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 you would agree with benefits like this being withdrawn, IF he also targetted rich people by some tax or other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?

I agre witha lot you say Custy (although my huge objection to the CB thing is the unfairness of it)

But there are otehr things being sneaked in

Tories said carers would find it easier to find work becuase of universal credit.... that emans presumably that CA will fall under it, so if your child needs care and your partner works then you won;t get it even though it was supposed to be payment in lieu of lost employment. I think there's a great chance that the extra money for carer's on IS will vanish under a one size fots all system, too (neitehr will affect us but will so many)

Tightening up of DLA rules that are seeing kids lose out- somene on here whose child needs cathetirisation 6 times a day being dropped for example.

EMA targets affecting peopel with invisdible disability (started under Labour absolutely) such as autism- NAS website has more on that, leaving people who simply cannot work unable to get EMA or a job

And none of threse will affect us (obviosuly VAT will but am not arguing about that, just wioncing ) as we are working and have disbaled kids. Well DLA might obviously, EMA might when boys old enough, but ATM no nothing for us. I still see a horrid imbalance though where peole without a voice are being targetted or thinsg area dministered unfairly.

And the married couple's allowance- pah! What a waste of cash. (Yes, I amarried but whilst I need it, not more so than a cohabitee) Spend it on schools. I went to look at the lcoal comp yesterday with my statemented year 6 child. Their building fund was pulled, so the SEN room is tiny. kids get randomly assigned to one of 8 classes, only 4 can have any SNE input as the room is so small adn it's sone on a class lottery.

I agree with CB by the wat if sone on family income of twice over average wage. Just not this random 44 - 88 system. And I can see thir POV on CTF / HIP / SS too

MAMoTTat is so right. In any case, the axeman is coming for all but the superrich - and we just scuffle in the cheap seats.

People are also pissed off because they are downright liars

Noone likes a liar

Oh my aprents cannot help not because theya re selfish well off cruisers but becuase they lost their own pensions becuase a legal anomally that allowed the company to be sold to an AMerican company, then the pensions treated as assets under American law- and used to cover an asbestos claim.

So they can hardly help can they?

And FIL is still working at almsot 70 (as is mine) with a heart condition to cover the bills after a messy divorce.

I woudln;t be low enough to ask, tbh.

i agree, it is scarey when govt start messing with benefits.

but i think tht the thin end of the wedge argument is a poor one - which sufgests that sensible changes can;t be made at all

i don;t know why with the huge exception of the NHS that there should be universal benefits.

i contributed to a thread months ago where i pondered why old people get money just for being old.

they could have tonnes of money but because they are 90 they get money and a free tv license. thats just stupid.

but i come back to the point that intregues me most. is this just propaganda, is the tory govt using the econiomic crisis to batter benefit claimants?

it was suggested that there are other ways to recoup the money for the economy.

what might this be please?

But Lady, Gordon Brown said we needed cuts, now Ed M, Ed B, Yvette etc are opposing every cut.

Either they were lying when they supported GB or they are lying now.
It is all such a shambles.

oh and you know what the biggest myth of all is 'the deficit' - if we keep saying we have to deal with it (all together), then maybe we'll believe, as Thatcher said 'There is no alternative'.
See this post from the excellent blog Lenin's Tomb.

'Lord Hutton of Furness has produced his interim report on public sector pensions. This is the important thing you need to grasp: the main reforms are proposed with a specific aim of squeezing revenue out of public sector workers so that the Treasury can pay off the bankers. This is not about fairness, much less about "gold-plated" public sector pensions. It is a simple raid on the future wages of the lowest paid workers for the benefit of the rich. Secondly: this transfer of wealth to the rich is part of an ideologically-driven class-motivated attack on the welfare state. We know the background. There is no urgent need to pay off the deficit. Most of the debt doesn't mature in less than three years, and the cost of borrowing is still low for the UK. There is also no particular need to pay off the deficit by attacking the public sector. Higher taxes on those who bear most direct responsibility for this crisis could easily pay off the deficit. Alternatively, a redistribution and stimulus-based growth strategy would produce the revenues needed to pay it off. So, these are elective measures reflecting the class interests and the ideological priorities of those driving the policies. And Cameron has made it clear that he intends to make these cuts permanent.'

Read the rest here:
leninology.blogspot.com/

My point is that the poor (and their children) are taking the brunt of the cuts, and cuts to other services is going to split our soceity even further to a "haves and have nots" - at least right now we've go the "haves", "got a bits" and "have nots"

The haves are going to have minor inconvenience, the "gots a bits" are going to lose a lot and end up with the have nots who aren't going to get anywhere, and will have even less chance of getting out of their "have not" status by the time they've finished slashing services.

Well-off tax dodgers will be OK. Every time the Government attempts to close a loophole, their v. expensive advisers find another. And the Government isn't going to try that hard to take what's due from their wealthy mates. Ashcroft sat making our laws - including the budget and tax laws - for years without paying full UK taxes. A bunch of ex-public schoolboys from the most elite schools aren't going to hit their peers and don't really understand what life is like for most citizens.

Although do think Tory voters have a point when they complain about the Child Benefits cuts as the Tories lied. Pre-election they claimed CB was safe. Hopefully it will make those who thought they could trust the Tories think twice.

Didn't take them long to ditch the 'we aren't the nasty party any more' propaganda and turn into the bad old Tories. They are privatising the NHS - all hospitals will be privatised under the cloak of 'social enterprise' so it sounds nice.

Poor people are being forced out of their homes if they dare to live in cities where rents are high. Women and children are paying for the sins of wealthy and well-off men. Sheffield City Council is reacting to savage cuts in council funding by making 50% of those cuts in childrens' services including child and adolescent mental health.

It's all very well to say cuts are necessary - the pain should be shared and the biggest contribution should come from those most able to take a cut and who did best during the boom years. And we don't have to cut this fast. We could do it over a longer period.

Riven you don't have to convince me anout Cameron of his sidekick. I'm no fan.

But, you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than a few cheap personl remarks about them to convince me that we do not need to deal with the deficit and quickly.

My economic sense tells me that throw away lines about the super rich, won't pay the interest.

Edam- did you see one counciol is seekinga dvice on tendering out child protection (I think there's a link on my FB somewhere I could find)

I mean- WTF???????

If that's not a core service, what is?

An aposite quote from Aneurin Bevan, founder of the NHS: "The Tories, every election, must have a bogy man. If you haven't got a programme, a bogy man will do." The equivalent right now is the deficit - the sky will come falling in if we don't impoverish ordinary families and push the poor into complete destitution.

He also said: "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred of the Tory party. So far as I am concerned, they are lower than vermin." Might have had something to do with the savage way the Tories behaved during the Depression of the 30s. Or Churchill ordering the army to fire at striking - starving - miners.

"but i think tht the thin end of the wedge argument is a poor one - which sufgests that sensible changes can;t be made at all"

but it's not a poor argument - they've already said there will be cuts in education, social services, and other departments. There are very few Governments budgets which have currently been ring fenced. If you're on a higher income you're able to pay privately for some of the services that could be slashed. If you're on a low income, you'll lose the money and the services.

Riven I don't know the details, but I can only assume that Gordon Brown did not obtain prudent controls when he bailed out the banks.

There should have been stringent restrictions and conditions attached.
There were not. Good work, Gordon.

good grief, Sancti. Wonder if it will work as well as employing Group 4 to transport prisoners - after all, there were only a few escapes. Or contracting out hospital cleaning. Or privatising the railways - there have only been, ooh, a handful of crashes killing only a few hundred people..

I suggest we ask David Cameron if he would like to come back for another chat and see what he has to say for himself.

But Edam I am not a Tory. Nevr have been and never will be.

And I am worried about the deficit.
I'm not alone.
Gordon Brown himself accepted that there needed to be cuts.

It's just that now they're hear everyone's bleating.

We do need to pay off the fdeficit.

But banks making huge profits should be covering a significant proportion of that.

And yes, soem cuts too and even a VAT rise

But I think they are doing too fast

There's somewhere in between doing it as fast as posible and not doing it at all, no?

And disposing of chidlren's childhoods will not help them any less than long term debt

Not if losing your secure HB house in the city centre means you are moved away from a school (quite possibly to future of moving annually as many private tenants do and many schools), or extreme poverty becuase your siblin's DLA was cut but your Mum still couldn't find a job.

Cut, but cut wisely, and cut witrh a longer term moderate view.

Actually tehre is one that will potentially hit us but we want to sort it ebfore it happens IYKWIM (DH's small buisness taken a huge bnattering after a supplier ran off with our money and our goods, going to be a fight to keep going and we will miss out on the biggest seasonal sales of all over Christmas- that may well put us on HB, which is being cut for our area under new rules- but it's doable here, whilst what's ahppening elsewhere is abhorrent) .

''keep poeple in work and create jobs'

exactly

But that means borrowing more money...