-class people in a position to pass more laws that benefit good, honest workers. And yes, Unite want to see Ed Miliband dancing to their tune.
But that’s not what it’s really about. Unite are trying to fix selections simply because they can. Lots of middle-aged men, (it’s still always men), wandering around showing how big and hard they are. They should just go the whole hog and rename themselves the National Union of Willy Wavers.
The second problem is the new politics wasn’t supposed to be like this. Ed Miliband’s party spent the best part of a year going through an entire, tortuous process called “Refounding Labour”. It was a total and utter waste of time. Nothing has been “refounded”. People are fitting-up selections for their mates and their cliques in the same way that they always did.
Not that you’ll hear many people complaining. That’s because they can’t. If you’re an MP, you need Unite’s votes to ensure your reselection. If you’re a wannabe MP, you need Unite’s votes to ensure your selection. So today, those people who are normally up in arms at the merest procedural missteps within the party machine will stay silent.
I don’t care about the abuse. What I object to is the hypocrisy..."
And so it just keeps on unravelling...move over omni-shambles, your place has been taken:
Do try and keep up...
@faisalislam i am officially rowing back a little. Perils of the quick blog. But only a bit. Capital Econ: "no changes in capital spending".
So has there been an increase in capital investment or not Scott P? Faisal Islam has rowed back on it actually being a cut in it . When does Bungle row back from in being an increase?
And so it just keeps on unravelling...move over omni-shambles, your place has been taken:
Do try and keep up...
@faisalislam i am officially rowing back a little. Perils of the quick blog. But only a bit. Capital Econ: "no changes in capital spending".
So has there been an increase in investment or not Avery?
Read the report
"The Government will reduce current spending by £11.5 billion in 2015-16, allowing it to increase capital spending plans by £3 billion a year from 2015-16 and by £18 billion over the next Parliament."
Can the temperature test legally be applied only to people living outside the UK? As I understand it, things like this have to apply to all or none. A peculiarly warm UK winter, could exclude everyone in the UK.
I thought it was only paid once the temperature hit a certain point anyway?
Can the temperature test legally be applied only to people living outside the UK? As I understand it, things like this have to apply to all or none. A peculiarly warm UK winter, could exclude everyone in the UK.
But by definition everywhere in the UK is going to be colder than the warmest region in the UK.
And so it just keeps on unravelling...move over omni-shambles, your place has been taken:
Do try and keep up...
@faisalislam i am officially rowing back a little. Perils of the quick blog. But only a bit. Capital Econ: "no changes in capital spending".
So has there been an increase in investment or not Avery?
Read the report
"The Government will reduce current spending by £11.5 billion in 2015-16, allowing it to increase capital spending plans by £3 billion a year from 2015-16 and by £18 billion over the next Parliament."
"The net investment numbers are in budgets and autumn statements. The general point still applies. Investment is not going up, as you would have thought from listening to the speech. So perhaps a little less egregious and a bit more cute."
I thought it was only paid once the temperature hit a certain point anyway?
Facts are becoming your new geography, Charles!
I was muddling it up with the Cold Weather Payment. That's not too unreasonable an error to make...
"Payments will be made when your local temperature is either recorded as, or forecast to be, an average of zero degrees Celsius or below over 7 consecutive days"
Can the temperature test legally be applied only to people living outside the UK? As I understand it, things like this have to apply to all or none. A peculiarly warm UK winter, could exclude everyone in the UK.
There are "Cold Weather Payments" which are made on a very specific geographical basis when the actual temperature falls below specific thresholds for a specific length of time.
Osborne is generally linking the eligibility for the winter fuel bungallowance to whether the average winter temperature of a country is higher, equal or lower than the UK. Since the average winter temperature of the UK is the same as the UK, then the test is applied to UK residents [and passed].
Will be interesting to see if he includes the Canary and Balearic islands in his calculation of the Spanish average, or just the Spanish mainland. Similarly for France - one might arguably include the French departments that are in the Tropics in the calculation, depending on how bureaucratically you choose to apply the rule.
According to the executive summary there is an increase of capital spending of £3bn in that year and £18 bn over the Parliament.
"The Government will reduce current spending by £11.5 billion in 2015-16, allowing it to increase capital spending plans by £3 billion a year from 2015-16 and by £18 billion over the next Parliament. This will boost investment in infrastructure to support economic growth at the same time as ensuring a sustained reduction in the deficit. Without the £3.6 billion savings from the welfare budget in 2015-16 that were announced at Autumn Statement 2012, reductions in departmental spending would have been commensurately higher. The Government will protect spending on health, schools and overseas development – maintaining the vital public services that everyone relies on at home, and supporting the poorest overseas."
According to this there has been a shift within the overall budget totals of £3bn from welfare spending to capital spending. Whether this is "new" is not clear but it does look that way.
According to the executive summary there is an increase of capital spending of £3bn in that year and £18 bn over the Parliament.
"The Government will reduce current spending by £11.5 billion in 2015-16, allowing it to increase capital spending plans by £3 billion a year from 2015-16 and by £18 billion over the next Parliament. This will boost investment in infrastructure to support economic growth at the same time as ensuring a sustained reduction in the deficit. Without the £3.6 billion savings from the welfare budget in 2015-16 that were announced at Autumn Statement 2012, reductions in departmental spending would have been commensurately higher. The Government will protect spending on health, schools and overseas development – maintaining the vital public services that everyone relies on at home, and supporting the poorest overseas."
According to this there has been a shift within the overall budget totals of £3bn from welfare spending to capital spending. Whether this is "new" is not clear but it does look that way.
According to the executive summary there is an increase of capital spending of £3bn in that year and £18 bn over the Parliament.
"The Government will reduce current spending by £11.5 billion in 2015-16, allowing it to increase capital spending plans by £3 billion a year from 2015-16 and by £18 billion over the next Parliament. This will boost investment in infrastructure to support economic growth at the same time as ensuring a sustained reduction in the deficit. Without the £3.6 billion savings from the welfare budget in 2015-16 that were announced at Autumn Statement 2012, reductions in departmental spending would have been commensurately higher. The Government will protect spending on health, schools and overseas development – maintaining the vital public services that everyone relies on at home, and supporting the poorest overseas."
According to this there has been a shift within the overall budget totals of £3bn from welfare spending to capital spending. Whether this is "new" is not clear but it does look that way.
I am sure we may find out the answer to your last paragraph on the C4 news tonight.
"There was lots of talk, as always, about capital expenditure, but there was no new money allocated today. Public sector gross investment was announced in the Budget to be £50.4 billion for 2015/16 and that remained unchanged. "
It's certainly gone down well with Labour, who have accepted it in its entirety, with the one exception of criticising a typo in a tweet by a backbencher.
"Balls' favourite party trick is to sit at PMQs telling David Cameron to calm down, then winding him up by taunting him about going red in the face. But there were times when Balls was hammering his way through his checklist of Government failures that he started to look like the PM just after an especially gruelling meeting with Peter Bone. Frustration and resentment were etched on his face.
I suspect that’s because deep down Ed Balls is aware of how fast things are now slipping away from Labour. To be fair, he’s done a manful job over the past three years of keeping Labour in the game, and many of his economic predictions have proved prescient. But watching him this afternoon, he reminded me of one of those British soldiers in the film Zulu. He’s put up a brave fight, but his defences are finally, and inevitably, starting to crumble."
It's certainly gone down well with Labour, who have accepted it in its entirety, with the one exception of criticising a typo in a tweet by a backbencher.
The inevitable...
@DPJHodges The CSR indicated tough times for the government. But Osborne's body language told a different story > Telegraph > http://tinyurl.com/pcxkj9r
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Osborne's assumption is that everyone has a daddy who can help them out. And as he's always had his houses bought for him and lived off a trust fund who can blame him really?
Osborne wants dividing lines and if that hurts people who have just lost their jobs, so be it. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on." Shameful language, truly shameful. But no surprise. I wonder if he may have overstretched himself here. Someone who has lost his/her job is by definition not an idle scrounger.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Seems fair enough - if you are in work you will probably be paid in arrears and should have a buffer.
If you have just had a birthday then well a week wont kill you.
If you have just arrived in the country - well then seems fair you should wait a week.
Also saves admin on those who are out of work for less than 7 days.
I'm sure the BBC will be able to dig up a special case who will experience untold misery due to this.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Osborne's assumption is that everyone has a daddy who can help them out. And as he's always had his houses bought for him and lived off a trust fund who can blame him really?
Osborne wants dividing lines and if that hurts people who have just lost their jobs, so be it. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on." Shameful language, truly shameful. But no surprise. I wonder if he may have overstretched himself here. Someone who has lost his/her job is by definition not an idle scrounger.
Yeah, because what my brother was thinking when he lost his job [IT at a City forex firm] was "Thank f**k I've lost my job and I can sign on now" instead of "What else can I do to find a job before I run out of money to pay the mortgage?"
It is very easy to despise George Osborne for the language he uses to describe people who are suffering through a hard economic time through no fault of their own.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Seems fair enough - if you are in work you will probably be paid in arrears and should have a buffer.
If you have just had a birthday then well a week wont kill you.
If you have just arrived in the country - well then seems fair you should wait a week.
Also saves admin on those who are out of work for less than 7 days.
I'm sure the BBC will be able to dig up a special case who will experience untold misery due to this.
It means you wait longer for your benefit, the one that as a taxpayer you have paid NI to receive. If you have no money, a week is a very long time. But, so what, it creates a dividing line, eh? If it makes Ed Balls uncomfortable who cares if it increases stress and misery for a few thousand people each week? Lovely.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Seems fair enough - if you are in work you will probably be paid in arrears and should have a buffer.
How long do you think it takes for the DWP to process JSA claims?
People already have to use up any buffer they have waiting for the bureaucracy to grind into action.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Osborne's assumption is that everyone has a daddy who can help them out. And as he's always had his houses bought for him and lived off a trust fund who can blame him really?
Osborne wants dividing lines and if that hurts people who have just lost their jobs, so be it. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on." Shameful language, truly shameful. But no surprise. I wonder if he may have overstretched himself here. Someone who has lost his/her job is by definition not an idle scrounger.
Yeah, because what my brother was thinking when he lost his job [IT at a City forex firm] was "Thank f**k I've lost my job and I can sign on now" instead of "What else can I do to find a job before I run out of money to pay the mortgage?"
It is very easy to despise George Osborne for the language he uses to describe people who are suffering through a hard economic time through no fault of their own.
It is indeed. The language was deliberate. Those who have been made unemployment deserve our scorn, not our help. And all for a dividing line. Vile stuff.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Seems fair enough - if you are in work you will probably be paid in arrears and should have a buffer.
If you have just had a birthday then well a week wont kill you.
If you have just arrived in the country - well then seems fair you should wait a week.
Also saves admin on those who are out of work for less than 7 days.
I'm sure the BBC will be able to dig up a special case who will experience untold misery due to this.
It is also a blow against Labour mobility. It's a week less of benefits so it means you are less likely to have the capital required to pay for a deposit, etc, on moving to somewhere else to find work.
The people who write these articles should really know better. Firstly, the emergency budget and the changes made there are airbrushed out of existence. These played an important part in deficit reduction, not least by putting up taxes. Secondly, from 2010 the cuts were always end-loaded within the Parliament. The end is now nigh and the bill must be paid. In fact the bill has spilled into the next Parliament.
It is true that growth has disappointed and this has meant that the deficit has remained higher but that is not the cause of these cuts. These cuts are consistent with what was set out in 2010. They are a necessary part of the rebalancing of the economy away from public spending and into private sector growth.
In an ideal world they would have been delivering tax reductions. This is not that world but they are still necessary and ultimately desirable. Government revenues will not reach the peaks of 2006 in real terms for some time. Given Brown managed to run a deficit even then it is clear that the state needs some serious cutting for the medium term.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Seems fair enough - if you are in work you will probably be paid in arrears and should have a buffer.
If you have just had a birthday then well a week wont kill you.
If you have just arrived in the country - well then seems fair you should wait a week.
Also saves admin on those who are out of work for less than 7 days.
I'm sure the BBC will be able to dig up a special case who will experience untold misery due to this.
It is also a blow against Labour mobility. It's a week less of benefits so it means you are less likely to have the capital required to pay for a deposit, etc, on moving to somewhere else to find work.
Ferk me - I can see through the bottom of the barrel so hard is the scraping.
Benefits are not a human right - they are a generous gift from the taxpayers of the Uk.
A 7 day delay should put a little dent into the claimant count figures - which will annoy leftoids too.
If the third set stays on serve then Gulbis will take it and lead Tsonga 2-1. I imagine Murray (who I think could meet Tsonga in the quarters) wouldn't mind if he got knocked out so early.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Seems fair enough - if you are in work you will probably be paid in arrears and should have a buffer.
If you have just had a birthday then well a week wont kill you.
If you have just arrived in the country - well then seems fair you should wait a week.
Also saves admin on those who are out of work for less than 7 days.
I'm sure the BBC will be able to dig up a special case who will experience untold misery due to this.
It is also a blow against Labour mobility. It's a week less of benefits so it means you are less likely to have the capital required to pay for a deposit, etc, on moving to somewhere else to find work.
Ferk me - I can see through the bottom of the barrel so hard is the scraping.
Benefits are not a human right - they are a generous gift from the taxpayers of the Uk.
A 7 day delay should put a little dent into the claimant count figures - which will annoy leftoids too.
People who have been in work will have paid for their Job-Seeker's allowance through National Insurance contributions.
It's looking good, the usual suspects are strong on 'evil Tory' rhetoric but not a single, solitary suggestion of what they would do differently.
I think young George can be confident he's won all the arguments when Caroline Lucas is reduced to citing the US (yes, you read that correctly) as an example of the climate-change policies the government should follow:
Last night, President Obama outlined the urgent need to act on climate change and the benefits this would bring the American people in terms of manufacturing, jobs and protection from the impacts of climate change.
By committing the government to reckless spending on polluting high carbon infrastructure such as roads, airports and shale gas instead of investing in the jobs-rich green economy through, for example, renewable energy and energy efficiency, George Osborne is denying the British people those same huge benefits – and a more positive vision of the future.
'the Scottish Government's annual budget will be cut in real terms by 1.9% which works out at £488.3M to £25.7Bn, while it will be given the power to borrow £296M for capital spending'
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Seems fair enough - if you are in work you will probably be paid in arrears and should have a buffer.
If you have just had a birthday then well a week wont kill you.
If you have just arrived in the country - well then seems fair you should wait a week.
Also saves admin on those who are out of work for less than 7 days.
I'm sure the BBC will be able to dig up a special case who will experience untold misery due to this.
It is also a blow against Labour mobility. It's a week less of benefits so it means you are less likely to have the capital required to pay for a deposit, etc, on moving to somewhere else to find work.
Ferk me - I can see through the bottom of the barrel so hard is the scraping.
Benefits are not a human right - they are a generous gift from the taxpayers of the Uk.
A 7 day delay should put a little dent into the claimant count figures - which will annoy leftoids too.
If Osborne improved the menus at soup kitchens, Southam Observer would still complain about dividing lines.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Seems fair enough - if you are in work you will probably be paid in arrears and should have a buffer.
If you have just had a birthday then well a week wont kill you.
If you have just arrived in the country - well then seems fair you should wait a week.
Also saves admin on those who are out of work for less than 7 days.
I'm sure the BBC will be able to dig up a special case who will experience untold misery due to this.
It is also a blow against Labour mobility. It's a week less of benefits so it means you are less likely to have the capital required to pay for a deposit, etc, on moving to somewhere else to find work.
Ferk me - I can see through the bottom of the barrel so hard is the scraping.
Benefits are not a human right - they are a generous gift from the taxpayers of the Uk.
A 7 day delay should put a little dent into the claimant count figures - which will annoy leftoids too.
If Osborne improved the menus at soup kitchens, Southam Observer would still complain about dividing lines.
There is no satisfying him.
Presumably because the croutons would not be assured to be organic , GM free and certified by the soil association ?
However, I suspect it won't play too badly in the country. There's a certain angry middle of people working but not seeming to get too far (due to inflation, which admittedly isn't all that high, and low pay increases/pay freezes/pay cuts) who, I would suggest, are pissed off both at the very rich and those who have done sod all and seem to have a lovely life on benefits.
The left do seem to have gotten annoyed about every single cut imaginable. I recall a few years ago the BBC featuring an unemployed chap who was complaining because his cut in housing benefit meant he had to move somewhere else... which happens all the time to working people who can't afford to live where they are any more. When the left complains about every single change their criticisms suffer deflation and decline in value.
Voting against the £26,000 benefit cap was both inexplicable and idiotic.
I've only seen snippets of the other measures, but was pleased to see science/research untouched and unsurprised but still irked that Defence got cut again. Defence should've been ringfenced, not Health.
This is not that world but they are still necessary and ultimately desirable.
Surely tax cuts for working and lower middle class families are Osborne's ace in the hole. The voters may want to see a little of the colour of Osborne's money before and not after 2015 though.
Jam tomorrow and only tomorrow won;t be enough to swing it for the tories in 2015. They will have to give people something before then.
Those who have been made unemployment deserve our scorn, not our help. And all for a dividing line. Vile stuff.
I think you exaggerate somewhat, but I agree it does seem unnecessarily churlish for a small saving.
Looks like a "saving" that will increase spending as people turn up in other areas of spending. Although payday loan companies will love it.
The Guardian live blog quotes from the CSR documents:
"Together these reforms will deliver over £350 million in annual savings, including savings from claimants leaving welfare more quickly. All of these savings will be reinvested in more help for claimants to get back into work and in the cost of enforcing the new conditions."
Yay. The government is taking money from JSA claimants and using it to employ DWP staff to check that they really have been out of work for a week before they claim JSA.
I haven't been this annoyed at a Chancellor of the Exchequer since... Brown put up tax on the poor to bribe Middle England.
There will be a new seven-day wait before people can claim benefits. "Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on," Osborne said.
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
Seems fair enough - if you are in work you will probably be paid in arrears and should have a buffer.
If you have just had a birthday then well a week wont kill you.
If you have just arrived in the country - well then seems fair you should wait a week.
Also saves admin on those who are out of work for less than 7 days.
I'm sure the BBC will be able to dig up a special case who will experience untold misery due to this.
It is also a blow against Labour mobility. It's a week less of benefits so it means you are less likely to have the capital required to pay for a deposit, etc, on moving to somewhere else to find work.
Ferk me - I can see through the bottom of the barrel so hard is the scraping.
Benefits are not a human right - they are a generous gift from the taxpayers of the Uk.
A 7 day delay should put a little dent into the claimant count figures - which will annoy leftoids too.
If Osborne improved the menus at soup kitchens, Southam Observer would still complain about dividing lines.
There is no satisfying him.
You do understand that JSA is a benefit that people who have been in work pay for via NI, don't you?
"Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on."
You do also understand that it does not take a week to claim JSA and that you can look for work and apply at the same time, don't you?
If Labour has bought into this, then shame on then quite frankly. Buying into the demonisation of those who have just lost their jobs just to avoid being on the wrong side of an imaginary dividing line is shabby as hell.
I haven't been this annoyed at a Chancellor of the Exchequer since... Brown put up tax on the poor to bribe Middle England.
Will you be just as annoyed when Ed Balls gets in and keeps Osborne's policies? LOL.
It is the nature of things that one tends to be more annoyed by changes than things staying the same, but I am sure that Balls will devise his own moronic political dividing lines that will irk me greatly.
Comments
Is this a time for our British Spanish residents to launch Op Christopher?
Those 370 UK pensioners in Switzerland claiming the winter fuel allowance are really draining the government finances.
Less than an hour after Gideon sits down:
Danny Alexander has just clarified that no new capital expenditure has been announced, despite talk of £100bn spending.“We are allocating the budgets that we set out in March,” he tells the BBC's Daily Politics special. Alexander also says there is no new capital expenditure in his announcement tomorrow.
This is unravelling faster than omni-shambles.
The idea that you get anything more for the tax or NI you pay is on its way out. The concern that that would undermine the general acceptance of such levels of taxation and commitment to the welfare state is about to be tested. I expect a fairly large shrug to be honest.
Edit: "The countries where recipients will be affected by the new "temperature test" are Portugal, Spain, Greece, France, Gibraltar and Cyprus, the BBC understands."
That' how a Comprehensive Spending Review works. You do understand the difference between a Budget and a CSR?
I think the earlier projection of UKIP seats was based on the wrong idea of where the bulk of their support was likely to come from i.e. that a seat like Buckinghamshire was best. Their support is more coming out of the middle imo i.e. seats that aren't weighted mostly posh or mostly rough but balanced nearer the middle.
Then on top of that the potential voters in those seats need a reason to believe that problems which contradict the PC narrative will be ignored by the current political establishment.
The distribution pattern you get from that is:
- the grooming circle centred on the midlands stretching from say north of London to Yorkshire (i.e. excluding most of the NE and NW)
- the outer edges of London where there's a lot of people who moved there for the weather (and not because of a very stabby gang culture that doesn't exist)
- south coast towns for reasons that would be obvious if there wasn't a PC filter on the news
- east coast (i don't know those areas but i assume agricultural immigration?)
I thought the SW would be a particularly good spot for the first reason but i guess lacks the second. NE and NW similar. Scotland, North Wales, NI also.
South Wales could potentially be a good spot but might not be for perception reasons (edit: too English seeming). I wonder if UKIP came out as leave EU and also reform UK into a 4-way federal structure if that might make a difference in South Wales? Dunno.
Even on a big surge the most likely outcome would be a very large number of 2nd places but i think they could easily snatch a few on a lower vote just through quirks i.e. seats weighted more to the socio-economic middle are most likely to have a very split liblabcon vote already.
Will Labour do the same? I very much doubt it.
Surely better to roll all the pensioners benefits into the old age pension. Why should i spend my retirement on buses or watching an elderly noel edmonds on the the box, when i could spend my dosh surfing PB, and trainspotting?
Let me choose my own poison.
I hope the Treasury did their homework on this, rather than looked at the winter temperatures of the coastal resorts.
"This announcement is not very significant for the economic outlook..." Michael Saunders of Citi's withering verdict on the Spending Round
It is, it promises further stagnation.
@FactCheck
"Egregious statistical chicanery" from the Treasury? http://bit.ly/11HWAnF
In any case, future plans for April 2016 onwards depend on the make-up of the government. The coalition partners won't necessarily agree on the balance of measures; it should be their manifestos which lay out their individual party positions.
Potholes, bin collections and street lights are real bread and butter issues.
I reckon George would take that assessment. After all, he is putting 145 thousand civil servants on the dole.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE95P06W20130626
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a central portion of a federal law that restricted the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples in a major victory for the gay rights movement.
@faisalislam
having checked sr 2010, that was gross investment-centric. So its a bit cuter, and a bit less egregious. Blog updated now.
http://blogs.channel4.com/faisal-islam-on-economics/grossly-misleading-claims-on-investment/18332
"I do not make this charge lightly. But an hour after the spending review, I think we may have seen the most egregious statistical chicanery I have witnessed in a Treasury fiscal event in 13 years of covering economics for newspapers and TV"
@faisalislam
i am officially rowing back a little. Perils of the quick blog. But only a bit. Capital Econ: "no changes in capital spending".
So has there been an increase in capital investment or not Scott P? Faisal Islam has rowed back on it actually being a cut in it . When does Bungle row back from in being an increase?
Read the report
"The Government will reduce current spending by £11.5 billion in 2015-16, allowing it to
increase capital spending plans by £3 billion a year from 2015-16 and by £18 billion over the
next Parliament."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209036/spending-round-2013-complete.pdf
"Payments will be made when your local temperature is either recorded as, or forecast to be, an average of zero degrees Celsius or below over 7 consecutive days"
https://www.gov.uk/cold-weather-payment
Osborne is generally linking the eligibility for the winter fuel bungallowance to whether the average winter temperature of a country is higher, equal or lower than the UK. Since the average winter temperature of the UK is the same as the UK, then the test is applied to UK residents [and passed].
Will be interesting to see if he includes the Canary and Balearic islands in his calculation of the Spanish average, or just the Spanish mainland. Similarly for France - one might arguably include the French departments that are in the Tropics in the calculation, depending on how bureaucratically you choose to apply the rule.
According to the executive summary there is an increase of capital spending of £3bn in that year and £18 bn over the Parliament.
"The Government will reduce current spending by £11.5 billion in 2015-16, allowing it to
increase capital spending plans by £3 billion a year from 2015-16 and by £18 billion over the
next Parliament. This will boost investment in infrastructure to support economic growth at the same time as ensuring a sustained reduction in the deficit. Without the £3.6 billion savings from the welfare budget in 2015-16 that were announced at Autumn Statement 2012, reductions in departmental spending would have been commensurately higher. The Government will protect spending on health, schools and overseas development – maintaining the vital public services that everyone relies on at home, and supporting the poorest overseas."
According to this there has been a shift within the overall budget totals of £3bn from welfare spending to capital spending. Whether this is "new" is not clear but it does look that way.
It's best to get your spelling right when going on about language skills. This is from the Tory MP Andrew Selous.
Andrew Selous MP ✔ @Andrew_SelousMP
Strongly support the loss of benefits unless claimants lean English.
@iainmartin1
"Egregious" downgraded to quite annoying by @faisalislam on Treasury investment chicanery.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/06/spending-review-expert-panel-ryan-bourne-a-damp-squib-the-real-focus-should-be-on-supply-side-reform.html
"There was lots of talk, as always, about capital expenditure, but there was no new money allocated today. Public sector gross investment was announced in the Budget to be £50.4 billion for 2015/16 and that remained unchanged. "
"Never wrong for long"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100223633/spending-review-ed-balls-is-now-sleeping-with-the-fishes/
"Balls' favourite party trick is to sit at PMQs telling David Cameron to calm down, then winding him up by taunting him about going red in the face. But there were times when Balls was hammering his way through his checklist of Government failures that he started to look like the PM just after an especially gruelling meeting with Peter Bone. Frustration and resentment were etched on his face.
I suspect that’s because deep down Ed Balls is aware of how fast things are now slipping away from Labour. To be fair, he’s done a manful job over the past three years of keeping Labour in the game, and many of his economic predictions have proved prescient. But watching him this afternoon, he reminded me of one of those British soldiers in the film Zulu. He’s put up a brave fight, but his defences are finally, and inevitably, starting to crumble."
@DPJHodges
The CSR indicated tough times for the government. But Osborne's body language told a different story > Telegraph > http://tinyurl.com/pcxkj9r
Because it is not possible to do both.
Let's punish people for being put out of work.The nasty party in all its glory.
No - he said it was bad for Ed Balls.
It's a whole new angle.
The ladies seeds are dropping like flies. Quite a lot of slipping and injury, it seems.
Gary Anderson reckons Alonso could win in Silverstone. I'm not so sure, given the conservative tyre choice, which will play into Vettel's hands.
Edited extra bit: and it's worth recalling that Webber loves the circuit, and could have a better result than he has recently.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/06/spending-review-expert-panel-andrew-lilico-the-chancellor-looks-forward-to-2015-and-tries-to-forget-.html
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/06/spending-review-expert-panel-mark-littlewood-osborne-is-paying-the-price-of-getting-things-wrong-in-.html
If you have just had a birthday then well a week wont kill you.
If you have just arrived in the country - well then seems fair you should wait a week.
Also saves admin on those who are out of work for less than 7 days.
I'm sure the BBC will be able to dig up a special case who will experience untold misery due to this.
It is very easy to despise George Osborne for the language he uses to describe people who are suffering through a hard economic time through no fault of their own.
People already have to use up any buffer they have waiting for the bureaucracy to grind into action.
It is true that growth has disappointed and this has meant that the deficit has remained higher but that is not the cause of these cuts. These cuts are consistent with what was set out in 2010. They are a necessary part of the rebalancing of the economy away from public spending and into private sector growth.
In an ideal world they would have been delivering tax reductions. This is not that world but they are still necessary and ultimately desirable. Government revenues will not reach the peaks of 2006 in real terms for some time. Given Brown managed to run a deficit even then it is clear that the state needs some serious cutting for the medium term.
Boost to Scottish capital expenditure
Benefits are not a human right - they are a generous gift from the taxpayers of the Uk.
A 7 day delay should put a little dent into the claimant count figures - which will annoy leftoids too.
I think you exaggerate somewhat, but I agree it does seem unnecessarily churlish for a small saving.
I think young George can be confident he's won all the arguments when Caroline Lucas is reduced to citing the US (yes, you read that correctly) as an example of the climate-change policies the government should follow:
Last night, President Obama outlined the urgent need to act on climate change and the benefits this would bring the American people in terms of manufacturing, jobs and protection from the impacts of climate change.
By committing the government to reckless spending on polluting high carbon infrastructure such as roads, airports and shale gas instead of investing in the jobs-rich green economy through, for example, renewable energy and energy efficiency, George Osborne is denying the British people those same huge benefits – and a more positive vision of the future.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/jun/26/osborne-spending-review-2013-live
'the Scottish Government's annual budget will be cut in real terms by 1.9% which works out at £488.3M to £25.7Bn, while it will be given the power to borrow £296M for capital spending'
http://tinyurl.com/nq27fmh
There is no satisfying him.
Andrew Selous - MP@Andrew_SelousMP Strongly support the loss of benefits unless claimants lean English.
However, I suspect it won't play too badly in the country. There's a certain angry middle of people working but not seeming to get too far (due to inflation, which admittedly isn't all that high, and low pay increases/pay freezes/pay cuts) who, I would suggest, are pissed off both at the very rich and those who have done sod all and seem to have a lovely life on benefits.
The left do seem to have gotten annoyed about every single cut imaginable. I recall a few years ago the BBC featuring an unemployed chap who was complaining because his cut in housing benefit meant he had to move somewhere else... which happens all the time to working people who can't afford to live where they are any more. When the left complains about every single change their criticisms suffer deflation and decline in value.
Voting against the £26,000 benefit cap was both inexplicable and idiotic.
I've only seen snippets of the other measures, but was pleased to see science/research untouched and unsurprised but still irked that Defence got cut again. Defence should've been ringfenced, not Health.
Surely tax cuts for working and lower middle class families are Osborne's ace in the hole. The voters may want to see a little of the colour of Osborne's money before and not after 2015 though.
Jam tomorrow and only tomorrow won;t be enough to swing it for the tories in 2015. They will have to give people something before then.
A government could can all benefits tomorrow - there is no recourse for you - no binding contract - only via the ballot box.
1.Would Labour match the £11.5 billion of savings in 2015-16?
2.Do you oppose any of the cuts announced today and if so how would you pay for reversing them?
3.Would Labour borrow more to spend more than the Government’s capital spending plans in 2015-16?
4.The Government has excluded the basic state pension from its welfare cap. Will you keep the basic state pension inside Labour’s welfare cap?
5.The SR announced 180 new free schools in 2015-16. Will you cut these?
6. Will you vote for the back to work welfare reform package, including the 7 day wait for benefits and the English language test?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/ed-balls-shouty-spending-review-response-avoids-difficult-dividing-lines/
Your claim is invalid as it makes no sense in English.
Please reapply.
"Together these reforms will deliver over £350 million in annual savings, including savings from claimants leaving welfare more quickly. All of these savings will be reinvested in more help for
claimants to get back into work and in the cost of enforcing the new conditions."
Yay. The government is taking money from JSA claimants and using it to employ DWP staff to check that they really have been out of work for a week before they claim JSA.
I haven't been this annoyed at a Chancellor of the Exchequer since... Brown put up tax on the poor to bribe Middle England.
Especially when Labour are intending to keep these cuts in the main, at least for a year.
The rhetoric the left uses in its critique of the government is absurd. Any idiot can see we're not living in a production of 'Oliver' in Britain.
Ed Balls will reverse all cuts and then invest in spending and pay for it by taxing bankers' bonuses.
Will you be just as annoyed when Ed Balls gets in and keeps Osborne's policies? LOL.
For a railway to Birmingham...one of which we already have.
Just insane, who on earth in their right mind thinks this is a good idea? Will it be £50bn in the end? £60bn?
FFS what a joke.
"Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on."
You do also understand that it does not take a week to claim JSA and that you can look for work and apply at the same time, don't you?
If Labour has bought into this, then shame on then quite frankly. Buying into the demonisation of those who have just lost their jobs just to avoid being on the wrong side of an imaginary dividing line is shabby as hell.