How the Conservatives plan to save £8bn in welfare cuts

The cuts will hit the most vulnerable , the disabled, unemployed , school leavers , they are not the - hard working families . Alan Sugar will still get his heating allowance and a man I know who is blind , lives in a rural area, has been told he must find work but will not find work , no one wants a blind man plus guide dog who has to depend on public transport - very few buses - will no doubt have his benefits cut

Good point WW....if any party knows, they should!

Right....off to ukelele practice

Tories are going to make at least 12bn worth of cuts - and not increase any tax - more than any other party is proposing.

Which ever way you look at it cuts to welfare will be considerable including social services which is what they did in the last parliament and which has caused severe problems in the NHS with elderly not being able to leave in an appropriate time. Also care by the social services not being given in a timely manner has almost certainly resulted on more pressure to the NHS.

If Tories don't know what cuts need to be made - apart from those they intend to make than what on earth have they be doing the past 5 years?

You're right GT, they all have to make cuts and it's almost impossible for any potential government to know in advance what cuts they'll need to make, and where. All sorts of unknown pressures can be brought to bear and result in unpopular decisions needing to be made.

I remember Blair cutting single parent benefits not long after he came to power....I don't think many of us saw that coming!

I agree all parties will have to make benefit cuts but it's what sort of cuts and where - plus the conservatives have promised us the most

Point taken on where the proposals came from GG, but that still doesn't mean it's a plan for the future. Having said that, I think it's realistic to expect that which ever party or combination of parties forms a government, then cuts in benefits could be on the cards.

I'm not sure whether any of them have told us specifically where they'll be making cuts?

This proposal was apparently commissioned by the government Notso. Osborne said Danny Alexander commissioned it to which DA replied that the PM had asked him to do so. They are definitely not saying it was sent by a think tank.

I do think, with greater equality for women, that you could argue for getting rid of the child allowance. I have always thought the money should used for wrap around child care that could be used by all as necessary. However, it is important that this is offered free to all as the Universal Benefits were. I appreciate that the Conservatives are trying to completely decimate the benefits system and to keep it in place all must benefit otherwise why would people want to pay in if they feel they will never be able to draw out. We have already gone too far down that road enabling the Tory's to call it "Welfare", another word for charity and thus demeaning the recipient and annoying those paying in. It is important to keep a National Insurance system in place or we are working our way back to the Workhouse.

I don't think presenting this plan is misleading Notso but if it is then why don't the Tories tell us where the unknown £10 billion of cuts is going to be; so far they have only told us about £2 billion of the £12 billion they have said they will cut.

So we only have to worry about Tory cuts, not cuts made by any other party?

I don't take what GO says as a categorical denial - after all they said they wouldn't put up VAT in 2010. If they had the courage to come clean about the £12bn welfare cuts they are going to implement, there wouldn't be a vacuum for people to fill would there? Whatever cuts they make some gners and their families will be affected so there's plenty to worry about

Danny Alexander has not leaked Tory plans to slash child benefit and tax credits. He's referred to a suggested proposal made 3 years ago and not taken up. These proposals are made by various think tanks and policy wonks and presented to which ever party is in power as a means of cutting costs. Some are taken up, some are not, this one wasn't.

That's not to say that any future goverment of which ever persuasion wont 'slash' child benefits....who knows?

But to present this as a 'leaked plan' for the future is misleading and could cause needless concern for GNetters whose children & grandchildren rely upon these benefits.

mcem more like trickle up

Since the Keynsian approach to the economy and the New Deal successfully pulled the UK and USA out of the great depression why are so few politicians unwilling to use the same approach now?
Once again, investment in infrastructure eg much-needed housebuilding (as happened in the 30's) would provide employment , allowing consumer spending to increase thus stimulating the economy (as well as providing homes obviously).
I cannot see that the 'trickle-down effect' is working so change is needed.

Hopefully the whole of the UK might benefit if the SNP approach prevails.
It's stimulus we need not even more severe austerity.

The point behind the introduction of Child benefit, if I remember rightly, was to take the tax allowance for children away from the wage earner ( generally the father then) and give it to the Mother so that the money was more likely to be spent on the children. Not always the case of course, but I think this was the philosophy. I keep trying to read behind the weasel words of promising no increases in tax rates, NIC and VAT, and like many who know more than I, have come to the conclusion that it is going to be benefits of some sort that are hit, some sort of rolling all benefits together for taxation purposes. Those people that think this is acceptable should start worrying about their pensions for they are craftily included in the figures of 'welfare' spending' ......as we get nearer and nearer to the election, the half truths and promises get more and more wild from both major parties.

If we tax it, there would be an enormous amount of extra admin needed. There is actually a reason why its not taxed historically - when fsmily allowance was replaced by cb, they offset some of the cost of the increase by abolishing child tax allowances .

j01 you are buying into G.O's argument. There is no other country in the world that is continuing with this message, those that argued for austerity and cuts quickly saw that it lead to a a lowering of demand and therefore no reduction of debt. It is only this government who is doggedly following this policy and not as I have argued for any economic sense but because they are ideologically opposed to the welfare state.

Other countries have eased on the austerity, and the result has been more demand, and the ability to pay off some of the debt. This is what the other mainstream parties are arguing including the SNP - they know that the debt has to be dealt with but not at the expense of the poorest.

This Country must live within it's means or become nothing.

Not any of the other parties have indicated that they intend to cut so deeply as the Tories.
Not only do they say that they will cut by 12bn they have also stated that they will pass a law that there will be no tax rises in the next parliament, so there will be no help from taxing the wealthy as they have been assured that they will not be paying any more tax "by law".
So the poor are paying for the debt for which they had absolutely nothing to do with - it was in fact the wealthy banks - and have no reassurance that their economic position - poor as it is - will not be compromised by cuts. What a nasty party they are.

True enough Mollie, all the parties will continue with spending cuts to welfare and have already said so, but with no great detail as yet.

child benefit should be taxed as pensions are
do you (the original poster) have any idea how any of the parties will square the circle with the 'unaffordable' welfare state we now have?

when you say it was saved up for a pony or a handbag , that's just an accounting device. CB used to be a universal non means tested benefit. That was undermined by the changes to higher earnings so I suppose it was just a matter of time before they widened the attack. You either understand the ideology behind child benefit or you don't. But if you don't, then just wait for means tested DLA and pensions . When they come for the pensioners, there will be no one left.

Oh j01 The family allowance has been, until this government, a universal benefit. It is part of the contract we have or used to have with the state. You can say the same about the pension. No doubt you can find examples of a similar sort,for example my friend saves hers for her holidays. So perhaps we could argue that the pension should be taken away from people like my friend.

My point in an earlier post is that our welfare system is under threat and has nothing to do with whether it can be afforded or not. Tory ideology is to have as small a state as possible so this has got to mean as little amount of welfare as possible - or at least as little as the UK population is willing to tolerate.

Now this may be more acceptable if we could see that the wealthy were paying their fair share of tax etc. But it isn't the case and so the poor are paying the price both in taxes and less benefits, from which ever way you look at it there is no fairness.

Mishap thank you so much for the Joan Baez reference. It reminded me that I had missed a programme with Mary Black on last night. Thank heavens for iplayer

jo1book, the rich already keep their assets out if the country

I don't begrudge family allowance to those in need, but my daughter's friend saved up hers to buy a £900 handbag and, years ago, someone I knew bought her daughter a pony with her allowance. I also put myself in dock for buying clothes for myself with my allowance.