IDS: We've redefined the meaning of cut

[doodab]

the “reality is that this country is not cutting welfare”. He added that “all those on benefits will still see cash increases in every year of this Parliament"

The Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that the total benefit bill will be almost £18billion higher in 2015-16 than in 2011-12 – the equivalent of about £1,000 for every household. Mr Duncan Smith’s comments are the first public admission that the Government is no longer seeking to cut the welfare budget.

That's going well then.

[centurian]

It seems anything less than a stonking increase, is now defined as a "cut"

It's nothing new though. In fact I recall the 2005 election where Labour promised humongous increases in public spending. The Tories said that this was unaffordable, but still promised an above inflation increase in public spending.

Labour (successfully) campaigned that Tories were going to deliver "billions of pounds of swingeing cuts" - defining a cut as being anything less than what they had promised.

[KentPhilip]

well, more votes for ukip then, because ukip has policies of low state spending.

[lilelvis2000]

well, more votes for ukip then, because ukip has policies of low state spending.

Until they realise their votes come from those on benefits.

[doodab]

We need benevolent dictators, and we need them now.

[xoggoth]

Or perhaps abandon government as a failed concept.

[VectraMan]

Or perhaps abandon government as a failed concept.

I agree with Xoggoth. Power to the people!

[lilelvis2000]

I agree with Xoggoth. Power to the people!

Somalia is a shining example. Wonder what their immigration requirements are.

[NickFitz]

"We've redefined the meaning of cut."

They can't even spell it right

[OwlHoot]

The Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that the total benefit bill will be almost £18billion higher in 2015-16 than in 2011-12 – the equivalent of about £1,000 for every household. Mr Duncan Smith’s comments are the first public admission that the Government is no longer seeking to cut the welfare budget.

That's going well then.

So they allow unlimited immigration for years, supposedly to cut costs; but then they, or rather we, have to pay a huge amount more for indigenous people (and doubtless many immigrants) to sit around doing nothing

All goes to show that this immigration is largely a voting racket, a modern day vastly more extravagent equivalent of the local squire in the 18th century shipping in and bribing a few artisans and smallholders to vote them into Parliament.