On topic, Osborne should hold firm. Now is no time to go wobbly, George, as someone else once said in a different context. Concessions now will just lead to demands for more concessions for every new group hit. The whole purpose of the cuts was to save money in order to cut a still-substantial structural deficit - people were always going to suffer reductions in income. The idea that the government should never reduce any benefits is corrosive and absurd. Having set on this course, it would be a major error to make anything other than the smallest shift.
On the other hand, re the referendum, ministers will be allowed to campaign against if Cameron has any sense. To demand they resign will very likely mean they will, which will have a much more detrimental effect on his authority and lastingly weaken the government.
Society wants people with kids to have more money than people without kids (as kids cost money).
But nobody has suggested employers should be told to pay people with kids more than people without kids.
So the only possible way of meeting the objective is to pay benefits.
It's that simple - it's then just a question of how generous you make the benefits.
Higher pay can only really tinker at the edges - the "bonus" deemed necessary for kids is so great that higher pay will never meet it.
Cobblers - people need to live within their means - not procreate first finance later.
Sure - I agree with you completely - you misunderstood my post!
My point is that you can't stop any people "losing" through higher pay - the maths don't add up.
Ultimately it's a philosophical choice.
In all OTHER aspects of life, if you want to do something expensive you need a higher salary. But a system has been set up where kids are the one exception - anyone can have them, however little they earn - and the taxpayer will fund the whole thing.
Are you seriously suggesting that £20/wk child benefit (£13/week for subsequent children) fully funds the cost of raising a child?
For most households, having a child means losing one of their and incomes and having an extra person to clothe and feed for at least a year. For those whose income is less than the cost of childcare, it could be 5 years spent in this situation. It's not unreasonable for the state to supply some support early on given that one day, the child will be an adult and will (hopefully) then contributing to the taxpayer through a lifetime of income tax revenues and other activities. Think of it as a long term investment, especially for a country with a population that is ageing at an alarming rate.
If you withdraw support from people having children, all you will be do is slash the birth rate, requiring yet more immigration to make up for the lost labour force and tax revenues to pay for all the oldies (who, incidentally don't seem to be subject to the same logic)
If you withdraw support from people having children, all you will be do is slash the birth rate,
I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but I doubt that there is evidence for this assertion. In Japan child benefits have been substanitally increased, with no effect on the birth rate as far as I know
Society wants people with kids to have more money than people without kids (as kids cost money).
But nobody has suggested employers should be told to pay people with kids more than people without kids.
So the only possible way of meeting the objective is to pay benefits.
It's that simple - it's then just a question of how generous you make the benefits.
Higher pay can only really tinker at the edges - the "bonus" deemed necessary for kids is so great that higher pay will never meet it.
Cobblers - people need to live within their means - not procreate first finance later.
Sure - I agree with you completely - you misunderstood my post!
My point is that you can't stop any people "losing" through higher pay - the maths don't add up.
Ultimately it's a philosophical choice.
In all OTHER aspects of life, if you want to do something expensive you need a higher salary. But a system has been set up where kids are the one exception - anyone can have them, however little they earn - and the taxpayer will fund the whole thing.
Are you seriously suggesting that £20/wk child benefit (£13/week for subsequent children) fully funds the cost of raising a child?
For most households, having a child means losing one of their and incomes and having an extra person to clothe and feed for at least a year. For those whose income is less than the cost of childcare, it could be 5 years spent in this situation. It's not unreasonable for the state to supply some support early on given that one day, the child will be an adult and will (hopefully) then contributing to the taxpayer through a lifetime of income tax revenues and other activities. Think of it as a long term investment, especially for a country with a population that is ageing at an alarming rate.
If you withdraw support from people having children, all you will be do is slash the birth rate, requiring yet more immigration to make up for the lost labour force and tax revenues to pay for all the oldies (who, incidentally don't seem to be subject to the same logic)
Do you have any evidence to show it would "slash" the birth rate? I doubt that many people decide on having a baby based on an extra grand in tax credits.
Why should children be assumed to be revenue positive, in the long run a person - any person must have the starting point of being revenue net neutral. Debtors and creditors of the world must be, in the round, a zero sum game.
Tax credits originally were a right wing idea, so there is intellectual cover for tweaking.
The concern ought to be that, as with the omnishambles budget, nobody on the Treasury team seems to have considered the impact rational-seeming measures might have on real people.
Society wants people with kids to have more money than people without kids (as kids cost money).
But nobody has suggested employers should be told to pay people with kids more than people without kids.
So the only possible way of meeting the objective is to pay benefits.
It's that simple - it's then just a question of how generous you make the benefits.
Higher pay can only really tinker at the edges - the "bonus" deemed necessary for kids is so great that higher pay will never meet it.
Cobblers - people need to live within their means - not procreate first finance later.
Sure - I agree with you completely - you misunderstood my post!
My point is that you can't stop any people "losing" through higher pay - the maths don't add up.
Ultimately it's a philosophical choice.
In all OTHER aspects of life, if you want to do something expensive you need a higher salary. But a system has been set up where kids are the one exception - anyone can have them, however little they earn - and the taxpayer will fund the whole thing.
Are you seriously suggesting that £20/wk child benefit (£13/week for subsequent children) fully funds the cost of raising a child?
For most households, having a child means losing one of their and incomes and having an extra person to clothe and feed for at least a year. For those whose income is less than the cost of childcare, it could be 5 years spent in this situation. It's not unreasonable for the state to supply some support early on given that one day, the child will be an adult and will (hopefully) then contributing to the taxpayer through a lifetime of income tax revenues and other activities. Think of it as a long term investment, especially for a country with a population that is ageing at an alarming rate.
If you withdraw support from people having children, all you will be do is slash the birth rate, requiring yet more immigration to make up for the lost labour force and tax revenues to pay for all the oldies (who, incidentally don't seem to be subject to the same logic)
Do you have any evidence to show it would "slash" the birth rate? I doubt that many people decide on having a baby based on an extra grand in tax credits.
This was raised recently and AFAIR there are no facts, only (predictable) opinions!
Society wants people with kids to have more money than people without kids (as kids cost money).
But nobody has suggested employers should be told to pay people with kids more than people without kids.
So the only possible way of meeting the objective is to pay benefits.
It's that simple - it's then just a question of how generous you make the benefits.
Higher pay can only really tinker at the edges - the "bonus" deemed necessary for kids is so great that higher pay will never meet it.
Cobblers - people need to live within their means - not procreate first finance later.
Sure - I agree with you completely - you misunderstood my post!
My point is that you can't stop any people "losing" through higher pay - the maths don't add up.
Ultimately it's a philosophical choice.
In all OTHER aspects of life, if you want to do something expensive you need a higher salary. But a system has been set up where kids are the one exception - anyone can have them, however little they earn - and the taxpayer will fund the whole thing.
Are you seriously suggesting that £20/wk child benefit (£13/week for subsequent children) fully funds the cost of raising a child?
For most households, having a child means losing one of their and incomes and having an extra person to clothe and feed for at least a year. For those whose income is less than the cost of childcare, it could be 5 years spent in this situation. It's not unreasonable for the state to supply some support early on given that one day, the child will be an adult and will (hopefully) then contributing to the taxpayer through a lifetime of income tax revenues and other activities. Think of it as a long term investment, especially for a country with a population that is ageing at an alarming rate.
If you withdraw support from people having children, all you will be do is slash the birth rate, requiring yet more immigration to make up for the lost labour force and tax revenues to pay for all the oldies (who, incidentally don't seem to be subject to the same logic)
Do you have any evidence to show it would "slash" the birth rate? I doubt that many people decide on having a baby based on an extra grand in tax credits.
This was raised recently and AFAIR there are no facts, only (predictable) opinions!
I'd give you a tenner if birth rates are halved in ten years after these changes!
Do you have any evidence to show it would "slash" the birth rate? I doubt that many people decide on having a baby based on an extra grand in tax credits.
There are constant complaints on here about those who have children without accounting for the cost (quite how people are expected to forecast their income for each of the 18 years following the birth hence is apparently left as an exercise for the reader.) Reduce child benefits and there must by definition be people for whom this tips them over the edge of unaffordability and they decide against it.
Making things worse in an area where our birth rate is sub-replacement does not seem like a good idea.
Tax credit changes should be tweaked perhaps but they should still happen. They are a punitive cap on aspiration causing a marginal tax rate that would be viewed as unthinkable on anyone else.
Smooth the transition so people don't lose out and the changes in tax credits coincide with the increase in living wage rates would be one solution.
A U-turn, in other words. It's going to happen, for sure.
Osborne does not fear Labour, of course, but he does fear not being the next PM.
A minor adjustment in course, not a U-turn.
The destination is the same, it's just takes a little longer than expected.
But I am sure that Osborne built slack into his original plan precisely because he knew that - whatever the details of the proposal - there would have been howls of anguish from political motivated people identifying edge cases.
So he tweaks, looks responsive, and gets 95% of his objective achieved. The left gloats for a day; the voters go about their business with nary a glance
This does smell a bit like a manufactured opposition by the media because Labour aren't up to it. Whether it'll be bedroom tax or pasty tax remains to be seen.
It's an interesting hubris test. The Tories think they have the next election in the bag. They see no reason to compromise, and they don't actually want to, since they decided the policy in the first place.
The problem is that unpopular moves cast a long shadow, into a time when they will be less popular.
Meanwhile, it does look as though the Liberals have the Canadian election in the bag - I thought earlier that the Tories were value at 6-1 for most seats, but with the polls showing the lead now up to 10 points, that looks out of reach. Whether an overall majority is feasible for the Liberals is more uncertain, but Harper looks on the way out.
Do you have any evidence to show it would "slash" the birth rate? I doubt that many people decide on having a baby based on an extra grand in tax credits.
There is plenty of evidence that increasing support has increased the fertility rate:
"We argue that the [increase in child benefits] are most likely to have a positive fertility effect for women in couples and show that this is the case. We find that there was an increase in births (by around 15 per cent) among the group affected by the reforms."
Of course, one can't simply use this is a basis to argue the exact opposite but it's a reasonable position.
It's an interesting hubris test. The Tories think they have the next election in the bag. They see no reason to compromise, and they don't actually want to, since they decided the policy in the first place.
The problem is that unpopular moves cast a long shadow, into a time when they will be less popular.
Meanwhile, it does look as though the Liberals have the Canadian election in the bag - I thought earlier that the Tories were value at 6-1 for most seats, but with the polls showing the lead now up to 10 points, that looks out of reach. Whether an overall majority is feasible for the Liberals is more uncertain, but Harper looks on the way out.
Lol - you need to listen to this guy - expert on hubris.
Reduce child benefits and there must by definition be people for whom this tips them over the edge of unaffordability and they decide against it.
Making things worse in an area where our birth rate is sub-replacement does not seem like a good idea.
but the question is how many people would be likely to make the decision in that way, and would there be other, better ways to encourage an increase in birth rate, if that is the objective?
Do you have any evidence to show it would "slash" the birth rate? I doubt that many people decide on having a baby based on an extra grand in tax credits.
There is plenty of evidence that increasing support has increased the fertility rate:
"We argue that the [increase in child benefits] are most likely to have a positive fertility effect for women in couples and show that this is the case. We find that there was an increase in births (by around 15 per cent) among the group affected by the reforms."
Of course, one can't simply use this is a basis to argue the exact opposite but it's a reasonable position.
Yes, but that doesn't suggest it would "slash" the birth rate.
I'm hearing a few more rumours down the grapevine that Cameron's going to sack eurosceptic ministers in the coming months so they will have less status when they campaign to leave the EU.
It will be utterly appalling if he does that. The EU is clearly a very heated and important issue within the Conservative Party, and the only way we can overcome it is to have a mature debate and if both sides are treated with respect. If the leadership engages in a dirty tricks campaign to kneecap people on the other side of the debate, then it will cause the eurosceptics to respond in kind (with legitimate reason) and we will descend into civil war.
It will be despicable if Cameron puts stacking the deck in favour of the EU ahead of the unity of the Conservative Party - especially when the Opposition has such dangerous views right now.
Given that Cameron rarely does reshuffles and, as with all PMs, they are determined at the last minute depending on circumstance these rumours are very unlikely to be true.
So you have to ask cui bono:
(1) Ministers who fear they are going to be sacked for an unconnected reason trying to make it appear that they are a martyr to the cause
(2) #10 who can then claim - when it doesn't happen - that they are even handed
(3) Some pointless SPAD who thinks he is being clever and has come up with the whizzo idea but hasn't yet been shot down
(4) A third party - say Kippers but could be anyone - with an interest in promoting turmoil in the Tory party
(5) The Remain campaign trying to destabilise the Leave ranks?
It's an interesting hubris test. The Tories think they have the next election in the bag. They see no reason to compromise, and they don't actually want to, since they decided the policy in the first place.
The problem is that unpopular moves cast a long shadow, into a time when they will be less popular.
Meanwhile, it does look as though the Liberals have the Canadian election in the bag - I thought earlier that the Tories were value at 6-1 for most seats, but with the polls showing the lead now up to 10 points, that looks out of reach. Whether an overall majority is feasible for the Liberals is more uncertain, but Harper looks on the way out.
Indeed final Forum poll has Liberals on 40% and final Nanos on 39% and the Tories on 30 to 31%. NDP collapsed to 19/20%. That looks more Blair 1997 than Tory minority now but the number of seats the Liberals need to take means Trudeau still only has an outside chance of an absolute majority although it is now on the cards
It's an interesting hubris test. The Tories think they have the next election in the bag. They see no reason to compromise, and they don't actually want to, since they decided the policy in the first place.
The problem is that unpopular moves cast a long shadow, into a time when they will be less popular.
Meanwhile, it does look as though the Liberals have the Canadian election in the bag - I thought earlier that the Tories were value at 6-1 for most seats, but with the polls showing the lead now up to 10 points, that looks out of reach. Whether an overall majority is feasible for the Liberals is more uncertain, but Harper looks on the way out.
Lol - you need to listen to this guy - expert on hubris.
I'm still holding a modest position on the Canadian Conseratives holding most seats.
I think it could be close, although the Liberals will almost certainly be ahead in votes.
I'm hearing a few more rumours down the grapevine that Cameron's going to sack eurosceptic ministers in the coming months so they will have less status when they campaign to leave the EU.
It will be utterly appalling if he does that. The EU is clearly a very heated and important issue within the Conservative Party, and the only way we can overcome it is to have a mature debate and if both sides are treated with respect. If the leadership engages in a dirty tricks campaign to kneecap people on the other side of the debate, then it will cause the eurosceptics to respond in kind (with legitimate reason) and we will descend into civil war.
It will be despicable if Cameron puts stacking the deck in favour of the EU ahead of the unity of the Conservative Party - especially when the Opposition has such dangerous views right now.
Given that Cameron rarely does reshuffles and, as with all PMs, they are determined at the last minute depending on circumstance these rumours are very unlikely to be true.
So you have to ask cui bono:
(1) Ministers who fear they are going to be sacked for an unconnected reason trying to make it appear that they are a martyr to the cause
(2) #10 who can then claim - when it doesn't happen - that they are even handed
(3) Some pointless SPAD who thinks he is being clever and has come up with the whizzo idea but hasn't yet been shot down
(4) A third party - say Kippers but could be anyone - with an interest in promoting turmoil in the Tory party
(5) The Remain campaign trying to destabilise the Leave ranks?
I don't expect it will happen but I can't see a Prime Minister insisting on his government ministers supporting government policy as being a particularly outrageous thing to do.
The government should make adjustments to tax credits. Some of the hard cases are too hard.
I expect that it will. George Osborne is unafraid of Labour but rather warier of the Sun.
I understand that because this measure is to be made by statutory instrument it can be defeated in the Lords. That would ratchet up the pressure still further.
Mr Smithson is desperate for a change in policy, you can tell that - he is quoting Tim Monrgomerie. I hope he is well pensioned, because his trusty followers want to see pensioners hit instead. People on fixed incomes who are helpless to really adjust their lifestyles, unable to change jobs or earn more. Who would have thought they could be so jealous of a sodding bus pass? People coming to the end of their lives and at their most vulnerable, coming under spitteratzi type hate from pbhysterics.
Mr. Antifrank, even Alexander couldn't persuade the Macedonians to conquer India.
There are limits to a general's authority when the troops are united in dislike of their orders.
Are the Conservatives united in their dislike of the EU? Or isn't it rather a case that many Tories regard getting out of the EU as more important than being in government? In which case, they should resign their office rather than try to have their cake and eat it.
Tax credit changes should be tweaked perhaps but they should still happen. They are a punitive cap on aspiration causing a marginal tax rate that would be viewed as unthinkable on anyone else.
Smooth the transition so people don't lose out and the changes in tax credits coincide with the increase in living wage rates would be one solution.
A U-turn, in other words. It's going to happen, for sure.
Osborne does not fear Labour, of course, but he does fear not being the next PM.
A minor adjustment in course, not a U-turn.
The destination is the same, it's just takes a little longer than expected.
But I am sure that Osborne built slack into his original plan precisely because he knew that - whatever the details of the proposal - there would have been howls of anguish from political motivated people identifying edge cases.
So he tweaks, looks responsive, and gets 95% of his objective achieved. The left gloats for a day; the voters go about their business with nary a glance
If only everyone could be like pure, selfless Tories and not be politically motivated :-D
From a position of wealth it is, of course, easy to mock "the howls of anguish" of hard-working people who will see their incomes cut as a result of the tax credit cuts and will suffer significant privations as a result. But it's not a great look.
If this is the Bedroom tax mark 2, then many people will suffer but it will not matter that much as their votes will not change anything. But if the IFS is correct, then it will be a lot more serious to GO's pure (and clearly non-political) desire to be PM.
Poll out today in the Netherlands, puts Gert Vilders on 37% with an 18 point lead. I find that worrying.
I want him to win, even though he is a demagogue.
Why?
The EU and the liberal left has to be scared, by electoral disaster, into seeing sense. There really IS a limit to the amount of Muslim immigration any western society can accept, a limit which, if exceeded, will change that society forever, and in horribly less-liberal directions.
Given the utter insanity of Frau Merkel's actions, this summer, it will obviously take the total electoral triumph of a hard right or far right party, in a core north European country like Holland, Denmark or Sweden, before this point is proved.
Trouble is, the left won't see it - they'll just turn up their vitriol against the hard right and see the immigrants as being fellow enemies of that hard right.
Europe is doomed. We have allowed a culture of wet-liberal-lefty nonsense take over completely and any challenge to that is met with a backlash, even if (and this is the thing that will shock future historians) it means the ultimate result is the end of the liberal democracy that allowed the wet-liberal-lefty nonsense to exist in the first place (either because the far right really do manage to take control OR because the population really is replaced by Muslims).
What we need is a centrist and pragmatic based consensus that these levels of immigration from countries that are so alien to ours needs to come to a stop and that current and future immigrants are properly integrated into our society or are deported.
Poll out today in the Netherlands, puts Gert Vilders on 37% with an 18 point lead. I find that worrying.
I want him to win, even though he is a demagogue.
Why?
The EU and the liberal left has to be scared, by electoral disaster, into seeing sense. There really IS a limit to the amount of Muslim immigration any western society can accept, a limit which, if exceeded, will change that society forever, and in horribly less-liberal directions.
Given the utter insanity of Frau Merkel's actions, this summer, it will obviously take the total electoral triumph of a hard right or far right party, in a core north European country like Holland, Denmark or Sweden, before this point is proved.
Trouble is, the left won't see it - they'll just turn up their vitriol against the hard right and see the immigrants as being fellow enemies of that hard right.
Europe is doomed. We have allowed a culture of wet-liberal-lefty nonsense take over completely and any challenge to that is met with a backlash, even if (and this is the thing that will shock future historians) it means the ultimate result is the end of the liberal democracy that allowed the wet-liberal-lefty nonsense to exist in the first place (either because the far right really do manage to take control OR because the population really is replaced by Muslims).
Maybe some future historians will examine the structural weakness of the centre right and its inability to mount any kind of challenge to the wet-liberal-lefty nonsense that allowed Europe to be led to its doom.
Mr. Antifrank, there are enough of them who want to leave for a critical mass.
If they hold firm and Cameron throws them out of the Cabinet, his majority may disintegrate. And it's not as if he can claim surprise at the feeling on the issue.
The alternative stance is an interesting one to consider. If Cameron went for Out [which I've never believed will happen, but if], and some Cabinet ministers wanted to campaign for In, would they be allowed?
Mr. Antifrank, there are enough of them who want to leave for a critical mass.
If they hold firm and Cameron throws them out of the Cabinet, his majority may disintegrate. And it's not as if he can claim surprise at the feeling on the issue.
The alternative stance is an interesting one to consider. If Cameron went for Out [which I've never believed will happen, but if], and some Cabinet ministers wanted to campaign for In, would they be allowed?
As I've said before, I don't expect collective Cabinet responsibility will be insisted upon. But I can't see it as an affront to democracy when it is. Functioning government depends on it, in the main.
It's an interesting hubris test. The Tories think they have the next election in the bag. They see no reason to compromise, and they don't actually want to, since they decided the policy in the first place.
The problem is that unpopular moves cast a long shadow, into a time when they will be less popular.
Meanwhile, it does look as though the Liberals have the Canadian election in the bag - I thought earlier that the Tories were value at 6-1 for most seats, but with the polls showing the lead now up to 10 points, that looks out of reach. Whether an overall majority is feasible for the Liberals is more uncertain, but Harper looks on the way out.
Lol - you need to listen to this guy - expert on hubris.
I'm still holding a modest position on the Canadian Conseratives holding most seats.
I think it could be close, although the Liberals will almost certainly be ahead in votes.
Which means Trudeau would be PM anyway backed by NDP
MikeK..and that is just one reason why they should be kept out of Europe..we have enough idiots to contend with among the other religious nutters already here
The budget sums are particularly hard this year. Those incompetent managers who run the health service are going to need another couple of billion to balance the books,
You mean the incompetent managers who were running a surplus before Lansey's reform completely annihilated the management structure of the NHS?
Comments
On the other hand, re the referendum, ministers will be allowed to campaign against if Cameron has any sense. To demand they resign will very likely mean they will, which will have a much more detrimental effect on his authority and lastingly weaken the government.
For most households, having a child means losing one of their and incomes and having an extra person to clothe and feed for at least a year. For those whose income is less than the cost of childcare, it could be 5 years spent in this situation. It's not unreasonable for the state to supply some support early on given that one day, the child will be an adult and will (hopefully) then contributing to the taxpayer through a lifetime of income tax revenues and other activities. Think of it as a long term investment, especially for a country with a population that is ageing at an alarming rate.
If you withdraw support from people having children, all you will be do is slash the birth rate, requiring yet more immigration to make up for the lost labour force and tax revenues to pay for all the oldies (who, incidentally don't seem to be subject to the same logic)
The concern ought to be that, as with the omnishambles budget, nobody on the Treasury team seems to have considered the impact rational-seeming measures might have on real people.
Making things worse in an area where our birth rate is sub-replacement does not seem like a good idea.
The destination is the same, it's just takes a little longer than expected.
But I am sure that Osborne built slack into his original plan precisely because he knew that - whatever the details of the proposal - there would have been howls of anguish from political motivated people identifying edge cases.
So he tweaks, looks responsive, and gets 95% of his objective achieved. The left gloats for a day; the voters go about their business with nary a glance
This does smell a bit like a manufactured opposition by the media because Labour aren't up to it. Whether it'll be bedroom tax or pasty tax remains to be seen.
The problem is that unpopular moves cast a long shadow, into a time when they will be less popular.
Meanwhile, it does look as though the Liberals have the Canadian election in the bag - I thought earlier that the Tories were value at 6-1 for most seats, but with the polls showing the lead now up to 10 points, that looks out of reach. Whether an overall majority is feasible for the Liberals is more uncertain, but Harper looks on the way out.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp0809.pdf
"We argue that the [increase in child benefits] are most likely to have a positive fertility effect for women in couples and show that this is the case. We find that there was an increase in births (by around 15 per cent) among the group affected by the reforms."
Of course, one can't simply use this is a basis to argue the exact opposite but it's a reasonable position.
With the same electoral effect.
So you have to ask cui bono:
(1) Ministers who fear they are going to be sacked for an unconnected reason trying to make it appear that they are a martyr to the cause
(2) #10 who can then claim - when it doesn't happen - that they are even handed
(3) Some pointless SPAD who thinks he is being clever and has come up with the whizzo idea but hasn't yet been shot down
(4) A third party - say Kippers but could be anyone - with an interest in promoting turmoil in the Tory party
(5) The Remain campaign trying to destabilise the Leave ranks?
I think it could be close, although the Liberals will almost certainly be ahead in votes.
There are limits to a general's authority when the troops are united in dislike of their orders.
I expect that it will. George Osborne is unafraid of Labour but rather warier of the Sun.
I understand that because this measure is to be made by statutory instrument it can be defeated in the Lords. That would ratchet up the pressure still further.
From a position of wealth it is, of course, easy to mock "the howls of anguish" of hard-working people who will see their incomes cut as a result of the tax credit cuts and will suffer significant privations as a result. But it's not a great look.
If this is the Bedroom tax mark 2, then many people will suffer but it will not matter that much as their votes will not change anything. But if the IFS is correct, then it will be a lot more serious to GO's pure (and clearly non-political) desire to be PM.
I guess we will find out soon enough.
Europe is doomed. We have allowed a culture of wet-liberal-lefty nonsense take over completely and any challenge to that is met with a backlash, even if (and this is the thing that will shock future historians) it means the ultimate result is the end of the liberal democracy that allowed the wet-liberal-lefty nonsense to exist in the first place (either because the far right really do manage to take control OR because the population really is replaced by Muslims).
What we need is a centrist and pragmatic based consensus that these levels of immigration from countries that are so alien to ours needs to come to a stop and that current and future immigrants are properly integrated into our society or are deported.
If they hold firm and Cameron throws them out of the Cabinet, his majority may disintegrate. And it's not as if he can claim surprise at the feeling on the issue.
The alternative stance is an interesting one to consider. If Cameron went for Out [which I've never believed will happen, but if], and some Cabinet ministers wanted to campaign for In, would they be allowed?