Putting the moral case aside (where yeah, I obviously see the case), it's pretty difficult to argue that continuing unlimited child and housing benefit supports the economy more than having the option of proper stimulus borrowing in the event of a recession.

Child benefit maybe, but Britain's tourism industry would go up in flames if the streets were suddenly filled with homeless people as a result of scrapping housing benefit.

 

The point is, the logical conclusion of your argument that "it's possible to cut spending without affecting anything that matters" is the logical conclusion is that huge amounts of current spending aren't necessary. Why would those programmes have been set up in the first place if there wasn't a need for them?

Edited April 15, 201510 yr by Danny

Build council houses is the blatantly obvious answer. Stop Right To Buy instantly. Gets rid of waiting lists, cuts money given out in housing benefits to the private sector and gives it back to councils who can use the money. Creates tons of jobs in house building, all 2nd and 3rd home owners suddnely struggle to rake in enough cash to keep themselves gainfully lazy and are forced to sell or seriously drop rents for the private sector, property returns to realistic prices and becomes affordable to young people and poorer people. Housing becomes somehting to live in, not something to invest and make money out of.

 

Suddenly wages go much further, and there are more jobs, and society is fairer.

 

So why is this not happening? Vested interests amongst politicians to keep housing market bubbles going by the well-off who financially support them, or vote for them, and gain from keeping the current very unfair system. Oh, and to keep the b*stard banks afloat, still those nasty years of insane lending on the books just biding their time for housing values to rise....

Child benefit maybe, but Britain's tourism industry would go up in flames if the streets were suddenly filled with homeless people as a result of scrapping housing benefit.

 

The point is, the logical conclusion of your argument that "it's possible to cut spending without affecting anything that matters" is the logical conclusion is that huge amounts of current spending aren't necessary. Why would those programmes have been set up in the first place if there wasn't a need for them?

You're talking in absolutes again. I'm not advocating scrapping housing benefit, am I? Even the bloody Tories aren't advocating scrapping housing benefit. It's like turning around to your doctor when they say you should cut back on salt and shouting 'BY THE LOGICAL ABSOLUTE OF THAT I WOULD DIE BECAUSE YOU NEED SALT TO LIVE'. And I didn't say it wouldn't affect anything that matters. But I think people would be far, far worse off if another recession hit and we couldn't borrow enough to do a proper stimulus than they would if we let the deficit carry on as is for the sake of declaring all spending, welfare and all, totally sacrosanct when there is no chance that every penny that is being spent right now is being put to best use.

You're talking in absolutes again. I'm not advocating scrapping housing benefit, am I? Even the bloody Tories aren't advocating scrapping housing benefit. It's like turning around to your doctor when they say you should cut back on salt and shouting 'BY THE LOGICAL ABSOLUTE OF THAT I WOULD DIE BECAUSE YOU NEED SALT TO LIVE'. And I didn't say it wouldn't affect anything that matters. But I think people would be far, far worse off if another recession hit and we couldn't borrow enough to do a proper stimulus than they would if we let the deficit carry on as is for the sake of declaring all spending, welfare and all, totally sacrosanct when there is no chance that every penny that is being spent right now is being put to best use.

 

But the point still stands. Cutting housing benefit would increase homelessness -- otherwise, why would those people have been getting housing benefit in the first place? Or do you think benefit fraud makes up a lot of the bill? I'm genuinely not understanding where you're coming from. For there to be all this scope to massively cut back on spending, you must surely believe that a lot of the increased spending the last Labour government introduced was "waste".

Edited April 15, 201510 yr by Danny

I was using housing benefit as an example - I doubt it'd be one of the benefits cut, I only use the example as the precedent is already there for a cap. If there had to be cuts within the welfare budget I'd probably go for getting rid of things like free TV licences for pensioners - my point was more that the pain of, say, reducing the benefits cap to £20k per year (or whatever - take your pick of whatever cuts one or two billion out of welfare spending) would probably be less than the pain of the next recession hitting and a government genuinely not being able to borrow enough to start the economy up again.

I was using housing benefit as an example - I doubt it'd be one of the benefits cut, I only use the example as the precedent is already there for a cap. If there had to be cuts within the welfare budget I'd probably go for getting rid of things like free TV licences for pensioners - my point was more that the pain of, say, reducing the benefits cap to £20k per year (or whatever - take your pick of whatever cuts one or two billion out of welfare spending) would probably be less than the pain of the next recession hitting and a government genuinely not being able to borrow enough to start the economy up again.

 

 

I think Child Benefit should be abolished for all but the poorest families such as those on other benefits and the minimum wage earners. A couple on two graduate wages of 30k for example, shouldn't receive any Child Benefit at all. They don't need it. In fact I'd stop it for joint incomes of say 40k. They wouldn't be happy but so what.

There's a massive gap between the press narrative of Labour's plans and the reality. The party (for better or worse, and we'll find out soon enough) has decided that the best way to win the election is to posture about being fiscally responsible. It doesn't bother pointing out things like the fact that 1) we'd be able to stop cutting next year or that 2) our targets don't include capital spending because it doesn't fit with the rhetoric. To be frank I'm bored of the endless criticism from people who willfully ignore one or both of those facts and a whole host of other things in the manifesto which, if they were being promised by the Greens or the SNP, they'd be shouting from the rooftops about.

Indeed they are focusing on one thing and not the overall picture. If they were like the Greens they would have no credibility and no chance of being elected!

I think Child Benefit should be abolished for all but the poorest families such as those on other benefits and the minimum wage earners. A couple on two graduate wages of 30k for example, shouldn't receive any Child Benefit at all. They don't need it. In fact I'd stop it for joint incomes of say 40k. They wouldn't be happy but so what.

This government has restricted entitlement to child benefit. However, thanks to the Tory press, they ended up with a far more complicated (and, therefore, expensive to administer) system than the one they originally proposed.

The Leaders (But Not All Leaders) Debate is on the BBC this evening. I must say this line from the BBC News description gave me a wee giggle -

 

Mr Miliband will line up on the far left of the podium, with Mr Farage on the far right

 

There's a massive gap between the press narrative of Labour's plans and the reality. The party (for better or worse, and we'll find out soon enough) has decided that the best way to win the election is to posture about being fiscally responsible. It doesn't bother pointing out things like the fact that 1) we'd be able to stop cutting next year or that 2) our targets don't include capital spending because it doesn't fit with the rhetoric. To be frank I'm bored of the endless criticism from people who willfully ignore one or both of those facts and a whole host of other things in the manifesto which, if they were being promised by the Greens or the SNP, they'd be shouting from the rooftops about.

 

I've said before that I'm genuinely confused what Labour's economic policies are since different people say completely different things. But earlier this week, Miliband denied that they would stop cutting next year, and said they would be making cuts every year. Was he flat-out lying??

I've said before that I'm genuinely confused what Labour's economic policies are since different people say completely different things. But earlier this week, Miliband denied that they would stop cutting next year, and said they would be making cuts every year. Was he flat-out lying??

Where was this?

Contrary to all that 'the British public are YEARNING FOR MORE DEFICIT SPENDING', the budget lock turns out to be, uh, actually the most popular policy in the Labour manifesto.

 

Where was this?

 

Despite the rhetoric on the deficit, Miliband made no new commitments on the subject, save to emphasise that spending in non-protected departments will be cut in each year of the next parliament.

 

Both he and Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, brutally slapped down the hopeful suggestion of the Scottish leader Jim Murphy, who argued that the Institute of Fiscal Studies had claimed there might not need to be spending cuts after 2015-16 if Labour put back balancing the current account until late in the parliament.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/a...-no-10-looks-it

 

 

Contrary to all that 'the British public are YEARNING FOR MORE DEFICIT SPENDING', the budget lock turns out to be, uh, actually the most popular policy in the Labour manifesto.

 

 

LMAO, who wouldn't want the deficit reduced if there were no consequences to it? If you asked me in isolation whether I wanted it reduced in an ideal world, even I'd say yes. This is a classic example of one of the "pony polling" things you always rightly decry.

 

But questions which ask whether people want the deficit reduced at the cost of massively reduced spending for public services ALWAYS produce different results.

Edited April 16, 201510 yr by Danny

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/a...-no-10-looks-it

LMAO, who wouldn't want the deficit reduced if there were no consequences to it? If you asked me in isolation whether I wanted it reduced in an ideal world, even I'd say yes. This is a classic example of one of the "pony polling" things you always rightly decry.

 

But questions which ask whether people want the deficit reduced at the cost of massively reduced spending for public services ALWAYS produce different results.

No, that's a fair criticism. But at the same time, it then becomes difficult to argue that the Labour Party pledging to reduce the deficit and balance the budget is damaging as a statement in itself, which you were doing the other day!

The Leaders (But Not All Leaders) Debate is on the BBC this evening. I must say this line from the BBC News description gave me a wee giggle -

 

 

They should have two empty chairs in the middle to remind people that the PM and Deputy PM are too scared to be there. :wacko:

They should have two empty chairs in the middle to remind people that the PM and Deputy PM are too scared to be there. :wacko:

 

Nick Clegg wanted to be there, but he wasn't invited by the BBC.

*.*

The bbc said he couldn't come as he would be a government representative in a challengers debate!