Coalition faces censure after report into Budget impact on the poor
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has threatened to censure the coalition government after a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) claimed that the Budget would hit poor families hardest. To avoid action being taken the government must now prove that it carried out a statutory assessment on how cuts would affect disadvantage groups including women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and the elderly.
According to the Guardian, EHRC's director general Neil Kinghan said: "It is for the Treasury to demonstrate it has complied with legislation and assessed the impact of its decisions on vulnerable groups. If it cannot do so, then the commission will have to consider appropriate enforcement action."
The IFS, a well respected impartial think tank described the budget as “clearly regressive”, citing the VAT rise from 17.5% to 20 %, freezes on child benefit and public sector pay and cuts to public services as areas where low income families would be hit hardest.
Nick Clegg, who has previously praised the IFS criticised the report as “partial”, stating that it did not take into account cuts in corporation tax, a rise in capital gains tax, and plans to shift workers off benefits into full-time jobs. Mr. Clegg also referred to plans to improve education opportunities by introducing a “pupil premium”, saying "that is a plan for real fairness, that is progressive. And I think that is a richer understanding of what fairness is about than a single snapshot that simply doesn't provide the full picture of what we are trying to do over the coming months and years."
The coalition’s plans have been further criticised by shadow chancellor Alistair Darling. He said: "Nick Clegg is talking nonsense. This is the man that promised we would 'see the stamp of Liberal Democrat values' all over the budget. It's not clear whether he was referring to the decision to hit the poorest hardest or to the singling out of families with children as the biggest losers. He might think he can take his party for fools, but the British public can see all too clearly that there's nothing fair about this coalition."
For more on this story go to www.guardian.co.uk
Comments
The coalition government on cutting Public Spending is noble idea, because in natural economic terms the Value must correspond by the ability to consume or the demand for the Product. In that sense if the GDP is more than Gross Domestic Consumption then extra Public Spending is likely to have devastating impact on future generation.
However the aspect of Cutting Child Benefit especially when that goes to support the disadvantaged groups then this is likely to cause disaster. The claim that the Government says that it is trying to force those on Child Benefit when there is no clear pathways to jobs, and much more when there is Global recession is a contradiction in its own sense.
I think the Government should embark on a stronger Export Promotion strategies to match the GDP inorder to raise revenue for Public Sector speanding which in this case should create jobs in the sector this effect will not have impact on the Public but more employment effect will be reflected in the Private Sector.
I think the Government should emphasise on cultivating strategies on Exports rather than cutting Child Benefits. The government should come out more clear on this.
The need to develop strategies and utilise the benefits system for trade in itself could be another means for creating more Jobs, There are quiet number of strategies here and I think we could see thousands of Jobs created.If only the government can listen to the Public.
Edward Mashate