So George Osborne says there will be cuts of up to 20% in spending on welfare and pensions.
And Cameron says that cuts will not impact on the poor.
Who is lying?
Sorry — but one of them is.
And if Osborne means what he says then there’s only one answer.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Who is ling? Neither of them, nor are they being economical with the truth. What Osborne said was:
“Cuts in departmental spending, including some in welfare, tax credits and pensions, will total more than 15-20% through this parliament”
He didn’t say that there would be 20% cuts in the spending of every department. He has plenty of latitude to make some cuts in welfare payments (e.g. means-tested child benefits, fewer tax credits for higher earners) without hurting the most vulnerable.
@Alex
Complete bollocks Alex if I might say so
If all non ring fenced departments between them have to suffer 15% – 20% and the biggest spending one does not then we’re in total wipe out for some departments
Stop being a fool and face reality: the ConDems want to wipe out the post war consensus
Not only will the attempt cripple us with debt and depression, it will destroy society
But then – that’s what you want, isn’t it?
“Stop being a fool and face reality: the ConDems want to wipe out the post war consensus”
The reality is that a third of tax credit spending goes to people on above average earnings.
“Not only will the attempt cripple us with debt and depression, it will destroy society.”
8.8 million economically inactive, young people, even those coming out of the most highly rated universities, with no jobs, and government deficits equal to 15% of GDP. We are already there, and it has already happened. Somebody has to fix the mess.
@Alex
Our problems were created – let us never forget by bankers, neoliberal economists, the demand for deregulation, tax fraudsters and straightforward market corruption
They created the deficit
No one else
They must pay
Lobbing grenades at the already injured will not solve the problem
And creating millions more unemployed will be of no benefit to those already looking for work
When will you get that?
@Alex
On economic inactivity –
I remember reading, on the Touchstone blog I think it was (and the article is repeated on Liberal Conspiracy here ), that the numbers of economically inactive have ballooned due to the policy (of governments of both hues) to shovel young people into higher education.
Being a little cynical, partly this is a ruse to massage unemployment figures – most of these youngsters would be on the dole much sooner in this lop-sided economy of ours than currently they are.
And of course the non working retirement age numbers have also increased as per demographic trends.
“Economically inactive” therefore is not quite the bludgeon many on the Right think it is. Once again, careful reading of the data would tell them that.
Wrong again Richard.
The deficit was created by a combination of mainly 3 factors:
– 9/11 and the resulting demands on the broad security budget to protect our homeland;
– Massive increase in entitlements, mostly Medicare/Medicaid
– To a lesser extent the Bush tax cuts
I frankly doubt that Bin Laden is a banker or a neo-liberal economist. I also don’t believe that a massive increase in unfunded Federal commitments towards senior citizens is a very high priority for any Wall Street type. And a president that presided over the largest expansion of the Federal government (ever adjusting for our commitments to fight the War on Terror) can hardly be called a neo-liberal.
@Ted G
Point 3 may be relevant
The others are just bizarre