[Archived] Election

[jim mk2]

To repeat, the black hole in the public finances was not caused by government spending but because of the collapse in tax revenues after the worldwide recession. Labour had to bail out the banks and keep the economy going through QE through the worst recession since the 1930s. By contrast the Tory policy during the recession when in opposition was to do absolutely nothing. Labour's policies during the recession were successful and the economy had emerged from recession and was recovering strongly by the time they handed over power in May. Labour spending in government was not historically high and was necessary to rebuild public services and schools and hospitals in this country disgracefully neglected by the Tories from 1979 - 1997. None of this is difficult to understand.

[BuckyRover]

The schools and hospitals were built using PFI schemes. They aren't even included in that debt calculation. (the 900bn+).

You must really hate Labour Jim. They had an opportunity to join forces with the Lib Dems and prevent the Tories getting the keys to number 10. But they didn't, and we all know why that is.

Amateurs.

Red Ed has come out today to criticise the removal of child benefit from the top 15% of earners. He has really judged the mood of the country.

[MarkBRFC71]

The schools and hospitals were built using PFI schemes. They aren't even included in that debt calculation. (the 900bn+).

You must really hate Labour Jim. They had an opportunity to join forces with the Lib Dems and prevent the Tories getting the keys to number 10. But they didn't, and we all know why that is.

Amateurs.

Red Ed has come out today to criticise the removal of child benefit from the top 15% of earners. He has really judged the mood of the country.

Bucky, don't fall for Jim's trolling. Surely you can see no sane person would actually believe the misguided, blinkered tripe he posts? He's playing Devil's advocate ..... isn't he?!?

[jim mk2]

Ed has come out today to criticise the removal of child benefit from the top 15% of earners. He has really judged the mood of the country.

There is alot of anger over the cuts to child benefits that will come come back to haunt the Tories. It says alot about the morals of this government that the first people in their firing line for cuts are children and families. They would earn alot more plaudits from the nation if they targeted excessive boardroom pay, bankers bonuses and bank regulation.

[broadsword]

To repeat, ...

Please don't.

[BuckyRover]

There is alot of anger over the cuts to child benefits that will come come back to haunt the Tories. It says alot about the morals of this government that the first people in their firing line for cuts are children and families. They would earn alot more plaudits from the nation if they targeted excessive boardroom pay, bankers bonuses and bank regulation.

A 1m bonus pays nearly 50% tax. Gordon Brown knew that bankers bonuses filled up the governments coffers, hence why he allowed them to take undue risks.

I read spmewhere 25% of hedge fund managers have left the country in the last two years. Good you might say, but they are no longer paying 50% of their wage in tax anymore.

Bashing bankers is very popular but people forget that in the boom years they were contributing circa. 30% of the overall tax take (i stand to be corrected on that figure, but it was certainly substantial).

How much debt would we be in now without that?

[Mattyblue]

To repeat, the black hole in the public finances was not caused by government spending but because of the collapse in tax revenues after the worldwide recession. Labour had to bail out the banks and keep the economy going through QE through the worst recession since the 1930s. By contrast the Tory policy during the recession when in opposition was to do absolutely nothing. Labour's policies during the recession were successful and the economy had emerged from recession and was recovering strongly by the time they handed over power in May. Labour spending in government was not historically high and was necessary to rebuild public services and schools and hospitals in this country disgracefully neglected by the Tories from 1979 - 1997. None of this is difficult to understand.

The economy was recovering strongly?

Have you actually gone stark raving mad or was it you writing Broon's sppeches for the last 3 years?

We are almost a TRILLION pounds in debt, we have the biggest budget defecit as a percentage of GDP in the G20... and NONE of this is Labour's fault at all? You know the government of the last 13 years, but it ALL the fault of the bankers and the Tories?!

Every right minded person on here would agree that the banks caused a hell of a lot of this mess and that some of the debt burden is due to them being bailed out, but Labour are anything but blameless, do you agree with that point jim?

[den]

Every right minded person on here would agree that the banks caused a hell of a lot of this mess and that some of the debt burden is due to them being bailed out,

How much has it cost Matty?

[Mattyblue]

How much has it cost Matty?

The bailout?

Wasn't it around £150billion?

[BuckyRover]

£120bn.

We are adding more than the cost of the bailout to the debt this year (as the deficit is £156bn)

[jim mk2]

Samuel Brittan on why the cuts are too deep, too hasty and not necessary.

http://www.ft.com/cm...144feabdc0.html

[modes98]

The schools and hospitals were built using PFI schemes. They aren't even included in that debt calculation. (the 900bn+).

Red Ed has come out today to criticise the removal of child benefit from the top 15% of earners. He has really judged the mood of the country.

Maybe because PFI isn't debt. PFI is an added cost which has been added into budget calculations for the next few years.

Without PFI the options were keep existing buildings which were very old and not suitable for purpose and you would be moaning about the state of public services (as people did during the tory years) or increase debt to pay for new buidlings, at which point you would be moaning because the debt was even higher. There will be pain in whichever way you choose, I'm not a massive fan of PFI but I think it was a necessary evil to provide the very good standard of public services that we now have.

The economy was recovering strongly?

We are almost a TRILLION pounds in debt, we have the biggest budget defecit as a percentage of GDP in the G20... and NONE of this is Labour's fault at all? You know the government of the last 13 years, but it ALL the fault of the bankers and the Tories?!

The economy was recovering you only need to look at the economic figures to see that, however it now seems to be stalling and back down towards double dip recession. See John Maynard Keynes for the various impacts of taking jobs out of a recovering economy. I hope not as I don't fancy another few years of recession, mixed in with extreme cuts and high unemployment.

The level of debt is scarying when you try to put it in lay terms, but in terms of the large figures used in our economy and budgets it isn't as bad. IMO there is a shared blame between Tories and Labour, Tories failed to invest during Thatcher/Major years and then Labour had to try to increase spending so far to catch up to where we should have been. Equally the privatisation of public services and the trending towards a service led economy were Tory policies which leave the country majorly dependant upon a service sector which is highly volitile. Labour did little to control bankers which is a criticism the party takes firmly to heart and openly admits they should have changed, however a policy which the Condems said they would immediately impose and have failed to do so. Just like Mr Cameron, who I still don't mind, has gone back on his pledge to keep Child Benefit although how much of that was Mr Osbourne without to much consent by Mr Cameron who knows.

The past is largely irrelevant anyway, the focus has to be on the point we are at and how to move forward in a way that is least damaging to the country and it's population as a whole. IMO the cuts will be to severe and will damage the economy, but if what I anticipate happening does then I don't think there will be much of a debate soon because the Condem Government will be that unpopular that there will be an election and a landslide for red ed. Experts are paid a lot of money to model out predictions of how different scenarios will affect the economy and hopefully they can balance it all out.

I just get the feeling that this Government is act first think later on some issues including the cuts. Instead of coming into office and judging the position the key election pledge is cuts, cuts, cuts. Even the best prime minister will struggle to remain popular when all you hear coming out of his mouth is bad news. Even the rhetoric of protection of NHS front line services isn't true and I am surprised the papers have not played on this more. The disbanding of PCTs and SHAs will have a direct impact on front line services, with Doctors and GPs coming out against the proposals which have been rushed in over 6 months. Not to mention the 20% Cost Improvement Programme which is in place within the NHS, again affecting front line services.

Anyway now I have typed all that I had better get on with my revision and let you all rip it apart

[BuckyRover]

Samuel Brittan on why the cuts are too deep, too hasty and not necessary.

http://www.ft.com/cm...144feabdc0.html

How does he already know the depth of the cuts?

[den]

The bailout?

Wasn't it around £150billion?

Well I don't know Matty. You and Bucky are the ones arguing that our financial problems are down mainly to the last governments unrestrained spending, rather than the Global banking crisis - so I assumed you both knew the actual figures.

Anyway, a quick google brings up a recurring figure of £850bn. The global banking crisis also cost a total of £4473bn.

Massive figures. As I said, I'm not, in any way, capable of understanding all this. What I do know for certain though, is that the Tories had no policy whatsoever for saving the banking system from collapse. The thing that did save the banks was Gordon Brown leading a Global strategy that did save the system.

What would you have expected the Tories to do if they had been in power? Would you have expected them to allow the banks to go to the wall - and if so, how would the country have survived that?

Honest questions, don't you agree?

[jim mk2]

It is being reported that Osborne has given the go-ahead to the BoE to pump more money into the economy, reflecting fears that the economic recovery started by Labour has stalled and his forthcoming programme of ConDem spending cuts will send the economy back into recession. This second round of QE is following the lead of the US, where the recovery has also stalled and jobless figures remain stuck at around 10 per cent. The Treasury has also advised to Osborne to slow the pace of his spending cuts. This marks a significant and welcome shift in Tory policy and gives hope to those whose lives are about to be shattered by the proposed cuts.

A leading think-tank warned today yhat disabled people will be ``pushed even further backwards'' in society as they are hit with more than £9bn in welfare cuts over the next five years. The ConDem benefit cuts will see 3.5m disabled people lose about £9.2bn of critical support by 2015, according to a report from Demos

Ministers' plans to move disabled people on to Job Seekers Allowance will account for half these losses, it said. The report, titled Destination Unknown, argued that planned welfare reforms would result in more disabled people being trapped in long-term unemployment - ultimately costing the taxpayer far more than at present.

Demos warned that by 2015, families with disabled children would lose more than £3,000 each, and disabled adults whose partner is a full-time carer would also lose around £3,000.

Former Labour minister Kitty Ussher, director of Demos, said: ``There are good ways to reform welfare, but this is not one of them.Cutting the welfare bill is attractive to government in the current climate, but without better support for individuals it threatens to just exclude people further, rather than transforming their lives for the better. We call on policymakers to focus more on what works, or the ultimate prize of giving more people control over their lives by having the chance to earn a living will be lost.''

Richard Hawkes, chief executive of disability charity Scope, said the figures were ``alarming''. ``With such dramatic losses on the horizon, how will the government be able to 'protect' the people who need support the most?'' he said. ``Benefits are not optional extras - they are vital lifelines to help disabled people participate in our society.

``Without them, hundreds of thousands of disabled people will be forced into a cycle of long-term unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. That is not only bad for disabled people but also bad for the public purse. Disabled people must not be pushed even further backwards in our society by the pursuit of deficit reduction.

``The Government must take stock and conduct a full impact assessment on the consequences of stripping critical support from disabled people and their families.''

Demos said 170,830 families in which both parents cared for a disabled child would lose a total of £520m by 2015. Some 516,450 disabled people whose partner is a full-time carer would lose £1.3bn, and 98,170 single disabled people would lose £127m.

[thenodrog]

It is being reported that Osborne has given the go-ahead to the BoE to pump more money into the economy, reflecting fears that the economic recovery started by Labour has stalled and his forthcoming programme of ConDem spending cuts will send the economy back into recession. This second round of QE is following the lead of the US, where the recovery has also stalled and jobless figures remain stuck at around 10 per cent. The Treasury has also advised to Osborne to slow the pace of his spending cuts. This marks a significant and welcome shift in Tory policy and gives hope to those whose lives are about to be shattered by the proposed cuts.

A leading think-tank warned today yhat disabled people will be ``pushed even further backwards'' in society as they are hit with more than £9bn in welfare cuts over the next five years. The ConDem benefit cuts will see 3.5m disabled people lose about £9.2bn of critical support by 2015, according to a report from Demos

Ministers' plans to move disabled people on to Job Seekers Allowance will account for half these losses, it said. The report, titled Destination Unknown, argued that planned welfare reforms would result in more disabled people being trapped in long-term unemployment - ultimately costing the taxpayer far more than at present.

Demos warned that by 2015, families with disabled children would lose more than £3,000 each, and disabled adults whose partner is a full-time carer would also lose around £3,000.

Former Labour minister Kitty Ussher, director of Demos, said: ``There are good ways to reform welfare, but this is not one of them.Cutting the welfare bill is attractive to government in the current climate, but without better support for individuals it threatens to just exclude people further, rather than transforming their lives for the better. We call on policymakers to focus more on what works, or the ultimate prize of giving more people control over their lives by having the chance to earn a living will be lost.''

Richard Hawkes, chief executive of disability charity Scope, said the figures were ``alarming''. ``With such dramatic losses on the horizon, how will the government be able to 'protect' the people who need support the most?'' he said. ``Benefits are not optional extras - they are vital lifelines to help disabled people participate in our society.

``Without them, hundreds of thousands of disabled people will be forced into a cycle of long-term unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. That is not only bad for disabled people but also bad for the public purse. Disabled people must not be pushed even further backwards in our society by the pursuit of deficit reduction.

``The Government must take stock and conduct a full impact assessment on the consequences of stripping critical support from disabled people and their families.''

Demos said 170,830 families in which both parents cared for a disabled child would lose a total of £520m by 2015. Some 516,450 disabled people whose partner is a full-time carer would lose £1.3bn, and 98,170 single disabled people would lose £127m.

By definition cuts will always hurt some. It's to be expected. New Lab stated frequently that they would have to make severe cuts if they won the election. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6981594.ece

The only way to view this is to imagine that the benefit system didn't exist and was being initiated now. Take child benefits Jim. If they were being brought in now would you want every family in the country to receive them? I'm sure you wouldn't.

btw I guess a true socialist would have to answer 'Yes'.

[BuckyRover]

Well I don't know Matty. You and Bucky are the ones arguing that our financial problems are down mainly to the last governments unrestrained spending, rather than the Global banking crisis - so I assumed you both knew the actual figures.

Anyway, a quick google brings up a recurring figure of £850bn. The global banking crisis also cost a total of £4473bn.

Massive figures. As I said, I'm not, in any way, capable of understanding all this. What I do know for certain though, is that the Tories had no policy whatsoever for saving the banking system from collapse. The thing that did save the banks was Gordon Brown leading a Global strategy that did save the system.

What would you have expected the Tories to do if they had been in power? Would you have expected them to allow the banks to go to the wall - and if so, how would the country have survived that?

Honest questions, don't you agree?

The Bank bailout cost around £120bn. The £850bn is made up of future guarantees (if they get in trouble in the future) so it is not counted in the national debt.

The bankers followed the rules and the rules that were relaxed by the iron chancellor.

Saying "the Tories would have done the same" is a foolish thing to say. Why should we ever change governments if we think that the others would have done the same?

I personally support the bank bailout it had to be done. But I want the deficit to be reduced as quickly as possible, so we are prepared for any future economic shocks. If we followed Labours economic policy and there were any more problems in the future (the banks could get in trouble again) we would be royally screwed.

[jim mk2]

Cuts will always hurt "some" but they should not hurt the weakest and most vulnerable such as the disabled. Where is the evidence that the cuts are hitting the wealthy elite ie, those people who caused this budget deficit in the first place ? Why are they not being taxed to the hilt, hitting them in the pocket which is the only lanuguage they understand ? Why are the banks not being hit with windfall taxes ? Why are bankers bonuses not being hit ? Where is the clampdown on excessive executive pay and perks ? Why should those at the bottom end of society and the hard-working middle income earners suffer while the rich do not ? Where is the fairness ?

[BuckyRover]

Cuts will always cut "some" but they should not hurt the weakest and most vulnerable such as the disabled. Where is the evidence that the cuts are hitting the wealthy elite ie, those people who caused this budget deficit in the first place ? Why are they not being taxed to the hilt, hitting them in the pocket which is the only lanuguage they understand ? Why are the banks not being hit with windfall taxes ? Why are bankers bonuses not being hit ? Where is the clampdown on excessive executive pay and perks ? Why should those at the bottom end of society and the hard-working middle income earners suffer while the rich do not ? Where is the fairness ?

Globalisation. As I said previously the banks bring in a lot of money, money which is used to pay for services for the needy. If these banks move elsewhere, their money goes with them.

50% tax is already quite high. £7bn in bonus = circa. £3.5bn to the tax man. Is that not good?

[jim mk2]

. If we followed Labours economic policy and there were any more problems in the future (the banks could get in trouble again) we would be royally screwed.

Why ? Please explain.

Labour before they left office had already set in place cuts that would have halved the deficit in 4 years while not risking growth and not risking huge rise in unemployment. Reading the papers today Osborne has been told by the BoE MPC to slow down his programme of cuts because of weakness in the economy, proving Labour were correct.

Globalisation. As I said previously the banks bring in a lot of money, money which is used to pay for services for the needy. If these banks move elsewhere, their money goes with them.

50% tax is already quite high. £7bn in bonus = circa. £3.5bn to the tax man. Is that not good?

The banks make alot of money for themselves and their overpaid employees. Higher taxes are justified because of the damage they caused to this country. 50 per cent is not high in the context of their earnings.

[BuckyRover]

Why?

Because we wouldn't be able to afford it? The interest on the new debt would take up even more of government spending and the cuts would be even more severe.

If you trawl back through this thread you will find a post where I said the cuts would be less severe than expected. I thought that the Tories were making all this noise so that when the cuts came people would think "that wasn't too bad".

Politics

[BuckyRover]

Why ? Please explain.

Labour before they left office had already set in place cuts that would have halved the deficit in 4 years while not risking growth and not risking huge rise in unemployment. Reading the papers today Osborne has been told by the BoE MPC to slow down his programme of cuts because of weakness in the economy, proving Labour were correct.

The banks make alot of money for themselves and their overpaid employees. Higher taxes are justified because of the damage they caused to this country. 50 per cent is not high in the context of their earnings.

Conversely they contributed to a third of UK growth during the boom years. What have Labour proposed to replace this when the bankers leave? Did they even propose an increase to the bankers tax?

The bank crisis started in America. When the politicians decided that poor people should be able to buy their own homes?

D'oh!

[jim mk2]

Why?

Because we wouldn't be able to afford it? The interest on the new debt would take up even more of government spending and the cuts would be even more severe.

If governments (of any colour) did absolutely nothing the budget deficit would disappear anyway assuming economic growth returned to its long-term norm of 2 - 3 per cent. Labour's plan cut it half in 4 years but Osborne's plan to wipe it out in one parliament is going to cause this country alot of social and economic upheaval and is not necessary.

[JAL]

Right now one thing that is definite, is that the ordinary working man has absolutely NO future whatsoever if he/she is working in this country.

They have to work longer, for a lot less, with no guarantee of a state pension at the end of it, wonderful.

Big society = Conservative nonsense. How did this once great country come to this when it has nearly 270k millionaires on its shores.

[philipl]

I am sure it is more than 270k.

Large areas of London and the south have few properties priced under £800k. Add in a fairly normal range of personal assets and it takes nominal wealth to over £1m.