Gideon wields his axe [The UK's Comprehensive Review Thread]

23_Tauri said:
I would scrap all child benefit, with immediate effect. Having children is a lifestyle choice. No one subsidises my lifestyle choices so why should I have to subsidise those who want to have babies? If the argument is one about avoiding child poverty, then my view is that those too poor to feed and clothe them should not be having children in the first place.
Click to expand...

Quite right. And those who do have them and then find themselves too poor to feed and clothe them can drown them in a bucket so that they don't become a burden on the state.

Edit: Obviously they'll have to provide their own bucket since the current round of cutbacks means the municipal ones have been withdrawn and sold to India.

Edit again: Unless some philanthropist comes up with some sort of scheme to provide a charitable bucket in every town, not unlike the Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association of yore. Unless we could perhaps press those old troughs back into service, a sort of repurposing, as the popular term has it? I know a lot of them are being used as flower beds these days but I'm sure we could find some unemployed person to empty them out for cheap. It sure looks like there's going to be plenty more of those hanging around.
 
Last edited:
Some of the standout regressive measures...from the graniad...

• £2bn by time-limiting the contributory element of employment support allowance to one year. ESA is the benefit brought in to replace incapacity benefit. So these are cuts that will hit the disabled.

• £270m by imposing a £26,000 a year cap on the benefits an out-of-work family can receive. (When Osborne announced this policy at the Tory conference, he did not put a figure on the savings.)

• £625m by freezing the working tax credit.

• £390m by making it harder to claim working tax credit. Couples claiming will have to work 24 hours between them, not just have one person working for 16 hours.

• £385m by cutting the childcare element of working tax credit. It will only cover 70% of costs, not 80% of costs.

• £215m by extending "shared room", a housing benefit rule. This says people can only claim for the cost of a single room in a shared house. Originally it applied to claimants under the age of 25. Now it will apply to claimants under the age of 35. In other words, single people aged 25 to 35 won't be able to claim housing benefit for a flat.

• £135m by cutting the mobility component in disability living allowance for people in residential care.

• £490m by cutting spending on housing benefit by 10%. This cut is on top of the housing benefit cut in the budget.

The "shared room" rule jumps out as rather odd - seems to be that if you're under 36 you'll be expected to live in student digs....
 
Link to last post here. Quite a lively debate on the granuiad site :)

As with all budgets it'll take a few days for the skeletons to come out, but it does at first glance appear to be the poor, the disabled and the public sector that are taking a hammering. Mr Middle-Management-Mail reader seems to have very little pain. No mention on the banks - apparently Giddeon is saving that for tomorrow's news cycle to get some positive headlines....
 
andyandy said:
The "shared room" rule jumps out as rather odd - seems to be that if you're under 36 you'll be expected to live in student digs....
Click to expand...

Surely there must be other options:

"Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses - are they still in operation?"
 
Undesired Walrus said:
How is this done?
Click to expand...
I thought this might put the cat amongst the pigeons. ;)

Without beginning to sound further to the right than (insert name of your chosen fascist dictator) it's tricky. I can think of various methods but some of them border on eugenics, so I'll stop having my afternoon huff at the Budget and make a more moderate statement: I'd scrap all child benefit except for the most poor in society, and all remaining child benefit to be means tested.
 
richardm said:
Surely there must be other options:

"Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses - are they still in operation?"
Click to expand...

I wonder if all those MPs under 35 (of which there must be a handful....) will be required to share accommodation or move back in with their parents? ;)
 
Last edited:
richardm said:
Edit again: Unless some philanthropist comes up with some sort of scheme to provide a charitable bucket in every town, not unlike the Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association of yore. Unless we could perhaps press those old troughs back into service, a sort of repurposing, as the popular term has it? I know a lot of them are being used as flower beds these days but I'm sure we could find some unemployed person to empty them out for cheap. It sure looks like there's going to be plenty more of those hanging around.
Click to expand...
By jove, that sounds like just the ticket! Would you like to be my Policy Advisor? :D
 
23_Tauri said:
By jove, that sounds like just the ticket! Would you like to be my Policy Advisor? :D
Click to expand...

Just wait until you hear my plans for renewable energy sources, which involve the long-term unemployed and a treadmill in every town.
 
richardm said:
Just wait until you hear my plans for renewable energy sources, which involve the long-term unemployed and a treadmill in every town.
Click to expand...

It'll also help to address the obesity "epidemic".....

...and issues relating to longevity


severalty birds with one stone......
 
richardm said:
Just wait until you hear my plans for renewable energy sources, which involve the long-term unemployed and a treadmill in every town.
Click to expand...
How spiffing. Well it's got to beat those carbuncles sprouting up across our green and pleasant land. Meet you in the Club around 8.30 for cigar and a tipple, old chap?
 
richardm said:
Just wait until you hear my plans for renewable energy sources, which involve the long-term unemployed and a treadmill in every town.
Click to expand...

We need a nippy name. Make sure it has "partnership" somewhere in the title.

those carbuncles sprouting up across our green and pleasant land
Click to expand...

You called?
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
I'd scrap all child benefit except for the most poor in society, and all remaining child benefit to be means tested.
Click to expand...
Well the pre-review announcement did something like this, but didn't go as far. But the right attacked it as squeezing the middle class (popspeak for "that's progressive, but how outrageous, we're not so rich that we should suffer it!") and the left attacked it as breaking the principle of universal welfare.

In truth, it does both things, but both of them are economically and morally quite justifiable.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
Well the pre-review announcement did something like this, but didn't go as far. But the right attacked it as squeezing the middle class (popspeak for "that's progressive, but how outrageous, we're not so rich that we should suffer it!") and the left attacked it as breaking the principle of universal welfare.

In truth, it does both things, but both of them are economically and morally quite justifiable.
Click to expand...
I agree, means-tested child benefit (and not much of it at that) is morally justifiable. I still stand by my statement that having children is a lifestyle choice and therefore if you choose to have that lifestyle then you should expect to pay for it yourself.

No government can ensure that child benefit is spent on ensuring children have the basic necessities anyway.
 
I don't really know what you mean by "lifestyle choice", other than people have always voluntarily given up their own resources in order to raise kids. In fact historically it has always been expected to be a positive return choice in material terms, hence when family income is very low, fertlilty tends to be higher.

However (and I don't know if this is where you're going), modern liberal democracies are nowhere near adopting the position that the right to have children--and receive threshold income supposedly capable of supporting the choice--should not be accommodated financially by the state to anyone.

Child benefit itself has rather little to do with this of course. You can't run a kid on £20 per week
 
The Don said:
So how long does the creation of useless ships have to continue ?

How long has the UK's shipbuilding industry known that there's a change in the world market, 50 years ?

I'm all for the preservation of industrial expertise but there has to be some likelihood that the skills so preserved will come in useful.

So far the industry has failed to respond in the last 10, 20, 30, whatever years. Do we just accept that we need to continue to support this industry indefinitely ?

I don't necessarily have a problem with this "make work" approach but if at all possible I'd like the results of their labour used in some useful way.
Click to expand...

Actually the next generation Royal Navy frigate (Type 26) is being designed with exports in mind and Brazil and Australia have already expressed interest in collaboration.
 
23_Tauri said:
I agree, means-tested child benefit (and not much of it at that) is morally justifiable. I still stand by my statement that having children is a lifestyle choice and therefore if you choose to have that lifestyle then you should expect to pay for it yourself.

No government can ensure that child benefit is spent on ensuring children have the basic necessities anyway.
Click to expand...

Whatever. Wouldn't it make more sense to cut off the £100 billion annual subsidy to the banking sector?


Where did our money go?
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
I don't really know what you mean by "lifestyle choice", other than people have always voluntarily given up their own resources in order to raise kids. In fact historically it has always been expected to be a positive return choice in material terms, hence when family income is very low, fertlilty tends to be higher.
Click to expand...
This is not relevant in the modern UK state where people have pensions and savings to see them into their retirement. People don't have children nowadays because they need security when they are no longer able to work, as was the case historically in the West or some parts of the developing world today.

What I meant by lifestyle choice is exactly that. People choose to have children because they like the idea - and the reality - of having children, so much so that many will willingly drop their incomes in order to have them. I choose to have a cat because I like having a cat. But I don't expect the state to subsidise my vets bills and tins of Kit-e-Kat.

Francesca R said:
However (and I don't know if this is where you're going), modern liberal democracies are nowhere near adopting the position that the right to have children--and receive threshold income supposedly capable of supporting the choice--should not be accommodated financially by the state to anyone.
Click to expand...
Indeed modern liberal democracies should not as the idea that there is a right to have children is patently absurd.

Francesca R said:
Child benefit itself has rather little to do with this of course. You can't run a kid on £20 per week
Click to expand...
£20 a week will buy sufficient clothing and food for a young child. You might have to shop at Lidl and buy second hand clothes, but this is precious tax payers' money to provide the basics we're talking about. Add to that your housing benefit and Bob's your uncle.

Clearly the current system does provide enough for people to support children because many people do it, without the need to work.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom