According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies
Up till now the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has been the Tories’ friend. But following their assertion that George Osborne’s spending cuts are NOT fair and that they would hit the poorest harder than the richest, they must be off the Christmas Card list of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.
The think tank concluded that, with the exception of the richest 2% of the population (the billionaires), the least well-off would be hit the hardest, and families with children would lose out the most.
They described the tax and benefit changes as regressive rather than progressive across the bulk of the population.
Nick Clegg, David’s poodle, hit back, loosing what little credibility he had left, accusing critics of “f
rightening people” with claims that they were doing unfair things “when we are not. So nah nah nah nah nah!”.
For goodness sake Nicky. We’re not the bunch of morons you clearly take us for. We may not have gone to Eton, Harrow or Westminster, like the bulk of the cabinet, but we know when the taxes are going up, prices are going up, jobs are being lost, benefits are coming down, and the services, which are appalling to begin with, are getting worse that that is a bad deal for us.
We also know that if you have 250,000 a year and the price of petrol goes up and VAT goes up and you lose your child benefit, and food goes up, you don’t actually miss it. However, if you used to earn £150 a week and now you’re now on £51 benefit and there are no jobs, and you can’t afford Mr Duncan-Smith’s bus fares (which are going up) to the nearest town where there are jobs, maybe 50 miles away, so that you can compete with the hundreds of thousands of people already there for these jobs..... it’s a bit of a damned bind don’t you know.
The think-tank also challenged Osborne’s claim that cuts to departments averaged 19%, which he had made a huge flourish of tel
ling us at the end of his statement. It was better, he had said, than Labour’s request that reductions be kept to 20%.
Well no, it wasn’t actually. It pointed out Osborne’s calculations took no account the £6bn of cuts already announced in his emergency Budget which put it well over the 22%.
So wee Gideon’s a bit of a fibber and Nick is a patronising git who, hopefully, will lose the leadership as real Liberals, and Democrats, cross the floor, and then lose his seat when the people of Sheffield decide that they might as well have a proper Tory next time.
Instead of the Prime Minister’s tea boy
Up till now the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has been the Tories’ friend. But following their assertion that George Osborne’s spending cuts are NOT fair and that they would hit the poorest harder than the richest, they must be off the Christmas Card list of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.
The think tank concluded that, with the exception of the richest 2% of the population (the billionaires), the least well-off would be hit the hardest, and families with children would lose out the most.
They described the tax and benefit changes as regressive rather than progressive across the bulk of the population.
Nick Clegg, David’s poodle, hit back, loosing what little credibility he had left, accusing critics of “f
rightening people” with claims that they were doing unfair things “when we are not. So nah nah nah nah nah!”.For goodness sake Nicky. We’re not the bunch of morons you clearly take us for. We may not have gone to Eton, Harrow or Westminster, like the bulk of the cabinet, but we know when the taxes are going up, prices are going up, jobs are being lost, benefits are coming down, and the services, which are appalling to begin with, are getting worse that that is a bad deal for us.
We also know that if you have 250,000 a year and the price of petrol goes up and VAT goes up and you lose your child benefit, and food goes up, you don’t actually miss it. However, if you used to earn £150 a week and now you’re now on £51 benefit and there are no jobs, and you can’t afford Mr Duncan-Smith’s bus fares (which are going up) to the nearest town where there are jobs, maybe 50 miles away, so that you can compete with the hundreds of thousands of people already there for these jobs..... it’s a bit of a damned bind don’t you know.
The think-tank also challenged Osborne’s claim that cuts to departments averaged 19%, which he had made a huge flourish of tel
ling us at the end of his statement. It was better, he had said, than Labour’s request that reductions be kept to 20%.Well no, it wasn’t actually. It pointed out Osborne’s calculations took no account the £6bn of cuts already announced in his emergency Budget which put it well over the 22%.
So wee Gideon’s a bit of a fibber and Nick is a patronising git who, hopefully, will lose the leadership as real Liberals, and Democrats, cross the floor, and then lose his seat when the people of Sheffield decide that they might as well have a proper Tory next time.
Instead of the Prime Minister’s tea boy
