The man is a joke. Will never forget, or forgive, the sight of this sneering hypocrite being shown for the utter contemptible individual that he is.
His resignation is nothing to do with the cuts to PIP and all about twisting the knife into Cameron and Osborne about Brexit. Pure opportunism, tries to blame someone else for the policies of a department he has run for 6 years, in a blatant attempt to line up a job with his new bff buddies Johnson & Gove.
At the same time, he has blown apart the lie that we are all in this together.
As someone who has had two significant tax bills in the last 2 years as a result of losing my personal allowance it does grate on me when some of the media and most of this site bang on about how only the 'poor' are affected.
I have lost around two thirds of my income to tax and NI in the last 2 years and I'm not exactly on a footballers salary, well maybe league 2..
I thought the budget was ok, won't really affect me but I will save into a lifetime ISA for me and the missus.
Nice to see Cameron's judgement is spot on again. Stephen Crabb is an expenses thief who claimed his main home was a room rented from another MP whilst buying a new home for his family all on the taxpayers expense.
His voting record on welfare, benefits and disability speaks for itself. What a fucking disgusting appointment by Cameron.
It's easy to say something along the lines of 'the richest half are the only beneficiaries of this Budget' if you ignore the nuances of how national economies work and are managed.
This is not a defence of a budget by the way but just providing some insight that some people appear to lack.
Inflation and consumption in the UK is still far too low. So are tax receipts. The less tax middle classes pay the more they spend, particularly as interest rates are so low. This helps both inflation and consumption.
Helping high street and small businesses employ more staff generally helps the bottom half who tend to make up the rosters of small businesses. They are less of a burden on the taxpayer and not only are they earning they are claiming less.
It's easy to take the view that we should concentrate on hiring nurses instead of lowering taxes but without these kinds of macroeconomic stimuli we cannot afford those extra nurses. That's the simple truth. Taking such binary views on economic matters does not work, it assumes we live in a world of zero or limited consequences.
Whether or not this Budget is achieving this stimuli is another discussion. As is whether the cuts are unfairly falling on the disabled.
Stimulating middle-class spending will help business owners, sure. It may even encourage them to employ more workers, if they think this will be profitable. And so we have a few more people on flexi-time minimum-wage contracts. Hurrah, everyone's won!
This is a rather simplistic view though. Not all small businesses pay minimum wages or zero hours contracts. Most business owners know that if they pay better or give better conditions then they have better staff quality and retention. Yeah you get your Mike Ashley types who build their business on having the lowest quality, lowest based staff, but that model only works because they are a business chain dominating that area of the market.
I'd rather have more people employed than taking the attitude that any job below 20k is not worth it and just paying them to sit at home.
Didn't he vote for them though? Or was that a different disabled cut?
Weren't they his idea?! Definitely more to this!
Would love to know the real reason IDS plunged the dagger into Osborne. I somehow feel that this issue gave IDS the opportunity to resign and look "good" and at the same time distance himself from the odious Chancellor whilst sidling up to Boris and the Brexiters and perhaps the promise of a plum job when Boris gets the keys to number 10.
Didn't he vote for them though? Or was that a different disabled cut?
Weren't they his idea?! Definitely more to this!
Would love to know the real reason IDS plunged the dagger into Osborne. I somehow feel that this issue gave IDS the opportunity to resign and look "good" and at the same time distance himself from the odious Chancellor whilst sidling up to Boris and the Brexiters and perhaps the promise of a plum job when Boris gets the keys to number 10.
Two turds Birds with one stab as it were.
Think you are right. Politics is brutal. Cameron can't do anything about the Brexit lot at the moment. But if there's a stay in vote, I'd expect a cabinet shuffle and they'd all be gone. He would know that, he's made his bed....
Iain Duncan Smith may have resigned over disability cuts but the 'out of the EU' campaigners are dressing it up as 'we wouldn't have needed those cuts if we weren't in the EU'.
Iain Duncan Smith may have resigned over disability cuts but the 'out of the EU' campaigners are dressing it up as 'we wouldn't have needed those cuts if we weren't in the EU'.
Yes, they are. The odious Peter Bone was on BBC this morning, claiming £15bn could be redirected as soon as we leave the EU. Total lie of course, ignoring the fact that we get the vast majority of that gross contribution back. Complete tool.
The man is a joke. Will never forget, or forgive, the sight of this sneering hypocrite being shown for the utter contemptible individual that he is.
His resignation is nothing to do with the cuts to PIP and all about twisting the knife into Cameron and Osborne about Brexit. Pure opportunism, tries to blame someone else for the policies of a department he has run for 6 years, in a blatant attempt to line up a job with his new bff buddies Johnson & Gove.
At the same time, he has blown apart the lie that we are all in this together.
Think you are right! I Jumped to the wrong conclusion on this I think!
Didn't he vote for them though? Or was that a different disabled cut?
Weren't they his idea?! Definitely more to this!
Would love to know the real reason IDS plunged the dagger into Osborne. I somehow feel that this issue gave IDS the opportunity to resign and look "good" and at the same time distance himself from the odious Chancellor whilst sidling up to Boris and the Brexiters and perhaps the promise of a plum job when Boris gets the keys to number 10.
I should clarify that I am not against tax cuts or reducing corporation tax - clearly both can stimulate the economy and of course all of Government spending originates from the private sector.
I just don't think that tax cuts should be sourced from Disability Benifits and if there is no alternative method of funding they should be delayed until such time as they are affordable without impacting on the most vulnerable in society. Neither do I agree with a budget which effectively gives the richer half of society more at the expense of the poorer half.
It will be great sport now to watch Osborne squirm and be forced into yet another u turn in order to save face and preserve any hope of getting the nod as Cameron's successor. Brilliant manoeuvre by the toad IDS to kick George in the nadgers. Boris can remain aloof and above the bloodfest while all the time strengthening his position. It really is the Tory party at its brutal best.
Good thing Labour is so united and free of scandal at the moment to capitalise on this Tory mess.
The only real scandal is that Corbyn is leader.
You had to get a shot in though. Well done.
Head in the sand if you think that's the only scandal.
Also pretty sure that the Labour thread is full of anti-Tory jibes. Plenty from you anyway.
Lets face it, neither party exists in a vacuum. It's fair to point out that as bad as the Tories are right now Labour are no better. Two sides of the same coin.
For those who are attempting to paint IDS as some kind of onanistic Grim Reaper (ie nearly everyone in this thread so far) can I point you to infamous right-wing rag HuffPost who have given a robust defence of his time at the DWP where he has been repeatedly hamstrung by the Treasury. As easy as it is to take Polly Toynbee's word as gospel that IDS literally hates and wants all poor and disabled people to die, taking a step back from the rhetoric and propaganda provides much needed sobriety from an incredibly toxic policy area.
For those who are attempting to paint IDS as some kind of onanistic Grim Reaper (ie nearly everyone in this thread so far) can I point you to infamous right-wing rag HuffPost who have given a robust defence of his time at the DWP where he has been repeatedly hamstrung by the Treasury. As easy as it is to take Polly Toynbee's word as gospel that IDS literally hates and wants all poor and disabled people to die, taking a step back from the rhetoric and propaganda provides much needed sobriety from an incredibly toxic policy area.
Good thing Labour is so united and free of scandal at the moment to capitalise on this Tory mess.
To fail to capitalise on this, you'd have to be a total shower... Gah, what I'd give for a decent opposition
If the Lib Dems hadn't been so keen to bed in with the Tories in 2010 this could have been their time.
The problem is they were in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. If they did not enter coalition with the Tories there was no other party they could get a working majority with. Plus Gordon Brown burnt all his bridges with Clegg as we found out after the fact so he couldn't even go into coalition with coalition with Labour even if he wanted to. If they had not gotten into bed with the Tories then a second election would have been forced and that could have been a massive gamble for a party that could have easily lost dozens of seats as electors decided that they'd rather have a 2-party system than endless elections in the midst of a crisis.
The issue wasn't getting into bed with the Tories, it was the fact that most of their ministers managed to get caught in some kind of scandal, they broke a key pact with the Tories early on leading to the Tories outflanking them from then on and they threw their toys out of the pram over Lords and electoral reform. What was probably the big killer was ceding ground on Tuition Fees, their flagship pledge. They should have traded that for literally anything else. Lords reform and electoral reform was never, ever going to happen but they decided to cash in 22 years worth of chips when they've only just sat at the table for two reforms that simply could be forced through with what little support they had at the time.
I should clarify that I am not against tax cuts or reducing corporation tax - clearly both can stimulate the economy and of course all of Government spending originates from the private sector.
I just don't think that tax cuts should be sourced from Disability Benifits and if there is no alternative method of funding they should be delayed until such time as they are affordable without impacting on the most vulnerable in society. Neither do I agree with a budget which effectively gives the richer half of society more at the expense of the poorer half.
Although I agree on the disability comment, which part of the budget gives the rich more or 'tax cuts'? Even if some do it's not even back to the level of 5 years ago.
If I look back over the last 7-10 years these are the changes to the supposed Rich......
No child allowance - £1788.80 (2x children) Removal of tax allowance - £2,100 Increased NI (2%) on earnings over £42,380, so someone on £100k an extra £1,152.40. Extra 5% on earnings over £150k Tapering down of tax relief on Pensions so potentially only on £10k per annum
So someone on £100k with two children and without taking account of the reducing level at 20% is probably paying around £5,200 is tax.
Someone on 120k add another £4,000 to that so £9,200........ plus £400 more NI.
If you compare where the 40% band comes in currently compared to 2009 then a further £1,123 in tax.
Therefore an earner on £120k pays an ADDITIONAL £10,723 in tax........ or an additional 9%. Still think the poor are funding the rich?
I don't know if IDS's record deserves a stout defence or not. What I do believe however is that his resignation is about internal Tory party manoevering not about any principled stance. I am absolutely sure that within Labour there are political machinations aplenty, but just like they say it is no good having principles without the power, here we have the Tories with the power without much in the way of principles. I am trying to think of the last Tory I was aware of and i thought, well you're all right I suppose. Tell you what, dyed in the wool Tory Jacob Rees Mogg. You know where you are with a Tory like that, and you know what you'll get when governed by Tories like him, thin gruel. But at least he will be open about it all. Jacob Rees Mogg for leader in a back to the grassroots true Tory way, I would have more respect for him than for a chameleon like Boris. If I remember rightly the pre-budget PMQ's involved Jeremy Corbyn urging the government not to put the boot into the disabled, and it looks like they are going to do what he asked.
Comments
His resignation is nothing to do with the cuts to PIP and all about twisting the knife into Cameron and Osborne about Brexit. Pure opportunism, tries to blame someone else for the policies of a department he has run for 6 years, in a blatant attempt to line up a job with his new bff buddies Johnson & Gove.
At the same time, he has blown apart the lie that we are all in this together.
As someone who has had two significant tax bills in the last 2 years as a result of losing my personal allowance it does grate on me when some of the media and most of this site bang on about how only the 'poor' are affected.
I have lost around two thirds of my income to tax and NI in the last 2 years and I'm not exactly on a footballers salary, well maybe league 2..
I thought the budget was ok, won't really affect me but I will save into a lifetime ISA for me and the missus.
His voting record on welfare, benefits and disability speaks for itself. What a fucking disgusting appointment by Cameron.
I'd rather have more people employed than taking the attitude that any job below 20k is not worth it and just paying them to sit at home.
Two
turdsBirds with one stab as it were.Iain Duncan Smith may have resigned over disability cuts but the 'out of the EU' campaigners are dressing it up as 'we wouldn't have needed those cuts if we weren't in the EU'.
Interesting read - 640,000 affected - £4+ billion saved - introduced in the current form by this Government in 2013 - not Gordon Brown.
Tax cuts paid from by depriving the most disabled are immoral IMO
I just don't think that tax cuts should be sourced from Disability Benifits and if there is no alternative method of funding they should be delayed until such time as they are affordable without impacting on the most vulnerable in society. Neither do I agree with a budget which effectively gives the richer half of society more at the expense of the poorer half.
You had to get a shot in though. Well done.
Also pretty sure that the Labour thread is full of anti-Tory jibes. Plenty from you anyway.
Lets face it, neither party exists in a vacuum. It's fair to point out that as bad as the Tories are right now Labour are no better. Two sides of the same coin.
The issue wasn't getting into bed with the Tories, it was the fact that most of their ministers managed to get caught in some kind of scandal, they broke a key pact with the Tories early on leading to the Tories outflanking them from then on and they threw their toys out of the pram over Lords and electoral reform. What was probably the big killer was ceding ground on Tuition Fees, their flagship pledge. They should have traded that for literally anything else. Lords reform and electoral reform was never, ever going to happen but they decided to cash in 22 years worth of chips when they've only just sat at the table for two reforms that simply could be forced through with what little support they had at the time.
If I look back over the last 7-10 years these are the changes to the supposed Rich......
No child allowance - £1788.80 (2x children)
Removal of tax allowance - £2,100
Increased NI (2%) on earnings over £42,380, so someone on £100k an extra £1,152.40.
Extra 5% on earnings over £150k
Tapering down of tax relief on Pensions so potentially only on £10k per annum
So someone on £100k with two children and without taking account of the reducing level at 20% is probably paying around £5,200 is tax.
Someone on 120k add another £4,000 to that so £9,200........ plus £400 more NI.
If you compare where the 40% band comes in currently compared to 2009 then a further £1,123 in tax.
Therefore an earner on £120k pays an ADDITIONAL £10,723 in tax........ or an additional 9%. Still think the poor are funding the rich?
What I do believe however is that his resignation is about internal Tory party manoevering not about any principled stance.
I am absolutely sure that within Labour there are political machinations aplenty, but just like they say it is no good having principles without the power, here we have the Tories with the power without much in the way of principles.
I am trying to think of the last Tory I was aware of and i thought, well you're all right I suppose.
Tell you what, dyed in the wool Tory Jacob Rees Mogg. You know where you are with a Tory like that, and you know what you'll get when governed by Tories like him, thin gruel.
But at least he will be open about it all. Jacob Rees Mogg for leader in a back to the grassroots true Tory way, I would have more respect for him than for a chameleon like Boris.
If I remember rightly the pre-budget PMQ's involved Jeremy Corbyn urging the government not to put the boot into the disabled, and it looks like they are going to do what he asked.
Jokes aside, it is just a ludicrous throw away comment that the poor have always funded the rich....