WTF are Frothers? Have you seen them around and wondered? Not a quiche, but a protest group. Tory, Labour, Lib Dems - Common Goal - Protest Against the Cuts

[MmeLindor.]

What are the Frothers?

The term "Frothers" came about one dank and dismal November day in 2011. A frustrated user of the parenting forum Mumsnet started a thread about her dismay at the cuts that the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government was inflicting on the British public.

She stated that she was not "quite a frothing berserker but I am getting rather cross with our government messing with the good stuff".

The good stuff - policies, benefits, institutions that had taken years to achieve were being cut for no good reason, often leaving gaping holes in the fabric of British society.

The NHS, with which we Brits have a love-hate relationship, but like a favourite sibling, we wish to protect from harm.

Sure Start, a successful scheme that supported parents who were struggling and offered children from deprived backgrounds a better start in life.

Universal Child Benefit was cut for those families who had one earner bringing in more than £44k a year. If both parents each earn less than £44k, they keep their UCB payments. This obviously hit single parents and families with a single earner hardest.

Disability Living Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance - which enabled those with disabilities to live a decent life, without feeling that they were begging for assistance or were a burden to the taxpayer.

Student Fees, the introduction of which, contrary to Lib Dem pre-election promises, means that a whole generation of young people will have to think carefully before applying to higher education.



These and many other cuts are being made in the name of austerity. We are "all in this together", but some of us are deeper in this than others.

We all understand that there are sacrifices to be made but why should these sacrifices be borne by those who already have so little?

The general public seems oblivious of the dangers being faced, they are unaware of the injustices being wrought on the already disadvantaged.

The government is winning the war of the headlines. They have blasted the recipients of DLA and ESA as scrounger and cheats so often that the general public believe it. They misinterpret data to "prove" their points. Teachers are painted as being irresponsible and greedy, while the bankers rake in the money.



The poster on Mumsnet was not alone for long. Within a few days, a group of over 30 posters had formed. They asked themselves, "What can we do?".

The idea of a blog was born. Three days later the blog had over thirty authors signed up, a Facebook page and a Twitter account.

The Aims:

• to open the general publics' eyes to the injustices being created by the governement
  

• to inform those who are facing cuts about their rights
  

• to link with other activists and charities, in order to put pressure on the government
  

Are you a Frother?


Come and join us.

BLOG

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

[TapselteerieO]

Hello Frothers, festive stuff has got in the way, but I should be glued to twitter tomorrow evening re-tweeting etc.

[meditrina]

I don't FB or twitter, but would DBS very grateful for links to an explanation on how the reversal of these cuts is to be afforded.

Is there a plan to cut someone else? If so what and by how much?

Or to increase governmental borrowing? (Which as that's already unimaginable enormous must be a high risk thing to do). And given that even the most optimistic estimates of improving tax collection and/or further "soak the rich" measures bring in a maximum (if achievable) of about £50bil in the first year, falling to about £25bil thereafter - that's less than one-third of this year's borrowing and miles far of what is needed.

Different cuts seems the more possible - so grateful for headlines and links.

[MmeLindor.]

Hello Tap. Glad to have you back

Med
Well, that is the difficult part, isn't it?

In my opinion, the cuts that are being made are stunting the economy as people are not buying or investing money, but saving for a rainy day.

Every government worker who is laid off will spend less, will cut down on going out, buying clothes, will cancel unnecessary expenditure, will stay home instead of going on holiday.

So the people who would normally be making money from that worker, will not be.

Not saying that there should not be cuts, but not so fast and so harsh.

And cutting benefits - or making it much more difficult for those who really need benefits is just daft.

If you cut DLA and respite to a family who are caring for a disabled child and they cannot cope with that child - they are forced to put the child into care. Costs MUCH more than the parents acting as carers, and both the child and the parents are emotionally damaged by it.

I object to the populist cuts targeting "benefit scroungers" - when it has been proven that there is very little real benefit cheating, at least when it comes to disabled benefits.

[Hassledge]

Did you lovely Frothers (I so need to get my act together re the blog) see your mention in the Weekend Guardian on Saturday?

[MmeLindor.]

We did, Hassledge. It was tres exciting.

Someone has to write the Third Day of Xmas.

[MmeLindor.]

12 Days of Christmas Blog Posts.

[kimbro]

What is the alternative though? The budget deficit cannot remain at its current level or we could find ourselves in real trouble with the bond market. I know you could raise taxes but I don't think people would stomach a further increase in VAT or a rise in the base rate of income tax, both of which and other tax rises also would probably be needed if the deficit is to be eradicated through taxation alone.

[niceguy2]

Not saying that there should not be cuts, but not so fast and so harsh.

So how much slower would you prefer to cut?

Bear in mind that Labour proposed halving the deficit in four years. Tories said all the deficit in five. However, given what's happened since the election, the Tories haven't been able to cut as much as they'd want (yes really) and the result is they've only really cut as much as Labour would have.

So given the chances of us killing our deficit in four years is going to prove pretty remote, just how much slower do you propose to go?

Oh and given you accept there should be cuts, where would you cut instead?

There's not much point in frothing unless you have a credible alternative. Otherwise you just look like a bunch of spoilt kids who've spat their dummies out of their pram because your mum has told you no more sweets.

[MmeLindor.]

The alternative is to actually look at the proposals and see whether they will truly help or if they just appeal to the population.

Benefit scrounger - well, no that will not actually save money, or only short term. And what about those who end up - literally - destitute. And homeless.

The welfare state is being abused to plug the gap between earnings and cost of living as I wrote on the blog

Housing - how about not selling off council houses - Right to Buy was a success for those who were able to buy cheap houses, but what about those who cannot and are stuck in really expensive private rentals with no security, cause the landlord can chuck them out any time.

Tax avoidance costs UK a LOT of money. Why are they allowed to get away with this?

Workfare - Tesco made an incredible 14 300 profit per employee last year but they are part of the Workfare scheme, in which unemployed people are forced to work, without pay or even travel reimbursement.

It is not the cuts, as such that is making us froth, but where these cuts are being made.

[MmeLindor.]

NiceGuy
Have you looked at the blog and seen what we are objecting to?

The cuts that we are objecting to are those that I listed above. The ones that will cost the country more in the long run, or that are being made at the expense of the most vulnerable.

While the bankers keep their bonuses (ok, contentious) and some companies in UK are paying less taxes than a middle manager does.

It is the unfairness of the cuts that angers me most.

And how do we know that the slow down in recovery is not due to the cuts? The slowdown coincided with the ConDem government coming into power.

Germany did not inflict such harsh cuts on their population and have recovered much faster.

[MmeLindor.]

Anyway, for about an hour now I have been talking about going to bed.

Goodnight.

[kimbro]

But if you want to protect welfare spending then the NHS is going to have to face fairly large cuts instead as due to the thier size both cannot be ringfenced. The truth is the public finances should never have been allowed to get into their current state and there isn't a painless way out.

[EdithWeston]

I can completely agree about the crap administration of some of the cuts, but am concerned about what would be put in their place.

I am very sceptical that there is a "pot of gold" from increasing efficiency of tax collection anywhere near sufficient to reverse the need for cuts. Which logically means that different cuts need to be found - so, if these are too unpalatable, what would be done instead to make sufficient inroads into Governmental overspending? Where are non-frothy cuts to be found?

[garlicnutcracker]

Just frothing in :)

MmeR, you are on fire.

[garlicnutcracker]

Does anybody know how to find a rough total of tax deferments in a recent year in the UK?

Tax deferments are a legal & ordinary way to get a permanent, interest-free loan from the public purse. You declare how much tax you owe, pay some and ask HMRC to give you a year to pay the rest. The following year you do the same.

Most companies use the deferment to mark down things like capital depreciation (which is, again quite legally, accounted in two different ways for public accounts and tax accounts.) By this means and others, the deferment can be 'used up' on paper - meaning you get to defer twice as much next time.

I can't write anything about it without having data but am clearly not searching on the right terms. It would obviously be preferable if an actual tax expert could write about this stuff (hint!!)

[EdithWeston]

Here is a very good thread on many things to do with tax. CinnabarRed is still around, and if you pm, is likely to come and answer any further enquiries (which gives a way to fulfil you hint!)

[MmeLindor.]

It is 6am and I can't sleep so am
Just noting down what is going through my head.

Several people have asked about alternatives to cuts. What we should be doing instead. This is something that labour have failed to do. Offer alternatives. Perhaps we should do a series of blog posts in which we highlight the worst cuts/changes and suggest alternatives.


Alternatives to cuts:

Blog posts on how to make the cuts and changes fairer -

Workfare - why are companies being paid? Why legal rights? I think many would support a workfare scheme that was not just a cheap labour opportunity for companies that are already making££££ working for charities, working for small incentive that at least covers travel costs etc. I have a friend who does something similar in Germany, will ask how they do it.

Universal Credit - touted as simplification but as Hunty showed, is anything but simple with all the disregards.


I think the basic problem is that the Tories are going for the quick fix.

Cutting services and benefits shows an immediate effect, they can say, 'we have saved £xxbillion'

What I have realised over the course of these threads and my research into the issues is that they are not really doing anything about the underlying issues. I refer to the welfare state post.

Benefits should be there for the most needy, not to bridge the gap between earnings and living costs.

The gap is caused by childcare and housing costs - neither of which can be solved in a year. And neither of which the government has offered a decent proposal to alleviate.

Housing costs - how can you offer cheap affordable housing in or near London?

What you can do though is strengthen the rights of tenants so that people don't live in fear of being evicted at short notice. Offer tax breaks for landlords who give their tenants long term leases. Come down hard on landlords whose properties are of an unacceptable standard.

Tax - can someone who is more knowledgable talk to me about this. What is the story with the highest tax bracket? I read somewhere that it was thatcher who increased the tax bracket. Is that true? Historical perspective needed. And are there studies into what would happen if tax rate lowered? Can we lower tax rate and in return tighten bank bonuses?

Why is banking reform taking so long when cuts are being implemented immediately?

We could do with an economist to throw ideas into the room on this. Anyone?

Other areas where money is being wasted?

I am going to do an Olympics post for 5 gold rings.

Can we try and work in some alternative suggestions into the 12 days posts?

[MmeLindor.]

Childcare costs - cheap but reliable childcare. I was going to write more in the German system. Will try to do that next week.

What of the lucrative childcare industry in uk? Someone must be benefitting from these costs?

[Hullygully]

Quick Froth check in and just seen many congrats in order to the Tewis!

[Bramshott]

I suppose in some ways a fairer solution would be to cut the same percentage across the board - NHS / schools / pensions / welfare etc. The fact is that someone, somewhere has decided that eg. pensions are not to be cut, but benefits to lone parents / disabled children are fair game.

[niceguy2]

Brams, logically you are right and much simpler to introduce. However politically it's impossible and it would have differing impacts in various areas.

Mme, I've had a quick look at your website and I love the analogy which yummymummyreally has written on the homepage. It really puts things in perspective.

But I haven't yet found anywhere which offers an alternative strategy, just lots of things which you think it's unfair to cut. Fair enough but since you say you accept the need for cuts, what do you propose instead? For example, I hate the idea of cutting Surestart too but then do you want to trim a few million off the NHS/education/welfare budget instead to pay for them? What's the alternative?

There are also some areas which I think you need to be clearer on. For example:

On the first page you state that "On that basis, the UK owes £909billion pounds" (btw, i think this is pretty conservative). Yet on the numbers blog you say "The Bank of England put the bailout bill at £1trillion in 2009. There have been further bailouts since then. It's even more now.........£1trn. is £19,608 per UK adult (at 51m. in 2011). That's how much you gave."

How can that be? Well the difference is that the "bailout", most of that 'money' counted is liabilities. We've not really spent it, just promised we would IF something happened. In the same way that Directline insure hundreds of thousands of cars and theoretically are on the hook for hundreds of millions. In practice we never expect it to happen that every car will have a simultaneous accident.

Oh and also wouldn't it be better to divide the debt between working adults instead of per UK adult since pensioners, children and the vulnerable won't be paying this debt off.

Overall I like your site. It's very clear on what you see as unfair and at least it's not just another tiresome banker bashing/let the rich pay site.

But like I say, saying cuts are unfair is one thing. Finding what is a 'fair' cut is the hard part.

[HarrietJoHoHoHones]

I object to cutting sure start/social services then inventing new 'jobs' which do the same( those people which will work with disaffected families announced couple of weeks ago).

The idea of universal credit( one benefit to administer rather than loads, better off earning than claiming) is a good idea but the govt is using it as a way of cutting benefits to those groups who cant work.


These sort of things are my problem with the Govt , seems to be a lack of thought put into them. Like when they do speeches & talk about DLA when they mean ESA!

Re VAT didn't spending go up when Labour reduced it?

[garlicnutcracker]

Niceguy, You're referring to my 'Numbers' post and the 1st Day of Christmas post as if they were written by the same author. Not so. I deliberately used generous divisors and underestimated costs, so as not to seem alarmist (£19k is alarming enough!), to demonstrate the cost of the bailout.

Yummymummy & MmeLindor have looked at the current deficit (not just the bailout) and used current data, though still very conservatively.

wouldn't it be better to divide the debt between working adults instead of per UK adult since pensioners, children and the vulnerable won't be paying this debt off.

No. The source of Frother outrage is that children, the vulnerable and the elderly are the FIRST target for cuts.

[CinnabarRed]

Um. I'm a tax policy adviser by profession. I'd be honoured to blog on any and all tax matters, if you'd like me to. You'd have to tell me how to actually post a blog ...

I can start with the Time To Pay scheme if that's a topic of interest.

Or would you prefer for me to post here instead?

[MmeLindor.]

Eek. Just checked the blog and my 2nd day of Xmas post hasn't gone up. Can someone check it and post it. On my way home but Internet intermittent as in and out of France