There is a better way campaign

[lucky]

March and rally for anyone who is interested in protesting against the ideological cuts that the ConDems are perpetrating on our communities. It is being run by the STUC.

March details:

Arrangements

The march musters 11.00am at East Market Street Edinburgh at the south side of Waverly Station.

The march will set off at 11.30am. It will travel a route along Princes Street. At approximately 12.30am the march will assemble at the Ross Bandstand in Princes Gardens. The rally will begin at some stage between 12.30 and 1pm depending on the size of the march.



Link and more info at http://thereisabetterway.org/

I'm missing my first game this season for this demo. The French people are fighting for their pensions are you going to sit back and let them destroy OUR public services?

[Hiber-nation]

March and rally for anyone who is interested in protesting against the ideological cuts that the ConDems are perpetrating on our communities. It is being run by the STUC.

March details:

Arrangements

The march musters 11.00am at East Market Street Edinburgh at the south side of Waverly Station.

The march will set off at 11.30am. It will travel a route along Princes Street. At approximately 12.30am the march will assemble at the Ross Bandstand in Princes Gardens. The rally will begin at some stage between 12.30 and 1pm depending on the size of the march.



Link and more info at http://thereisabetterway.org/

I'm missing my first game this season for this demo. The French people are fighting for their pensions are you going to sit back and let them destroy OUR public services?

Good cause - the youth of today need to get off their erses like I did back in the late 70s!

The phrase "a Better Way" was used in the 79 Election by Labour as I recall...surprised they're rehashing it...or maybe nobody remembers it!

[Betty Boop]

March and rally for anyone who is interested in protesting against the ideological cuts that the ConDems are perpetrating on our communities. It is being run by the STUC.

March details:

Arrangements

The march musters 11.00am at East Market Street Edinburgh at the south side of Waverly Station.

The march will set off at 11.30am. It will travel a route along Princes Street. At approximately 12.30am the march will assemble at the Ross Bandstand in Princes Gardens. The rally will begin at some stage between 12.30 and 1pm depending on the size of the march.



Link and more info at http://thereisabetterway.org/

I'm missing my first game this season for this demo. The French people are fighting for their pensions are you going to sit back and let them destroy OUR public services?

This is also on the Cutting Wednesday thread. Fully support this and will be attending ! :top marks

[lucky]

Good cause - the youth of today need to get off their erses like I did back in the late 70s!

The phrase "a Better Way" was used in the 79 Election by Labour as I recall...surprised they're rehashing it...or maybe nobody remembers it!

This the trade unions not the Labour party. It is really important that people turn up. Its time our voices were heard. I was disgusted Tory and Lib Dems cheered the chancellor who had just cut 500000 jobs. Sad day for all whose families.

[heretoday]

What day is it?

Okay I just realised it's the 23rd.

[(((Fergus)))]

Good cause - the youth of today need to get off their erses like I did back in the late 70s!

The phrase "a Better Way" was used in the 79 Election by Labour as I recall...surprised they're rehashing it...or maybe nobody remembers it!

God bless Norman Tebbit :top marks

[lyonhibs]

If it's good enough for the IFS, it's good enough for me.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/budgetjune2010/browne.pdf

It would take a lot to get me to join one of these marches, cos usually they achieve hee-haw, but (if I was in Edinburgh) I'd be there, because - for once - this march is about a) something happening under our noses on home soil and b) will ACTUALLY affect large chunks of the population.

[khib70]

This the trade unions not the Labour party. It is really important that people turn up. Its time our voices were heard. I was disgusted Tory and Lib Dems cheered the chancellor who had just cut 500000 jobs. Sad day for all whose families.
Oh, there's a difference, is there? The Labour party is led by a trade union appointee whom neither the ordinary party members or the MP's wanted. According to the latest figures only 28.4 percent of the British workforce is in a trade union, yet they, including loads of non-members of the party, get to elect the leader of the Labour Party.

And for a movement which has spent the last 13 years screwing up the UK economy to run a campaign called "There is a Better Way" is pure comedy gold.
Especially as no one seems to be telling us what this "Better Way" is. (or why they didn't follow it in their 13 years in power)

I can hazard a shrewd guess though...more state control, higher taxes, big wage rises for Unite and RMT members - all that good stuff.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Oh, there's a difference, is there? The Labour party is led by a trade union appointee whom neither the ordinary party members or the MP's wanted. According to the latest figures only 28.4 percent of the British workforce is in a trade union, yet they, including loads of non-members of the party, get to elect the leader of the Labour Party.

And for a movement which has spent the last 13 years screwing up the UK economy to run a campaign called "There is a Better Way" is pure comedy gold.
Especially as no one seems to be telling us what this "Better Way" is. (or why they didn't follow it in their 13 years in power)

I can hazard a shrewd guess though...more state control, higher taxes, big wage rises for Unite and RMT members - all that good stuff.

So best just to let the tories run wild then and completely screw millions of lives up??

[magpie1892]

So best just to let the tories run wild then and completely screw millions of lives up??

Labour would have had to make these cuts had they remained in power. Darling knew it, and proposed it. Brown told him to shut up and then set about smearing him. Nice.

Blaming the Tories for having to cut public expenditure is dogmatic and blinkered. What should they do? Keep borrowing money we don't have until the IMF come knocking (again)? Brown ran a structural deficit during the biggest postwar economic boom and while tax receipts were at record levels. Labour, yet again, trashed the economy. Brown's economic incompetence made these cuts necessary, no-one else.

I fully accept that the manner of the cutting may not be to everyone's tastes. The opposition, however, have not offered a coherent alternative. Even if they had, it will be a long time, if ever, until the electorate trusts the Labour party again on the economy. This is what happens when the then Chancellor stands at the despatch box saying he has abolished 'boom and bust' - credibility evaporates. Selling the nation's gold reserves for 25% of their worth (and, D'oh!, announcing the sale to the market beforehand, FFS...) also indicates a failure to comprehend even the most basic of economic standards: supply & demand.

As has been pointed out above, for Labour/Unions to propose themselves as guardians of a 'better way' is unintentionally hilarious.

[Phil D. Rolls]

March and rally for anyone who is interested in protesting against the ideological cuts that the ConDems are perpetrating on our communities. It is being run by the STUC.

March details:

Arrangements

The march musters 11.00am at East Market Street Edinburgh at the south side of Waverly Station.

The march will set off at 11.30am. It will travel a route along Princes Street. At approximately 12.30am the march will assemble at the Ross Bandstand in Princes Gardens. The rally will begin at some stage between 12.30 and 1pm depending on the size of the march.



Link and more info at http://thereisabetterway.org/

I'm missing my first game this season for this demo. The French people are fighting for their pensions are you going to sit back and let them destroy OUR public services?

I'd be there, but I'll be working in one of our public services. To the barricades, all the rest of you!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Oh, there's a difference, is there? The Labour party is led by a trade union appointee whom neither the ordinary party members or the MP's wanted. According to the latest figures only 28.4 percent of the British workforce is in a trade union, yet they, including loads of non-members of the party, get to elect the leader of the Labour Party.

And for a movement which has spent the last 13 years screwing up the UK economy to run a campaign called "There is a Better Way" is pure comedy gold.
Especially as no one seems to be telling us what this "Better Way" is. (or why they didn't follow it in their 13 years in power)

I can hazard a shrewd guess though...more state control, higher taxes, big wage rises for Unite and RMT members - all that good stuff.

I don't remember having much say in David Cameron, or Nick Clegg's appointment to power either.

People are saying what the better way is, namely to phase the cuts over a longer period. At least they aren't prepared to act like a contestant on Deal or No Deal on something as potentially disastrous.


Labour would have had to make these cuts had they remained in power. Darling knew it, and proposed it. Brown told him to shut up and then set about smearing him. Nice.

Blaming the Tories for having to cut public expenditure is dogmatic and blinkered. What should they do? Keep borrowing money we don't have until the IMF come knocking (again)? Brown ran a structural deficit during the biggest postwar economic boom and while tax receipts were at record levels. Labour, yet again, trashed the economy. Brown's economic incompetence made these cuts necessary, no-one else.

I fully accept that the manner of the cutting may not be to everyone's tastes. The opposition, however, have not offered a coherent alternative. Even if they had, it will be a long time, if ever, until the electorate trusts the Labour party again on the economy. This is what happens when the then Chancellor stands at the despatch box saying he has abolished 'boom and bust' - credibility evaporates. Selling the nation's gold reserves for 25% of their worth (and, D'oh!, announcing the sale to the market beforehand, FFS...) also indicates a failure to comprehend even the most basic of economic standards: supply & demand.

As has been pointed out above, for Labour/Unions to propose themselves as guardians of a 'better way' is unintentionally hilarious.

So the banks acting immorally and foolishly played no part? That's like blaming an increase in burglary on householders. Brown (along with all the other leaders of capitalist states) could have tried to reign them in, but at the end of the day, they were the ones who did wrong.

[New Corrie]

This the trade unions not the Labour party. It is really important that people turn up. Its time our voices were heard. I was disgusted Tory and Lib Dems cheered the chancellor who had just cut 500000 jobs. Sad day for all whose families.


Is that the trade unions that pay Derek Simpson £200 000 per year, give him a £1
million home rent free for the rest of his life, still employ bullying tactics, still intimidating women and brokering better deals for men.

13 years of Labour and they now think there is a better way:yawn:

[magpie1892]

I don't remember having much say in David Cameron, or Nick Clegg's appointment to power either.

People are saying what the better way is, namely to phase the cuts over a longer period. At least they aren't prepared to act like a contestant on Deal or No Deal on something as potentially disastrous.



So the banks acting immorally and foolishly played no part? That's like blaming an increase in burglary on householders. Brown (along with all the other leaders of capitalist states) could have tried to reign them in, but at the end of the day, they were the ones who did wrong.

Brown set up the FSA to, apparently, 'regulate' the banks and their behaviours - despite being warned by numerous people that he was effectively giving carte blanche to the bankers, a free pass to do as they pleased. So for a government figure showing inability to govern? Yes, Brown was at fault again.

If householders left their front doors open and got burgled, the householder would not get the blame? Would not be accused of rank stupidity? Please...

[Phil D. Rolls]

Brown set up the FSA to, apparently, 'regulate' the banks and their behaviours - despite being warned by numerous people that he was effectively giving carte blanche to the bankers, a free pass to do as they pleased. So for a government figure showing inability to govern? Yes, Brown was at fault again.

If householders left their front doors open and got burgled, the householder would not get the blame? Would not be accused of rank stupidity? Please...

Rank stupidity and criminal behavoiur are different things.

If the criminal is caught, are you saying it is the householder who should be in the dock?

These were people who held themselves up to be models of proper behaviour, not shell suited chavs knocking at your door asking if "Billy lives here".

Brown appears to have been badly let down by one group of people, and I don't think they should be allowed to shrug off the blame the way they are.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Labour would have had to make these cuts had they remained in power. Darling knew it, and proposed it. Brown told him to shut up and then set about smearing him. Nice.

Blaming the Tories for having to cut public expenditure is dogmatic and blinkered. What should they do? Keep borrowing money we don't have until the IMF come knocking (again)? Brown ran a structural deficit during the biggest postwar economic boom and while tax receipts were at record levels. Labour, yet again, trashed the economy. Brown's economic incompetence made these cuts necessary, no-one else.

I fully accept that the manner of the cutting may not be to everyone's tastes. The opposition, however, have not offered a coherent alternative. Even if they had, it will be a long time, if ever, until the electorate trusts the Labour party again on the economy. This is what happens when the then Chancellor stands at the despatch box saying he has abolished 'boom and bust' - credibility evaporates. Selling the nation's gold reserves for 25% of their worth (and, D'oh!, announcing the sale to the market beforehand, FFS...) also indicates a failure to comprehend even the most basic of economic standards: supply & demand.

As has been pointed out above, for Labour/Unions to propose themselves as guardians of a 'better way' is unintentionally hilarious.

I don't really care about whether it's labours fault or the tories fault or the banks fault. What I care about is how we go about fixing the problem and the current plans are far too savage. They won't make the savings they predict but they will hurt millions of people.

According to a poll last night 68% of the population agree with me that the government should slow down.#

You are also of course forgetting that brown steered us through the crash very well, and tree months ago lost of the signs where that the country was beginning to grow again, however the condems have ignored this and continue to spout lies to force through there idealogical changes, and I can guarantee I am not in the minortiy with this opinion.

[Beefster]

I don't really care about whether it's labours fault or the tories fault or the banks fault. What I care about is how we go about fixing the problem and the current plans are far too savage. They won't make the savings they predict but they will hurt millions of people.

According to a poll last night 68% of the population agree with me that the government should slow down.#

You are also of course forgetting that brown steered us through the crash very well, and tree months ago lost of the signs where that the country was beginning to grow again, however the condems have ignored this and continue to spout lies to force through there idealogical changes, and I can guarantee I am not in the minortiy with this opinion.

I just saw a Daily Politics poll where 52% of respondents backed the measures proposed and 39% opposed. How does that fit in with your guarantee?

[magpie1892]

I don't really care about whether it's labours fault or the tories fault or the banks fault. What I care about is how we go about fixing the problem and the current plans are far too savage. They won't make the savings they predict but they will hurt millions of people.

I respect your view, but I don't agree with it.


According to a poll last night 68% of the population agree with me that the government should slow down.

That figure (68%) doesn't tally with anything I have seen - not even close. You don't mention the source of this figure - was the poll conducted by the SWP by any chance? Sadly for the detractors, prominent economic and business bodies have lined up, to a man and woman, behind the cuts with some suggesting they are not deep enough.


You are also of course forgetting that brown steered us through the crash very well, and tree months ago lost of the signs where that the country was beginning to grow again, however the condems have ignored this and continue to spout lies to force through there idealogical changes, and I can guarantee I am not in the minortiy with this opinion.

Brown did nothing to 'steer' the UK economy through the crash other than printing money. The cupboard was bare due to his spendthrift ways so there was no capital set aside (and, of course, no gold) to stimulate the economy. The UK's economy was the LAST of the G20 economies to come out of recession - as was widely predicted so if this is steering us through the crash 'very well' then I'd hate to see a bad job...

You've really lost the plot by the last sentence and I'm not sure where you're going with this but, again, I dispute your assertion that you are not in the minority with your opinion of the Tories. In Scotland, probably not, but UK wide? More people voted for the Tories than anyone else, hence a Tory-led govt.

[magpie1892]

Rank stupidity and criminal behavoiur are different things.

If the criminal is caught, are you saying it is the householder who should be in the dock?

These were people who held themselves up to be models of proper behaviour, not shell suited chavs knocking at your door asking if "Billy lives here".

Brown appears to have been badly let down by one group of people, and I don't think they should be allowed to shrug off the blame the way they are.

I must have missed the part where the bankers held themselves up as 'models of proper behaviour'. We're agreed then that Brown is guilty of rank stupidity.

Brown badly let himself down. Fortuitously for him, he doesn't have to pay for his incompetence - the UK taxpayer does. Hell, Brown doesn't even have to pay for his SKy Sports subscription, the taxpayer picks that up as well.

And the taxpayer is paying for him to write his upcoming book as well. Lucky man. I hear the book has a working title of: 'It wasn't me, it was everyone else'.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I respect your view, but I don't agree with it.



That figure (68%) doesn't tally with anything I have seen - not even close. You don't mention the source of this figure - was the poll conducted by the SWP by any chance? Sadly for the detractors, prominent economic and business bodies have lined up, to a man and woman, behind the cuts with some suggesting they are not deep enough.



Brown did nothing to 'steer' the UK economy through the crash other than printing money. The cupboard was bare due to his spendthrift ways so there was no capital set aside (and, of course, no gold) to stimulate the economy. The UK's economy was the LAST of the G20 economies to come out of recession - as was widely predicted so if this is steering us through the crash 'very well' then I'd hate to see a bad job...

You've really lost the plot by the last sentence and I'm not sure where you're going with this but, again, I dispute your assertion that you are not in the minority with your opinion of the Tories. In Scotland, probably not, but UK wide? More people voted for the Tories than anyone else, hence a Tory-led govt.

It was a poll by pollster and was on the 10pm news last night

The majority of Britain did not vote for the Tories or any other party but that's irrelevant as you can vote for a party and then not agree with the policies they implement. As a lib dem voter this time around I am living proof of this.

Regarding brown, the bottom line is he made the right choices to spend and it stopped the recession being as bad as it could have been. Even a simple Guy like me can see that

[bighairyfaeleith]

I must have missed the part where the bankers held themselves up as 'models of proper behaviour'. We're agreed then that Brown is guilty of rank stupidity.

Brown badly let himself down. Fortuitously for him, he doesn't have to pay for his incompetence - the UK taxpayer does. Hell, Brown doesn't even have to pay for his SKy Sports subscription, the taxpayer picks that up as well.

And the taxpayer is paying for him to write his upcoming book as well. Lucky man. I hear the book has a working title of: 'It wasn't me, it was everyone else'.

To be fair the last line could apply to any politician

[magpie1892]

It was a poll by pollster and was on the 10pm news last night

I'd be interested to learn of the sample, where it was taken etc. It bears no relation to anything I've seen thus far. Furthermore, my original point stands noetheless - the vast majority of business leaders, economists and fiscal professionals (a good many from outwith the UK, thus a lesser or no vested interest) stand behind the cuts. For me, they have the edge on the vox populi.

Labour/Brown's building a client state of Labour-voting public sector workers was a good idea (albeit only for the retention of power, Brown's sole motivation) with one fundamental flaw - it was unaffordable in the long term if we concede that Brown didn't, in actual fact, end 'boom and bust'. That statement will define Brown's legacy, no matter how many books he writes laying the blame at the door of the US sub-prime market and the bankers that he failed to control.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'd be interested to learn of the sample, where it was taken etc. It bears no relation to anything I've seen thus far. Furthermore, my original point stands noetheless - the vast majority of business leaders, economists and fiscal professionals (a good many from outwith the UK, thus a lesser or no vested interest) stand behind the cuts. For me, they have the edge on the vox populi.

Labour/Brown's building a client state of Labour-voting public sector workers was a good idea (albeit only for the retention of power, Brown's sole motivation) with one fundamental flaw - it was unaffordable in the long term if we concede that Brown didn't, in actual fact, end 'boom and bust'. That statement will define Brown's legacy, no matter how many books he writes laying the blame at the door of the US sub-prime market and the bankers that he failed to control.

I think given everything that has happened in the last few years, trusting business and economists might not be the best policy:wink:

[RyeSloan]

It was a poll by pollster and was on the 10pm news last night

The majority of Britain did not vote for the Tories or any other party but that's irrelevant as you can vote for a party and then not agree with the policies they implement. As a lib dem voter this time around I am living proof of this.

Regarding brown, the bottom line is he made the right choices to spend and it stopped the recession being as bad as it could have been. Even a simple Guy like me can see that

What option did he have??? The laughable thing is though is that he had to BORROW every last penny of the stimulus because guess what...yup you guessed it he had overspent for a decade with absolutely no thought of the future.

As for the OP..I've seen the fliers "fight for every job".."don't privitse our services"...noce slogans but hardly grown up thoughts on how to solve the structural deficit are they. As for their web site...party political it sure is as it attacks the ConDems but I fail to see even a whisper about the mismanagement before and as for the statement "[the deficit] was not caused by out of control public spending"...now really come on, so 10 years of spending more than you are bringing in is now out of control and the structural deficit doesn't really exisit does it!!

Certianly won't be joining this march and I must say that although there is posturing from both sides the bare faced lack of acceptance of any liability at all from Labour and the Unions despite being in power in the years that the bust busted the country is simply amazing!

[bighairyfaeleith]

What option did he have??? The laughable thing is though is that he had to BORROW every last penny of the stimulus because guess what...yup you guessed it he had overspent for a decade with absolutely no thought of the future.

As for the OP..I've seen the fliers "fight for every job".."don't privitse our services"...noce slogans but hardly grown up thoughts on how to solve the structural deficit are they. As for their web site...party political it sure is as it attacks the ConDems but I fail to see even a whisper about the mismanagement before and as for the statement "[the deficit] was not caused by out of control public spending"...now really come on, so 10 years of spending more than you are bringing in is now out of control and the structural deficit doesn't really exisit does it!!

Certianly won't be joining this march and I must say that although there is posturing from both sides the bare faced lack of acceptance of any liability at all from Labour and the Unions despite being in power in the years that the bust busted the country is simply amazing!

I disagree on lots of your post, I have alos read the website and there is quite a lot of useful information on it, not just slogans but I'm guessing you don't actually want to read any further on the site than the front page.

As for brown, I'm not sure that the argument that he over spent for years holds much water given the state the country was left in by the last tory government and the years of under investment. Do you remember the NHS 15 years ago?

[RyeSloan]

I disagree on lots of your post, I have alos read the website and there is quite a lot of useful information on it, not just slogans but I'm guessing you don't actually want to read any further on the site than the front page.

As for brown, I'm not sure that the argument that he over spent for years holds much water given the state the country was left in by the last tory government and the years of under investment. Do you remember the NHS 15 years ago?

He DID overspend for years...you can't deny this. It was actually only during Labours first period in office where they have promised to keep to tory spending plans that they managed not to spend more than they took in!!

However that doens't mean that SOME of his spending wasn't required however the big question is on how. I think it's pretty widely accepted that Labour assumed throwing money at the NHS would 'fix' it yet despite massive amounts of extra cash the increase in productivity was far from closely correlated.

For your information I did read mnore than the front page and even quoted from another page!! As for 'more than just slogans...what about "Public sector pay is not out of line with private sector pay and pensions are entirely affordable."...oh aye that's a well thought out and argued comment isn't it.

You will excuse me if I don't click on the Join a Union link though! :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Let's just remind ourselves what George Osborne's remedy was when the banks were ready to topple - let them fall. That's right this brilliant Tory Chancellor thought it would be a good idea to let a major bank fold taking with it jobs, mortgages, businesses and God knows how many other financial institutions.

Some of our more Tebbit headed posters clearly haven't been paying attention. Brown and Labour did not cause the recession. It was caused by the collapse of the sub-prime market initially in the US and then had a domino effect around the world. What screwed our economy was the effect of the recession in dropping tax take though the floor, flattening demand and destroying growth. How many of your genius Tory politicans or economists predicted that? In fact when it came to regulation of the financial services markets the Tories were arguing that Labour was being too restrictive.

There is some amount of historical revisionism being attempted here that's for sure. If you voted for the Tories you've got them and all they stand for. However we got here it is all about choices now and its pretty clear to see they are making the same ones they always do. If the Institute for Fiscal Studies is telling you its unfair FFS its a pretty fair bet that its, um, unfair.

You asked for the Tories and now you are getting them - its on your head.

[Betty Boop]

I'd be interested to learn of the sample, where it was taken etc. It bears no relation to anything I've seen thus far. Furthermore, my original point stands noetheless - the vast majority of business leaders, economists and fiscal professionals (a good many from outwith the UK, thus a lesser or no vested interest) stand behind the cuts. For me, they have the edge on the vox populi.

Labour/Brown's building a client state of Labour-voting public sector workers was a good idea (albeit only for the retention of power, Brown's sole motivation) with one fundamental flaw - it was unaffordable in the long term if we concede that Brown didn't, in actual fact, end 'boom and bust'. That statement will define Brown's legacy, no matter how many books he writes laying the blame at the door of the US sub-prime market and the bankers that he failed to control.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies believe that the cuts are regressive, and will hit the poorest hardest.

[lucky]

As usual the Thatcherites are attempting to bend the truth. The whole point of the march and rally is to campaign for an alternative way. The aggressive and savage attacks on public services is ideological. The STUC are promoting alternatives such as a fairer tax system. I find it interesting that 35 business leaders write to a national paper supporting the cuts but how many of them use public service? Phillip Green was asked to do a report into public services at the same time he is Monaco based and his wife avoided paying corporation tax on the £250m divided she received from the Arcadia group. They are hypocrites.

Why should the poorest be hit the hardest. The defecit needs addressing but it should be done over two/three parliaments not this slash and burn antics that we are seeing now.

[Leicester Fan]

What part of 'there is no money' do you people not get?

[Nakedmanoncrack]

What part of 'there is no money' do you people not get?
:rotflmao::rotflmao:

[New Corrie]

Only in Scotland, could the Conservatives get blamed for a shambles that they couldn't possibly have had anything to do with.

[bingo70]

Only in Scotland, could the Conservatives get blamed for a shambles that they couldn't possibly have had anything to do with.

That open line of yours does my head in, you say it all the time when it's clearly not true.

That said i actually agree with the general point, the cutbacks aren't the tories fault, we're in rakes of debt so to pay it back we've got to cutback on what we're spending, don't see what options there are really :confused:

[Mibbes Aye]

That open line of yours does my head in, you say it all the time when it's clearly not true.

That said i actually agree with the general point, the cutbacks aren't the tories fault, we're in rakes of debt so to pay it back we've got to cutback on what we're spending, don't see what options there are really :confused:

You or I might cut our spending in order to reduce debt - it's not the same for governments. They have more options.

Someone posted earlier that you can spend less or raise taxes. Raising taxes is certainly an alternative, but one that brings its own issues.

What's being missed is that economic growth allows you to raise more in tax, without necessarily having to raise tax.

Reducing the deficit is important but it doesn't have to be done at the pace the Tories want.

And it doesn't have to be done simply through cuts.

Cuts on the Tory scale damage the chance for economic growth, which is the best, least painful way of reducing any deficit.

A combination of prudent cuts that don't hinder economic growth and tax rises that make sure everyone pays their fair share is surely a much better way than Cameron and Clegg's "slash and burn" approach, with the old, the poor, the young and the weak first in the Tory firing line.

[lucky]

Excellent post. It explains exactly that there are alternatives to the governments plans

[One Day Soon]

What part of 'there is no money' do you people not get?

The part where there is enough money for your Tory chums to look after the richest but not enough to look after the poorest.

[magpie1892]

The part where there is enough money for your Tory chums to look after the richest but not enough to look after the poorest.

You're just being silly now.

Public money - borrowed public money - was being hosed at the public sector to create a client state of people that would vote Labour ad infinitum. Thatcher tried something similar in the 80s by smashing the unions, implementing right to buy and promoting privatisations designed to make 'the man in the street' stakeholders. Labour's MO was slightly less aspirational - just make as many people as possible reliant on the state.

In Newcastle, 40% of the workforce is employed by the public sector. 40%.

You can argue that the spending cuts are idealogical, and you may have a point. But I ask you this - is an idealogical cut any more egregious than idealogical spending? That's what we had under 13 years of Labour, whose policies became more 'scorched earth' the closer we got to the election. I used to think Labour were just hapless economists who believed in the tree of infinite money. The Blair/Brown dynasty now has me of the opinion that the Labour Party has been hijacked and morphed into something quite evil. Illegal wars, hundreds of thousands dead, ID cards, complicity in torture, CCTV up the ass, detention without trial, 10,000 new criminal offences, lies/spin/deceit/theft, forcing multiculturalism on a people without consent (or even bothering to ask), Lisbon Treaty, and so on.

The death of John Smith becomes more tragic by the day.

[magpie1892]

Excellent post. It explains exactly that there are alternatives to the governments plans

I hope you're being sarcastic. That post was just a lot of hot air and soundbites!

[Beefster]

You or I might cut our spending in order to reduce debt - it's not the same for governments. They have more options.

Someone posted earlier that you can spend less or raise taxes. Raising taxes is certainly an alternative, but one that brings its own issues.

What's being missed is that economic growth allows you to raise more in tax, without necessarily having to raise tax.

Reducing the deficit is important but it doesn't have to be done at the pace the Tories want.

And it doesn't have to be done simply through cuts.

Cuts on the Tory scale damage the chance for economic growth, which is the best, least painful way of reducing any deficit.

A combination of prudent cuts that don't hinder economic growth and tax rises that make sure everyone pays their fair share is surely a much better way than Cameron and Clegg's "slash and burn" approach, with the old, the poor, the young and the weak first in the Tory firing line.

Convince me to that it's not all rhetoric and to change my mind.

How are the old 'in the Tory firing line'? Losing their fuel allowance? Nope. Losing their bus pass? Nope. Getting a more generous state pension? Yup.

For the poor and young - Less tax for low income workers? Yup. Lowest paid public sector workers being exempt from the pay freeze? Yup. Losing their child benefit like the middle classes? Nope. Paying for a drop in CGT? Nope, CGT is rising for the wealthier. Schools budget being decimated? Nope, the poorest are getting more money. Children from lower-paid families losing their pre-school education. Nope, it's increasing. Council tax going up? Nope, frozen for 2 years.

For the weak (I'm not even sure who 'The weak' are) - NHS spending being cut? Nope.

As I said yesterday, it's easy to throw out soundbites about 'the poor, the weak, the old, the children, won't someone think of the children?'. There is, inevitably, pain for everyone but let's not pretend that it's one-way traffic.

PS For everyone throwing about IFS figures, they've already admitted that they are incomplete so, while they may be part of the debate, they're not the be all and end all.

[magpie1892]

Convince me to that it's not all rhetoric and to change my mind.

How are the old 'in the Tory firing line'? Losing their fuel allowance? Nope. Losing their bus pass? Nope. Getting a more generous state pension? Yup.

For the poor and young - Less tax for low income workers? Yup. Lowest paid public sector workers being exempt from the pay freeze? Yup. Losing their child benefit like the middle classes? Nope. Paying for a drop in CGT? Nope, CGT is rising for the wealthier. Schools budget being decimated? Nope, the poorest are getting more money. Children from lower-paid families losing their pre-school education. Nope, it's increasing. Council tax going up? Nope, frozen for 2 years.

For the weak (I'm not even sure who 'The weak' are) - NHS spending being cut? Nope.

As I said yesterday, it's easy to throw out soundbites about 'the poor, the weak, the old, the children, won't someone think of the children?'. There is, inevitably, pain for everyone but let's not pretend that it's one-way traffic.

PS For everyone throwing about IFS figures, they've already admitted that they are incomplete so, while they may be part of the debate, they're not the be all and end all.

Good post.

It's the binary opposition that disappoints. The Tories are doing it, therefore it must be bad. I'm no lover of the Tories but they've no choice but to cut and cut savagely to attempt to rectify the default mess that the economy is in after a Labour government.

[Groathillgrump]

I'll be there this morning. If you're not going up to Aberdeen today and you oppose these ideological cuts, get yourself along to East Market Street at 11.00am

http://www.thereisabetterway.org/events/1/there-is-a-better-way-demo/

[Leicester Fan]

You or I might cut our spending in order to reduce debt - it's not the same for governments. They have more options.

Someone posted earlier that you can spend less or raise taxes. Raising taxes is certainly an alternative, but one that brings its own issues.

What's being missed is that economic growth allows you to raise more in tax, without necessarily having to raise tax.

Reducing the deficit is important but it doesn't have to be done at the pace the Tories want.

And it doesn't have to be done simply through cuts.

Cuts on the Tory scale damage the chance for economic growth, which is the best, least painful way of reducing any deficit.

A combination of prudent cuts that don't hinder economic growth and tax rises that make sure everyone pays their fair share is surely a much better way than Cameron and Clegg's "slash and burn" approach, with the old, the poor, the young and the weak first in the Tory firing line.

Just to add to what's already been said;
Raising taxes also slows growth.
We're already paying £40billion a year in interest on the money borrowed, the longer it takes to reduce the deficit the higher that figure will grow meaning even bigger cuts in the future.

[bighairyfaeleith]

What part of 'there is no money' do you people not get?

Sorry should we be more subservient:rolleyes:

[bighairyfaeleith]

Convince me to that it's not all rhetoric and to change my mind.

How are the old 'in the Tory firing line'? Losing their fuel allowance? Nope. Losing their bus pass? Nope. Getting a more generous state pension? Yup.

For the poor and young - Less tax for low income workers? Yup. Lowest paid public sector workers being exempt from the pay freeze? Yup. Losing their child benefit like the middle classes? Nope. Paying for a drop in CGT? Nope, CGT is rising for the wealthier. Schools budget being decimated? Nope, the poorest are getting more money. Children from lower-paid families losing their pre-school education. Nope, it's increasing. Council tax going up? Nope, frozen for 2 years.

For the weak (I'm not even sure who 'The weak' are) - NHS spending being cut? Nope.

As I said yesterday, it's easy to throw out soundbites about 'the poor, the weak, the old, the children, won't someone think of the children?'. There is, inevitably, pain for everyone but let's not pretend that it's one-way traffic.

PS For everyone throwing about IFS figures, they've already admitted that they are incomplete so, while they may be part of the debate, they're not the be all and end all.

Just a small point but the schools budget for many schools is in fact going to drop.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Just to add to what's already been said;
Raising taxes also slows growth.
We're already paying £40billion a year in interest on the money borrowed, the longer it takes to reduce the deficit the higher that figure will grow meaning even bigger cuts in the future.

It won't slow growth as much as adding at least 500k (more likely 1million) people to the dole queue.

I'd quite happily pay some extra tax, because to be honest most of the cuts so far have left me alone, but I don't want to see lots of people lose there jobs, I don't want to see lots of businesses that rely on the public sector for contracts etc going to the wall, so yes I would accept paying some more income tax!!

Would you?

[Leicester Fan]

It won't slow growth as much as adding at least 500k (more likely 1million) people to the dole queue.

I'd quite happily pay some extra tax, because to be honest most of the cuts so far have left me alone, but I don't want to see lots of people lose there jobs, I don't want to see lots of businesses that rely on the public sector for contracts etc going to the wall, so yes I would accept paying some more income tax!!

Would you?

Taxes have gone up already though. Labour put up the highest rate of tax to 50%, part of Labours proposed rise in NI has been implemented. VAT is going up in the new year.

Would I like to pay higher taxes to keep people in jobs? Depends on which people. We've all heard stories from people who work in the public sector, we all know the waste there is.Would I be happy paying higher taxes to protect the public sector index linked, early retirement pensions? Not on your life. I don't remember the unions complaining when Gordon Brown took £5billion a year out of private pensions.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Taxes have gone up already though. Labour put up the highest rate of tax to 50%, part of Labours proposed rise in NI has been implemented. VAT is going up in the new year.

Would I like to pay higher taxes to keep people in jobs? Depends on which people. We've all heard stories from people who work in the public sector, we all know the waste there is.Would I be happy paying higher taxes to protect the public sector index linked, early retirement pensions? Not on your life. I don't remember the unions complaining when Gordon Brown took £5billion a year out of private pensions.

So you reckon there are 500,000 wasters working in the public sector?

You really are a tory aren't you:tee hee:

[Leicester Fan]

You really are a tory aren't you:tee hee:

Blue and proud.:wink:

[lucky]

20000 turn up today. Excellent turn out the fight goes on. if 500000 jobs go in the public sector 500000 go in the private sector. This is not public v private its about think there are alternatives to the slash and burn policies put in place by the Con Dems.

[Beefster]

Just a small point but the schools budget for many schools is in fact going to drop.

A small point that's not relevant to my argument, unless you're making the claim that it's only poor schools that are being targeted.

Either way, the overall budget is protected. Any flow of cash to poorer performing schools will, inevitably, mean that some better schools will have to get by on less.

[bighairyfaeleith]

A small point that's not relevant to my argument, unless you're making the claim that it's only poor schools that are being targeted.

Either way, the overall budget is protected. Any flow of cash to poorer performing schools will, inevitably, mean that some better schools will have to get by on less.

Not sure that it isn't relevant, not seen the whole detail yet but it looks like the budget is being increased due to the 7 billion pupil premium, however the overall budget has only increased by 4 billion, so actually the vast majority of schools will face cuts. Schools with more disadvantaged children might not lose out, but there not really gaining.

If your a school that doesn't get the pupil premium you will be losing out. I might be niave but what this means is the good schools will get worse and move closer to the level of the poorer performing schools making it more FAIR!

or is that too simplistic.

[bighairyfaeleith]

20000 turn up today. Excellent turn out the fight goes on. if 500000 jobs go in the public sector 500000 go in the private sector. This is not public v private its about think there are alternatives to the slash and burn policies put in place by the Con Dems.

Thats an impressive turn out, a lot of people obviously don't understand that "theres no money" :wink:

[NYHibby]

I'd quite happily pay some extra tax

HM Treasury
1 Horse Guards Road
London
SW1A 2HQ

There you go, no need to thank me

[bighairyfaeleith]

HM Treasury
1 Horse Guards Road
London
SW1A 2HQ

There you go, no need to thank me

Cheers now if I only had some stamps:wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Other things they could cut #2: Stop giving universities money to train nurses when there are already too many looking for jobs. (Joined up thinking).

[One Day Soon]

You're just being silly now.

Public money - borrowed public money - was being hosed at the public sector to create a client state of people that would vote Labour ad infinitum. Thatcher tried something similar in the 80s by smashing the unions, implementing right to buy and promoting privatisations designed to make 'the man in the street' stakeholders. Labour's MO was slightly less aspirational - just make as many people as possible reliant on the state.

If you really believe that the level of public spending under New Labour had something to do with trying to create a 'client state' then you are either extraordinarily ill informed or just not that bright. You don't use PPP/PFI quite so extensively as New labour did to build schools, hospitals etc if your objective is to create some kind of proto-Stalinist gulag in which the epsilon semi-morons are mindlessly dependent uppon the state. A number of you involved in this debate are very confused - on the one hand this was a giant social experiment aimed at making a sinister client state in which everyone was dependent upon and controlled by the state and on the other hand these free wheeling right wing New Labour capitalists are entirely responsible for the global recession because of their Socialist determination to under regulate the financial services markets and institutions.

In Newcastle, 40% of the workforce is employed by the public sector. 40%.

And your point is?

You can argue that the spending cuts are idealogical, and you may have a point. But I ask you this - is an idealogical cut any more egregious than idealogical spending? That's what we had under 13 years of Labour, whose policies became more 'scorched earth' the closer we got to the election. I used to think Labour were just hapless economists who believed in the tree of infinite money. The Blair/Brown dynasty now has me of the opinion that the Labour Party has been hijacked and morphed into something quite evil. Illegal wars, hundreds of thousands dead, ID cards, complicity in torture, CCTV up the ass, detention without trial, 10,000 new criminal offences, lies/spin/deceit/theft, forcing multiculturalism on a people without consent (or even bothering to ask), Lisbon Treaty, and so on.

Labour was explicit about being for the many and not the few. The objective was to level up and create opportunity for all. That's why the windfall levy on the privatised utilities was used to set up the modern apprenticeships scheme. Note too that this was to create skilled workers for the private sector, not the public sector. The COCs on the other hand are claiming that everyone is in this together while at the same time implementing an ideological attack on collective provision which will explicitly mean that we are not 'all in it together'. It will mean, contrary to their lying weasel words, that the poor will pay a far higher price than the richest.

What illegal war are you talking about? There was no illegal war and your parroting the received wisdom of the liberal media to that effect is just garbage. As to the rest of your unsubstantiated diatribe I would say this, it is best if you use the Tory Central Office press release it reads as though it is taken from as toilet paper. I'm not even going to ask what your bizarre reference point is over enforced multi culturalism or the Lisbon treaty.

The death of John Smith becomes more tragic by the day.

The death of John Smith doesn't become more tragic by the day. It always was tragic and it is no more or less so now. I doubt you ever knew him so please don't try to project your own view of the world on to his.

In general terms I think your post is a load of unadulterated crap. A first year politics student could manage a more coherent and considerably less jaundiced line of argument.

[Leicester Fan]

In general terms I think your post is a load of unadulterated crap. A first year politics student could manage a more coherent and considerably less jaundiced line of argument.

Ironic.

[One Day Soon]

Ironic.

Shouldn't you be busy polishing your Maggie Thatcher picture collection or getting ready for your next Rotary Club meeting?

[magpie1892]

The death of John Smith doesn't become more tragic by the day. It always was tragic and it is no more or less so now. I doubt you ever knew him so please don't try to project your own view of the world on to his.

In general terms I think your post is a load of unadulterated crap. A first year politics student could manage a more coherent and considerably less jaundiced line of argument.

I did know John Smith, I went out with one of his daughters (Catherine), but my personal opinion of the man isn't relevant to what his premature death allowed to happen to the Labour party and, by extension, the UK.

I would describe your post in much the same terms as you do mine. I've never studied politics so I have no idea if your assessment is accurate but in terms of your overall review, I would have to concur with the descriptor applied by another poster here - 'ironic'. You don't actually make any salient points or construct any arguments, it's just self-satisfied, aggressive nonsense with a bit of personal abuse thrown in for good measure.

You're not, er, Liverpool Hibs posting under another login, are you?

[magpie1892]

Shouldn't you be busy polishing your Maggie Thatcher picture collection or getting ready for your next Rotary Club meeting?

That's a cracking rejoinder. Funny, insightful, makes some 'coherent' points.

:top marksWell done.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Shouldn't you be busy polishing your Maggie Thatcher picture collection or getting ready for your next Rotary Club meeting?

:tee hee: I can almost picture him staring at his maggie portrait above his fireplace, tear in the eye when the cow finally crokes it:greengrin

[magpie1892]

:tee hee: I can almost picture him staring at his maggie portrait above his fireplace, tear in the eye when the cow finally crokes it:greengrin

I'm not much of a fan of Thatcher but I don't think you want to join One Day Soon's club, as he's making himself look a bit of a rasper today!

[Betty Boop]

I did know John Smith, I went out with one of his daughters (Catherine), but my personal opinion of the man isn't relevant to what his premature death allowed to happen to the Labour party and, by extension, the UK.

I would describe your post in much the same terms as you do mine. I've never studied politics so I have no idea if your assessment is accurate but in terms of your overall review, I would have to concur with the descriptor applied by another poster here - 'ironic'. You don't actually make any salient points or construct any arguments, it's just self-satisfied, aggressive nonsense with a bit of personal abuse thrown in for good measure.

You're not, er, Liverpool Hibs posting under another login, are you?
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Liverpool Hibs. :greengrin

[magpie1892]

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Liverpool Hibs. :greengrin

Not as a person (never met him), nor as an 'intellect', but his debating technique? Yes, I have a huge problem with that. Far from alone, it seems...!

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm not much of a fan of Thatcher but I don't think you want to join One Day Soon's club, as he's making himself look a bit of a rasper today!

I think you maybe need to learn to chill a bit:cool2:

[magpie1892]

I think you maybe need to learn to chill a bit:cool2:

Hey, it was lively but constructive and mostly sensible until ODS turned up shouting the odds and insulting people.

For instance, see my response to one of your posts, where I said 'I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it' to ODS' aggression and lack of courtesy. Compare and contrast.


Not sure I am the one who needs to 'learn to chill', on this thread at least.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Hey, it was lively but constructive and mostly sensible until ODS turned up shouting the odds and insulting people.

For instance, see my response to one of your posts, where I said 'I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it' to ODS' aggression and lack of courtesy. Compare and contrast.


Not sure I am the one who needs to 'learn to chill', on this thread at least.

I think your post was a fair response to the point about John Smith, and you were within your rights to come back the way you did.

Pity you talk such guff about politics though. :devil: :greengrin

Not aiming this at you, but it seems in all this criticism of Labour's spending an important point is being missed. Namely that the money was spent making a lot of people's lives better (and some chancers as well). The health of a nation should be shouldn't be measured in financial terms alone.

What are the condoms really attacking? Is it the money that Labour spent, or what they spent it on?

[magpie1892]

I think your post was a fair response to the point about John Smith, and you were within your rights to come back the way you did.

Me too.


Pity you talk such guff about politics though. :devil: :greengrin

Not aiming this at you, but it seems in all this criticism of Labour's spending an important point is being missed. Namely that the money was spent making a lot of people's lives better (and some chancers as well). The health of a nation should be shouldn't be measured in financial terms alone.

What are the condoms really attacking? Is it the money that Labour spent, or what they spent it on?I don't disagree with your first point (er, after your cheeky wee aside, of course). I would strongly posit that the money was not, in the main, wisely spent. The NHS budget is three times what it was when Labour came to power - and this is ringfenced - but I simply don't believe the NHS is three times 'better'.

In answer to your last question/s, I think it's undeniably a bit of both. My earlier suggestion is that I don't think it can be considered 'evil' to make ideological cuts to what was ideological expenditure...

[Leicester Fan]

Shouldn't you be busy polishing your Maggie Thatcher picture collection or getting ready for your next Rotary Club meeting?

That's a rather jaundiced reply isn't it?

Fyi I'm an ordinary working class painter and decorator.I don't belong to the Rotary Club or any political party.

[Leicester Fan]

Not aiming this at you, but it seems in all this criticism of Labour's spending an important point is being missed. Namely that the money was spent making a lot of people's lives better (and some chancers as well).

If I took out a load of bank loans, run up huge debts on my credit card my life would be better for a while. Eventually that money would have to be repaid and if I didn't have it my life would get a lot worse. If I went bankrupt then the people who lent the money in the first place would be worse off too, through no fault of their own.

It's not being mean to vulnerable people as an act of spite it's simply acting responsibly.

[bighairyfaeleith]

If I took out a load of bank loans, run up huge debts on my credit card my life would be better for a while. Eventually that money would have to be repaid and if I didn't have it my life would get a lot worse. If I went bankrupt then the people who lent the money in the first place would be worse off too, through no fault of their own.

It's not being mean to vulnerable people as an act of spite it's simply acting responsibly.

If I was married with three kids and earnt say 1k a month, but I had say 10k of debt. I would plan my repayments in an affordable manner, I wouldn't pay it off faster and say sod it one of my kids can go without schooling, food, clothes etc because I'll still have two good kids.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Hey, it was lively but constructive and mostly sensible until ODS turned up shouting the odds and insulting people.

For instance, see my response to one of your posts, where I said 'I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it' to ODS' aggression and lack of courtesy. Compare and contrast.


Not sure I am the one who needs to 'learn to chill', on this thread at least.

I think you have both baited each other to be honest, suppose it just depends who wants to rise above the "he started it argument":wink:

[Leicester Fan]

If I was married with three kids and earnt say 1k a month, but I had say 10k of debt. I would plan my repayments in an affordable manner, I wouldn't pay it off faster and say sod it one of my kids can go without schooling, food, clothes etc because I'll still have two good kids.

Alternatively you could have not run up the debt in the first place.

[One Day Soon]

I did know John Smith, I went out with one of his daughters (Catherine), but my personal opinion of the man isn't relevant to what his premature death allowed to happen to the Labour party and, by extension, the UK.

So let me get this straight, you are saying below that you have no in depth knowledge of politics but on the basis of having gone out with one of his daughters you feel you can make a judgment about John Smith's political ideology, his ambitions for the Labour Party and the difference his death made to the direction the party took? That's a bit like saying - in fact its exactly like saying - "I don't know anything about football or Hibs but I once dated Yogi's daughter and on that basis I think his resignation from the managerial position was tragic for Hibs". How exactly can you evidence that his death led to the Labour Party taking a direction it would not otherwise have taken? I can tell you that most of the people who worked with him also worked at the centre of New Labour, that his two most influential political figures during his leadership were Blair and Brown and that the closest they ever got to an ideological difference was over tax rates for higher rate earners - a pretty marginal difference of position when you consider the pantheon of policy over which they did not differ.

I would describe your post in much the same terms as you do mine. I've never studied politics so I have no idea if your assessment is accurate but in terms of your overall review, I would have to concur with the descriptor applied by another poster here - 'ironic'. You don't actually make any salient points or construct any arguments, it's just self-satisfied, aggressive nonsense with a bit of personal abuse thrown in for good measure.

No salient points?

I challenged you on your proposition that there was an illegal war, and you ignored it.

I challenged your proposition that "Public money - borrowed public money - was being hosed at the public sector to create a client state of people that would vote Labour ad infinitum" pointing out that the very extensive use of PPP/PFI flew directly in the face of your contention, and you ignored it.

I challenged your suggestion that ideological cuts were no worse than ideological spending by pointing out that Labour was entirely open in its intention to work "for the many and not the few" whereas the coalition you seem to admire so much is both loading the burden of cuts unfairly on the poorest more heavily while at the same time hypocritically lying and spinning that "we are all in this together", and you ignored it.

While we are at it let's move on to your assertion about imposing multi-culturalism. What did you mean by that or will you ignore that point too?

You're not, er, Liverpool Hibs posting under another login, are you?

No, I'm not LH. If I was I would probably tell you I didn't accept your paradigm and then refuse to put forward any constructive alternative proposals.


magpie1892

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bighairyfaeleith http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2617044#post2617044)
I think you maybe need to learn to chill a bit:cool2:

Hey, it was lively but constructive and mostly sensible until ODS turned up shouting the odds and insulting people.

The reason I intervened in the discussion was because you - and one or two others - were serially misrepresenting the truth.

1. You said: "Brown's economic incompetence made these cuts necessary, no-one else." Yet the truth is that these cuts are the consequence of two related events, the crisis in the global financial system and the global recession. Perhaps you can explain how Gordon Brown was in charge of a) the global financial system and b) the global economy? Do you imagine that other economies are not in precisely the same position of having to cut back public spending? If so what do you think the French are currently demonstrating about? If your proposition that 'a big Gordon Brown did it and ran away' was correct then we would be the only economy struggling with this problem - we are not and therefore your proposition is ridiculous.

2. You said: "Brown set up the FSA to, apparently, 'regulate' the banks and their behaviours - despite being warned by numerous people that he was effectively giving carte blanche to the bankers, a free pass to do as they pleased." Yet the Tories at the time and afterward were arguing that the regulation set up by Labour was too restrictive. This suggests that a) the tories didn't have a clue then, just as they don't now and b) you and a number of others (the pompous and self satisfied Vince Cable being the worst example) are being extremely wise after the event.

Let's be clear on this point too. What regulation would you have wanted in place that wasn't already there? Remember that much of the toxic debt created in the States in the sub-prime market was parcelled up with 'healthy' debt and then re-sold to other third parties, effectively disguising the ticking time bomb within. That's why virtually every advanced economy on the planet with any significant banking institutions have found themselves infected with the same symptoms from the core problem.


3. You said: "prominent economic and business bodies have lined up, to a man and woman, behind the cuts with some suggesting they are not deep enough. Er, no they haven't. The IFS for example, one of the most fiscally rigorous bodies you will find in the UK, has not supported that position. So your claim that they have lined up "to a man and woman" is factually incorrect.


4. You said: "I dispute your assertion that you are not in the minority with your opinion of the Tories. In Scotland, probably not, but UK wide? More people voted for the Tories than anyone else, hence a Tory-led govt." Except that the election turnout was 65% and of that the Tories secured 36% of votes cast. Which means they are in the minority, in power with the positive support of about 25% of those eligible to vote and only there with the support of the Wee Tories.

5. You said: "That statement will define Brown's legacy, no matter how many books he writes laying the blame at the door of the US sub-prime market and the bankers that he failed to control." How do you imagine the recession started? What was its cause? Why if we in the UK were uniquely blessed with an incompetent Chancellor/Prime Minister are we not the only country in the world going through this same economic and public spending challenge?


For instance, see my response to one of your posts, where I said 'I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it' to ODS' aggression and lack of courtesy. Compare and contrast.

That's fair enough. I haven't respected your opinion because I don't agree with it. If you don't like the force of my argument I don't apologise for that, though any lack of courtesy I'm happy to recant.

[One Day Soon]

That's a rather jaundiced reply isn't it?

Fyi I'm an ordinary working class painter and decorator.I don't belong to the Rotary Club or any political party.

Not really. You described your self as "blue and proud" so I think the Maggie jibe is fair. I'll just about give you the Rotary Club - though why you would imagine there aren't plenty of working class Tory painters and decorators in the Rotary Club I don't know.

Maybe next time give me a little more to go on in the discussion than "ironic" and I won't have to draw my own conclusions.

[One Day Soon]

Alternatively you could have not run up the debt in the first place.

Except that is a bit like saying that you wished you hadn't taken out a mortgage and a personal loan which you were repaying quite happily until the bank went bust and you lost your job.

Your alternative wouldn't see a lot of spending in the economy and certainly a lot less painting and decorating.

[hibsdaft]

i'll post that Fraser Nelson (100% true blue, Thatcher worshipper) column again.

he's pretty up front - these cuts are ideological. the deficit is just cover and would have been dealt with comfortably by the Alister Darling plan regardless.

even Cameron's own economic advisers say so.

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

[magpie1892]

No, I'm not LH. If I was I would probably tell you I didn't accept your paradigm and then refuse to put forward any constructive alternative proposals.


magpie1892
http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bighairyfaeleith http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=2617044#post2617044)
I think you maybe need to learn to chill a bit:cool2:

Hey, it was lively but constructive and mostly sensible until ODS turned up shouting the odds and insulting people.

The reason I intervened in the discussion was because you - and one or two others - were serially misrepresenting the truth.

1. You said: "Brown's economic incompetence made these cuts necessary, no-one else." Yet the truth is that these cuts are the consequence of two related events, the crisis in the global financial system and the global recession. Perhaps you can explain how Gordon Brown was in charge of a) the global financial system and b) the global economy? Do you imagine that other economies are not in precisely the same position of having to cut back public spending? If so what do you think the French are currently demonstrating about? If your proposition that 'a big Gordon Brown did it and ran away' was correct then we would be the only economy struggling with this problem - we are not and therefore your proposition is ridiculous.

2. You said: "Brown set up the FSA to, apparently, 'regulate' the banks and their behaviours - despite being warned by numerous people that he was effectively giving carte blanche to the bankers, a free pass to do as they pleased." Yet the Tories at the time and afterward were arguing that the regulation set up by Labour was too restrictive. This suggests that a) the tories didn't have a clue then, just as they don't now and b) you and a number of others (the pompous and self satisfied Vince Cable being the worst example) are being extremely wise after the event.

Let's be clear on this point too. What regulation would you have wanted in place that wasn't already there? Remember that much of the toxic debt created in the States in the sub-prime market was parcelled up with 'healthy' debt and then re-sold to other third parties, effectively disguising the ticking time bomb within. That's why virtually every advanced economy on the planet with any significant banking institutions have found themselves infected with the same symptoms from the core problem.


3. You said: "prominent economic and business bodies have lined up, to a man and woman, behind the cuts with some suggesting they are not deep enough. Er, no they haven't. The IFS for example, one of the most fiscally rigorous bodies you will find in the UK, has not supported that position. So your claim that they have lined up "to a man and woman" is factually incorrect.


4. You said: "I dispute your assertion that you are not in the minority with your opinion of the Tories. In Scotland, probably not, but UK wide? More people voted for the Tories than anyone else, hence a Tory-led govt." Except that the election turnout was 65% and of that the Tories secured 36% of votes cast. Which means they are in the minority, in power with the positive support of about 25% of those eligible to vote and only there with the support of the Wee Tories.

5. You said: "That statement will define Brown's legacy, no matter how many books he writes laying the blame at the door of the US sub-prime market and the bankers that he failed to control." How do you imagine the recession started? What was its cause? Why if we in the UK were uniquely blessed with an incompetent Chancellor/Prime Minister are we not the only country in the world going through this same economic and public spending challenge?


For instance, see my response to one of your posts, where I said 'I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it' to ODS' aggression and lack of courtesy. Compare and contrast.

That's fair enough. I haven't respected your opinion because I don't agree with it. If you don't like the force of my argument I don't apologise for that, though any lack of courtesy I'm happy to recant.


You're telling only half the story. We'll have to agree to differ.

The phrase 'an end to boom and bust' pretty much sums up a lot of my argument. You will, of course, recognise the source of that quote.

Good that you recognise the personal comments were a bit off though.

[One Day Soon]

You're telling only half the story. We'll have to agree to differ.

The phrase 'an end to boom and bust' pretty much sums up a lot of my argument. You will, of course, recognise the source of that quote.

Good that you recognise the personal comments were a bit off though.

We are not agreeing to differ - you are basically unable or unwilling to back up the range of claims and assertions you made and are now vacating the field.

What personal comments?

[Beefster]

If I was married with three kids and earnt say 1k a month, but I had say 10k of debt. I would plan my repayments in an affordable manner, I wouldn't pay it off faster and say sod it one of my kids can go without schooling, food, clothes etc because I'll still have two good kids.

It would be more akin to you earning £1k a month, having total debt of £15k and still spending £1,350 a month.

If you don't make serious cuts to your spending, you won't be paying any of the debt off at all. In the meantime, the interest accruing on the debt means that the debt is ever rising. If you don't deal with it, the kids won't be going on holiday, getting new laptops or heading to university any time soon.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It would be more akin to you earning £1k a month, having total debt of £15k and still spending £1,350 a month.

If you don't make serious cuts to your spending, you won't be paying any of the debt off at all. In the meantime, the interest accruing on the debt means that the debt is ever rising. If you don't deal with it, the kids won't be going on holiday, getting new laptops or heading to university any time soon.

And there lies the fundamental flaw in the tories argument, rather than acknowledge that actually you can pay a bit less and still pay off your debt you choose to go for the scare tactic instead to force through your views.

[magpie1892]

We are not agreeing to differ - you are basically unable or unwilling to back up the range of claims and assertions you made and are now vacating the field.

What personal comments?


OK, I am agreeing that we will differ. I am not vacating the field, I just don't think you and I have anything to discuss based on your initial comments in this thread, which were aggressive, rude and not inviting serious debate.

Personal comments: - what you said about John Smith was mildly offensive on a personal level and I wasn't the only one that noticed. Your comment to Leicester Fan about 'Maggie portrait/Rotary Club' was pretty childish as well.

You felt compelled, you say, to enter the fray to refute a lot of what had been said previously with which you did not agree, but it's not like the 'anti-cutters' were taking a verbal beating; they didn't cry out as one for your particular and peculiar brand of salvation. You entered the discussion with a spectacularly puerile and flailing outburst (again, this was noted by disparate parties) with which it was near-impossible to engage, so I just called you on the rude bits.

I am always willing to back up my claims, but only with someone who can debate in an adult fashion. If you are that person then you should have another go and we'll forget about your tedious debut in this thread.

[magpie1892]

And there lies the fundamental flaw in the tories argument, rather than acknowledge that actually you can pay a bit less and still pay off your debt you choose to go for the scare tactic instead to force through your views.

At the risk of sounding trite, I don't get what you're saying here. The Tories could 'cut a bit less' than they are doing, is that it? Why not try and get the deficit down quickly, to reduce the GBP120 million interest that the national debt is accruing each and every day?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Me too.

I don't disagree with your first point (er, after your cheeky wee aside, of course). I would strongly posit that the money was not, in the main, wisely spent. The NHS budget is three times what it was when Labour came to power - and this is ringfenced - but I simply don't believe the NHS is three times 'better'.

In answer to your last question/s, I think it's undeniably a bit of both. My earlier suggestion is that I don't think it can be considered 'evil' to make ideological cuts to what was ideological expenditure...

How does anyone measure the NHS's performance? What I would say that there were many things that had to put right after years of under investment. Naturally, there will be an increase to address that.


Alternatively you could have not run up the debt in the first place.

Yes, rather than take on a mortgage to buy a house, you could live in a tent.


At the risk of sounding trite, I don't get what you're saying here. The Tories could 'cut a bit less' than they are doing, is that it? Why not try and get the deficit down quickly, to reduce the GBP120 million interest that the national debt is accruing each and every day?

I think the point is that the cuts can be done more gradually.

[magpie1892]

How does anyone measure the NHS's performance? What I would say that there were many things that had to put right after years of under investment. Naturally, there will be an increase to address that.

An increase, yes, but a tripling of the budget? It's academic anyhoo as this is not to be touched but there are many within the NHS (I know of a couple personally) who bemoan the huge sums locked in PFI as well as the explosion in middle management 'consultants', not to mention the crazy sums that GPs now enjoy for no appreciable increase in their output or, if anecdotal evidence is worth anything, an actual decrease in time at the coal face.






Yes, rather than take on a mortgage to buy a house, you could live in a tent.

What about taking out a mortgage you can afford and planning for contingencies?! Rather like the Australian government did, saving in 'good times' and thus having the resources to hand to stimulate the economy and become the first nation out of the recession. Why did we not do that? Why did Brown continue to operate a structural deficit during a period of record tax receipts?


I think the point is that the cuts can be done more gradually.

Yeah, think so. On a personal level, I tend to pay off my credit card as quickly as I can. Makes sense in the long term. I understand that domestic financial husbandry does not directly equate to the economic health of a nation but the sums being paid in interest are quite staggering.

[bighairyfaeleith]

At the risk of sounding trite, I don't get what you're saying here. The Tories could 'cut a bit less' than they are doing, is that it? Why not try and get the deficit down quickly, to reduce the GBP120 million interest that the national debt is accruing each and every day?

This is hard work, right the argument that everyone has been having is how fast to cut, not whether to cut.

My point is that the tories keep trying to say that we have to cut hard and fast, what I and lots of other people are saying is that this will damage growth and it is better to cut slower, but still cut never the less.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Yeah, think so. On a personal level, I tend to pay off my credit card as quickly as I can. Makes sense in the long term. I understand that domestic financial husbandry does not directly equate to the economic health of a nation but the sums being paid in interest are quite staggering.

Yes but would you pay it off quicker than you can afford?

[magpie1892]

This is hard work, right the argument that everyone has been having is how fast to cut, not whether to cut.

My point is that the tories keep trying to say that we have to cut hard and fast, what I and lots of other people are saying is that this will damage growth and it is better to cut slower, but still cut never the less.

Understood.

[One Day Soon]

OK, I am agreeing that we will differ. I am not vacating the field, I just don't think you and I have anything to discuss based on your initial comments in this thread, which were aggressive, rude and not inviting serious debate.

I have re-read my first post. Which bit did you find rude, the reference to Tebbit headed posters? If so you need to develop a thicker skin.

Personal comments: - what you said about John Smith was mildly offensive on a personal level and I wasn't the only one that noticed. Your comment to Leicester Fan about 'Maggie portrait/Rotary Club' was pretty childish as well.

I called you on your ability to make a judgment about John Smith's politics and the development of New Labour. As far as I can see you haven't yet demonstrated anything that qualifies you to be an informed commentator on the development of the Party despite your inaccurate claims about what did and did not happen in government.

You felt compelled, you say, to enter the fray to refute a lot of what had been said previously with which you did not agree, but it's not like the 'anti-cutters' were taking a verbal beating; they didn't cry out as one for your particular and peculiar brand of salvation. You entered the discussion with a spectacularly puerile and flailing outburst (again, this was noted by disparate parties) with which it was near-impossible to engage, so I just called you on the rude bits.

Actually you didn't call me on any bits of my original post at all. You didn't engage with me until after my second post which was directed at Leicester, not you. And when you did it was a lengthy post so clearly at that stage you didn't find me too offensive to debate despite what you are claiming now. It would appear that what you don't like is being confronted on the series of false and woolly assertions you made.

You had the cheek to ask if I was Liverpool Hibs? There are any number of unanswered questions you are trailing behind you in LH fashion.

I am always willing to back up my claims, but only with someone who can debate in an adult fashion. If you are that person then you should have another go and we'll forget about your tedious debut in this thread.

Feel free to back up your claims. Perhaps you could start with the one on enforced multi-culturalism?

Don't think there is anything here you can possibly find personally offensive is there?

[magpie1892]

Yes but would you pay it off quicker than you can afford?

Well, I wouldn't be paying off my credit card with borrowed cash so it would be a case of prioritisation. Bad example though, let's leave it.

There are some voices that warn these 'Tory' cuts to public spending are going to cause further economic peril, the dreaded 'double dip'. These voices, however, are in the minority. In this case, I am satisfied with the credibility of the majority that say we should cut as quickly as possible. If nothing else for the future well-being of the UK economy.

We're still no nearer getting a suitable answer to the oft-posed question as to why Brown ran a structural deficit during a time of record tax receipts. Had he not done so, had he actually put away a bit of cash for leaner times, then these cuts (or certainly their gravity) might not have been needed at all.

So, to return to my original point, I think it's dubious in the extreme that we should listen to those who champion a 'better way' in the application of cuts to public spending when a good number of those whining were four square behind the last administration. It's a little bit the politics of the playground, but not entirely redundant to say: 'well, you had 13 years and we see the outcome. Now that you're no longer in government, would it be too much to ask that you let someone else have a go at clearing up the mess?'

Opposition for opposition's sake is depressing, divisive and something that pervades politics from all sides of the house. It's why politicians are held in such low esteem. I want to hear more from Ed Milliband than: 'we think the cuts should be lower/slower'. That's just not good enough, especially as there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that it was his crew that exacerbated the mess. Bar Mandelson, Miliband D and Brown, most of the old crew are still there. Where is the new broom?

[Beefster]

And there lies the fundamental flaw in the tories argument, rather than acknowledge that actually you can pay a bit less and still pay off your debt you choose to go for the scare tactic instead to force through your views.

I used scare tactics? I thought I was just fixing your scenario to match the real situation, not some fantasy situation where you pick and choose what the problems actually are.

You seemed to be completely ignoring the fact that you are still spending more than you earn. It's not a case of paying a wee bit of the debt off straight away at whatever rate you choose. It's a case of, until you cut your spending by around 25-35%, you won't pay be paying a penny of the debt off.

[Mibbes Aye]

I used scare tactics? I thought I was just fixing your scenario to match the real situation, not some fantasy situation where you pick and choose what the problems actually are.

You seemed to be completely ignoring the fact that you are still spending more than you earn. It's not a case of paying a wee bit of the debt off straight away at whatever rate you choose. It's a case of, until you cut your spending by around 25-35%, you won't pay be paying a penny of the debt off.

That's not true Beefster.

Increasing the 'tax take' gives you the opportunity to reduce debt. That doesn't necessarily mean raising taxes. You can peg taxes and let economic growth mean that more comes in at existing rates.

Of course you will struggle to get economic growth if you don't stimulate it. And the public sector stimulates economic growth in the private sector massively.
Who do you think built all those new hospitals and schools? It wasn't civil servants. And where do you think all those public sector salaries are spent? It's in our High Streets.

We had to increase our deficit to bail out the banks then bail out the country. There was always going to be a reckoning for that. But to suggest it all has to come from cuts and from cuts now would be short-sighted were it not for the fact that it's quite deliberate, quite purposeful and quite destructive to the fabric of our society.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I used scare tactics? I thought I was just fixing your scenario to match the real situation, not some fantasy situation where you pick and choose what the problems actually are.

You seemed to be completely ignoring the fact that you are still spending more than you earn. It's not a case of paying a wee bit of the debt off straight away at whatever rate you choose. It's a case of, until you cut your spending by around 25-35%, you won't pay be paying a penny of the debt off.

No it's about paying your debt and ignore essentials, yes essentials (not plasma tv's) then you will come unstuck because you won't be able to eat, get to work etc which will result in no salary to keep paying off the debt.

It's a ridiculous scenario as paying off personal debt is not the same as dealing with the countries debt but the tories like the analogy so I thought I would use it:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

That's not true Beefster.

Increasing the 'tax take' gives you the opportunity to reduce debt. That doesn't necessarily mean raising taxes. You can peg taxes and let economic growth mean that more comes in at existing rates.

Of course you will struggle to get economic growth if you don't stimulate it. And the public sector stimulates economic growth in the private sector massively.
Who do you think built all those new hospitals and schools? It wasn't civil servants. And where do you think all those public sector salaries are spent? It's in our High Streets.

We had to increase our deficit to bail out the banks then bail out the country. There was always going to be a reckoning for that. But to suggest it all has to come from cuts and from cuts now would be short-sighted were it not for the fact that it's quite deliberate, quite purposeful and quite destructive to the fabric of our society.

So there is no tax increases planned then?

And have you heard of the term structural deficit...you should have as Brown ran one for years and left one behind...this is the deficit in spending that can't be closed through economic growth.

You know as well as I do that punative tax increases would put the economy at risk much more than the proposed cut/tax ratio will but that doesn't stop you banging on and on about your perceived attack on our society but I simply don't see it....what I do see is the need for a reality check in which the country spends what it can afford. The vast majoirty of that spending will still be on the NHS and Welfare...hardly a destructive attack on the fabric of our society!!

[bighairyfaeleith]

So there is no tax increases planned then?

And have you heard of the term structural deficit...you should have as Brown ran one for years and left one behind...this is the deficit in spending that can't be closed through economic growth.

You know as well as I do that punative tax increases would put the economy at risk much more than the proposed cut/tax ratio will but that doesn't stop you banging on and on about your perceived attack on our society but I simply don't see it....what I do see is the need for a reality check in which the country spends what it can afford. The vast majoirty of that spending will still be on the NHS and Welfare...hardly a destructive attack on the fabric of our society!!

Thats not actually true, in fact it's total bollocks, any deficit can be cut through economic growth if the growth is enough and you want to cut the deficit.

Cuts that stop our young from going to university, that cuts funding from there schools, that makes 500k people redundant will stunt growth now and in the future. Remember no one saying don't cut but what we are saying is slow it down a bit and think it through. Do you honestly believe they can have planned this all properly in just four months?

[Mibbes Aye]

So there is no tax increases planned then?

And have you heard of the term structural deficit...you should have as Brown ran one for years and left one behind...this is the deficit in spending that can't be closed through economic growth.

You know as well as I do that punative tax increases would put the economy at risk much more than the proposed cut/tax ratio will but that doesn't stop you banging on and on about your perceived attack on our society but I simply don't see it....what I do see is the need for a reality check in which the country spends what it can afford. The vast majoirty of that spending will still be on the NHS and Welfare...hardly a destructive attack on the fabric of our society!!

Yes I have heard of a structural deficit.

The Tories had a structural deficit for all but two out of the eighteen years they were in office I believe.

And until the global financial crisis, theirs had reached levels way worse than what Brown ever achieved.

So maybe a bit less of the attacks on Brown for running a deficit, given that it was good enough for Cameron when he was Lamont's bagcarrier????

[IndieHibby]

We had to increase our deficit to bail out the banks then bail out the country. There was always going to be a reckoning for that. But to suggest it all has to come from cuts and from cuts now would be short-sighted were it not for the fact that it's quite deliberate, quite purposeful and quite destructive to the fabric of our society.

As i understand it, the deficit is the difference between what the govt. spends and receives each month. Wasn't the 'bail out' added to our total debt?

[IndieHibby]

Thats not actually true, in fact it's total bollocks, any deficit can be cut through economic growth if the growth is enough and you want to cut the deficit.

Cuts that stop our young from going to university, that cuts funding from there schools, that makes 500k people redundant will stunt growth now and in the future. Remember no one saying don't cut but what we are saying is slow it down a bit and think it through. Do you honestly believe they can have planned this all properly in just four months?

1. less people going to uni is a good thing. too many are going to uni to study...well, 'total bollocks', to coin a phrase, and are starting their lives in huge debt, unable to get a job which justifies their 'degree'.
2. poor kids in school are getting more money, and middle-class schools might recieve less - they'll manage fine. maybe those interfering mums who know **** all about education, yet claim to be as/better qualified than teachers can go back to looking after their own affairs.

[Mibbes Aye]

As i understand it, the deficit is the difference between what the govt. spends and receives each month. Wasn't the 'bail out' added to our total debt?

The bank bail-out in itself doesn't form part of the deficit but its consequences do - if you are looking at the total deficit, debt interest repayments feature. And the bail-out of the economy obviously had a big impact on the deficit. For example, one part of the bail-out of the country was the cut in VAT to stimulate growth. This measure obviously reduced revenues directly, even though it was part of a raft of measures to indirectly increase growth and therefore increase revenues in the longer-term.

[IndieHibby]

The bank bail-out in itself doesn't form part of the deficit but its consequences do - if you are looking at the total deficit, debt interest repayments feature. And the bail-out of the economy obviously had a big impact on the deficit. For example, one part of the bail-out of the country was the cut in VAT to stimulate growth. This measure obviously reduced revenues directly, even though it was part of a raft of measures to indirectly increase growth and therefore increase revenues in the longer-term.

i see - you are referring to all the measures to deal with the 'great recession' as a bail-out. i was using the term to refer only to measures to deal with northern rock, rbs etc, i.e 'bank bail-out'

i'm not sure that your use of the term isn't slightly disingenous :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

i see - you are referring to all the measures to deal with the 'great recession' as a bail-out. i was using the term to refer only to measures to deal with northern rock, rbs etc, i.e 'bank bail-out'

i'm not sure that your use of the term isn't slightly disingenous :greengrin

Yes I am talking about all the measures arising from the crisis. That's why I use phrases like "bailing out the banks and then bailing out the country".

On that basis I think "disingenuous" is a tad harsh - although I'm well aware we aren't prone to agreeing on things :greengrin

[IndieHibby]

Yes I am talking about all the measures arising from the crisis. That's why I use phrases like "bailing out the banks and then bailing out the country".

On that basis I think "disingenuous" is a tad harsh - although I'm well aware we aren't prone to agreeing on things :greengrin

Aaah, glad to see my name-change didn't slip past your radar!

'tad harsh'? i'll give you that.

although conflating the bank bailout with the wider issue of the fiscal madness we have and continue to find ourselves in is clouding the issue somewhat. it puts the focus onto the banks (who were very naughty, we're agreed on that) but seems to avoid the politcal screw-ups that preceded it (which i think were much, much naughtier)

[bighairyfaeleith]

1. less people going to uni is a good thing. too many are going to uni to study...well, 'total bollocks', to coin a phrase, and are starting their lives in huge debt, unable to get a job which justifies their 'degree'.
2. poor kids in school are getting more money, and middle-class schools might recieve less - they'll manage fine. maybe those interfering mums who know **** all about education, yet claim to be as/better qualified than teachers can go back to looking after their own affairs.

aah I see, so too many people going to uni so lets put the prices up so only the rich can afford it. Thats a belter of a policy that one:rolleyes:

Lets make the schools more balanced, now rather than put more money to the poor schools and bring them up to the standard of the other schools we will just take money away from the good schools to bring them down a few levels. Thats a belter as well!!

[Beefster]

aah I see, so too many people going to uni so lets put the prices up so only the rich can afford it. Thats a belter of a policy that one:rolleyes:

Lets make the schools more balanced, now rather than put more money to the poor schools and bring them up to the standard of the other schools we will just take money away from the good schools to bring them down a few levels. Thats a belter as well!!

Have the Coalition actually proposed any legislation on universities or are you referring to the recommendations of the independent report commissioned by the Labour government?

Regarding schools, again, you seem to be suggesting that the government spend more money. Assuming that increased spending isn't feasible right now, isn't redistribution of available money to those that need it most the right thing to do?

[RyeSloan]

Thats not actually true, in fact it's total bollocks, any deficit can be cut through economic growth if the growth is enough and you want to cut the deficit.

Cuts that stop our young from going to university, that cuts funding from there schools, that makes 500k people redundant will stunt growth now and in the future. Remember no one saying don't cut but what we are saying is slow it down a bit and think it through. Do you honestly believe they can have planned this all properly in just four months?

OK maybe I got a bit excited using the word vast :greengrin

However the main point still stands and is far from bollocks. What is bollocks is your assertion that economic growth is enough in this case. Yes it can CUT the deficit but it cannot REMOVE it when there is a structural deficit. The UK has a substantial structural deficit.....so there is a REQUIREMENT to cut spending and raise taxes.

The single most damaging move a government can make in the period after a substantial recession is to raise taxes by too much and too quickly as this is a sure fire way of killing any recovery (see Japan for a horrible worked example of this).

Therefore with the ability to raise (already substantial taxes) limited the ONLY solution to prevent another decade of government spending more than they receive is through spending reductions.

As the coalition has already ring fenced the largest expenditure of the NHS (a mistake in my opinion as I don't believe there cannot be some efficiency to be found in such a huge sum) that leaves a greater burden to be suffered elsewhere.

There is nothing idealogical in any of the above, it's there? It's fact and the only discussion should be where the reduction in spending will be felt....as the largest expenditure is ring fenced the answer is inevitably everywhere.

You propose slowing down...what does this mean, to what pace would be acceptable? How much future extra interest on continued high borrowing levels is worth the slow down, how much will this impact the governments of the future ability to spend? How much will that actually impact over a much longer term?

As for you last question...4 months long enough? Probably not but then again how long is long enough, should we simply continue the exorbitant borrowing until every last detail is laid out? That would cost billions more and still not everyone will agree. As it stands I actually think the government has done a reasonably good effort of what was always going to be a painful job. Sure there is areas I disagree with (the prison sevice cuts seem dangerous to me, esp the cuts in the probation service) but in general it is bad tasting medicine for a very nasty disease, but medicine that is drastically required none the less.

[RyeSloan]

Yes I have heard of a structural deficit.

The Tories had a structural deficit for all but two out of the eighteen years they were in office I believe.

And until the global financial crisis, theirs had reached levels way worse than what Brown ever achieved.

So maybe a bit less of the attacks on Brown for running a deficit, given that it was good enough for Cameron when he was Lamont's bagcarrier????

So it's a case of 'well that's alright then' is it?

Poor Brown isn't to blame it's really the Tories before him and the Tories after him...is that what you are saying?

[IndieHibby]

aah I see, so too many people going to uni so lets put the prices up so only the rich can afford it. Thats a belter of a policy that one:rolleyes:

Say what, now?? The government funds university places, and has cut that back to save money. Consequently, the students who will benefit least from a degree (and the debt that goes with it) will be more inclined to think twice about going. Which is a good thing.

Nowhere did I say anything about prices. That has to do with fees (not an issue in Scotland for Scottish students, btw), which English institutions are being allowed to raise. That will discourage poor students, as if the current levels of debt are not enough.

In the past, with fewer students going to Uni, poor students got a grant, which allowed the brightest of the poor to study. Now, many more, less-able students are studying, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, encurring large debts, and unable to find a job. And you propose an expansion of this policy.........

You won't find a bigger 'belter' than that ......:bitchy:



Lets make the schools more balanced, now rather than put more money to the poor schools and bring them up to the standard of the other schools we will just take money away from the good schools to bring them down a few levels. Thats a belter as well!!


Struggling, aren't you? :rolleyes: THERE IS NO MORE MONEY!!! Yet you seem to adovocate a "spend until we are bankrupt" policy (you're not a labour voter, are you?). Another 'belter'.

So we are back to the question of what to do with the money we do have. Better to provide an much improved chance for a poor child than a marginally improved chance for a better-off one, no?

[easty]

So it's a case of 'well that's alright then' is it?

Poor Brown isn't to blame it's really the Tories before him and the Tories after him...is that what you are saying?

I don't think that is what he was saying....but that's as relevant a point as "it's all Gordon Browns fault".

[easty]

Say what, now?? The government funds university places, and has cut that back to save money. Consequently, the students who will benefit least from a degree (and the debt that goes with it) will be more inclined to think twice about going. Which is a good thing.

Nowhere did I say anything about prices. That has to do with fees (not an issue in Scotland for Scottish students, btw), which English institutions are being allowed to raise. That will discourage poor students, as if the current levels of debt are not enough.

In the past, with fewer students going to Uni, poor students got a grant, which allowed the brightest of the poor to study. Now, many more, less-able students are studying, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, encurring large debts, and unable to find a job. And you propose an expansion of this policy.........

You won't find a bigger 'belter' than that ......:bitchy:


So you propose a 'keep the poor in thier place and don't allow them to better themselves' policy then? We should let a few poor folks go to uni, but let's not kid ourselves that most of them will ever amount to anything, we'll just keep it mainly to those who already have money.

Maybe we could have a competition style way of determining what paupers get to go to uni? It could raise money as well. Charge all the poor who want to get a better education £5 to enter and then draw a few names from a giant hat or something. We could put it on TV, get Louis Walsh to host it and call it Poor Student Idol.

[IndieHibby]

So you propose a 'keep the poor in thier place and don't allow them to better themselves' policy then? We should let a few poor folks go to uni, but let's not kid ourselves that most of them will ever amount to anything, we'll just keep it mainly to those who already have money.

Maybe we could have a competition style way of determining what paupers get to go to uni? It could raise money as well. Charge all the poor who want to get a better education £5 to enter and then draw a few names from a giant hat or something. We could put it on TV, get Louis Walsh to host it and call it Poor Student Idol.

Where did I say poor = less-able? Please don't start misrepresenting my comments.

I know of, personally, many students who have gone to uni to study a degree which will cost them, say 20,000GBP, plus the cost to the taxpayer, who will leave uni and earn no more than they would have done in 3/4 years in employment. In many cases they will end up earning less.

What I am saying is that those most able to benefit from University education, rich or poor, should go to Uni. The rich should pay and the taxpayer should pay for the poor.

Many, many courses are a complete and utter waste of time and money. Many jobs for which people get a degree-education can be learned on the job. While getting paid. And not incurring huge debts. And not costing the tax-payer. And not preventing graduate's from buying a house, getting married and starting a family (harder now, financially, than has been the case for quite some time).

[easty]

Where did I say poor = less-able? Please don't start misrepresenting my comments.

I know of, personally, many students who have gone to uni to study a degree which will cost them, say 20,000GBP, plus the cost to the taxpayer, who will leave uni and earn no more than they would have done in 3/4 years in employment. In many cases they will end up earning less.

What I am saying is that those most able to benefit from University education, rich or poor, should go to Uni. The rich should pay and the taxpayer should pay for the poor.

Many, many courses are a complete and utter waste of time and money. Many jobs for which people get a degree-education can be learned on the job. While getting paid. And not incurring huge debts. And not costing the tax-payer. And not preventing graduate's from buying a house, getting married and starting a family (harder now, financially, than has been the case for quite some time).

Didn't intend to misrepresent your comments, I responded to how I read them as being intended. Apologies.

I agree with a lot of your post here though. I know of people who have gone to uni then come out with a degree they have no intention of using and/or are earning no more than they could have without uni.

However, how would you propose going about administering who should and who should not get to go to uni?

[RyeSloan]

I don't think that is what he was saying....but that's as relevant a point as "it's all Gordon Browns fault".

Was it not?

I don't think it was all Gordon's fault but since he ran a deficit for a decade, a decade of record tax take through which he broke his own 'golden' rules and ignored his own advice on investment cycles are you suggesting that he wasn't substantially at fault for Britiain having absolutely nothing to provide stimulus with apart from debt?

Or are you with Mibbye's Aye in that 'cause the Tories did it before lets not be too tough on Gordon and pile into the Tories no matter what instead?

[easty]

Was it not?

I don't think it was all Gordon's fault but since he ran a deficit for a decade, a decade of record tax take through which he broke his own 'golden' rules and ignored his own advice on investment cycles are you suggesting that he wasn't substantially at fault for Britiain having absolutely nothing to provide stimulus with apart from debt?

Or are you with Mibbye's Aye in that 'cause the Tories did it before lets not be too tough on Gordon and pile into the Tories no matter what instead?

Gordon Brown on his own? Not equally Tony Blair and Alistair Darling?

I'm in the camp of 'this is a ****ty situation for the many'. I don't see how looking at who was to blame helps us move forward. Though I disagree with the way the present government is dealing with it.

[lapsedhibee]

I know of people who have gone to uni then come out with a degree they have no intention of using and/or are earning no more than they could have without uni.

You could substitute "secondary school" for "uni" there and your point would make equally good sense. Would the UK be a better place if only primary education were mandatory? :dunno:

[easty]

You could substitute "secondary school" for "uni" there and your point would make equally good sense. Would the UK be a better place if only primary education were mandatory? :dunno:

Not really. 5th and 6th years at High School perhaps. But not the first few years.

[magpie1892]

Gordon Brown on his own? Not equally Tony Blair and Alistair Darling?

I'm in the camp of 'this is a ****ty situation for the many'. I don't see how looking at who was to blame helps us move forward. Though I disagree with the way the present government is dealing with it.

Yes, Gordon Brown on his own, as Chancellor, then PM with a puppet like Darling to take the flak. Brown it was that promised 'an end to boom and bust' and for that alone he should be tarred and feathered let alone the gold sale and the record structural deficit in the midst of record tax receipts. Who taught Brown to play cards? Stevie Wonder?

Looking at who to blame, and who is to blame, means that the coalition can pretty much do as they please so in that regard I suppose it helps us 'move forward', or certainly move, if you disagree with the direction. Labour got turfed out for many reasons but chief among them was their infinite capability for economic ineptitude.

They're a few months out the door and yet they are whining about this 'better way' as a new administration tries to clean up labour's financial mess (yet again). You'd have thought they would have even a smidgen of shame, pipe down and propose a decent alternative other than 'it should be slower'. There's nothing even remotely impressive about Johnson as shadow chancellor nor a labour leader the party didn't want -both members of the old gang. New broom, anyone?

The state of the economy ('there is no money left' wrote the outgoing secretary to the treasury, a *****ing puerile prick about as funny as AIDS) is down to Labour and they've no right to make any noise about how the coalition tries to avert national bankruptcy. They've not got the credibility.

[RyeSloan]

Gordon Brown on his own? Not equally Tony Blair and Alistair Darling?

I'm in the camp of 'this is a ****ty situation for the many'. I don't see how looking at who was to blame helps us move forward. Though I disagree with the way the present government is dealing with it.

But the whole point is that the cuts are being presented by some as an ideological attack on Britians society and a Tory ruse to attack the poor.

By assessing how the problem came about and the required actions to resolve it you can gain a perspective that allows you to decide whether this charge is correct or not.

That is then a significant help in moving the debate forward and away from party politics and instinctive dislike of the Tories and into the rarefied land of actually looking at the issue to hand objectively I would say....

[Mibbes Aye]

Yes, Gordon Brown on his own, as Chancellor, then PM with a puppet like Darling to take the flak. Brown it was that promised 'an end to boom and bust' and for that alone he should be tarred and feathered let alone the gold sale and the record structural deficit in the midst of record tax receipts. Who taught Brown to play cards? Stevie Wonder?

Looking at who to blame, and who is to blame, means that the coalition can pretty much do as they please so in that regard I suppose it helps us 'move forward', or certainly move, if you disagree with the direction. Labour got turfed out for many reasons but chief among them was their infinite capability for economic ineptitude.

They're a few months out the door and yet they are whining about this 'better way' as a new administration tries to clean up labour's financial mess (yet again). You'd have thought they would have even a smidgen of shame, pipe down and propose a decent alternative other than 'it should be slower'. There's nothing even remotely impressive about Johnson as shadow chancellor nor a labour leader the party didn't want -both members of the old gang. New broom, anyone?

The state of the economy ('there is no money left' wrote the outgoing secretary to the treasury, a *****ing puerile prick about as funny as AIDS) is down to Labour and they've no right to make any noise about how the coalition tries to avert national bankruptcy. They've not got the credibility.

I think if you have to resort to cheap, personal insults then there certainly is a question of credibility.

As for 'national bankruptcy', please..................

[Mibbes Aye]

But the whole point is that the cuts are being presented by some as an ideological attack on Britians society and a Tory ruse to attack the poor.

By assessing how the problem came about and the required actions to resolve it you can gain a perspective that allows you to decide whether this charge is correct or not.

That is then a significant help in moving the debate forward and away from party politics and instinctive dislike of the Tories and into the rarefied land of actually looking at the issue to hand objectively I would say....

Cameron and Clegg said they would protect the poorest, that those with the broadest shoulders would take the heaviest weight.

And then, in their two set-piece moments, the Budget and the CSR, did exactly the opposite.

Instinctive dislike doesn't come into it. They are either incompetent or they lied.

Which is it?

[Mibbes Aye]

Was it not?

I don't think it was all Gordon's fault but since he ran a deficit for a decade, a decade of record tax take through which he broke his own 'golden' rules and ignored his own advice on investment cycles are you suggesting that he wasn't substantially at fault for Britiain having absolutely nothing to provide stimulus with apart from debt?

Or are you with Mibbye's Aye in that 'cause the Tories did it before lets not be too tough on Gordon and pile into the Tories no matter what instead?

Do you think we could have ran a surplus without massive pressure to either invest or to reduce taxes? That's before we get into the need for massive investment in our infrastructure as a consequence of previous Tory governments who were happy to run down our hospitals and schools.

I can imagine the field day the Tory press would have had with that - being able to accuse Brown of hoarding 'our' money.

The best bit in all this is how we are still talking about Brown rather than Tory apologists taking responsibility - Cameron's in charge, he gets to make decisions and there have been some absolutely woeful ones.

Let's focus on what the Tories are choosing to do, rather than saying they are forced into it by Gordon Brown, eh??

[bighairyfaeleith]

OK maybe I got a bit excited using the word vast :greengrin

However the main point still stands and is far from bollocks. What is bollocks is your assertion that economic growth is enough in this case. Yes it can CUT the deficit but it cannot REMOVE it when there is a structural deficit. The UK has a substantial structural deficit.....so there is a REQUIREMENT to cut spending and raise taxes.

The single most damaging move a government can make in the period after a substantial recession is to raise taxes by too much and too quickly as this is a sure fire way of killing any recovery (see Japan for a horrible worked example of this).

Therefore with the ability to raise (already substantial taxes) limited the ONLY solution to prevent another decade of government spending more than they receive is through spending reductions.

As the coalition has already ring fenced the largest expenditure of the NHS (a mistake in my opinion as I don't believe there cannot be some efficiency to be found in such a huge sum) that leaves a greater burden to be suffered elsewhere.

There is nothing idealogical in any of the above, it's there? It's fact and the only discussion should be where the reduction in spending will be felt....as the largest expenditure is ring fenced the answer is inevitably everywhere.

You propose slowing down...what does this mean, to what pace would be acceptable? How much future extra interest on continued high borrowing levels is worth the slow down, how much will this impact the governments of the future ability to spend? How much will that actually impact over a much longer term?

As for you last question...4 months long enough? Probably not but then again how long is long enough, should we simply continue the exorbitant borrowing until every last detail is laid out? That would cost billions more and still not everyone will agree. As it stands I actually think the government has done a reasonably good effort of what was always going to be a painful job. Sure there is areas I disagree with (the prison sevice cuts seem dangerous to me, esp the cuts in the probation service) but in general it is bad tasting medicine for a very nasty disease, but medicine that is drastically required none the less.

Sorry I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I think any deficit can be corrected through growth. However you have to be capable of that growth and in this instance we are not so we should cut as well.

However my gripes on the current cuts are all over this thread so I wont repeat myself on those, you are right to say that the discussion should be about what to cut, but it should also be about how much and when as growth will have to play a part in the recovery and these things affect that


Note: Just re-read your original post and I accept I read it wrong as you don't seem to have been suggesting that no deficit could be cut by growth, I need to learn to read slower!!

[bighairyfaeleith]

Say what, now?? The government funds university places, and has cut that back to save money. Consequently, the students who will benefit least from a degree (and the debt that goes with it) will be more inclined to think twice about going. Which is a good thing.

Nowhere did I say anything about prices. That has to do with fees (not an issue in Scotland for Scottish students, btw), which English institutions are being allowed to raise. That will discourage poor students, as if the current levels of debt are not enough.

In the past, with fewer students going to Uni, poor students got a grant, which allowed the brightest of the poor to study. Now, many more, less-able students are studying, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, encurring large debts, and unable to find a job. And you propose an expansion of this policy.........

You won't find a bigger 'belter' than that ......:bitchy:



Struggling, aren't you? :rolleyes: THERE IS NO MORE MONEY!!! Yet you seem to adovocate a "spend until we are bankrupt" policy (you're not a labour voter, are you?). Another 'belter'.

So we are back to the question of what to do with the money we do have. Better to provide an much improved chance for a poor child than a marginally improved chance for a better-off one, no?

Not me that's struggling.

The Tories say these cuts are needed to protect future generations then cut funding from universities and schools. Defo not idealogical then.

There is money and if the government wanted to then they could invest in education but they don't want to, its plain to see!

[bighairyfaeleith]

Have the Coalition actually proposed any legislation on universities or are you referring to the recommendations of the independent report commissioned by the Labour government?

Regarding schools, again, you seem to be suggesting that the government spend more money. Assuming that increased spending isn't feasible right now, isn't redistribution of available money to those that need it most the right thing to do?

Your right the proposals, I shouldn't moan about it until its been approved and nothing can be done!!!

Why would I assume that increased spending isn't feasible? The government need to demonstrate that and there attempts have been lazy at best this far.

Remember these cuts are required to protect future generations. Schools and universities will be the first port of call for future generations!

[magpie1892]

There is money...

By Labour's own admission, the hilarious Liam Byrne, 'there is no money left'.

So.. if Labour are saying it, if the Coalition are saying it, if both of these are recognising the cuts need to be made then, please tell me, where do you get the information from that there is money...?

Is it down the side of the sofa?

Better tell the evil coalition then, before they plough ahead with the cuts that the wonderful Labour party hadn't themselves proposed, heaven forbid!

[Beefster]

Your right the proposals, I shouldn't moan about it until its been approved and nothing can be done!!!

Why would I assume that increased spending isn't feasible? The government need to demonstrate that and there attempts have been lazy at best this far.

Remember these cuts are required to protect future generations. Schools and universities will be the first port of call for future generations!

You were suggesting that increasing university fees was a Tory wheeze to stop 'the poor' going to university. I was pointing out that a) it's not a Tory suggestion and b) it was Labour who commissioned the report to deal with the issue of university funding.

As for 'Why should I assume increased spending isn't feasible?', I'd suggest reading something other than union websites to find the answer.

[One Day Soon]

I think if you have to resort to cheap, personal insults then there certainly is a question of credibility.

As for 'national bankruptcy', please..................

Wasting your time Mibbes. He can dish it out but he can't take it. I'm still waiting for him to justify a range of wild assertions he made and couldn't stand up. If it talks like a Tory......

[magpie1892]

I think if you have to resort to cheap, personal insults then there certainly is a question of credibility.

As for 'national bankruptcy', please..................

Maybe so, but I've never advanced myself as the saviour of the country, the man to still the global economic weather into a financial nirvana for all.

Please what? Everything was tip-top I take it. No IMF watching us, no credit downgrading on the horizon....


Please....................

[One Day Soon]

Aye, you're still waiting. No-one else is. It's just you I can't 'take it' from - your intellect intimidates me so.

That's inadequate. This is nothing to do with intellect (again with the personal stuff from you though - beginning to be a habit that eh?) its about making wild claims that you can't back up. Once more for your credibility's sake - what did you mean when you accused the last Labour government of "forcing multiculturalism on a people without consent". Maybe there's some perfectly sensible meaning to it but it certainly sounds much more sinister.

This makes interesting balanced reading and completely disables the deranged claims being made about Brown as some kind of singular economic disaster area: http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn79.pdf

Still, some people are so determined to see the world the way they have decided it is that inconvenient things like facts don't get in the way.

[bighairyfaeleith]

By Labour's own admission, the hilarious Liam Byrne, 'there is no money left'.

So.. if Labour are saying it, if the Coalition are saying it, if both of these are recognising the cuts need to be made then, please tell me, where do you get the information from that there is money...?

Is it down the side of the sofa?

Better tell the evil coalition then, before they plough ahead with the cuts that the wonderful Labour party hadn't themselves proposed, heaven forbid!

The government are still going to be spending money, so where is that coming from if there is none?

[magpie1892]

The government are still going to be spending money, so where is that coming from if there is none?

None as in none with which to increase public expenditure, but you know this.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You were suggesting that increasing university fees was a Tory wheeze to stop 'the poor' going to university. I was pointing out that a) it's not a Tory suggestion and b) it was Labour who commissioned the report to deal with the issue of university funding.

As for 'Why should I assume increased spending isn't feasible?', I'd suggest reading something other than union websites to find the answer.

Difference is I would have criticise labour if they implemented it as well.

I've read quite a bit on the budget issues, some I understand some I don't, however are you telling me you genuinely believe that a government that is trying to save the country for future generations couldn't have worked things to help future generations get well educated?

[lyonhibs]

Cameron and Clegg said they would protect the poorest, that those with the broadest shoulders would take the heaviest weight.

And then, in their two set-piece moments, the Budget and the CSR, did exactly the opposite.

Instinctive dislike doesn't come into it. They are either incompetent or they lied.

Which is it?

:agree: :agree:

And if - like Baroness Wazri did on Question Time a wee while ago - I hear one more Tory Dem say "ahhhhh we've had to go back on this pledge/introduce this other public service cut because we didn't have access to the books/didn't know just how bad the situation was" I swear I'll do time...................

[One Day Soon]

Is anyone in this debate arguing that there don't have to be cuts? I thought the real debate was about whether or not the proposed cuts are fair, given that cuts have to be made.

On another note there is also the question of whether the proposed cuts are actually sensible - regardless of fairness. In that regard anything that reduces the number of people going into further and higher education seems to me to be pretty reckless in a country where the 'knowledge economy' is pretty much the only game in town - unless you believe we can survive on services and financial services alone. That means that good quality volume university and college output is critical.

[bighairyfaeleith]

:agree: :agree:

And if - like Baroness Wazri did on Question Time a wee while ago - I hear one more Tory Dem say "ahhhhh we've had to go back on this pledge/introduce this other public service cut because we didn't have access to the books/didn't know just how bad the situation was" I swear I'll do time...................

Thats the line that is really starting to get on my wick. Every party to a man lied to the voters before the general election, because of that the electorate could not make an informed decision on who to vote for, I would have much preferred each party to have told us exactly what they planned to cut, then let the voters decide rather than the parties getting to decide afterwards and do what politicians do best, blame someone else!!!

[One Day Soon]

:agree: :agree:

And if - like Baroness Wazri did on Question Time a wee while ago - I hear one more Tory Dem say "ahhhhh we've had to go back on this pledge/introduce this other public service cut because we didn't have access to the books/didn't know just how bad the situation was" I swear I'll do time...................

We are basically being told the same cobblers now as Thatcher told us in the 1980's - "there is no alternative". There are always alternatives, they may not resolve all of the problem but there are always alternatives, the two Tory parties just choose not to adopt them. Still Clegg is very comfortable as a Tory, as well he may be, having worked so hard for former Tory Cabinet Minister Leon Brittan when he was an EU Commissioner not so long ago.

[magpie1892]

Thats the line that is really starting to get on my wick. Every party to a man lied to the voters before the general election, because of that the electorate could not make an informed decision on who to vote for, I would have much preferred each party to have told us exactly what they planned to cut, then let the voters decide rather than the parties getting to decide afterwards and do what politicians do best, blame someone else!!!

You're assuming integrity on the part of politicians. That any of them have an interest in anything other than getting and retaining power at any cost. That's naive of you, when you look at the levels of talent and integrity of the current crop. I'm struggling to think of more than half-a-dozen that appear to have any talent.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You're assuming integrity on the part of politicians. That any of them have an interest in anything other than getting and retaining power at any cost. That's naive of you, when you look at the levels of talent and integrity of the current crop. I'm struggling to think of more than half-a-dozen that appear to have any talent.

probably for the first time in this thread I'm going to agree with you:wink:

[magpie1892]

probably for the first time in this thread I'm going to agree with you:wink:

Well amen to that. :wink:

[bighairyfaeleith]

None as in none with which to increase public expenditure, but you know this.

Yes but they are still going to be spending money, now if the cut the deficit a little bit slower they could spend a little bit extra protecting the future generations, or was that just a soundbite from the government?

Sorry, I got bored agreeing with you:greengrin

[IndieHibby]

Didn't intend to misrepresent your comments, I responded to how I read them as being intended. Apologies.

I agree with a lot of your post here though. I know of people who have gone to uni then come out with a degree they have no intention of using and/or are earning no more than they could have without uni.

However, how would you propose going about administering who should and who should not get to go to uni?

Fair do's.

As for administering it, I have no idea! However, have cost as a factor in making a decision about going to Uni or not is probably a good way to sort the wheat from the chaff. If you know that your Uni costs are an investment in your future earning potential, then is doesn't matter if you are poor or not...

I was told today about a course at a UK higher education institution (by someone who works there) studying singing in the bath.

You really couldn't make it up....

[IndieHibby]

You could substitute "secondary school" for "uni" there and your point would make equally good sense. Would the UK be a better place if only primary education were mandatory? :dunno:

Are you serious? Please tell me you meant this as a joke?

[IndieHibby]

Not me that's struggling.

The Tories say these cuts are needed to protect future generations then cut funding from universities and schools. Defo not idealogical then.

There is money and if the government wanted to then they could invest in education but they don't want to, its plain to see!

Care to maintain the thread of the argument by responding to my points, or do you expect me to keep going round in circles with you?

The UK is currently spending 40,000,000,000 on debt interest. Which is sailing close to the entire defence budget. When countries reach this point and keep going, history tells us that things end up bad.

Would you rather your children paid tax to pay for public services or as interest to international investors?

I won't try again.

[lucky]

Care to maintain the thread of the argument by responding to my points, or do you expect me to keep going round in circles with you?

The UK is currently spending 40,000,000,000 on debt interest. Which is sailing close to the entire defence budget. When countries reach this point and keep going, history tells us that things end up bad.

Would you rather your children paid tax to pay for public services or as interest to international investors?

I won't try again.

Our children will pay tax for both as we have and our parents before us. government defecit is not new. Most governments have them. But if the Tories stay in power for any length of time there will be no public services left.

[IndieHibby]

Our children will pay tax for both as we have and our parents before us. government defecit is not new. Most governments have them. But if the Tories stay in power for any length of time there will be no public services left.

But if we cut the deficit, then less of their tax revenues will go on debt interest (which is pure waste) and more on public services.

As for your comment about the Tories - I won't dignify it with a response.

Do you expect people to take comments like that seriously?

[lucky]

Yes, Gordon Brown on his own, as Chancellor, then PM with a puppet like Darling to take the flak. Brown it was that promised 'an end to boom and bust' and for that alone he should be tarred and feathered let alone the gold sale and the record structural deficit in the midst of record tax receipts. Who taught Brown to play cards? Stevie Wonder?

Looking at who to blame, and who is to blame, means that the coalition can pretty much do as they please so in that regard I suppose it helps us 'move forward', or certainly move, if you disagree with the direction. Labour got turfed out for many reasons but chief among them was their infinite capability for economic ineptitude.

They're a few months out the door and yet they are whining about this 'better way' as a new administration tries to clean up labour's financial mess (yet again). You'd have thought they would have even a smidgen of shame, pipe down and propose a decent alternative other than 'it should be slower'. There's nothing even remotely impressive about Johnson as shadow chancellor nor a labour leader the party didn't want -both members of the old gang. New broom, anyone?

The state of the economy ('there is no money left' wrote the outgoing secretary to the treasury, a *****ing puerile prick about as funny as AIDS) is down to Labour and they've no right to make any noise about how the coalition tries to avert national bankruptcy. They've not got the credibility.

The reason for the heavy investment in OUR public services was to try and improve them after nearly 20 years of them being starved of cash. yes Brown broke his own rules on investment but our public services were crying out for more help. As for credibility yours and the parties your supporting have lost it already. They promised onething and did the other. The ideological attacks on OUR public services is not about fairness its about abolishing them.

[lucky]

But if we cut the deficit, then less of their tax revenues will go on debt interest (which is pure waste) and more on public services.

As for your comment about the Tories - I won't dignify it with a response.

Do you expect people to take comments like that seriously?

But if people remain employed the tax revenue increases as does the economy grow with people spending there money in the private sector. The government also pays less out in benefits. Simplistic way of putting it but then again......

Yet another Tory supporter resorting to personal insults Why?

[lucky]

But if we cut the deficit, then less of their tax revenues will go on debt interest (which is pure waste) and more on public services.

As for your comment about the Tories - I won't dignify it with a response.

Do you expect people to take comments like that seriously?

Are you seriously saying the Tories will protect public services long term? They will privatises anything and everything. They even dislike the NHS.

[IndieHibby]

The reason for the heavy investment in OUR public services was to try and improve them after nearly 20 years of them being starved of cash. yes Brown broke his own rules on investment but our public services were crying out for more help. As for credibility yours and the parties your supporting have lost it already. They promised onething and did the other. The ideological attacks on OUR public services is not about fairness its about abolishing them.

NHS - ringfenced.
Education - schools to receive real-terms (albeit, marginal) increases.

'Abolish public-services'? Really?

[IndieHibby]

Are you seriously saying the Tories will protect public services long term? They will privatises anything and everything. They even dislike the NHS.

NHS - Ringfenced.
Schools - real terms increase.

Stick to facts instead of rhetoric.

[IndieHibby]

Gavan Nolan from Markit said fears of "political instability in sovereign credits" had moved onto the radar screen, with investors now paying closer attention to whether or not governments can actually deliver on austerity plans.


This is why deficit reduction matters. The people that pay our 150 billion 'overdraft' don't have to pay it to us if they think we won't pay it back.

Or more likely, they will charge us higher fees (interest) for the privilege.

[lapsedhibee]

Are you serious? Please tell me you meant this as a joke?

A point was made that instead of going to university, many people could learn necessary skills in a job and be better off financially by going that route. My response is that many, many jobs (including my own) require only the numeracy and literacy achievable by the end of primary school (and in the days of Mr Gradgrind were achieved in primary school, before finger-painting became part of the core curriculum). Anything beyond primary education includes functions other than making individuals fit and competent to do a particular job.

I'm not disagreeing that some particular university courses seem a bit dodgy. But I remember learning in secondary school how an oxbow tail was formed. This has proved of no use to me in my working life, and the time I spent learning it could have been used to earn money doing a paper round. You can pick apart pretty much any aspect of education if the criteria for being worthwhile are only whether it is directly useful for a job or whether it has taken up time which could have been spent doing something else.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Care to maintain the thread of the argument by responding to my points, or do you expect me to keep going round in circles with you?

The UK is currently spending 40,000,000,000 on debt interest. Which is sailing close to the entire defence budget. When countries reach this point and keep going, history tells us that things end up bad.

Would you rather your children paid tax to pay for public services or as interest to international investors?

I won't try again.

So sorry my reply did not meet your high standards, please let me try again.


Originally Posted by IndieHibby
Say what, now?? The government funds university places, and has cut that back to save money. Consequently, the students who will benefit least from a degree (and the debt that goes with it) will be more inclined to think twice about going. Which is a good thing.

Nowhere did I say anything about prices. That has to do with fees (not an issue in Scotland for Scottish students, btw), which English institutions are being allowed to raise. That will discourage poor students, as if the current levels of debt are not enough.

In the past, with fewer students going to Uni, poor students got a grant, which allowed the brightest of the poor to study. Now, many more, less-able students are studying, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, encurring large debts, and unable to find a job. And you propose an expansion of this policy.........

You won't find a bigger 'belter' than that ......



Struggling, aren't you? THERE IS NO MORE MONEY!!! Yet you seem to adovocate a "spend until we are bankrupt" policy (you're not a labour voter, are you?). Another 'belter'.

So we are back to the question of what to do with the money we do have. Better to provide an much improved chance for a poor child than a marginally improved chance for a better-off one, no?

I'm not against changing the university system to one which allows degree courses to regain some lost credibility, however simply putting the fees up beyond the reach of poorer children is simply wrong and draconian, unfortunately it is so similar to many of the other policies implemented so far(child benefit, housing benefit etc). I would quite happily support a system which was means tested so that the kids that needed help on to the courses got it, the testing would have to consider ability as well of course.

At no pioint have I advocated spend until we bankrupt, quite the opposite I am actively supportive of cutting the deficit as the vast majority of the country is, however what I do dispute is that it has to be done as fast and hard as the three COC's would like to suggest, the simple truth is that if they cut a few billion less each year they could save a lot of jobs, they could properly reform the university system. They won't do it because they don't want to and because folks like yourself are falling for the line "There's no money and it's all labours fault, so we have to cut now"

It's simply not the only way, there is always an alternative, but this government is simply not willing to talk or listen about it, it may not be idealogical, but they are doing a bloody good job of making it look like it is!!!

[magpie1892]

The reason for the heavy investment in OUR public services was to try and improve them after nearly 20 years of them being starved of cash. yes Brown broke his own rules on investment but our public services were crying out for more help. As for credibility yours and the parties your supporting have lost it already. They promised onething and did the other. The ideological attacks on OUR public services is not about fairness its about abolishing them.

I'm reasonably comfortable with my own credibility since I hold a viewpoint shared by tens of millions, a slight but overall majority in the UK. As to the 'parties your supporting' [sic] I don't know what you mean. Not a Tory now nor have I ever voted Tory in a GE through five opportunities. I assume that's the insinuation but I've never voted LD either.

Your last sentence is meaningless scaremongering. The coalition is about 'abolishing' public services? you could be right, I mean look at the ruthless way they have ringfenced the entire budget for the bloated NHS. Damn them!

[bighairyfaeleith]

This is why deficit reduction matters. The people that pay our 150 billion 'overdraft' don't have to pay it to us if they think we won't pay it back.

Or more likely, they will charge us higher fees (interest) for the privilege.

See this is why the tories are starting lose there argument, you just don't get it, people are not saying don't cut, they are just saying slow down a bit, think it through properly and cut sensibly. Don't just come up with a % and say to every department, right, cut that.

People are not arguing with the government about whether to cut or not, we are arguing about what, when and how to cut. Cuts are a given, we all accept that, now can we please have a grown up conversation about what when and how to cut rather than just saying we'll go bankrupt, it's all labours fault, we have no choice :blah::blah::blah:

[magpie1892]

See this is why the tories are starting lose there argument, you just don't get it, people are not saying don't cut, they are just saying slow down a bit, think it through properly and cut sensibly. Don't just come up with a % and say to every department, right, cut that.

People are not arguing with the government about whether to cut or not, we are arguing about what, when and how to cut. Cuts are a given, we all accept that, now can we please have a grown up conversation about what when and how to cut rather than just saying we'll go bankrupt, it's all labours fault, we have no choice :blah::blah::blah:

The conversation (which, I freely admit, has gone off topic a few times) seems to fairly reflect the fact that there have to be cuts and, again I agree, there are not many dissenting voices to that.

The problem for the 'slow down' brigade is that a number of their cheerleaders are coming out with increasingly ludicrous assertions such as that the 'Tories' (yes, it had to be them, didn't it. Forget that it's a coalition govt.) are going to 'abolish' public services. All of 'em. No, I didn't know that either.

On the other hand, you have a faction suggesting that Labour made such an arse (as they always do) of the economy, fiscal matters, spending and investment that Labour are not really in an position to question coalition motives or actions. Certainly not unless they have anything more robust to offer than 'it should be slower' and with the Downing Street maintenance guys still to paint over the fingernail scrape marks from when they were trying to get Gordo to leave.

Labour blew it. Can they not let anyone else play with their ball? Is it not someone else's turn? Anyone would think that they thought they had a divine right to rule the.... oh.

[Betty Boop]

The conversation (which, I freely admit, has gone off topic a few times) seems to fairly reflect the fact that there have to be cuts and, again I agree, there are not many dissenting voices to that.

The problem for the 'slow down' brigade is that a number of their cheerleaders are coming out with increasingly ludicrous assertions such as that the 'Tories' (yes, it had to be them, didn't it. Forget that it's a coalition govt.) are going to 'abolish' public services. All of 'em. No, I didn't know that either.

On the other hand, you have a faction suggesting that Labour made such an arse (as they always do) of the economy, fiscal matters, spending and investment that Labour are not really in an position to question coalition motives or actions. Certainly not unless they have anything more robust to offer than 'it should be slower' and with the Downing Street maintenance guys still to paint over the fingernail scrape marks from when they were trying to get Gordo to leave.

Labour blew it. Can they not let anyone else play with their ball? Is it not someone else's turn? Anyone would think that they thought they had a divine right to rule the.... oh.

Why are they not in a position to question the Governments motives or actions ? It is their job as opposition to hold the Government to account.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Why are they not in a position to question the Governments motives or actions ? It is their job as opposition to hold the Government to account.

The democratic process is sometimes something the right struggle to understand.

[magpie1892]

Why are they not in a position to question the Governments motives or actions ? It is their job as opposition to hold the Government to account.

As I said, because they don't have much in the way of credibility, they've been out of power for just weeks and, thus far, they haven't offered an impactful alternative while they have been selecting a minority-candidate leader and the shadow chancellor reads up on his new specialist subject.

They need to go away, regroup and return with something a little more robust than what is on offer: binary opposition. I have my doubts that the ability or will is there but there's nothing at the moment which stikes a chord. 'Eviltoriesdestroyingpublicserviceswe'reallgoingto behomless' as an argument lacks substance.

[magpie1892]

The democratic process is sometimes something the right struggle to understand.

If you think that the 'right' has a monopoly on a lack of understanding of the democratic process then you need to get out more. New Labour's history is littered with examples of decisions made without consultation of the electorate. 'Tony Blair is resigning'. 'Oh, shall we have an election?'. 'No, here's Gordon Brown. He rocks.'

Or you could put in your manifesto that you're going to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, then not only renege on doing so, but spend public money arguing in court that manifesto promises are not worth the paper they are shat onto.

Accuse the 'right' of being dictatorial by all means but I don't see the Labour party as being any different...

[Beefster]

Difference is I would have criticise labour if they implemented it as well.

I've read quite a bit on the budget issues, some I understand some I don't, however are you telling me you genuinely believe that a government that is trying to save the country for future generations couldn't have worked things to help future generations get well educated?

Very good but the Tories haven't implemented anything (or even proposed anything) and you're criticising them already for it. What would be your proposals for dealing with university funding anyway?

I'd imagine that they are trying to get future generations well educated.


Are you seriously saying the Tories will protect public services long term? They will privatises anything and everything. They even dislike the NHS.

Again, the argument boils down to "Argh, it's the Tories. Run". Your point is about as relevant (and true) as me saying "Labour nationalises everything and taxes us all into the ground to pay for it".

[LiverpoolHibs]

You had the cheek to ask if I was Liverpool Hibs? There are any number of unanswered questions you are trailing behind you in LH fashion.

Sorry? I'm not exactly sure what this spat has to do with me!

Moving on, there's a fascinating article by John Gray in the London Review of Books, I think he - as usual - misses stuff and isn't always on the right track but it's still probably the best thing I've read on the topic.

Progressive, Like the 1980s (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n20/john-gray/progressive-like-the-1980s)

[Mibbes Aye]

NHS - ringfenced.



I mean look at the ruthless way they have ringfenced the entire budget for the bloated NHS. Damn them!

Ahem....

The NHS is still expected to find £20 billion in savings over the next four years. Maybe that's why the Tories are dumping the pledge to give cancer patients their test results in a week.

Far, far, far more importantly though, you have to look beyond the headline and take account of the bigger picture.

Local government spending has been one of the most hardest-hit by the cuts. The biggest spend in local authorities is on social care and the biggest spend in social care is on older people - either supporting them at home or supporting them in residential care. That money isn't ring-fenced.

The consequences of the cuts to local authorities are that these services will suffer - they were already incapable of keeping up with the demand caused by the massive increase in the older population.

What this means in practice is that older people will go into hospital (and they account for about half the spend of the NHS despite currently being around a sixth of the population), for all the reasons they go in, whether as a result of a fall, or an illness, or in order to undergo a surgical procedure.

They're not allowed to be discharged unless it's safe to do so - usually meaning that some sort of care package is in place for them at home, or a place in a residential or nursing home is available. That is the responsibility of the councils, but if they don't have the money to put that in place (and they don't and they won't) then the old person stays in hospital.

That means we go back to the days of old people 'bed-blocking'. It means that waiting lists for non-emergency surgery will shoot up because there won't be beds for people and ultimately it puts the whole hospital system at risk. Hospitals need to be able to take people into A&E, treat them, then move them to the wards to allow A&E to take the next batch. They can't move them if the beds are occupied by old people who can't be let out because it's unsafe to do so.

The Tories have said they will put additional money into social care but it's not nearly as much as they're taking from the local authorities and it's not ring-fenced either, which means there's no incentive for councils not to put the problem back onto the hospitals.

'Ring-fencing' the NHS budget won't come close to solving this. It's a mockery to paint it as some sort of achievement when it's being used to mask a passing of the buck.

And the biggest sufferers in this will be our older folk, our parents and grandparents. Back to the glory days of the Thatcher and Major years when to grow old and need to go into hospital meant to be confined there long after you medically needed to be there, away from your home and vulnerable to MRSA and C. diff.

Same old Tories, hitting the weakest hardest.

[magpie1892]

Ahem....

The NHS is still expected to find £20 billion in savings over the next four years.

1.25% a year for four years. Blimey, that's going to sting.

[Betty Boop]

Boris Johnson and Cameron are at loggerheads over the cuts in housing benefit. Boris believes that they will lead to 'Kosovo style' emigration of the poor from London.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-opposes-david-cameron-over-housing-benefit-cut-2118975.html

[magpie1892]

Boris Johnson and Cameron are at loggerheads over the cuts in housing benefit. Boris believes that they will lead to 'Kosovo style' emigration of the poor from London.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-opposes-david-cameron-over-housing-benefit-cut-2118975.html

You really want to hang your hat on Boris Johnson's peg?! He's a, y'know, Tory. Ugh!

[Betty Boop]

You really want to hang your hat on Boris Johnson's peg?! He's a, y'know, Tory. Ugh!

Hardly! Just pointing out there are dissenting voices within the Tory ranks. Simon Hughes from the LIb Dems also opposes this cut and will vote against it.

[magpie1892]

Hardly! Just pointing out there are dissenting voices within the Tory ranks. Simon Hughes from the LIb Dems also opposes this cut and will vote against it.

There are dissenting voices in every party. Johnson is speaking as Mayor of London in this instance (What's that? The Mayoral elections are coming up? Well I never!). Means nothing in terms of 'party unity'.

[bighairyfaeleith]

There are dissenting voices in every party. Johnson is speaking as Mayor of London in this instance (What's that? The Mayoral elections are coming up? Well I never!). Means nothing in terms of 'party unity'.

off topic but has boris not been touted as a future tory leader, now that would be rather amusing:greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

Very good but the Tories haven't implemented anything (or even proposed anything) and you're criticising them already for it. What would be your proposals for dealing with university funding anyway?

I'd imagine that they are trying to get future generations well educated.



Again, the argument boils down to "Argh, it's the Tories. Run". Your point is about as relevant (and true) as me saying "Labour nationalises everything and taxes us all into the ground to pay for it".

Come on beefy, lets not insult my limited intelligence, the tories have been pawing gleefully over the university proposals for the last couple of weeks, they want them implemented no doubt about it, some of the lib dems are probably asking for changes, like caps on fees etc.

What would I do, well I would take some time and transform the whole system so the deserving can get grants for courses, the more well off pay for there courses and start to also add some credibility to university degrees again as a lot of them are now a nonsense. This cannot just be achieved by putting the prices up though, it needs a little bit more work than that I'm afraid.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Boris Johnson and Cameron are at loggerheads over the cuts in housing benefit. Boris believes that they will lead to 'Kosovo style' emigration of the poor from London.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-opposes-david-cameron-over-housing-benefit-cut-2118975.html

Yeah seen on the bbc news last night that quite a few of there mp's are raising concerns, but none of the tories will vote against the plans and as long as the lib dems in the ministerial positions vote in favour, which they will then it will get through.

[magpie1892]

off topic but has boris not been touted as a future tory leader, now that would be rather amusing:greengrin

You shouldn't read too much into what was said today. Boris is electioneering to an extent and, perhaps, placing a marker for future leadership but I don't think he's got a prayer in the long run. Likeable (to some), charismatic for sure but too flaky, too toff even for Cameron and the family issues won't help him. He's a Home Counties politician, never a PM.

[Mibbes Aye]

Today it was revealed that boardroom pay for business leaders had gone up by 55% over the last year.

And today the Tory government announced they were scrapping the body that protects the pay of school dinner ladies.

"Wait", I hear you cry, "We are all in this together... cuts need to be made and maybe this is one of them" :agree:

Except this isn't about cuts. According to Michael Gove, trying to protect the pay and conditions of dinner ladies, school janitors and classroom assistants "did not fit well with the government's priorities for greater deregulation".

So, if you're one of those business leaders, like the guy in charge of BT, who wrote to the Daily Telegraph supporting the cuts, then you're fine, with your 55% pay rise.

But if you're one of the lowest-paid workers in the public sector, like a dinner lady, you're fair game in Tory eyes. You don't deserve protection because you "don't fit with the government's priorities"

Who was claiming it wasn't ideological???

[Mibbes Aye]

1.25% a year for four years. Blimey, that's going to sting.

Have you been taking arithmetic lessons from George Osborne? :greengrin

To find £20 billion over four years would mean slashing 5% out of your budget, every year, for four years.

[Leicester Fan]

Today it was revealed that boardroom pay for business leaders had gone up by 55% over the last year.

And today the Tory government announced they were scrapping the body that protects the pay of school dinner ladies.



Where's the relevance? The Govt doesn't set board room pay.

[Mibbes Aye]

Boris Johnson and Cameron are at loggerheads over the cuts in housing benefit. Boris believes that they will lead to 'Kosovo style' emigration of the poor from London.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-opposes-david-cameron-over-housing-benefit-cut-2118975.html

The Tories seem obsessed with forcing people to move from their homes against their will. We went through all this a couple of months ago with that shambles of a policy about the waiting lists.

If you have been working and then get made redundant, and have a family, as many people do, you'll no doubt be trying deperately to find a job and the last thing you need is to be told you have to move house, pull your children out of school and try and resettle them while trying to find a job.

Yet that's not good enough for the Tories. Although you're trying to find a job, you'll have to go.

I would disagree with Clegg - it's disgraceful that we're not calling this for exactly what it is.

Social cleansing, pure and simple.

[Leicester Fan]

The Tories seem obsessed with forcing people to move from their homes against their will. We went through all this a couple of months ago with that shambles of a policy about the waiting lists.

If you have been working and then get made redundant, and have a family, as many people do, you'll no doubt be trying deperately to find a job and the last thing you need is to be told you have to move house, pull your children out of school and try and resettle them while trying to find a job.

Yet that's not good enough for the Tories. Although you're trying to find a job, you'll have to go.

I would disagree with Clegg - it's disgraceful that we're not calling this for exactly what it is.

Social cleansing, pure and simple.

Have the Tories ever done anything that you agree with?

[Mibbes Aye]

Have the Tories ever done anything that you agree with?

:agree:

Ted Heath taking us into the EEC :thumbsup:

[Mibbes Aye]

And the setting-up of the Central Electricity Board, under Stanley Baldwin :thumbsup:

[Betty Boop]

The Tories seem obsessed with forcing people to move from their homes against their will. We went through all this a couple of months ago with that shambles of a policy about the waiting lists.

If you have been working and then get made redundant, and have a family, as many people do, you'll no doubt be trying deperately to find a job and the last thing you need is to be told you have to move house, pull your children out of school and try and resettle them while trying to find a job.

Yet that's not good enough for the Tories. Although you're trying to find a job, you'll have to go.

I would disagree with Clegg - it's disgraceful that we're not calling this for exactly what it is.

Social cleansing, pure and simple.

:agree: i wonder if MPs will have a cap put on their second home allowance, after all housing benefit is being capped at £250 for a one bed-room flat in London, while MPs can claim £385. Fairs fair ! :greengrin

[magpie1892]

Have you been taking arithmetic lessons from George Osborne? :greengrin

To find £20 billion over four years would mean slashing 5% out of your budget, every year, for four years.

Four years of NHS budget = GBP420 billion. 20 billion is 8% of that. Divide that by four (years) and, you're right, it's not 1.25%, it's actually 2%.

But not 5%. (250%, I think, as much as the actual figure?)

I only got a 'B' at Higher Maths. What's your excuse?!

[lapsedhibee]

Four years of NHS budget = GBP420 billion. 20 billion is 8% of that. Divide that by four (years) and, you're right, it's not 1.25%, it's actually 2%.

But not 5%.

Yamaths.

20/420=~5%

[bighairyfaeleith]

Four years of NHS budget = GBP420 billion. 20 billion is 8% of that. Divide that by four (years) and, you're right, it's not 1.25%, it's actually 2%.

But not 5%. (250%, I think, as much as the actual figure?)

I only got a 'B' at Higher Maths. What's your excuse?!

I think both of you might want to check your figures:greengrin

[Leicester Fan]

Yamaths.

20/420=~5%

I make it 4.7%

[magpie1892]

I think both of you might want to check your figures:greengrin

It can be 'come at' from the top or the bottom. Statistics can prove anything. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[lapsedhibee]

I make it 4.7%

~ means approximately. It'll be better working with whole matchsticks rather than part matchsticks when it comes time to explain to magpie1892 how percentages work. :wink:

[magpie1892]

~ means approximately. It'll be better working with whole matchsticks rather than part matchsticks when it comes time to explain to magpie1892 how percentages work. :wink:

Look at the original claim. 20 billion to be found over four years, out of a budget of 420 million... If the proposition is weak, it's hardly my fault!

[Mibbes Aye]

1.25% a year for four years. Blimey, that's going to sting.


etc etc etc :greengrin

Okay.

The NHS costs about £100 billion a year.

It has to find £20 billion savings over four years.

If it spreads it evenly it has to make £5 billion savings every year, for four years in a row.

How much is it having to save every year, in percentage terms?

Whatever the percentage of £5 billion from £100 billion is......

It's not rocket surgery :greengrin

But far, far, far, far more importantly than that.....

What happens to all the old people stuck in hospital when they want to be home, clogging up beds that A&E need, clogging up beds that you, I, our family need for non-emergency surgery, because the Tories have slashed the local government budget?

That's not percentages on budgets. That's real people. You and I. Our family, our friends.

[magpie1892]

Okay.

The NHS costs about £100 billion a year.

It has to find £20 billion savings over four years.

If it spreads it evenly it has to make £5 billion savings every year, for four years in a row.

How much is it having to save every year, in percentage terms?

Whatever the percentage of £5 billion from £100 billion is......

It's not rocket surgery :greengrin

But far, far, far, far more importantly than that.....

What happens to all the old people stuck in hospital when they want to be home, clogging up beds that A&E need, clogging up beds that you, I, our family need for non-emergency surgery, because the Tories have slashed the local government budget?

That's not percentages on budgets. That's real people. You and I. Our family, our friends.

Hmm... that's not what you said but I'll let it go.

Your second point, remade, is interesting, but I am loath to prejudge. I'm not sure where the coalition can cut that will have no effect?

p.s. why is it all the Tories' fault? I thought this was a coalition?

[Mibbes Aye]

Hmm... that's not what you said but I'll let it go.

Your second point, remade, is interesting, but I am loath to prejudge. I'm not sure where the coalition can cut that will have no effect?

p.s. why is it all the Tories' fault? I thought this was a coalition?

To be fair magpie1892, it's not 'interesting', it's absolutely bloody terrifying.

I'm not surprised that none of the posters who defend the Government have come back on it.

It's all very well coming on here and saying "Oooh, Gordon Brown overspent" and "Oooh, what would you have us do?"

It's a different story when hollow slogans about ring-fencing the NHS are exposed for what they really mean.

The cuts to local government spending will drive a coach and horses through the ring-fencing and the outcome hits vulnerable old folk the hardest. And then hits everyone else too.

So when you post about how the NHS has been 'ring-fenced', please remember that. Policies have consequences. And poorly-thought out policies tend to have bad consequences. And those consequences invariably hit the weakest hardest.

"We are all in this together" my arse :bitchy:

[magpie1892]

To be fair magpie1892, it's not 'interesting', it's absolutely bloody terrifying.

I'm not surprised that none of the posters who defend the Government have come back on it.

It's all very well coming on here and saying "Oooh, Gordon Brown overspent" and "Oooh, what would you have us do?"

It's a different story when hollow slogans about ring-fencing the NHS are exposed for what they really mean.

The cuts to local government spending will drive a coach and horses through the ring-fencing and the outcome hits vulnerable old folk the hardest. And then hits everyone else too.

So when you post about how the NHS has been 'ring-fenced', please remember that. Policies have consequences. And poorly-thought out policies tend to have bad consequences. And those consequences invariably hit the weakest hardest.

"We are all in this together" my arse :bitchy:


We're not in it all together, no-one believes that. Cameron is worth GBP30m+, for example. Diane Abbot was scathing of Labour colleagues who sent their kids to private school, then sent her kids to private school, etc.

I post that NHS funding has been ringfenced and I'm happy with that position. I firmly believe (and have some corroborating information from a very small representative secton of NHS workers) that there is the potential for massive savings to be made in this budget regardless, but it ain't going to happen.

That aside, I am not 'feeling' this apocalyptic vision you posit. It may be 'all very well' coming on here and saying 'what would you have [us] do?' but that doesn't make the question redundant.

The deficit needs cut now and needs cut massively. By Labour's (in so much as a worm like Liam Byrne represents Labour and it's original ethos) own admission, there is no money left. I just don't see any other way than big cuts to public spending. What's the alternative?

[bingo70]

To be fair magpie1892, it's not 'interesting', it's absolutely bloody terrifying.

I'm not surprised that none of the posters who defend the Government have come back on it.

It's all very well coming on here and saying "Oooh, Gordon Brown overspent" and "Oooh, what would you have us do?"

It's a different story when hollow slogans about ring-fencing the NHS are exposed for what they really mean.

The cuts to local government spending will drive a coach and horses through the ring-fencing and the outcome hits vulnerable old folk the hardest. And then hits everyone else too.

So when you post about how the NHS has been 'ring-fenced', please remember that. Policies have consequences. And poorly-thought out policies tend to have bad consequences. And those consequences invariably hit the weakest hardest.

"We are all in this together" my arse :bitchy:

Can i just say in my defence that after my post was responded too i realised i was well out my depth having a political debate and that i should just stay clear of the holy ground :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

David Cameron said in August that the European Union budget, and thus the British contribution, had to be reduced, that the UK taxpayer couldn't pay more towards Europe.

But today it became clear that Britain would be paying at least £450 million more to Europe, and nearer £1 billion if the full rise that is proposed were to go ahead.

Put aside the fact that the Tories have cut child benefit to middle income families, which that £450 million may well have covered.

He said he wouldn't do it. And then he did.

Is he incompetent?

Or is he a liar?

[magpie1892]

David Cameron said in August that the European Union budget, and thus the British contribution, had to be reduced, that the UK taxpayer couldn't pay more towards Europe.

But today it became clear that Britain would be paying at least £450 million more to Europe, and nearer £1 billion if the full rise that is proposed were to go ahead.

Put aside the fact that the Tories have cut child benefit to middle income families, which that £450 million may well have covered.

He said he wouldn't do it. And then he did.

Is he incompetent?

Or is he a liar?

Both, I think. But this begs the question about how much 'power' our politicians retain in the face of the EU. And then again, we had Tony Blair promising a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

He said he would do it. And then he didn't.

Was he incompetent?

Or was he a liar?

[Mibbes Aye]

Can i just say in my defence that after my post was responded too i realised i was well out my depth having a political debate and that i should just stay clear of the holy ground :greengrin

I think your post early on was fair and accurate, seems a long time now mind :greengrin. A thread like this makes folk more partisan than they would normally be, me very much included - reminds me of the board/anti-board stuff we used to see on here a couple of years ago.

From what I've seen you post you're no more out of your depth than any of the rest of us. I know your Hibs and fitba-related posts are usually thoughtful and good value :agree:

[magpie1892]

I think your post early on was fair and accurate, seems a long time now mind :greengrin. A thread like this makes folk more partisan than they would normally be, me very much included - reminds me of the board/anti-board stuff we used to see on here a couple of years ago.

From what I've seen you post you're no more out of your depth than any of the rest of us. I know your Hibs and fitba-related posts are usually thoughtful and good value :agree:

I'd have to concur with that. This is all 'knockabout' stuff for kids of all ages but there's some decent points being raised among the occasional vitriol.

[IndieHibby]

A point was made that instead of going to university, many people could learn necessary skills in a job and be better off financially by going that route. My response is that many, many jobs (including my own) require only the numeracy and literacy achievable by the end of primary school (and in the days of Mr Gradgrind were achieved in primary school, before finger-painting became part of the core curriculum). Anything beyond primary education includes functions other than making individuals fit and competent to do a particular job.

I'm not disagreeing that some particular university courses seem a bit dodgy. But I remember learning in secondary school how an oxbow tail was formed. This has proved of no use to me in my working life, and the time I spent learning it could have been used to earn money doing a paper round. You can pick apart pretty much any aspect of education if the criteria for being worthwhile are only whether it is directly useful for a job or whether it has taken up time which could have been spent doing something else.

I see your point now, although I remain confused why you would compare an adult at 16/18 entering the world of work with an 11/12 year old entering the world of work? That's not comparing like-with-like....

You appeared to be saying that my argument was invalid because it could be applied equally to pre-pubescent children, when clearly that was not what I was saying or any sensible person would recommend.

Apolgies if the tone of my post was 'robust', but hopefully you'll see why now...

[IndieHibby]

But if people remain employed the tax revenue increases as does the economy grow with people spending there money in the private sector. The government also pays less out in benefits. Simplistic way of putting it but then again......

Yet another Tory supporter resorting to personal insults Why?

1. Please point out where I made a personal insult. Please.
2. Why is it relevant that you are claiming to know my voting choices?

[bighairyfaeleith]

It can be 'come at' from the top or the bottom. Statistics can prove anything. Quod erat demonstrandum.

You must be a tory, I've not got a ****ing clue what that means:wink:

And I don't mean the french bit!!

[magpie1892]

You must be a tory, I've not got a ****ing clue what that means:wink:

And I don't mean the french bit!!

I'm not a Tory.

The bit in French, look it up - I see you have the internet!

[lyonhibs]

You must be a tory, I've not got a ****ing clue what that means:wink:

And I don't mean the french bit!!

:faf::faf:

[Beefster]

Today it was revealed that boardroom pay for business leaders had gone up by 55% over the last year.

And today the Tory government announced they were scrapping the body that protects the pay of school dinner ladies.

"Wait", I hear you cry, "We are all in this together... cuts need to be made and maybe this is one of them" :agree:

Except this isn't about cuts. According to Michael Gove, trying to protect the pay and conditions of dinner ladies, school janitors and classroom assistants "did not fit well with the government's priorities for greater deregulation".

So, if you're one of those business leaders, like the guy in charge of BT, who wrote to the Daily Telegraph supporting the cuts, then you're fine, with your 55% pay rise.

But if you're one of the lowest-paid workers in the public sector, like a dinner lady, you're fair game in Tory eyes. You don't deserve protection because you "don't fit with the government's priorities"

Who was claiming it wasn't ideological???

Why do dinner ladies need a taxpayer-funded body to protect their pay and conditions? Is there a taxpayer-funded body to protect the pay and conditions of shop assistants and office juniors too? If not, what makes dinner ladies a special case - can't they join a union and pay the fees themselves?

[One Day Soon]

Sorry? I'm not exactly sure what this spat has to do with me!

Moving on, there's a fascinating article by John Gray in the London Review of Books, I think he - as usual - misses stuff and isn't always on the right track but it's still probably the best thing I've read on the topic.

Progressive, Like the 1980s (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n20/john-gray/progressive-like-the-1980s)

Apologies LH. I didn't originally drag you into this thread. At least you generally don't throw stones and run away! Though I have other criticisms.....

[One Day Soon]

Have the Tories ever done anything that you agree with?

Losing the elections in 1997, 2001 and 2005 was pretty agreeable of them I thought.

Other than that......I thought sending the SAS in to the Iranian embassy siege was quite good.

[RyeSloan]

David Cameron said in August that the European Union budget, and thus the British contribution, had to be reduced, that the UK taxpayer couldn't pay more towards Europe.

But today it became clear that Britain would be paying at least £450 million more to Europe, and nearer £1 billion if the full rise that is proposed were to go ahead.

Put aside the fact that the Tories have cut child benefit to middle income families, which that £450 million may well have covered.

He said he wouldn't do it. And then he did.

Is he incompetent?

Or is he a liar?

Hmmmm and when was this budget set and who agreed it??

For what it's worth I agree that the cut in the communities budget (which relates directly to England/Wales I believe) seems to be a lot of buck passing to me and could have some significant impact on exactly the areas you mention but think that 'ring fencing' the central government NHS budget was the major mistake. There must be efficiencies to be found in a budget that has expanded by so much so quickly, they would have been much better identifying them than cutting local council funding by so much.

Really don't see your point about the dinner ladies though, why should they be treated any differently from any other worker in the UK?

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm not a Tory.

The bit in French, look it up - I see you have the internet!

Looked up a french translator but it couldn't figure it out, did you make it up:confused::wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Looked up a french translator but it couldn't figure it out, did you make it up:confused::wink:

Latin is the new Lingua Franca. :greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

Latin is the new Lingua Franca. :greengrin

:greengrin I'd never heard of lingua franca before, so that was todays wikipedia lesson completed:wink:

[Beefster]

To be fair magpie1892, it's not 'interesting', it's absolutely bloody terrifying.

I'm not surprised that none of the posters who defend the Government have come back on it.

It's all very well coming on here and saying "Oooh, Gordon Brown overspent" and "Oooh, what would you have us do?"

It's a different story when hollow slogans about ring-fencing the NHS are exposed for what they really mean.

The cuts to local government spending will drive a coach and horses through the ring-fencing and the outcome hits vulnerable old folk the hardest. And then hits everyone else too.

So when you post about how the NHS has been 'ring-fenced', please remember that. Policies have consequences. And poorly-thought out policies tend to have bad consequences. And those consequences invariably hit the weakest hardest.

"We are all in this together" my arse :bitchy:

Bit of hypocrisy going on here seeing as you didn't respond to my post about proving a lot of what you were saying wasn't soundbites.

[khib70]

Meanwhile, in the beleaguered and impoverished public sector, under siege from the "ideological" cuts.....

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Cost-of-Scots-NHS-chiefs.6604195.jp

Fat cats, eh?

[magpie1892]

Meanwhile, in the beleaguered and impoverished public sector, under siege from the "ideological" cuts.....

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Cost-of-Scots-NHS-chiefs.6604195.jp

Fat cats, eh?

Disgusting. Must be the Tories' fault.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Disgusting. Must be the Tories' fault.

Whilst I don't want to distract from the horrendous management culture in the NHS, can you answer me this?

Which government was it thought that the NHS should be run on the same lines as private operations again? I can never quite remember.

IIRC the theory was that if the NHS was run the same way as private companies there would be more efficiency bringing real benefits to patients.

[RyeSloan]

Which government was it thought that the NHS should be run on the same lines as private operations again? I can never quite remember.

Are you trying to be ironic?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Are you trying to be ironic?

Just asking a simple question, and expecting a simple answer. I've narrowed it down to the following:

a) Conservatives (1979 - 1997)
b) Labour (1997 - 2010)

I'm sure it has to be one of the two.

[easty]

Disgusting. Must be the Tories' fault.

I'd go as far to say I hold David Cameron personally responsible.

[Mibbes Aye]

Bit of hypocrisy going on here seeing as you didn't respond to my post about proving a lot of what you were saying wasn't soundbites.

That's a bit unfair.

Just above I've given a detailed exposition of how the effects of two different policy decisions, in tandem, lead to very specifically worse outcomes for older people.

A while back I illustrated how the changes to tax hit pensioners and the unemployed harder than the working population. I've gone into detail on a number of different policy areas since the election in May and my last relevant post on this thread was asking why Cameron had publicy said he would cut the EU contribution but is now talking about paying extra - anything between £450 million and nearly £1 billion extra, in fact.

That's detail, not soundbites. and there's no shortage of analysis from the likes of the IFS to back things up.

It's interesting though that the comebacks from you and others are either accusations of rhetoric, or having a go at Gordon Brown.

I'm not seeing any attempt from you to rationalise the decisions, any attempt to refute that they do hit the weakest the hardest.

I suspect it's because you can't.

[Mibbes Aye]

Why do dinner ladies need a taxpayer-funded body to protect their pay and conditions? Is there a taxpayer-funded body to protect the pay and conditions of shop assistants and office juniors too? If not, what makes dinner ladies a special case - can't they join a union and pay the fees themselves?

The body brings together the unions and local government, as well as those faith organisations involved in running schools.

It was establsihed in recognition that teachers' workload had increased dramatically, that the amount of support staff in schools was far greater and that these support staff had far greater responsibilities than previous.

The decision was that a national framework was important to try and guarantee consistency of standards and conditions in what, I'm sure you'll agree is a critical area - the environment in which our children grow up and learn.

[khib70]

Just asking a simple question, and expecting a simple answer. I've narrowed it down to the following:

a) Conservatives (1979 - 1997) Brought it in
b) Labour (1997 - 2010) Had 13 years to change it but didn't
I'm sure it has to be one of the two.

There you go. Ask me another. Like you I find the NHS management culture a total disgrace. But, either of us, given 13 years in government would probably have changed or abolished it, no?

[magpie1892]

Whilst I don't want to distract from the horrendous management culture in the NHS, can you answer me this?

Which government was it thought that the NHS should be run on the same lines as private operations again? I can never quite remember.

IIRC the theory was that if the NHS was run the same way as private companies there would be more efficiency bringing real benefits to patients.

That's an easy one. The Tories.

But, as has been pointed out above, did Labour do anything about it...

Still the Tories' fault, 13 years later?

[RyeSloan]

Just asking a simple question, and expecting a simple answer. I've narrowed it down to the following:

a) Conservatives (1979 - 1997)
b) Labour (1997 - 2010)

I'm sure it has to be one of the two.

I suggest you stop being so simple then...unless of course you are suggesting that Labour reversed or reduced the use of the private sector in the NHS during thier time in government.

[RyeSloan]

That's a bit unfair.

Just above I've given a detailed exposition of how the effects of two different policy decisions, in tandem, lead to very specifically worse outcomes for older people.

A while back I illustrated how the changes to tax hit pensioners and the unemployed harder than the working population. I've gone into detail on a number of different policy areas since the election in May and my last relevant post on this thread was asking why Cameron had publicy said he would cut the EU contribution but is now talking about paying extra - anything between £450 million and nearly £1 billion extra, in fact.

That's detail, not soundbites. and there's no shortage of analysis from the likes of the IFS to back things up.

It's interesting though that the comebacks from you and others are either accusations of rhetoric, or having a go at Gordon Brown.

I'm not seeing any attempt from you to rationalise the decisions, any attempt to refute that they do hit the weakest the hardest.

I suspect it's because you can't.

Try your favourite source the IFS....a presentation called Who loses most from public service cuts by Cormac O'Dea.

There is only one analysis on there that shows the poorest as loosing most and only then using unmodelled elements.

It would seem quite clear to me that the biggest losers are indeed the richest (50% tax rate) however as has always been the case there simply isn't enough 'rich' to tax to prevent impact on the 'poorest'.

There is also the rather obvious case that the poorest are often the biggest users of government expenditure so any reduction of the scale required has to impact the largest user base.


I see you have never quite managed to admit Brown's role in all of this mess and while you see it has 'having a go' I would suggest that it's important to have perspective in any discussion before accusing certain parties of ideological attacks on the very fibre of our society or the like!

[magpie1892]

It's interesting though that the comebacks from you and others are either accusations of rhetoric, or having a go at Gordon Brown.

I can't concur that it's 'having a go' at Brown to exemplify his utter ineptitude, gutlessness, deceit, childishness and overarching ambition. Especially as the taxpayer is now and has been expected to pay for his *****-ups.

The examples are well documented in media of all hues but it transpires* that towards the end of Blair's tenure, when Gordo thought he waited long enough for 'his turn', the Chancellor was obstructing and smearing the Prime Minister FFS in multiple fits of pique. This is not what he was elected to do.

*"Guardian journalist Andrew Rawnsley quotes a member of Mr Blair's inner circle saying: "Gordon was just losing it. He was behaving like a belligerent teenager. Just standing in the office shouting: 'When are you going to ****ing go?'" - Sky/PA/AFP, etc.

[Mibbes Aye]

Try your favourite source the IFS....a presentation called Who loses most from public service cuts by Cormac O'Dea.

There is only one analysis on there that shows the poorest as loosing most and only then using unmodelled elements.

It would seem quite clear to me that the biggest losers are indeed the richest (50% tax rate) however as has always been the case there simply isn't enough 'rich' to tax to prevent impact on the 'poorest'.

There is also the rather obvious case that the poorest are often the biggest users of government expenditure so any reduction of the scale required has to impact the largest user base.


I see you have never quite managed to admit Brown's role in all of this mess and while you see it has 'having a go' I would suggest that it's important to have perspective in any discussion before accusing certain parties of ideological attacks on the very fibre of our society or the like!

That's the thing SiMar - it doesn't have to be on the scale required. As the thread title says.......:wink:

[magpie1892]

That's the thing SiMar - it doesn't have to be on the scale required. As the thread title says.......:wink:

'any' and 'of' don't equate.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Not me that's struggling.

The Tories say these cuts are needed to protect future generations then cut funding from universities and schools. Defo not idealogical then.

There is money and if the government wanted to then they could invest in education but they don't want to, its plain to see!


Why does everyone mention this 'ideological' argument as if it is either a revelatin or a bad thing?

Of course there is ideology behind it, thats politics, in the same way as Labour ideologically believe in a bloated public sector (which of course has nothing to do with strong public sector unions and the fact that they almost singularly fund the Labour party).

Yes their solution to the cuts is ideologically driven, but that doesnt mean it is wrong. It is the ideology that WE voted for, because lets face it the last one didnt work out to well

[bighairyfaeleith]

Why does everyone mention this 'ideological' argument as if it is either a revelatin or a bad thing?

Of course there is ideology behind it, thats politics, in the same way as Labour ideologically believe in a bloated public sector (which of course has nothing to do with strong public sector unions and the fact that they almost singularly fund the Labour party).

Yes their solution to the cuts is ideologically driven, but that doesnt mean it is wrong. It is the ideology that WE voted for, because lets face it the last one didnt work out to well

Why does the government flatly deny that these cuts are idealogical?

No one voted for what we have got, simply because none of the parties where honest in the election about what they would do after it, especially the lib dems (who I voted for), and remember no party had a majority either, hence the coalition.

[Leicester Fan]

Why does everyone mention this 'ideological' argument as if it is either a revelatin or a bad thing?

Of course there is ideology behind it, thats politics, in the same way as Labour ideologically believe in a bloated public sector (which of course has nothing to do with strong public sector unions and the fact that they almost singularly fund the Labour party).

Yes their solution to the cuts is ideologically driven, but that doesnt mean it is wrong. It is the ideology that WE voted for, because lets face it the last one didnt work out to well
:top marks
The Tories do believe in less govt nothing wrong with that. The thing that is denied is that the ideology is that the Tories deliberately want to put people on the dole or starve pensioners to death for spite.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I suggest you stop being so simple then...unless of course you are suggesting that Labour reversed or reduced the use of the private sector in the NHS during thier time in government.

Just a way of highlghting that the Conservatives were the ones who brought managers into the NHS.

I read a good comment on the remuneration these plonkers receive. How come they always say their wages are comparable to similair jobs in the banking sector? They never compare themselves to industries like sewage, for example.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:top marks
The Tories do believe in less govt nothing wrong with that. The thing that is denied is that the ideology is that the Tories deliberately want to put people on the dole or starve pensioners to death for spite.

In the past, unemployment has been used as a tool to keep inflation down. Ludicrous as it may seem, putting people out of work has been a tactic of governments.

I have yet to see one that would admit to starving pensioners though. They might just get my vote. :devil: (Joke)

[bighairyfaeleith]

:top marks
The Tories do believe in less govt nothing wrong with that. The thing that is denied is that the ideology is that the Tories deliberately want to put people on the dole or starve pensioners to death for spite.

Sorry but the reason that we are continually given is to cut the deficit. Not because they believe in a smaller government. Are you saying that Davie has not been entirely truthful, because I simply refuse to believe that!!!:wink:

[Beefster]

That's a bit unfair.

Just above I've given a detailed exposition of how the effects of two different policy decisions, in tandem, lead to very specifically worse outcomes for older people.

A while back I illustrated how the changes to tax hit pensioners and the unemployed harder than the working population. I've gone into detail on a number of different policy areas since the election in May and my last relevant post on this thread was asking why Cameron had publicy said he would cut the EU contribution but is now talking about paying extra - anything between £450 million and nearly £1 billion extra, in fact.

That's detail, not soundbites. and there's no shortage of analysis from the likes of the IFS to back things up.

It's interesting though that the comebacks from you and others are either accusations of rhetoric, or having a go at Gordon Brown.

I'm not seeing any attempt from you to rationalise the decisions, any attempt to refute that they do hit the weakest the hardest.

I suspect it's because you can't.

I suspect you didn't read my post very well, if at all, because I gave you a fairly big list of reasons why I thought it was rhetoric.

I'm not going to defend everything that the government is doing however. Just as I find it hard to believe that someone can criticise everything that they're doing if they are being objective.

[One Day Soon]

I can't concur that it's 'having a go' at Brown to exemplify his utter ineptitude, gutlessness, deceit, childishness and overarching ambition. Especially as the taxpayer is now and has been expected to pay for his *****-ups.

To steal a question from another thread, were you picked on at school by Gordon Brown or something?

The examples are well documented in media of all hues but it transpires that towards the end of Blair's tenure, when Gordo thought he waited long enough for 'his turn', the Chancellor was obstructing and smearing the Prime Minister FFS in multiple fits of pique. This is not what he was elected to do.

"it transpires" - Does it? What is the evidence or source you are taking this from?

[One Day Soon]

Sorry but the reason that we are continually given is to cut the deficit. Not because they believe in a smaller government. Are you saying that Davie has not been entirely truthful, because I simply refuse to believe that!!!:wink:

Anyone who asserts that the current cuts proposals are exclusively about eliminating the deficit is either lying, a Tory, a Lib Dem or just uninformed. Possibly of course all four given that the middle two are now essentially the same thing.

It is not often I agree with Liverpool Hiobs but if you read the piece he links to earlier in the thread you will find a reasonably elegant explanation of the political philosophy of both Cameron and Clegg. These two believe in small government and a very active society, voluntarism and charities. Given that the right wing of the Lib Dems has hijacked that party the current coalition - in the context of the need to reign in public spending - has provided the perfect storm within which to pursue an aggressively ideological programme of reducing the state, returning to more pure market economics and attempting to re-engineer the terms of debate within the UK on how society is structured.

David Cameron doesn't continue to bang on about the 'Big Society' to his party in the face of their overwhelming indifference just because it is his own personal pet project. He does it because it is the logical - in fact the essential - corollary to the financial ideological orthodoxy they are in the process of unfolding. If you are seeking to shrink or withdraw the state from the delivery of core public services you need something else to take its place. Thatcher was stupid enough to openly preach a kind of Samuel Smiles philosophy of self help which, together with her hectoring and confrontational style, made it easy to revile and oppose her. Cameron is being smarter. This is about articulating a version of British society in which we woud collectively organise ourselves on a voluntary basis - a kind of self established co-operative approach to the ownership and delivery of services.

Unfortunately the Women's Institute meets the Boy Scouts really is not a credible way to guarantee the delivery of lifeline services on a consistent basis, to a minimum quality threshold for the most vulnerable.

[One Day Soon]

:top marks
The Tories do believe in less govt nothing wrong with that. The thing that is denied is that the ideology is that the Tories deliberately want to put people on the dole or starve pensioners to death for spite.

They are absolutely comfortable with dole queues rising. It makes the Labour market more competitive, exerts downward pressure on wage costs thereby improving business profitability and strengthens employers on a range of other cost drivers such as pensions, working conditions etc.

Their history on this point is certainly very clear: unemployment you will recall "is a price worth paying". Coming from the party which opposed something as fundamental and basic as the minimum wage it is hardly surprising.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Off topic but as much as I dislike Harriet Hartman I did laugh at the Ginger rodent comment about danger Alexander :)

[Betty Boop]

Why are the LibCons not going after Vodafone, and their massive unpaid tax bill ?:grr:

[CropleyWasGod]

Why are the LibCons not going after Vodafone, and their massive unpaid tax bill ?:grr:

As I understand it, that's a bit of an urban myth.

HMRC were after them for about £6bn. The final settlement was about £1.5bn. It's quite common for the first assessment to be OTT, to force some action, and for the final agreement to be well belwo that.

[Betty Boop]

As I understand it, that's a bit of an urban myth.

HMRC were after them for about £6bn. The final settlement was about £1.5bn. It's quite common for the first assessment to be OTT, to force some action, and for the final agreement to be well belwo that.

Ah well that's all right then ! :greengrin They have also been given 30 days to pay an unpaid tax bill of £1.6bn in India.

[CropleyWasGod]

Ah well that's all right then ! :greengrin They have also been given 30 days to pay an unpaid tax bill of £1.6bn in India.

Yup. I suspect that, as part of the negotiation process, that was taken into account. Most developed countries have agreements in place to avoid taxpayers being taxed twice on the same income in different countries.

[Leicester Fan]

They are absolutely comfortable with dole queues rising. It makes the Labour market more competitive, exerts downward pressure on wage costs thereby improving business profitability and strengthens employers on a range of other cost drivers such as pensions, working conditions etc.
.

You could say the same about unlimited immigration.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You could say the same about unlimited immigration.

aye another poorly implemented change by the condems, good point well made leicester:agree:

[magpie1892]

You could say the same about unlimited immigration.

Careful, Leicester, you'll wake the Kraken!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Unfortunately the Women's Institute meets the Boy Scouts really is not a credible way to guarantee the delivery of lifeline services on a consistent basis, to a minimum quality threshold for the most vulnerable.

This is my concern. "Well meaning" people could take on social services and impose their morality and untutored ways on the vulnerable.

Look at some of the fall out we are still seeing from a previous time when children's homes, for example, were not as tightly controlled as now. Like Health and Safety, the state had to step in to provide a relatively objective system of control.

I say "relatively" as I acknowledge that, in some cases, the people taking on control had their own agendas. Hence the wilder excesses of political correctness.


You could say the same about unlimited immigration.

That's a fair point, another consequence of that was a surge in house prices in the last decade.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Why does the government flatly deny that these cuts are idealogical?

No one voted for what we have got, simply because none of the parties where honest in the election about what they would do after it, especially the lib dems (who I voted for), and remember no party had a majority either, hence the coalition.

Yeah no party had a majority, but lets remeber that the incredibly pious Labour party were overwhelmingly rejected by the voters, and that by far the most votes went to the Tories.

And the deny that they are ideological because they are spinning - again thats politics, in the same way as Labour would deny that their expansion of the public sector was about anything other than about improving services.

And i was in no doubt about what was happening after the election, cuts were inevitable, as A Darling stated.

[Leicester Fan]

That's a fair point, another consequence of that was a surge in house prices in the last decade.

Which means my kids will probably never be able to buy their own home.These surges in house prices do nobody any good apart from speculators.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Which means my kids will probably never be able to buy their own home.These surges in house prices do nobody any good apart from speculators.

Surely that's the way the free market works?

[Betty Boop]

Meanwhile over at RBS normal service is resumed, as they send their executives on a nice wee jolly to Thailand. :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/10/31/fury-as-bailed-out-banking-giant-rbs-sends-staff-on-thailand-jaunt-86908-22678016/

[Phil D. Rolls]

Meanwhile over at RBS normal service is resumed, as they send their executives on a nice wee jolly to Thailand. :greengrin

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/10/31/fury-as-bailed-out-banking-giant-rbs-sends-staff-on-thailand-jaunt-86908-22678016/

Much as I despise RBS (there I've said it), I had to laugh at this shocking revelation:


Asia-based RBS bankers are entertaining clients there, enjoying luxuries such as flatscreen TVs, iPods and a £315-a-day spa.

Does this really constitute luxury in Glasgow? What next, hot and cold running water, cooked breakfasts, the wheel?

The article is marred further by this contribution


Labour MSP George Foulkes said: "What they don't seem to ever realise, when they run these things or when they pay themselves bonuses, is that it's our money that they are spending.

"They don't have any money themselves, they don't create any wealth - all they do is move our money around and charge us for it. It's just outrageous."

This can't be the same guy who defended MPs expenses by taking a pop at BBC salaries? Who says Yams don't do irony?

Classic SM pettiness. All it needs to be complete is two pensioners standing outside RBS, holding a £1m electric bill, and with their eyes looking up to the heavens.

A poor miss on an easy target, they should try harder.

[One Day Soon]

You could say the same about unlimited immigration.

Yes you could, but we don't have unlimited immigration do we? We have free movement of Labour across the EU (that's your free market at work).

And to put this in context the number of people immigrating to the UK in net terms in 2009 was 196,000. In September 2010 we had 2.5 million people unemployed according to the ILF. That is expected to rise by 1,000,000 with the effect of Tory budget cuts. So, unemployment at around 3.5 million - it would take the current levels of net immigration almost 18 years to achieve those numbers.

To put the whole bogus immigration debate into further context if you look in detail at the complete figures for 2008 you find that 68% of people coming into the UK to work were EU citizens (including returning Brits), only one in eight of all immigrants were from outside the EU and despite all the government rhetoric on getting tough on this issue their 'cap' will only apply to the one in eight meaning that its effect on the overall inward immigration figures wil be negligible.

[Leicester Fan]

Yes you could, but we don't have unlimited immigration do we? We have free movement of Labour across the EU (that's your free market at work).

And to put this in context the number of people immigrating to the UK in net terms in 2009 was 196,000. In September 2010 we had 2.5 million people unemployed according to the ILF. That is expected to rise by 1,000,000 with the effect of Tory budget cuts. So, unemployment at around 3.5 million - it would take the current levels of net immigration almost 18 years to achieve those numbers.

To put the whole bogus immigration debate into further context if you look in detail at the complete figures for 2008 you find that 68% of people coming into the UK to work were EU citizens (including returning Brits), only one in eight of all immigrants were from outside the EU and despite all the government rhetoric on getting tough on this issue their 'cap' will only apply to the one in eight meaning that its effect on the overall inward immigration figures wil be negligible.

Good choice of years on the immigration figures:top marks

You do know unemployment was higher when labour left office than when they came into office don't you? No doubt you were protesting at the time.

[One Day Soon]

Good choice of years on the immigration figures:top marks

Which years would you prefer? These were just the most recently available data. The facts may not fit preconceptions about 'johnny foreigner' coming and stealing our jobs so which years would you prefer to look at?

You do know unemployment was higher when labour left office than when they came into office don't you? No doubt you were protesting at the time.

I'm not in favour of unemployment regardless of who is in power. I'm certainly not in favour of consciously using it as a tool of economic management - that's not a statement that Howe, Lawson, Lamont or Osborne could honestly agree with.

You are right that Labour came to office in 1997 and inherited an unemployment rate of 7% but left office with a higher unemployment rate of 7.7%. What you omitted to mention was that for the intervening thirteen years when New Labour was in power it averaged something like 5.5%, only heading up again when we were caught up in global recession from January 2008.

While your Tory chums were in power from 1979 to 1997 the figure averaged something more like close to 10%. I will freely concede I don't have the exact averages for both periods of government but if you look at overall performance from start to finish on unemployment there is no contest. I suspect the same is true on interest rates and inflation.