Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[clangers]

We'll be going in to a triple dip recession too. Wonder what weather disaster will be to blame this time?

 

Exactly, although it's not a triple dip it's actually a depression.

 

We've had successive governments who have implemented failed counter cyclical economic policy.

 

New Labour spent far too much, increasing debt levels during a lengthy period of economic growth, mismanaged the financial service sector and allowed our very own national credit and debt bubble to form.

 

Followed by the Tories with their tired and largely discredited 'austerity'. You can't actually reduce deficit without growth. They assumed that the global and eurozone economies would bounce back offsetting their cuts.

 

I get the impression that they are still hoping for the bounce before 2015, they are clearly bereft of any other ideas.

 

i assume that once it sinks in that the economy is going to flat line for several years and isn't going to save them before the next election the coalition will turn on itself?

Edited February 25, 2013 by clangers

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Surely a depression would mean every aspect of society would be effected.Not just the poor.

 

From where I am sat, the rich just keep on getting richer.

[clangers]

Surely a depression would mean every aspect of society would be effected.Not just the poor.

 

From where I am sat, the rich just keep on getting richer.

 

OK call it stagnation, although in the 1930's the upper classes didn't suffer greatly either. It's only the poor who suffer in recessions.

[Champ]

I've never understood that law of nature that the way to motivate the rich is to reward them and the way to motivate the poor is to punish them further. Or is that just me.....

 

Lifey spotted this earlier

 

Budget 2013: Ministers deny 'second home subsidy'

 

A row has erupted over whether a Budget initiative aimed at helping people get on the housing ladder could be used to fund the purchase of second homes.

 

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said the Help to Buy scheme amounts to a "spare homes subsidy" for the better-off.

 

But Housing Minister Mark Prisk said applicants would have to "divest" their existing properties to be eligible.

 

The Bank of England would guarantee loans for people putting down 5% deposits under the scheme.

 

The final details have yet to be worked out but it will facilitate £130bn of home loans over three years.

 

'Bedroom tax'

The aim of the UK-wide policy, which will be available for homes up to £600,000 from January 2014, is to breathe new life into the housing market, which has been hit by banks demanding bigger deposits from homebuyers.

 

Treasury sources have stressed to the BBC that it was not designed for second homes but said that they would not be specifically excluded.

 

 

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls was quick to seize on the apparent confusion, taunting Chancellor George Osborne in a Commons debate, in which he linked the policy to government plans to cut housing benefit for social housing residents with spare rooms, dubbed the "bedroom tax" by Labour.

 

"It now seems his mortgage scheme will help people no matter how high their income to buy a subsidised second home worth up to £600,000," Mr Balls told MPs.

 

"From what I can see, the government is basically saying if you have got a spare room in a social home, you will pay the bedroom tax but if you want a spare home and you can afford it, we will help you buy one."

 

He added: "That is not just tax cuts for millionaires, it is - dare I say it - a spare homes subsidy."

 

He challenged Mr Osborne to confirm funding would be limited to first-time buyers and owner-occupiers and to pledge that second homes and buy-to-let properties would be excluded.

 

 

George Osborne: "We're on the side of people who are trying to work hard... to raise their kids in the right way"

Housing Minister Mark Prisk insisted that the Help to Buy scheme would only be available for "family" homes.

 

"I think Ed Balls is claiming that somehow you can get a loan under the Help to Buy scheme for your second home," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.

 

"Let's be very clear - that is not the case. As with the current schemes, you would first have to divest your existing property prior to being able to proceed with any Help to Buy sale, so this is about family homes, it is not about second homes."

 

'Housing boom'

But the BBC News Channel's chief political correspondent Norman Smith said the Treasury had not closed the door entirely on the scheme being used for second homes.

 

Officials were trying to work out a definition that allowed parents to buy a home for their children but not to buy a holiday home for themselves, he added.

 

There is also concern that the Help to Buy scheme could fuel another unsustainable house price boom, making properties less affordable for young people.

 

Continue reading the main story

Budget documents

 

Conservative MP Kwarsi Kwarteng said the shortage of mortgages for first-time buyers was a social problem that the government was right to address.

 

But he added: "My worry with this is that having a system where you are giving mortgages without increasing the supply will lead to asset price inflation, because obviously if the amount of supply remains the same and you are making credit easier, the tendency would be for the prices to go up.

 

"I think we could have announced something bolder that actually increased the supply of homes."

 

BBC business editor Robert Peston said the new scheme was "ambitious" but came with risks as "growth sparked by a housing-linked consumer boom might not be altogether healthy" for the economy.

 

Mr Osborne hit back at fears of house price inflation, saying the Bank of England would be able "to turn off the tap" on the finance after three years if the market was over-heating

 

He said the scheme was needed as the mortgage market was "not functioning properly".

 

"The intention of the scheme is absolutely clear - it is for people who want to get their first home or have a home and want to move to a bigger home because perhaps they have got a bigger family," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

 

The Council of Mortgage Lenders has said the scheme must be attractive to borrowers, viable for lenders and not overly complex.

 

Although the benefits would not be immediate, the trade body said it should enable lenders "to offer more low-deposit loans than they would otherwise be able to do" without worrying financial markets and regulators.

 

The Help-to-Buy scheme was one of a number of initiatives announced in Wednesday's Budget - in which growth forecasts for 2013 were halved to 0.6% and the Office for Budget Responsibility suggested the government's efforts to cut the deficit - the difference between money spent and earned in a year - have stalled and it will remain stuck at about £120bn for three years.

[melons]

Treasury sources have stressed to the BBC that it was not designed for second homes but said that they would not be specifically excluded.

 

Funny how a few words on a screen can make you feel nauseous, corrupt bastards.

[Strontium]

Surely we want people to move from their first homes to free up properties for first-time buyers. Not sure why that should make anyone nauseous.

[Bjornebye]

Surely we want people to move from their first homes to free up properties for first-time buyers. Not sure why that should make anyone nauseous.

 

WUM.

[Pidge]

Second as in concurrent, not consecutive you fucking idiot.

[lifetime fan]

Treasury sources have stressed to the BBC that it was not designed for second homes but said that they would not be specifically excluded.

 

 

.

[Champ]

Oh, how fucking convenient.

 

We'll do what we want, we'll do what we want.....

[Fugitive]

SD is a full blown Tory cunt now but what makes it funny are his actual liberal views before the coalition formed. How quick was he to change his views, bend over and take a massive Tory cock up his arse just so his shitty little party could have a bit of power.

[Strontium]

Second as in concurrent, not consecutive you fucking idiot.

 

 

Jesus Christ, when did you turn into such a massive prick?

 

I think the idiots are those who think people will be permitted to hold concurrent properties. The housing minister's comments are pretty unambiguous, if the Guardian is trying to spin something different out of this then it doesn't surprise me.

 

Housing Minister Mark Prisk insisted that the Help to Buy scheme would only be available for "family" homes.

 

"I think Ed Balls is claiming that somehow you can get a loan under the Help to Buy scheme for your second home," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.

 

"Let's be very clear - that is not the case. As with the current schemes, you would first have to divest your existing property prior to being able to proceed with any Help to Buy sale, so this is about family homes, it is not about second homes."

 

SD is a full blown Tory cunt now but what makes it funny are his actual liberal views before the coalition formed. How quick was he to change his views, bend over and take a massive Tory cock up his arse just so his shitty little party could have a bit of power.

 

 

You have rapidly turned into the biggest prick on this forum, and that is saying something.

 

I challenge you to find a single example of me changing my mind on anything. Put up or shut up you mouthy little cunt.

[lifetime fan]

Jesus Christ, when did you turn into such a massive prick?

 

I think the idiots are those who think people will be permitted to hold concurrent properties. The housing minister's comments are pretty unambiguous, if the Guardian is trying to spin something different out of this then it doesn't surprise me.

 

Housing Minister Mark Prisk insisted that the Help to Buy scheme would only be available for "family" homes.

 

"I think Ed Balls is claiming that somehow you can get a loan under the Help to Buy scheme for your second home," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.

 

"Let's be very clear - that is not the case. As with the current schemes, you would first have to divest your existing property prior to being able to proceed with any Help to Buy sale, so this is about family homes, it is not about second homes."

 

 

But No 10 later had to clarify its position.

 

A Downing Street spokesman said Mr Prisk had been referring to another part of the Help to Buy scheme, called the "equity loan scheme".

 

This starts on 1 April 2013 and will help people who want to buy a new-build property in England only, unlike the mortgage guarantee scheme, which will be UK-wide.

[Section_31]

SD is a full blown Tory cunt now but what makes it funny are his actual liberal views before the coalition formed. How quick was he to change his views, bend over and take a massive Tory cock up his arse just so his shitty little party could have a bit of power.

 

He's more machine now than man.

[Strontium]

But No 10 later had to clarify its position.

 

A Downing Street spokesman said Mr Prisk had been referring to another part of the Help to Buy scheme, called the "equity loan scheme".

 

This starts on 1 April 2013 and will help people who want to buy a new-build property in England only, unlike the mortgage guarantee scheme, which will be UK-wide.

 

 

Okay, but it's clear from the other things said that there's no prospect of people being able to own multiple homes under this system.

 

The BBC's chief political correspondent, Norman Smith, said Treasury officials were trying to work out a definition of the rules surrounding eligibility for the mortgage guarantee scheme that allowed parents to buy a home for their children but not to buy a holiday home.

 

and

 

The line hardened when Vince Cable, the business secretary, told MPs the equity loan scheme for new homes could not be used for second homes, and suggested a consultation on details of the mortgage guarantee initiative - the other half of the Help to Buy announcement – would look for a way to also stop people doing that. "I am quite sure these imagined horrors are not going to materialise," he added.

 

Allowing it to be used for holiday homes or buy to let would defeat the purpose. I think some people are playing politics with this.

[lifetime fan]

Okay, but it's clear from the other things said that there's no prospect of people being able to own multiple homes under this system.

 

The BBC's chief political correspondent, Norman Smith, said Treasury officials were trying to work out a definition of the rules surrounding eligibility for the mortgage guarantee scheme that allowed parents to buy a home for their children but not to buy a holiday home.

 

and

 

The line hardened when Vince Cable, the business secretary, told MPs the equity loan scheme for new homes could not be used for second homes, and suggested a consultation on details of the mortgage guarantee initiative - the other half of the Help to Buy announcement – would look for a way to also stop people doing that. "I am quite sure these imagined horrors are not going to materialise," he added.

 

Allowing it to be used for holiday homes or buy to let would defeat the purpose. I think some people are playing politics with this.

 

 

If you saw the interview with Osbourne on BBC Breakfast it's anything but clear.

 

I think it's a good idea and back it irrespective of party politics. But as I said Osbourne refused to rule out it would be available to those purchasing second homes.

[Pidge]

Allowing it to be used for holiday homes or buy to let would defeat the purpose. I think some people are playing politics with this.

 

It certainly would defeat the purpose and it clearly isn't a defined point or senior members of the government wouldn't still be "looking for a way" to prevent it. The fact that it isn't already defined, as it is with the equity loan scheme, means that the attention this point is getting is quite vital because, as you say, if a loophole had flown under the radar here it would have negated the value of an otherwise positive move.

 

Valid interrogation of opposition policy, seems to be how political process should work to me...

 

Budget policy: Thesis

Loophole highlighted by opposition: Antithesis

Loophole closed and more robust and effective policy implemented: Synthesis.

 

A classic example, if it is closed that is.

[Fugitive]

You have rapidly turned into the biggest prick on this forum, and that is saying something.

 

I challenge you to find a single example of me changing my mind on anything. Put up or shut up you mouthy little cunt.

 

I think I made him sad.... awwwwww!!!

 

You big Nazi.

[Stu Monty]

Erm, since when did things that politicians say about their policies become evidence? Just because they tell you a dog shit is a chocolate fudge cake isn't evidence you aren't going to be eating shit when you take a bite.

 

They say they are serious about tax avoidance then let Goldmann and Vodafone off with fortunes. The proof is in the eating.

 

I've heard a lot of media talking about Iraq and moaning that they were told fibs by officials and so can't be blamed for energetically repeating them. Yeah, officials will do that to you, that's why you're meant to be independent, not in the pocket of power, you not-fit-for-purpose cowards.

[Section_31]

Was chatting to someone well connected to Labour the other day about how their MPs had been instructed to abstain on the workfare vote. Apparently all hell's been breaking loose behind the scenes between John McDonnell and Liam Byrne. The MPs were fed a line about them not voting because they were trying to protect the country's financial position, but apparently the real reason is because Labour doesn't want to be seen as being 'soft on benefits' because it accepts it has 'lost the argument'. So the choice at the next election looks like being betweem right, right, and er - right.

[Scooby Dudek]

Dear Mr S.Dudek,

 

Many thanks for contacting me about the Jobseekers Bill.

 

I know how strongly you feel about this and I know you will be disappointed that I abstained, but I take your views very seriously and I want to explain why.

 

First, I want to assure you that I looked very carefully at all the points that you made. In the end the vote came down to the question of whether the DWP should have any legal power whatsoever to stop benefits for people who won’t try to find work at all. I would also like to clarify that this vote was not about imposing retrospective workfare. If this bill had been about imposing workfare then we would have voted against it.

With record levels of young people out of work, I believe young people must be offered a real choice of a real job with real wages. That’s why Labour is moving amendments to the Bill to demand a tax on bankers’ bonuses to fund over 100,000 jobs for young people with pay at the national minimum wage and training. I also recently held a major jobs fair in Wavertree, where 500 jobs and apprenticeships were on offer, and over 2000 people attended. I do not share the government’s damaging and unfair characterisation of unemployed people and benefit claimants as “shirkers” – the jobs fair was a clear illustration that people are keen to get into work and take advantage of opportunities that are available to them.

 

That is why Labour’s approach is completely different to the government.

We would guarantee everyone unemployed for over two years a properly-paid job, but we want it to apply to young people after a year. In return, I think most people would agree that people would be obliged to take up those jobs or face losing benefits.

 

These powers have always existed; for example, when Labour had the Future Jobs Fund, if a young person didn’t take the offer of a job, they would have faced having their benefits halted. Labour’s New Deal operated on the same principle.

 

 

 

I promise you that I would not support a retrospective bill driven through Parliament at lightning speed – and I demanded two crucial concessions, which we forced the government to make.

First, appeal rights must be guaranteed so that others can appeal against mistakes made by the DWP. We can’t have carte blanche retrospective legalisation of sanctions.

 

Second, there must be an independent review of the sanctions regime, with an urgent report and recommendations to Parliament.

 

As I said earlier, I know you will not agree with the way I voted, but I hope this shows how carefully I have thought about the points you and others have raised and the safeguards I have sought.

 

If I can be of any further assistance on this, or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Luciana Berger

 

Reply to my e-mail asking before the vote which way she intended to vote. I got the reply a week after the vote.

[Lee909]

They shouldnt be allowed to abstain from votes.

You either agree or you dont.

[VladimirIlyich]

Dear Mr S.Dudek,

 

Many thanks for contacting me about the Jobseekers Bill.

 

I know how strongly you feel about this and I know you will be disappointed that I abstained, but I take your views very seriously and I want to explain why.

 

First, I want to assure you that I looked very carefully at all the points that you made. In the end the vote came down to the question of whether the DWP should have any legal power whatsoever to stop benefits for people who won’t try to find work at all. I would also like to clarify that this vote was not about imposing retrospective workfare. If this bill had been about imposing workfare then we would have voted against it.

With record levels of young people out of work, I believe young people must be offered a real choice of a real job with real wages. That’s why Labour is moving amendments to the Bill to demand a tax on bankers’ bonuses to fund over 100,000 jobs for young people with pay at the national minimum wage and training. I also recently held a major jobs fair in Wavertree, where 500 jobs and apprenticeships were on offer, and over 2000 people attended. I do not share the government’s damaging and unfair characterisation of unemployed people and benefit claimants as “shirkers” – the jobs fair was a clear illustration that people are keen to get into work and take advantage of opportunities that are available to them.

 

That is why Labour’s approach is completely different to the government.

We would guarantee everyone unemployed for over two years a properly-paid job, but we want it to apply to young people after a year. In return, I think most people would agree that people would be obliged to take up those jobs or face losing benefits.

 

These powers have always existed; for example, when Labour had the Future Jobs Fund, if a young person didn’t take the offer of a job, they would have faced having their benefits halted. Labour’s New Deal operated on the same principle.

 

 

 

I promise you that I would not support a retrospective bill driven through Parliament at lightning speed – and I demanded two crucial concessions, which we forced the government to make.

First, appeal rights must be guaranteed so that others can appeal against mistakes made by the DWP. We can’t have carte blanche retrospective legalisation of sanctions.

 

Second, there must be an independent review of the sanctions regime, with an urgent report and recommendations to Parliament.

 

As I said earlier, I know you will not agree with the way I voted, but I hope this shows how carefully I have thought about the points you and others have raised and the safeguards I have sought.

 

If I can be of any further assistance on this, or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Luciana Berger

 

Reply to my e-mail asking before the vote which way she intended to vote. I got the reply a week after the vote.

 

This kind of shit is supposed to represent Socialism today. Absolute bollocks.

 

One thing I will agree with her is that the DSS has always had the power to suspend or stop benefits but it was generally a very last resort and not something threatened to all and sundry by people who fear for their own jobs on a daily basis.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

[YOUTUBE]wK9K_h43i6g[/YOUTUBE]

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The day Britain changes: welfare reforms and coalition cuts take effect | Politics | guardian.co.uk

 

The Class War went nuclear today - and there's barely been a whimper raised in resistance.

 

I'm as guilty as anyone, of course. I'm an inactivist: I'll sign petitions and e-mail MPs and shit like that - Hell, I'll even join a march once or twice a year - but I've got far too many excuses for avoiding the sustained, concerted, energetic response demanded by these ever-escalating attacks on working (and would-be working) people by the parasitic rich.

 

One thing that really fucks me off is the numb acceptance that these bastards are in Downing Street for their maximum term, regardless of the depth and breadth of the damage they wreak to the lives of the vast majority of us who live outside the Westminster bubble. If there was such a thing as a Labour party, providing leadership for the Labour movement, these fuckers would be back in their box by now. They never had electoral legitimacy to begin with and everything they have touched has turned to shit for nearly three years now. Why should we suffer another two years of this?

 

The restrictions on Legal Aid are expected to see an increase in people, deprived of legitimate redress, taking the law into their own hands. So it will be with people deprived of electoral redress: expect more riots.