The undeserving poor of Britain

Spending Review
Osborne swings the welfare axe

By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor
Wednesday, 20 October 2010

The most savage public sector spending cuts in 50 years were today outlined by the Chancellor George Osborne.

Welfare, the Home Office and local councils took the brunt of the pain as Mr Osborne detailed how he planned to take around £80 billion out of the public sector budget over the next four years. However in a surprise announcement the schools budget will not be cut and will rise in real terms over the next four years.

Around one in 12 civil service jobs are expected disappear while even the Queen does not escape the new austerity measures – total Royal Household spending will be reduced by 14 per cent while civil list payments will be frozen. MPs are also expected to lose their right to a final salary pension.

Overall government departments which have not been specifically protected will lose, on average, will have budgets reduced by 19 per cent over the next four years.

This is less than the 25 per cent that had been predicted in the run up to the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).

Among the biggest cutbacks announced were:

* Councils will suffer budget cuts of 7.1 per cent every year for the next four years - a 28 per cent cut overall. But they will have new freedom to decide where their money is spent and £2 billion extra will be provided to pay for nursing homes and other social care services.

* Spending on police will fall by 4 per cent a year (18 per cent over four years) and the Home Office budget will be reduced by six per cent a year. The Justice Department, which funds prisons and the courts, will lose almost a quarter of its funding over the four year period of the CSR. Terrorism will be prioritised and not suffer the same levels of cuts.

* Welfare savings are to be found of £7 billion a year with a big clamp down on housing benefit. No family on benefits to receive more than the amount of income of a family on a working wage. Child benefit payments to continue for 16-19 year-olds. Free eye tests, winter fuel payment, TV licences and free bus passes for pensioners to remain. All working age benefits will replaced by a single welfare payment. Mr Osborne claimed the Government would save £5 billion by cutting welfare fraud.

* Business department spending to be cut by 25 per cent over four years but the £4.6 billion a year science budget will be protected.

* The Department of Climate Change is to have its budget reduced by 20 per cent over the CSR period while the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have its budget cut by nearly half. The Culture budget will also be cut by up to 40 per cent but free access to museums will remain.

* Big rises in bus and rail fares announced but £30 billion will spend on capital transport projects. These include the widening of the M25 and the go-ahead for Cross Rail. There was no announcement on the future of the electrification of the west coast mainline.

* The state pension age will rise from 65 to 66 by 2020 saving £5 billion which Mr Osborne claimed would go into increasing the basic state pension.

In better news Mr Osborne announced that the schools budget would rise from £35 billion to £39 billion over four years. He also announced a £2.5 billion premium to encourage schools to take on pupil from poorer backgrounds. However capital spending on schools will be severely reduced.

“The money that goes to schools will go up in real terms every year. It is a real investment in the future of our children and the economy as a whole,” he said.

The health budget will also be protected but NHS has been told to find £20 billion in “efficiency savings”. This will help pay for increased drugs costs and an ageing population. Overall there will be a marginal increase in funding.

Mr Osborne also announced a permanent levy on banks which would be introduced next year. £900 billion would be spent on combating tax evasion which Mr Osborne claimed would raise an extra £7 billion a year.

Mr Osborne said: “Today is the day that Britain steps back from the brink and confront the bills from a decade of debt.”

He said he was not prepared to: "saddle our children with the interest on the interest on the interest" on the debts the government was not willing to pay.

Mr Osborne said that the Government was spending £120 million a day in debt interest which he insisted had to be cut. At £109 billion, he said, Britain had the largest structural deficit in Europe.

Mr Osborne said he had used three principles in deciding which areas to cut: Fairness, growth and reform.

He said the public sector needed to reform and ministers had managed to find £6 billion worth of savings from administration costs. He said there would be some redundancies in the public sector although they hoped many job losses would come through natural wastage.

“(Redundancies are) unavoidable when the Government has run out of money,” he said.

But Shadow chancellor Alan Johnson accused the Government of taking a “reckless gamble with people's livelihoods” which could wreck the economic recovery.

Amid noisy scenes in the Commons he declared: “We've seen people cheering the deepest cuts to public spending in living memory.

“For some members opposite this is their ideological objective ... this is what they came into politics for.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who already faces a battle to keep some of his own Liberal Democrat MPs on-side, appealed to activists to supported the CSR.

In a letter to Lib Dem activists, he insisted that the coalition's plans reflected their party's priorities.

He said the CSR was a "thoroughly coalition product", adding: "Liberal Democrat ministers have been involved every step of the way. Our values and priorities are written through the review, like the message in a stick of rock."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/live-osborne-details-spending-cuts-2111658.html

Interesting title. Anyway, on to the article. My thoughts in red...

cable2 wrote:

Spending Review
Osborne swings the welfare axe

By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor
Wednesday, 20 October 2010

The most savage public sector spending cuts in 50 years were today outlined by the Chancellor George Osborne.

Welfare, the Home Office and local councils took the brunt of the pain as Mr Osborne detailed how he planned to take around £80 billion out of the public sector budget over the next four years. However in a surprise announcement the schools budget will not be cut and will rise in real terms over the next four years.

Fair enough. Though schools appear to be Cameron's favourite thing - he's pushed himself as a family man and we all know about his 'big society' ideas - and this stupid thing about parents running schools. I'm not sure that the schools really need a bigger budget - more that it needs to be moved to the areas that need it most. Schools are over-stretched, not because they don't have enough money necessarily but because they are expected to do too much.

Around one in 12 civil service jobs are expected disappear while even the Queen does not escape the new austerity measures – total Royal Household spending will be reduced by 14 per cent while civil list payments will be frozen. MPs are also expected to lose their right to a final salary pension.

All sounds fair enough to me.

Overall government departments which have not been specifically protected will lose, on average, will have budgets reduced by 19 per cent over the next four years.

This is less than the 25 per cent that had been predicted in the run up to the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).

Among the biggest cutbacks announced were:

* Councils will suffer budget cuts of 7.1 per cent every year for the next four years - a 28 per cent cut overall. But they will have new freedom to decide where their money is spent and £2 billion extra will be provided to pay for nursing homes and other social care services.
That is a BIG cut - seems the Tory party a very keen on sweetening the pill with 'more freedom' measures - which I don't trust at all.

* Spending on police will fall by 4 per cent a year (18 per cent over four years) and the Home Office budget will be reduced by six per cent a year. The Justice Department, which funds prisons and the courts, will lose almost a quarter of its funding over the four year period of the CSR. Terrorism will be prioritised and not suffer the same levels of cuts.

* Welfare savings are to be found of £7 billion a year with a big clamp down on housing benefit. No family on benefits to receive more than the amount of income of a family on a working wage. Child benefit payments to continue for 16-19 year-olds. Free eye tests, winter fuel payment, TV licences and free bus passes for pensioners to remain. All working age benefits will replaced by a single welfare payment. Mr Osborne claimed the Government would save £5 billion by cutting welfare fraud.
I'm very keen on protecting the pensioners - and not really that bothered about the child benefits thing. Payments for 16-19 year olds? Hmm. How about payments if they're in education - cutting them if they're employed? Clamp down on housing benefit I have no problem with.

* Business department spending to be cut by 25 per cent over four years but the £4.6 billion a year science budget will be protected.
Hooray, protecting the science budget.

* The Department of Climate Change is to have its budget reduced by 20 per cent over the CSR period while the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have its budget cut by nearly half. The Culture budget will also be cut by up to 40 per cent but free access to museums will remain.
Ouch, ouch, ouch. Still...the climate change budget...ok. This government has thrown its all into wind power - I don't actually think that's the way to go, at the very least you need a broad spectrum of different sustainable energy supplies. I'm a big fan of tidal power myself, but ho hum - needs must. As for cutting the Food and Rural Affairs budget in half - that's ridiculous. An easy target I suppose because most people don't understand what it is that they actually DO - but that's crazy. You can't increase the spending on schools and then cut the Food and Rural Affairs budget in HALF. The last one is funny - cut the culture budget by 40% but keep free access? Free access to WHAT museums? They're all closing! I'm clearly a history buff, but I have to say the time of the museums - certainly those outside of the big cities - is numbered. Now I will fight to keep my local museum open, because I think it IS important - but if cuts have to be made, this is one of the obvious targets. English Heritage is a quango - and I LOVE English Heritage- I think they have the balance right. I do NOT think a private charity like National Trust gets it right at all. Quangos are the way forward - it ensures that the heritage remains OURs - it does not belong to the subscribers, but they can obtain and use private money to improve their services. The museums need a massive rethink.

* Big rises in bus and rail fares announced but £30 billion will spend on capital transport projects. These include the widening of the M25 and the go-ahead for Cross Rail. There was no announcement on the future of the electrification of the west coast mainline.
Privatising the railways was - imho - one of the biggest mistakes the tories ever made and allowing the bus and rail fares to be cranked up even higher is bloody ridiculous. I can't afford to take the train anywhere any more. The other week we drove to Wembley, and paid £22 to park - but even including petrol money that was still cheaper than going by train. Way to go guys - you're really encouraging people to take the environmentally friendlier option there! Widening the M25? Urgh. They should just have a 'no retards allowed' rule for the M25 and all its problems would be solved.

* The state pension age will rise from 65 to 66 by 2020 saving £5 billion which Mr Osborne claimed would go into increasing the basic state pension.
Whatever. The pensions situation in this country is a fucking mess. Please excuse my language but nothing makes me angrier.

In better news Mr Osborne announced that the schools budget would rise from £35 billion to £39 billion over four years. He also announced a £2.5 billion premium to encourage schools to take on pupil from poorer backgrounds. However capital spending on schools will be severely reduced.
I really don't care. I think kids are forced to go to school for too long as it is. Over emphasis on education at the moment. They should put the money into health and pensions.

“The money that goes to schools will go up in real terms every year. It is a real investment in the future of our children and the economy as a whole,” he said.
No it isn't. We have far too many over educated unemployed people in this country as it is. A basic good standard of education is all that is needed - not every is going to be a bloody brain surgeon. Get over it.


The health budget will also be protected but NHS has been told to find £20 billion in “efficiency savings”. This will help pay for increased drugs costs and an ageing population. Overall there will be a marginal increase in funding.
I'm really not happy about what they're doing to the NHS. Yeah - I work for the NHS, but my job is safe so my mistrust of what they're doing is not a result of that. The NHS needs MORE money - end of story.

Mr Osborne also announced a permanent levy on banks which would be introduced next year. £900 billion would be spent on combating tax evasion which Mr Osborne claimed would raise an extra £7 billion a year.
Erm...spend 900 billion to save 7 billion...? How does that work?

Mr Osborne said: “Today is the day that Britain steps back from the brink and confront the bills from a decade of debt.”
Oh enough of the crap. We were never 'on the brink.' Yes it's fabulous if we can cut that deficit - and yes I DO partly blame Labour above and beyond the global recession - but I still don't trust the Tories. And if this is all an excuse for privatisation by the back door. Grr...

He said he was not prepared to: "saddle our children with the interest on the interest on the interest" on the debts the government was not willing to pay.
Think of the children!!!

Mr Osborne said that the Government was spending £120 million a day in debt interest which he insisted had to be cut. At £109 billion, he said, Britain had the largest structural deficit in Europe.
These measures are only going to clear a relatively small proportion of that debt though - let's be honest.

Mr Osborne said he had used three principles in deciding which areas to cut: Fairness, growth and reform.
Fibber. Your principles were: what will be popular, what will cause the least fuss - where can we slip in a pill to soften the sting?

He said the public sector needed to reform and ministers had managed to find £6 billion worth of savings from administration costs. He said there would be some redundancies in the public sector although they hoped many job losses would come through natural wastage.

“(Redundancies are) unavoidable when the Government has run out of money,” he said.

But Shadow chancellor Alan Johnson accused the Government of taking a “reckless gamble with people's livelihoods” which could wreck the economic recovery.

Amid noisy scenes in the Commons he declared: “We've seen people cheering the deepest cuts to public spending in living memory.

“For some members opposite this is their ideological objective ... this is what they came into politics for.”
As opposed to Labour who came into politics to give all our money to the career unemployed dole scroungers, to send EVERYONE to university so they could experience the "lifestyle" and saddled a young generation with a lifetime of debt? Yeah Mr. Whiter-than-White.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who already faces a battle to keep some of his own Liberal Democrat MPs on-side, appealed to activists to supported the CSR.

In a letter to Lib Dem activists, he insisted that the coalition's plans reflected their party's priorities.

He said the CSR was a "thoroughly coalition product", adding: "Liberal Democrat ministers have been involved every step of the way. Our values and priorities are written through the review, like the message in a stick of rock."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/live-osborne-details-spending-cuts-2111658.html

BecMacFeegle wrote:Interesting title. Anyway, on to the article. My thoughts in red...

Golly Gosh.. is they your true thoughts... me I hopes, the British will take their lead from the French and Spanish and Greek or their parents when they faced down Thatcher over the poll tax, and take to the streets

Really? You can hardly compare the outcry at the unconstitutional poll tax to budget cuts. I'll protest when it matters but I won't be a rebel without a cause, much less a rebel without a clue. I'm hardly going to take my cue from the Greek protesters who have yet to develop a social conscience from a country who've turned taX dodging into a national pasdt time.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Really? You can hardly compare the outcry at the unconstitutional poll tax to budget cuts. I'll protest when it matters but I won't be a rebel without a cause, much less a rebel without a clue. I'm hardly going to take my cue from the Greek protesters who have yet to develop a social conscience from a country who've turned taX dodging into a national pasdt time.

Briton took to the streets cos the poll tax was unconstitutional ???

I thought Britain took to the streets cos the poll tax, attacked the poor, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed by defending those richer from paying more for their growing local government.. I'm not sure but I do not think the Greeks took to the streets to defend tax dodgers.. in fact I quite sure the Greeks took to the street to protest the poor, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed where disproportionately being made to pay for the collapse of the Greek economy.

you and I, BecMacFeegle under another name on another site have had enjoyable debates over history.. so I would have thought you would have gotten "The undeserving poor" reference.. [I am not picking on Britain the attacks on "The undeserving poor" has become universal] "the career unemployed dole scroungers" [or variations on that theme] is wide spread through out the western world.. and just as wide spread is the demand "life must be unpleasant for workers who lose their jobs" to make them look for a job.. no matter how disabled a person is in mind or body there must be ways they can add to their upkeep.. no more free lunches for any one.. In Britain the workhouse where built to help "The undeserving poor" to go back to work.. the cuts in Unemployment pay before the war where brought in to help them back to work.. Britain like the rest of the western world has always had battles with their "The undeserving poor" who have made living off the hard work of the good and decent people a generational "lifestyle"

Deleted. That is highly offensive

Why would we take to the streets when the overwhelming majority agree that cuts need to be made? It is only those with most to lose that complain the most and Labour wasted too much of our money on government non-jobs.

Besides which, protesting about everything all the time makes it less effective as a method for making public feeling known. The less you do it the more effective it is.

Briton took to the streets cos the poll tax was unconstitutional ???

I thought Britain took to the streets cos the poll tax, attacked the poor, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed by defending those richer from paying more for their growing local government..

Dah Comrade Cable, let us take to the streets and protest against these Capitalist Pig Dogs...no wait, professional protesters are the scum of the earth - turning peaceful demonstrations into riots, enjoying violence and anarchy for the sake of it.

I'll protest when something needs to be protested against - not because I don't like the fact that I will personally be affected by some of these cuts. When they heavily cut the NHS budget or attempt to privatise - then I'll protest.

But anyway, yes, the poll tax riots were a reaction to a tax which would have been levied on individuals regardless of their means. And yes, it offended the British sense of what is fair. Do the budget cuts offend that sense of fairness? No.

I'm not sure but I do not think the Greeks took to the streets to defend tax dodgers.. in fact I quite sure the Greeks took to the street to protest the poor, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed where disproportionately being made to pay for the collapse of the Greek economy.

If the Greeks hadn't been dodging their social responsibility in the first place and had actually been PAYING their taxes, maybe their country wouldn't be in such a shoddy state now.

you and I, BecMacFeegle under another name on another site have had enjoyable debates over history.. so I would have thought you would have gotten "The undeserving poor" reference..

Err...no we haven't and frankly, I haven't got a clue what you're going on about.

Deleted. That is highly offensive

Right. And you think budget cuts are a sign of that...? If you want to bang your communist party drum, fantastic - but how on earth do you think these cuts constitute an attack on the poor?

cable2 wrote:I thought Britain took to the streets cos the poll tax, attacked the poor, the weak, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed by defending those richer from paying more for their growing local government..

I fail to see how these cuts can parallel with the "Community Charge" Poll Tax riots in the 1990s. If anything, these cuts have not been anywhere near as bad as we were expecting. Furthermore, the income tax threshold is being raised rather significantly so low earners are going to find more money in their pockets generally. Labour wasted our money and now we are paying the price. It is not the fault of George Osborne, or the Tories or the coalition, but The Labour Party who took a carefree attitude to our tax revenue. Unlike Americans, we do not resent paying taxes, but we do resent that money being wasted.

cable2 wrote:"the career unemployed dole scroungers" [or variations on that theme] is wide spread through out the western world..

We spent 9 months on unemployment benefit after leaving university. Though most people we saw in the job centre clearly wanted to work, there is a clear identifiable minority who milk the system and have no job, no qualifications, no education and have no intention of doing anything about it. To deny these people exist is as naive as it is dishonest. Are these the sort of people you want to overthrow world governments for?

cable2 wrote:and just as wide spread is the demand "life must be unpleasant for workers who lose their jobs" to make them look for a job..

Rubbish. People who lose their jobs deserve all the help they can get. Nobody deserves to be treated like a scrounger, and we were by some members of the Job Centre (but I must say that most were helpful and understanding) and we have Master's Degrees so we are neither lazy nor unqualified.

cable2 wrote:no matter how disabled a person is in mind or body there must be ways they can add to their upkeep.. no more free lunches for any one..

Show me precisely where Disability Allowances and benefits are being cut. The problem is that it has become too easy to get signed off as disabled and that needs to be cracked down upon. Nobody is saying that blind, deaf paraplegics should be forced to work on a factory production line (but they shouldn't be impeded if they wanted to). It is prudent to ensure that people who are genuinely disabled get all the benefits they are entitled to. I used to know somebody who was signed off sick with an apparent bad back. This back was so bad (apparently) that he spent most of his time in the garden hunched over, tending to the plants in his garden.

cable2 wrote:no matter how disabled a person is in mind or body there must be ways they can add to their upkeep.. no more free lunches for any one..

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Show me precisely where Disability Allowances and benefits are being cut. The problem is that it has become too easy to get signed off as disabled and that needs to be cracked down upon. Nobody is saying that blind, deaf paraplegics should be forced to work on a factory production line (but they shouldn't be impeded if they wanted to). It is prudent to ensure that people who are genuinely disabled get all the benefits they are entitled to. I used to know somebody who was signed off sick with an apparent bad back. This back was so bad (apparently) that he spent most of his time in the garden hunched over, tending to the plants in his garden.

Disabled people hit by £9bn of welfare cuts

New research by Demos, funded by Scope and the Barrow Cadbury Trust, shows disabled people will be caught in the cross-fire of Government cuts

* Families with disabled children to lose over £3,000 each by 2015
* Couples where one partner acts as a carer to their disabled partner will lose more than £3,000 as a couple each by 2015
* Individuals moved from Incapacity Benefit to Job Seekers Allowance will lose nearly £9,000 each by 2015

The Government’s proposed welfare reforms will see 3.5 million disabled people lose over £9.2 billion of critical support by 2015 pushing them further into poverty and closer to the fringes of society. Plans to move disabled people onto Job Seekers Allowance will account for half (£4.87 billion) of these losses.

The estimated impact for all 3,618,370 people claiming some form of incapacity benefits is, in total £9,223,052,544.

read more:
http://www.scope.org.uk/news/disabled-people-hit-by-welfare-cuts

DISABLED PEOPLE PROTEST AGAINST CUTS THAT WILL KILL

News & Analysis
Submitted by szczels on Wednesday, 15 September, 2010
By Alliance for Inclusive Education

read more:
http://www.metamute.org/en/disabled_people_protest_against_cuts_that_will_kill


Thousands of people march to Downing Street in London to protest against spending cuts,

The Institute for Fiscal Studies, an economic think tank, said that—aside from the richest 2 percent of people—most of the pain would be inflicted on working families, the sick and the poor.

"You're really picking on the weakest people in society and it's completely unfair how you're applying these budget cuts," Margaret Lynch, 52, told Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, as they defended the plan at a public meeting in Nottingham, in central England.

Lynch, who has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, said outside the event that her government benefits were being cut by about half.

Hundreds of Britons demonstrated against the cuts outside Downing Street, the prime minister's official residence in London, late Wednesday. Police said three people were arrested for breaking into the government's business ministry.

read more:
http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_16395427?nclick_check=1

Cuts will hit the poorest harder, claims think-tank

By Daniel Bentley and Gavin Cordon, PA

Coalition claims that the spending review was fair were dealt a heavy blow today when a leading economics think-tank insisted the cuts would hit the poorest harder than most of the better off.

IFS analyst James Browne added: "Overall, families with children seem to be the biggest losers."

He said that while the Treasury had claimed the overall package was "progressive" - as a result of measures previously announced by former chancellor Alistair Darling - it had ignored a third of the welfare changes.

"The poorest are losing more as a proportion of their income as a result of these changes," he said.

The IFS also challenged Mr Osborne's claim that the Government's cuts to those departments whose budgets were not protected averaged 19% compared with 20% implied by Labour's plans.

It said Mr Osborne's figures failed to take into account the £6 billion of cuts already announced by the Government this year, while the actual figure under Labour would have been 16%.

read more:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cuts-will-hit-the-poorest-harder-claims-thinktank-2113045.html

[quote="cable2"]

cable2 wrote:Disabled people hit by £9bn of welfare cuts[/size]

The subjective opinions of a single charity. So? Show me actual figures. Show me how these figures work in real time.

cable2 wrote:"You're really picking on the weakest people in society and it's completely unfair how you're applying these budget cuts," Margaret Lynch, 52, told Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, as they defended the plan at a public meeting in Nottingham, in central England.

Lynch, who has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, said outside the event that her government benefits were being cut by about half.

Did she provide actual figures?

cable2 wrote:Cuts will hit the poorest harder, claims think-tank

And their word is final because...?

cable2 wrote:He said that while the Treasury had claimed the overall package was "progressive" - as a result of measures previously announced by former chancellor Alistair Darling - it had ignored a third of the welfare changes.

"The poorest are losing more as a proportion of their income as a result of these changes," he said.

He would say that. He was Chancellor until 5 months ago, he has a political point to make.

Cable2, you have nothing except for a handful of opinions. You have no actual figures.

[quote="cable2"]

cable2 wrote:Disabled people hit by £9bn of welfare cuts[/size]

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:The subjective opinions of a single charity. So? Show me actual figures. Show me how these figures work in real time.

if you would like to go to the http://www.scope.org.uk/news/disabled-people-hit-by-welfare-cuts page and go down the page you will see where they explain their numbers

cable2 wrote:"You're really picking on the weakest people in society and it's completely unfair how you're applying these budget cuts," Margaret Lynch, 52, told Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, as they defended the plan at a public meeting in Nottingham, in central England.

Lynch, who has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, said outside the event that her government benefits were being cut by about half.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Did she provide actual figures?

mayhap.. it was some thing Mr Cameron should have asked before replying her claims ?

cable2 wrote:Cuts will hit the poorest harder, claims think-tank

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:And their word is final because...?

cos... The Institute for Fiscal Studies is the think tank, the collision has used to under pin their views

cable2 wrote:He said that while the Treasury had claimed the overall package was "progressive" - as a result of measures previously announced by former chancellor Alistair Darling - it had ignored a third of the welfare changes.

"The poorest are losing more as a proportion of their income as a result of these changes," he said.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:He would say that. He was Chancellor until 5 months ago, he has a political point to make.

it was not the ex-chancellor who said those thing but the IFS analyst James Browne

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Cable2, you have nothing except for a handful of opinions. You have no actual figures.

so I take it you have not read more by clicking on the links

I have decided to take a leaf out of your book on debating:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/21/nick-clegg-attacks-ifs

There, I just disproved everything you said.

This is interesting, a break down from the bbc of how different groups of society will be affected by the budget cuts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11595441

A far cry from cable2's fears of a return to Victoria workhouses.