Politics

[Park Life 71]

I do think there's a big lie at work here though. Without getting into party politics because Labour are just as bad / would be the same if the roles are reversed. The lie is that the previous government are solely to blame for the current massive levels of debt when it's basically the fault of the banks. The said banks have been bailed out and the Tories would've done the same thing. The banks'll recover on the whole and many already seem to have done so, turning in profits and so on but it's public sector workers and, by extension, private sector workers, who are having to and will have to pay for this bail out with their jobs, wage freezes and so on.

 

 

Surely thats just politics though, nothing new. Blame everything on the last lot and hope it sticks.

 

The truth of the matter for me lies in three parts.

 

1. A disasterous banking crisis (without getting into semantics over regulation etc)

 

2. An idealogical decision to vastly increase the public sector.

 

3. An inability over 13 years to tackle some of the massive reforms of the day. Public sector pensions, welfare etc.

 

Labour inherited a fantastic economic boom time and while doing some very good things (as you can when times are good), also dodged a lot of the big decisions that this lot are now taking, supported it must be said by all sides.

 

Some of those were Labours fault, some wern't but hey thats politics.

 

Did anyone of the Labour benches get up and compliment the coalition on some of the great things that were announced today?

 

Is Jeremy Paxton going to focus on any of the good stuff tonight?

 

Overall, given the job that had to be done, I think today was a spectacular achievement that has put this country on the right path. (And before the usual suspects jump in that does not mean that I am happy about any cuts or job losses).

 

Our over reliance on the financial and wervice sectors are in main due to the Tories decimation of our industrial base in the 80's. That my dear is a FACT.

 

I'll not pretend to be competent, never mind an expert talking about those times, however how you could have prevented the unstoppable march to the cheap wages of the East is beyond me. If it was simply down to the Tories why didnt Labour redress it during their 13 years.

 

How did Germany do it?

 

 

Much easier to quote what they did and how and then explain why Labour didnt do it, no?

 

They concertrated on quality and innovation and are currently the only Euro country with a trade surplus. What they didn't do which the Tories did was give up and try and compete against the far east with the bargain basement stuff. The also didn't start portrraying workers as the enemy or greedy or unreasonable, the worked with them to develop excellent chemical industry, car industry, and hi tech and engineering products. In England of course we did the opposite, Thatcher started a war with the workers. i'vve read through some fo this thread and although I detect a lot of passion and energy, you really are very poorly informed, regurgitating the worst kind of nonsense.

 

 

So what do you think were the arguments at the start of the miners strike??

 

Ian McGreggor who had modernised by mechanising the steel industry (a great success at the time) was brought in to sort the unprofitable and subsidised coal industry. The miners didnt like the idea of mechanisation because they new it would cost jobs. Rather than have union leaders who could see the way the world was going and accept change was neccesary, they decided instead to strike. (Lets not forget they had already brought down the Heath government in 74).

 

The rest as they say is history.

 

Here's a clue...How partnership with the state is healthy.

 

 

The glory of German industry is not in the big firms that are well known around the world, such as Daimler-Benz, Volkswagen, Siemens, or Bayer (see table 16, Appendix). It is in the small- and medium-sized firms that constitute what the Germans call the Mittelstand . Although that term has political and social as well as management connotations, it has been widely accepted to mean companies that employ fewer than 500 workers. Such firms constitute 98 percent of all German companies, hire 80 percent of all employees, are responsible for a significant share of exports, and provide one of the firmest foundations of the middle class.

 

The government has supported and furthered the Mittelstand , in part for political reasons, but also because it makes a crucial contribution to the economy. The government has established special provisions that permit those firms to cooperate if they do not thereby hinder competition. It makes available special funds to promote research and development by Mittelstand companies. After unification, the government used investment and tax incentives to encourage Mittelstand companies to invest in eastern Germany.

 

What Germany didn't do is try and drive wages down (they have the highest average wages in Europe) and try and turn Germany into little China which is the route the Tories took in the 80's. With a serious lack of Govt money and support and coming out with statements about manufacturing being 'old industry' etc and other nonsese, they let our manufacturing base die on the vine. In another time they would have all been lynched not knighted. The Toreis have historically alwasy been short termist (and labour of late).

 

The German coal industry btw is still subsidised to the tune of 2.7 billion Euro's a year. It hasn't stopped it having the only surplus in Europe or the highest wages in Europe. I bet this is really irritating for old skool tories....

Edited October 20, 2010 by Park Life

[NJS 4411]

So what do you think were the arguments at the start of the miners strike??

 

Ian McGreggor who had modernised by mechanising the steel industry (a great success at the time) was brought in to sort the unprofitable and subsidised coal industry. The miners didnt like the idea of mechanisation because they new it would cost jobs. Rather than have union leaders who could see the way the world was going and accept change was neccesary, they decided instead to strike. (Lets not forget they had already brought down the Heath government in 74).

 

The rest as they say is history.

 

Absolutely fuck all to do with mechanisation and the decimation of the Steel industry was only a success in terms of a tiny surviving part of it at the cost of entire towns killed.

 

I don't understand how someone from Shields and living 20 miles from Consett could be so ignorant.

 

 

Suggest you read your history as well. Ofcourse it was going to lead to job cuts.... Thats what happens when you modernise industry and stop subsidising it.

 

How any one with an ounce of sense thinks this country could have continued with uncompetitive, subsidised industries in the face of the rise of the east, amazes me.

 

 

 

Don't need to read it - I lived through it - my best mates were miners.

 

The closure programme took no account of modernisation or investment - and as for subsidies - they were always happy to subsidise the nuclear industry, farming and of coure banks (see Johnson Matthey) with no regard to competition but only to politics.

 

Why do other European countries like Germany still have mines?

[Christmas Tree 4847]

So what do you think were the arguments at the start of the miners strike??

 

Ian McGreggor who had modernised by mechanising the steel industry (a great success at the time) was brought in to sort the unprofitable and subsidised coal industry. The miners didnt like the idea of mechanisation because they new it would cost jobs. Rather than have union leaders who could see the way the world was going and accept change was neccesary, they decided instead to strike. (Lets not forget they had already brought down the Heath government in 74).

 

The rest as they say is history.

 

Absolutely fuck all to do with mechanisation and the decimation of the Steel industry was only a success in terms of a tiny surviving part of it at the cost of entire towns killed.

 

I don't understand how someone from Shields and living 20 miles from Consett could be so ignorant.

 

Suggest you read your history as well. Ofcourse it was going to lead to job cuts.... Thats what happens when you modernise industry and stop subsidising it.

 

How any one with an ounce of sense thinks this country could have continued with uncompetitive, subsidised industries in the face of the rise of the east, amazes me.

 

 

 

Don't need to read it - I lived through it - my best mates were miners.

 

The closure programme took no account of modernisation or investment - and as for subsidies - they were always happy to subsidise the nuclear industry, farming and of coure banks (see Johnson Matthey) with no regard to competition but only to politics.

 

Why do other European countries like Germany still have mines?

 

At 18 or 19 with mates who were miners I doubt that you sat back and considered the arguments of the day.

 

Modernisation was a big part of the initial dispute which is why the brought in the guy who had just modernised the steel industry.

 

Germany still have 8 mines because they did modernise, agree to job losses and have been heavily subsidised ever since. I think you'll also find that Germany has now agreed to close all of its mines as they are unprofitable.

[Park Life 71]

This debate isn't about the miners strike, it's about the general shocking malaise the Tories left the manufacturing and industrial base of Britain in. Blitheley going around asserting that 'old industry' would be consigned to history. It isn't what the Germans did and they have a trade surplus and the HIGHEST WAGES IN EUO[PE...Hoe is this possible? Doesn't compute surerly?/

[Christmas Tree 4847]

This debate isn't about the miners strike, it's about the general shocking malaise the Tories left the manufacturing and industrial base of Britain in. Blitheley going around asserting that 'old industry' would be consigned to history. It isn't what the Germans did and they have a trade surplus and the HIGHEST WAGES IN EUO[PE...Hoe is this possible? Doesn't compute surerly?/

 

 

The Tories modernised the steel industry.

 

The Tories and then Labour chose not to subsidise industry.

 

The Germans chose to subsidise their industry and hold off the inevitable, however now that the subsidies have stopped they are closing all their coal mines.

 

Industry, on the hole has gone East and no British government has tried or could change that situation.

[spongebob toonpants 4143]

I don't know how you can make a claim like that, refuse to substantiate it then expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

 

Because its a discussion forum

 

You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste.

 

Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times?

 

You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do.

 

Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards.

The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source.

 

Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign.

 

 

Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?.

 

One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008.

 

If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition.

 

FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over.

 

They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power.

 

I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT)

 

Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens.

 

I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho.

 

My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap

[Park Life 71]

This debate isn't about the miners strike, it's about the general shocking malaise the Tories left the manufacturing and industrial base of Britain in. Blitheley going around asserting that 'old industry' would be consigned to history. It isn't what the Germans did and they have a trade surplus and the HIGHEST WAGES IN EUO[PE...Hoe is this possible? Doesn't compute surerly?/

 

 

The Tories modernised the steel industry.

 

The Tories and then Labour chose not to subsidise industry.

 

The Germans chose to subsidise their industry and hold off the inevitable, however now that the subsidies have stopped they are closing all their coal mines.

 

Industry, on the hole has gone East and no British government has tried or could change that situation.

 

What part of "only European country in surplus" don't you understand?

[Renton 22007]

I don't know how you can make a claim like that, refuse to substantiate it then expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

 

Because its a discussion forum

 

You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste.

 

Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times?

 

You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do.

 

Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards.

The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source.

 

Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign.

 

 

Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?.

 

One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008.

 

If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition.

 

FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over.

 

They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power.

 

I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT)

 

Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens.

 

I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho.

 

My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap

 

Good post spongebob, pretty much sums up my own feelings, right down to the fear of incompetency over idealogy.

 

CT, regarding your graph you've googled. First, it's from a template website so its not possible to ascertain how accurate the figures are or put them in a wider context. Secondly, and more importantly, it's not measuring the right thing. You would expect the absolute number public employees to go up while the economy was booming and services were improving - you can't improve healthcare without employing more nurses and doctors etc. Unemployment fell substantially in this period, so I would expect private sector jobs also increased. However, its the relative values that are important - did the public sector grow significantly more than the private sector - it probably did a bit but by how much? Most importantly though, and what has already been shown on one of the many pages in this thread, is that public spending did not grow significantly as a proportion of the GDP. That is a fact the Conservatives should acknowledge along with the fact they pledged to match Labour in spending throughout their time prior to the banking crisis.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

I don't know how you can make a claim like that, refuse to substantiate it then expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

 

Because its a discussion forum

 

You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste.

 

Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times?

 

You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do.

 

Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards.

The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source.

 

Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign.

 

 

Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?.

 

All good and well if you can afford it. We cant and cuts have to be made.

 

One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008.

 

I think they were up until Lehmans (sp) went pop and they realised a different approach was needed.

 

If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition.

 

See Above

 

FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over.

 

Seemed to be the overaul analysis on Newsnight tonight

 

They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent.

 

Thats because it was. Traditionally strong Labour areas that compassionate Cameron has won over. Even today Labour are saying that he was wrong to ring fence the NHS and protect it from cuts. This is the biggest problem Labour has by trying constantly to compare this lot to the 80's conservatives when a blind man on a galloping horse can see it is a much fairer, compassionate party.

 

If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power.

 

The plan

 

I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT)

 

So do I and the truth is this is the big unknown which I think the odds are more in favour of success than failure. Personally I think we will now see a pre christmas mini boom on the economy as people step back from today and realise that the measures taken are not as bad as a lot feared.

 

Originally the talk was about cuts of 25% and these have materialised as 19%

 

Welfare and local government have borne a much bigger share of the cuts than expected which I think will lead a lot of average and middle income familys a bit more confident to go out and spend compared to how they feared cuts over the summer.

 

 

Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens.

 

To some degree, but all the economists tonight are saying that these cuts only roll the state back to 2007 levels so its not really the bleak picture some have feared / painted

 

I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho.

 

I dont agree. One of the aims of this is to once again make work more worthwhile than benefits. I think the reforms to welfare will be good for the country.

 

My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap

 

All a bit sour grapes really this last bit

 

I do note however you havent said which of the cuts you agree with?

[Christmas Tree 4847]

This debate isn't about the miners strike, it's about the general shocking malaise the Tories left the manufacturing and industrial base of Britain in. Blitheley going around asserting that 'old industry' would be consigned to history. It isn't what the Germans did and they have a trade surplus and the HIGHEST WAGES IN EUO[PE...Hoe is this possible? Doesn't compute surerly?/

 

 

The Tories modernised the steel industry.

 

The Tories and then Labour chose not to subsidise industry.

 

The Germans chose to subsidise their industry and hold off the inevitable, however now that the subsidies have stopped they are closing all their coal mines.

 

Industry, on the hole has gone East and no British government has tried or could change that situation.

 

What part of "only European country in surplus" don't you understand?

 

 

You started the argument about the 80's ffs and now you've whizzed through to the present day

 

One argument at a time surely

[Christmas Tree 4847]

I don't know how you can make a claim like that, refuse to substantiate it then expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

 

Because its a discussion forum

 

You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste.

 

Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times?

 

You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do.

 

Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards.

The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source.

 

Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign.

 

 

Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?.

 

One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008.

 

If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition.

 

FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over.

 

They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power.

 

I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT)

 

Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens.

 

I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho.

 

My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap

 

Good post spongebob, pretty much sums up my own feelings, right down to the fear of incompetency over idealogy.

 

CT, regarding your graph you've googled. First, it's from a template website so its not possible to ascertain how accurate the figures are or put them in a wider context. Secondly, and more importantly, it's not measuring the right thing. You would expect the absolute number public employees to go up while the economy was booming and services were improving - you can't improve healthcare without employing more nurses and doctors etc. Unemployment fell substantially in this period, so I would expect private sector jobs also increased. However, its the relative values that are important - did the public sector grow significantly more than the private sector - it probably did a bit but by how much? Most importantly though, and what has already been shown on one of the many pages in this thread, is that public spending did not grow significantly as a proportion of the GDP. That is a fact the Conservatives should acknowledge along with the fact they pledged to match Labour in spending throughout their time prior to the banking crisis.

 

First of all, the graph from the ons was in relation to a point I made to Alex about the public sector growing under Labour which he disputed and you I think said was a lie.....

 

Alex said the ONS was a good source, which it was and there graph clearly shows that it grew by 16% nearly a million jobs during that time.

 

So on that point I was right. Funny how the wigglings started already... Suprise suprise!

 

With regard to the gdp statement you then get into ideaology and its pointless wasting too much time, particularly with yourself, discussing that. Just because GDP goes up doesnt mean you have to spend that extra money on increasing public services. Extra money could go on tax cuts, reforming the welfare state, or paying down the deficit.

 

The truth is Labour walked into office with a fantastic economic climate, started well and then took its eye off the ball due to infighting. Without real ideas or agreement all it had left was to spend spend spend.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

Fucking hell....Polly Renton Toynbee on question time tomorrow night........Lots of serious debate there then

 

I hate this woman. She talks absolute drivel and encompasses everything I detest about the Guardian.

 

[spongebob toonpants 4143]

I don't know how you can make a claim like that, refuse to substantiate it then expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

 

Because its a discussion forum

 

You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste.

 

Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times?

 

You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do.

 

Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards.

The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source.

 

Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign.

 

 

Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?.

 

All good and well if you can afford it. We cant and cuts have to be made.

 

One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008.

 

I think they were up until Lehmans (sp) went pop and they realised a different approach was needed.

 

If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition.

 

See Above

 

FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over.

 

Seemed to be the overaul analysis on Newsnight tonight

 

They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent.

 

Thats because it was. Traditionally strong Labour areas that compassionate Cameron has won over. Even today Labour are saying that he was wrong to ring fence the NHS and protect it from cuts. This is the biggest problem Labour has by trying constantly to compare this lot to the 80's conservatives when a blind man on a galloping horse can see it is a much fairer, compassionate party.

 

If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power.

 

The plan

 

I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT)

 

So do I and the truth is this is the big unknown which I think the odds are more in favour of success than failure. Personally I think we will now see a pre christmas mini boom on the economy as people step back from today and realise that the measures taken are not as bad as a lot feared.

 

Originally the talk was about cuts of 25% and these have materialised as 19%

 

Welfare and local government have borne a much bigger share of the cuts than expected which I think will lead a lot of average and middle income familys a bit more confident to go out and spend compared to how they feared cuts over the summer.

 

 

Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens.

 

To some degree, but all the economists tonight are saying that these cuts only roll the state back to 2007 levels so its not really the bleak picture some have feared / painted

 

I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho.

 

I dont agree. One of the aims of this is to once again make work more worthwhile than benefits. I think the reforms to welfare will be good for the country.

 

My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap

 

All a bit sour grapes really this last bit

 

I do note however you havent said which of the cuts you agree with?

 

Thanks for that answer - I'll be honest its more serious and specific than I expected. It will be much more interesting if we can actually discuss this without resorting to cliched party line propoganda. I make no bones about my hatred of the tories, but I don't claim to know all the answers and willl readily admit that though I cant imagine not voting Labour, they aren't always right and not all tories are completely evil

 

So in that spirit

 

Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?.

 

All good and well if you can afford it. We cant and cuts have to be made.

 

Do you accept that pre the banking crisis and ensung recession the Labour Party was being responsible and did you agree with Cameron/Osbourne and their policy of matching Labour spending

The follow on from that-and I'm not trying to be clever, partisan or catch you out, I have already admitted the tories are playing a blinder politically, is do you thnk the Tory claim of 13 years of extravagance is true,or just a political stick to beat Labour with

 

One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008.

 

I think they were up until Lehmans (sp) went pop and they realised a different approach was needed.

 

If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition.

 

See Above

I think itw pretty widely accepted that Brown played a blinder during the banking crisis. Again in the spirit of civilised discussion I will readily concede that Brown whatever his qualities as an economist, and without doubtng his commitment or intentions, was a a terrible communicator, a lousy politician and for these reasons a disastrous PM, but it is acknowledged across the political spectrum that his (Keynsian)approach to the crisis saved the economies of Britain and Europe from plunging into deeper recession/depression.

With this in mind does it worry you at all that Osbourne called every major decision to Brown differently during this period

 

 

 

FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over.

 

Seemed to be the overaul analysis on Newsnight tonight

 

They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent.

 

Thats because it was. Traditionally strong Labour areas that compassionate Cameron has won over. Even today Labour are saying that he was wrong to ring fence the NHS and protect it from cuts. This is the biggest problem Labour has by trying constantly to compare this lot to the 80's conservatives when a blind man on a galloping horse can see it is a much fairer, compassionate party.

 

If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power.

 

The plan

 

I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT)

 

So do I and the truth is this is the big unknown which I think the odds are more in favour of success than failure. Personally I think we will now see a pre christmas mini boom on the economy as people step back from today and realise that the measures taken are not as bad as a lot feared.

 

Originally the talk was about cuts of 25% and these have materialised as 19%

 

Welfare and local government have borne a much bigger share of the cuts than expected which I think will lead a lot of average and middle income familys a bit more confident to go out and spend compared to how they feared cuts over the summer.

 

 

Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens.

 

To some degree, but all the economists tonight are saying that these cuts only roll the state back to 2007 levels so its not really the bleak picture some have feared / painted

 

If its rolling back the state to 2007 levels does that mean these levels are acceptable/desirable. I realise tha politically both sides will be point scoring over this sort of statistic, but I am more interested what you think idealogically about it. I dont expect the govt to be brutally honest about it, they dont need to be. They are winning the argument with the public anyway

 

I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho.

 

I dont agree. One of the aims of this is to once again make work more worthwhile than benefits. I think the reforms to welfare will be good for the country.

 

Along with the prison reforms one of the most interesting aspects of the govt is Ian Duncan Smith's approach to welfare reforms. I dont really see how the cuts in social housing and child minding and the emphasis in leaving council housing if your job pays you enough to rent in the private sector fits in with IDS's policy of it paying to work. It seems to encourage the opposite. I get the feeling he has been a bit shafted but I am interested to see how it develops

 

 

My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap

 

All a bit sour grapes really this last bit

 

I do note however you havent said which of the cuts you agree with?

 

Nah not really sour grapes, I've already said Brown was a disaster as a politician, and that Cameron/Osbourne have been played this csr very astutely.

 

As for which cuts I agree with, thats not really a narrative I agree with. I think Labour (apart from Balls) has got it wrong aswell. I wouldnt be cutting the public sector I would be paying people to dig holes, then paying them to fill them in. I would also fully nationalising the banks we already own so we could get them to lend to small business at a decent rate and I would probably raise taxes on the top rate for a couple of years, after all we are all in it together

[Christmas Tree 4847]

Party alliegances to one side, Ed Miliband was in full social spaz mode at PMQ's today.

 

 

Have just caught up with this on I Player and fuck me your right. Spaz is a good description. 9/10 to cameron 0/10 to Red Ed.

 

Cant see how he will last at this rate.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

I don't know how you can make a claim like that, refuse to substantiate it then expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

 

Because its a discussion forum

 

You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste.

 

Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times?

 

You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do.

 

Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards.

The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source.

 

Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign.

 

 

Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?.

 

All good and well if you can afford it. We cant and cuts have to be made.

 

One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008.

 

I think they were up until Lehmans (sp) went pop and they realised a different approach was needed.

 

If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition.

 

See Above

 

FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over.

 

Seemed to be the overaul analysis on Newsnight tonight

 

They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent.

 

Thats because it was. Traditionally strong Labour areas that compassionate Cameron has won over. Even today Labour are saying that he was wrong to ring fence the NHS and protect it from cuts. This is the biggest problem Labour has by trying constantly to compare this lot to the 80's conservatives when a blind man on a galloping horse can see it is a much fairer, compassionate party.

 

If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power.

 

The plan

 

I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT)

 

So do I and the truth is this is the big unknown which I think the odds are more in favour of success than failure. Personally I think we will now see a pre christmas mini boom on the economy as people step back from today and realise that the measures taken are not as bad as a lot feared.

 

Originally the talk was about cuts of 25% and these have materialised as 19%

 

Welfare and local government have borne a much bigger share of the cuts than expected which I think will lead a lot of average and middle income familys a bit more confident to go out and spend compared to how they feared cuts over the summer.

 

 

Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens.

 

To some degree, but all the economists tonight are saying that these cuts only roll the state back to 2007 levels so its not really the bleak picture some have feared / painted

 

I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho.

 

I dont agree. One of the aims of this is to once again make work more worthwhile than benefits. I think the reforms to welfare will be good for the country.

 

My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap

 

All a bit sour grapes really this last bit

 

I do note however you havent said which of the cuts you agree with?

 

Thanks for that answer - I'll be honest its more serious and specific than I expected. It will be much more interesting if we can actually discuss this without resorting to cliched party line propoganda. I make no bones about my hatred of the tories, but I don't claim to know all the answers and willl readily admit that though I cant imagine not voting Labour, they aren't always right and not all tories are completely evil

 

So in that spirit

 

Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?.

 

All good and well if you can afford it. We cant and cuts have to be made.

 

Do you accept that pre the banking crisis and ensung recession the Labour Party was being responsible and did you agree with Cameron/Osbourne and their policy of matching Labour spending

The follow on from that-and I'm not trying to be clever, partisan or catch you out, I have already admitted the tories are playing a blinder politically, is do you thnk the Tory claim of 13 years of extravagance is true,or just a political stick to beat Labour with

 

One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008.

 

I think they were up until Lehmans (sp) went pop and they realised a different approach was needed.

 

If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition.

 

See Above

I think itw pretty widely accepted that Brown played a blinder during the banking crisis. Again in the spirit of civilised discussion I will readily concede that Brown whatever his qualities as an economist, and without doubtng his commitment or intentions, was a a terrible communicator, a lousy politician and for these reasons a disastrous PM, but it is acknowledged across the political spectrum that his (Keynsian)approach to the crisis saved the economies of Britain and Europe from plunging into deeper recession/depression.

With this in mind does it worry you at all that Osbourne called every major decision to Brown differently during this period

 

 

 

FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over.

 

Seemed to be the overaul analysis on Newsnight tonight

 

They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent.

 

Thats because it was. Traditionally strong Labour areas that compassionate Cameron has won over. Even today Labour are saying that he was wrong to ring fence the NHS and protect it from cuts. This is the biggest problem Labour has by trying constantly to compare this lot to the 80's conservatives when a blind man on a galloping horse can see it is a much fairer, compassionate party.

 

If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power.

 

The plan

 

I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT)

 

So do I and the truth is this is the big unknown which I think the odds are more in favour of success than failure. Personally I think we will now see a pre christmas mini boom on the economy as people step back from today and realise that the measures taken are not as bad as a lot feared.

 

Originally the talk was about cuts of 25% and these have materialised as 19%

 

Welfare and local government have borne a much bigger share of the cuts than expected which I think will lead a lot of average and middle income familys a bit more confident to go out and spend compared to how they feared cuts over the summer.

 

 

Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens.

 

To some degree, but all the economists tonight are saying that these cuts only roll the state back to 2007 levels so its not really the bleak picture some have feared / painted

 

If its rolling back the state to 2007 levels does that mean these levels are acceptable/desirable. I realise tha politically both sides will be point scoring over this sort of statistic, but I am more interested what you think idealogically about it. I dont expect the govt to be brutally honest about it, they dont need to be. They are winning the argument with the public anyway

 

I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho.

 

I dont agree. One of the aims of this is to once again make work more worthwhile than benefits. I think the reforms to welfare will be good for the country.

 

Along with the prison reforms one of the most interesting aspects of the govt is Ian Duncan Smith's approach to welfare reforms. I dont really see how the cuts in social housing and child minding and the emphasis in leaving council housing if your job pays you enough to rent in the private sector fits in with IDS's policy of it paying to work. It seems to encourage the opposite. I get the feeling he has been a bit shafted but I am interested to see how it develops

 

 

My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap

 

All a bit sour grapes really this last bit

 

I do note however you havent said which of the cuts you agree with?

 

Nah not really sour grapes, I've already said Brown was a disaster as a politician, and that Cameron/Osbourne have been played this csr very astutely.

 

As for which cuts I agree with, thats not really a narrative I agree with. I think Labour (apart from Balls) has got it wrong aswell. I wouldnt be cutting the public sector I would be paying people to dig holes, then paying them to fill them in. I would also fully nationalising the banks we already own so we could get them to lend to small business at a decent rate and I would probably raise taxes on the top rate for a couple of years, after all we are all in it together

 

To avoid further colours I'll answer below.

 

1. Labour acting responsibly.

 

I have often said on here that I agreed with a lot of what New Labour did when first elected, however the infighting between Brown and Blair resulted in poor decisions / policy and wasted opportunities. A lot of these reforms, that all sides agree need sorting, such as welfare, univesities, public pensions, etc would have been better tackled by Labour during the good years rather than left for someone else to sort out.

 

Instead of tackling these issues and making a real political difference, instead I think they took the easy option and just threw money at welfare. None of us are daft and a lot of this was to do with making life a lot more comfortable for their base support. And yes the tories have done in the past for their support. Still opportunities missed to reform and money wasted.

 

2. Brown and the banking crisis.

 

If I had to give an answer I would probably come down on the side of Brown, however I dont know enough about it to be sure and a lot of the rumblings coming out of the states lately are about this injection of money being the wrong course of action? If it was right, you have to acknowledge that we still have a heavy price to pay for that intervention.

 

With regard to what oppositions say, no it doesnt bother me and its pretty irrelavent. Opposition is a lot of huff and puff without much substance as we are seeing from Labour at the moment. What matters to me is what they have done in power and I have to say I think they are being very bold and reforming and if any Labour supporters can see past their biass, we have a very different conservative in Cameron. The word the commentators use is compassionate conservative?? but the fact is that he is. Commentators see this, the general public see this so Labour trying to tag him as the mext Thatcher are onto a loser, politically.

 

3. State levels.

 

The 2007 levels is just a fact that economist etc were stating on newsnight which was simply highlighting that the landscape after the cuts was not quite as bleak as some seem to be painting.

 

The bottom line is however that Im sure this government would have liked to come into power with a surplus and good economic times like Labour had when they came in. All they can really do is play the hand they've been dealt.

 

I am more interested in the reforms tbh which I think are much more important than rises and falls in department spending. So many of the big issues of the day are being tackled and for that I give them a lot of credit, particularly in the way they are being done, such as using the Brwon report that Labour started and using Hutton etc.

 

4. Welfare is a wait and see job but I think things such as one overall benefit make a lot of sense. Also I dont see any reason why the taxpayer should subsidise housing for normal working couples. Assuming two couples, both with a family income of 30,000. Why should one pay the market rate of £500 per month or whatever and the other get a £200 subsidsed discount from the tax payer. Surely thats not right. Again its good to see that they are looking with new eyes at some of these areas that are just simply now outdated.

 

5. With regard to your last point, obviously that is a million miles away from my position, Camerons position and Red Eds position.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/a...31287621083157A

 

Thinktank slams 'regressive' cuts

 

(UKPA) – 41 minutes ago

 

The massive £81 billion spending cuts announced by Chancellor George Osborne may not be enough to meet his target of getting rid of Britain's state deficit within four years, a respected economic thinktank has warned.

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that further tax rises or deeper spending cuts may be needed if Mr Osborne's measures fail to get Britain's books back in balance.

 

The IFS said that the cuts - which will see £7 billion slashed from welfare payments - will have a "regressive" effect, hitting the poor harder than the rich.

 

 

 

Is there anyone who studies macaroni-economics who might have a view on this?

[Christmas Tree 4847]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/a...31287621083157A

 

Thinktank slams 'regressive' cuts

 

(UKPA) – 41 minutes ago

 

The massive £81 billion spending cuts announced by Chancellor George Osborne may not be enough to meet his target of getting rid of Britain's state deficit within four years, a respected economic thinktank has warned.

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that further tax rises or deeper spending cuts may be needed if Mr Osborne's measures fail to get Britain's books back in balance.

 

The IFS said that the cuts - which will see £7 billion slashed from welfare payments - will have a "regressive" effect, hitting the poor harder than the rich.

 

 

 

 

Is there anyone who studies macaroni-economics who might have a view on this?

 

Love all these think tanks ( seem to be more off them than Quangos) who try to pigeon hole everything. Anyone with common sense knows that if the economy acts better or worse than currently forecast over the next 4 years then additional action may be required. Hence why we have budgets every year.

 

I also think that outside of Westminster very few people are in truth that interested with a calculation that class's something as progressive or regressive. Are we really saying it's a shock that benefit cuts will effect the poorest the most! And yes I do realise that if as the treasury has done, you include all the measures the action is progressive.

 

The bottom line is, which is the important bit, is that several weeks ago when everyone was expecting the cuts to be much worse, 60% were in favour. I don't think that will have gone down much.

 

 

The public will feel sorry for the 500,000 positions lost over 4 years, some through sashays etc, but will be comforted that the same people predicting these job losses also predict overall growth in employment over the same period.

 

After those job losses the real hardest hit will be the shirkers and local councils, neither of which will bother the masses too much in these times of austerity.

[Renton 22007]

I don't know how you can make a claim like that, refuse to substantiate it then expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

 

Because its a discussion forum

 

You know as well as I that I could get figures, then you could and so on. I honestly cant be bothered. If im wrong im wrong but my belief over the last 13 years is that Centralised government grew under Labour and that public money was spunked all over the place. Some of it was good, but a lot was waste.

 

Didnt the welfare bill go up by 50% during Labour. Should it have done during boom times?

 

You then hear stories from PP about thousands of publis sector workers in his department sitting around with nowt to do.

 

Basically governments get lazier and more corrupt the longer they are in power and this government was worse than most because it was crippled by infighting from its second term onwards.

The figures would be at the Office of National Statistics, wouldn't they? I'd accept them. Go and get them and I'll accept it was true. You won't though. In fact provide any credible source.

 

Ok, had my tea and bored so I'll bite, but im not getting into an evening of statistics This little chart from the "office of national statitics", says the public sector grew by nearly a million, 17% during Labours reign.

 

 

Citing the public sector growing like it is some sort of dastardly left wing plan to bankrupt the state is laughable. You do understand that the public sector includes policemen nurses teachers dcotors and so on, and that increasing these numbers is a desirable state of affairs?.

 

One question CT, do you accept that the tories were pledging to match Labour pound for pound on spending as late as autumn 2008.

 

If you don't accept this as a fact and an important one in the discussion, then you area as intellectually dishonest as the coalition.

 

FWIW I thought hte budget was a pretty impressive political performance. The Tories are being very disciplined in mentioning 13 years of extravagance, and succesfully getting their message over.

 

They will have shored up the pensioner vote, an increasing demographic who do vote in large numbers. They have managed to create an atmosphere of economic masochism that makes the announcement about health/schools sound positively munificent. If Gideon gets lucky, or is actually right and the private sector generates the jobs he claims, the cuts are acheived and the deficit is payed down, then he will be standing pretty to lavish tax cuts before the next election and stroll back in to power.

 

I fear that the reality will be a lot bleaker. . I worry the economy will stagnate, the tax receipts wont pay of the defecit, and the infrastructure of the country will crumble. (I hope I'm wrong beleive it or not CT)

 

Some areas will be royally fucked, but the South East will probably be ok whatever happens.

 

I think whatever happens the underclass will be expanded, become more entrenched more disenfranchised and more reviled. Not many will bother or be allowed to vote though, so hey ho.

 

My biggest worry though isnt their ideology, though I profoundly disagree with it, my biggest worry is that they are a incompetent. The plans for the health service strike me as horribly rushed, Gove is a joke After Osbourne stopped agreeing with Labours spending plans in 2008 he showed no understanding of the crisis and how to deal with it, and Cameron couldnt win an election in the middle of a recession against the least popular sitting Prime minister since the war. They are just a bit crap

 

Good post spongebob, pretty much sums up my own feelings, right down to the fear of incompetency over idealogy.

 

CT, regarding your graph you've googled. First, it's from a template website so its not possible to ascertain how accurate the figures are or put them in a wider context. Secondly, and more importantly, it's not measuring the right thing. You would expect the absolute number public employees to go up while the economy was booming and services were improving - you can't improve healthcare without employing more nurses and doctors etc. Unemployment fell substantially in this period, so I would expect private sector jobs also increased. However, its the relative values that are important - did the public sector grow significantly more than the private sector - it probably did a bit but by how much? Most importantly though, and what has already been shown on one of the many pages in this thread, is that public spending did not grow significantly as a proportion of the GDP. That is a fact the Conservatives should acknowledge along with the fact they pledged to match Labour in spending throughout their time prior to the banking crisis.

 

First of all, the graph from the ons was in relation to a point I made to Alex about the public sector growing under Labour which he disputed and you I think said was a lie.....

 

Alex said the ONS was a good source, which it was and there graph clearly shows that it grew by 16% nearly a million jobs during that time.

 

So on that point I was right. Funny how the wigglings started already... Suprise suprise!

 

With regard to the gdp statement you then get into ideaology and its pointless wasting too much time, particularly with yourself, discussing that. Just because GDP goes up doesnt mean you have to spend that extra money on increasing public services. Extra money could go on tax cuts, reforming the welfare state, or paying down the deficit.

 

The truth is Labour walked into office with a fantastic economic climate, started well and then took its eye off the ball due to infighting. Without real ideas or agreement all it had left was to spend spend spend.

 

Well if what you say is correct then the tories were just as guilty, remember? You have conceded they would have matched Labour on spending (or were lying) until the banking crisis. The implication of what you are then saying is at this point they would have introduced cuts in public spending. Cuts in a recession - pure genius.

[NJS 4411]

Has anyone read the basis of his claim that the top 10% of earners will be hit hardest?

 

I know I fall into that category (I consider myself reasonably well paid but in no way rich) and apart from the increase in rail fares I can't see any "direct" effect of the cuts on my income whatsoever.

[Guest alex]

Not sure you could argue the public sector vastly increased though CT. As a proportion of the working population I'm not sure the increase would have been vast and those figures are also skewed a bit by the banks being taken into public control in 2007 or 08 or whatever, which accounts for the spike there. You do need a bit of context I think. I also think others are right to point out the increase in NHS employees etc. being a good thing. Fair enough though, I accept you were being genuine in quoting the rise, so I have no beef with you there in what you were saying.

Edited October 21, 2010 by alex

[Christmas Tree 4847]

Has anyone read the basis of his claim that the top 10% of earners will be hit hardest?

 

I know I fall into that category (I consider myself reasonably well paid but in no way rich) and apart from the increase in rail fares I can't see any "direct" effect of the cuts on my income whatsoever.

 

 

Surely your tax is going upto 50% then?

[Christmas Tree 4847]

Not sure you could argue the public sector vastly increased though CT. As a proportion of the working population I'm not sure the increase would have been vast and those figures are also skewed a bit by the banks being taken into public control in 2007 or 08 or whatever, which accounts for the spike there. You do need a bit of context I think. I also think others are right to point out the increase in NHS employees etc. being a good thing. Fair enough though, I accept you were being genuine in quoting the rise, so I have no beef with you there in what you were saying.

 

 

I think you were right yesterday to see the "context" as getting into ideaology and that we wouldnt agree on. The argument would leap off in all directions about how many of the extra staff in the NHS were doctors and how many were managers etc...

[Renton 22007]

Has anyone read the basis of his claim that the top 10% of earners will be hit hardest?

 

I know I fall into that category (I consider myself reasonably well paid but in no way rich) and apart from the increase in rail fares I can't see any "direct" effect of the cuts on my income whatsoever.

 

 

Surely your tax is going upto 50% then?

 

I think people who are earing over £150 K would be in the top 1%, surely? Also hasn't this already been introduced?

[Guest alex]

Not sure you could argue the public sector vastly increased though CT. As a proportion of the working population I'm not sure the increase would have been vast and those figures are also skewed a bit by the banks being taken into public control in 2007 or 08 or whatever, which accounts for the spike there. You do need a bit of context I think. I also think others are right to point out the increase in NHS employees etc. being a good thing. Fair enough though, I accept you were being genuine in quoting the rise, so I have no beef with you there in what you were saying.

 

 

I think you were right yesterday to see the "context" as getting into ideaology and that we wouldnt agree on. The argument would leap off in all directions about how many of the extra staff in the NHS were doctors and how many were managers etc...

Apologies for suggesting it was a lie btw. I thought it was but I didn't think it was your lie fwiw.

[NJS 4411]

Has anyone read the basis of his claim that the top 10% of earners will be hit hardest?

 

I know I fall into that category (I consider myself reasonably well paid but in no way rich) and apart from the increase in rail fares I can't see any "direct" effect of the cuts on my income whatsoever.

 

 

Surely your tax is going upto 50% then?

 

No - not by a long way - as I said on the Child benefit thread theres a perception in this country that millions earn good salaries and £44k (Cb threshold) is "middle income" - it isn't - in fact I think that level was the bottom of the top 10%.