The Tory attack on family 'v' The State of the Economy. I don't want to like the Tories, I Would Rather Eat my Own Arse. So help Me Understand

[Tortington]

abolition of Child Trust Funds;

money in bank for being born was always a shit idea. lets give kids £100 for existing.

the economy down the shitter - i think its proper that we pull this.

the Health in Pregnancy Grant;

not essential is it. does one reaaaaaaaally need a grant to be healthy in pregnancy?

jesus again i have to say - as a benefit to be pulled, its hardly essential considering that cut back have to be made

Surestart Maternity Grant for second child;

i dont know what this is- more money for having children?

the three-year freeze on child benefits whats the problem
and the introduction of housing benefit caps.
great

then theres the biggee - CB.

WTF am i not seeing that everyone seems to be going apoplectic about?

is there general agreement that a cb cut should be on household income? is it that its unfair in this way?

if that is the case - i see the point.

if its just bitching becuase people who earn over 45k aren't getting cb, then im finding it hard to agree.

and the argument that its a failsafe paid to women that help them get out of abused situations etc - you can't just pay women benefits on the offchance that one dayt hey will be abused.

am i missing a mahoosive point?

tell me the tories are targeting poor people like this but are not targeting rich people.

tell me that yes yes!! yes yes yes!!! you would agree with benefits like this being withdrawn, IF he also targetted rich people by some tax or other

tell me the equality?

they seem like non essential benefits to me - that have to be reined in cos we're financially up the shitter? or are we - maybe we aren't financially up the shitter and its a huge lie and the tories are just lying and whipping poor people? tell me?

The point is it's the thin end of the wedge for universal benefits - what next, no NHS for all?

Also that statistically, women and children are going to suffer the most because of these cuts.

[[http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1171 Independent analysis of the budget has shown that it is women who will bear the brunt of the cuts unveiled so far. Research by the House of Commons Library found that 72 per cent of the savings identified in the budget will come from women's pockets.

This is because many of the benefits to be cut or frozen - including the Health in Pregnancy Grant, the Sure Start Maternity Grant and Child Benefit - are benefits that more women than men rely on.

Further, this analysis doesn't take into account the impact of the public sector pay freeze which will also hit women disproportionately as 65 per cent of public sector workers are women.]]

These cuts might seem fair in terms of the rich/poor divide, but they're disproportionally unfair to women and children.

but we knew that something would have to give, and these benefits seem ok to get chopped to me.

is tha argument that it is disproportionately affecting single parents?

because if not, then it affects the family as a unit. women and men and children ina family unit - if there is a cut in benefit- this affects the whole family.

CB cuts discriminate against single earners and lone parents. Higher earning parents, but still. The point of a universal benefit was that it reached everyone that the system missed, which is why it was the one benefit that was proven to consistently alleviate child poverty where means testing benefits don't.

Child Trust Funds do seem like a waste, but honestly we have never been able to save a penny for DD, so am actually very glad she get something one day.

Health in pregnancy grant, say what you like, but when I was pregnant with DD we were impossibly poor. We spent £100 a month between DH + I on food if we were lucky, and I don't think that was particularly good for my health. Health in pregnancy grant would have really helped us. Perhaps you just haven't been poor enough to understand how much it can make a difference?

Surestart maternity grant for second kid? Are people not allowed to be poor when they have a second kid? Sure, if you have your kids close together then you should have most of the equipment, but not everyone does (at least 7 years between DD and any potential siblings, for example) and there are still some things you need to get new.

Fact is if we have to rein in stuff for everyone, why are we only hearing about families having to tighten belts? How about the winter bloody fuel allowance that my lawyer, three house owning father gets? Oh, Tory demographic, that'll never be threatened then.

Fact is cuts are not "necessary", there are valid economic alternatives to what they're proposing that would not necessitate that the poorest give up the largest percentage of their income and suffer hardest from the cuts. Everyone has cut frenzy right now because it's just become received wisdom that cuts are the only way forward due to constant repetition from the media.

As an Economics student I can assure that it is a pile of horseshit that the only way out of economic crisis is cuts. It is my opinion that these cuts will actually screw the economy very badly for all but a select (rich) few, and push us into double dip recession. The Tories are using a shock doctrine narrative to push through their welfare state destroying ideologies.

totally agree about the winter fuel allowence. and i am liking your economic big dipper argument and i would love to hate the poor bashing toeis if there are other alternatives and this is just bullshit... tell me more. i am already outraged and this thread of hope, that they are using this poor people bashing as some necessary economic saviour propaganda, whilst other measures could be employed - rally floats my boat.

have to say though whilst the bank acct thing is nice - i dont disagree, its not necessary.

and ive been bones of mi arse poor and i still dont think you should get a maternity grant. either the benefits people get should be accepted as being fit for purpose financially, or they are not.

See, if you stay up late you get a sensible CB thread ;)

Thanks for an educated economic perspective dizietsma - I agree it's just bullshit that draconian cuts are the only way forward. As a student of the subject, what are your thoughts on the Robin Hood tax?

Custardo - yes, benefits should be fit for purpose, but I keep coming back to the principle of certain benefits being universal because they're seen as a basic human right, regardless of income, eg the NHS. I repeat, CB is the thin end of the wedge.

I think part of the problem is the effect that cuts on services and VAT increase - which will cost the poor disproportionally more than the rich are going to have on people combined with the cuts in benefits.

When the cuts to education, social services, family services etc come into force that will also affect the poor more as they have no power to pay for these services for themselves.

Having said that I have no issue with the CTF being scrapped - DS1 didn't get one, and DS2 and 3's is worth less now than when they started - total waste of money.

Health in Pregnancy grant - no don't get that one either -

CB - freeze I have no problems with either -

In principle I have no problem with higher earners losing CB - but under the current proposals they aren't fair - when a family with a household income of £45k will lose them, but a family with 2 earners earning £80k split evenly between them won't

Sure Start Maternity Grant - I'm on the fence here, DS3 wasn't planned, he was definitely an "oh shit" one - we'd got rid of all DS1 and 2's baby stuff and had to start over.

Housing Benefit cap - not sure on this one either - I thought they decided that the idea from the 1950's of creating "council" estates and shoving all the poor people onto them was a bad idea?? This is going to force people to move from socially mixed areas into the cheap areas that are already suffering the problems associated with high numbers of unemployed and non-working people. Eviction and homelessness is going to be a real prospect for many too. Think London is going to be hardest hit by this part of the HB reforms.

Future increase are going to be linked to retail price inflation - not rent prices - and that's going to affect even more people as the value of their housing benefit drops in relation to their rent - and that won't only affect the non-working - but also the working on low income families who rely on their housing benefit to help pay the rent.

I think that you'll find on October 20th that the measures introduced so far have been moderate. We are, as you put it, 'financially in the shitter' as a nation at the moment and an awful lot of what we've taken for granted is funded through unsustainable borrowing. Shandy money and champagne tastes. Once we've rattled through the 'nice to haves' like Child Trust Funds then we'll have to dig into the things that could be regarded as essentials. Families feel picked on at the moment but if any group of people emerges on October 21st feeling that no part of their life has been affected, they will be truly luck.

It's happening now rather than two or three years down the track because this government learned lessons from the Blair government i.e. if you're going to do something radical, brave or unpopular, get it out of the way quickly. Two or three years into a parliament, when elections are looming, politicians are notoriously cowardly. (BTW... Ed knows this, so don't believe him if he says he would have let things carry on completely unchanged)

" lawyer, three house owning father "

How come your wealthy father didn't help you buy food when you were pregnant? I see a lot of people complaining about this category of people... in-laws & parents mostly.... getting WFA depsite sitting on piles of cash. If a child of mine was struggling to make ends meet, I wouldn't need to be a lawyer or own three houses to help them out. Charity begins at home?

I don't have a problem wit it going for high earners as well but the double income thing is just stupid. Could it be that pushing middle earning women back into work creates jobs ? If they push women into going back early they will need nursery care and will often pay for cleaners. They will be more likely to spend on meals out etc. What is the Tory motivation here ? I don't buy the checking family income would be expensive line. Arn't they going to check anyway for marriage tax breaks ?

The problem is not all fathers believe in charity do they, even the family kind ? Should women really have to go and beg dad for help.

If it's OK to ask the state for help why not your own family? Agreed that you'll always get some selfish, well-off parents that would prefer to go on cruises than give a penny to their struggling offspring... but why should that be acceptable?

I'm still struggling with the fact that a lot of the people protesting about the CB cuts actually voted for the tories.

And the tories have actualy done something a ittle bit left wing in only cutting CB for higher earners.

I don't know what to think any more.

Totally with you custardo.

the last few days have given me a fascinating insight into the selfish mindset of the majority of MNetters who all endlessly bleat on about what touchy, feely socialists they are most of the time.

A few quid is taken away from the richest members of our society and suddenly they're all up in arms and ready to march on parliament with their Bugaboos...

I think the effect of this week has been

1. set the parents who are earning round about £38-43K up as bleaters: they will see a difference once CB goes (and VAT is up). Useful to have a group of people that you can accuse of complaining about not having money to spend on olives, however untrue the caricature is.

1. thereby persuading the higher earning CB losers that they have nothing to complain about - even if it is just the unfair distribution of the cut, rather than the cut itself. That doesn't play so well in the media, and nobody really cares, so they might as well shut up.

1. Meanwhile make it clear (ish) to people on benefits that their days of freeloading are over. (I say 'ish' because 2015 is a long way off and it's not clear the Tories will be in power beyond then.)

Bingo. Us and them x1000000, all bleating, and all easily presented as greedy, needy saps.

1. If they can be this cackhanded at administering a cut, if they can come across as being this disorganised at making announcements - what does that suggest for the future? We're running scared now. I don't believe for a second that this week has been as badly-thought-out as some are saying. I think they have been exceedingly clever. (I hope I am wrong.)

tbh, I largely agree with Custy on the cuts that have already been made. However, I also agree with Chil1234 that we ain't seen nothing yet and goodness knows what October 20th will bring.

What worries me is the attitude to CB from David Cameron and William Hague. They acknowledged that the single/dual earner thing was unfair but effectively shrugged and said they didn't care, unfair was cheaper so they were going with it.

Doesn't fill me with confidence for what they're about to do next.

I think the trouble with the kind of exercise the government is undertaking is that if you aim to be as fair as possible to the majority, there is invariably a minority that feels they've lost out, rightly or wrongly. When the BBC wanted to axe 6-Music on the basis that no-one listened to it, the few people that really enjoyed it were incredibly upset and got it reinstated. I guarantee that there will be services cut on October 20th that hardly anyone knows about or uses, but the people who do use them will feel they've been unfairly attacked.

Exactly ProfYaffle. We're running scared.
Oh well, at least politics is interesting again.

good points by Unprune and Flighttendant

OP I am with you.
I am no Tory.
In fact I have been a Labour supporter all my life...but...

The borrowing is unsustainable

We all have children here. We can't saddle them with this sort of national debt can we?
Can you imagine the cuts they will have to make and the taxes they will have to pay so that we can keep on borrowing?
We just can't do that to them.

So...we have to make tax rises and public spending cuts now.
Yet all I hear is complete opposition to every suggestion and everyone tallying it all up. I'm going to lose this, we won't be able to have that.

I just don't get it.

Even Gordon Brown accepted that there would have to be cuts. But now people are opposing them all...

and Chil - no not all family would help their children out even when they KNOW that they're stuck.

In August I ended up stranded in Edinburgh briefly (yes I know that doesn't sound like a bad thing). On the way to the train station to leave with my 3 DS's one of the bags got lost (left behind - and then nicked by someone by the time we were able to check where we think it was left). The bag contained my wallet, and train tickets, cash

My parent knew I was stuck and said to my brother (who I was staying with - but unable to help) "oh poor thing"

and that was that!

Bizarelly I see to have Labour supporting parents who think the same way as the Tories about single mothers on benefits - regardless of relationship to them.

"Can you imagine the cuts they will have to make and the taxes they will have to pay so that we can keep on borrowing?
We just can't do that to them."

but it's going to happen to them, cuts in education, family services, social services are all going to affect children NOW.

divide and rule

get us all fighting about the actual money we're losing or not, and then make the cuts to the services that we use while we're not looking.

So what are you suggesting MaMo?
Continued borrowing and no cuts whatsoever?

Bortrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend.

Because I find that frighteningly nihilisitc.