(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

Ministers battle Treasury over how to spend savings

Welfare, schools and defence emerge as key areas in dispute over whether to retain cash or spend it on reducing deficit

The Treasury building, Whitehall, London
The Treasury building in Whitehall: it intends to use savings resulting from cuts to reduce the £160bn deficit. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

Ministers charged with finding savings on welfare and defence are battling the Treasury to retain more of the cash, rather than see the billions spent on reducing the £160bn deficit.

The disputes, across a number of Whitehall departments, are pitching some leading Liberal Democrats into difficult arguments, as welfare, schools and defence emerge as key flashpoint areas ahead of the autumn spending review.

The prime minister David Cameron said he was determined to act against £5.2bn welfare and tax credit overpayments, describing this as the "one area of ingrained waste that outranks all others". Some of the cuts would be painful, he said, and would mean that "things that we genuinely value will have to go because of the legacy we have been left".

Work and pensions ministers today conceded the high fraud and error figures highlighted by Cameron, but argued most of the projected savings from reducing these – mainly from introducing new real-time earnings data – should be retained by the department.

They want to use most of the savings to fund a universal credit system they argue would improve financial work incentives, minimise cash going to wealthier claimants and reduce overpayments and fraud. But the Treasury says a new system is unlikely to be ready for at least two years and is dubious that the savings can be found. It has already pressed the Department for Work and Pensions to reduce benefit levels, possibly freezing them in line with freezes in public sector pay.

Cameron was forced to quash proposals to remove universal free milk from under-5s after the plan was leaked. The savings of only £50m put forward by health minister Anne Milton were ditched by the PM, concerned that it would remind voters of "Thatcher the milk snatcher", a phrase coined 40 years ago portraying the Tories as the uncaring party.

In what looks like part of an intensive process of softening up the welfare budget for cuts, Cameron wrote in the Sunday Times that many see welfare overpayments "as a fact of British life that we have no hope of defeating. I passionately disagree. Simply shrugging our shoulders at benefit fraud is a luxury we can no longer afford – which is why Iain Duncan Smith is working on the radical steps we can take to deal with it".

Some coalition ministers point out that of the £3.1bn of identified fraud and error in the benefits system in 2009-10, only £1bn is attributable to fraud, as opposed to system failure. Of the £2.1bn identified in the tax credit system in 2008-9, only £460m is attributable to fraud.

A similar dispute is emerging in the department of education over how much the department itself must find the savings to fund plans for a pupil premium, aimed at the poorest pupils and set to cost £2.5bn a year by 2015.

Sarah Teather, the Lib Dem children's spokeswoman, has insisted that the coalition agreement means the extra money – possibly worth less than £1,000 per disadvantaged pupil per year – will come from outside the existing schools budget.

Teather has said: "This is a real Liberal Democrat achievement. It was the centrepiece of our education policy during the election campaign, and it is now being implemented in government. While the Conservatives had a similar policy, it was the Lib Dems who pushed for it to be funded from outside the schools budget."

Some Lib Dem MPs are questioning how Teather can guarantee that the pupil premium will be funded entirely from outside the schools budget when other parts of the education budget will be cut.

At the Ministry of Defence, ministers are denying that they have decided to appeal over the head of the chancellor to protect the defence budget in face of Treasury demands that the ministry find savings itself to fund the capital cost of Trident. But the issue of whether the £20bn capital cost, as opposed to its current costs, should be funded by the MoD or the general taxpayer remains unresolved.

The chancellor George Osborne said: "I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget."

Leaks from inside the ministry suggest it is the RAF that is most likely to be hit.

John Harris, page 25


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Post a comment
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • oldefarte oldefarte

    8 Aug 2010, 10:37PM

    'Some coalition ministers point out that of the £3.1bn of identified fraud and error in the benefits system in 2009-10, only £1bn is attributable to fraud, as opposed to system failure. Of the £2.1bn identified in the tax credit system in 2008-9, only £460m is attributable to fraud'.

    The amount the government loses in tax and benefit fraud is small beer compared with the amount it loses each year through tax avoidance (upwards of £30 billion per annum) Now blocking most avoidance schemes would be a far easier way of reducing the deficit than the idealogical cuts we are seeing day by day.

  • classm classm

    8 Aug 2010, 11:15PM

    Cameron moved so quickly that David Willetts, the higher education minister, was on live television defending the idea of removing free milk when the prime minister announced the U-turn, leaving broadcasters to tell Willetts of the change.

    They really are making it up as they go along. How can we trust this lot? Have they really thought about anything they are rushing through? Tory ideology all over.

  • gardenman gardenman

    8 Aug 2010, 11:30PM

    Spot on oldefarte.

    Poor Anne Milton. She'd clearly been going through the back catalogue of Tory cuts and thought this one would put her well on the political map.

    The PM is a right mister softee. I'd have thought he would have supported his minister in scrapping this useless universal benefit. AM clearly wanted to show her boss how macho she is in emulating the great milk snatcher!!

    Instead of seizing the opportunity to save a massive £50 million of waste he wakes up and caves in.

    It's all SO CYNICAL! They are pathetic.

    PS. Fancy someone called Milton stealing milk from babies!!

  • Turnbull2000 Turnbull2000

    8 Aug 2010, 11:41PM

    @ oldefarte

    The government doesn't "lose" money through tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is legitimately reducing your burden within current tax laws. Otherwise, you yourself are guilty are 'robbing the state' if, for example, you have a private pension (tax relief, salary sacrifice) or save in an ISA (tax free interest).

  • theparson theparson

    8 Aug 2010, 11:54PM

    Why not 'think outside the box' and 'push the envelope' (and any other American bullshit you can think of) and scrap the tax relief given to public schools pretending to be charities, increase the tax rate to 60% to compensate for the £ 100,000,000 a year oh-so-legally avoided by smart-arse accountants for mega rich individuals and PLCs, and renationalise the railways, gas.electricity and water industries. Thatr should save a few billion, but just might piss off the sort of people who bankroll the Conservative party from well outside the UK.
    Or, like me, why not move to Europe and watch with amazement and pity as the land that defeated Hitler not so long ago lies down and is ripped apart by greedy scum masquerading as a political party, and their disposable foot soldiers who defend this pillage on blogs such as this.
    When will you people get up off your knees............?

  • ArseneKnows ArseneKnows

    9 Aug 2010, 12:04AM

    Well it hasn't taken long for the truth to come out.

    The nasty party has returned with its policy of economic eugenics and the poor are getting a hammering, again!

    On the parliament channel they repeated the Committee's grilling of the chief executive of the Treasury and his defence of the housing benefit cut for the long term unemployed showed that it had nothing to do with the need, or the actions of the long term unemployed in looking for work, and everything to do with cost cutting.
    Lots of talk about this cut 'incentivising' the looking for work and, as per usual not a single mention of where the jobs are going to come from.
    Has anyone put in any FOI requests to the various government departmensts and agencies asking how many long-term unemployed thay have taken on? The Scottish executive had a little box at the bottom of their home page I believe which stated 'Number of long-term taken on under employment schemes', which I thought was a good idea, pity the number according to the web page was zero!

    Then we have the Return of the Milk Snatchers - stealing from babies about sums up the level this government have sunk to.

    @Turnbull2000

    You know as well as everybody else that he was talking about tax evasion. you also know, if you look at the figures, that tax avoidance is hugely abused and that the vast majority on PAYE have very little scope for tax avoidance. Not many people working on average salaries and below taking advanatage of turning themselves into limited companies and off-shoring their earnings to the Caymans.

  • MindOverMatter MindOverMatter

    9 Aug 2010, 12:04AM

    They really are making it up as they go along.

    Unfair surely, classm - They are playing the George Osbourne Cut Calculator (Patent applied for):

    Let's spin the wheel of fortune!-

    "Oh .. oh .. Willet's has placed his bet on cancelling free milk and has rushed onto the Andrew Marr show to justify it.

    Damn, the ball fell on the Forgemasters loan. Egg on face for Willet and Clegg."

    "Next player please -"

    "OK - Gove is going for the big one - no new schools except if you want to subscribe to the Academy agenda. Ohhhhhh .. house wins .... he doesn't get anything. Bad Luck."

    Next player?

  • peterainbow peterainbow

    9 Aug 2010, 12:05AM

    Turnbull2000 :

    Todays tax avoidance is tommorows tax evasion.

    the only thing between is the law makers and what we think is just and moral behaviour.

    of course you'll be one of those who wants zero tax and ignore the society you live in

  • lightacandle lightacandle

    9 Aug 2010, 12:28AM

    Here are the figures which tell the true story - as Olde Farte has stated tax fraud - 'evasion' costs a lot lot more than benefit fraud......

    http://www.citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

  • lightacandle lightacandle

    9 Aug 2010, 12:33AM

    Will try link again if it doesn't work just google in - tax avoidance v evasion citywire - and it should be at the top of the list.

    http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

  • DanielFrisbee DanielFrisbee

    9 Aug 2010, 12:52AM

    I wouldn't be surprised if this 'David Cameron saves children's milk from savage cuts' shite is more PR duping, as in it was only floated to be intentionally thwarted by chivalrous dave, the slime machine in action...

  • TeaJunkie TeaJunkie

    9 Aug 2010, 12:56AM

    If they're serious about paying off some of the deficit, why don't they sell off the Crown Estate. It has around £6bn of assets, but only produces around £2m a year for the Treasury. That could save some of the most odious cuts.

  • Turnbull2000 Turnbull2000

    9 Aug 2010, 1:11AM

    If they're serious about paying off some of the deficit, why don't they sell off the Crown Estate. It has around £6bn of assets, but only produces around £2m a year for the Treasury. That could save some of the most odious cuts.

    You can't 'pay off' the deficit. The deficit is our annual overspend of some £160bn, so selling the Crown Estate for £6bn would cover the spending shortfall for roughly two weeks, after which normal service is resumed. You can only reduce the deficit by hiking taxes, cutting spending, praying for lots of growth or all three.

  • Mike129 Mike129

    9 Aug 2010, 1:24AM

    The truth of the matter appears to be that the Tories simply had not done their homework before the election and are now desperately searching for something - anything - to cut to make up some fictional amount that they claim it is necessary to save. This can only lead to disaster for everyone - especially the most deserving in society, who the Tories hate more than anything else. These ideological cuts should be opposed by us all before it is too late and they are forced through parliament. Where is the Labour opposition? There must also be a great number of Liberal-Democrats who are deeply concerned about the prospects for our country, but they seem to be more concerned with the trappings of office than they are about principles.

  • TeaJunkie TeaJunkie

    9 Aug 2010, 1:37AM

    @Turbull2000

    You can only reduce the deficit by hiking taxes, cutting spending, praying for lots of growth or all three.

    I'm glad you've brought up the idea of raising taxes.

  • Turnbull2000 Turnbull2000

    9 Aug 2010, 1:55AM

    @TeaJunkie

    In a study of global fiscal policies since 1970, evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of tax cuts and reduced spending, rather than tax rises in an effort to maintain spending.

    http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/Large%2Bchanges%2Bin%2Bfiscal%2Bpolicy_October_2009.pdf

  • ArseneKnows ArseneKnows

    9 Aug 2010, 2:28AM

    @Turnbull2000

    In a study of global fiscal policies since 1970, evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of tax cuts and reduced spending

    that would about the same period in which the majjority have seen their real incomes drop or stagnate whilst the wealthiest have grown exponentially wealthier, and greedier.

    1980 -highest paid executive at Barclays took home 80k, last contract signed by a top Barclays executive - 60 million.

    In the longer view, the path of income inequality over the twentieth century is marked by two main events: a sharp fall in inequality around the outbreak of World War II and an extended rise in inequality that began in the mid-1970s and accelerated in the 1980s. Income inequality today is about as large as it was in the 1920s.

    http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/DistributionofIncome.html

    This rubbish really will not wash, the world can do far better without those at the top paying themselves ever greater sums for doing fuck all, and those at the bottom can hardly be worse off if we have reached the stage where the government of the fourth richest eceonomy in the world are talking about cutting fre school meals programmes and taking milk off babies.

    'We are all in it together' courtesy of the 'New Politics' (tm) but whilst 750,000 on housing benefit are at risk of homelessness the 22 millionaires round the cabinet table will just have to cut down a bit on the Bollingers, just a pity they won't cut down on the bollox.

  • robbo100 robbo100

    9 Aug 2010, 2:41AM

    Some of the cuts would be painful, he (Cameron) said, and would mean that "things that we genuinely value will have to go because of the legacy we have been left"

    And yet he has stated that he does not plan to restore this spending even when the economy (as he sees it) revives. So he is saying that this government will get rid of things of 'genuine value' forever.

  • defiti defiti

    9 Aug 2010, 2:50AM

    @Turnbull2000

    That's an interesting paper but it fails to give any break down of who 'growth' applies to in each case. It even admits itself that the methodology is "very simple".

  • Marjory1974 Marjory1974

    9 Aug 2010, 2:58AM

    ArseneKnows
    9 Aug 2010, 2:28AM

    Well put!

    The milk thing was only mooted by the Julian Clarey lookalike so that David Scameron could look like nice cuddly fluffy blue Dave when he announced it was not going to happen.

    This government is unravelling - fast. None of them from the top down have the foggiest idea what they are doing or what they are supposed to be doing, they are kids messing about playing politics with peoples lives, changing things, not because they need changing, but changing them simply because they can. This whole government is a total farce and a fiasco and a complete disaster, not waiting to happen, but happening now right under our noses. We need to get them out and fast!

  • gghghhggh gghghhggh

    9 Aug 2010, 3:36AM

    As they have let the kiddies keep their milk, It's only fair that the F&C.O keep their £800,000 wine collection. After all, if we can't treat our servants to an 1875 Chateau-le-whatever, then what's the point of high office.

  • Manzani Manzani

    9 Aug 2010, 5:52AM

    "Pupil premium is a real Liberal Democrat achievement. It was the centrepiece of our education policy during the election campaign, and it is now being implemented in government. While the Conservatives had a similar policy, it was the Lib Dems who pushed for it to be funded from outside the schools budget."

    Sarah Teather is proud of this hard won concession, and rightly so. Persuading the treasury to increase spending is a master stroke. But where is the proposed £2.5bn coming from?

    The Education budget 2010-11 is £68.7bn of which £46.5bn is for ‘schools including sixth form’ (I am assuming this is the ‘schools budget’) which leaves just over £22bn from which the money could come from. Approx £10bn is for teachers pensions and £12bn for Children, Families and Young People programs such as Sure Start or Education Maintenance Allowance. Assuming pensions get left alone then are we looking at 20% reduction in the Children, Families and Young people budget, in addition to the £670million already announced?

    The money has to come from somewhere - or is another department shouldering the burden?

  • fortyniner fortyniner

    9 Aug 2010, 6:48AM

    A lot of departmental posturing ahead of a very difficult public spending round. As the departing Labour chief secretary to the treasury said in a rare moment of candour, "sorry, there's no money left".

    Anyone who thinks the benefit system should be untouched is being unrealistic. It is a huge muddle. Labour started on reform in 1997-98 and then in typical fashion lost their bottle. Instead we got the mind-numbingly complex tax credit system.

    The chancellor would be sensible to try and close tax loopholes. Currently, many of the schemes described as "tax avoidance" are perfectly legal. Again, the last government failed to tackle this problem, so anything the present government does in this respect would be an improvement.

    We will have to wait another couple of months or so before we find out where the axe will fall. It will not be good news. We all know that. The truth is that we have an economy that cannot sustain the public sector to which some of our commentators aspire.

    So the task for the longer term is to rebuild a better-balanced economy that won't implode in such a destructive way, as we saw in 2007-08. Successive governments have failed miserably in that respect. Can the current one do any better? For all our sakes I hope they can.

  • Manningtreeimp Manningtreeimp

    9 Aug 2010, 7:56AM

    The LibDems made much of closing various tax evasion and avoidance measures during the election campaign, now its gone very quiet on that front...another price for power ? After all the Tories wont crap on their own doorstep will they ?

    I still think Osborne will find it almost impossible to stick to his deficit reduction plans, this was tried in the early 1990s I seem to recall and the savings amounted to no more than 11%, many unsustainable. He will have to raise taxes and move much closer to 50/50 on tax/cuts.

    Otherwise the depts will go into meltdown. Even they know thats electorial suicide....surely ?

  • releasethedogs releasethedogs

    9 Aug 2010, 8:21AM

    Maybe someone can explain to me the following

    1) Why do teachers only work 30 weeks of the year? Increase all school terms by 30-40% and cut final salary pension schemes to all teachers.
    2) Why do civil servants receive redundancy payments twice their annual salary when the average private sector workers receive around 4 weeks? Bring this inequity to an end
    3) Why, on an average day, do nearly 13% of all NHS staff call in sick costing the taxpayer a small fortune in bank-staff? Disciplinary action against all NHS staff who are obviously 'swinging the lead'
    4)Why are we still paying huge costs for the Royal Family and why do they believe the world still owes them a living?
    5) Remove the final salary pension scheme to all public sector workers in line with the average private sector worker
    6) Stop the 'job for life' arrogance of many public sector workers whose unions think that the taxpayer is purely there to employ their members eg PCS union who seem to think that sitting on your fat backside for 37 hours/week in a library-like job centre should guarantee you a juicy pension and severance package - i went in my job centre last week and guess what? It was as quiet as a monastery. Go into a private recruitment agency and its chaos with phones ringing and manic activity everywhere. Compare that with the docility and sluggishness of job-centre plus and you can then see just how useless the State is in finding work for people.
    7) Cut the numbers of State employees by 30% and dilute the public sector unions influence and leverage.
    8) sell of the royal mail to the private sector and remove the CWU's influence in blocking reform. Postal workers still sorting mail by hand is a classic example of how the CWU and their luddite idiocy have stifled this company. Go to Germany and see how technology as transformed their postal services

    we need govt ministers to take on all vested interests who feed off the flow of taxpayer funding from the unions right through to the royal family eg Prince Phillip is paid nearly £450K pa for what? It is offensive that he believes he should be paid anything at all

  • ennisfree ennisfree

    9 Aug 2010, 8:36AM

    @ release the dogs

    I trust the private recruitment agency with their "phones ringing and manic activity" were able to land you a decent job.

    Please let us know the outcome.

  • RochdalePioneers RochdalePioneers

    9 Aug 2010, 8:39AM

    Teather an stick her pupil premium "achievement" up her arse. Her party is allowing Cameron to make cuts permanently on grounds of dogma. £2.5bn for a handful of kids vs devastation for everyone else - is that the kind of "achievement" the Yellow Pox want us to think of when we consider their record.

    Sorry LibDems, but you've sold your soul to the devil, and no about of whining about pupil premiums or a raised threshhold for income tax will save you now.

  • Stompy6 Stompy6

    9 Aug 2010, 9:09AM

    Its not the poor that get hammered as i keep reading in these pages its the middle that gets hammered.

    I cannot think of another country in the world that provides more for people who are supposedly in need.

    We now have a situation that those who pay tax and NI see close to 50% of there earnings taken at source and out of the remainder need to pay council tax, tv tax, insurance, petrol tax, road tax, gas, electric, water, vat, mortgage, rent etc.

    How much money does the average working joe end up with after working and commuting for 10 12 hours a day, let me tell you guys not a fucking lot.

    So reading comments like its the poor who get hit hardest is laughable, how do the poor get hit hardest, the 'so called' poor get given housing, get let off the extortionate rip off council tax, are provided with money and bizarely get rewarded for producing children.
    It may be the case that most people accessing social services can't run 2 cars or have 3 foreign holidays a year but let me tell you most live a better lifestyle than I do.

    To anyone in this country who jumps up and down at the prospect of having to take a step back, whether its a 5 year old whos parents may have to pay for their milk, a council house tenant who's percieved entitlement to a subsidised lifestyle for thier whole existence or a high earner who may need to contribute more for the common good ...

    it isn't the tories or the liberals or any coalition who have been in power for 13 years, and it isn't the 200 billion pounds provided to the banks that has caused this situation it is a decade of criminally irresponsible labour government.

  • HowardBeale HowardBeale

    9 Aug 2010, 9:13AM

    This has never been about cutting the deficit. Selling bank shares could put that right almost immediately if the deficit were the crisis claimed. Look at the languague of class war - the targets are public sector workers, the disabled, and those wanting to work but are forced idle, immigrants.

    Tories think that every benefit is theft and any tax loophole is clever. They will find out, as Thatcherite lite NewLabour, that the vast majority of disability and unemployment claims are legitimate and needed to avoid starvation.The 'unaffordable welfare burden' will not be cut to any significant extent - it may go up if we hit a double dip.

    What you will find, if this vicious rabble lasts more than a couple of years, is the deficit hardly touched, unemployment at 5 million, an explosion of crime and social disorder, homelessness. All so their miserable hateful bigotry is sated and the wealthy are not touched. Pocket before country every time.

    The greedy gets.

  • becarefuloutthere becarefuloutthere

    9 Aug 2010, 9:15AM

    God I do like a good laugh on a Monday morning.
    releasethedogs
    The British, generally, are poor managers. Those in the public sector only need to please their political masters not a demanding marketplace, so they are the worst of a pretty bad bunch.
    At the heart of economics lies pyschology. If I invest what issues make me (what influences are there) think it is worthwhile risking my money rather than spending it? If I lend money to a government what makes me think I will earn a return that justifies me not spending it or investing elsewhere?
    Governments, being made up of politicians who have slid up the greasy pole by deceiving the electorate - by definition the electorate has no desire to face reality and so seeks those who can deliver a fantasy - are untrustworthy, by definition. So to invest in the government, lend them money, you look for some sign that, despite their natural inclinations to rob you, they are going to be responsible at least when it comes to handling that money.
    The problem Greece faced was that after a decade of twisting and ducking and diving with dodgy stats (a UK speciality), racking up loads of debt (another UK speciality) gross mis-handling of those funds when paying the public sector (not unknown in the UK) both Greek taxpayers and those being invited to re-finance Greek debt lost total faith in the Greek authorities. So taxpayers evade taxes and lenders won't lend.
    One sign of financial responsibility is common to both individuals and governments - you don't spend money you don't have if you can avoid it. Brown racked up a massive deficit before any banking crisis with an economy growing nicely. He spenit wantonly on a public sector that is more a gravy train than even the banks The bottom line being that the UK government was showing every sign of becomong a Greek tragedy.
    By having the UK face up to the fact that it is not a wealthy country - a couple of years ago the Economist published figures showing that UK GDP, expresed as purchasing power parity per person (i.e. what UK wealth could actually buy), was somewhere alongside Mexico. Its fantasy defence policy, pretend to be a military power, alongside its public sector largesse was simply unsustainable.
    The UK is lucky that, unlike Greece, it hasn't had to re-finance its debt also it has been able to use its huge financial services infrastructure to purchase much of the debt it has issued (similar to Japan) and it has also managed to monetise a good deal of its debt - not as bad as the Weimar Republic but its gone some way down that slippery path.
    What was needed was some pyschological signal that the Brits were going to grow up and be responsible for once. Eradicating the structural deficit was one way, deflation of the housing bubble another. The second goes on unabated as we still house lending going on to keep the bubble inflated and with the majority of such loans still self-documented. Now it looks as though the first (reducing the structuarl deficit) is also a con trick.
    On top of that, we also have the old British standby of inflation to reduce the impact of debt and sterling devaluation (which assists boosting inflation) to give johnny foreigner a double whammy.
    As a wise man (well wise relative to Gordon Brown and UK policians in general) once said - fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shane on me.

  • InebriatEd InebriatEd

    9 Aug 2010, 9:19AM

    It seems to me that another 'fact of life' that has become ingrained in the UK is tax avoidance - the reclassification of earnings as capital gains, and all the other loopholes very carefully expoited by those who can afford to hire an army of accountants and lawyers.

    But of course it's easier to harangue the petty thieves on the bottom of the scale than the well-to-do ones behind the government (*cough* Ashcroft *cough*).

  • brianrouth brianrouth

    9 Aug 2010, 9:28AM

    the tories will keep on squeezing and squeezing to help their fat friends get richer and richer while the poor get poorer......poverty will be looked at as a crime...the poor will become the equivilent of the Indian outcasts and we will end up with our own caste system. the police will only protect and serve the corporations and will be used to oppress the poor and groups that protest. the unions will be smashed even further. and yet in spite of all this the tories will be voted in for a few more terms as was in the case of Thatcher.....we don't don't seem to have any kind of opposition at all and there aren't even any satirical tv shows......I would have thought the satirists would be having a field day with this lot of slimey crooks.
    once again we are getting fucked in the arse and once again we all grumble amongst ourselves and there is no sign of anything remotely proactive in the form of dissent.....the media is controlled by the rich and powerful...even the BBC seems dull and quiet. we need a voice of the people. we need to all wake up and stop this annihilation but wil we?....will we fuck!

  • cloudgroover cloudgroover

    9 Aug 2010, 9:49AM

    Couple of points to contest with "Releasethedogs"

    1) If you take away union protection from public service workers and indeed any low paid workers you allow companies to abuse there position and the balance between rich and poor grows due to a lowering of wages and withdrawal of pension funds.

    2) The reason private sector recruitment agencies are so busy is that they use Jobcentres to advertise jobs through public service funds for private sector gains. I myself have questioned this with regional JC operations when I was last unemployed. Also private sector agencies employ temporary and part time staff, an example being NHS staff. These are two examples of the private sector feeding off of public sector employment. So "Releasethedogs" tell me what happens when you take away public sector funding??? Thats right, the two go hand in hand. Ying and Yang. More jobs lost.

    3)The Royal Family hold great influence with the Arab sheiks and the tourist industry for visitors to UK centres around our past royal history. Jobs, money and tourism is generated through the Royal Family. Take tax funding and Queenie away and even more money and jobs lost.

    Why don`t you apply for a cabinet post mate. Your ideology is spot on for Dave and Co.

  • Amonrosier Amonrosier

    9 Aug 2010, 9:49AM

    I do not believe Iain Duncan Smith will have a hard time convincing the treasury he needs money for this planned abolishment of welfare. I believe the deal is signed, sealed and delivered, especially after Cameron's comments in the Sunday Times.

  • MickGJ MickGJ

    9 Aug 2010, 9:53AM

    They really are making it up as they go along.

    Tory ideology all over

    I think it's got to be one or the other hasn't it?

    The Coalition at the moment are suffering from a bit of a headrush at having been released from their ideological straitjackets and given the chance to do a bit of political cross-dressing. I'm sure they'll calm down a bit and start to fall into roles which are a bit more in line with their political identitites (a re-read of their manifestos wouldn't hurt either). Opponents of the Coalition should beware--personally I suspect that a lot of this "cracks" and "challenges" stuff is being engineered so that political debate takes place within the Coalition and the Labour party is reduced to waving class war banners from the sidelines.

  • Bobbyb71 Bobbyb71

    9 Aug 2010, 10:38AM

    releasethedogs
    9 Aug 2010, 8:21AM

    Maybe someone can explain to me the following

    1) Why do teachers only work 30 weeks of the year? Increase all school terms by 30-40% and cut final salary pension schemes to all teachers.

    Do you manage to crowbar your hatred of teachers into every comment ?

    Did you not take Gove's offer of starting you own far-right free-school ?

    There's plenty of cash apparently

  • Amonrosier Amonrosier

    9 Aug 2010, 10:44AM

    2springer

    I absolutely believe what he says, especially when it comes to punishing the poor. And if he says these things publicly, I am in no doubt what he says privately would be similar to meetings the National Socialists had on the Final Solution.

    I'm expecting this to be deleted.

  • ennisfree ennisfree

    9 Aug 2010, 10:44AM

    Coalition of the Damned taking us all on Voyage of the Damned.

    To accompaniment of Vince Cable, Clegg, Huhne, Teather et al on guitar -singing "Always look on the BrightSide of life": "We got a referendum on AV."

  • zavaell zavaell

    9 Aug 2010, 11:30AM

    ennisfree you think too short term: while AV is not the best form of PR it is a start and will help to get us a government in the future that doesn't have the power of this Tory one to do what it does with a minute fraction of the vote. Think long term instead of falling into the short-termist British view.

    The Treasury also thinks short term.. We don't know IDS's exact plans but his braodbrush proposals for welfare reform certainly need an airing in public and do not deserve to be binned by Treasury short-termism.

    God help us from short-termism.

  • derjam derjam

    9 Aug 2010, 1:19PM

    Tax credits are crazy . If people earn too little why take tax money away and then give them a credit . Everybody should pay tax over a certain pay level . Those below should not pay any tax at all .
    System failure would not be such a problem if the tax system was substantially simplified . Also why not go the whole hog and have one flat rate of tax at say 15-20% . The simpler the system the more difficult for clever accountants to design avoidance schemes for their clients . Tax avoidance should be stamped on very severely .
    Get rid of rates on houses completely and put this into general taxation . This way everybody pays for services and not just householders . Why should people 10 to a house only pay one set of rates . Crazy.
    Huge sums should be seized from criminal activities . The police know who the big fish are in the criminal world . The problem is they can never get enough evidence to nail them . Why not turn things around . Seize their assets and let them prove their innocence .

  • Marcella Marcella

    9 Aug 2010, 1:49PM

    Milk for toddlers @ 50/60 million a year

    MP's expenses 2008-09 @ around 96 million for the year.

    Mmmm let me think about that for a minute.............................

  • Agent3244 Agent3244

    9 Aug 2010, 1:54PM

    Surely the sub-prime loans crisi of 2008 and the episodes that have followed as if by domino effect, including national and international banking and liquidity crises, bailouts, and fiscal budget defecits, are each crises of capital.

    What constitutes a crisis of capital?

    Well on one hand it is a concentration and accumulation of capital that has too few 'real' investment opportunities in which to find a home. On a wave of confidence a herd of bulls follow the herd instinct and pile capital into a particular asset class thus creating an asset class valuation bubble with prices outstripping ratios aginst potential earnings. It only takes a few 'lead' individuals to realise the fragility and usustainability in the overvaluation to withdraw their capital from the asset class for the bubble to burst.
    On the other hand a crisis of capital can be debt crises. Here indebtedness can be extended to the degree that earnings do not support the cost of the debt.

    How can it be that crises of capital accumulation and crises of debt proliferation co-exist in times of economic uncertainty? It is because that circumstance is the very origin of economic uncertainty. How so?

    It is readily overlooked but surprisingly simple that 'money' is largely created from 'two halves of nothing'. The vast amount of money that circulates is 'fiat money'. It is an asset, 'money', that is created along with a coressponding liability. The loan-interest principle ensures that capital will accumulate (unless people default). But capital accumulation can only create pressure (through a shortgae of money) fro more people to take on debt. So the commonly regarded 'healthy' economic state is really capital accumulation accompanied by debt proliferation. Debt proliferation must reach its' limits because debt must be serviced.

    If the Treasury makes savings and uses them to reduce the borrowing requirement then they are addressing the real 'crisis of capital'. They would adress the extent of indebtedness and in so doing would cancel some of the value of assets in the'spike' of capital, diminishing the 'spread' between the two. Unforortunately Treasury spending cuts could increase borrowing requirements elsewhere. Employment may have depemdency upon Treasury funding and unemployment could increase.

    But if Minsters and the Treasury feel they have made sufficient budget 'savings' so as to be able to consider 'spending' the savings elsewhere then they may feel they can instigate economic stimulus but in so doing and by not addressing the 'real crisis of capital' described above then they only defer another day of reckoning when deffered accountability and further crises of capital must rear their ugly head.

    The working assumption is that money is value neutral as a mediator of human transactions. It is not. This is why economists and politicians cannot study money and predict, nor consistently or reliably incentivise, human behaviour.

    'Fiat money' is scarce but enduring. It determines humens are overly competitive in money mediated transactions. This is short-termist and often at odds with ecological requirements. It is also largely to the detriment of collaborative exchanges as human individuals become, or behave, increasingly selfish(ly).

    Viewed through the long lens the history of human innovation is one long succesion of productivity gains.

    Productivity gains increasingly determine that full employment in a virtuous economy is increasingly unlikely. Yet full employment remains the unrealistic goal of politicians. Wage repression ensures many working people are both cash poor and time poor. Workloads determine a more fortunate minority are cash rich but time poor. Only a few fortunate 'capitalists' are both cash rich and time rich. The attributes of money mean that the spoils of productivity gains cannot be shared more equably. We are in an age when employment must be 'shared' in order we address the incompatability of consumerism and sustainability.

    The attributes of 'fiat money' introduce dysfunctionality into what ought to behave as a complex adaptive system, the economy.

    Dysfunctionality ensures an infinite succession of crises that defy regulation, or moderation, by interventist practice. What is lacking within this complex adaptive system is the introduction of some carefully defined 'something' that will introduce a degree of 'systemic self-regulation'.

    The most compulsive argumnet as to how to acheive this is, IMHO, being put forward by proponents of arguments in favour of complimentary currencies; currnecies that are neither scarce nor eduring and have contrasting attributes to 'fiat momey' that could 'compliment' (note; not replace) 'fiat currencies' in the real world and thus moderate some of their more excessive traits.

    Correcting the real origin of 'systemic risk' may well resolve division and difference of opinion amongst economists, politicains, Ministers, and Treasury.

    Best of luck, chaps!

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in.

|

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Browse all jobs

jobs by Indeed

Section classified

Latest news on guardian.co.uk

Last updated four minutes ago

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop