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 you would agree with benefits like this being withdrawn, IF he also targetted rich people by some tax or other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

edam - our local council is reacting to the cuts by "reviewing" pay/scales within the LEA for support staff. A friend who is head teacher at a special school in our town has openly said she expects walkouts and very very unhappy support staff as they end up on lower grades of pay in the reviews - and lay off more. Indeed 3 have already left (jobs appeared on the council website this week - but on a fixed term contact until the end of April)

They're going to have to have a "staff restructure" which basically means - reduce the number of support staff across the school. She's very concerned about what's it gong to mean for the quality of care and education that the school will be able to provide for their pupils - who are already greatly disadvantaged in life through their special needs and disabilities.

That's just one school, but this situation will be replicated across the country and across departments.

Carers who look after their severely disabled children 24hrs a day 7 days a week being told they only need 6hrs a week respite.

If they've got money - they can pay for some - if they're on benefits or a low income they can't

I hate this word 'bleating' (I used it further down to caricature the right-wingers).

People have legitimate fears and complaints. They aren't sheep.

It's a convenient myth that there's a sector of the population that doesn't understand why they in particular have to be affected.

well not keeping in work and not having jobs for them to go to only goes to increase the numbers reliant on benefits and not paying anything into the pot at all.

"It's a convenient myth that there's a sector of the population that doesn't understand why they in particular have to be affected."

agree there -

I'm not convinced it's a myth.
I've seen people hear on MN saying they are unhappy about the CB cuts because they sue them for extra curricular activities.

Well I'm sorry but if you can't see that paying for your kids ballet lesson is fecking ridiculous when Riven's DD has no hoist and her wheelchair is too small...then you need your head testing. I'm sorry but that is bleating. And it's pathetic.

yes but no all of them are bleating, there's no particular group that are complaining.

I've seen plenty that are going to lose their CB (here on MN) say they're going to feel it but they understand why.

Sadly it's the old thing of whoever shouts the loudest and longest gets noticed.

So the ones that quietly come on (from any group) and say - yes it's bloody shite, but I understand why and we'll just have to deal with it, or have sympathy in any shape or form for people other people that are going to lose out aren't heard.

i love telsas post

"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."

is this correct?

is this all really an excuse for the tories to push through their poor bashing ideologies?

I don't know, I think it's quite possible to understand that Riv's DD is a priotirty whilst also feeling really upset that you ahve to tell your own child that they cn't do soemthing they ahve done for rears and might even be good enough to carry on professionally.

I eman, if everything is done on the there's soemone woirse off than me system, doesn;t that eman I should be saying my kids mustn't get DLA becuase although they are disabled theyc an at elast walk and (sort of for ds3, ) talk?

It has to be wider than that.

The most short sighted view of all is one that takes cuts so drastically that it pushes people out of being economically active onto dependency

Huge job cuts, moving poeple on low icnoems away from centres of activity to places of low employment, cuts to SN respite that might just allow working, etc

There could well be a strong argument (and I am noe economist) that if a little extra borrowing and longer term payments enabled us to avoid a massive double dip recession as per Ireland etc, and where more banks need help, by keeping poeple in tax paying roles.... well that would be the logical road.

I mean, if you were mortgagted to the hilt but your house needed structural work would you A) Borrow the extra bit (say it was 10% of value) needed to secure it and pay longer; or B) allow it all to collapse so losing every single penny?

Can I just add my voice to say I agree with Litchick? I'm concerned about cuts that affect those with disabilities and carers because that's a need/constraint that is unique and should be provided for by society as a whole.

But the rest of us? I profoundly disagree with those who think we can spend our way out of debt. We spent too much when times when times were good and unlike other more fiscally restrained countries, we are going to have to pay for it now. Each one of us, middle or low incomes, is going to have to keep tightening our belts.

The CB thing would have hit us personally too except DH's job is so insecure because of the recession that I've already gone back to work so I'm saying this as someone who's already seen their whole family affected. I'm not a high earner but the extra money I'll be making with cover the CB loss. And we've never afforded for our DC to do extra activities beyond going swimming at the pool. They are so not deprived because of that though -

Well this is where the differences in opinion lies, Custy.

Some say that the loans are on such preferential terms that we don't need to worry right now. That we should put off the cuts.

Some go further and say the loans are not a problem at all, and that as long as we can keep generating enough income to pay the interest then we can borrow up to the holt forever.

Some say, that we have the loans on excellent terms, but in order to protect those terms, we must show that our deficit is not getting out of control. If we can't show that, our credit status can be downgraded pace Ireland and Greece, which will seriously affect the terms on future borrowing.

This is what I find hard to grasp.

There is all this talk of having to get out of some terrible disaster thats looming because of debt,

however what they seem to be planning on doing is exactly what everyone is afraid of - cutting critical services, making people homeless and jobless.

Is the alternative, ie facing this monster they threaten us with, likely to be any worse?

Well the last time we had to go to the IMF - and that was pretty shit.

Litchick there are always twats. Twats will be twats.
What I mean is that there is no case of the following groups of people forming a coherent mass and rising up to have their pain at losing £20+ a week acknowledged:

the rich
the middle classes
mumsnetters
SAHMs with rich husbands
etc

Aside from a few silly people, most are going 'well yes it makes some sort of sense that we don't just get given cash, we know this has been in the pipeline for years, but the way it's going to happen is unfair and unsettling for a variety of reasons and let's discuss those.'

FA- ideologically (and aprties do have their ideologies whatever they woudl like anyone to think) yes becuase it would mean prioritisng social need over business need

In relaity- dunno

"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 might be no urgent need to pay off the debt but we do need to decrease the deficit - spending so much more than is coming in on an annual basis. During the boom years we overspent - that's what we're paying for now.

And I believe that we can make cuts that don't put our most vulnerable at risk. Child Benefit cuts for higher earners is a sensible one as much as I'll miss the £130/month.

When can we demand another election, I mean as I understand it if the Lib dems don't agree with any of this they are the ones that can demand we go back to the polls so I suggest we lobby them.

I agree with the cuts. State spending was too high.

I don't agree people are bleating. Hideous term. Mn is for people to talk about the things that affect them or to say why it feels unfair. It will be painful for some not others.

They are hitting richer people though. DH will lose his tax allowance next year leaving us significantly shorter in cash.
Everyone is having to pull together.
The country is nearly bankrupt. We can carry on handing out things for free and have to abolish state schooling or free medical services later down the line or we can make some rational cuts now to try and help. The 'monster' flightattendent has the potential to be far greater than some benefit cuts.
Anyone ignoring these facts is sticking their heads in the sand Gordon Brown stylee. labour has bought this country to its knees and now we need to address the balance.
I'm with you OP.

smallwhitecat i agree, but I do accept the arguement that it's just too expensive to implement on a total family income basis because we currently don't all do our taxes that way.

This is actually a great arguement for not having PAYE schemes and all doing our own tax returns like North America. It makes it cost effective and possible to implement policies based on family income and it would help the mess of the benefit system by putting people in charge of their own taxes etc. Of course you have to believe that people are capable of doing their own paperwork (which I believe the majority of us are).

abdnhiker - that's kinda my thouhgts on it all.

You just can't keep endlessly borrowing when your tax take is decreasing.
I know some economists believe that you have to put more state cash in, to increase tax yeild, thus you have to borrow more...but those theories were expounded befoore the advent of the dreaded international credit agencies.

Pomme, I thought they were planning to scrap free healthcare anyway?

It looks to me like the Tories are doing in advance what might have ahd to happen further down the line.

Not that I understand any of this twaddle.

The thing that irks me about the cb cut, is that is unfair that a two income family doesn't lose it, whereas a one income family does. When you bear in mind that the one income family could be earning far less than the two income family; have more tax to pay because (a) one partner is higher rate and (b) there is no transferable tax allowance; (c) the hrt are looking at a 1% NI rise, plus the lowering of the 40% starting rate, so they don't benefit from the extension of the tax free allowance, and it seems like a triple whammy.

I have no problem with dh paying more tax, but when you combine these measures it is a lot. The cb cut is equivalent for us to a 3% rise in the 40% band, plus 1% NI, plus £2k more pa taxed at 40%, plus a public sector pay freeze for two years, it all adds up.

I would far rather they were honest and just put raised the 40% band to say 41%, and then they would get more, as all hrts would be paying more.

I am also concerned about the HRP for women.

The other thing that irks me is that taxation wise this is regressive. The principle of independent taxation has long been been established, so linking it back together is retrograde.

I agree with Litchicks third point - we have to keep our noses clean financially to keep the loans. I think that it would be worse if we didn't make some attempt to sort it out.

The problem is much the same in other European countries. France took out a massive loan last year; Belgium is in financial problems, it's no different anywhere else.

• abolition of Child Trust Funds;

This was always a daft idea that cost thousands and was simply a voting gimmick dreamed up by labour. Parents who wanted to save for their childrens future would have done so anyway in an account of their choosing.

• the Health in Pregnancy Grant;

Again, another gimmick aimed at a certain group of voters - wages and benefits already pay for food and I bet less than 1% of the grants claimed were actually used on healthy food.

• Surestart Maternity Grant for second child;

This should be abolished altogther, if you cant afford the basics for a child then surely you should not be having one. No need for expensive purchases for subsequent children as there will already be a cot, pram etc

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

Capping HB is great, why should workers have to live in areas within their means when those one benefits can live in houses/areas way beyond their budgets because they know other people are paying for it.

• then theres the biggee - CB.

Either leave for all or abolish. Having children is the parents responsibilty not the states/tax payers. If they choose not to work or work min hours then they cant complain re lack of money. Penalising high earners is wrong though on the CB front, it sends out the message that working hard and progressing in life means paying out for those that choose not too.

A good overhaul of the benefits system has been long overdue. People simply choose not to work as they can be paid the same to stay home or even more in many cases. Far too many have children and dont see why they should work to support them and the benefit cycle then simply repeats as children see that they still get the nice things in life without having to work.

Sorry to rant and ditch last night, will come back to this in the afternoon.

"How come your wealthy father didn't help you buy food when you were pregnant?"

Well, he's rather like the Tories, thinks people should get on their bikes etc. When I was plunged into poverty in my early twenties because of depression, agoraphobia and an anxiety disorder etc from a childhood of domestic violence (stepfather, not lawyer dad) my dad thought it best to let me sink or swim. He thinks people choose to be depressed and can just snap out of it if they stop moping and get a job, again rather like the Tories.