Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
One cannot simultaneously accuse the government of going too far and too fast while also accusing them of not reducing spending and the deficit fast enough. Ed Miliband ran into this problem.
The Labour plan in 2010 was a joke of phantom statistics, overly optimistic projections and completely ignoring that our largest trading partner was about to shoot itself in the foot (over and over again). I ran the numbers last year for the "Darling plan" with the scant figures they provided in the 2010 red book and plugged in the real data for growth (2010-2015), it would have left us with a deficit of ~£110bn in 2015, £30bn higher than under the current government and only £40bn less than the peak. While we will never know what the true figure would be under that plan, I can say with a very high level of confidence it would be significantly higher, in the tens of billions at least. Also, this idea that the government's plan dragged on growth in that period is rubbish given that during that period we had one of the highest cumulative levels of growth, the ONS are just overly pessimistic with their first estimates.
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
You can if the cuts didn't achieve their aim.
Shouldn't we also be asking how to increase revenues? The cuts are taking far too much of the burden.
A quick calculation implies that reducing child tax credits for child 3 in families, combined with complete abolition of awards for fourth and subsequent children would get Osborne home without making any changes to tapers and earnings thresholds whilst giving 100% protection of awards for the first two children on any tax credit claim.
Really?
Child benefit costs us approx 13bn a year. In the latest year we have statistics, 9.5% of children born (in 2013) were fourth or later.
So, across the entire cohort of kids (0-18), probably 6% are fourth or later. Of course, first child (of which there are the most) gets almost twice as much. So, if we assume 10% of kids are third, and cut their allowance by half, and eliminate it for the 6% or so that are fourth or later, then we reduce the total child benefit bill by approximately 1.75bn.
Which would be good, and is to be applauded.
But it barely touches our annual budget deficit.
What do you suggest, ignore every policy which barely touchesthe deficit? Clearly all areas need to be considered.
A quick calculation implies that reducing child tax credits for child 3 in families, combined with complete abolition of awards for fourth and subsequent children would get Osborne home without making any changes to tapers and earnings thresholds whilst giving 100% protection of awards for the first two children on any tax credit claim.
Really?
Child benefit costs us approx 13bn a year. In the latest year we have statistics, 9.5% of children born (in 2013) were fourth or later.
So, across the entire cohort of kids (0-18), probably 6% are fourth or later. Of course, first child (of which there are the most) gets almost twice as much. So, if we assume 10% of kids are third, and cut their allowance by half, and eliminate it for the 6% or so that are fourth or later, then we reduce the total child benefit bill by approximately 1.75bn.
Which would be good, and is to be applauded.
But it barely touches our annual budget deficit.
What do you suggest, ignore every policy which barely touchesthe deficit? Clearly all areas need to be considered.
No: I fully support the move, hence the comment "which would be good, and is to be applauded".
However, chestnut incorrectly claimed that the budget deficit could be brought back on track by this one measure, which is incorrect.
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
You can if the cuts didn't achieve their aim.
Since you ask, I'd freeze the State Pension for 5 years. And make pensioners pay NI, albeit at a higher starting threshold than £8k.
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
You are not comparing like with like and need to study the facts, not least relating to the structural deficit. Monthly borrowing figures are subject to peculiar fluctuations. The collapse in oil price and thus revenues will be one thing affecting revenues, ask the SNP.
I'm well aware of fluctuations in the monthly deficit. CEBR are forecasting the structural deficit to still be £20bn by the end of 2019/2020
A quick calculation implies that reducing child tax credits for child 3 in families, combined with complete abolition of awards for fourth and subsequent children would get Osborne home without making any changes to tapers and earnings thresholds whilst giving 100% protection of awards for the first two children on any tax credit claim.
Really?
Child benefit costs us approx 13bn a year. In the latest year we have statistics, 9.5% of children born (in 2013) were fourth or later.
So, across the entire cohort of kids (0-18), probably 6% are fourth or later. Of course, first child (of which there are the most) gets almost twice as much. So, if we assume 10% of kids are third, and cut their allowance by half, and eliminate it for the 6% or so that are fourth or later, then we reduce the total child benefit bill by approximately 1.75bn.
Which would be good, and is to be applauded.
But it barely touches our annual budget deficit.
Are you talking about child benefit or child tax credits? (confusing, I know)
A quick calculation implies that reducing child tax credits for child 3 in families, combined with complete abolition of awards for fourth and subsequent children would get Osborne home without making any changes to tapers and earnings thresholds whilst giving 100% protection of awards for the first two children on any tax credit claim.
Really?
Child benefit costs us approx 13bn a year. In the latest year we have statistics, 9.5% of children born (in 2013) were fourth or later.
So, across the entire cohort of kids (0-18), probably 6% are fourth or later. Of course, first child (of which there are the most) gets almost twice as much. So, if we assume 10% of kids are third, and cut their allowance by half, and eliminate it for the 6% or so that are fourth or later, then we reduce the total child benefit bill by approximately 1.75bn.
Which would be good, and is to be applauded.
But it barely touches our annual budget deficit.
What do you suggest, ignore every policy which barely touchesthe deficit? Clearly all areas need to be considered.
I agree. But many areas are not being considered, because they're ring-fenced or subject to ridiculous arbitrary targets.
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
You can if the cuts didn't achieve their aim. If I'd missed my primary target by 50% in my job, I'd have long since been shown the door.
...and a couple more! Pak need 97 from 83 with only 2 wickets left. Surely we've won this now, people in subcontinental dress are starting to leave the ground...
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
You can if the cuts didn't achieve their aim.
Shouldn't we also be asking how to increase revenues? The cuts are taking far too much of the burden.
The point about the structural deficit is that the economy cannot pay for the spending it is suffering. We have already seen vat increased significantly. We have already seen significant efforts to stop the severe tax avoidance scams.
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
You can if the cuts didn't achieve their aim.
Since you ask, I'd freeze the State Pension for 5 years. And make pensioners pay NI, albeit at a higher starting threshold than £8k.
A quick calculation implies that reducing child tax credits for child 3 in families, combined with complete abolition of awards for fourth and subsequent children would get Osborne home without making any changes to tapers and earnings thresholds whilst giving 100% protection of awards for the first two children on any tax credit claim.
Really?
Child benefit costs us approx 13bn a year. In the latest year we have statistics, 9.5% of children born (in 2013) were fourth or later.
So, across the entire cohort of kids (0-18), probably 6% are fourth or later. Of course, first child (of which there are the most) gets almost twice as much. So, if we assume 10% of kids are third, and cut their allowance by half, and eliminate it for the 6% or so that are fourth or later, then we reduce the total child benefit bill by approximately 1.75bn.
Which would be good, and is to be applauded.
But it barely touches our annual budget deficit.
Are you talking about child benefit or child tax credits? (confusing, I know)
A quick calculation implies that reducing child tax credits for child 3 in families, combined with complete abolition of awards for fourth and subsequent children would get Osborne home without making any changes to tapers and earnings thresholds whilst giving 100% protection of awards for the first two children on any tax credit claim.
Really?
Child benefit costs us approx 13bn a year. In the latest year we have statistics, 9.5% of children born (in 2013) were fourth or later.
So, across the entire cohort of kids (0-18), probably 6% are fourth or later. Of course, first child (of which there are the most) gets almost twice as much. So, if we assume 10% of kids are third, and cut their allowance by half, and eliminate it for the 6% or so that are fourth or later, then we reduce the total child benefit bill by approximately 1.75bn.
Which would be good, and is to be applauded.
But it barely touches our annual budget deficit.
Are you talking about child benefit or child tax credits? (confusing, I know)
Goodness me.
You're right. I fucked up.
Now I need to go run the data again :-)
How much is Child Tax Credit per year?
Total or per child. The latter is really difficult to say as it depends on random bunch of means tests.
A quick calculation implies that reducing child tax credits for child 3 in families, combined with complete abolition of awards for fourth and subsequent children would get Osborne home without making any changes to tapers and earnings thresholds whilst giving 100% protection of awards for the first two children on any tax credit claim.
Really?
Child benefit costs us approx 13bn a year. In the latest year we have statistics, 9.5% of children born (in 2013) were fourth or later.
So, across the entire cohort of kids (0-18), probably 6% are fourth or later. Of course, first child (of which there are the most) gets almost twice as much. So, if we assume 10% of kids are third, and cut their allowance by half, and eliminate it for the 6% or so that are fourth or later, then we reduce the total child benefit bill by approximately 1.75bn.
Which would be good, and is to be applauded.
But it barely touches our annual budget deficit.
Are you talking about child benefit or child tax credits? (confusing, I know)
Goodness me.
You're right. I fucked up.
Now I need to go run the data again :-)
How much is Child Tax Credit per year?
Total or per child. The latter is really difficult to say as it depends on random bunch of means tests.
I was wondering what the total spent by the government was: then we can at least do a rough estimate.
I have been backing May lately, currently green on her / GO / Sajid, red on everyone else
Yes, looks like the tax credits row has torpedoed Osborne's leadership chances. Boris is now back on top amongst Tory members as the preferred next leader in that poll and May has pushed the Chancellor into third. So it could now be Boris v Corbyn/Benn at the next election rather than Osborne v Corbyn/Benn
Re Oldham, if what we hear is correct the WWC are leaving labour for Ukip, leaving the ethnic vote to labour, I don't know to what extent this is true. If it is it leaves the labour party struggling with a message.
Whereas the message to Labour from the WWC is crystal clear, albeit in a northern accent.
The point is, imagine the Tunbridge Wells WI deserting the conservatives, no idea where labour go from here beyond Islington and inner cities full of immigrants.
I still think they'll win in Oldham, albeit narrowly, but the message they've had drilled into activists for decades is redundant.
Re Oldham, if what we hear is correct the WWC are leaving labour for Ukip, leaving the ethnic vote to labour, I don't know to what extent this is true. If it is it leaves the labour party struggling with a message.
Whereas the message to Labour from the WWC is crystal clear, albeit in a northern accent.
The point is, imagine the Tunbridge Wells WI deserting the conservatives, no idea where labour go from here beyond Islington and inner cities full of immigrants.
I still think they'll win in Oldham, albeit narrowly, but the message they've had drilled into activists for decades is redundant.
I said months ago that he was not honest. He claimed - as his justification for talking to Hamas et al - that he would talk to anyone. Not true. There is no record of him talking to, for instance, Israeli extremists. Quite the contrary. There is evidence of him campaigning to stop the then Israeli Foreign Minister from even entering the UK. He was not willing to talk to anyone then.
His answers to questions raised about his associations were evasive and incomplete.
And his general reaction (and that of his sidekicks) to any questions they don't like is not debate and engagement, as NickPalmer of this parish likes to claim, but outrage at the very idea that he should be questioned, as if he is the victim of some gross offence, as if the very idea of asking him to explain himself was illegitimate.
Even more dishonestly and repulsively (to my mind, anyway), he claims that he should not be tarred by association with the views of people he speaks to - like Hamas, Raed Al-Salah - but seeks to clothe himself in his mother's actions (fighting against Mosley when Corbyn was a child) when accused of associating with known anti-Semites.
So association is good when he can claim others' credit and bad when it does not reflect well on him.
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
You can if the cuts didn't achieve their aim.
Since you ask, I'd freeze the State Pension for 5 years. And make pensioners pay NI, albeit at a higher starting threshold than £8k.
A quick calculation implies that reducing child tax credits for child 3 in families, combined with complete abolition of awards for fourth and subsequent children would get Osborne home without making any changes to tapers and earnings thresholds whilst giving 100% protection of awards for the first two children on any tax credit claim.
Really?
Child benefit costs us approx 13bn a year. In the latest year we have statistics, 9.5% of children born (in 2013) were fourth or later.
So, across the entire cohort of kids (0-18), probably 6% are fourth or later. Of course, first child (of which there are the most) gets almost twice as much. So, if we assume 10% of kids are third, and cut their allowance by half, and eliminate it for the 6% or so that are fourth or later, then we reduce the total child benefit bill by approximately 1.75bn.
Which would be good, and is to be applauded.
But it barely touches our annual budget deficit.
Are you talking about child benefit or child tax credits? (confusing, I know)
Goodness me.
You're right. I fucked up.
Now I need to go run the data again :-)
How much is Child Tax Credit per year?
Total or per child. The latter is really difficult to say as it depends on random bunch of means tests.
I was wondering what the total spent by the government was: then we can at least do a rough estimate.
I can't find a breakdown, but the total CTC and WTC costs around £29bn per year. I think around two thirds would be child tax credits. They don't break it down further though.
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
Too difficult an argument for them to make, apparently - 'he's cut too much too fast' is easier to get out there than ' he hasn't cut too far or fast, but in the wrong places'. They only rarely seemed to try the latter, instead appearing to simultaneously condemn the mere level of cut, which they had supported previously, therefore making their supposed intention not to be profligate appear false.
As I understand it, the government figures work out to around £4bn saved from the tax credits cuts, and once fully worked into the system a further £4bn will be saved from CTC limitations, but it will take 15 years for that to be fully realised.
A very nice figure, but not earth shattering like getting rid of the triple lock and putting the state pensions in line with CPI or 0% in deflationary times.
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
You can if the cuts didn't achieve their aim.
Since you ask, I'd freeze the State Pension for 5 years. And make pensioners pay NI, albeit at a higher starting threshold than £8k.
Typical dogbreath comment.
Well that response has me floored.
Imbecile.
That's right pick on the oldest and weakest in society as they wait to die.
As I understand it, the government figures work out to around £4bn saved from the tax credits cuts, and once fully worked into the system a further £4bn will be saved from CTC limitations, but it will take 15 years for that to be fully realised.
A very nice figure, but not earth shattering like getting rid of the triple lock and putting the state pensions in line with CPI or 0% in deflationary times.
A quick calculation implies that reducing child tax credits for child 3 in families, combined with complete abolition of awards for fourth and subsequent children would get Osborne home without making any changes to tapers and earnings thresholds whilst giving 100% protection of awards for the first two children on any tax credit claim.
Really?
Child benefit costs us approx 13bn a year. In the latest year we have statistics, 9.5% of children born (in 2013) were fourth or later.
So, across the entire cohort of kids (0-18), probably 6% are fourth or later. Of course, first child (of which there are the most) gets almost twice as much. So, if we assume 10% of kids are third, and cut their allowance by half, and eliminate it for the 6% or so that are fourth or later, then we reduce the total child benefit bill by approximately 1.75bn.
Which would be good, and is to be applauded.
But it barely touches our annual budget deficit.
Apologies for being unclear - I was talking specifically about his £4bn tax credit dilemma.
83,600 families with 5 or more children 203,600 families with 4 children 611,400 families with 3 children.
Maximum award per child is close to £3000.
Advancing the bar for larger families would enable him to protect the 3.1m families with two or less children.
Most of the brunt of any change would fall on 287,000 large families.
Judging by the Comres polling, and general welfare polling, this would pass as acceptable to the majority of public opinion.
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
You can if the cuts didn't achieve their aim.
Since you ask, I'd freeze the State Pension for 5 years. And make pensioners pay NI, albeit at a higher starting threshold than £8k.
Typical dogbreath comment.
Well that response has me floored.
Imbecile.
That's right pick on the oldest and weakest in society as they wait to die.
Re Oldham, if what we hear is correct the WWC are leaving labour for Ukip, leaving the ethnic vote to labour, I don't know to what extent this is true. If it is it leaves the labour party struggling with a message.
Whereas the message to Labour from the WWC is crystal clear, albeit in a northern accent.
The point is, imagine the Tunbridge Wells WI deserting the conservatives, no idea where labour go from here beyond Islington and inner cities full of immigrants.
I still think they'll win in Oldham, albeit narrowly, but the message they've had drilled into activists for decades is redundant.
Re Oldham, if what we hear is correct the WWC are leaving labour for Ukip, leaving the ethnic vote to labour, I don't know to what extent this is true. If it is it leaves the labour party struggling with a message.
Whereas the message to Labour from the WWC is crystal clear, albeit in a northern accent.
The point is, imagine the Tunbridge Wells WI deserting the conservatives, no idea where labour go from here beyond Islington and inner cities full of immigrants.
I still think they'll win in Oldham, albeit narrowly, but the message they've had drilled into activists for decades is redundant.
I can't find a breakdown, but the total CTC and WTC costs around £29bn per year. I think around two thirds would be child tax credits. They don't break it down further though.
Having spent the last 20 minutes poring over that data, and what is available on the HMRC website... I've concluded that the government does not give us enough information to draw detailed conclusions...
If we assume that the total Child Tax Credit is 20bn (not unreasonable), then we'd expect a higher proportion to go to families with four or more children than for child benefit because:
- there is no "higher rate" for first child - families with only one child are more likely to have both parents in work
How much is the difference? 20%? 50%?. Realistically, we don't know without knowing the internals. However, taking 50% more (percentage-wise) than with child benefit (a realistic maximum), means going to 19% of spend from 13%. Which means that perhaps 3 to 4bn could come from reducing third child benefit and abolishing if for children four plus.
Which is a good number, albeit not enough to close the budget deficit on its own.
Perhaps it just suits the interests of those arguing for ever more state spending to ignore the fact that as a Nation the UK is skint and for Osborne's supporters to ignore the fact that as a chancellor he is doing such a dreadful job.
It was raised a bit earlier, to be sure. The public won't accept the sort of action apparently required it get it under control, and Osborne can have no excuse for such a pathetic job - having staked his reputation on eliminating borrowing (in 10 years rather than 5 even), even if someone believes meeting that target is not important, or that it cannot be done without too much pain right now, has to say, if those figures are as bad as they appear, that he has utterly failed. People let him off not meeting his target in 5 years, but if after 10 years of cutting he still hasn't? Even with a crap opposition I don't see how he personally could live that down.
I was at a presentation by CEBR last week. Their forecast is for the deficit still to be £20bn by 2020 and that the political obstacles are "too high" for it to be eliminated.
It amazed me at the last GE that Labour didn't make more of Osborne's failure to meet his 5 year target, escpailly as the 50% reduction he achieved was exactly what Labour proposed in 2010.
You can if the cuts didn't achieve their aim.
Since you ask, I'd freeze the State Pension for 5 years. And make pensioners pay NI, albeit at a higher starting threshold than £8k.
Typical dogbreath comment.
Well that response has me floored.
Imbecile.
That's right pick on the oldest and weakest in society as they wait to die.
Tough, the pain of the cuts needs to be shared. Thought you were against people whinging about unfair cuts?
As I understand it, the government figures work out to around £4bn saved from the tax credits cuts, and once fully worked into the system a further £4bn will be saved from CTC limitations, but it will take 15 years for that to be fully realised.
A very nice figure, but not earth shattering like getting rid of the triple lock and putting the state pensions in line with CPI or 0% in deflationary times.
Well if Osborne dropped it next week it would be a £2.3bn saving, after that in line with the BoE inflation expectations it would save £3.8bn the following year £5.3bn the year after and £5.9bn the year after that. The total saving this Parliament would be over £17bn.
I can't find a breakdown, but the total CTC and WTC costs around £29bn per year. I think around two thirds would be child tax credits. They don't break it down further though.
Having spent the last 20 minutes poring over that data, and what is available on the HMRC website... I've concluded that the government does not give us enough information to draw detailed conclusions...
If we assume that the total Child Tax Credit is 20bn (not unreasonable), then we'd expect a higher proportion to go to families with four or more children than for child benefit because:
- there is no "higher rate" for first child - families with only one child are more likely to have both parents in work
How much is the difference? 20%? 50%?. Realistically, we don't know without knowing the internals. However, taking 50% more (percentage-wise) than with child benefit (a realistic maximum), means going to 19% of spend from 13%. Which means that perhaps 3 to 4bn could come from reducing third child benefit and abolishing if for children four plus.
Which is a good number, albeit not enough to close the budget deficit on its own.
Yes, add in the working tax credit changes and you just about get to the government figure of £4bn up front and £4bn over time.
Wouldn't the fairest way of dealing with pensions be to jack up the age at which it starts. Make it 70 straight away and rising to 75 by 2025 or something.
Wouldn't the fairest way of dealing with pensions be to jack up the age at which it starts. Make it 70 straight away and rising to 75 by 2025 or something.
Yes, I think 10 years worth of retirement should be covered, so since UK life expectancy is 81, then we could make the state pension age rise to 71. That and removing the triple lock would greatly ease the spending burden and would make a serious dent in the deficit.
A second suicide bomber at the Stade de France has been "formally identified" as having registered his fingerprints in Greece on October 3, the Paris prosecutor has confirmed.
That means that two of the three who blew themselves outside the football stadium last Friday apparently masqueraded as refugees, Henry Samuel reports. A second, who was found with a Syrian passport by his side, also registered his fingerprints in Greece on October 3. They were controlled at the same time.
Wouldn't the fairest way of dealing with pensions be to jack up the age at which it starts. Make it 70 straight away and rising to 75 by 2025 or something.
Certainly not.
People have spent vast chunks of their working lives planning around a promise and expectation or getting a pension at a set age.
WRT All the comments on threads passim about NHS funding. What proportion of the figures banded around are being swallowed by all the PFI deals that have been signed? Genuine question as I don't follow the ins and outs of that particular debate.
Wouldn't the fairest way of dealing with pensions be to jack up the age at which it starts. Make it 70 straight away and rising to 75 by 2025 or something.
Yes, I think 10 years worth of retirement should be covered, so since UK life expectancy is 81, then we could make the state pension age rise to 71. That and removing the triple lock would greatly ease the spending burden and would make a serious dent in the deficit.
I wouldn't worry, the triple lock will be long gone by the time our generation hits retirement
Comments
The Labour plan in 2010 was a joke of phantom statistics, overly optimistic projections and completely ignoring that our largest trading partner was about to shoot itself in the foot (over and over again). I ran the numbers last year for the "Darling plan" with the scant figures they provided in the 2010 red book and plugged in the real data for growth (2010-2015), it would have left us with a deficit of ~£110bn in 2015, £30bn higher than under the current government and only £40bn less than the peak. While we will never know what the true figure would be under that plan, I can say with a very high level of confidence it would be significantly higher, in the tens of billions at least. Also, this idea that the government's plan dragged on growth in that period is rubbish given that during that period we had one of the highest cumulative levels of growth, the ONS are just overly pessimistic with their first estimates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAaC2lpGFKU
However, chestnut incorrectly claimed that the budget deficit could be brought back on track by this one measure, which is incorrect.
Both Hollys were rather different.
"Far from being authentic, Jeremy Corbyn is one of the most dishonest politicians you will see in your lifetime."
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-isnt-anti-war-hes-just-anti-west/
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/667754897199259648
I call that appeasement and traitorish behaviour - which is a million miles from an ethical Quaker approach to violence.
You're right. I fucked up.
Now I need to go run the data again :-)
How much is Child Tax Credit per year?
Is it allowed to be disappointed that I paid to see 100 overs and only got to see 90..?
God help the remnants of ISIS.
His answers to questions raised about his associations were evasive and incomplete.
And his general reaction (and that of his sidekicks) to any questions they don't like is not debate and engagement, as NickPalmer of this parish likes to claim, but outrage at the very idea that he should be questioned, as if he is the victim of some gross offence, as if the very idea of asking him to explain himself was illegitimate.
Even more dishonestly and repulsively (to my mind, anyway), he claims that he should not be tarred by association with the views of people he speaks to - like Hamas, Raed Al-Salah - but seeks to clothe himself in his mother's actions (fighting against Mosley when Corbyn was a child) when accused of associating with known anti-Semites.
So association is good when he can claim others' credit and bad when it does not reflect well on him.
He is simply unspeakable.
Imbecile.
http://www.gist.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/qds/2014-15/hmrc/spend-by-type-of-budget/expenditure-managed-by-the-organisation-ame/#area
A very nice figure, but not earth shattering like getting rid of the triple lock and putting the state pensions in line with CPI or 0% in deflationary times.
83,600 families with 5 or more children
203,600 families with 4 children
611,400 families with 3 children.
Maximum award per child is close to £3000.
Advancing the bar for larger families would enable him to protect the 3.1m families with two or less children.
Most of the brunt of any change would fall on 287,000 large families.
Judging by the Comres polling, and general welfare polling, this would pass as acceptable to the majority of public opinion.
Corbyn is indeed a bigot, but he is also extremely thick with it.
If we assume that the total Child Tax Credit is 20bn (not unreasonable), then we'd expect a higher proportion to go to families with four or more children than for child benefit because:
- there is no "higher rate" for first child
- families with only one child are more likely to have both parents in work
How much is the difference? 20%? 50%?. Realistically, we don't know without knowing the internals. However, taking 50% more (percentage-wise) than with child benefit (a realistic maximum), means going to 19% of spend from 13%. Which means that perhaps 3 to 4bn could come from reducing third child benefit and abolishing if for children four plus.
Which is a good number, albeit not enough to close the budget deficit on its own.
Make it 70 straight away and rising to 75 by 2025 or something.
That has filled me to the brim with girlish glee.
People have spent vast chunks of their working lives planning around a promise and expectation or getting a pension at a set age.
The current oldies are being given far too much.
Pension credit is as ludicrous as tax credits.
They are like a retail panzer division cutting a swath through unsuspecting French couturiers.
What proportion of the figures banded around are being swallowed by all the PFI deals that have been signed?
Genuine question as I don't follow the ins and outs of that particular debate.
They are like a retail panzer division cutting a swath through unsuspecting French couturiers.
Oh dear, sounds expensive – I shall recite a little prayer for you and your wallet before bed
All the grit, but none of the cheek.
"Oh dear, sounds expensive – I shall recite a little prayer for you and your wallet before bed"
...............................................................................
My wallet thanks you.
I had cause to be at King Edward VII Hospital today and while in the waiting room noticed for the first time a plaque which read:
"In this room Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II accepted the resignation of Harold MacMillan, OM, PC on 18th October 1963."