tories

[ancient hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

Hopefully they'll be putting more of our money into teaching people to spell.

[steakbake]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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.

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.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

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.

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is the gap the most important thing? I would argue not, at least in the first instance.

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.

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."

[LiverpoolHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My view is that they will form the next Government...

I'm starting to predict a hung Parliament and a Lib-Lab (and maybe Nat.) pact.

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.

[IndieHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm starting to predict a hung Parliament and a Lib-Lab (and maybe Nat.) pact.

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.htm

Well?

[IndieHibby]

"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....

[Phil D. Rolls]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

"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.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Feature...ng+of+Fire.htm

Well?

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.

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.

[Leicester Fan]

What investment bankers think is more important than what economists think because they are the ones lending the money.

[IndieHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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:

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Once a country’s public debt exceeds 90% of GDP, its economic growth rate slows by 1%."

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.

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;
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?

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.

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.

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

[steakbake]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is the gap the most important thing? I would argue not, at least in the first instance.

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.

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.

Anyhow, this election: I'd say the Tories will win with a majority of between 40 and 50.

[lucky]

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

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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.
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.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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:

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Once a country’s public debt exceeds 90% of GDP, its economic growth rate slows by 1%."

I'm still not seeing his evidence.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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;
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?



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.

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

Whereas cuts will lead to massively rising unemployment which will lead to...?

And we're into the fundamental contradictions of capitalism territory.

[RyeSloan]

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??

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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??

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).

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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).

Cool, I agree.

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)

[IndieHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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).

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.

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?

[IndieHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cool, I agree.

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)

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?

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 ) 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.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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?

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).

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.

[IndieHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which 'useless' occupation are you talking about cutting?

1) £42,000 for a ‘Head of Community Empowerment’ at the Watford Community Housing Trust. The job description reads:
“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!

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).

David Frost, the BCC’s director general, said: ‘Businesses are facing the toughest economic environment for a generation.
‘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.’

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.

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...

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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).

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.

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!!

[Hibernian Verse]

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

[Hibernian Verse]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

David Cameron will be a great PM (and he hates the yams too) so even more reason to vote for him.

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.

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.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

1) £42,000 for a ‘Head of Community Empowerment’ at the Watford Community Housing Trust. The job description reads:
“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.
‘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...

You've posted a lot there that doesnt really advance your case 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.

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.

[Leicester Fan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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,

What benefits would those be?

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

1) £42,000 for a ‘Head of Community Empowerment’ at the Watford Community Housing Trust. The job description reads:
“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.
‘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...

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'?

You've not been lazily stereotyping have you?

[Phil D. Rolls]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

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?

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?

[Hibernian Verse]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

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

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.