Lib Dem/Cons dig bigger hole

A place to socialise and share opinions with other members of the BGAFD Community.
Locked
David Johnson
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Lib Dem/Cons dig bigger hole

Post by David Johnson »

Hi,

As we know, the changes in child benefit announced by Osborne work in an incredibly cack-handed way i.e. single worker with 2 kids earning ?45K drops ?1750 a year; two worker family on joint income of ?83K drop nothing.

To try to dig themselves out of a hole, Cameron mentioned a tax break for married couples which had been in the Tory manifesto. Alas and alack it was pointed out to the Cameroonians/Cleggians that: said tax break was only for basic tax payers, unaffected by the child benefit changes; the savings of the child benefit changes are about ?1 billion; to extend the marriage tax break to higher rate payers would cost the Treasury ?750 million; the marriage tax break would provide ?150 a year for those people dropping nearly ?2K; the people hit by the child benefit reduction who are single, widowed, not married would get nowt.

Unfortunately, although it is still early into the government's term, there is a definite trend developing here amongst the Cameroonians and Cleggians.

First we had Ian Gove's Norman Wisdomish cock-ups on which schools were going to get there building projects terminated. The list announced, changed about five times. Then Gove rushed through his Education Bill using a similar approach used for anti-Terrorist legislation on the basis that there were thousands of schools just waiting to become academised. He estimated over a 1000 were keen to open asap. It ended up with 32 opening as academies in September.

Then we had Andrew Lawnsley's plans to have the biggest re-organisation ever seen in the NHS. Of course there was absolutely no mention of this in the Tory manifesto three months previously. The BMA who represent the GPS in England who are planned to receive the 80 billion to buy services, commented that the plans could affect the NHS's stability and future. The doctors' union argues that Lansley's plans are potentially damaging, risk setting groups of clinicians against each other and are not a good use of public money.

Give it another 6 months and the cries from the terraces "You don't know what you are doing" could well be deafening.

Cheers
D
Locked