I can’t support the coalition anymore

I never wanted to have to write this post, but I just can't do it any more. I can't go on while being kicked in the face by the government and still support it.

I have to admit, I'm not very happy with the coalition from a personal prospective. I earn just a few hundred pounds over the new 50% tax band threshold* (this was an error I meant 40%). Which in itself is fine, I don't mind paying 50% tax on this income. But this put me in the squeezed middle. The movement of the threshold will result in my partner from 2013 will no longer receive child support for my son, a loss of over £1,000. National Insurance is also going up above £35k.

The government have also cut the office where my partner worked. This means that I am the only income earner as we can't really afford to pay for childcare despite the support provided with child care vouchers which would cover about 10%-15% of the cost if working full time.

Also I only live in a one bed flat so I need to move however I don't have the equity for a 10% deposit (flat has gone down in value) so I will need to rent. That's fine I'm not asking for a council house (although I won't expect to get one if I tried, and if I did it would take too long). If the banks offered some better mortgage deals which accepted lower deposits then perhaps this would help. Why are the government not doing more to encourage the banks to lend at better rates?

Before you say it was my choice to have a baby. Actually due to a medical condition we thought that we could not have children. But low and behold we have had a son (Landon), a miracle baby. We won't have an apportion for us its not right (although I fully support the rights of other to have them) and we didn't know if we could ever have this chance again. So actually we had no choice and I'm extremely happy we had a wonderful son.

I also understand that I'm still lucky to live in Britain and not many countries where these benefits would not be paid. But as these benefits exist, should couples like us should not be encourage to live apart to get greater benefits for our son. Surely it is unfair to have one family earning £80k (£40k each) to still receive child benefit when a family earning just over £40k lose this benefit.

So I can no longer support the coalition as it is detrimental to the up bringing of my son. I blame the banks and the last government for the financial mess we are in as a country but I also blame the coalition for the way the taxes and cuts are being distributed. I still support the Liberal Democrats as I believe in what they/we stand for as an independent party. However many Tories or Lib Dems never voted for a child benefit cut which although progressive is essentially unfair to many families in similar positions and does not encourage families to say together.

* This was an error I meant 40%

EU - Increase maternity leave policy

BillBloggs writes another letter.

A letter to Liberal Democrat MEP's Catherine Bearder and Sharon Bowles.

Dear MEPS,

I am appalled!

Here we are in a major recession with major cuts in Government expenditure, half a billion jobs to go in the public sector hence the need to rely on the private sector to create more jobs - and what do the bloom'in EU want to do? Hang another millstone around the necks of both public and private sector employers with increased maternity leave payments!

AND - that is on top of the EU wanting a 6% increase in their budget for which the UK would have to pay nearly a billion pounds a year more towards!

I do hope that neither of you two voted for any of this????!!!!!!

Personally, I would welcome more cuts to child related benefits in the UK, including maternity leave! Why? Because there are 6.8 billion people on this finite planet of ours already.

Many of them in the richer countries are consuming at the rate of 2, some even 3, and a few even at 5 planets! By 2050 there is projected to be 9 -10 billion people on our planet - i.e. 50% more - all of whom will still be seeking to get richer by yet more economic growth - and thus to be able to consume even more limited resources.

Yet, we are also supposed to be cutting CO2 emissions globally by well over 50% by 2050.

Yet, every new human arriving on our planet between now and then will be adding to those emissions...............And those arriving in the wealthier countries, like the UK and the rest of the EU, will consume a lot more and emit a lot more CO2 than those arriving elsewhere.......So, how is this going to work then?

I ask you, arguing from the standpoint of Sustainability and Climate Change alone, should the EU/UK be encouraging childbirth by increasing maternity leave benefits?

Why exactly is it being proposed?

The most common argument I hear in favour is that we need to encourage more children so that they will pay for better pensions for us when we get old That is based on the logic of the madhouse.

They will all grow old and want even better pensions too, so we will need ever more people ad infinitum - which is clearly unsustainable on a finite planet. This is a ponzi scheme.

It is worse than pyramid selling!

When we in the UK are already stressed by an overpopulation problem, caused chiefly by immigration, this argument makes no more sense than to suggest that we need to increase our numbers so that we don't get outnumbered by immigrants!

Perhaps the real reason behind all this is the EU want more new citizens so as to increase their budget still further, and spread their member states national debts upon?!

Arguing from the same standpoint, I would now like to put several questions on child based benefits in general to you;

Should we really be encouraging families in the UK to have more children by offering parents child based benefits that increase with the quantity of their offspring? So, in principal, shouldn't we move towards stopping all child based benefits after the first child?

Clearly this can only be done gradually from where we are now in the UK. The coalition have made a start, thankfully, but have merely scratched the surface! (How many £billions/annum would that save when we finally got there?)

Therefore, apart from helping all parents universally for their first child, it seems to me that (were we able to go back to the beginning again rather than starting from where we are now!) the only absolutely fair, perfectly reasonable and logically sound reason to assist parents financially beyond that is solely on the basis of need. The state should be acting as a taxpayer funded charity organisation, only upon the unexpected loss of employment or unfortunate onset of ill health etc - when and while the parents are struggling to support themselves, let alone more children than their first child. Such assistance should never ever be provided indefinitely except in extreme cases.

Might you agree with this supposition, in principle at least?

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on these matters!

Yours sincerely,

Bill Bloggs

 

And a very speedy same day reply from Sharon Bowles MEP Office;

Dear Mr Dowling,

Thank you for your email.

Sharon did not support amendments in the Parliament to the Pregnant Workers Directive which sought to provide 20 weeks full time maternity pay. While she supports moves for increased gender equality and for the safeguarding of pregnant women's rights in the workplace, these amendments are just not financially viable to introduce at this time in the economic recovery.

The implementation in the UK alone is estimated to cost close to £2bn. This is not only very costly for the UK, but to impose this stipulation across the European Union is unfair on those Member States who do not have the budgetary resources to support it.

Further to this, implementing this particular amendment during a time of economic constraint may lead to increased discrimination against women securing jobs as maternity leave packages would cost employers more than ever before. Sharon has met with the Federation of Small Businesses on this matter who estimates each pregnancy will cost employers on average £7000.

Thank you once again for contacting Sharon and I hope this response has been of use to you.

Yours sincerely,

Constituency Office Manager

Office of Sharon Bowles MEP, Liberal Democrat Chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee Member of the European Parliament for South East England

 

Posted on behalf of Bill Bloggs who is a member of the

www.optimumpopulation.org and Green Peace

Scrapping child benefit - what will Ed do?

I was watching BBC Breakfast this morning when the Chancellor did something politicians never do. Osborne was asked a question by Shan Lloyd about universal benefits and he answered it by announcing a new policy that is within his speech (scrapping child benefit for higher rate tax payers). This is not the normal way of doing things in politics. Normally you don't answer the question and you certainly don't announce a policy before giving a speech to party conference and not without leaking bits of your speech to the press first. I found this quite refreshing.

 

Anyway others will cover the rights and wrongs of this announcement in detail as this is a big story because it moves the Tories to the left. However I was wondering about how Ed Miliband and Labour will deal with this announcement. Ed has a chance to move right or left of this debate and maybe remove his Red Ed tag. He could agree with this cut, thereby showing that he is progressive and also doesn't agree with universal benefits or he could disagree with all or part of this announcement. If Labour do this then are they not moving to the right of the coalition on this issue and thereby removing his Red Ed tag?

 

I look forward to the Daily Mail's headline tomorrow on middle class benefits being cut.