Cutting Wedensday

[bighairyfaeleith]

Big news today from the coalition on what they plan to cut over the next few years. Thought I would start a thread to discuss the various plans outlined today.

Given the RAF cuts yesterday it doesn't look like they are going to be shy with the announcements so today could be very interesting!

[Sylar]

They've already threatened to destroy the further education system in this country by removing billions in funding and making tuition fees unattainable for lower income families, and now they're cutting national security.

Can't wait to see what comes next...

[Betty Boop]

They've already threatened to destroy the further education system in this country by removing billions in funding and making tuition fees unattainable for lower income families, and now they're cutting national security.

Can't wait to see what comes next...

Educational maintenance allowance to be scrapped as well. :bitchy:

[Hibbyradge]

I'm feart. What time does it start?

[--------]

I'm feart. What time does it start?



It's Wednesday! It's started!



MAAAAMMMMMYYYYYY! :paranoid:

[Hibbyradge]

It's Wednesday! It's started!



MAAAAMMMMMYYYYYY! :paranoid:

True, but the Deil himself will appear in Westminster at 12.30 to wield his bloodied axe.

The Guardian have a fun Spending Review game, where you can make your own cuts.

Whatever next? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

[Hibbyradge]

Actually, that Guardian thing brings it home how huge these cuts are going to be.

I can't get to the £49bn mark and I've been ruthless!

[bighairyfaeleith]

Actually, that Guardian thing brings it home how huge these cuts are going to be.

I can't get to the £49bn mark and I've been ruthless!

It's easy, cut 75% of the taxmans budget:wink:

Cut 75% off the devolved budget for wales:greengrin

Then hit the old folks and everybody is happy!!!

I just saved 75 billion in ten minutes, this is easy!!!

[--------]

It's easy, cut 75% of the taxmans budget:wink:

Cut 75% off the devolved budget for wales:greengrin

Then hit the old folks and everybody is happy!!!

I just saved 75 billion in ten minutes, this is easy!!!



Actually, this really ain't funny, guys.

It's gonnae be a long, hard winter....

[easty]

I just saved £100billion by scrapping the NHS....I never use it anyway (he says while off sick from work and popping another diazepam - that the dr prescribed yesterday - after doing god knows what to my neck playing football on Saturday....)

[IWasThere2016]

Actually, that Guardian thing brings it home how huge these cuts are going to be.

I can't get to the £49bn mark and I've been ruthless!

You need to grow a pair D :wink: :greengrin I did it - froze NHS pay, cuts of 10% in most departments - save Environment and NSI - savings 54bn, even pain for all.

[Woody1985]

What stuff was promised to be protected? Is the NHS one (from memory), therefore you can't really include that?

I personally believe that efficiencies can be made everywhere, especially where government funding is involved.

My company used to waste a hell of a lot of money but everything is now about driving costs down and being as efficient as possible and we've had good results with it. I think we're almost there in terms of what we can cut and I'm willing to bet that could easily be replicated right across the country.

[Woody1985]

True, but the Deil himself will appear in Westminster at 12.30 to wield his bloodied axe.

The Guardian have a fun Spending Review game, where you can make your own cuts.

Whatever next? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

Can you post a link to the calculator?

I can't see it (on my tiny IE window at work!).

[bighairyfaeleith]

Can you post a link to the calculator?

I can't see it (on my tiny IE window at work!).

jesus have you cut the size of your ie windows!!!!:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

What stuff was promised to be protected? Is the NHS one (from memory), therefore you can't really include that?

I personally believe that efficiencies can be made everywhere, especially where government funding is involved.

My company used to waste a hell of a lot of money but everything is now about driving costs down and being as efficient as possible and we've had good results with it. I think we're almost there in terms of what we can cut and I'm willing to bet that could easily be replicated right across the country.

By cutting social services, you put more pressure on the NHS to take up the slack in things like day care. At the same time, you prevent the NHS from taking on more staff. So they have more to do with less resources.

It's cutting Jim, but not as we know it. I just can't fathom out how these weasels are back in power.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I just saved £100billion by scrapping the NHS....I never use it anyway (he says while off sick from work and popping another diazepam - that the dr prescribed yesterday - after doing god knows what to my neck playing football on Saturday....)

Please tell me the name of your GP, I feel a sore neck coming on. :greengrin

[Woody1985]

jesus have you cut the size of your ie windows!!!!:greengrin

It saves power on the monitor. :greengrin

[Sylar]

I had to laugh actually - I was listening to them crying out for the NHS to be protected, then about 15 minutes later, there was a news story about financial investment from Forth Valley Hospital, buying in robots to clean the hospital, carry meals to patients and arrange the pharmaceutical sorting area...

They may as well get rid of the free bus pass for OAP's, as they're all out driving around in cars at stupid speeds as opposed to using public transport :grr:*

*This is partially tongue in cheek, based on the sodding amount of auld folks who I encountered causing mayhem on the Angus/Perthshire roads today!

[Phil D. Rolls]

What made me sick to the stomach was the mention of the private sector taking up the slack where services have been cut. So that'll be privatisation then?

They made it sound like a humanitarian rescue mission.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Well I have sat and read through what has bee said on the bbc and I have to say that there seems to have been a lack of detail given. Lots of top end % on cuts but thats about it.

Getting pretty tired of the tories just saying it's labours fault so we have to do it, how about providing some real proof that they have looked at other angles georgey boy?????

Aye don't worry though the private sector will save the day, do any of you know a private company that is currently expanding, I know lots that are laying off but none that are growing.

[discman]

Well I have sat and read through what has bee said on the bbc and I have to say that there seems to have been a lack of detail given. Lots of top end % on cuts but thats about it.

Getting pretty tired of the tories just saying it's labours fault so we have to do it, how about providing some real proof that they have looked at other angles georgey boy?????

Aye don't worry though the private sector will save the day, do any of you know a private company that is currently expanding, I know lots that are laying off but none that are growing.


I know that edinburgh council have put services out to tender eg "the bins" Im sure more services are going to put out to tender,its envitable they have to save 90 mill in three years so aint looking great! :cool2:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I know that edinburgh council have put services out to tender eg "the bins" Im sure more services are going to put out to tender,its envitable they have to save 90 mill in three years so aint looking great! :cool2:

Trouble is that doesn't save much money, and it normally takes two to three years before any savings are seen by the council.

Redundancies don't always save money either, the only people that volunteer for redundancy are people with big pension posts and lots of service so you end up with big initial hits that mean it takes years before you see any benefit, by which time the council is probably recruiting again.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I had to laugh actually - I was listening to them crying out for the NHS to be protected, then about 15 minutes later, there was a news story about financial investment from Forth Valley Hospital, buying in robots to clean the hospital, carry meals to patients and arrange the pharmaceutical sorting area...

They may as well get rid of the free bus pass for OAP's, as they're all out driving around in cars at stupid speeds as opposed to using public transport :grr:*

*This is partially tongue in cheek, based on the sodding amount of auld folks who I encountered causing mayhem on the Angus/Perthshire roads today!


Last I heard the bloody robots wernae even working!!!!!

[discman]

Trouble is that doesn't save much money, and it normally takes two to three years before any savings are seen by the council.

Redundancies don't always save money either, the only people that volunteer for redundancy are people with big pension posts and lots of service so you end up with big initial hits that mean it takes years before you see any benefit, by which time the council is probably recruiting again.


The tender for waste has been out for 2/3 months I think youll find that they will move really quickly to implament this,all staff are being offered Voluntary Early Retirement Agreements; basically 1 1/2 weeks salary for every year worked,I know people are thinking about it because it may enable them to get a final salary scheme pension before they scrap it.......

Ironically those services they are cutting especially in the voluntary sector are the very ones which support people trying to get back in to work,the most vulnerable are going to be affected both directly and indirectly,its definately looking very bleak! :cool2:

[Woody1985]

The tender for waste has been out for 2/3 months I think youll find that they will move really quickly to implament this,all staff are being offered Voluntary Early Retirement Agreements; basically 1 1/2 weeks salary for every year worked,I know people are thinking about it because it may enable them to get a final salary scheme pension before they scrap it.......

Ironically those services they are cutting especially in the voluntary sector are the very ones which support people trying to get back in to work,the most vulnerable are going to be affected both directly and indirectly,its definately looking very bleak! :cool2:

If they've already got a final salary and it's changed they'll still get the 'final' salary up to X date and then they'll have to opt in to a defined contribution scheme so rushing to retire so they get the final salary is, well, erm, stupid.

Unless of course they're proposing to change the agreement on the final salary so that they will no longer get it but I'm not sure that'll be legal.

When my company did away with it you were given your final salary contributions up to a certain date as I mentioned above.

[discman]

If they've already got a final salary and it's changed they'll still get the 'final' salary up to X date and then they'll have to opt in to a defined contribution scheme so rushing to retire so they get the final salary is, well, erm, stupid.

Unless of course they're proposing to change the agreement on the final salary so that they will no longer get it but I'm not sure that'll be legal.

When my company did away with it you were given your final salary contributions up to a certain date as I mentioned above.



IF they stop "final salary" its no longer a final salary, not being obtuse, your correct all cotributions would be trasfered across to a new scheme,beit defined contribution or something else yet to be determined however whatever it is, it wont be as good..

With regard to the legallity of it,City of Edinburgh council a law unto itself, it will have no problem restructering the pension scheme and justifying it under the guise of whatever.........sadly :cool2:

[hibsdaft]

for info...

Edinburgh - "There is a Better Way" STUC March and Rally

Saturday 23rd October

11.00 am: Assemble East Market Street Edinburgh
11.30am: March off
12.30 pm: Rally Ross Bandstand

http://www.thereisabetterway.org/

[Betty Boop]

for info...

Edinburgh - "There is a Better Way" STUC March and Rally

Saturday 23rd October

11.00 am: Assemble East Market Street Edinburgh
11.30am: March off
12.30 pm: Rally Ross Bandstand

http://www.thereisabetterway.org/

Yes I will be attending, let's get out and protest against the cuts. :agree:

[GlesgaeHibby]

More ideological cuts from right wing middle England tory barstewards.

Scotland ready to get hammered again, losing a greater % of public sector jobs per head than the rest of the UK and losing more armed forces jobs (incl senior positions) than the rest of the UK, yet the UK govt has always been happy to send Scottish soldiers out as cannon fodder.

These cuts are too large and too fast. Losing 500,000 jobs from public sector will have the knock on effect of weakening the private sector.

Time for Scotland to go it alone I feel. We can become economically strong if we spend the rest of our few remaining years of oil money on investing in renewable energy, looking to become the world leaders in renewable technology. Scotland holds 25% of Europe's renewable energy potential. I would rather see us build a strong economy round this, rather than continue to rely on the city of London as the UK economy does, because it was the 'money shufflers' (they aren't wealth generators) in banking and the financial sector that caused so much of this mess.

[Ed De Gramo]

for info...

Edinburgh - "There is a Better Way" STUC March and Rally

Saturday 23rd October

11.00 am: Assemble East Market Street Edinburgh
11.30am: March off
12.30 pm: Rally Ross Bandstand

http://www.thereisabetterway.org/

I'll think about your protests whilst i'm cheering on the Cabbage in Aberdeen :wink::greengrin

[hibsdaft]

These cuts are too large and too fast. Losing 500,000 jobs from public sector will have the knock on effect of weakening the private sector.

absolutely.

e.g. they're cutting social housing subsidies by 60%-80% - this will really hurt private sector construction businesses who get most of these contracts.

but at the same time the Tories are arguing that the private sector will fill the void with 1m new jobs - on what possible basis could they make that claim?? even without cuts it would be dreamland.

[ballengeich]

for info...

Edinburgh - "There is a Better Way" STUC March and Rally

Saturday 23rd October

11.00 am: Assemble East Market Street Edinburgh
11.30am: March off
12.30 pm: Rally Ross Bandstand

http://www.thereisabetterway.org/

I read through the betterway document. If I understand it, it claims that £25 billion of avoided tax could be gathered by HMRC each year. If this estimate is correct, it only covers one sixth of the deficit in the last year, and one third of the estimated structural deficit which will remain if normal economic growth resumes. That still leaves a substantial gap between government expenditure and receipts. Filling that is not addressed.

I don't want to see people lose jobs, but I also don't want to see an ever increasing debt which means an ever increasing amount of annual tax returns paid out in interest on previous debts. The betterway document doesn't provide an adequate answer.

[Woody1985]

IF they stop "final salary" its no longer a final salary, not being obtuse, your correct all cotributions would be trasfered across to a new scheme,beit defined contribution or something else yet to be determined however whatever it is, it wont be as good..

With regard to the legallity of it,City of Edinburgh council a law unto itself, it will have no problem restructering the pension scheme and justifying it under the guise of whatever.........sadly :cool2:

It'll be their 'final' salary at that point and they will still receive their benefit to that point but you're correct in saying that it's not their final salary.

The private sector realised these are no longer viable due to people living longer and costs associated with the schemes. It's unsustainable and should be phased out to new members altogether in the public sector (if it hasn't been already).

[HarpyHibby]

Educational maintenance allowance to be scrapped as well. :bitchy:

To be fair, as much as I despise the Tories, about 50% of the money people in my school get goes on prodominantly drink and drugs.

[Betty Boop]

To be fair, as much as I despise the Tories, about 50% of the money people in my school get goes on prodominantly drink and drugs.

How did you arrive at this figure ? I doubt you could buy much for £30 a week.

[IWasThere2016]

I'll think about your protests whilst i'm cheering on the Cabbage in Aberdeen :wink::greengrin

:thumbsup:

[IWasThere2016]

Largest cuts I've read about so far are in Whitehall - minimal impact for Scotland.

I see John Swinney (Yam) is saying it is -1.3bn and worse than the -1.2bn he feared. Conveniently, I believe Mr Swinney is counting capital monies in the latest figure when he wasn't originally.

Why do we have a Yam doing the numbers? :greengrin

[Woody1985]

How did you arrive at this figure ? I doubt you could buy much for £30 a week.

You'd be wrong.

A gram of grass - £10-15
A gram of mephedrone (meow meow) - £10-20
Bottle of vodka - £10

When I was in school I used to do a paper round and got £12-15 quid a week and I was drunk every Friday and Saturday.

[bighairyfaeleith]

To be fair, as much as I despise the Tories, about 50% of the money people in my school get goes on prodominantly drink and drugs.

All part of growing up:wink:

[Betty Boop]

You'd be wrong.

A gram of grass - £10-15
A gram of mephedrone (meow meow) - £10-20
Bottle of vodka - £10

When I was in school I used to do a paper round and got £12-15 quid a week and I was drunk every Friday and Saturday.

Not saying you are wrong, however I don't believe that every teenager that receives EMA spends it on drink or drugs. Considering you need near perfect attendance to get the award, suggests to me that most kids want to further their education.

[SlickShoes]

Not saying you are wrong, however I don't believe that every teenager that receives EMA spends it on drink or drugs. Considering you need near perfect attendance to get the award, suggests to me that most kids want to further their education.

I done well at school and went to uni, still i went to gigs on school nights and got drunk as well as not going to less important classes on fridays to spend time with friends and then promptly go out drinking again on the friday or saturday night.

Granted i never bought drugs with it but the general thing to do when you are 16/17 is to go out and get drunk.

I'd like to add that EMA never existed then and i had a job to fund these things.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I done well at school and went to uni, still i went to gigs on school nights and got drunk as well as not going to less important classes on fridays to spend time with friends and then promptly go out drinking again on the friday or saturday night.

Granted i never bought drugs with it but the general thing to do when you are 16/17 is to go out and get drunk.

I'd like to add that EMA never existed then and i had a job to fund these things.

naw ye didnae :greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

I read through the betterway document. If I understand it, it claims that £25 billion of avoided tax could be gathered by HMRC each year. If this estimate is correct, it only covers one sixth of the deficit in the last year, and one third of the estimated structural deficit which will remain if normal economic growth resumes. That still leaves a substantial gap between government expenditure and receipts. Filling that is not addressed.

I don't want to see people lose jobs, but I also don't want to see an ever increasing debt which means an ever increasing amount of annual tax returns paid out in interest on previous debts. The betterway document doesn't provide an adequate answer.

To be fair the government should be providing the adequate answers, not just saying to anyone that dares to suggests there is an alternative that we are putting our heads in the sand etc etc

The fact that so many people across the country, and in fact the world, are questioning the tories policies on this should be enough to make us all think that perhaps something isn't right, and for the tories to actually answer the questions being asked. They won't, and they don't need to because the lib dems are protecting them.

[Green Mikey]

To be fair the government should be providing the adequate answers, not just saying to anyone that dares to suggests there is an alternative that we are putting our heads in the sand etc etc

The fact that so many people across the country, and in fact the world, are questioning the tories policies on this should be enough to make us all think that perhaps something isn't right, and for the tories to actually answer the questions being asked. They won't, and they don't need to because the lib dems are protecting them.

Cuts are inevitable and neccessary. Over a decade of economic and regulatory mismanagement by Labour has left the country facing it's worst deficit in history. How do you propose that the deficit is cut? What is the viable alternative to cuts?

How many people across the world are questioning the tories policies? Every major economy that has been impatcted the credit crunch is implementing large scale cuts also. It seems that the consensus policy to combat budget deficits globally has been to restrict spending.

[Green Mikey]

Well I have sat and read through what has bee said on the bbc and I have to say that there seems to have been a lack of detail given. Lots of top end % on cuts but thats about it.

Getting pretty tired of the tories just saying it's labours fault so we have to do it, how about providing some real proof that they have looked at other angles georgey boy?????

Aye don't worry though the private sector will save the day, do any of you know a private company that is currently expanding, I know lots that are laying off but none that are growing.

This last paragraph is untrue and almost like scaremongering! Yes, plently private sector companies cut costs heavily during the early part of the recsession but in my work alone we have begun employing people again over the last 6 months.I know this is true about several other similar companies in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

[Woody1985]

Not saying you are wrong, however I don't believe that every teenager that receives EMA spends it on drink or drugs. Considering you need near perfect attendance to get the award, suggests to me that most kids want to further their education.

You can't say I'm wrong on a point I wasn't arguing. :greengrin I was only pointing that you could do plenty with £30 in relation to D&D.

I had a near perfect attendance, was in a low income family and drunk every weekend from my paper money. I wanted to continue my education (but wouldn't have if it wasn't for my next point) and wanted to get drunk at the weekends. I'd have had extra incentive to go to school if I was getting £30 a week and I certainly wouldn't have done a paper round in the pishing rain.

It wouldn't be entirely correct to say that most stay to further their education, from my experience, on the last part as there was a class full of pupils who had to stay on til at least the middle of 5th year because of birth dates. I reckon there was around a 60:40 split of those that wanted to stay and those that were forced.

I had to stay but I figured it was best to complete the year as I'd done half the work anyway.

I left school the year or two before this payment came in and was pretty gutted they never had it at the time but I don't think it's a necessity and should be scrapped.

[lyonhibs]

So, to summarise, The Tories have made a **** of it.

Surprised?? I know I'm not.

[Mibbes Aye]

Cuts are inevitable and neccessary. Over a decade of economic and regulatory mismanagement by Labour has left the country facing it's worst deficit in history. How do you propose that the deficit is cut? What is the viable alternative to cuts?

How many people across the world are questioning the tories policies? Every major economy that has been impatcted the credit crunch is implementing large scale cuts also. It seems that the consensus policy to combat budget deficits globally has been to restrict spending.

It's about time this myth was nailed.

Up until the global financial crisis, Britain had the lowest net debt of any of the large G7 countries. We had low inflation, low unemployment and low interest rates. And the Tories and the City screamed that Labour was too tough on regulation.

Money for investing in hospitals and schools wasn't recklessly borrowed - it was gathered from things like raising National Insurance and the windfall tax on the utilities.

The Tories are trying to rewrite history to disguise their ideological savagery.

The causes of the deficit becoming so problematic were twofold:

Firstly, the Labour govenment poured billions into the banks to stabilise them when the crisis took hold. If it hadn't we faced disaster. Cashpoints not paying out, direct debits being bounced back. The system would have collapsed. And this would have been repeated across the developed world, but this country held firm and showed leadership and was copied.

Secondly the Labour government poured billions into protecting the people of this country in the aftermath of all this - safeguarding jobs, safeguarding businesses, cutting VAT, postponing tax payments. That wasn't recklessness, that was investing in the country when the alternative was to let it fall to pieces around us. Investing in order to stimulate growth which would in turn help reduce deficits without subjecting ordinary, working families to the kind of pain the Tories seem to enjoy inflicting.

Some cuts were always going to be necessary as a consequence of the last government bailing out the banks, and shoring up the country's position.

This government aren't making some cuts to address this though. They're attempting to dismantle the state, and particularly those elements that protect those least able to protect themselves.

There is a better way. It's not without pain either. But it doesn't involve putting on the jackboots and giving a good kicking to the old and the frail and the young and the weak.

[bighairyfaeleith]

This last paragraph is untrue and almost like scaremongering! Yes, plently private sector companies cut costs heavily during the early part of the recsession but in my work alone we have begun employing people again over the last 6 months.I know this is true about several other similar companies in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

How can you say it's untrue that I don't know any companies that are expanding??????

Think you need to read things more carefully.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Cuts are inevitable and neccessary. Over a decade of economic and regulatory mismanagement by Labour has left the country facing it's worst deficit in history. How do you propose that the deficit is cut? What is the viable alternative to cuts?

How many people across the world are questioning the tories policies? Every major economy that has been impatcted the credit crunch is implementing large scale cuts also. It seems that the consensus policy to combat budget deficits globally has been to restrict spending.

Sorry but that really demonstrates the problem with the current governments policies, rather than being honest with the voter they spew pish like you have above.

No one is denying there should be cuts, it's how these are implemented, that is being questioned but anyone that dares question them is shot down like you have just attempted to do to me.

[EH6 Hibby]

Someone at work mentioned that there are plans to raise the minimum working hours for Tax Credits to 24 hours per week from 16 Hours per week, I can't find anything about this online, does anyone on here know anything about this? :confused:

[Betty Boop]

Someone at work mentioned that there are plans to raise the minimum working hours for Tax Credits to 24 hours per week from 16 Hours per week, I can't find anything about this online, does anyone on here know anything about this? :confused:

I think the 24 hours applies to couples only, if I have read this correctly.

http://www.workingmums.co.uk/working-mums-magazine/news/1373986/campaign-groups-fear-tax-credit-changes.thtm

[Betty Boop]

You can't say I'm wrong on a point I wasn't arguing. :greengrin I was only pointing that you could do plenty with £30 in relation to D&D.

I had a near perfect attendance, was in a low income family and drunk every weekend from my paper money. I wanted to continue my education (but wouldn't have if it wasn't for my next point) and wanted to get drunk at the weekends. I'd have had extra incentive to go to school if I was getting £30 a week and I certainly wouldn't have done a paper round in the pishing rain.

It wouldn't be entirely correct to say that most stay to further their education, from my experience, on the last part as there was a class full of pupils who had to stay on til at least the middle of 5th year because of birth dates. I reckon there was around a 60:40 split of those that wanted to stay and those that were forced.

I had to stay but I figured it was best to complete the year as I'd done half the work anyway.

I left school the year or two before this payment came in and was pretty gutted they never had it at the time but I don't think it's a necessity and should be scrapped.

It is a necessity for my daughter and many others, from lone parent families. I'm toiling ! :grr:

[bighairyfaeleith]

It is a necessity for my daughter and many others, from lone parent families. I'm toiling ! :grr:

Should it just be better distributed then, like the child benefits it appears to be who gets it thats the problem, but rather than dealing with that issue it's just being cut. Is my reading of this wrong?

[Betty Boop]

Should it just be better distributed then, like the child benefits it appears to be who gets it thats the problem, but rather than dealing with that issue it's just being cut. Is my reading of this wrong?

I think the children in families earning less than £30k a year were entitled to EMA.

[SlickShoes]

naw ye didnae :greengrin

English was not my forte! I was better at French!

[Sergio sledge]

It is a necessity for my daughter and many others, from lone parent families. I'm toiling ! :grr:

Do you get it or does it go to your daughter?

[Lucius Apuleius]

English was not my forte! I was better at French!

C'est bon.

[Green Mikey]

It's about time this myth was nailed.

Up until the global financial crisis, Britain had the lowest net debt of any of the large G7 countries. We had low inflation, low unemployment and low interest rates. And the Tories and the City screamed that Labour was too tough on regulation.

Money for investing in hospitals and schools wasn't recklessly borrowed - it was gathered from things like raising National Insurance and the windfall tax on the utilities.

The Tories are trying to rewrite history to disguise their ideological savagery.


Low inflation, low unemployment and low interest were build on the foundation of economic growth driven by private sector companies such as banks. I don't know if your advocating this period as a success because in hindsight it seems that the goods time were build on shaky foundations.

The UK operated with a large and mostly increasing budget deficit for the decade before the global financial crisis. This means that the UK government was issuing bonds so that they could spend more money than they received in taxes. Building new schools and hospitals was not solely funded by raising NI and windfalls, an increase in government debt was used to fuel public spend also. The link below details the UK deficit over the last few years. This is not a re-write of history, it is the truth.

http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm




The causes of the deficit becoming so problematic were twofold:

Firstly, the Labour govenment poured billions into the banks to stabilise them when the crisis took hold. If it hadn't we faced disaster. Cashpoints not paying out, direct debits being bounced back. The system would have collapsed. And this would have been repeated across the developed world, but this country held firm and showed leadership and was copied.

Secondly the Labour government poured billions into protecting the people of this country in the aftermath of all this - safeguarding jobs, safeguarding businesses, cutting VAT, postponing tax payments. That wasn't recklessness, that was investing in the country when the alternative was to let it fall to pieces around us. Investing in order to stimulate growth which would in turn help reduce deficits without subjecting ordinary, working families to the kind of pain the Tories seem to enjoy inflicting.

I agree tha the actions taken after the credit crunch seem to have had a positive effect on the economy however you have to note that these interventions were paid for by issuing debt. The UK can no longer continue issuing massive amount of debt so how we continue to invest when there has been an increasing deficit for over a decade?



Some cuts were always going to be necessary as a consequence of the last government bailing out the banks, and shoring up the country's position.

This government aren't making some cuts to address this though. They're attempting to dismantle the state, and particularly those elements that protect those least able to protect themselves.

I don't belive in the Tory ideology in the slightest but do you believe that they intentionally targeting the certain groups of people who cannot protect themselves. If so, who are these groups and what cuts affected them?


There is a better way. It's not without pain either. But it doesn't involve putting on the jackboots and giving a good kicking to the old and the frail and the young and the weak.

Can you tell me what the better way is?

[Green Mikey]

How can you say it's untrue that I don't know any companies that are expanding??????

Think you need to read things more carefully.

Sorry I shouldn't have said that it was untrue...I should have said that you are ignorant (possibly wilfully) to any private sector companies that are expanding


Sorry but that really demonstrates the problem with the current governments policies, rather than being honest with the voter they spew pish like you have above.

No one is denying there should be cuts, it's how these are implemented, that is being questioned but anyone that dares question them is shot down like you have just attempted to do to me.

Spew pish? This is a forum for debating, if you don't like someone's opinion then post a rebuttal not delve into infantile jibes. I don't see why you are getting upset about being shot down, in debates or forums there are contrary opinions it's the nature of the beast:wink:

I have asked Mibbes Aye and I'll ask you, how do you think the cuts should be implemented?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Low inflation, low unemployment and low interest were build on the foundation of economic growth driven by private sector companies such as banks. I don't know if your advocating this period as a success because in hindsight it seems that the goods time were build on shaky foundations.

The UK operated with a large and mostly increasing budget deficit for the decade before the global financial crisis. This means that the UK government was issuing bonds so that they could spend more money than they received in taxes. Building new schools and hospitals was not solely funded by raising NI and windfalls, an increase in government debt was used to fuel public spend also. The link below details the UK deficit over the last few years. This is not a re-write of history, it is the truth.

http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm





I agree tha the actions taken after the credit crunch seem to have had a positive effect on the economy however you have to note that these interventions were paid for by issuing debt. The UK can no longer continue issuing massive amount of debt so how we continue to invest when there has been an increasing deficit for over a decade?




I don't belive in the Tory ideology in the slightest but do you believe that they intentionally targeting the certain groups of people who cannot protect themselves. If so, who are these groups and what cuts affected them?



Can you tell me what the better way is?

You remind me of Malcolm McLaren in the Great Rock and Roll Swindle. He tried to piece together the total arse he made of managing the Pistols and suggest that it was all part of a cunning plan.

The fact is the banks didn't have a scooby what they were doing over the last decade. They were run by jumped up spivs like Goodwin, guys who were not bankers at all.

That was something that suited the real money men, for the simple reason that, had they been real bankers they would never have acted in the way they did. As it was they were suitable patsies,for the simple reason they were too stupid to know what they were doing.

It's a big laugh for you to criticise Labour for borrowing money to build hospitals. As you probably know, these were built using PFI. Who were the main beneficiaries of PFI? The banks of course. Thanks a lot guys!

Capitalism fails us time and time again, yet people like you continue to bleat that it is the only way we can generate prosperity and well being. I have to say, I disagree with you.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Sorry I shouldn't have said that it was untrue...I should have said that you are ignorant (possibly wilfully) to any private sector companies that are expanding



Spew pish? This is a forum for debating, if you don't like someone's opinion then post a rebuttal not delve into infantile jibes. I don't see why you are getting upset about being shot down, in debates or forums there are contrary opinions it's the nature of the beast:wink:

I have asked Mibbes Aye and I'll ask you, how do you think the cuts should be implemented?

The cuts should be implemented fairly and at a reduced pace, there is no need to cut 83 billion right away. There is also no way that in four months they can possibly have planned these cuts properly, just not feasible and the child benefits saga has shown that they are already making mistakes.

I'm not upset at you attempting to shoot me down, I just used it as an example of the argument the condems keep coming back with, basically why should I have to come up with a different plan, why can the condems not just explain properly why these cuts are necessary and not just blame labour. I have not heard them actually respond properly to any other suggestions that have been put there way at all.

The argument that cuts have to be made so thats it, doesn't hold water as everyone agrees cuts have to be made, the argument is over the pace and severity of the cuts. But that is not an argument the government wants to have!

[Betty Boop]

Do you get it or does it go to your daughter?

My daughter would have got it.

[Woody1985]

English was not my forte! I was better at French!

I got a higher mark in German than I did in English. WTF!

[Green Mikey]

The cuts should be implemented fairly and at a reduced pace, there is no need to cut 83 billion right away. There is also no way that in four months they can possibly have planned these cuts properly, just not feasible and the child benefits saga has shown that they are already making mistakes.

I'm not upset at you attempting to shoot me down, I just used it as an example of the argument the condems keep coming back with, basically why should I have to come up with a different plan, why can the condems not just explain properly why these cuts are necessary and not just blame labour. I have not heard them actually respond properly to any other suggestions that have been put there way at all.

The argument that cuts have to be made so thats it, doesn't hold water as everyone agrees cuts have to be made, the argument is over the pace and severity of the cuts. But that is not an argument the government wants to have!

What is the ratronale behind slowly introducing the cuts? You say there is no need to do this but what is your justification and what is the pace and severity that is required? I believe that the country is dire straits financially and that our debt responsibilities have to take precendence because defaulting on bond repayments would be disastrous.

You can't just state that arguments don't hold water without a presenting a credible counter viewpoint. The anti-cut argument you are posting is heavy on rhetoric but light on specifics.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Sorry I shouldn't have said that it was untrue...I should have said that you are ignorant (possibly wilfully) to any private sector companies that are expanding



Spew pish? This is a forum for debating, if you don't like someone's opinion then post a rebuttal not delve into infantile jibes. I don't see why you are getting upset about being shot down, in debates or forums there are contrary opinions it's the nature of the beast:wink:

I have asked Mibbes Aye and I'll ask you, how do you think the cuts should be implemented?

Back to my point about the private sector, do you expect the private sector to creat 2 million jobs in the next four years?

[Green Mikey]

Back to my point about the private sector, do you expect the private sector to creat 2 million jobs in the next four years?

No, I just mentioned that there are private sector companies that are currently creating jobs.

[Green Mikey]

You remind me of Malcolm McLaren in the Great Rock and Roll Swindle. He tried to piece together the total arse he made of managing the Pistols and suggest that it was all part of a cunning plan.

The fact is the banks didn't have a scooby what they were doing over the last decade. They were run by jumped up spivs like Goodwin, guys who were not bankers at all.

That was something that suited the real money men, for the simple reason that, had they been real bankers they would never have acted in the way they did. As it was they were suitable patsies,for the simple reason they were too stupid to know what they were doing.

It's a big laugh for you to criticise Labour for borrowing money to build hospitals. As you probably know, these were built using PFI. Who were the main beneficiaries of PFI? The banks of course. Thanks a lot guys!

Capitalism fails us time and time again, yet people like you continue to bleat that it is the only way we can generate prosperity and well being. I have to say, I disagree with you.

Give me an a alternative to capitalism and we can have a debate. Endless anti-capitalism, abnk attacking posts are great but what is the alternative to the current system?

It is easy to critisise my pro-capitalism stance when you are not providing anything that could be considered as an alternative.

[bighairyfaeleith]

No, I just mentioned that there are private sector companies that are currently creating jobs.

But georgeys plans rely on these jobs being created. The fact that the private sector didn't create that many new jobs during the boom years seems lost on the condems. Little things like this tell me these plans are idealogical and not well thought out.

[bighairyfaeleith]

What is the ratronale behind slowly introducing the cuts? You say there is no need to do this but what is your justification and what is the pace and severity that is required? I believe that the country is dire straits financially and that our debt responsibilities have to take precendence because defaulting on bond repayments would be disastrous.

You can't just state that arguments don't hold water without a presenting a credible counter viewpoint. The anti-cut argument you are posting is heavy on rhetoric but light on specifics.

Not sure if you have read my pot but I am not anti cut but I am against the current plan of implementation

The reason for going slower is that it gives the economy more time to grow and should keep the number of unemployed down.

[Green Mikey]

But georgeys plans rely on these jobs being created. The fact that the private sector didn't create that many new jobs during the boom years seems lost on the condems. Little things like this tell me these plans are idealogical and not well thought out.

Your critique is also idealogical. You have yet to provide an alternative to this weeks cuts apart from that they should be be slower and less severe.

Thne private sector will struggle to create 2 million jobs in the coming years but what is the alternative? I believe that the deficit we face is so large that immediate cut are a necessity. Job losses are a very sad and unfortunate consequence of this action however I believe that these cuts will protect our economy in the long run.

[Green Mikey]

Not sure if you have read my pot but I am not anti cut but I am against the current plan of implementation

The reason for going slower is that it gives the economy more time to grow and should keep the number of unemployed down.

The problem with staggering the cuts is that the budget deficit will continue for longer and the government will have to borrow more each year to fund this gap. If more is borrowed in the coming years then the UK will have greater debt obligations and will have reduced budget for public spending for a much longer period than is currently anticipated.

[bighairyfaeleith]

The problem with staggering the cuts is that the budget deficit will continue for longer and the government will have to borrow more each year to fund this gap. If more is borrowed in the coming years then the UK will have greater debt obligations and will have reduced budget for public spending for a much longer period than is currently anticipated.

The problem with cutting sooner is that it risks increasing greatly the burden on the government departments, so proposed savings are unlikely to materialise.

Just seen a poll on the news that said that 59% agree that cuts should be made, however 68% want the govrernment to slow down.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Your critique is also idealogical. You have yet to provide an alternative to this weeks cuts apart from that they should be be slower and less severe.

Thne private sector will struggle to create 2 million jobs in the coming years but what is the alternative? I believe that the deficit we face is so large that immediate cut are a necessity. Job losses are a very sad and unfortunate consequence of this action however I believe that these cuts will protect our economy in the long run.

That is an alternative:confused:

[hibsdaft]

Job losses are a very sad and unfortunate consequence of this action however I believe that these cuts will protect our economy in the long run.

there is a major cost to job cuts though that you don't seem to acknowledge. during the 80s the UK actually increased public spending by 1% a year because of the dole payouts that Thatcher's unemployment incurred. the deficit remained static or fell only because she was selling off BT, BA, British Gas, 1 million houses, Jaguar, Rover etc etc. they won't be able to repeat that neat little trick this time.

its not as simple enough as presuming that cuts = savings. many are saying the cuts could lead to a double dip (Ken Clarke is saying its not far off a 50/50 risk). even if that extreme doesn't occur, private sector job losses will hit tax revenues. dole payouts for the 500K public sector unemployed will cost billions in benefits. VAT income will fall dramatically too as a consequence of the wage freezes already imposed, and the further pay cuts imminent.

all of their plans were conjured in the Spring when there was a threat to the UK's credit rating. i've not heard anyone credible suggesting that threat still exists. Tory boy Fraser Nelson (that "Scottish" prick you see wheeled out on Sky News all the time, and editor of the conservative Spectator magazine) admitted earlier in the summer that the economic necessity justification for the cuts wasn't credible. He wrote in June about how Cameron had his new Office for Budget Responsibility to assess the economic climate when elected and they were meant to report that the situation required desparate measures, he goes on:


It would have been a fine plan, had the British economy not started to recover. Sir Alan said yesterday that Alistair Darling was being too pessimistic: on almost every measure, the public finances look like being in better shape. Unemployment, he said, will be almost 200,000 lower than had been feared. Economic growth will not be quite as strong but the tax revenues – which are far more important – will come in much more strongly than Mr Darling gloomily forecast. Something is going badly right.

then continues:


...crucially, Mr Osborne's election goal – to abolish "the bulk" of the structural deficit by 2014 – would have been easily achieved had Mr Darling remained in place. No more taxes need to be raised, or budgets cut, to honour this Tory manifesto pledge.


his conclusion was that they should pursue the cuts regardless as it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to do all they dreamed of.

its 100% ideological.


Nelson article here btw: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7827761/This-Budget-is-George-Osbornes-moment-to-be-radical.html

[easty]

Your critique is also idealogical. You have yet to provide an alternative to this weeks cuts apart from that they should be be slower and less severe.

Thne private sector will struggle to create 2 million jobs in the coming years but what is the alternative? I believe that the deficit we face is so large that immediate cut are a necessity. Job losses are a very sad and unfortunate consequence of this action however I believe that these cuts will protect our economy in the long run.

Well I believe the opposite. When the private sector don't create the jobs required (job creation based on hope rather than any facts or figures) and we have X,xxx,xxx amount of more people claiming benefits and not contributing to society, in terms of both tax and in social capital (you surely wont deny that in areas of deprevation, crime tends to rise) then things will be a lot bleaker.

The cuts need to be made. Yeah that's a fact.

Cut this amount of jobs at this time though? What do those people made unemployed do?

I hear the con-dems talk of getting the unemployed into training to help them get a job...I can only assume by 'training' they don't mean further education? Seeing as they are making that even more difficult for those on the bottom rung of society (those who will be struggling the hardest to find a job).

[hibsdaft]

Cut this amount of jobs at this time though? What do those people made unemployed do?

its nothing short of astonishing isn't it - the day after they basically announce they're going to push unemployment up to near 3 million they are moralising over what those unlucky enough to be dumped on the scraphead should be doing to get back into employment ("get on a bus" Iain Duncan Smith said yesterday).

you're killing the chance of employment for millions Toryboys. a bus to where?

[Mibbes Aye]

Low inflation, low unemployment and low interest were build on the foundation of economic growth driven by private sector companies such as banks. I don't know if your advocating this period as a success because in hindsight it seems that the goods time were build on shaky foundations.

The UK operated with a large and mostly increasing budget deficit for the decade before the global financial crisis. This means that the UK government was issuing bonds so that they could spend more money than they received in taxes. Building new schools and hospitals was not solely funded by raising NI and windfalls, an increase in government debt was used to fuel public spend also. The link below details the UK deficit over the last few years. This is not a re-write of history, it is the truth.

http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm

I agree tha the actions taken after the credit crunch seem to have had a positive effect on the economy however you have to note that these interventions were paid for by issuing debt. The UK can no longer continue issuing massive amount of debt so how we continue to invest when there has been an increasing deficit for over a decade?

I don't belive in the Tory ideology in the slightest but do you believe that they intentionally targeting the certain groups of people who cannot protect themselves. If so, who are these groups and what cuts affected them?

Can you tell me what the better way is?


It's a bit of a shame that you've cited the website you're using to back up your arguments.

Not just does the author admit his figures are inaccurate but he also tells us he's a libertarian - an ideological position that utterly rejects the role of the state and tends to make even George Osborne look like William Beveridge.

If it isn't impartial and it's incorrect then all it does is undermine your argument.

A much more credible source would be the IFS. They're widely respected in all quarters.

Their analysis found that the Budget hit the poorest a lot harder than the rich - was it six times harder?

Their analysis found that the Spending Review hits the poorest a lot harder than the rich as well.

Yet Cameron and Clegg said the cuts would be 'fair', in fact they would protect the less well-off and that those with the "broadest shoulders would take the most weight".

That's the opposite of what's happened. Twice.

Is it because they're incompetent?

Or is it because they are liars?

[Green Mikey]

It's a bit of a shame that you've cited the website you're using to back up your arguments.

Not just does the author admit his figures are inaccurate but he also tells us he's a libertarian - an ideological position that utterly rejects the role of the state and tends to make even George Osborne look like William Beveridge.

If it isn't impartial and it's incorrect then all it does is undermine your argument.

A much more credible source would be the IFS. They're widely respected in all quarters.

Their analysis found that the Budget hit the poorest a lot harder than the rich - was it six times harder?

Their analysis found that the Spending Review hits the poorest a lot harder than the rich as well.

Yet Cameron and Clegg said the cuts would be 'fair', in fact they would protect the less well-off and that those with the "broadest shoulders would take the most weight".

That's the opposite of what's happened. Twice.

Is it because they're incompetent?

Or is it because they are liars?

I used the web page for the chart and the long term trend of budget deficit. I should have said that I didn't read the site and having done so now I don't support the viewpiont of the author. But for your benefit here is the IFS site, under Aggregates section 'Debt and Borrowing (inc forecasts) which demonstrates the inceasing deficit that the UK has had over the last decade.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/fiscalFacts/fiscalAggregates

A large proprtion of the UK public spending is on welfare and initatives to help the less well off in society. If these parts of the budget were protected from cuts or faced reduced cuts where do you propose that the cuts are made and where?

How does the UK implement cuts/reduce deficit without hurting the poor, what should be done to the rich so that they bear the burden?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I used the web page for the chart and the long term trend of budget deficit. I should have said that I didn't read the site and having done so now I don't support the viewpiont of the author. But for your benefit here is the IFS site, under Aggregates section 'Debt and Borrowing (inc forecasts) which demonstrates the inceasing deficit that the UK has had over the last decade.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/fiscalFacts/fiscalAggregates

A large proprtion of the UK public spending is on welfare and initatives to help the less well off in society. If these parts of the budget were protected from cuts or faced reduced cuts where do you propose that the cuts are made and where?

How does the UK implement cuts/reduce deficit without hurting the poor, what should be done to the rich so that they bear the burden?

I suggest you read Karl Marx et al. for some answers to this question. You are going on like the question has never been raised before.

Here's my starter: scrap Trident.

[Green Mikey]

there is a major cost to job cuts though that you don't seem to acknowledge. during the 80s the UK actually increased public spending by 1% a year because of the dole payouts that Thatcher's unemployment incurred. the deficit remained static or fell only because she was selling off BT, BA, British Gas, 1 million houses, Jaguar, Rover etc etc. they won't be able to repeat that neat little trick this time.

its not as simple enough as presuming that cuts = savings. many are saying the cuts could lead to a double dip (Ken Clarke is saying its not far off a 50/50 risk). even if that extreme doesn't occur, private sector job losses will hit tax revenues. dole payouts for the 500K public sector unemployed will cost billions in benefits. VAT income will fall dramatically too as a consequence of the wage freezes already imposed, and the further pay cuts imminent.

all of their plans were conjured in the Spring when there was a threat to the UK's credit rating. i've not heard anyone credible suggesting that threat still exists. Tory boy Fraser Nelson (that "Scottish" prick you see wheeled out on Sky News all the time, and editor of the conservative Spectator magazine) admitted earlier in the summer that the economic necessity justification for the cuts wasn't credible. He wrote in June about how Cameron had his new Office for Budget Responsibility to assess the economic climate when elected and they were meant to report that the situation required desparate measures, he goes on:



then continues:



his conclusion was that they should pursue the cuts regardless as it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to do all they dreamed of.

its 100% ideological.


Nelson article here btw: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7827761/This-Budget-is-George-Osbornes-moment-to-be-radical.html

There is a an obvious cost to job losses, I am not denying this. What I want to get across is that I think that they are an neccessary consequence of the current budget deficit. If the UK continues to spend at it's current level then borrowing will have to continue for longer thus burdening us with a more debt and less cash for public spending in the future.

The current economic growth is not materialising into higher taxes to cover our deficit, even in the mid 00s when the economic times were better taxes did not cover spending.

Each year the UK spends more money than it brings in, do you think this is right?

[CropleyWasGod]

I suggest you read Karl Marx et al. for some answers to this question. You are going on like the question has never been raised before.

Here's my starter: scrap Trident.

I am amazed that no-one has put this up for debate to any great extent. For me, it's a no-brainer.

[Mibbes Aye]

I used the web page for the chart and the long term trend of budget deficit. I should have said that I didn't read the site and having done so now I don't support the viewpiont of the author. But for your benefit here is the IFS site, under Aggregates section 'Debt and Borrowing (inc forecasts) which demonstrates the inceasing deficit that the UK has had over the last decade.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/fiscalFacts/fiscalAggregates

A large proprtion of the UK public spending is on welfare and initatives to help the less well off in society. If these parts of the budget were protected from cuts or faced reduced cuts where do you propose that the cuts are made and where?

How does the UK implement cuts/reduce deficit without hurting the poor, what should be done to the rich so that they bear the burden?

I think that the debate has to move beyond one of 'here's a deficit, what can we cut to reduce the deficit'.

That's how many of us would deal with reducing the balance on our credit cards, but households aren't the same as governments. Governments have the ability to stimulate growth and public expenditure is a major part of that.

We can retain some of that capacity by looking to reduce the deficit more slowly - yes, that means reducing debt more slowly but that's a price worth paying in order not to drive the country down into a double-dip recession and especially not where doing so hits the most vulnerable hardest.

I think there are some cuts, some changes, which need to happen even regardless of the deficit - the demographic timebomb is more than a valid reason for raising the pension age to my mind.

My own personal view is that child benefit should have been kept as a universal benefit, but only for children still at school, or perhaps only until sixteen.

As long as Tory ideologues try to pretend that this is just about making up for Gordon Brown spending unaffordable amounts on the 'undeserving poor', rather than us having had to bail out the banks, then the country, to survive the biggest global financial crisis in our lifetime, as long as that's the message that's pushed, then the real reason for the cuts and the real debate about the alternatives won't flourish.

And we'll have ideology masked as necessity.

And all but the richest will suffer and the weakest will suffer the most.

And in the run-up to the next election Osborne will offer up tax cuts, to appeal to our basic and most base instincts, with money harvested from scrapping the prospects of millions of ordinary people.

People deserve better. We deserve better.

[Green Mikey]

I suggest you read Karl Marx et al. for some answers to this question. You are going on like the question has never been raised before.

Here's my starter: scrap Trident.

I have read Marx. I asked you a question, how can you infer from that I think that this is the first time the question has been asked?

So you are advocating communism as a system to replace capitalism. One failed system to replace another.

Trident is a one off cost to build and the operation costs come from the defence budget (around 5%). Cutting the cost of building trident now would be a one time saving and 5% saving from defence spending. The UK would still be running a budget deficit because the savings have to be made each year.

[easty]

I suggest you read Karl Marx et al. for some answers to this question. You are going on like the question has never been raised before.

Here's my starter: scrap Trident.

Completely agree, whether we have Trident makes no difference to the nuclear threat against us (in my opinion obviously).

Do we really stick with it because America want us to, because it makes us "safe" (how exactly? If we use it then our safety has already been comprimised surely?) or because we want to be seen as a force in the World Police?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I have read Marx. I asked you a question, how can you infer from that I think that this is the first time the question has been asked?

So you are advocating communism as a system to replace capitalism. One failed system to replace another.

Trident is a one off cost to build and the operation costs come from the defence budget (around 5%). Cutting the cost of building trident now would be a one time saving and 5% saving from defence spending. The UK would still be running a budget deficit because the savings have to be made each year.

I am not advocating communism, I am saying that to pretend there aren't alternatives is just not an option. The fact is an alternative strategy of phased cuts has been proposed, and many would argue this is a much more prudent way to proceed than Osborne's way.

[easty]

I think that the debate has to move beyond one of 'here's a deficit, what can we cut to reduce the deficit'.

That's how many of us would deal with reducing the balance on our credit cards, but households aren't the same as governments. Governments have the ability to stimulate growth and public expenditure is a major part of that.


On Question Time last night an audience member said something like "I know cuts need to be made, but you talk about stimulating growth, what are you doing to stimulate growth, what are you doing that makes you so sure the private sector will create these jobs?"

The Tory on the panel (sorry I can't remember his name) responded by saying Labour had left the country with a huge defecit.

The fact is - he must have known that this kind of question was going to come up, he, and his party, had to know it would. Yet they had absolutley no answer other "it's Labours fault we are making cuts".

That was worrying.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm no financial expert by any means but something has to be done to clear the staggering national debt, because it is simply unsustainable.

I hear a lot of people protesting against the cuts and saying that there's another way and all that sort of stuff but I don't hear anyone coming up with a viable alternative plan to get things back on an even keel.

Yes it will be tough for a few years but hopefully the country can come out at the other end in a stronger position and we can learn from our past mistakes so that we don't end up in such a state again.


I suggest you read Karl Marx et al. for some answers to this question. You are going on like the question has never been raised before.

Here's my starter: scrap Trident.

Ideally, the whole planet would be clear of nuclear weapons tomorrow but that will never happen. With dangerous nations like Iran and unstable nations like North Korea developing nuclear weapons themselves, I believe it would be potentially catastrophic for this country to get rid of its nuclear deterrent.

In my opinion, it would be totally irresponsible for the government to scrap Trident.

I was reading yesterday about a couple that has ten children. Neither parent works as the man had to give up his job nine years ago to care for his wife who has curvature of the spine. Since then, they have had an additional SEVEN children and as a result, they receive almost £100,000 in benefits every single year. That is the type of thing that has to stop.

[One Day Soon]

This is not a zero sum game. It is not the case that one group has to win and another lose. To implement the changes which this right-wing government is proposing (yes we now have two Conservative Parties) is deliberate and calculated.

Where are the proposed corresponding tax rises (on a tapered basis) on the incomes of those who earn progressively the most? Even if the both sets of Tories said these would only remain in place for a fixed term of three four or five years in order to help reduce our national debt that would have been more obviously just, constuctive and fair. Where is the rise in Inheritance Tax which could have meant some of the very richest in the country would have played their part? Where is the ending of the offshore tax havens - so beloved of so many Cabinet Ministers of both Tory Parties - which would have forced them to pay income tax on all their income from all their assets?

None of these things are in place because we are not "all in this together" as Cameron, Osborne and Clegg (let's call them CoCs for short) like to claim.

If anyone is deranged enough to believe that the IMF and the various credit rating institutions would have wrecked the UK because we proposed to eliminate the deficit over, say, a 6 or 8 year term rather than 4 then frankly they are gullible enough to believe anything that this bunch of elitist toffs push them. That would have been a much safer strategy because there are two threats to our economic well being here.

One is deficit and the associated costs of debt and the other is double dip and the associated costs of unemployment, fall in tax revenues and loss of investor confidence. At root there is a reason why both sets of Tories are happier to go for the fast deficit reduction line and that is simply that by and large they, their members and their voters will be substantially insulated from the costs of cutting public expenditure in this reckless fashion. They will broadly attend private schools, have private health insurance and be in well paid jobs earning large salaries.

Boy have we travelled a distance from Labour's position of "For the many and not the few". In short the CoCs are making a complete **** of it - deliberately.

[easty]

I'm no financial expert by any means but something has to be done to clear the staggering national debt, because it is simply unsustainable.

I hear a lot of people protesting against the cuts and saying that there's another way and all that sort of stuff but I don't hear anyone coming up with a viable alternative plan to get things back on an even keel.

Yes it will be tough for a few years but hopefully the country can come out at the other end in a stronger position and we can learn from our past mistakes so that we don't end up in such a state again.
.

Like you I'm no expert but....your point is that people are complaining but coming up with no alternative. My point is that, yes cuts need to be implemented but done so in a way that helps the economy. Not in a way that creates huge levels of unemployment on the basis that the private sector will create new jobs. There is just no evidence to suggest that will happen. None. I really wish there was.

Those who will be made unemployed then have to claim benefits, added to the that the government will be losing the money those people would have been contributing in tax. Not just tax on earnings either, the VAT that the government rake in will be affected as disposable income, which is already alarmingly low for many, and with winter coming increasing costs of heating our homes mean it will be even lower.

[easty]

Ideally, the whole planet would be clear of nuclear weapons tomorrow but that will never happen. With dangerous nations like Iran and unstable nations like North Korea developing nuclear weapons themselves, I believe it would be potentially catastrophic for this country to get rid of its nuclear deterrent.

In my opinion, it would be totally irresponsible for the government to scrap Trident.



Do you believe that if we didnt have Trident then the risk of nuclear attacks by Iran or North Korea would be greater? I dont. If they're going to do something then they'll do it, and by that time us having Trident will be irrelevant.

[Beefster]

There's a awful lot of amateur economists on here who, it's obvious, know very little about economics and are just parroting one side or another's line. It's as ill-informed as most debates about politics on here.

We've still to have a credible alternative presented by the unions or Labour that adds up to the full amount and is shown to have the confidence of the markets (if anyone claims that the markets don't matter - it proves my point about amateur economists).

"Taxing the rich", "Cutting less, more slowly" and "Protecting the vulnerable" all sound great in sound-bites, on big placards at marches and as slogans on websites though.

[Beefster]

Do you believe that if we didnt have Trident then the risk of nuclear attacks by Iran or North Korea would be greater? I dont. If they're going to do something then they'll do it, and by that time us having Trident will be irrelevant.

Using the reasoning that having nuclear weapons don't stop you being attacked with nuclear weapons, there would have been full nuclear war at some point in the last 65 years.

[bighairyfaeleith]

People can still hold an opinion without being an economist.

I love the argument that if you can't provide alternative you should just accept the cuts. If you provide an alternative it is either ignored or dismissed with no reason given.

68% of the country think the cuts should be slowed down. The government needs to start to listen

[easty]

Using the reasoning that having nuclear weapons don't stop you being attacked with nuclear weapons, there would have been full nuclear war at some point in the last 65 years.

Who is talking about the last 65 years? Not me. I'm talking about now.

Do you believe that those in Iran and/or North Korea are sitting there thinking 'if those pesky Brits didnt have that bloody trident we'd show them!!' :grr:

Nonsense.

From one post you say there are an awful lot of amateur economists then all of a sudden you can predict war? You're more than an amateur at that are you?

[RyeSloan]

People can still hold an opinion without being an economist.

I love the argument that if you can't provide alternative you should just accept the cuts. If you provide an alternative it is either ignored or dismissed with no reason given.

68% of the country think the cuts should be slowed down. The government needs to start to listen

Of course you can have an opnion but you also have to have a credible alternative for that opinion to be taken seriously....simply saying 68% of the country says slow down so slow down is not that.

[RyeSloan]

Like you I'm no expert but....your point is that people are complaining but coming up with no alternative. My point is that, yes cuts need to be implemented but done so in a way that helps the economy. Not in a way that creates huge levels of unemployment on the basis that the private sector will create new jobs. There is just no evidence to suggest that will happen. None. I really wish there was.

Those who will be made unemployed then have to claim benefits, added to the that the government will be losing the money those people would have been contributing in tax. Not just tax on earnings either, the VAT that the government rake in will be affected as disposable income, which is already alarmingly low for many, and with winter coming increasing costs of heating our homes mean it will be even lower.

So the goverment should continue to support a public wage bill that it simply cannot afford ad infinitum to prevent short terms costs in benefits for those seeking more gainful employment? A bit of a bizzare concept that I would say.

[RyeSloan]

<some reasonable suggestions on snipped>

As long as Tory ideologues try to pretend that this is just about making up for Gordon Brown spending unaffordable amounts on the 'undeserving poor', rather than us having had to bail out the banks, then the country, to survive the biggest global financial crisis in our lifetime, as long as that's the message that's pushed, then the real reason for the cuts and the real debate about the alternatives won't flourish.


People deserve better. We deserve better.

Some reasonable points there re suggested ways to reduce spending but I'm interested int he bits I have left in.

Are you not being slightly disingenuios with this arguement when the simple and most glaring reason the deficit is so high is that Labour ran a deficit for over 10 years and saved absolutely nothing for the inevitable rainy day. Putting aside why that rainy day arrived it was inevitable it would arrive in some form...Brown was far too busy overstretching the public finances and bursting his golden rules (when he wasn't fiddling the books to pretend he wasn't) to care and that is why we are where we are.

People deserve better. We deserve better. - Too bloody right we do and after a decade of overspending during the largest boom of recent times I certianly hope get it.

You keeping pushing the idea that it's the Tories ideology that's at fault here and ignoring the blindingly obvious of the above does little to spark this 'real debate; you are looking for I would suggest.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Of course you can have an opnion but you also have to have a credible alternative for that opinion to be taken seriously....simply saying 68% of the country says slow down so slow down is not that.

But thats not what I'm saying, once again people choose to highlight one line and ignore everything else that has been said.

I'm not a politician, I'm not an economist and I don't claim to have all the answers, but what I do know is that I don't believe what the government is telling me, and I'm not the only one.

It's not my job to have a credible alternative, if I was running for government then it would be, If I was running the country it would be my job to have a credible plan, as a poster on hibs.net it isn't. I listen to what everyone says, I read the news, and then I form my opinion.

[bighairyfaeleith]

There seems to be alot made of our current debt, which is very high, but before the crash, our budget deficit asa % of gdp was actually lower through the 00's than it was for most of the previous 30 years. So how does this fit in with Gordon brown making an arse of it?

Also, is it not true that our budget deficit % wise was a lot less than most other countries like the USA, Japan, France etc?

[RyeSloan]

But thats not what I'm saying, once again people choose to highlight one line and ignore everything else that has been said.

I'm not a politician, I'm not an economist and I don't claim to have all the answers, but what I do know is that I don't believe what the government is telling me, and I'm not the only one.

It's not my job to have a credible alternative, if I was running for government then it would be, If I was running the country it would be my job to have a credible plan, as a poster on hibs.net it isn't. I listen to what everyone says, I read the news, and then I form my opinion.

So let me get this right...you don't believe the government and think the cuts are too fast but don't actually have a view on what should be done instead or what the truth may be :confused:

[bighairyfaeleith]

So let me get this right...you don't believe the government and think the cuts are too fast but don't actually have a view on what should be done instead or what the truth may be :confused:

I have a view yes, but as you stated earlier apparently it's not up to scratch!

[RyeSloan]

I have a view yes, but as you stated earlier apparently it's not up to scratch!

Well that's something we can probalby both agree on then :wink:

[One Day Soon]

There's a awful lot of amateur economists on here who, it's obvious, know very little about economics and are just parroting one side or another's line. It's as ill-informed as most debates about politics on here.

We've still to have a credible alternative presented by the unions or Labour that adds up to the full amount and is shown to have the confidence of the markets (if anyone claims that the markets don't matter - it proves my point about amateur economists).

"Taxing the rich", "Cutting less, more slowly" and "Protecting the vulnerable" all sound great in sound-bites, on big placards at marches and as slogans on websites though.

This is not a debate about a credible alternative in the sense that there might be an alternative to reducing spending because there is no alternative to reducing spending. This is a debate about the pace at which that is done and who bears the brunt of those reductions.

It is being done at a ridiculously fast pace in order to shoehorn it to within a four year electoral cycle, not because there is some kind of golden rule which says you must balance the books within four years. The two Tory parties here are after big enough cuts in the first three years to then be able to send laser guided buns to their electorate in year four in order to get re-elected - and that is the start and the finish of it in terms of why so fast.

Except of course that this is also the very convenient cover for an ideological assault on the idea of collective provision and common services. So while it is necessary to cut, it is not necessary to cut as fast as this and neither is it necessary to cut as deep as this.

In terms of equity they would not even have needed to demonstrate that those who are better off are contributing as much as those who are relatively poor in terms of what it will cost to make these savings. They could however at least have shown that the wealthy would be making some contribution with short term increases in taxation, removal of offshore tax havens which are used to avoid paying income tax and an higher inheritance tax. That way while the less well off are losing the public services they need, losing their jobs and losing their benefits when they are out of work at least we would all know that those who are priviledged are also contributing.

This is an attack on the poorest and it is being carried out because they tend to vote less, they tend not to vote for either Tory Party and they are largely voiceless. That is to say, they are less able and less likely to kick back. For the Tories they are, once again, a price worth paying.

These are the same wolves that came to the door in Thatcher's 80's. David Cameron was literally Norman Lamont's policy bag carrier on Black Wednesday when they managed to send the whole economy down the toilet in one day. This is not some brand spanking new set of Conservatives beamed in from outer space, these are Thatcher's political children born and bred into her political philosophy.

The core problem here is that we have both a large public sector deficit and a large public sector debt. The first has to move closer to balance over a reasonable cycle and the second has to be reduced to a manageable level or eliminated.

The debt matters mainly because interest payments on that will eat the annual revenues taken in through taxation if it is not reduced - just like an out of control credit card. The spending deficit matters because if we have to borrow heavily to pay for our expenditure the cost of that borrowing will become more and more expensive as those loaning us the money come to regard that debt as riskier and risker because they see that we are not getting our budget under control and that imperils our ability to repay the debt which then raises the premium on those loans.

It is a simple equation. If you are running a deficit there are only two variables to change - the tax you take in and/or the expenditure you lay out. This mob have gone heavily and hard for the expenditure and avoided the tax. They have done so for political and ideological reasons. You can very crudely characterise this in another way: either a) everyone pays more in tax and more people hold on to their jobs and services but we all have less to spend or b) you can slash public spending and many people lost their jobs and the services they will then depend upon, but those still in work will have good incomes and the buying power to carry on as before. Which do you think is the Tory way?

But much of this is about perception. At one extreme you can be Greece where it is almost completely out of control and there really is no serious attempt to control the public purse. We are nowhere near that but we do need to show we are serious about controlling our finances so that we continue to be regarded as a first rank nation in economic and fiscal terms. When Gordon Brown handed control of the setting of interest rates over to the Bank of England when he became Chancellor that steadied the global money markets over their worries about a Labour government running the economy because it created the perception that the government was serious about the economy and inflation. It did not instantly change interest rates or the money supply or public expenditure - it was about perception. So too is what is being done now. And it could be done with a lot less aggression and zeal.

I am not in favour of abandoning Trident but it has to be acknowledged that the capital savings from not renewing it would make a nice dent in our debt as a one off contribution, the running cost savings wouldn't do too much harm either. But this government has chosen bombs rather than bread, it was a conscious decision as are the rest of the things they have chosen not to do and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with suggesting anything other than that their cuts are their cuts.

So when people say that there isn't an alternative it is not strictly true - there are always choices that can be made. We COULD have a public sector pay freeze - or even reduction, we COULD put up higher rates of tax, we COULD raise Inheritance Tax etc. This government is choosing not to do so. These are not alternatives to making large scale savings but a basket of these would make the sharing of pain a whole hell of a lot fairer and less politically motivated.

[Mibbes Aye]

There seems to be alot made of our current debt, which is very high, but before the crash, our budget deficit asa % of gdp was actually lower through the 00's than it was for most of the previous 30 years. So how does this fit in with Gordon brown making an arse of it?

Also, is it not true that our budget deficit % wise was a lot less than most other countries like the USA, Japan, France etc?

You probably won't get a response on that one.

Just like I'm not going to get a response as to why Cameron and Clegg said they wouldn't pick on the poor. And then did. Twice.

[Beefster]

People can still hold an opinion without being an economist.

I love the argument that if you can't provide alternative you should just accept the cuts. If you provide an alternative it is either ignored or dismissed with no reason given.

68% of the country think the cuts should be slowed down. The government needs to start to listen

In another thread, I pointed you to a poll that said that 52% of respondents support the cuts and 39% don't. Polls don't mean anything.

As for the 'we don't need an alternative to oppose' argument - possibly not but it does help folk take you seriously.


Who is talking about the last 65 years? Not me. I'm talking about now.

Do you believe that those in Iran and/or North Korea are sitting there thinking 'if those pesky Brits didnt have that bloody trident we'd show them!!' :grr:

Nonsense.

From one post you say there are an awful lot of amateur economists then all of a sudden you can predict war? You're more than an amateur at that are you?

I think that if it ever came to a situation where the UK and Iran/North Korea were on the verge of war, us having nuclear weapons too would make them think twice about attacking us with them. Do you think the US would have dropped them on Japan as easily if they knew they'd get some dropped on New York, Chicago, Boston, LA and Miami straight back?

For proof that it makes folk think twice, you've heard about the Cuban Missile Crisis, right?

[bighairyfaeleith]

In another thread, I pointed you to a poll that said that 52% of respondents support the cuts and 39% don't. Polls don't mean anything.

As for the 'we don't need an alternative to oppose' argument - possibly not but it does help folk take you seriously.



I think that if it ever came to a situation where the UK and Iran/North Korea were on the verge of war, us having nuclear weapons too would make them think twice about attacking us with them. Do you think the US would have dropped them on Japan as easily if they knew they'd get some dropped on New York, Chicago, Boston, LA and Miami straight back?

For proof that it makes folk think twice, you've heard about the Cuban Missile Crisis, right?

Actually I quoted earlier that in the same poll 59% backed making cuts but 68% thought they should sloow down which goes to prove the argument is not over if we should cut but how quick.


Polls do mean something as they give an indication of how the little people are feeling

[Green Mikey]

There seems to be alot made of our current debt, which is very high, but before the crash, our budget deficit asa % of gdp was actually lower through the 00's than it was for most of the previous 30 years. So how does this fit in with Gordon brown making an arse of it?

Also, is it not true that our budget deficit % wise was a lot less than most other countries like the USA, Japan, France etc?

Gordon Brown left the country with the largest ever budget deficit after overseeing the worst financial crisis in Britain's history. We wouldn't be having this debate if Gordon Brown hadn't made an arse of it.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Gordon Brown left the country with the largest ever budget deficit after overseeing the worst financial crisis in Britain's history. We wouldn't be having this debate if Gordon Brown hadn't made an arse of it.


So you would have let the banks fail then?

[Green Mikey]

So you would have let the banks fail then?

No I wouldn't have but the fact that they did need bailing out is a damning indictment of Brown's tenureship.

[bighairyfaeleith]

No I wouldn't have but the fact that they did need bailing out is a damning indictment of Brown's tenureship.

Was he responsible for the american, irish, french and spanish banks as well?

[One Day Soon]

No I wouldn't have but the fact that they did need bailing out is a damning indictment of Brown's tenureship.

Are you willfully misrepresenting the facts or do you really not understand the recession, its causes and its consequences? The fact that the banks needed bailing out is a damning indictment of the way they conducted themselves.

[easty]

I think that if it ever came to a situation where the UK and Iran/North Korea were on the verge of war, us having nuclear weapons too would make them think twice about attacking us with them. Do you think the US would have dropped them on Japan as easily if they knew they'd get some dropped on New York, Chicago, Boston, LA and Miami straight back?

For proof that it makes folk think twice, you've heard about the Cuban Missile Crisis, right?

No need to resort to patronising me, of course I've heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Using Hiroshima as an example is not relevant though, that was then and this is now. Times change.

I don't believe that any country would release a nuclear weapon, if one, though, was to fall into the hands of a terrorist organisation then, again I believe, Trident wouldnt be a deterrant to them.

[Green Mikey]

Are you willfully misrepresenting the facts or do you really not understand the recession, its causes and its consequences? The fact that the banks needed bailing out is a damning indictment of the way they conducted themselves.

You are wilfilly ignoring the irrefutable fact that the banking crisis happened whilst Brown was Chancellor/Prime Minister and within the regulatory system that Brown himself introduced. The conduct of the banks was abhorrent but it is too simplistic to place blame solely with them, it has to be acknowledged that the government who are charged with regulating the financial sector are also responsible for the current financial problems.

[easty]

You are wilfilly ignoring the irrefutable fact that the banking crisis happened whilst Brown was Chancellor/Prime Minister and within the regulatory system that Brown himself introduced. The conduct of the banks was abhorrent but it is too simplistic to place blame solely with them, it has to be acknowledged that the government who are charged with regulating the financial sector are also responsible for the current financial problems.

See this argument....why (and ther might be a reason I'm just not aware of) does Brown always get the blame? He at no point was both the PM and the Chancellor, so which one is to blame? Tony Blair (who saw something bad was on the horizon and jumped at the right time in my opinion.) and Alistair Darling never seem to get any the blame.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You are wilfilly ignoring the irrefutable fact that the banking crisis happened whilst Brown was Chancellor/Prime Minister and within the regulatory system that Brown himself introduced. The conduct of the banks was abhorrent but it is too simplistic to place blame solely with them, it has to be acknowledged that the government who are charged with regulating the financial sector are also responsible for the current financial problems.

Perhaps if the opposition to the government had been calling for tighter regulation then???


What, they didn't, they wanted looser regulation, surely not:greengrin

[Green Mikey]

See this argument....why (and ther might be a reason I'm just not aware of) does Brown always get the blame? He at no point was both the PM and the Chancellor, so which one is to blame? Tony Blair (who saw something bad was on the horizon and jumped at the right time in my opinion.) and Alistair Darling never seem to get any the blame.

Brown was the architect of New Labour's economic policy, ge was either Chancellor or Prime Minister for 13 years. Other people including Blair are due a share of the blame however as the figurehead and leader of New Labour's economic policy for more than a decade Gordon Brown is surely the most obvious person to blame.


Perhaps if the opposition to the government had been calling for tighter regulation then???


What, they didn't, they wanted looser regulation, surely not:greengrin

Tories will always want looser regulation that is their modus operandi, does this in any way excuse the economic decisions made by Labour?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Brown was the architect of New Labour's economic policy, ge was either Chancellor or Prime Minister for 13 years. Other people including Blair are due a share of the blame however as the figurehead and leader of New Labour's economic policy for more than a decade Gordon Brown is surely the most obvious person to blame.



Tories will always want looser regulation that is their modus operandi, does this in any way excuse the economic decisions made by Labour?

No but it does mean taking the tories,arguments seriously is a tad challenging

[Phil D. Rolls]

I hope nobody forgets the smug cheering from the Tory benches when those cuts were announced. You can take the man out of Surrey, but......

[Betty Boop]

I hope nobody forgets the smug cheering from the Tory benches when those cuts were announced. You can take the man out of Surrey, but......

:agree: Absolutely stomach churning ! The budget deficit was far higher in 1945, yet the Welfare State was created, the new NHS, and 300,000 council homes were built. The Tories are hell bent on smashing the State. 'We Are All In This Together' my erse ! :bitchy:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I hope nobody forgets the smug cheering from the Tory benches when those cuts were announced. You can take the man out of Surrey, but......

The electorate tends not too forget such things easily:wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

The electorate tends not too forget such things easily:wink:

Would that were so. They re-elected Thatcher after the miner's strike. Could be the Tory fans quite like this sort of thing.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Would that were so. They re-elected Thatcher after the miner's strike. Could be the Tory fans quite like this sort of thing.

Yes but that was because a certain part of England was always kept happy, thats not quite the case this time around, and given the tories never had a majority to start with things will be more difficult at the next election, the scottish election next year will be interesting as well as I can genuinely see the lib dems and conservatives being wiped out.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes but that was because a certain part of England was always kept happy, thats not quite the case this time around, and given the tories never had a majority to start with things will be more difficult at the next election, the scottish election next year will be interesting as well as I can genuinely see the lib dems and conservatives being wiped out.

The Scottish Election is going to be very interesting, as it always was going to be the first time those weasels got in down South.

The LibDems have totally arsed up their chances of ever forming a government, and I predict Clegg will jump ship to join the ******* party.

The only good thing that will come out of this is a return to high quality satire. The Tories tend to bring out the real vicous streak in people.