If anyone wants to have a look at just how much Cameron personally doesn't need to worry about what the IFS say, take a look at this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Dave-Cameron-says-hes-touch-reality--wealth-blue... -

And he tells us about austerity?

All I need to imagine is Clegg's reaction to Wednesday if the Tories had won their majority in May and the Lib Dems were still pretending to be left wing.

The man is a total hypocrite.

Can't get on to that link Nick re the Daily Mail and Cameron's wealth.

During the tory conference, there was a lady MP interviewed on 5-live defending the child benefit cut. She claimed she never used to take the child benefit she was entitled to until someone cheekily pointed out that she could spend it better than then chancellor Gordon Brown, so she started claiming and gave it all to Children in need.
The interviewer didn't ask her whether (1) did she stop claiming now that she trusted her new chancellors spending habits more and (2) when she stops being entitled due to being in the higher tax band, who will lose out - Children in need cos she won't donate anymore, or herself because she will continue to donate the full amount and bear the brunt of her colleague George's measures herself, which after all she was so in favour of.

These are the kind of facts we need - well done Nick, Lou, Ang and Dave. We just need to get them into the mainstream debate.

Thanks PhilDuval for the kind words but I find your comments equally as relevant, valid and informing.

I've written to the Shadow W&P Secretary Douglas Alexander asking several questions. I will post any reply I get.

I would have written to IDS but having written in June after the budget, I find myself still awaiting any response despite three emails since......seems you just can't get the staff these days.

To listen to Clegg on Andy Marr this morning just shows how totally innefectual he has become in his argument. He cannot, for the life of him, answer a single question without resorting to the now well and truly drummed in Tory slogans. He has an almost unhealthy obsession with the demise of the welfare state. It could be noted that his poor speaking (many hesitations) and over use of hand gestures in a downward motion clearly illustrated his thinking on how those struggling should be pushed down as if back into the gutter.

His argument over job creation was the worst I've heard yet, he absurdly rejected ideas that half a million jobs in the public sector will lead to unemployment and tried to convince Marr that 2 million jobs from the private sector will come to light as if by magic. It was a most unconvincing argument, it was a pathetic transition from his hey days of being labelled King-maker to now being little more than a very lame Excuse-maker.

Nick is the 'Pike' Ian Lavender of this Dads Army shambles of a shamateur Govt.
Nick does love his fags but hates admitting to it.

Wrong link previously

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/24/government-investment-ban...

Link to article on Pissarides
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/24/george-osborne-exaggerate...

The IFS rock! They tell the truth whichever shower of b'stards are in power.

However I would rather have our shower than the present lot of millionaire, tax avoiding, we're all in this together, it's all Labour's fault b'stards!

I did Nick and what nearly made me choke on my Earl Grey was Gove saying the banks didn't cause the deficit problem. Er, run that by me one more time Mr Gove! He then adjusted his comment to say that the banks were only partly responsible and it was Labour's fault in the main, in other words the same old rubbish from him.

I want answers not excuses, when are the Coalition going to start answering a question rather than spinning around it?

I think these ten minute reports are not at all condusive to thrashing out the problems in a proper debate. I'd much rather more time was devoted to allow more opportunity for discussion. Gove got off lightly, more airtime and Mehdi would indeed have tied him up in knots.

Thank you Phil, most kind of you to say so. To add a bit more to fact rather than coalition fiction fever:

I couldn't help but choke when I saw some headlines in the Tory friendly Mail today. The headlines promote the greatest thing out for all pensioners, the great news; ALL PENSIONER'S TO GET £140 PW PENSION!

Sounds wonderful, a real vote winner! Guaranteed to get the grey vote on side, pensioner's will flock to the polling station on their zimmer frames to vote for their new found friend Cameron, Smart move!

But is there a catch?

Yes, I'm afraid there is.

The crafty placing of this yet to be worked out State Retirement Pension at above the Pension Credit Guarantee Credit guarantee (currently £130 per week). Which means people on Housing and Council Tax Benefit (or mortgage interest help) will no longer qualify for the maximum amount and will need to make up the difference. What they give you in one hand will be taken away in the other.

I see this as only benefiting those who already have money. The Pension Credit is quite generously set anyway at £130 with no upper capital limit and a generous capital taper of £1 per week of every £500 for savings of over £6000 (the lower capital limit). All in all a change which will only benefit those with another income or substantial savings. It won't do anything to improve the lot of those on or below the breadline, aren't these the people we really should be helping?

The removal of a contribution criteria seems hard to understand, why bother with NIC's if everyone is treated the same?

I take it this will coincide with a move to shrink the DWP Pension Service by moving it to HMRC. How the pensioner's will love dealing with them!

Illogical IMHO!

You are spot on Nick, I did some research of my own. I fail to understand why they don't get tackled on their figures in Parliament or across the media., it's not rocket science and the figures are available for anyone to see for themeselves.

The truth is that you and I both know that this is not about necessity relating to the deficit, but rather the deficit giving them the ideological opportunity to destroy the State and move what they can't get rid of into the private sector.It's groundhog politics from a groundhog party and their partners in crime.

Well said Nick, I was going to post something similar and the fact that 140 pounds a week is not that different to the £132.60 they get now.

It's being spun as a rise of 40% but that's just twisting the figures on what the lowest income pensioners get from the state anyway - 97.65 pension and then top ups bring it up to the figure mentioned before.

It's being said that this will greatly benefit women who have chosen to stay at home, that's another falsehood as these women would be getting the £132 figure as it stands now.

By the time they bring it in, assuming they do anyway, the only one gaining will be the government from saving on the means testing. The loss in housing benefit and council tax relief to the pensioner for going over the threshold will take any paltry increase away.

Once again this story highlights the gross inadequacies of the media in determining the facts beneath the rhetoric. The spin of it is that pensioners are suddenly going to be a lot better off financially and that's a false representation, the only respite they will get is the relief from the burden of form filling.

Oh and the government might get a few more votes from the ageing population. Cynical? Yep you bet.

It's quite amazing how our beloved Banks can provide Government (at an extortionate fee of course) with endless streams of so called 'expert advisers' on how to get out of a financial jam. Seems our Governments are only too happy to pay their fees.

Now what I would dearly like to know is where all these 'oh so wonderful' experts were hiding when the banks were handing out loans and mortgages to all and sundery with no questions asked as to anyone's ability to repay?

I knew you'd correct me on the £130 Lou, you've got such an eye for detail!

The other question this poses; as the State Retirement Pension is non-means tested, are we to take it that two pensioners will have a SRP of 2 x £140 making a massive £280 per week, how amazingly generous? Or will Cameron say it will be a couple rate which goes all against what he said about maximizing entitlements so that couples were not penalised?

I don't know what happened to the draft legislation on the couple rate, strangely enough it seems to have died a death, so much for promises eh?

It seems extraordinary that Cameron will go out of his way to ensure that those who have money get even more and those who have less, get even less! I mean to say if he adheres to his stance on couples, a retired couple could bring in £280 per week on top of say an occupational pension of £150 making a massive £430 per week regardless of any savings! It's quite likely that such a prudent couple will have paid off their mortgage so they will be doing very well indeed. Quite unlike the less well off who won't be faring so well by virtue of their housing costs and lack of other income. It's yet another absurd idea for Cameron to chalk up, he belongs on Monty Python, the Minister of Silly Ideas.

Oh by the way, I am delighted as I got leave to appeal on two cases to be heard in the Upper Tribunal over a legal challenge on ESA, could end up being a good judgment to sort out some of the legislative inconsistencies. Can't say too much about it until it's been dealt with but I'm very pleased as it raises some good grounds.

Apparently it will be two times the £140 for a couple.

Currently a couple would get a minimum of £202.40 with top ups, so technically a couple would be a lot better off on the £140 each.

However, this turns out to be a disproportionately unfair benefit as a single person would be technically £7.40 a week better off (not counting the subsequent extra costs re housing and council tax) whereas a couple will be rewarded by an extra £77.60 a week,i.e.£38.80 per person better off because they are a couple (although they would lose a lot more in housing and council tax allownace so therefore would be equally as worse off as a single pensioner).

Bearing in mind this is all hypothetical and wouldn't happen before the next parliament at least, plus tie in the pension age eligibility changes, it's going to make very little difference to anyone's pocket's anytime soon.

I'm listening to people from Saga, Age concern, economic journalists all raving about the pension news today. I despair at their blinkered appraisal - or maybe I've got it all wrong and it really is the pot of gold at the end of the pensioner's rainbow?

Congratulations on your good news and you'll have to do a piece in regards to it after the event, it will make interesting reading for people.

Panorama was good tonight, abiout housing benefit and private landlords.

I know Lou, they just make this comparison between the magical £140 figure and the existing SRP. They haven't given any consideration to how they are going to jack up a spousal pension from amounts which are currently as low as £48 right up to £140. They announce the 'good news' without working out the detail just to give Jo public some good news. There's a whole lot of detail and a long way to go before promoting these oh so appealing carrots.

They are getting too easy a ride at the moment, Ed M and AJ need to crank up the volume on the failings. Pensioner's won't take kindly to being fobbed off, but a lot of them will fall for it. Like you say it will take an age and the increase in age limits will offset it, I can see the winter fuel allowance going as a trade off and the well off will say 'that's fine' whereas the not so well off will say 'where's another duvet cover!'

I missed the Panorama, sounds interesting.

I will keep you posted on that one, you never know who is reading these sites and tactically it wouldn't be right to say anything, although I'm pleased that on the application the Judge has earmarked it for a hearing without any of the usual rigmarole from both sides before deciding if an oral hearing is necessary, that's encouraging. The DWP will get their top Counsel on it. The last big one in the Upper Tribunal; there were five of them v one of me! It's very encouraging though, the Judge seems to be indicating the issues are of good merit.

On Newsnight they're just discussing how much it's going to cost. I think when it's all on paper and you can look at the detail, it won't be costing that much.

The Treasury will technically be paying out more, but it will save money on all the top ups and pension credits it currently pays out, it will draw in more money through Housing Benefit and Council Tax charges and as a result of that be paying out less in that department and it will not need to spend the money that goes into means testing everyone at the moment. Not to mention the fact that with the changes in ages for collecting pensions, it will be saving money there too. It's also going to be based on residency in the UK so all those pensioners in Little Britain pockets abroad won't be eligible anymore, another huge saving towards the cost of implementing this latest wondeful idea of the government's.

I agree that Labour need to up the ante - said so elsewhere - and they need to be stripping all these points down to the bare facts for the benefit of our elderly. But not just Labour, what about the media, why aren't they putting the harsher facts and realities of this latest brainwave and brilliant idea out there?

Oh blimey, they are re-writing the rules and habitual residency and right to reside for foreign pensioners, what next!

I can't see that this shift towards universalism (not a term I agree with) will ever escape the need to means test. Why? because the Government must set a minimum income amount you need to live on, it's what all assessments are based on. It dictates HB/CTB and everything else which is means tested, without a bench mark I cannot see how they will ever be able to ensure that anti-poverty levels are maintained.

Without means testing, it will become a free for all, the more this gets talked about, the more I see it going where it belongs......the toilet bowl. I'd gladly pull the flush.

Thanks Nick.

As I said before, I know it isn't means tested and I don't really like to raise a point that concerns Cameron's very sadly deceased son but I can't believe that no one, journalist, reporter or political person raised the hypocrisy of it all. Cameron talked about this on live tv and yet no one mentions it, no one sees the irony in it, the taking benefit from those who need it, the mugging the taxpayer and all such things.

He might be entitled to claim it but it's not morally right that multi millionaires do so - especially when they are taking such a moral high ground on the poorest in our society

Unless of course, the pensioners abroad remain on their current rates and it means that they don't get the new rate, in which case not quite as much money will be saved from the residents abroad. I would imagine, thinking about it, that this is the case as they couldn't legally withold a pension from someone and for the reasons you mention too about EU legislation.

It will put a lot of people off from going abroad though in the future to be with family or whatever reason, they'll be better off here.

The devil will be in the detail.

Oh and just to be clear,those figures on pension forecasts are without the top ups, that's basic state pension level figures quoted.

Lou: Just a rider to that helpful bit of information: I'm sure that before this lot give anything away, they will have factored in the likely impact their policies will have upon life expectancy.

Coalition Government = (A) Greater stress for the less well off (B) Less resources for life sustaining treatments under the NHS and reduced surgical interventions & access to surgeries in work time (C) An increase in working age is also likely to cause illness
(for instance: construction workers will be far more likely to pop their worn out clogs as they continue to operate heavy kango hammers up to the grand age of say 75).

It's a serious point, the consequent increase in working age and stress caused by this lot is likely to impact upon the mortality rate. Thus this lot will get out of paying pensions by virtue of them croaking it before they are able enjoy the long earned fruits of their labour. I'm sure an impact assessment is out there somewhere saying exactly the same.

To be honest, I was beginning to think I imagined the DLA/Cameron story despite it being shown twice in two hours on the Beeb. Anyway, I scoured around and there are other blog posts about it - basically just saying the same as me - I couldn't believe it when I heard Cameron say he found filling in the DLA forms for his son difficult.

So I didn't imagine it but clearly the press, MPs and Ministers, political commentators and all the rest don't seem to think it's a big deal. I think the hypocrisy, the moral high ground with the rest of the population on welfare etc etc makes it a newsworthy story and they shiould be challenging him over it.

Whjatever happened to investigative journalism and holding Ministers to account?