Spending Review 2015

[????]

Mick M normally starts this boring thread but

- Tax Credit Cuts abandoned

- No cuts to police budgets

- Increased Stamp Duty on Buy To Let

- no Tax cuts

- increased Real spending on Heath and Education

Bloody socialist

[Jeremy]

I don't think he had any choice but to scrap the tax credit cut. Just about the most unpopular thing the tories have suggested since the poll tax.

[Mick Mac]

SD on buy to let and second homes also, hence his reference to Cornwall.

He seemed to be increasing public spending, in lots of areas, but at the same time cutting Whitehall staff, the people who support these measures, by very significant percentages.

[JohnL]

The little red book made it's debut at the House of Commons.

[JohnL]

Osborne seemed to find ?27B down the back of the Sofa too.

[uncleglen]

There were going to be tax cuts next year.I heard an alarming phone-in on the radio a few weeks ago where a business woman was trying to recruit a full-time member of staff. A woman turned up and said she only wanted to do a certain number of hours because she can make up the salary with tax-credits...and according to the business woman this attitude was common...and when you think about it who wants to flog themselves to death in a low paid job for 5 days a week when they can get the same money for 3 days a week + tax credits?

[edhistory]

The Red Book is a densely packed 151 pages this year. The contents are rather different than the emphases in Mr Osborne's speech or the journalism I have read before.

This was unexpected:

Para 3.11

"Mary Seacole Memorial Statue Appeal ?240,000 ? to facilitate a memorial statue to

commemorate Mary Jane Seacole; nurse and heroine of the Crimean War"

The detailed taxation implementation document is due to be published on 9 December.

[Blah Blah]

I think it has suprised people. He's not only backed down on tax credits, he also left other welfare streams largely alone. Personally I think it shows there was never any need to attack tax credits in the first place, especially as Universal Credit removes them and by 2020, everyone will be under that system anyway. Higher wages are the way to tackle welfare dependency of those in work. Something could be done on rents as well to help with that.

There's always a crossover line Uncleglen where it becomes debatable as to the value in work vs welfare. Governments always have difficulty with this area. I don't accept though, given the level of unemployment that any employer can't find full time staff. And if someone 'chooses' welfare over work, then that is a problem with their mentality. Most people would agree that working for a living is far more rewarding than depending on state benefits. People working part time are required to be actively seeking more hours or work under the rules anyway.

The most interesting thing I thought was the announcement to protect police funding. There are so many areas protected now that what I see is a calm before the storm. He still intends to make massive cuts to reach that surplus. Those cuts are going to come from Local Authorities and welfare. There is much pain to come, unless he abandons the aim to reach surplus.

[edhistory]

An interesting future change to welfare streams is para 1.240 of the Red Book.

Devolving Housing Benefits for pensioners to Local Authorities is an interesting development.

[Blah Blah]

Yes, but if the devolving of council tax benefit to LAs is anything to go by, it will mean a reduced pot for provision. Having said, Council Tax Benefit to the over 65s were protected, forcing LAs to reduce the amount of CT benefit to everyone else. Definitely something to watch though. And Southwark already does have it's own internally section to administer Housing Benefits (and Council Tax) anyway.

[edhistory]

As HB for pensioners is demand led this may result in the reduction of LHA rate.

[numbers]

The "opposition" & gimmicky Mao's red book. Laughable.

*waves to sean*

[Blah Blah]

It might EDhistory. We'll have to wait and see. It's kind of the way Osborne operates though. He looks for ways to cut but does it in a way that LAs end up being blamed if those cuts have impacts. It's the same with the HA RTB2 deal. The responsibility is with HAs to replace homes sold in equal numbers. Osborne knows they will have problems finding land etc and most certainly won't be able to replace like for like. If they fail, he will argue it isn't his fault etc etc.

Nowhere in all of this is a contingency for where the numbers don't add up. A good example is the number of people subject to Bedroom Tax because their LA has nowhere to move them to. A reasonable amendment would be to exempt those people, but instead he delivers inadequate funds for discretionary payments to help those affected. So he can say he is acknowledging and acting on the problem, when he knows full well he's not providing enough funding and LAs will either have to leave people out, or claw money from elsewhere. It's a really tough time for LAs and especially LAs with high proportions of elderly, disabled and unemployed.

Edited to add that there is one change that hasn't been picked up, probably because many (including myself) didn't know exactly what it meant. Osborne was always going to recoup money from somewhere after abandoning tax credits.

https://speye.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/bedroom-tax-single-people-mass-evictions-for-disability-csr2-closure-of-all-womens-refuges/

If you are under 35, with no dependents, and you become unemployed from April of next year, you should be worried.

[ratty]

numbers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The "opposition" & gimmicky Mao's red book.

> Laughable.

>

> *waves to sean*

Such a joke that they forced the chancellor to totally back down on his main austerity policy and make a humiliating u-turn. Just think what they could do if they are serious! Scarey huh?

[Blah Blah]

Spot on Ratty. John McDonell reminded everyone of that on the BBC this morning and pointed out that the cuts to Universal Credit amount to the same thing as the tax credit cuts Osborne tried to push through.

And the mao book was a pointer to the Tories willingness to sell our assets to the Chinese. It wasn't some hollow attempt at humour. These are things that make us poorer as a nation, and line the pockets of the few.

[edhistory]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's kind of the way Osborne operates though.

And see the example in para 1.124 of the Red Book.

[Blah Blah]

That is a good example. It was supposed to run til March 2016 with 40 million allocated. But all the funds were used up by October of this year.

[JohnL]

Ok - Our friend Eamonn was interviewing George today on Sky News.

Seemed to go left field again

Why didn't you tell people you had some money so they didn't worry.

Why are you wearing a luminous jacket.

It appears it's all about you.

Why did my motor insurance tax go up this year.

George just looked rather bewildered.

[JohnL]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Spot on Ratty. John McDonell reminded everyone of

> that on the BBC this morning and pointed out that

> the cuts to Universal Credit amount to the same

> thing as the tax credit cuts Osborne tried to push

> through.

>

Of course - but IDS takes the blame.

This was why IDS whooped and waved during the original budget IIRC.

[Blah Blah]

Which comes back to my point of how Osborne operates (setting things in place to alleviate blame from himself). IDS whooped and waved because he's a political thug (and might be on a personal level too for all we know).

But the comment about money and not leaving people worrying is a telling one. Ever wonder how government suddenly finds money for giveaways before elections?

[Ridgley]

All the women from DV refugees should rock up to number 11 as he does not seem to have any regards to real people with real issues.

[Blah Blah]

I just think that they have no idea of how other people live, people not like themselves that is. They will expect charities to take up the slack no doubt. But refuges are not just about a safe space. They provide a range of services from professionals that have to be paid for.

[Loz]

Given the changes made to landlords over the past two budgets/reviews, I reckon rents in London are going to rocket over the next couple of years as supply drops.

[Jeremy]

Was wondering the same Loz. Lots of landlords are going to have to either raise the rent or sell up due to the changes to interest tax relief.

Throw in the rise to stamp duty which is presumably going to cause a drop in new rental properties coming onto the market.. surely rents are going to be rising pretty sharply before long.

[miga]

Another populist move, IMO. Wonder what proportion of BTL properties is taken up by people/entities with more than 15 on their books, who are exempt from this bump. Apart from the schadenfreude of punishing potential BTLers, will it have the desired effect of freeing up supply?