Can Oily Dave say "No?"(83 Posts)
Will the PM guarantee that people will not be worse off as a result of the Tax Credit Cuts?
Apparently he cannot bring himself to tell the truth.
RE PMQT today; is Corbyn a bit slow on the uptake, or due to sitting on the back benches, hasn't a clue how national budgets work?
Despite going through the Commons at least three times, with a higher majority each time, the Tax Credit legislation designed to bring in around £4.5 bil of the £12 bil of cuts they promises in the General Election - but as of a day ago, that legislation has not passed the Lords, so CLEARLY there may need to be BIG changes to the Autumn Statement he'd planed AND the more comprehensive 3-year forward government Public Spending Round (review) soon after, in end November 2015.
So for Corbyn to ask the SAME question SIX TIMES, requesting Cameron to GUARANTEE people won't be worse off under Tax Credits, was just plain dumb.
I realise Labour cannot build up an economy, so it can only focus on Benefits/Welfare/Tax Credits - but what a ridiculous waste of questions when it will be impossible to give an answer to give such an assurance - when the government could not reviewed every department for what else could be cut instead.
EVEN IF Osborne/Cameron had PROTECTED Tax Credits and made a huge change to all their tax/spend policies for the next 1-3 years over the past 24-hours; how disingenuous would it have been to have said they were financially safe, but the alternative cuts in spending/revised give aways e.g. not raising the start rate of income tax further, STILL made them worse off?
Alternatively, if the Conservatives KEPT the Tax Credit cuts but gave back money to those currently affected elsewhere, the recipients would not be worse off.
Conclusion; There could never have been an answer today, so either Corbyn didn't know that, or was trying to be 'smart' during the only time he gets the Prime Ministers attention on EVERY UK issue, and looked a plonker.
Bollocks isitmebut. Corbyn was asking a straight forward, highly relevant & topical question in light of recent events in the HoL. He's not being 'dim' or doesn't understand blah blah. It speaks volumes that DC couldn't give a straight answer. Given Gideon claimed he was 'listening' when the government's case was being put to the HoL in an effort to get the bill passed - while saying nowt about what he actually meant or what he intended to do about the concerns raised by so many about the impacts these cuts would have - Corbyn was right to ask the question. Having to ask the question 6 times & still not get a straight answer doesn't make Corbyn look 'dim' or hard of thinking - it makes DC & this government look like the liars they are. Gove said no TC cuts. DC said 'no, I don't want to cut TCs' & Gideon says TC cuts were 'signalled' before the election yet not one of them could answer the question accurately before the election.
Now if you can link to a quote from Gideon being clear & unambiguous about the 'signalling' of TC cuts to 'hard working families' pre-election, I may read your response. If it's the same waffle like callmedave pulled yesterday that just doesn't answer, I'll just not waste my time.
The legislation after all has passed the elected, repeat elected House around 4-times, so with approx £4.5 bil of savings (to our current approx £70 bil annual government deficit/overspend) and the ink drying on the 3-year Public Spending Round (see my link above) – whether daft or a staunch critic, few could assume Osborne/Cameron HAD a total government spending ‘Plan B’ in his back pocket a day after the unelected Lords kicked out all £4.5 bil of savings, never mind rearranged the his 3-year government spending figures.
Corbyn and the majority of his shadow cabinet dream team were mostly within the last Labour administration that had their last 3-year total Public Spending Round (review) in 2007, that was due to be reviewed again at the beginning of the last year (in 2009 several months before the General Election) – but despite a trending up budget deficit THEY forecast to be £167 bil in 2010/11 – the Labour government REFUSED to even try and balance the UK’s books and their over spending mess.
Whether through incompetence, deficit denying, or electoral seats cowardice, if Labour would have had that Spending Review of EVERY government department by the 2010 General Election they would have set out their detailed spending, cuts, and new taxes stool as a basis for their manifesto – and every other political party would have had to detail all their policies.
Instead Labour only said in 2010 they would Spend MORE, Tax MORE, Cut LESS than the other parties yet still halve the annual deficit/overspend as Osborne did, 2-years after real (inflation adjusted) earning for the earning masses, not just 3 million, were falling – so living standards for ALL would have kept falling.
In 2015 the Conservatives may not have detailed their £12 billion in Welfare spending cuts to reduce the budget deficit, but Labour never gave any details of cuts to the £153 billion they’d racked up by 2010; or in 2015, and how THEY were going to stop real earnings falling for all (a 5-year coalition criticism), lower fixed energy bills with declining power supplies, build homes after an abysmal record, or anything else really.
That is why Labour/Corbyn who would rather be professional opposition in opposing everything, as they did for the whole of the last parliament - than come up with any detailed plans SINCE their last Spending Review in 2007 to fix the unsustainable spending mess they created - MAY erroneously expect Osborne to have new plans on the back of a fag packet, as that was HOW LABOUR RUN our national finances for 13-years.
P.S. This is Labour's record on trying to help the 'working poor' Corbyn and crew were part of, National Insurance hikes for workers and employers.
One ideology decided an NI (effectively a 'jobs tax') was the way forward to boost the earnings and job prospects of the 'working poor', the other reversed most of that and started CUTTING taxes to citizens/employers to try to help compensate for the fall in real earnings from 2008 and give businesses shell shocked after the worse recession in 80-years, the confidence to hire again.
March 2010; “Labour’s plans to increase national insurance next year will cost jobs, Alistair Darling has said.”
“In his evidence, Mr Darling defended his plans to increase national insurance, saying it was necessary to raise extra money to reduce Government borrowing, which will be £167 billion this year.”
Corbyn's stunt yesterday may have impressed the faithful, but it was just that, as a responsible government needing to find £4.5 bil (or not), will take more than 24 hours.
"Every penny we don't save on welfare, is savings we have to find in the education budget! Or in the policing budget!..."
Lies and threats. Tory mechanics in overdrive. Er, how about finding savings by NOT cutting taxes for mega corporations and wealthy property owners ??? Like somehow raising the tax threshold for low earners by a tiny insignificant amount, makes up for deliberately plunging millions of families into poverty.
Corbyn is very good at calling out the PM on his lies, threats and right-wing fantasy. Corby says what everyone else is thinking (everyone apart from the jeering groaning multimillionaires you can hear in the background).
No quote from Gideon then?
Not worth my time to read any of that BS.
I think isitme is telling us that the true answer to the question is "No" but she can't explain why oily pig-boy can't bring himself to say it.
At some point, Isitme's stock response to any discussion of current policy questions (BUT LOOK LABOUR IN 2010) is going to wear so very thin that even s/he will realise it's not a real argument, it's a diversionary tactic that avoids discussion of issues rather than tedious tribalism.
Or maybe not.
Piglet-by-name, I have no idea what the answer will be, MY POINT was that Osborne has probably inked his whole UK government spending plan for 3-years - and believe it or not, the UK economy is a lot larger than the inefficient Tax Credit policy that if needed a 2000s financial bubble and £30-£40 billion of annual government borrowing to fund it - it was never sustainable, then, or after the bust with a £153 bil government overspend.
What is the Total UK Public Spending?
In the fiscal year ending in 2015, total UK public spending, including central government and local authorities, was £748 billion. In the fiscal year ending in 2016, total UK public spending is expected to be £760 billion.
Some ideologies concentrate on how to spend money, others how we PAY for all that government spending, and only one is SUSTAINABLE.
Clue; political leaders get State Funerals for digging the country out of the shite, not putting us in it.
Jassy I just scroll past it, I doubt anyone reads any of it.
"MY POINT was"
...nothing to do with the question, right?
Every time I click on a political thread, isitmebut has posted a load of incomprehensible gobbledegook cluttered with underlining (which only serves to make whatever has been written even more incomprehensible)
how about finding savings by NOT cutting taxes for mega corporations
You are aware, of course, that the current government has NOT cut taxes for mega corporations and, although it is still not collecting enough, is collecting a lot more than previous governments. Indeed, earlier this year it introduced a Diverted Profits Tax as part of a package of measures designed to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share. I am sure they could do more but they are at least attempting to tackle the problem, something previous governments of all political colours have avoided.
You may believe it is ok to run a permanent deficit, thereby entrenching a position whereby the government pays more in interest than it spends on schools. That is a perfectly respectable position to take but not one that I can agree with.
Alternatively you may believe that it is possible to raise more in taxes without damaging the economy, thereby allowing more spending. Again that is a perfectly respectable position although, in my view, the evidence is against you.
Unless you adopt one of these positions we have to find savings from somewhere in order to reduce the deficit. Again, it is perfectly legitimate to say that savings should not come from the welfare budget but you then have to make those savings somewhere else.
Corbyn says what everyone else is thinking
The right wing of the Conservative party also believe that they say what everyone else is thinking and that the party would win the next election in a landslide if only it moved to the right. They are just as wrong as Corbyn's supporters.
Cant be arsed to read anymore as these threads always get hi- jacked by bolding and underlines.
The Conservatives said in 2015 £12 bil would be cut from the welfare bill that grew faster than virtually every other country in the 2000s, whereas the Labour Party has NEVER shown how they'd cut welfare from a £153 bil government overspend, but talked about it a lot.
March 2010; ”Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”
October 2013; “Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, promises new welfare chief”
“Rachel Reeves vows to cut welfare bill and force long-term jobless to take up work offers or lose state support”
August 2013; “Labour to substantially cut benefits bill if it wins power in 2015”
”Labour will cut the benefits bill "quite substantially" and more effectively than the Tories if it wins power in 2015, the shadow work and pensions secretary said on Tuesday”
I don't even read any of isits same old spiel now. I think it's just copied and pasted as it's always the same. FYI Andrew Neil on the politics show who is obviously a tory just put right a guest on labour being the cause for the crash. It's so boring having to debate anything ioth someone who refuses to accept facts.
I'm not really sure why you feel the need to take over every single discussion banging on with daily mail headlines. Labour didn't ruin the economy the American mortgage lenders fucked up the world's economy and we did pretty ok in it compared to most.
sugar don't stop reading these threads because of one poster, just scroll past, that's probably their aim.
I'm sure isitmebut doesn't read the Daily Mail, since the boss is a notorious billionaire tax-dodger, who despite being born, educated and living in the UK, having a business which makes its money here, and having a UK mansion, is not a UK taxpayer.
Isitme, have you ever thought about becoming a politician? I think you'd be great at it, your skill at saying lots and lots of things without actually answering questions is something Dave and Gideon would be proud of. It's a real skill to be able to turn a question round into discussing your own ideology whilst totally ignoring the point.
Anyway, Dave has already proved himself to be a liar WRT tax credits. His backtracking doesn't make anyone believe that he was telling the truth. In fact, his backtracking makes him sound a bit like my 5 year old when I tell her not to do something and she tries and finds loopholes to carry on - "I'm not jumping on the sofa mummy, I'm falling on to it." Dave is just saying 'well actually, that's not what I said, I said this and it's your fault if you thought I meant something else.'
You'd also think that after 5 years of 'paying down the debt', that the economy wouldn't be so unstable that not cutting tax credits causes us to be on the brink of bankruptcy. Considering that many people who lose tax credits will then become eligible for housing benefit instead, how much will these cuts actually save?
Socialists want to post misinformation, and when someone shows with qualified links it bollocks, they boo hoo someone is taking time on detail to answer it, daring to use the Muimsnet 'Emphasis' tools.
I could PROVE this government has done more to tax the rich/close down global loop holes/bring in avoided taxes, than Labour, with their 10% Capital Gains Tax for rich donors they were after/getting, but THEN I'm going off subject, when only socialists can, eh?
I get it, based on their record, all you and the likes of squidzin have is one liner misinformation, and then complain after when shown to be rollocks.
But as I elaborated, its rich coming from Labour to accuse the Conservatives about being disingenuous on £12 bil of welfare cuts, when from 2007, at best they put their thumbs-up-bums and hoped EVERYTHING they built up in a boom, would sort itself out in a bust.
"You'd also think that after 5 years of 'paying down the debt', that the economy wouldn't be so unstable that not cutting tax credits causes us to be on the brink of bankruptcy."
Anyone wonder why the had a annual government budget deficit/overspend more than TWICE that of socialist France when a recession started?
Well part of it was the UK government was paying us, and all the new EU and Non EU citizens, a tax subsidy to work.
Yet when you go into a recession, the economic Automatic Stabalizers kick in (as explained below).
• High Growth – In a period of high economic growth, automatic stabilizers will help to reduce the growth rate. With higher growth, the government will receive more tax revenues – people earn more and so pay more income tax (note the tax rate doesn’t change, the amount received just becomes higher). With higher growth, there will also be a fall in unemployment so the government will spend less on unemployment benefits.
• Recession. In a recession, economic growth becomes negative. However, automatic stabilisers will help to limit the fall in growth. With lower incomes people pay less tax, and government spending on unemployment benefits will increase. This increase in benefit spending and lower tax helps to limit the fall in aggregate demand.
Is it any wonder we have over £1,600,000,000,000 (£1.6 tril) of national debt, when it the GOOD times the government is paying out money to subsidize employment, and in the BAD times they are STILL doing that, AND paying out more in unemployment benefits, as tax receipts plummet.
And what happens if the world slips into a another recession, as it might; just HOW HIGH would our national debt go then?
Not just me that scrolls past isitmebut then
The deficit they are talking about closing is on the current account. IF DC is being honest in his claim that growth in the economy plus other tax and benefit changes and increases in the minimum wage will have wiped out the short term losses to families by 2020 he can completely reverse the changes for the next 3 years and end up in the same place. DC IS NOT BEING HONEST, (but this will be concealed as current projections show with no cuts the current account deficit will clear).
On the assumption he still needs cuts to fund pre 2020 election tax cuts:
* what about not raising inheritance tax thresholds in the cumbersome manner proposed.
* What about accelerating phased changes to BTL taxation.
* What about delaying introduction of new 30 hours CC until it is properly costed and the impact on the care sector assessed (HoL already done him the favour of also delaying this).
Competence is not the word springing to mind!!!!
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.