Author Topic: The Butchers' Budget  (Read 21862 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Martin Wicks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
    • Personal Website
The Butchers' Budget
« on: October 20, 2010, 02:25:42 PM »
Early days yet, as we sift through the detail. But, it appears a 28% cut in Council funding over 4 years.

The green government is going to encourage people off the roads and onto rail by allowing the private rail companies to push up the cost of tickets by 3% each year above the rate of inflation!

Another £7 billion cut on top of the already agreed £11 billion on welfare payments.

More to follow.

Martin



Offline Martin Wicks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
    • Personal Website
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2010, 03:04:36 PM »
NHS - £20 billion 'efficiencies', bequeathed from previous government, plus abandonment of commitment to introduce prescription charges for people with long term conditions.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2010, 03:14:36 PM »
 
I notice one significant increase....

.... the word 'cut' has been given a 100% increase in the number of letters available to it and will henceforth be called 'saving'.


 

Offline Martin Wicks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
    • Personal Website
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2010, 04:49:41 PM »
Local government: Do more, with (much) less
Posted at 3:34 pm on 20 Oct 10 by Paul Nowak TUC


In a skilful piece of political manoeuvring George Osborne has passed a large part of the CSR buck to local government.

Underpinning the sugar-coated language about ‘localising power and funding’, the Chancellor announced a 26% cut in central government funding for local councils – with a cut in capital funding to councils of around 45%.

On top of the headline figures, the CSR also flagged:

    * A 13% real terms reduction in ‘fires resource expenditure’ (that's fire-fighters and fire fighting equipment to you and me)
    * A 20% reduction in bus subsidies and a 28% cut in local government resource grants
    * The end of programmes such as the Working Neighbourhoods Fund (…a concerted drive to get people off welfare and into work) and Growth Area Funding (…financial support to major infrastructure investments)

And in a classic ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ move, DCLG will have  to contribute nearly £900m to pay for the Regional Growth Fund.

To sit alongside these swingeing cuts in resources, local councils will be given increased ‘flexibility’  with the government committed to removing ‘ring-fencing’ of all but a few revenue grants. What this means for the ‘£2bn of additional funding’ the government has allocated to support social care is unclear, but it clearly raises the possibility it’ll be absorbed to plug the gaping holes in local authority budgets.

Whats clear is that a large part of the negative impact of the government’s cuts will be felt at a local level – and it will be local councillors who are placed in the invidious position of delivering the Chancellor’s cuts. Bad news for our communities – and bad news as well for the 4000 or so Liberal Democrat Councillors across England, Wales & Scotland, tasked with driving these cuts through. Next year’s local government elections are not too far away…

Offline Drone

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2010, 05:01:41 PM »

I notice one significant increase....

.... the word 'cut' has been given a 100% increase in the number of letters available to it and will henceforth be called 'saving'.

Because 'cuts' are horrid, nasty things and 'savings' are pink, fluffy, lovely things.

Did anyone see the Dispatches programme earlier in the week about the Conservatives and massive tax evasion? We are NOT all in this together. They are playing off the middle and working classes so the rich can carry on getting richer. Bah!
derp derp herp herp derp

Offline Steve Wakefield

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2010, 06:11:25 PM »
Local government: Do more, with (much) less
Posted at 3:34 pm on 20 Oct 10 by Paul Nowak TUC


In a skilful piece of political manoeuvring George Osborne has passed a large part of the CSR buck to local government.

Underpinning the sugar-coated language about ‘localising power and funding’, the Chancellor announced a 26% cut in central government funding for local councils – with a cut in capital funding to councils of around 45%.

On top of the headline figures, the CSR also flagged:

    * A 13% real terms reduction in ‘fires resource expenditure’ (that's fire-fighters and fire fighting equipment to you and me)
    * A 20% reduction in bus subsidies and a 28% cut in local government resource grants
    * The end of programmes such as the Working Neighbourhoods Fund (…a concerted drive to get people off welfare and into work) and Growth Area Funding (…financial support to major infrastructure investments)

And in a classic ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ move, DCLG will have  to contribute nearly £900m to pay for the Regional Growth Fund.

To sit alongside these swingeing cuts in resources, local councils will be given increased ‘flexibility’  with the government committed to removing ‘ring-fencing’ of all but a few revenue grants. What this means for the ‘£2bn of additional funding’ the government has allocated to support social care is unclear, but it clearly raises the possibility it’ll be absorbed to plug the gaping holes in local authority budgets.

Whats clear is that a large part of the negative impact of the government’s cuts will be felt at a local level – and it will be local councillors who are placed in the invidious position of delivering the Chancellor’s cuts. Bad news for our communities – and bad news as well for the 4000 or so Liberal Democrat Councillors across England, Wales & Scotland, tasked with driving these cuts through. Next year’s local government elections are not too far away…

Capital funding slashed by 45%! What does that mean for regeneration and social housing projects within Swindon? Will Cavendish Square be completed? Will Sussex Square be regenerated? (Where the old Co-op building was/is an ear marked for shops I believe.)  Council Capital is the lifeblood for a community it pump primes projects and keeps things rolling during times of recession/depression. I await the impact  :popcorn:
All posts on this forum are my own opinion and do not represent the views of any council or any political party.  :banana:

Offline DavidPayne

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 246
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2010, 05:51:07 PM »
It needs a feckin riot!

I was at the 'Coalition of Resistance' rally outside Downing Street yesterday – a worthy crowd, certainly more than the media would concede ...and the energy was exhilarating. There is a swell of anger out there proportionate to the increasing awareness that our supine majority, ever assuming the position, is being unceremoniously shafted by Establishment power again.

Having lost count of the times I have dressed my disgust in such eloquent, written finery as to prostrate it like tart to the degenerate ravages of High Office, I intend to add my small presence to the numbers at every physical expression of dissent from now on. There will be many Bodies in the near future ‘sticking their necks out’ to give us all a chance to be heard.

I begin to believe it is write or fight, the former for lovers and poets.

Give it some ‘French’ - Get out there where seen it cannot be denied.

Offline Martin Wicks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
    • Personal Website
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2010, 10:09:23 AM »
Norman Tebbit said get on your bike. Ian Duncan Smith said get on the bus. Here's a response in a letter to the Adver.

We need job creation, not job destruction

Ian Duncan Smith, echoing Norman Tebbitt’s famous injunction for the unemployed to “get on their bikes”, suggests that today they should get on the bus. He told the unemployed in Merthyr Tydfil to get on the bus to Cardiff. In a brilliant intellectual insight, he declared that jobs don’t come to you, you have to look for them.

The unemployed in Merthyr, all 1,670 of them, do have a problem, since there are only 39 job vacancies there, all temporary and part-time. One of the reasons why there are so few is, for instance, because of the Hoover factory, moved abroad where they could pay wages a fraction of those they were paying in Merthyr. This is one of the “benefits” of globalisation.

So what would they find if they got on the bus to Cardiff? The PCS union reports that would find themselves competing for 1,700 jobs with the 15,000 people in Cardiff already chasing after them. Of the Cardiff vacancies, the vast majority are temporary and part-time. Of the temporary jobs, most are unskilled labouring for just one or three weeks’ duration.

The day after Duncan Smith’s statement, the PCS reported that the most popular vacancy was a Christmas job in a well known store…for the minimum wage.

When people sign on, they already sign a job-seekers agreement that says they are prepared to travel up to an hour by bus to find work. After six months this goes up to an hour and a half. If their travel is within an hour, the cost is not refunded so the job-seeker is required to find the money themselves out of the miserable pittance they get for job-seekers allowance.

“We are all in it together” says a Cabinet with 18 millionaires in it.

If people cannot find work – and most unemployed people want to find it – then they are going to be penalised and impoverished by the government’s measures. It is job creation we need, not job destruction. The social consequences of the coalition programme will be disastrous.

Martin Wicks

Offline Martin Wicks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
    • Personal Website
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2010, 10:36:34 AM »
From the BBC

Benefit cuts 'will not be approved', warns Hughes

“We should be working to guarantee jobs for the long-term unemployed, not risking homelessness for those who are doing their best to find work”

Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes is threatening a backbench rebellion over planned cuts to housing benefit. The party's deputy leader told Channel 4 News some of the proposals were "harsh and draconian".

In its Spending Review last week, the government announced major changes to housing benefit - including cutting it by 10% for the long-term jobless.

Labour has offered to join forces with Lib Dem backbenchers to force the government to rethink the policy.

'Loud and clear'

The government is proposing the biggest shake-up in housing in decades - cutting money for new social housing by 50% and allowing housing associations to charge new tenants close to the full market rate for rent.

The government hopes the changes will lead to more social housing being built - but critics fear an exodus of poor people from the inner cities as they are forced out by higher rents.

Single people under 35 will also have to live in shared accommodation if they are claiming housing benefit and the long-term unemployed also face tougher sanctions.

Mr Hughes, whose Bermondsey and Old Southwark constituency has the most social housing of any in the country, said he was particularly opposed to the plans to cut housing benefit from 2013 by 10% for those who had been on Job-seekers allowance for 12 months.

"My message to the government is I don't think you will get Parliamentary approval for your current plans," he said.

"I think government understands there has to be negotiations. The current proposals are not the best set of proposals, whatever the financial constraints. There are better ways of doing it and we need to achieve them. I am making sure the message from me and many colleagues is being communicated loud and clear to government."

Social housing

Mr Hughes said he believed the Spending Review was fair "as a whole". "I believe it is far fairer because Lib Dems are there than if it had been a Tory-only budget," he said. "I believe it is broadly fair in that the rich will pay most and most of the poor will be protected."

On Sunday, Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister, defended planned cuts to housing benefit, saying it was not fair that people who went out to work got less help with accommodation than those who did not.

Mr Clegg told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show the government's plans would create more social housing and were "fair" on housing benefit claimants.

He said: "We need to do something about a housing benefit bill which has gone up from £10bn to £21bn in recent years under Labour and there haven't been enough affordable homes built."

'Risking homelessness'

Business Secretary Vince Cable, a fellow Lib Dem MP, also said the key issue was not housing benefit - but building more social housing.

"Simon cares passionately about social housing and that reflects his many years as an MP in Bermondsey and he shares my frustration, I'm also a London MP, about the way over many years there simply hasn't been enough social housing to meet demand and that's the issue we have to deal with rather than the intricacies of the housing benefit regulation.
We have to increase the supply of social housing. It's absolutely crucial."

But shadow work and pension secretary Douglas Alexander, for Labour, said Mr Hughes' comments showed "even the Liberal Democrat deputy leader doesn't believe the government's housing benefit cuts are fair".

He said the proposals were not fair on housing benefit claimants who were genuinely seeking work.

"We should be working to guarantee jobs for the long-term unemployed, not risking homelessness for those who are doing their best to find work," he said.

"I now urge Simon Hughes to back up these words and, with us and other Lib Dem MPs, to force the government to think again."

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2010, 02:15:39 PM »
Quote
When people sign on, they already sign a job-seekers agreement that says they are prepared to travel up to an hour by bus to find work. After six months this goes up to an hour and a half. If their travel is within an hour, the cost is not refunded so the job-seeker is required to find the money themselves out of the miserable pittance they get for job-seekers allowance.

“We are all in it together” says a Cabinet with 18 millionaires in it.

If people cannot find work – and most unemployed people want to find it – then they are going to be penalised and impoverished by the government’s measures. It is job creation we need, not job destruction. The social consequences of the coalition programme will be disastrous.

Well said that man.  :clap:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Martin Wicks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
    • Personal Website
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2010, 06:24:07 PM »
Who was it said the tree of life is greener than the grey of theory? You couldn't make it up. Boris Johnson attacking the government over housing benefit, and the Lib Dem quislings slagging him off!

Of course Johnson's main concern is his re-election, but his comments (leave aside the reference to Kosovo) do underline that you don't have to be a Labour supporter to see the consequences of the coalition policy on housing benefit.

What cretins they are. Instead of tackling the problem of the enrichment of private landlords through housing benefit they attack the receivers of benefit, 40% of whom are low paid workers. Cap the rents and start building Council houses. Don't drive people out of their homes.

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2010, 06:51:02 PM »
Who was it said the tree of life is greener than the grey of theory? You couldn't make it up. Boris Johnson attacking the government over housing benefit, and the Lib Dem quislings slagging him off!

Of course Johnson's main concern is his re-election, but his comments (leave aside the reference to Kosovo) do underline that you don't have to be a Labour supporter to see the consequences of the coalition policy on housing benefit.

What cretins they are. Instead of tackling the problem of the enrichment of private landlords through housing benefit they attack the receivers of benefit, 40% of whom are low paid workers. Cap the rents and start building Council houses. Don't drive people out of their homes.

Exactly
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2722
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2010, 07:56:48 PM »
Marin, in the 13 years of Labour rule, did they cap house benefits and how many council houses did theybuild and did they ever attempt to revert the council house sale policy..

Offline Martin Wicks

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 653
    • Personal Website
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2010, 08:10:05 PM »
No maintained Thatcher's policy which effectively barred Council's from building Council houses, until they relented, very late in the day, conceding the right to build Council houses once again, but giving very little so that the number nationally (from memory) was something like 4,000. Puny.

But, of course, the Tories are not going to fund Council house building, are they?

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2010, 08:17:05 PM »
Looking forwards, and not backwards, when Cameron said yesterday:

Quote
"Our constituents are working hard to give benefits so people can live in homes they couldn't even dream of? I don't think that's fair."

What I hear is:

Quote
"You're going to be hit really, really hard by my cuts Mr Reid, but don't worry, as shitty as life may get for you, we're going to make sure that the lives of the doley's over the road are going to be considerably more shittier than yours"

Much as I know some housing benefit claims are massive, the vast majority are not and the vast majority do not choose the amount of rent they pay or move into affluent areas from choice.  On balance, I'm willing to believe that everything works out reasonably equitably for the taxpayer and the claimant of housing benefit.

I'm finding the constant ConDem demonisation of public servants and benefit claimants is pissing me off very, very much.  Anyone else feel the same way?  I want to state, for the record, that Cameron & Co aren't doing this in my name and I've got the photo of my ballot paper to prove it.

Perhaps it's just me, but I also have a problem when those doing the demonising appear to be, for the most part, millionaires with very little real-life experience.

I really am not surprised that more and more people are reported to be joining or returning to the labour party.  Cameron is re-invigorating interest in politics, but probably not in the way way he intended.  Anyone know which way the membership figure are moving for the other two parties?

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2010, 08:42:59 PM »
Mad world LibDems condem Boris a Tory for his comments on HB as he puts the boot into Cameron's  :surrender: ship policy. Don't you just love the Libdem fifth column?
To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline moley

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 733
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2010, 09:36:02 PM »
I don't have a problem with something being done at the extremes of housing benefit claims but I'm getting the strong impression that they are going well beyond that especially in more expensive areas.  e.g. one modification of what they are currently doing which would have less drastic consequences in the short term would be to introduce the benefit caps for new tenancies, plus passing legislation on unfair rents... (as that would potentially weed out some scams which have been alleged to be happening).

On the subject of people losing their jobs, this blog caught my eye yesterday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2010/oct/27/lost-job-still-at-work

I think that some kind of cuts have to be made, but people still should be treated with dignity, and for folks foaming at the mouth about saving money, remember that there are people who will have a huge impact.

Finally, I draw peoples' attention again to the fact that the job losses at the moment are not just in the public sector (which is why I'm very sceptical about some of the government's claims....

Mind you we know that our local conservatives can be a bit optimistic so why should we expect anything different nationally?

Moley

Offline Tea Boy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Gender: Male
  • Tea's up!, Kettle's on
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2010, 10:04:36 PM »
Local government: Do more, with (much) less
Posted at 3:34 pm on 20 Oct 10 by Paul Nowak TUC


In a skilful piece of political manoeuvring George Osborne has passed a large part of the CSR buck to local government.

Underpinning the sugar-coated language about ‘localising power and funding’, the Chancellor announced a 26% cut in central government funding for local councils – with a cut in capital funding to councils of around 45%.

On top of the headline figures, the CSR also flagged:

    * A 13% real terms reduction in ‘fires resource expenditure’ (that's fire-fighters and fire fighting equipment to you and me)
    * A 20% reduction in bus subsidies and a 28% cut in local government resource grants
    * The end of programmes such as the Working Neighbourhoods Fund (…a concerted drive to get people off welfare and into work) and Growth Area Funding (…financial support to major infrastructure investments)

And in a classic ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ move, DCLG will have  to contribute nearly £900m to pay for the Regional Growth Fund.

To sit alongside these swingeing cuts in resources, local councils will be given increased ‘flexibility’  with the government committed to removing ‘ring-fencing’ of all but a few revenue grants. What this means for the ‘£2bn of additional funding’ the government has allocated to support social care is unclear, but it clearly raises the possibility it’ll be absorbed to plug the gaping holes in local authority budgets.

Whats clear is that a large part of the negative impact of the government’s cuts will be felt at a local level – and it will be local councillors who are placed in the invidious position of delivering the Chancellor’s cuts. Bad news for our communities – and bad news as well for the 4000 or so Liberal Democrat Councillors across England, Wales & Scotland, tasked with driving these cuts through. Next year’s local government elections are not too far away…

Capital funding slashed by 45%! What does that mean for regeneration and social housing projects within Swindon? Will Cavendish Square be completed? Will Sussex Square be regenerated? (Where the old Co-op building was/is an ear marked for shops I believe.)  Council Capital is the lifeblood for a community it pump primes projects and keeps things rolling during times of recession/depression. I await the impact  :popcorn:

Will the grass be cut and the bins emptied???????
Gardening tips: Always remember its brown side down, green side up.  If its knocking now it'll only go bang later

Offline Steve Wakefield

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2010, 10:16:19 PM »
Yes  ;) As long as there is a workforce turning up for work ;)
All posts on this forum are my own opinion and do not represent the views of any council or any political party.  :banana:

Offline Drone

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Butchers' Budget
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2010, 09:01:14 AM »
Local government: Do more, with (much) less
Posted at 3:34 pm on 20 Oct 10 by Paul Nowak TUC


In a skilful piece of political manoeuvring George Osborne has passed a large part of the CSR buck to local government.

Underpinning the sugar-coated language about ‘localising power and funding’, the Chancellor announced a 26% cut in central government funding for local councils – with a cut in capital funding to councils of around 45%.

On top of the headline figures, the CSR also flagged:

    * A 13% real terms reduction in ‘fires resource expenditure’ (that's fire-fighters and fire fighting equipment to you and me)
    * A 20% reduction in bus subsidies and a 28% cut in local government resource grants
    * The end of programmes such as the Working Neighbourhoods Fund (…a concerted drive to get people off welfare and into work) and Growth Area Funding (…financial support to major infrastructure investments)

And in a classic ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ move, DCLG will have  to contribute nearly £900m to pay for the Regional Growth Fund.

To sit alongside these swingeing cuts in resources, local councils will be given increased ‘flexibility’  with the government committed to removing ‘ring-fencing’ of all but a few revenue grants. What this means for the ‘£2bn of additional funding’ the government has allocated to support social care is unclear, but it clearly raises the possibility it’ll be absorbed to plug the gaping holes in local authority budgets.

Whats clear is that a large part of the negative impact of the government’s cuts will be felt at a local level – and it will be local councillors who are placed in the invidious position of delivering the Chancellor’s cuts. Bad news for our communities – and bad news as well for the 4000 or so Liberal Democrat Councillors across England, Wales & Scotland, tasked with driving these cuts through. Next year’s local government elections are not too far away…

Capital funding slashed by 45%! What does that mean for regeneration and social housing projects within Swindon? Will Cavendish Square be completed? Will Sussex Square be regenerated? (Where the old Co-op building was/is an ear marked for shops I believe.)  Council Capital is the lifeblood for a community it pump primes projects and keeps things rolling during times of recession/depression. I await the impact  :popcorn:

Will the grass be cut and the bins emptied???????

A borough-wide pack of feral goats could handle both issues...
derp derp herp herp derp