Can I believe the Chancellor?

I don't understand it. Completely

Child benefit wasn't means tested in 2010 though. In the clip he refers to 90% of people in this country being on means tested benefits.

He said this after the July budget.

" And as promised, child benefit will be maintained.

These changes to Tax Credits are not easy but they are fair, and they return tax credit spending to the level it was in 2007-08 in real terms.

When we came to office in 2010 this country had reached the point where a benefit that was intended to support lower income households, was instead available to 9 out of 10 families in this country.

Now, our properly focussed reformed Tax Credit system will provide support to 5 out of 10 families – a much more sustainable balance in our welfare system.

So it does include child benefit. But I don't think it includes retirement pension.

he did express it very badly (whizz along to 02:18:40 if you want to hear it)

Ana, if there was a wicked grin emoticon on the site, I would have used it there. I admit that I couldn't resist being a little mischievous

(Actually, I've never bought the Guardian in my life, although when I'm Googling politics I will read relevant articles from any newspaper whatsoever. The only newspaper to be found in our home is in fact the DM, bought and read by DH. )

Careful what you say about 'Daily Mail readers' MamaCaz - not everyone on here is a committed Guardian-only reader!

I apologise Ana

It's Ana, if you don't mind Anniebach

Yes of course Anna , by all

For some reason, that last post was not my final version, and didn't show any of my formatting, so here's what I actually intended to post:

jinglbellsfrocks
"He meant nine out of ten families who are on benefits, are means tested. .."

Then why didn't he say that?
He and all the current government bigwigs always choose their words extremely carefully when doing public broadcasts, so I can't believe for one minute that this was a mistake on his part.

My conclusion: that he said it deliberately knowing that many (Daily Mail readers, for example ???) will take his claim at face value, thus guaranteeing him their continued support for any further cuts whatsoever to 'welfare' that he goes on to propose, but also knowing that he could simply claim to have worded it badly or been misunderstood when challenged by those who are not so gullible think a little more deeply about such claims.

(Don't Gransnet realize how much space would be saved on the site if they allowed us an 'edit' button like most other forums do! )

jinglbellsfrocks
"He meant nine out of ten families who are on benefits, are means tested. .."

Then why didn't he say that?
He and all the current government bigwigs always choose their words extremely carefully when doing public broadcasts, so I can't believe for one minute that this was a mistake on his part.

My conclusion: that he said it deliberately knowing that many (Daily Mail readers, for example ???) will take his claim at face value, thus guaranteeing him their continued support for any further cuts whatsoever to 'welfare' that he goes on to propose, but also knowing that he could simply claim to have worded it badly or been misunderstood when challenged by those who are not so gullible think a little more deeply about such claims.

And shown by all as well, of course...

We can but hope it will Elegran

Indeed.

I think courtesy extended to all is an excellent idea

I don't blame him, at 14 or since, for preferring to be George rather than Gideon or Oliver. If your parents had chosen to name you as though you were a mediaeval monk or a Victorian banker, would you have used those names when you were old enough to make a decision?

If he changed his name by deed poll, then he is now known by the name he chose, and anyone persisting in calling him by his previous monicker is just being perverse - or perhaps thinks that sarcasm and personal ridicule for changing is a valid criticism of his politics.

So as he went to the trouble (at 14) of changing his name by deed poll, wouldn't it be courteous to use that name instead of being childish and trying for a cheap laugh?

Gideon Oliver Osbourne

Really Elegran? I think a lot of people choose to use their second Christian name, but we are speaking of changing one's name be deed poll , if he had chosen Oilver his second name he would have no need to change by deed poll would he ?

My DH uses his second name too as does my elder brother and elder sister. I've never really understood how that first starts happening.

I'm glad he does actually. I think the second one is much better.

And my son ab. (uses his second name)

I think about a quarter of the men in my family tree were known by their middle names, or ones they had chosen arbitrarily as better than the ones they were issued with at birth. I have not discovered any aspiring film stars , and if there were any crooked business wheeler dealers they managed to keep it quiet.

Ad hominem attack?

Not at all Jingle, not at all , to be fair he has only done what many aspiring film stars do , oh and many a crooked business wheeler dealer does

It certainly does.