Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
DisQ

The Blazing Row Between Iain Duncan Smith And George Osborne

Recommended Posts

Ministers can't agree to take tough measure?

shock horror!!!

do they know its not worth the bother!

I know its only Daily Mail, but its Sunday, enjoy:

A furious Iain Duncan Smith told Chancellor George Osborne to ‘show more respect’ in an explosive row over plans to slash Britain’s £180 billion welfare bill.

The two men hurled insults at each other when Work and Pensions Secretary Mr Duncan Smith accused the Treasury of trying to block his crusade to end the scandal of welfare dependency.

Mr Duncan Smith raged at the Treasury mandarin in charge of welfare, Clare Lombardelli, allegedly referring to her as ‘that woman’. She is said to have dismissed his proposals as ‘unaffordable and impractical’.

According to one source, the frustrated former Tory leader told the Chancellor: ‘I am not prepared to tolerate the appalling way you treat my department. Your officials must show more respect to my staff. They do not deserve to be treated in such an arrogant and rude way.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305103/Revealed-The-blazing-row-Iain-Duncan-Smith-George-Osborne--tough-talking-woman-centre-it.html#ixzz0xJavbnfO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a rerun of the Frank Field row with Brown. Change costs money in a democracy. Just imposing cuts would ruin the Tory Party's chances at the Polls.

IDS is a man motivated to do the right thing, he is not an idealogue. If his approach cannot be financed by Osborne, he will walk.

As an ex-leader of the Tories he has a lot of personal power in the Party. His departure would be much more significant and damaging than Field's was and that was damaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a rerun of the Frank Field row with Brown. Change costs money in a democracy. Just imposing cuts would ruin the Tory Party's chances at the Polls.

IDS is a man motivated to do the right thing, he is not an idealogue. If his approach cannot be financed by Osborne, he will walk.

As an ex-leader of the Tories he has a lot of personal power in the Party. His departure would be much more significant and damaging than Field's was and that was damaging.

Can't be sure, but I hope you're wrong there.

Yes, Field and IDS were/are trying to accomplish similar goals: to turn welfare back from a lifestyle choice to a safety-net. But the circumstances are different: at the time of his conflict with Field, Brown was not faced with such an overwhelming need to cut expenditure!

On a more optimistic note, this is hopefully really just some trash journo's portrayal of a perfectly normal encounter between departments thrashing out a hard compromise. Time will tell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand the proposals from IDS, that I am not surprised that there was a row.

He wants to present a smooth staircase of improvement for anyone on benefits, or indeed, in a job. The more you earn through working, the better off you will be.

In order to do this, he needs to basically do two things. 1) Reduce benefits, particularly housing benefit. 2) Have a subsidy for working at the lower end of the pay scale.

2) is the problem, it will cost money to begin with at least. In the long run it may save huge amounts of money, as people realise that they can work and be better off, or continue to work and be better off. But to start, it will cost large amounts of extra money.

The other way of creating this staircase of improvement through working, nice and cheap, is just to get rid of the benefits. The Treasury might like that idea better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a more optimistic note, this is hopefully really just some trash journo's portrayal of a perfectly normal encounter between departments thrashing out a hard compromise.

Yep

I'd guess that this exchange, whatever it actually consisted of, will have taken place in private rather that IDS tearing a new one for Gidders in the corridor.

On that basis, what is reported is just what one or the other (or both) wish to see in the papers. It's all tactical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They sit there, hope the problem will sort itself.......soon see it won't.......then suss the only answer to reduce the dole via inflation. Then they see that the goverment won't last ....then they rip off what they can before they go.

Mike

Edited by Mega

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He wants to spend an extra £3 billion on a new benefits system to ensure that people in work are always better off than those who do not work.

Mr Duncan Smith says his plan will save tens of billions of pounds – but it could be years before it pays dividends.

Mr Osborne gave Mr Duncan Smith an ultimatum: ‘Find £10 billion of welfare cuts – or I won’t give you £3 billion for your new scheme.

Result..

In the end, the two men agreed an uneasy compromise. Mr Osborne pledged support for Mr Duncan Smith’s ambitious shake-up, while Mr Duncan Smith agreed to find more welfare cuts to pay for the costly transition process.

Sounds like a fair compromise. I think I actually agree with Osborne.. spending more on an already bloated system with no immediate or guaranteed future savings is not a good way to start cutting cost out of the budget.

If IDS can cut his cloth, he can have his money (for what sounds on the face of it like a good idea).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand the proposals from IDS, that I am not surprised that there was a row.

He wants to present a smooth staircase of improvement for anyone on benefits, or indeed, in a job. The more you earn through working, the better off you will be.

In order to do this, he needs to basically do two things. 1) Reduce benefits, particularly housing benefit. 2) Have a subsidy for working at the lower end of the pay scale.

2) is the problem, it will cost money to begin with at least. In the long run it may save huge amounts of money, as people realise that they can work and be better off, or continue to work and be better off. But to start, it will cost large amounts of extra money.

The other way of creating this staircase of improvement through working, nice and cheap, is just to get rid of the benefits. The Treasury might like that idea better.

More ******** - all you are doing in that case is subsidising minimum wage, foreign owned, leech companies like Mcdonalds/Chikin fry, Asda etc with UK taxpayers dosh!

It is NOT the answer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More ******** - all you are doing in that case is subsidising minimum wage, foreign owned, leech companies like Mcdonalds/Chikin fry, Asda etc with UK taxpayers dosh!

It is NOT the answer!

No it's not THE answer but surely it's better than we have now? Isn't it a springboard to something better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not THE answer but surely it's better than we have now? Isn't it a springboard to something better?

They have multitudes set up in things called "Think Tanks" on £100,000+ per annum + Car + Credit card allowance, to 'work'(sic) these things out!

We already subsidise these leeching foreigners - £billions£ a year are sucked out of the UK, never to be spent back into the economy, which is another reason we are a basket case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxy taxy.

Even the Tories will figure it out in the end.

Arithmetically it's almost impossible to do it through taxation. The budget deficit is around £160bn, that's a gap of about £8k per full time worker per year. The mean full time worker is on around £25-30k gross. Cuts are really the only way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more indecision, infighting and resulting inertia that these sort of disagreements cause, the better IMO. Keep that deficit running and the chances of sovereign debt default increasing! ...Rubs hands...

Yes .

They just don't take these things seriously enough.

Far too pedestrian approach.

Nx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely certain it is possible to do it either way. As soon you as you cut the public sector wage bill, taxes will also fall (from both public sector wage packets and what they also spend into the private sector). So then you need to cut again. Can we actually get to the point that way of balancing the budget. I'm really not sure we can given the interest bill.

Yes I think there would be an element of chasing the economy down if you attempted major public spending cuts in a deflationary environment, as the Irish are discovering. But as long as you are cutting government spending faster than tax revenues are contracting %wise, you should eventually reach a point at which the economy can support that level of spending through taxation (i.e. the budget will balance). As you rightly say there is a big problem with controlling the cost of servicing public debt, which cannot be cut in the way that a GP's salary can. However it can be defaulted on, and if the debt is large enough and you are cutting back in a deflationary environment, default may be politically unavoidable (e.g. trying to cut spending on nurses by 50% while guaranteeing the banks 100% return on their cash). I think the Irish are about to find that one out too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ive read they are going easy on tax evaders specially offshore accounts, as they are cutting IR traking staff by 20% so teh rich yet again get away with it, and your telling me a witch hunt agisnt the poor is fair.

i think iam goign to vote labour next time, they ruin the country for everyone, better that than a government that ruins the country for the poor.

Edited by crash2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that IDS has not yet worked out that he is window dressing- there was never any intention to follow through on his ideas, but he does serve to preserve the fiction that this is more than a slash and burn operation against the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that IDS has not yet worked out that he is window dressing- there was never any intention to follow through on his ideas, but he does serve to preserve the fiction that this is more than a slash and burn operation against the poor.

Just a wild guess but it seems to me that the poor (and thrifty) will be be able to live reasonably well but the middleclass will be caught in a no-mans-land, unwilling to lower their standards and join the poor and unable to reach the safety of 'the rich.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ministers can't agree to take tough measure?

shock horror!!!

do they know its not worth the bother!

I know its only Daily Mail, but its Sunday, enjoy:

A furious Iain Duncan Smith told Chancellor George Osborne to ‘show more respect’ in an explosive row over plans to slash Britain’s £180 billion welfare bill.

The two men hurled insults at each other when Work and Pensions Secretary Mr Duncan Smith accused the Treasury of trying to block his crusade to end the scandal of welfare dependency.

Mr Duncan Smith raged at the Treasury mandarin in charge of welfare, Clare Lombardelli, allegedly referring to her as ‘that woman’. She is said to have dismissed his proposals as ‘unaffordable and impractical’.

According to one source, the frustrated former Tory leader told the Chancellor: ‘I am not prepared to tolerate the appalling way you treat my department. Your officials must show more respect to my staff. They do not deserve to be treated in such an arrogant and rude way.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305103/Revealed-The-blazing-row-Iain-Duncan-Smith-George-Osborne--tough-talking-woman-centre-it.html#ixzz0xJavbnfO

Same old, same old.

If Osbourne wins then essentially we are seeing the Treasury running government policy again just as it did under Blair/Brown.

They want to stifle IDS reform proposals just as they essentially neutered Vince Cables Business department so it could not carry out any real reform of the financial sector.

This would not matter if the Treasury was an organisation as full of brilliant minds and administrators as it so fondly supposes. The reality is sadly rather different as any cursory examination of their management of the UK economy in the past 40 years will reveal .After all a lot of the problems that the UK face are due to the crack up credit boom and bust in the financial sector, a huge policy failure that can be traced right back to the Treasury not the poor old DWP .Since the Treasury does not actually have a great track record in getting it right why does anyone think it is going to be better this time just because an axe man such as Osbourne is the figurehead.

For the UK to truly recover as an economy perhaps the most important job undertaken by this government would be a Public Commission to examine the Treasury's role in government and whether, as an institution, it is really fit for purpose

Time for Cameron to start doing his job as PM rather just acting as some sort of PR wonk

Edited by realcrookswearsuits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e

Time for Cameron to start doing his job as PM rather just acting as some sort of PR wonk

Sadly Lord Snooty has no experience of working for a living. Hopefully his 'holiday' is actually a cover for going on a much needed unpaid internship for work experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly Lord Snooty has no experience of working for a living. Hopefully his 'holiday' is actually a cover for going on a much needed unpaid internship for work experience.

Just a reminder from Wikipedia of how much Our Leader knows of the world of work:

Cameron studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford, gaining a first class honours degree. He then joined the Conservative Research Department and became Special Adviser to Norman Lamont, and then to Michael Howard. He was Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications for seven years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to summarise - he got a First Class Honours degree incorporating economics from Oxford and was a Director of a private company for seven years. :blink:

Carlton Communications are no longer in business. While Cameron was their Director of Corporate Affairs they were taken over by Granada in what was supposed to be a merger, but Carlton (Cameron) were outflanked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder from Wikipedia of how much Our Leader knows of the world of work:

Cameron studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford, gaining a first class honours degree. He then joined the Conservative Research Department and became Special Adviser to Norman Lamont, and then to Michael Howard. He was Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications for seven years.

Sounds smarter then Brooon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.