Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Posts Tagged ‘George Osborne

Tories Cut Benefits to win Popularity.

Image result for osborne cuts benefits boost popularity

Clegg and Osborne Enjoy a Special Moment Together. 

This says it all .

Clegg: Osborne casually cut welfare for poorest to boost Tory popularity (Guardian today)

Exclusive: Former deputy PM says ‘cynical’ ex-chancellor was not bothered about human consequences.

Nick Clegg has accused the former chancellor George Osborne of casually cutting the benefits of the poorest people in society because he believed taking the austerity axe to welfare would boost Conservative popularity.

In a candid interview looking back on his five years as deputy prime minister in the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, Clegg said he found the behaviour of his senior Conservative partner “very unattractive, very cynical”.

“Welfare for Osborne was just a bottomless pit of savings, and it didn’t really matter what the human consequences were, because focus groups had shown that the voters they wanted to appeal to were very anti-welfare, and therefore there was almost no limit to those anti-welfare prejudices,” he told the Guardian.

Speaking before the publication of his anticipated political memoir, written after his party was reduced to eight seats in last year’s general election, Clegg hit out at David Cameron and his Conservative partners in government. He said the former Tory leader or the chancellor – “I honestly can’t remember whom – looked genuinely nonplussed and said: ‘I don’t understand why you keep going on about the need for more social housing – it just creates Labour voters.’ They genuinely saw housing as a Petri dish for voters. It was unbelievable.”

See the Comments. (4080 at the time of writing this post).

For example:

This doesn’t surprise me. The vermin’s support base practically put the bunting out whenever cuts are aimed at the unemployed, single mothers or working poor but cry like babies when the nice to have freebies are taken away for the affluent old.

The Tory support base are nasty pieces of work. There is a section of the electorate who’ll vote Tory not in spite of them being a hateful class war party with no compassion for the weakest but because they are a hateful classwar party with no compassion for the weakest.

These people complain when they are called out on their behaviour.

And,

 Its amazing what short memories some people have when it comes to state benefits.
He didn’t cuts the £85bn in corporate welfare handouts
But did cut to Personal Independence Payments to raise £4.4BILLION to fund tax cut for the rich
In fact he consistently helped the rich – and he did it by hurting disabled people.

Written by Andrew Coates

September 3, 2016 at 10:04 am

Disability Cuts to Fund Tax Reductions for the Middle Classes.

Cutting Personal Independent Payments to reduce Disabled Burden on Wealthy.

George Osborne defends using disability cuts to fund middle-class tax break

From Enigma.

Budget 2016: George Osborne’s £1bn Disabled Cut To Fund ‘Middle Class Tax Giveaway’ Riles Campaigners

George Osborne‘s reported plan to use a billion pound benefit cut for disabled people to fund tax giveaways for the middle-class has sparked outrage from campaigners.

The Chancellor is allegedly preparing to use the £130 slashed from 600,000 disabled people’s PIP – Personal Independence Payment – support to raise the threshold at which people start paying 40p tax.

Claims about the policy, which could be revealed at the Spring Budget next Wednesday, were attributed to Westminster “insiders” in today’s Telegraph.

But fears are already mounting, with one senior Labour frontbencher saying the move would be “obscene”.

Owen Smith, shadow work and pensions secretary, posted on Twitter: “Already wicked to take another £1.2 billion from disabled, but truly obscene if switched for tax cuts at the Budget.”

Huffington Post.

One can only assume that in line with policies to stop the feckless poor from breeding – cuts in family allowances – this is  part of a plan to stop people who are disabled taking up  PIPs and no doubt to reduce the numbers of the disabled.

The Observer analyses the figures,

Research conducted by the foundation for the Observer has established that the cuts – including moves to increase the threshold at which the 40p rate of tax becomes payable from £42,385 to £50,000 by 2020 – will cost £2bn over the next two years, with 85% of the windfall going to the richest half of households.

Torsten Bell, director of Resolution Foundation, said: “Keeping on track with those commitments would mean finding £2bn over the next two years and would overwhelmingly benefit richer households.

“The priority should be supporting low- and middle-income families, instead of going down this route of expensive and poorly targeted tax cuts.”

Osborne also plans to increase the personal tax-free allowance, which is due to rise to £10,800 from April and £11,000 in 2017, reaching £12,500 by 2020. But 4.6 million low-paid workers will gain nothing from these cuts, because they do not earn enough to pay tax. Resolution Foundation says low-income families on universal credit will have two-thirds of any tax cut clawed back through reduced benefits.

Written by Andrew Coates

March 13, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Impact of Benefit Cuts Leaves Mothers £13bn worse off.

Osborne Smirks at Thought of more Welfare Cuts. 

As the Budget on the 16th of March gets nearer here are some things to think about.

In February we saw this:

Government freeze on tax credits and jobseekers’ allowance could cost families 12% of their benefits, says report.

A report by the Children’s Society, published on Tuesday, says families could lose up to 12% from the real value of their benefits over the next four years as a result of government plans to freeze child tax credits, working tax credits and jobseekers’ allowance from April.

Guardian. 23rd of February.

Note: this was introduced last year:

A freeze in working age benefits for four years (including tax credits and Local Housing Allowance, and excluding maternity pay and disability benefits – PIP, DLA and ESA Support Group).

These are some of the changes that will hit people here from April 2016 (more details here).

  • The level of earnings at which a household’s Universal Credit award starts to be withdrawn for every extra pound earned (Income threshold reduction) will be reduced from £6,420 to £3,850. SeeSummer Budget 2015 page
  • Universal Credit work allowances will be reduced to £4,764 for those without housing costs, £2,304 for those with housing costs, and removed altogether for non-disabled claimants without children. See SI 2015/1649 and Summer Budget 2015 page.
  • The amount by which a tax credit claimant’s income can increase in-year compared to their previous year’s income before their award is adjusted (the income rise disregard) will be reduced to £2,500. See Spending Review 2015 page

From April 2017.

  • New ESA claimants who are placed in the Work-Related Activity Group will receive the same rate of benefit as those claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance, alongside additional support to help them take steps back to work. See Summer Budget 2015 page
  • Those aged 18 to 21 who are on Universal Credit (UC) will have to apply for an apprenticeship or traineeship, gain work-based skills, or go on a work placement 6 months after the start of their claim. Apart from certain exceptions (those considered vulnerable) they will not be allowed to claim Housing Benefit/UC housing costs element. See Summer Budget 2015 page

Now the results are being analysed:

Benefit cuts ‘will leave mothers £13bn worse off over course of current Parliament’. Independent March the 6th 2016.

Mothers will be £13bn worse off under the current Government as a result of policies announced over the past year, according to a new analysis.

Labour described the figures – produced by the House of Commons Library – as a “disgrace”, saying mothers played a key role in society but had been hit with a “stonking great bill”.

The research looked at the effects on women with dependent children of a number of changes announced by Chancellor George Osborne, since last year’s general election.

It found that cuts to universal credit, the four-year freeze on child benefit and other welfare payments, reductions in housing benefit and other policies outweighed increases to the personal income tax allowance and extra money for childcare.

The overall impact meant mothers will be £13bn worse off over the course of the current parliament, from last year until 2020. The Labour MP Yvette Cooper, who commissioned the research, said: “These figures are a disgrace. On Mother’s Day, the whole country celebrates just how much mums do to hold families together, communities together and even hold our economy together too.

“Yet what thanks do mums get from George Osborne and David Cameron? Only a stonking great £13bn bill.”

Last month the Children’s Society urged the Government to reconsider the benefits freeze if ministers were “genuinely concerned about child poverty”.

The charity calculated that a 23-year-old single mother, who works as a primary school teacher and rents her home, would be more than £2,800 a year worse off as a result of the changes. And a nurse and her partner, living in a rented house in London with three children, would be £5,100 a year worse off.

In a report, the society found that seven million children in low-income families would be affected by the four-year benefits freeze, while others would be pushed into poverty as a result.

A spokeswoman for the Treasury did not respond to a request for comment.

Responding to the Children’s Society report last month, the Department for Work and Pensions said: “We are bringing welfare spending under control, while – crucially – helping people into work, and through universal credit helping them to earn more.”

Still it’s not all bad news: Pensions: George Osborne drops plans to cut tax relief

And the big winners of this non-announcement will be wealthy people. At the moment not only do they earn more, they also get a proportionately bigger tax top-up from the government when they save for their retirement.

If the chancellor had scrapped the tax relief entirely on pensions savings and created instead a new pensions Isa, that would have cost the better off (40p and 45p taxpayers) billions of pounds collectively.

Written by Andrew Coates

March 6, 2016 at 11:30 am

Chancellor Calls for Labour Backing for Welfare ‘Reform’ and Making Young Parents look for Work.

Osborne with his children, who attend expensive Private School, St Pauls, in London.

Welfare Weekly reports.

George Osborne has urged progressive MPs in the Labour party to back his welfare changes in a critical Commons vote on Monday night, saying they should recognise that the proposals not only chime with the public but build on mainstream Labour thinking.

Writing in the Guardian, the chancellor calls on Labour to stop blaming the public for its defeat and recognise that welfare requires public consent.

Labour has plunged into a deep, week-long split over how to respond to Osborne’s welfare plans, with at least three of the leadership candidates, including Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, rejecting the interim Labour leader Harriet Harman’s plea for the party to abstain and back a lower welfare cap. Harman also said Labour should not oppose the restriction of tax credits to a claimant’s first two children.

She said the party needed to recognise that the electorate had sent Labour a message on welfare and it had to show it was listening. But she has now been forced into a partial retreat, and the party has instead tabled an amendment rejecting the bill. Some Labour MPs still believe the new compromise does not go far enough and will vote against the bill on Monday, not just support a dissenting amendment.

Osborne sprung a surprise in the budget by proposing cuts to the level of tax credits, but balanced these in part by a rise in the minimum wage to more than £9 an hour by 2020 for those over 25. Osborne argues that the responsibility for ensuring decent living standards should be rebalanced from the state handing out subsidies towards employers providing decent wages.

He writes: “Three in four people – and a majority of Labour voters – think that Britain spends too much on welfare. For our social contract to work, we need to retain the consent of the taxpayer, not just the welfare recipient. For those that can work, I believe it is better to earn a higher income from your work than receive a higher income from welfare.

“I thought British politics had taken a step forward when Labour’s acting leader Harriet Harman indicated that she would support at least some of our reforms. She recognised that oppositions only advance when they stop blaming the public for their defeat and recognise that some of the arguments made by political opponents should be listened to – just as a previous Conservative opposition realised 15 years ago when it accepted the case for a minimum wage.

“Depressingly, the Labour leader has been forced to retreat from her sensible position after Len McCluskey accused her of ‘running up the white flag’ and leadership candidates Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper joined Jeremy Corbyn in undermining her. With the vote coming on Monday, I urge moderate Labour MPs not to make the same mistake as in the last parliament, when they refused to support each and every welfare reform we proposed. I say: vote with us.”

This is another key feature of the “reforms” (Daily Telegraph).

Single mothers will be forced to seek work for their benefits

Single parents on benefits will be forced to look for work when their youngest child reaches the age of three, or face losing their state hand-outs, under new welfare laws.

At present, parents – including lone mothers and fathers – are entitled to receive benefits without conditions being attached until their children start school aged five.

However, welfare reforms to be debated in Parliament for the first time on Monday, will lower this age limit, meaning claimants whose youngest child is three or older will be required to look for work as a condition of continuing to receive the payments.

The move is expected to save £55 million from the welfare bill between 2017 and 2020 as parents lose their benefits or move into jobs.

The new rules will also mean that parents claiming benefits will have to “prepare for work” when their youngest child turns two, before actively seeking employment a year later.

Ministers have decided that the reform is fair because it will coincide with a major expansion in free childcare, designed to make it easier for parents to go to work.

From September 2017, all three and four year-olds in England will be entitled to up to 30 hours per week of free day-care.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, believes this will make sure that work pays for parents, who have faced high childcare costs that have deterred many from returning to their jobs after having children in the past.

We wonder if the Telegraph’s journalists – who  live on ‘hand outs’ from the rich, that is their owners the Barclay Brothers live in tax-exile at a Castle on the island of Brecqhou – have thought through the proposed ‘free child care’ arrangements.

They cover 30 hours a week.

Not 40.

This involve taking children to and from the nursery.

Not all parents, and not all children, will be so simply ‘fitted into’ these compulsory regime.

It’s hard enough already being a single mother.

Most importantly, will there be jobs for all those young parents?

Or will they have to spend 35 hours a week ‘job-seeking’?

How will this be monitored?

Will they get sanctioned if they have to take time for an ill child?

Indeed if they get sanctioned (there are so many reasons for this to happen….) who will feed and clothe the children.

Or will they have to go on more fruitless ‘schemes’ run by those reliant on ‘hand outs’ from the state: the Welfare-to-Work Industry.

And risk more sanctions?

 

Wikipedia tells us of Osborne’s own personal life:

Osborne married The HonFrances Victoria Howell (b. 18 February 1969), author and elder daughter of the Conservative politician and Government Minister Lord Howell of Guildford, on 4 April 1998.[5] The couple have two children, Luke Benedict, born at Westminster on 15 June 2001, and Liberty Kate, born at Westminster, London, on 27 June 2003.[2] He has an estimated personal fortune of around £4 million, as the beneficiary of a trust fund that owns a 15 per cent stake in Osborne & Little, the wallpaper-and-fabrics company co-founded by his father, Sir Peter Osborne, Bt.

Just the man to order single parents reliant on benefits about!

Written by Andrew Coates

July 20, 2015 at 11:42 am

Young People – especially the Out-of-Work – are Being Hammered as Welfare Privatisation Looms.

Iain Duncan Smith Hammers Young as he Plans to Let more Private Firms Make Money from Welfare.

UK ‘failing its young’ as gulf grows between generations reports the Observer this morning.

I cannot help feeling that this is one of the worst things you could say about any government and society

The prospects for young Britons have deteriorated sharply since the Tories entered government in 2010 as money and resources have been targeted at the older generation, according to a devastating new report by economists.

The latest findings of the Intergenerational Foundation, to be published this week, highlight a sharply widening gap on its “fairness index” between people under 30 and those over 60.

The report illustrates how the younger generation is increasingly paying the price for supporting those already in, or approaching, older age as the cost of funding their pensions and healthcare rises.

Since 2010, the report shows, there has been a 10% decline in young people’s prospects across a range of measures including housing, education, health, income and debt. It comes amid a growing backlash from young people against George Osborne’s budget last week in which he announced welfare cuts that will hit many young families, ended automatic entitlement to housing benefit for those aged 18 to 21, and replaced maintenance grants for students with a loan system. Osborne also unveiled plans for a new “national living wage” that will rise to £9 an hour by 2020, giving millions of people a pay rise. But it will not apply to those under 25.

After the budget we noted this,

The tone of the chancellor’s strict carrot-and-stick approach was established by his planned “youth obligation” for 18 to 21-year-olds on universal credit, which he said would provide them with “an intensive regime of support from day one of their benefit claim”, from April 2017. At the same time, Osborne said housing benefit would no longer be automatically available for 18 to 21-year-olds.

Is there worse to come?

Yes: in the end this for all of us (Welfare Weekly)

Iain Duncan Smith has hinted that the future of Britain’s welfare system could rest in the arms of private insurance schemes.

Speaking to the Telegraph, the Work and Pensions Secretary says young people should be encouraged to save into flexible accounts, from which they can then draw out money at times of sickness or unemployment.

The model is very similar to unemployment insurance schemes in the United States, but would work more like systems that exist in the far East – such as ‘Fortune Accounts’ in Singapore.

“We need to support the kind of products that allow people through their lives to dip in and out when they need the money for sickness or care or unemployment”, said Iain Duncan Smith.

He added: “We need to encourage people to save from day one, but they need to know that they can get some of the money out when their circumstances change.

Iain Duncan Smith said that although this is not yet official government policy, he is “keen to look at it, as a long-term way forward for the 21st century.”