The new 2010 Coalition Cabinet ...

[Saracen]

Confirmed Cabinet lineup ...


PM - David Cameron
Deputy PM - Nick Clegg (LD)
Chancellor - George Osborne
Foreign Sec - William Hague
Home Sec - Theresa May (note 1)
Health Sec - Andrew Lansley
Defence Sec - Liam Fox
Energy and Climate Change - Chris Huhne (LD)
Business and Banks - Vince Cable (LD)
Justice Sec & Lord Chancellor - Ken Clarke
Education Sec - Michael Gove
Transport - Philip Hammond
Environment - Caroline Spelman
Culture Olympics Media & Sport – Jeremy Hunt
Work & Pensions Sec - Iain Duncan Smith
Communities Sec - Eric Pickles
International Development Sec – Andrew Mitchell
Chief Sec to Treasury - David Laws (LD)
Scottish Sec - Danny Alexander (LD)
Wales Sec - Cheryl Gillan
NI Sec - Owen Patterson
Leader of the Lords - Lord Strathclyde
Co-Chair of Conservative Party - Baroness Sayeeda Warsi





Additionally, the following attend Cabinet without being Ministers ....

Leader of the Commons - Sir George Young
Cabinet Office Minister - Francis Maude
Universities, Science &Skills Minister - David Willetts
Minister of State at Cabinet Office, Policy - Oliver Letwin
Chief Whip - Patrick McLoughlin


And finally, attending when required ....

Attorney General - Dominic Grieve








Note 1) Theresa May is also Minister for Women and Equality

[pollaxe]

Interesting...

[TheAnimus]

Vince Cable placement could be interesting, I doubt he had any real interaction with the big boys before now, as they will have been courting only tories+lab, he might learn a lot.

[matty-hodgson]

Note 1) Theresa May is also Minister for Women and Equality

Do we have a Minister for Men and Equality?

I'll be seriously peeved if we don't!

[scaryjim]

Chancellor George Osborne has arrived at the Treasury, his new office. Before going inside, he says the coalition government is going to change the tax system "to make it fairer for people on low and middle incomes"

I'm sorry, did that phrase really come out of the mouth of a Conservative Chancellor?!?

Oh brave new world, that has such people in't...

[Andeh13]

Do we have a Minister for Men and Equality?

I'll be seriously peeved if we don't!

Yeh, im with you on this one!

[scaryjim]

If we did have a Minister for Men and Equality, his job would surely be lowering the average salary for men and removing them from some of the higher offices in the country. The reason we have Women's Officers in our Student's Unions and a minister with special responsibility for women of because women are *still* discriminated against and have *not* achieved equality of opportunity. Until they do they continue to need their corner fighting.

[Mossy]

Sad Days ahead indeed.....

[Saracen]

I'm sorry, did that phrase really come out of the mouth of a Conservative Chancellor?!?

Oh brave new world, that has such people in't...

But that has been implicit in a number of things the Tories campaigned on.

For a start, maintaining child tax credits except for families earning above £50,000. The lowest paid get help, but it stops for those earning more. Just how far should the state provide aid? How high up the income range should we all, including the lowest paid, be taxed for the government to redistribute it to those who are earning more than those paying it.

And again, Labour's NI increase, that the Tories argued should be abolished, at least in part. NI hits basically bottom-slices from income, taking x pence in the pound off the bottom, after you get past the lower threshold. And however you look at it, taking an extra £100 in tax hurts someone earning £20,000 a year a lot more than it hurts someone earning £150,000 a year.

The Tories and LibDems don't agree on everything by a long way, but when you inspect the policies in their manifestos and look at the principles behind them, there's more agreement than might be apparent. A commonly parroted Labour line was "same old Tories", but the sheer fact is that a lot of what Cameron has been proposing is not "same old". He's far more socially liberal than the party of old, than the Thatchers and Howards of past ages.

One of the things that makes voting hard these days is that the old left, right and centre idealogical separations don't, in large part, exist any more.

The LibDems make a lot of "fair taxation". But it's actually a pretty meaningless policy. After all, who claims they believe in unfair taxation? And Labour might claim to be the party of the working man, but are they? Who suffers the most pain from increases in NI if not the poorest paid? Who suffered from the abolishment of the 10p tax band, and the associated reduction in Income Tax from 22p to 20p? Run the numbers. After about £19,000, you benefited more from the 22p to 20p cut than you lost from losing the 10p tax band, and those that suffered were those earning enough to pay tax, but below about £19k. Way to go Labour, if you believe in fair taxes and protecting the lowest paid.

[petercook7]

Chancellor - George Osborn

[Saracen]

Sad Days ahead indeed.....

Indeed.

And thank Gordon Brown for causing the problems that we're now having to deal with. After all, who has been running the economy for 13 years?

The problem with running your own finances in a profligate way, spending far more than you earn and paying for it with loans and credit card debts is that sooner or later, the bills come due. Or the bailiffs arrive. The same is true of a country. You can get away with it for only so long, and then you have to start spending only what you can afford and paying down the debt ..... and the interest on it.

[format]

Lib Dem as minister for business and banks, could be interesting.

[matty-hodgson]

If we did have a Minister for Men and Equality, his job would surely be lowering the average salary for men and removing them from some of the higher offices in the country. The reason we have Women's Officers in our Student's Unions and a minister with special responsibility for women of because women are *still* discriminated against and have *not* achieved equality of opportunity. Until they do they continue to need their corner fighting.

But having a Minister for Women and not one for Men totally defeats the object.. Women constantly twining about not having high paid jobs.. Try harder tbh.

[scaryjim]

... Who suffered from the abolishment of the 10p tax band, and the associated reduction in Income Tax from 22p to 20p? Run the numbers.

I did. I'm a small business director and was running my own PAYE calcuations at the time (yes, bizarrely, I actually paid myself a proper salary and calculated and paid my PAYE up front, rather than taking the minimum and claiming the rest as "dividend". I'm just strange that way ). And yes, it bit pretty hard for the amount I was paying myself at the time. That was a god awful decision, and no mistake.

But having a Minister for Women and not one for Men totally defeats the object.. Women constantly twining about not having high paid jobs.. Try harder tbh.

There isn't enough facepalm in the world for that comment, matty. I do hope you're winding me up and not being serious...

[Mossy]

Indeed.

And thank Gordon Brown for causing the problems that we're now having to deal with. After all, who has been running the economy for 13 years?

The problem with running your own finances in a profligate way, spending far more than you earn and paying for it with loans and credit card debts is that sooner or later, the bills come due. Or the bailiffs arrive. The same is true of a country. You can get away with it for only so long, and then you have to start spending only what you can afford and paying down the debt ..... and the interest on it.

I think the problems were way before Gordon Browns time to be honest in other circumstances i think he would of been a good Prime Minister he certainly had the experience to be plus on the other hand I do not have much confidence in David Cameron he can speak posh but can he put the money were his mouth is?

[Saracen]

I did. I'm a small business director and was running my own PAYE calcuations at the time (yes, bizarrely, I actually paid myself a proper salary and calculated and paid my PAYE up front, rather than taking the minimum and claiming the rest as "dividend". I'm just strange that way ). And yes, it bit pretty hard for the amount I was paying myself at the time. That was a god awful decision, and no mistake.

I rather regard using NI as a vehicle for raising tax in the same way. It bites lower down the income scale and I'd call that regressive. Why didn't Brown address some of the higher end perks first? Why didn't he reduce the point at which the 40% band starts? I can only assume it was political expediency rather than concern for the lower paid?

As I said, the old divisions between left and right are far less clear than they used to be. They're still there, but less clear, and the dividing point has shifted. Even inheritance tax is more complex than the simple "support the rich" way in which proposed changes were portrayed.