what is everyones views on the tories? the fact that they are going to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer is totaly out of order what do you think
Printable View
what is everyones views on the tories? the fact that they are going to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer is totaly out of order what do you think
Same old Tories! Nothing new here except a new smug face to go with it.
It's George Osbourne I'm worried about. Wouldn't trust him to get my messages fae the shops nevermind run the UK's economy.
When Cameron and his chums get in it will be like a group of chimps running the country.
A Tory win however is the best thing that can happen for Scottish Independence, so moan the Tories:greengrin.
They seem to be all style and little substance to me. I haven't been too impressed with the people they think are going to be minsters (and let's face it, the standard is pretty low). Finally, that Bullingdon club photo should tell most people what we are up against.
Exploitative **** that will distribute even more of the country's declining wealth into the pockets of those already rolling in it, but that's what they've always been about, indeed it could be argued it's their function. At least they're more honest than New Labour, who now carry out exactly the same role, but with the hypocrisy that they are 'for the people.'
For Tory read Republican for Labour read Democrat, and just like in the States two cheeks of the same erse :grr:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S
That is out of order, and I can't stand them for that. But let's not forget that Labour has done just that for the past 13 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibeeliam
Survival of the fittest Im afraid. I feel that Scotland is too left winged and Im sick of this nanny state culture full of scroungers on the dole just because they cant be arsed getting a job which I pay towards.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibeeliam
David Cameron will be a great PM (and he hates the yams too) so even more reason to vote for him.
Funniest post I have read today.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
Brown is the lesser of several evils.
'Mon Labour.
What makes you think that? Out of curiosity, have you lived under a Tory government?Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
The Tories and New Labour have done basically the same thing each time both have been in power.
Like others on here, I'd vote Labour over the Tories any day - although when the election comes around I doubt I'll vote for either tbh. :yawn:
I hate Cameron and Osborne, pair of Eton tally-ho, pimms drinking, groin slapping, yacht owning, lemon merangue pie appreciating, keeping up appearances liking, fuds. They'd also bring back fox hunting which I can't abide.
'Mon Labour!!!!!
While I agree that something has to be done about the pockets of society that are bleeding us dry through doing nothing for themselves, I would be very worried if we were to resort to cutting those in genuine need loose.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
We can't go on allowing children to come into the world with their only prospect being a life on benefits. Sadly. that was exactly what Thatcher and her storm troopers engineered. The strong would progress up the way, whilst the weak were left n state sponsored ghettos, their anger controlled by over prescription of certain drugs.
I really hope someone can do something about that, the only attempt I have seen to repair our society is n the policies and goals that the SNP are going for.
Why do you think Cameron will be a great PM.
Which was the last political movement to have had Britain's begging bowl brought out for the IMF?
Which political movement, if re-elected, will have us back there again?
Which politcal movement allowed the Unions to bring the country to it's knees?
Which politcal movement allowed the UK to have most of it's legislative powers transferred to the EU?
Which political movement allowed an era of cheap money to create a massive assest price bubble, which has only partially burst?
:duck:
:duck:
:duck:
Should you not post a link to the Daily Mail article to keep the record straightQuote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
The tories took us into WW2, and it took us 60 years to pay the Yanks back. So if you really want answers to your questions dig deeper. Britain was on its arse, and things came to a head in the 70s.
I also love the way that British management - which was on the other side of the disputes - get off without any criticism whilst the unions get all the blame.
Also, IIRC, it was one E. Heath who took us into Europe, and one W. Churchill who proposed a common market in the first place. Can't remember what party these obscure duffers represented.
I don't read it, so wouldn't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
New one on me (not hard, i'll admit) How was WWII preventable by the Tories?Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
So how did we get to the nadir of the winter of discontent? How was it resolved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
I think they were Tory, FR! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
In all seriousness, though, the common market is an excellent idea. I think it is why Europe has become so prosperous. It just politcal/legal union that has followed on from it. Not sure you can blame the Tories for that one.
Agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S
Right Hibby's - we are all going to be voting in a few months (at least we should be) and as a relatively young 'un, who knows nothing of history/politics etc, I feel that I would much rather log on here and hear some actual facts rather than regurgitated party-politcial cheap shots.
So, those of you in the know, please share with us your thoughts. I'll start:
Britain needs to pay down debt, double quick, in order to calm markets.
British competitiveness needs to be a government priority, with a clear review and strategy
Public sector is too big and hugely inefficient
Immigration is not being properly managed to benefit communities
British political union is under threat - not sure whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
Welfare state has bloated to such an extent that perverse incentives now exist whereby people are discouraged from employment, encouraged into teenage pregnancy.
Savers/FTB's are being shafted to benefit baby-boomers and current homeowners
Those aspiring to start families are discouraged in doing so by the above
General culture of interfering state discourages personal responsibility
:faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf: :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
Maggie outQuote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
Maggie out
Maggie Maggie Maggie
Out out out!
(Thatcher's your real enemy.)
Good god :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
You are going to come onto a entirely subjective forum where people post - at best - decently informed opinions to make your final voting decision????
TO be honest. no political party inspires me - the problem with a 2 party system is that - through necessity to entice voters it feels may be leaning towards party B, Party A feels compelled to make concessions on its own policies to try and entice voters to vote for them that would not have done so without those concessions.
Once they've got the votes, the concessions they said they were going to make become a whole lot less important, which is why the vast majority of stuff included in shiny manifesto's could be considered to barely be worth the paper it's written on.
For me, for all their undoubted faults, there have been measures made by the Labour government - tax credits, the £250 Child vouchers, minumum wage etc - which I agree with, and the idea of George Osborne running the economy (bear in mind that, rightly or wrongly, a decent proportion of people will take personalities as well as policies into consideration when voting) fills me with such dread, that - if I get out of bed on polling day (therein lies the problem, IMO it's up to the political parties to do their bit in motivating the voters, beyond just going "Keep the <insert name of rival here> out. Please vote") - I'll vote Labour long before I'd vote Tory.
Not particularly analytical, or maybe even rational, and doubtless there will some hefty opinionated posts to come from the usual suspects in this thread, but my take on things nonetheless.
So, if I was forced by gunpoint to vote, it would be Labour. And I am of the opinion that - unless the ruling government literally infringes upon one's basic human rights - if you don't vote, you've chucked away your chance to have a say and therefore should just grin and bear it until the next election comes around. Don't moan about what the democratic process throws up if you can't be arsed participating in it.
As a fully paid up member of the Labour Party it would be strange for me to vote for anyone else. However over the last few months, maybe even years i have become so disillusioned i have though about cancelling my membership several times. Then i remember just how much time and effort the 'people on the ground' dedicate to what they believe in. Add to that the enormous ammount of good members of Labour(and I'm sure Conservative, Lib Dem etc etc) do at local level and i am heartened. The disease of politics is at the top.
Whilst i'm no huge fan of Gordon Brown i genuinely believe he is an decent and, importantly, honest man. Do i believe the same thing of David Cameron? Not a chance. When i castmy vote it will almost certainly be for Labour again.
Cannae agree with this Wee Claes. **** all wrong with Lemon Merangue Pie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinyclothes
Labour can GTF as far as I'm concerned.
Vote Torry and enroll YOUR kids at Eton. If you cant aford it then you should have done better at school.
Survival of the FITTEST people. Survival of the fittest.
Just because I do alright doesnt mean that YOU should be alright too.
ENPOWER yourselves and vote for a REAL man - Davd Cameron.
:faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
:agree: I think you may be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
I'm going to make a BIG presumption here and guess that you have been brought up under a Labour government.
If your spelling and punctuation is anything to go by, maybe it is time for a change of government if that's what Labour's education system has done for you.
If you are a nanny state scrounger living off MY taxes RAISE your hands...Quote:
Originally Posted by ArabHibee
Not only are you living a life of LUXUARY thanks to the STATE, you recieved an EDUCATION to join the SPELLING POLICE...
Troubled times ahead.
Bring back Maggie. She wouldnt have put up with this.
PAY your POLL TAX.
MINERS STRIKE??? Not any more!!!
ARGY BARGIES?? Back in your box.
WORKING CLASSES?? Buy your council houses you tramps.
You must be on the wind up. Otherwise you are easily the most ignorant person i have ever encountered.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
I'm in. Free fash and furry boots.*Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
(For Aberdonians only.)
Vote Cameron - you KNOW it makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverhibs
Classy. I don't think I'll bother with this thread. I'd have much more respect for people if they actually challenged the things I was saying, rather than mock.Quote:
Originally Posted by lyonhibs
Doesn't really say much for you when that is all you have in your locker.
It's always nice to put a name to my benfactor. Cheers.:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
Thanks for the advice. With the compelling, in depth and articulate argument you have put forward for the Tory cause i think i am left with no choice but to vote for a party which attracts supporters like yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
:faf: :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
An education system under the Tories did my spelling the world of good. Pity you can't say the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
Your very welcome.
Join me at the game tommorrow and we can debate the DOWNFALL of SCROUNGERS in Britain over a prawn sandwich...
He does? Superb. Link?:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
No NEED for exams when DADDY knows the HEADMASTER at the local CONSERVATIVE CLUB.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArabHibee
I was born PRIVALIGED with no NEED to try and climb the social ladder.
The Labour Govt TRY to get you up to MY standings and this MUST STOP.
Vote Torry - keep me wealthy.
I'll have to decline. My Jobseeker's allowance won't stretch to a ticket in the West Stand this week.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
Unfortunately i'll have to decline your offer. As a Labour supporter i am, of course, helping out my Asian, lesbian, single mothers, criminal alternative theatre group.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
As an aside for such a strong Conservative supporter you seem to have a real problem spelling Tory. Only one R.
Good man.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Work hard and you could achieve anything you want (providing its not above middle class of course - we dont want your type down the Polo Club)
Looking for a new butler...
Who??Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
You are either
a) A yam
b) Hibs Spain
c) A massive wind up merchant
or
d) A complete and utter idiot.
We are part of a new RIGHT WING splinter group. Shhhh...Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverhibs
There are 3 correct answers to that question isn't there?Quote:
Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby
To be perfectly honest mate you have totally lost me.
If you were trying to have a laugh or on the wind up then it's gone way over my head(and quite a few others by the looks of things).
On the other hand if you're serious then you are a complete and utter plum
Anyway i've had enough i'm off to bed.
:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by GlesgaeHibby
Is the moral of the story drink beer and vote Tory.......sorry Torry.:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
Aye, only in your head. I've been told looking down on things does make them appear bigger than they truly are.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
****.:boo hoo:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArabHibee
So when I look down on Labour supporters, that means they are small???Quote:
Originally Posted by ArabHibee
Hmmm interesting theory. :top marks
:faf: Please come back on the Holy Ground lunchtime during the week. You could have some serious fun then.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
I should have made myself clearer.
I was indeed challenging the notion that - realistically - the numero uno place to get concrete, unbiased "facts" about politics, political parties and their policies was a open internet forum, one of the several wonders of which is that opinionated people can post their own take on matters and engage in discussion.
But a bona fide reliable source of indisputable "facts"????
I think not, although I have no idea where you'd go to get information on politics and political parties that fits that criteria.
ZippytheHibee must be Macar under another new name?! :agree:
What with his grate speeling and educashun.
Macar's a slavering tory as well I'm told. Or was it a slavering toly? :hmmm:
One more argument for using parental controls on the computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
I got it. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
i thought there were 4 correct answers? :confused::greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ArabHibee
Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick - you're probably right - this isn't the place to try to get balanced discussion of issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by lyonhibs
I am just bored with listening to the same-old, same-old tired rhetoric from all political persuasions. I thought that by putting up actual problems and discussing from there we may get somewhere.
Silly me! :grr:
I doubt that anything I read or hear is going to make me change my voting intentions. But I am open to the possibility.
Is this Conservative official policy? If so, I need to find out if I'm rich or poor before I vote. I was fairly sure, before your expert analysis, that their policy is to increase social mobility though.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibeeliam
Incidentally, the rich/poor gap is greater after 13 years of a Labour government that at any point since the 60's. Good effort by Blair/Brown but I'm not sure if that was one of their official policies or not. Perhaps you can do some more analysis and report back?
My view is that they will form the next Government...Quote:
Originally Posted by hibeeliam
Hopefully they'll be putting more of our money into teaching people to spell.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibeeliam
The above is exactly what has happened under Labour - the gap between rich and poor is the widest after 12/13 years of Labour as it has ever been.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibeeliam
Harriet Harman likes to remind us that recently, it has in fact been narrowing, but that is because the poor are staying poor and the rich are getting poorer.
Basically, cut it any way you like, the difference between Tories and Labour as far as the rich/poor thing goes is miniscule.
I suppose one difference is that many Tory MPs are already rich, while the Labour ones have become so in the past few years at our expense.
Is the gap the most important thing? I would argue not, at least in the first instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksaltire
If the priority is to have less poor people then that's the priority, isn't it?
You can measure by agreeing and establishing an indicative level of poverty and trying to lift people above it.
If, as a consequence of your actions, the richest continue to be rich and in fact possibly become even richer, is that not secondary to the fact that less people are in poverty? The income gap can grow to any level, the important factor is where the people at the bottom find themselves, regardless of how much more the highest-earners earn than them, surely?
If you're wanting to see the income gap reduced then I'm not sure if any party, even the Socialists, can help you out. We're inextricably part of a capitalist economy. We have to work within that unless we're radically restructuring society. Which nobody seems to have an appetite for and which nobody is proposing as an electorally-advantageous stance.
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye...®
Found this here....I think this is saying everything is relative and don't believe a politician who uses such stats as a sound bite!!!
"It is generally accepted that poverty is concerned with a lack of possessions, or ability to do things, which are in some sense considered 'normal' or 'essential' in society.
What is considered 'normal' depends on the society in which the person lives. So, for example, a widely accepted indicator of third world poverty is the numbers of people living on less than $1 per day, on the grounds that people on such incomes are literally in danger of starving to death. This threshold is often termed 'absolute income poverty'. But the use of such a threshold in the United Kingdom would obviously be completely inappropriate - no one in the United Kingdom lives on incomes anywhere near this low and its use would imply that all people with incomes above $1 per day did not suffer from serious deprivation.
What is considered 'normal' also changes over time. Levels of income that would have been considered adequate in the United Kingdom 100 years' ago would certainly not be considered to be adequate nowadays. Rather, as society becomes richer, so norms change and the levels of income and resources that are considered to be adequate rises. Unless the poorest can keep up with growth in average incomes, they will progressively become more excluded from the opportunities that the rest of society enjoys.
The conclusion is that the main indicators of low income in the United Kingdom – and thus of income poverty - should be defined in terms of thresholds which rise or fall as average incomes rise or fall. Such thresholds are often termed 'moving thresholds' or indicators of 'relative poverty'. This conclusion is generally accepted by most researchers, by the EU and by the UK government.
In normal times, when average incomes are improving slowly but steadily, the use of such thresholds is probably a good indicator of changes in the extent of relative income poverty. But if incomes should fall, they become insufficient: a fall in average incomes, even if the lowest incomes remained unchanged, would clearly not represent an improvement in the capacity of the poorest to attain what society had become accustomed to as the norm.
Furthermore, sole reliance on moving thresholds can become misleading if average incomes rise dramatically. For example, incomes in Ireland have risen sharply over the last ten years or so – including incomes at the bottom end - whilst income inequalities have remained roughly constant. Many researchers and politicians in Ireland believe that sole reliance on moving thresholds gives a misleading impression by suggesting that no progress has been made in reducing the extent of poverty."
I'm starting to predict a hung Parliament and a Lib-Lab (and maybe Nat.) pact.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
That way I can be incredibly smug if it happens and hopefully no-one will notice if it doesn't.
On the Labour vs. Tory argument; I think Chomsky's observation that the Democrats and Republicans essentially operate as two factions of the same party increasingly applies to our own system.
I do get slightly confused by the literal consensus on the danger of public debt and the need for drastic public spending cuts; given that our debt as a % of GDP is quite astonishingly low both in historical terms and in terms of other nations. The only answer to it that makes any sense is that the (perfectly manageable) deficit is being used - again, with cross party consensus - to remove the barriers to neo-liberalism that still exist within the British economy and society.
The coverage of the postal workers and B.A. strikes are prescient little foreshadowings of the response to any groups who resist this consensus.
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Feature...ng+of+Fire.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs
Well?
"Mr Gross's warning is doubly embarrassing for Labour because Pimco's European investment team is headed by Andrew Balls, brother of Mr Brown's closest ally the Schools Secretary Ed Balls"
Wouldn't mind being a fly-on-the-wall at the Balls' Christmas dinner....
Some year, one Balls down, another Ball's up. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
Firstly, he's not an economist, he's an investment banker. As far as I can see, at no point in the article does provide any evidence for the crux of the argument that economic growth slows one public debt hits 90% of GDP. He shifts straight from asserting it into the 'Ring of Fire Stuff', without dwelling for a second on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
He talks of 'time-tested historical reliables' but doesn't provide one single example. Every example I can think of proves completely the opposite; during the nineteenth century Britain's debt as % of GDP regularly pushed 200% yet it was a period of unparalleled economic growth. Cameron sets the implosion level at 80% yet there are only two fourty-year periods in British economic history since 1750 when it has been below that.
The 'bankrupt Britain' rhetoric is complete nonsense and Darling and Osbourne could both do with reacquainting themselves with the 'paradox of thrift'. That is, of course, assuming they don't get it, which they almost certainly do.
What investment bankers think is more important than what economists think because they are the ones lending the money.
As has been pointed out, Economists are often woefully wrong; Investement Bankers stand or fall according to their assertions. But what if an Economist did say it. An ex-IMF economist, at that:Quote:
Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8503090.stm
As for making hay of the fact the he doesn't cite his evidence:
"Two excellent studies provide assistance in that regard – the first, a study of eight centuries of financial crisis by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff titled This Time is Different, and the second, a study by the McKinsey Global Institute speaking to “Debt and deleveraging: The global credit bubble and its economic consequences.”
The Reinhart/Rogoff book speaks primarily to public debt that balloons in response to financial crises. It is a voluminous, somewhat academic production but it has numerous critical conclusions gleaned from an analysis of centuries of creditor/sovereign debt cycles. It states:
- The true legacy of banking crises is greater public indebtedness, far beyond the direct headline costs of bailout packages. On average a country’s outstanding debt nearly doubles within three years following the crisis.
- The aftermath of banking crises is associated with an average increase of seven percentage points in the unemployment rate, which remains elevated for five years.
- Once a country’s public debt exceeds 90% of GDP, its economic growth rate slows by 1%."
So, as a total of the time you quote, the national debt was below 80% of GDP for only 30% of that time. Outwith those periods, we had;Quote:
He talks of 'time-tested historical reliables' but doesn't provide one single example. Every example I can think of proves completely the opposite; during the nineteenth century Britain's debt as % of GDP regularly pushed 200% yet it was a period of unparalleled economic growth. Cameron sets the implosion level at 80% yet there are only two fourty-year periods in British economic history since 1750 when it has been below that.
2 World Wars and before that had ongoing military conflicts throughout the Empire. On the up-side we had the economic advantage of the Industrial Revolution, low-cost labour (slaves), access to large overseas markets and domination of shipping routes.
What advantages do we have over China, US, EU now? Do you think we will see this level of manufacturing, relative to our competitors over the next few decades?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...50_1900_02.png
Which applies only in a closed system, which is true of Global GDP, but not of British GDP. Furthermore, it refers to the consequence of thrift on the part of consumers, not Governments.Quote:
The 'bankrupt Britain' rhetoric is complete nonsense and Darling and Osbourne could both do with reacquainting themselves with the 'paradox of thrift'. That is, of course, assuming they don't get it, which they almost certainly do.
And, even if we were to assume that high national debt wasn't necessarily a bad thing *choke*, in this instance it will lead to tax rises, which will provide less money for people to spend in the economy.
Personally, I'd rather my taxes were spent on paying back the balance of debt, rather than on interest payments.
Unless of course you think that interest rates are going to remain low for the next few decades, but I doubt anyone believes that :wink:
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of that as such. But I think it is wrong to think that Labour and the Tories offer anything radically different in the way the OP seems to think they are. I would agree with the observation that Labour and the Tories are pretty much identical in their approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye...®
Anyhow, this election: I'd say the Tories will win with a majority of between 40 and 50.
If the Tories get in then we will see the real pain of the economic problems. This is the party that sold of all our assets during their rush to privatise everything. They were the only party to advocate not borrowing more to try and buy our way out this mess.
Labour have not lived up to expectations but have still delivered for many on a whole range of issues. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all got devolution, minimum wage to name two.
My recollection of a Tory government was 3 million unemployed, shutting of the mines and the steelworks and the poll tax. As a party they have always had a hidden agenda against Scotland.
As such I will be voting Labour
IMO The most persuasive arguments for what to do about the deficits are coming from Joseph Stiglitz (award winning economist who predicted the bubble bursting) was on the radio this morning...he suggests that cutting spending on things like education, technology and other 'high return' government investments will prolong the recession. A high level of Govt debt isnt as big a concern as lack of investment in things that stimulate the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...apitalism.html
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/artic...onomy/19324819
When choosing where to cut spending, a weapons system that a)doesnt work and b) is designed to destroy Moscow, might be a better place to start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
I'm still not seeing his evidence.
Whereas cuts will lead to massively rising unemployment which will lead to...?Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
And we're into the fundamental contradictions of capitalism territory. :greengrin
LH and Hibsbollah, correct me if I am wrong but are you both saying that substantial cuts in government spending is not really needed and that the structural defecit is not something that should unduly worry us?? :confused:
No, im saying a high level of Govt debt isnt as big a worry as lack of investment in things that stimulate the economy. To borrow a cliche, economics isnt a 'zero sum game'; (ie if a reduction in £1 in expenditure in technological development is equivalent to a reduction of £2 in national competitiveness, then its not worthwhile).Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
Cool, I agree.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Does make you wonder though why the tories have then promised to continue increasing NHS budgets and have been busy playing down the severity of cuts on welfare expenditure etc.....these areas make up such a huge portion of government expenditure that ignoring these means only one thing can possibly be used to cut the deficit....a substantial and prolonged increase in taxes. Ah I think I just answered my own question there!
IMHO no party is any where near being honest enough in stating that EVERY are of goverment spending should be under review and that there is simply no more blank cheques for everything from aircraft cariers, tax credits, health service etc etc. Seem like they are all hoping for another boom to bail them out of the hole Gordon has dug and not facing up to the reality of anemic economic growth and the need to shrink the state back to a sustainable level (while of course maintaining true investment in areas that will provide future growth)
Which is an argument for efficiency-cuts in the public sector. People accuse this notion - public sector bloated and inefficeint - of being Daily Mail-induced hype.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Which is bollocks, of course. I have (just) enough experience to know this.
So, public sector middle and senior management know that a large saving can be made in spending. It's up to the politicians to give the public sector the freedom to do it.
If this turns out not to be a big enough saving, then job cuts must come. Just because Labour has spent the last x number of years adding thousands of useless occupations the the state payroll, when they should have been paying off debt or investing in major infrastructure projects, doesn't mean that those jobs shouldn't be cut now.
However, unless efficency begins at the centre of the state and works it's way out, we will end up with a super-priviledged elite at the top-end of the state, and reduction in key services at the bottom end. Which would make us even more like Greece than we currently are.
Which shower of *******s have made these kind of noises most recently?
Could it be that this rhetoric was toned down in the face of polls suggesting that his Thatcherite 'cuts, cuts and more cuts' was losing him the lead in the run-up to the election?Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
I think most people know that big cuts are already in the post. Labour have whimpered at the thought of it so far, but should they win the election (indeed, whoever wins the election) they will be forced (IMF, Bond markets :wink:) to slash spending anyway.
Knowing this, it makes no sense to campaign on cuts if your oppostition are gaining ground by pretending that they would make the pain less severe.
Anyone who believes that is even more deluded than out Yam friends.
Which 'useless' occupation are you talking about cutting? Every government makes noises about 'efficiency cuts' before every election (as if Government actually has some mythical 'red tape' that can be snipped at every opportunity, and every government fails to achieve it. Most Government spending happens because the implication of not spending in certain areas mean economic pain elsewhere (for example; stop investing in education and apprenticeships=lower trained workforce=lower pay=lower taxes=lower income to the Treasury).Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
If our current economic woes were caused by high Govt spending, as per the Swedish model, excessive cuts in spending to correct it might make some sense. But it wasnt, it was caused by bailing out the banking system.
1) £42,000 for a ‘Head of Community Empowerment’ at the Watford Community Housing Trust. The job description reads:Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
“You will work with our tenant and leaseholder members to develop and deliver our Community Empowerment Strategy, ensuring tenants are involved in strategic decision making. Additionally, you and your team will be key players in devising and promoting community empowerment opportunities at a local level.”
2) Staffordshire County CouncilFamily Group Conference Convener (£27,594 - £30,598 Pro rata, per annum (subject to job evaluation)
3) Youth Support Project Manager in London paying £18-21 per hour (£34,000-40,300 per year*)
a leading central London borough is looking for a Youth Support Project Manager to join their expanding team. The purpose of the role is:
To work with the Head of Service and Service Managers to develop a fully integrated service structure that links Connexions, Youth and the Youth Offending work
To support the Youth Offending and Youth & Connexions Service to design effective strategic and operational structures
Develop good models of involving young people in the decision-making processes in terms of the new service structure.
Co-ordinate and organise events/seminars/workshops to promote the new structure to interested parties.
4)The ODA and its Delivery Partner wish to recruit two Employment & Skills Managers – Women’s Project to:
• Proactively promote construction related employment opportunities for women
• Assist in removing the barriers facing women wishing to enter the construction industry
• Broker on-site construction related work placements and direct employment for women
• Offer additional support to women on-site to ensure retention and career development
Understanding gender specific schemes will be new to many contractors and to the construction industry as a whole. The successful candidate will have a proven track record of supporting women/under-represented groups in gaining employment within the industry and also facilitating relevant training and development opportunities. In addition, they will have experience in educating and assisting companies to place women/under-represented groups into construction jobs.”
5)http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/96514...ices-officers/
6)http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/96403...ement-officer/
7) “Sustainability Manager
£40,964 - £42,686 pa - Full-time, 37 hours per week- flexi-scheme
We are seeking a knowledgeable, experienced and enthusiastic sustainability manager to maintain the profile of work in this area. Joining an authority with a history of innovative approaches to sustainability and successful cross-service working, this post offers an excellent opportunity for you to lead our dedicated sustainability team to deliver significant carbon reductions and other environmental improvements across the organisation and beyond, responding to high profile issues such as climate change and linking to corporate priorities as stated in our Local Area Agreement.
Just 7 of the 1.7million extra jobs added to the public payroll since 1997!
David Frost, the BCC’s director general, said: ‘Businesses are facing the toughest economic environment for a generation.Quote:
Every government makes noises about 'efficiency cuts' before every election (as if Government actually has some mythical 'red tape' that can be snipped at every opportunity, and every government fails to achieve it. Most Government spending happens because the implication of not spending in certain areas mean economic pain elsewhere (for example; stop investing in education and apprenticeships=lower trained workforce=lower pay=lower taxes=lower income to the Treasury).
‘Company cashflow is being squeezed and unemployment is growing as a result. The Government needs to get serious about reducing the massive burden of regulation on business.
‘Cutting unnecessary burdens and announcing a moratorium on regulations set to come in this year, is one way of providing
instant and inexpensive help.’ The so-called ‘burdens barometer’, compiled by the Manchester and London Business Schools, uses the Government’s own assessments of the cost of meeting workplace regulations.
It found that the cumulative bill for rules introduced since Labour came to power in 1997 was £76.8billion. The BCC believes the figure underestiwhichmates the true toll because it counts only the 104 most expensive of 1,900 new regulations. The figure also failed to cost in the minimum wage.
Rules originating within the UK cost £23.4billion but – in a sign of the growing power of Brussels – red tape drafted by the EU cost £53.3billion.
The most expensive measure was the working-time directive,
lays down a maximum 48-hour week. This has cost firms an estimated £17.8billion. Steps to reduce carbon emissions from company vehicles have added £10.4billion while the Data Protection Act has cost £8billion.
The 19 newest regulations – including forcing power firms to cut carbon emissions from homes – have landed businesses with a £1.75billion bill.
Eighteen regulations brought in since 1998 have saved businesses £1.4billion. These include making workplaces smoke free.
John Thurso, Liberal Democrat business spokesman, said: ‘Red tape remains an overwhelming cost, especially for many small- and medium-sized businesses.
‘Ministers have completely failed to reduce the burden.’
But business minister Lord Carter said: ‘This gives a onesided view of how regulation impacts on businesses and does nothing to encourage a sensible debate on the issue.
‘It completely ignores the substantial benefits of regulation which deliver essential protections and give real boosts to business, improving standards and increasing competition.’
Where did I or anyone else say that? Whatever the cause, it has left us with huge debts. Government spending MUST come down. Individuals spend their money far better than Governments do. Never mind the fact that State spending incurs costs just by existing...Quote:
If our current economic woes were caused by high Govt spending, as per the Swedish model, excessive cuts in spending to correct it might make some sense. But it wasnt, it was caused by bailing out the banking system.
Not entirely accurate statement I would say...the banking crisis certainly caused a severe recession...it is this collapse in tax income and the requirement to provide stimulus that is costing the money (not the relatively small amounts spent directly on the banks). A non bail out would have cost substantially more.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Fact is that even before the banking crisis the governemt was spending money it didn't have at quite a rate....prudence would have been cutting spending and building a reserve years ago but Gordon did the opposite and even now there seems to be plenty resistance to the idea that government is too big and is spending too much in too many areas for too little return, even from David and George!!
Bit late to come into the discussion but...
I've got my vote for the first time this year and, despite doing A-Level politics, I don't think I'll get off my arse and vote.
Studying both parties has just made me cynical, and I'm still young! Both parties at the moment are a waste of, increasing dispensable, space. Don't trust Labour with Brown at the forefront (although FWIW he's an excellent speaker) and I most certainly don't trust the smug Cameron, never grew out of the posh little Eton schoolboy he is and still acts like in the Commons.
Might have to stand as an independent :greengrin
A lot of people will disagree with you, but you're in the majority in the UK I'd imagine. Without putting myself on the gallows, you're exactly right. It's amazing how many benefit thieves there are stealing disability benefits in and around Edinburgh (which is just sick), and people sitting around doing nout all day because they feel incapable of getting a job - bollox.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
There are PLENTY jobs available and Edinburgh is always looking for bar staff for the younger ones (who happen to be most futile) that can't be arsed. And it's the young ones that really piss me off. A lot of people will have been made redundant recently but the majority of them will be actively seeking jobs, rather than actively seeking alcohol and drugs like the jakies that refuse to even look for a job.
I don't believe anyone who says they can't find a job unless they have a specific skill that is losing demand. For the unskilled there is always work. There's a massive world out there.
You've posted a lot there that doesnt really advance your case:confused: Some of those jobs involve working with young offenders, and increasing women entrants into the construction industry, both of which have economic benefits that would potentially outweigh any cost savings associated with deleting their posts, as does 'environmental sustainablility' work.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
I read your second paragraph, but I stand by my point that all political parties always say they can find 'pain-free' cost savings that previous administrations didnt notice, but theyve never been able to achieve it to any degree that would make a difference to a big deficit, certainly not one as elephantine as ours is.
What benefits would those be?Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
I've not even looked at the other jobs you've cited there, but number 2, Family Group Conferencing, is an internationally well-established approach for trying to improve the prospects of children at risk of harm. Why would you describe that as 'useless'?Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
You've not been lazily stereotyping have you? :greengrin
Genuine question here. I've been wondering how much benefit thieves, and those who seem to know the system well enough to get everything going, actually cost us. Can anyone put a figure on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky
I agree about employment opportunities in Edinburgh. You just have to work in Fife for a while, to realise what it's like to be in a community where people are struggling to get a job.
Can't agree with your comments about jakies and junkies though. Who would employ someone with a drink or drug problem?
Wasn't the most serious part of my post and was more fishing than anything else :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
But I do think that employment is easy in Edinburgh compared to other places, and even if someone can't drive the bus and train services in and around Edinburgh are first class.
I had a figure about disability benefits last week and I'll try find it.
Theres a massive skills shortage in the UK construction sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leicester Fan
Filled Rolls,
A: Criminal fraud and human error with regards to DLA (Disability Living Allowance) comes to over one billion pounds, according to 2005 figures from The Office of National Statistics. That's over a third of all benefit fraud.
Thanks for that information, I am well aware of people who are screwing the DLA, it seems like a lot of money. I have to say, I am starting to question whether it is for the state to support some of those who are not working due to "stress" and "depression".Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky
I'm all for supporting those who can't work, but it seems to me that £225 a week mad money, plus getting your rent and council tax paid for you, doesn't give those who might work again, enough incentive.
Any idea what proportion of the total Social Security bill that is?
There's a massive job shortage in the construction sector and thousands of lads who can't get an apprenticeship.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Speaking as someone who's worked with women in the construction sector I can tell you that they are not up to it physically. They're only employed because councils insist on a certain percentage of women on the workforce.
While people defrauding Incapacity benefit (as was) to a tune of approx £1billion is 'not good' for the deficit, HMRC estimates major companies dodge up to £13billion in corporation tax. 12 major companies pay no tax at all and companies like Sky TV actually use tax loopholes to gain money from the taxpayer. Predictably, not much fuss is usually made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
Two wrongs....:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
I'm not sure it is a third of benefit fraud (but stand to be corrected). I think the ONS clarified that point in the light of misleading press statements (who would have thought?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky
The billion-pound figure cited includes under-payment of DLA due to human error as well as over-payment.
The actual amount of fraud in those ONS figures was £40 million I believe :confused:
Indeed:greengrin But it would be nice to see both wrongs taken equally seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
You implied that there were no 'useless' council jobs, and in a short time I found several that, imo, are not necessary or can be achieved by public services that already have a remit over them. The 'environmental sustainability' one is actually just a 'carbon-neutral' one, which as far as I can tell, is not a proven public-service need. It is, in fact, a load of bollocks. If women want jobs in the construction industry, why can't they get them without the assistance of a council bureaucrat?Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Being a teacher, I have spent quite some time reading the jobs pages of the Guardian. Anyone who has done the same over the last few years will be well aware of some of the nonsense people get paid to do for the council.
The second paragraph was in response to your assertion that there is no such thing as red tape.Quote:
I read your second paragraph, but I stand by my point that all political parties always say they can find 'pain-free' cost savings that previous administrations didnt notice, but theyve never been able to achieve it to any degree that would make a difference to a big deficit, certainly not one as elephantine as ours is.
---------- Post added at 08:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 PM ----------
Granted :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
I think you misunderstood my jibe about the mythical red tape. Im sure there is the occasional public sector job that is superfluous, as is the case in the private sector. I dont think I implied 'there are no useless council jobs' either. I used to do work for local authority departments and some people sat doing nothing all day. I've also got friends who have done the same for prestigious Edinburgh financial institutions for twenty five years since they left school:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
What yanks my chain is politicians promising that they can irradicate it pain free. If the Government wants to make big dents in the deficit now something extremely big will need to be considered.