Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas

999 replies

avivabeaver · 08/10/2012 11:04

The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought

Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?

OP posts:
Dawndonna · 09/10/2012 09:55

People earning £14000 p.a. have it topped up if they have families, by benefits!
As pointed out on the first or second page of this thread, a UEA study states that the poor and needy are receiving more than their fair share of the cuts.

Viviennemary · 09/10/2012 10:02

What about people earning £14,000 who don't have families. How on earth can they ever afford to buy a house or even afford rent. They can't. Nobody ever feels sorry for them.

NicholasTeakozy · 09/10/2012 10:30

Thanks for this Glitterknickaz:-

They are ideological cuts too because in the long run they will actually cost more in terms of appeals and people being forced into residential rather than the current bargain basement system of being cared for at home but it's happening

These cuts will end up costing more in the long run, but that's ok as the many more care homes we will inevitably need will be run for profit, and profitting from the misery of others is perfectly acceptable to the ConDem cunts.

morethanpotatoprints · 09/10/2012 11:08

What an awful time, reminds me of the Thatcher years. God help us all. Sad

Hammy02 · 09/10/2012 11:13

I earn around £14,000 and have no sympathy for someone that doesn't work thinking they are entitled to get given the equivalent of £35,000 gross while I pay tax!. It is such a fucked up system and needs overhauling. Apart from disabled people being so badly affected, none of the cuts are going far enough IMO.

Abitwobblynow · 09/10/2012 11:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Abitwobblynow · 09/10/2012 11:21

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsSalvoMontalbano · 09/10/2012 11:34

ABWN Well put. Sadly you will be ignored by theose who continue to delude themselves that they can remain iforever in the infantile state that Gordon Brown borrowed them into, in order to garner votes from the gullible Sad

Dawndonna · 09/10/2012 11:41

Actually, according to the rest of the world, including the IMF, George has royally fucked us.
As for you Hammy you really do need to get your figures right. A single person will not be getting the equivalent of £35 grand.
Some people on £14000 will be entitled to benefits.

Abitwobblynow · 09/10/2012 11:42

Sorry everyone I posted twice, and the bit in bold was meant to be:

*This is what happens when you live way above your means for too long and a day of reckoning comes.

The adjustment can be immensely painful.*

You HAVE to get your heads round this. This is literally 2 + 2 = 4. I know McMoron did persaude you all that 3 - 5 = 2, but it isn't and it never ever will be. Sniping and hating the middle classes won't work any more, and they are tired of paying. They have had enough. Guilt trips just won't work any more. (Notice Boris Johnson's cunning positioning?)

Peachy · 09/10/2012 11:45

No I will not.

Why would I accept people's threatening the security of my disabled son's future for ANY reason? There is IMO nothing more sacred to em than his wellbeing, no economy or way of life- nothing.

Frankly if it took a massive collapse whilst I am here to care for him to ensure his wellbeing in the longer run when I am not- so be it. But I don;t beelive it will come to that.

Why?

Because according to Gideon this is a country that can afford to pay heating supplements to people who lie in Spain; bus passes for people who have more than adequate means to purchase one themselves.

it is this that leads me to believe that the direction of the cuts is ideological. A sane person, IMO, would have cut those first, long before risking harming children or the most vulnerable.

And as I, Glitter and no doubt others have attempted to explain this will NOT save. It will force people into using state care (children's homes, residential); B&B provision which costs more than LHA rent; hospitalisation for the many health issues related to poverty; failed educations for the many reasons related to poverty; crime- who wouldn't steal a meal if their child was starving?

Hammy says about low paid workers- well this WILL hit low paid workers; there is no provision under Universal Credit for them to separated from the jobless. You'd need ++++ savings to be truly secure on that, doesn't take much to lose a job / divorce / be bereaved / become ill / partner become ill..... indeed the universal credit rules will make childcare interesting as many places hire part time workers who will be obliged to find FT work: I know of at least one breakfast club owner praying something changes or she will have to close - and there is no alternative provision locally for working parents.

And yeah, the stats that knotty gives: plus the Shelter one about 80% of people claiming Hb are NOT unemployed.

Labour haven't said they won't reverse these policies, just that they won't promise not to so that they can review what is happening in 2015. That is different. Not sure I am happy with it, but still different. Also there are a LOT of members kicking off about these lacks of promises- have a look on a few Labour fb pages or whatever, red labour is a useful one for gauging mood- Ed may well be forced into a corner of some kind.

SadPanda · 09/10/2012 11:45

Sniping and hating the middle classes won't work any more, and they are tired of paying. They have had enough.

Speak for yourself. I'm quite happy for my taxes to go to families who will still be in a worse position than me.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 09/10/2012 11:46

People won't get their heads round it though. They aren't open minded enough to see past their own lives.

On the thing about disability benefits, it annoys me that people feel the need to consistently bring them into it. No one is denying that disabled people are being affected. No one thinks ATOS is doing a good job. But being opposed to those things doesn't automatically have to make you opposed to all benefit cuts.

Viviennemary · 09/10/2012 11:46

And what annoys me is not a single mention of raising the pension age. Well people not working don't have to worry about that. I am not talking about people who genuinely can't get a job or who are carers. People having to work till they are 70 to subsidise people choosing to have large families. People are fed up and that's why this Government got in.

Abitwobblynow · 09/10/2012 11:47

Dawndonna, the IMF is headed by Chritine Laguarde (sp)

A French socialist. After I got harangued by one of them that an MEP's job was to 'explain' the 'Project' to 'the people' as opposed to representing the people in the European Parliament, I take not much notice of them.

How, is GO fucking us? He is trying to run a fine line of bringing down debt whilst NOT tanking the economy, and he doesn't have the leeway that the Scandinavian countries had (credit boom, oil) to do so.

Dawndonna · 09/10/2012 11:47

Sorry wobbly, it isn't. One, read the post early on. The UEA study (bored with mentioning it now) that actually states that it is a fact that the poor and needy are bearing the greatest brunt of the cuts.
Two. The IMF has noted today, that George has it wrong, it's not working and there needs to be a plan b.
Three. Countries where the cuts have been slower and less painful, are starting to come out of recession whilst we are sinking deeper into recession. The IMF today have put us from George's estimation of +02% to -04%.
That is not 2+2 = 4.

monkeysbignuts · 09/10/2012 11:47

I am really really glad that someone has finally pointed out "its a global recession" & Labour cannot be 100% to blame for it.

yes we need to all pay back into the system to resolve things but does it all have to come out of mothers and family's pockets? What about the bankers who are still making billions of pounds in profit? Why hasn't something been done about that and they are the ones who caused the worlds economy to topple in the first place

Peachy · 09/10/2012 11:49

And I am neither infantile nor gullible- not sure holding a different opinion makes me that way! I would think that assuming everyone who thinks differently to them is less able than themselves is more likely to indicate this
but hey ho

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 09/10/2012 11:49

I'm happy for my taxes to go to families who can't work because of disability or carers responsibilities. And I'd rather that my taxes went into the NHS rather than people who can't afford children having them because they think they have some God given right.

Those of us that contribute have as much say as those who don't. People on MN seem to forget that.

greeneyed · 09/10/2012 11:50

Haven't got up to date on the thread just read the last post by abit wobbly"Previous rounds of budget cuts have been extremely damaging to the Greek economy." what a strange argument to use to back up your case - I don't get it? are you saying we should go the same way, keep cutting, keep damaging economy go into deeper recession? It's not just about what we spend but what we MAKE in balancing the books it's all well and good making savings but we have to earn more as a nation as well (i.e. economy in growth) to balance the books. "Absorb accept and swallow the medicine" - is this directed at less well off people having their benefits slashed? - are you suggesting they caused the financial crisis? I think it's well documented that is not the case. People are absorbing and accepting austerity measures but will only take so much particularly when the axe is continually falling on the most vulnerable. I am a tax paying, business owner whose household income is a quarter of what it was pre credit crunch/recession, we have sleepless nights about the mortgage- I am taking a massive hit - absorbing the medicine as you say - I haven't complained but I am complaining now about policies which are unjust and target the most vulnerable in society and a government who is happy for people to believe benefit claimants are the problem. You are talking utter nonsense to be honest abitwobbly, I hope for your sake you are not as heartless and hard as that post reads.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 09/10/2012 11:50

The poor and the needy are bearing the biggest brunt because they are taking the most out. If you take the most out, then you have more to lose.

Why should the people that contribute the most and take out the least be the hardest hit? I don't understand that logic.

Abitwobblynow · 09/10/2012 11:53

You are right, Dawndonna, but putting aside righteous squawking, why is that? (I am not saying it is good or bad, I am talking about realities, here). It is for the same reason that taxes on the poor (like the lottery) are very effective: they are a very very large group of the population, and the sums involved are huge. Sorry.

Another commentary:

But in choosing to focus so strongly on the need for welfare reform, the Chancellor put his finger on the nub of the problem, not just for Britain, but for virtually all advanced economies.
It?s not just that much welfare spending has become bloated, unfair and sometimes outright corrupt, it is also that it is no longer economically affordable. Osborne couched his case in highly political terms, as you might expect after the latest British Social Attitudes survey.
This showed a high degree of public support for further cuts in welfare spending. Where once the Tories were regarded as cruel and heartless for wanting to slash benefits, it now seems that they can?t be tough enough. Politically, Osborne is therefore pushing at an open door when he says this is not just about saving money ? it?s about fairness and enterprise.

How can we justify the incomes of those out of work rising faster than the incomes of those in work, he asks, or giving flats to young people who have never worked when working people twice their age still have to live with their parents because they cannot afford a separate home?
More emotively still, he asked how it was possible to justify a system where people in work have to consider the costs of having another child, while those who are out of work don?t. By raising these questions, Osborne gives voice to a strongly populist message, but he also speaks to an underlying, economic imperative ? advanced economies are long past the stage of being able to afford such largesse.
In his speech, Osborne was aiming only at the easy political targets of entitlement spending ? for want of a better term, the ?social scroungers?, or those who choose welfare over work. The savings that can be made here are certainly not to be sneezed at. Looking at those areas of welfare spending which grew most strongly under the last government, they were things like housing benefit and other forms of income support.
Yet they are dwarfed by healthcare and pensions spending, and it is these entitlements which pose the biggest challenge for the future.
As it happens, Britain is rather better placed than many of its European peers in this regard. On pensions spending, the age of entitlement is already being raised, and will in future continue to rise in line with life expectancy. The per capita cost of the pensions promise is thereby capped.
The same is not true of health and long-term care, the costs of which will grow rapidly as society ages. Relatively favourable demographics make these costs less of a problem for Britain than they are for much of the rest of Europe.
Recent projections aired by Fabio Pammolli, professor of economics at the IMT Institute for Advanced Studies, show quite shocking levels of exposure. If there wasn?t already enough to worry about in Europe?s fiscal meltdown, these forecasts point to destruction of the very foundations of the European social market economy. Taking into account the expected decrease in fertility and mortality rates, the burden on active workers of healthcare and pensions spending is expected to grow over the next 20 years to 63.5pc of GDP per capita in Italy, 61.6pc in France, and 53.3pc in Germany.
Favourable demographics mean that by comparison, the projected UK burden is relatively small at just 38.7pc. Yet it is still quite high enough.
As is only too apparent, much of Europe is incapable of supporting its present pensions and healthcare promise. Herb Stein, one time economic adviser to President Nixon, famously remarked that if something cannot go on for ever, it will stop.
In Europe, stopping is going to make the present outbreak of economic, social and political instability over deficit reduction look like a stroll in the park. We are only in the very early stages of Europe?s wider fiscal crisis. There is still much worse to come, regardless of whether the euro survives or not.

Kids, we are stuffed. It isn't about 'should' or 'fair' any more. It's about reality.

Dawndonna · 09/10/2012 11:54

I suggest, Outraged you read the document. Empirical evidence is exactly that, and it clearly shows that is not the case.

Peachy · 09/10/2012 11:54

Outraged- no being opposed to those doesn't make you opposed to all cuts.

There are plenty of cuts that I would agree with for goodness sake! there have BEEN some, in some areas. bring those on. I've made it clear which ones I want to see next.

But it is a FACT that families with disabled children or parents are more likely to be in poverty and therefore bear the brunt of other cuts: not the cap admittedly, yet, but other ones nonetheless- tax credits was a huge one obviously. But spare room tax will hit those the hardest as there is no provision for families who were allocated a room for a severely disabled child, LHA capping when you are less able to move due to a need for specialist schools or access- it all merges, it has to and is inevitable.

I think the stats was that a family with a disabled member was 80% more likely to be in poverty but that is a few years old now.

morethanpotatoprints · 09/10/2012 11:55

Hammy.

There are people who don't work for many reasons. According to you nobody deserves any help, I hope you sleep well at night.

To those who state they are sick of paying for others, have you ever thought some of these people are paying for your lifestyle.
My dh tax contributes to working parents childcare. We don't believe in childcare.
Wouldn't it be a brilliant world if we just paid tax for what we wanted to.