[Archived] Election

[Bazzanotsogreat]

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.

Jim can you please corroborate this statement; I have yet to see any creditable source to back up this notion.

[dave birch]

Jim can you please corroborate this statement; I have yet to see any creditable source back up this notion.

Without having to google, wiki or anything else, Inflation reduces it.

You only have to look at the German WW1 reparation to understand that.

[BuckyRover]

Ed Miliband has just said Labour are proposing NO increase in personal tax allowance.

That settles that then. Labour have no deficit reduction policy.

To reiterate halving the deficit in four years requires cuts deeper than Thatcher, not just doing nothing.

Labours policy according to Jim, in the face of a huge financial crisis is to do nothing.

[jim mk2]

Ed Miliband has just said Labour are proposing NO increase in personal tax allowance.

That settles that then. Labour have no deficit reduction policy.

To reiterate halving the deficit in four years requires cuts deeper than Thatcher, not just doing nothing.

Labours policy according to Jim, in the face of a huge financial crisis is to do nothing.

Does not make any sense.

[jim mk2]

Good for Ed

MILIBAND UNVEILS LABOUR PLANS TO INCREASE BANK TAXES

By Daniel Bentley, Press Association Political Correspondent

Labour leader Ed Miliband said today he wanted to hit banks with higher taxes to support ``ordinary families'' through the public spending cuts. He promised to do more to protect regular households and suggested the bank levy was a ``prime way'' of doing that.

Mr Miliband also warned that David Cameron and George Osborne were being ``increasingly cavalier'' with the economy and ignoring warning signals such as last month's dip in house prices.

Shadow chancellor Alan Johnson signalled today he was ready to scale back Labour's plans for reducing the deficit if economic conditions worsened. He said he wanted to stick to former chancellor Alistair Darling's plan to halve the deficit over four years - ``if economic conditions allow''.

Mr Miliband, speaking on BBC1's The Politics Show, said Mr Darling's strategy was ``a starting point''. He promised more details about Labour's plans before the Government's comprehensive spending review on October 20, but said he wanted to do more to help families.

``If we can get more, for example, from the banks, in a higher bank levy, to protect ordinary families - like on child benefit, like on public services - we should do so,'' he said. ``Because frankly it wasn't middle class families in this country that caused the crisis. It was the banking community.

"So if there is more that can be taken from them to protect families in this country we should do it.'' He said there would be no tax rises beyond those planned for ``ordinary families''.

Another way in which he would try to raise cash would be in tackling tax avoidance, he said. ``The Government have a responsibility to be protecting families in this country and I think the banks are a prime way in which you can do that,'' he said.

The bank levy, applied to the balance sheets of UK banks and building societies and the British operations of foreign banks, was introduced by Chancellor George Osborne. It is expected to raise between £2 billion and £2.5 billion a year. Mr Miliband also claimed that the coalition's cuts package, of about 25% over four years, presented a ``real threat to our economy''.

He said that institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the OECD, which have both backed the coalition's plans, had been ``wrong in the past''. Seeking to step up pressure on Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, the Labour leader went on:

``I think they are being incredibly cavalier with our economy and there are lots of people saying now there are warning signals in our economy. ``And if they confine our economy to low growth and unemployment, I think people will rightly be very angry, because they have been warned about the scale of cuts they are undertaking.''

[RovertheHill]

The deficit would not have "cured" itself over time because the last government was borrowing about a quarter of what it spent. The only way to reduce debt is to pay off more than you borrow. As Jim is fond of saying - "simple economics". With or without the banking crisis our deficit was worse than every other top economy. The money may have been spent with good intentions to make up for years of Tory neglect but I'm not convinced we've gotten value for money for such a large outlay. As for "better ways of reforming the welfare system" - well, I reckon 13 years was plenty of time to demonstrate that but let's be frank it's an utter mess. I don't know if the cuts are too fast or too slow - but I do know that we cannot keep spending more than we have.

[Al]

There has to be sense in a bank levy. The banks caused the crisis and continue to make huge profits. The banks should therefore do more than anyone else to rectify the situation.

[dave birch]

Could I suggest that proper regulation would have stopped the problem from happening?

OK it's too late now for what has gone on, but what has been done to stop future happenings?

We here in Australia haven't had the banking problems that have occurred around the world, primarily down to the regulations set in train by (dare I say it) a left of centre government.

[RovertheHill]

There has to be sense in a bank levy. The banks caused the crisis and continue to make huge profits. The banks should therefore do more than anyone else to rectify the situation.

What I don't understand is this: given that we the taxpayers now own big chunks of the banks, and presumably we want to inflate the share price as much as possible so as to get our money back, would a bank levy be counter-productive to that aim? When the govt propped them up did they insist on any repayment terms out of profits? If not, another missed trick maybe?

[JAL]

Out of interest WHO stands to make money out of the national debt, Cameron mentions £43b purely on paying the interest payment so who does this money go to ?

Anyone got the answer.

[Mattyblue]

Anyone got the answer.

'The British Government borrows money by selling bonds, known as 'gilts'. These bonds are sold at regular auctions held by the UK Debt Management Office (DMO), on behalf of Her Majesty's Treasury. The term gilt is short for 'gilt-edged security' and is a reference to their perceived safety as an investment. The Government has never failed to make a repayment on a gilt.

When a gilt is sold, the Government guarantees to pay the holder a fixed interest payment every six months until the maturity date, at which point the full value of the bond is repaid. The proceeds from a gilt sale are then spent by the Government and the value of the gilt is added to our national debt.

On average, the bonds that make up our national debt need to be repaid within 15 years.'

http://www.debtbombshell.com/bond-market.htm

[berkshireblue]

Good for Ed

MILIBAND UNVEILS LABOUR PLANS TO INCREASE BANK TAXES

By Daniel Bentley, Press Association Political Correspondent

Labour leader Ed Miliband said today he wanted to hit banks with higher taxes to support ``ordinary families'' through the public spending cuts. He promised to do more to protect regular households and suggested the bank levy was a ``prime way'' of doing that.

Mr Miliband also warned that David Cameron and George Osborne were being ``increasingly cavalier'' with the economy and ignoring warning signals such as last month's dip in house prices.

Shadow chancellor Alan Johnson signalled today he was ready to scale back Labour's plans for reducing the deficit if economic conditions worsened. He said he wanted to stick to former chancellor Alistair Darling's plan to halve the deficit over four years - ``if economic conditions allow''.

Mr Miliband, speaking on BBC1's The Politics Show, said Mr Darling's strategy was ``a starting point''. He promised more details about Labour's plans before the Government's comprehensive spending review on October 20, but said he wanted to do more to help families.

``If we can get more, for example, from the banks, in a higher bank levy, to protect ordinary families - like on child benefit, like on public services - we should do so,'' he said. ``Because frankly it wasn't middle class families in this country that caused the crisis. It was the banking community.

"So if there is more that can be taken from them to protect families in this country we should do it.'' He said there would be no tax rises beyond those planned for ``ordinary families''.

Another way in which he would try to raise cash would be in tackling tax avoidance, he said. ``The Government have a responsibility to be protecting families in this country and I think the banks are a prime way in which you can do that,'' he said.

The bank levy, applied to the balance sheets of UK banks and building societies and the British operations of foreign banks, was introduced by Chancellor George Osborne. It is expected to raise between £2 billion and £2.5 billion a year. Mr Miliband also claimed that the coalition's cuts package, of about 25% over four years, presented a ``real threat to our economy''.

He said that institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the OECD, which have both backed the coalition's plans, had been ``wrong in the past''. Seeking to step up pressure on Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, the Labour leader went on:

``I think they are being incredibly cavalier with our economy and there are lots of people saying now there are warning signals in our economy. ``And if they confine our economy to low growth and unemployment, I think people will rightly be very angry, because they have been warned about the scale of cuts they are undertaking.''

Jim - is that the same shadow chancellor that admitted he needed to read up on economics

The facts are this Labour got us in this mess they now as opposition appear to be experts in getting us out of it

Philip Green's report shows how much fat there was in the new labour govt of the last 14 years

The government could save billions of pounds a year if it improved "shocking" spending processes, Topshop owner Sir Philip Green has said.

Sir Philip has reviewed government spending, and says it is failing to make full use of its buying power.

He said no business could survive the level of money that was wasted from the £191bn of spending he reviewed.

He believes billions could be saved if the government did simple things like checking spending properly.

Speaking to the BBC's business editor, Robert Peston, he said that between £600m and £700m could be saved on the £2bn telecoms bill alone.

PS Mods should nt this topic be shut down and renamed - there wont be an election for 5 years

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Jim - is that the same shadow chancellor that admitted he needed to read up on economics

The facts are this Labour got us in this mess they now as opposition appear to be experts in getting us out of it

Philip Green's report shows how much fat there was in the new labour govt of the last 14 years

The government could save billions of pounds a year if it improved "shocking" spending processes, Topshop owner Sir Philip Green has said.

Sir Philip has reviewed government spending, and says it is failing to make full use of its buying power.

He said no business could survive the level of money that was wasted from the £191bn of spending he reviewed.

He believes billions could be saved if the government did simple things like checking spending properly.

Speaking to the BBC's business editor, Robert Peston, he said that between £600m and £700m could be saved on the £2bn telecoms bill alone.

PS Mods should nt this topic be shut down and renamed - there wont be an election for 5 years

5 yrs, mm. I'm not too sure about that. I can't see the Con-Dems sticking together that long.

[RibbleValleyRover]

5 yrs, mm. I'm not too sure about that. I can't see the Con-Dems sticking together that long.

I can.

If I was looking at it from a Lib Dem perspective the best thing for them is to stick out the full five years, hoping that the economy will start to show real signs of recovery and then go to the public showing that they can work in government. If the economy is doing really well then i can see whatever poll drop they have now be completely reversed. Even if they lose the Public referendum on AV they have to stick with it, pulling out will make them look like a bunch of idiots who only care about themselves.

Also the Lib Dem's (not the Conservatives) have taken a huge hit in the polls; if there were an election now then that could be suicide for them if they are correct. Another point is that Labour and the Lib Dem's simply cannot afford another election campaign right now, Labour's books are in a real mess and the Lib Dem's never have had a lot of money behind them.

The Conservatives won't want this to fail either, they will want to be there when the economy starts to recover (it will at some point) and show that they can run a government. They are in a far stronger position than the Lib Dem's though being the senior partner, if the deal fails it will be the Lib Dem's that walk away, there is no chance whatsoever of the Conservatives walking away from this not after 13 years in the wilderness.

[jim mk2]

The facts are this Labour got us in this mess they now as opposition appear to be experts in getting us out of it

Philip Green's report shows how much fat there was in the new labour govt of the last 14 years

Wrong. You are merely peddling the same line trotted out ad nauseum by Tory ministers and their friends in the right-wing press. See my earlier posts as for the reasons for the budget deficit.

I would not have expected Philip Green to have said anything else. He's a Tory supporter (and a particularly nasty example at that) who runs a mean company that pays its employees the minimum.

[BuckyRover]

Bucky... In the election manifesto, Labour did announce £14bn of savings in public spending (I don't know the exact details, just the figure). Ed Miliband has already admitted that, had Labour stayed in government, they would have had to make some cuts (though nowhere near as severe as the Conservatives/Lib Dems). On top of that, Labour are going to support a lot of the cuts proposed by the incumbent government.

In short, all parties had their plans to reduce the deficit - in different ways.

Where do you get this accusation that Labour are going to do nothing?

This thread has the worst knack of posters reeling out anti-party propaganda (from all sides) that it becomes impossible to debate properly and ends up turning into a Mothers' Union gossip forum thanks to the wind-up garbage and retaliation. Grrr.

Correct.

14bn savings. With structural a deficit of 165bn?

The interest payments this year are 27bn, while next year they will he 40+bn.

Like I said, do nothing.

As a country, we are effectively being run like Man Utd

[jim mk2]

5 yrs, mm. I'm not too sure about that. I can't see the Con-Dems sticking together that long.

Neither can I. The Lib Dems are ony in this coalition because they are finally in sight of their holy grail of electoral reform. Without it the coalition from their point of view is pointless.

[philipl]

One of the tragedies of the Labour era was that getting value for money and performance from their spending was simply not a high priority. Any efficiency gains were accidental and too often large wads were habded over without being very clear what was exected in return.

At the death, we got the Labour paranoia state where every scheme was designed to reduce civil liberties.

Truly a Government that had lost the will to continue. Simply no desire to continue into a 5th term- the entire lot of them were completed played out.

One good thing about the coalition, the Tory right is largely emasculated.

[JAL]

'The British Government borrows money by selling bonds, known as 'gilts'. These bonds are sold at regular auctions held by the UK Debt Management Office (DMO), on behalf of Her Majesty's Treasury. The term gilt is short for 'gilt-edged security' and is a reference to their perceived safety as an investment. The Government has never failed to make a repayment on a gilt.

When a gilt is sold, the Government guarantees to pay the holder a fixed interest payment every six months until the maturity date, at which point the full value of the bond is repaid. The proceeds from a gilt sale are then spent by the Government and the value of the gilt is added to our national debt.

On average, the bonds that make up our national debt need to be repaid within 15 years.'

http://www.debtbombshell.com/bond-market.htm

Cheers mattyblue, I wonder if any of jim's mob have made any money this way over the past few years

[thenodrog]

I would not have expected Philip Green to have said anything else. He's a Tory supporter (and a particularly nasty example at that) who runs a mean company that pays its employees the minimum.

Probably right but the salient points being that he 1. is paying them and 2. they are no doubt free to leave if they need to.

[adopted scouser]

Aren't we giving the EU something daft like 10bn a year ? and for what - trade ?

Everything we buy these days seems to come from the far east. Blow Brussels a raspberry and repay the deficit without making cuts, everybody's happy.

[BuckyRover]

As of last year 57% of exports were to the EU, 55% of imports.

We would be (even more) crippled if we left the EU. I support the EU (which means I'm not a Tory).

[colin]

Probably right but the salient points being that he 1. is paying them and 2. they are no doubt free to leave if they need to.

Rather a harsh stance old chap.

Salient points are that he is paying them to work for his company and then he used to grab a huge financial reward on the back of their labours. If they all had the opportunity to go and work elsewhere for more money then they presumably would. But they can't. It's not quite as easy as you suggest as all retail employers are busy driving down wages to the minimum.

I'm pretty certain that if I were to choose between the tax-evading multimillionaire Michael Green and the staff of Marks & Spencers I would pretty quickly fall for the latter.

How about you?

Do you want to take up this one?

[thenodrog]

Point is that the private sector is not all just a bowl of cherries and that is something that the public sector are about to find out.

If somebody going through school has an expectency of high wages in adult life than a career as a shop assistant is not really suitable for them is it?

[jim mk2]

Not sure who Michael Green is but Philip Green uses every scam in the book to avoid paying taxes on the tens of millions he awards himself every year for selling tatty clothing. Taking lessons from the non-dom Michael Ashcroft of Belize no doubt. Cowboys such as Green are typical of the tax-avoiding crooks in the private sector; public sector employees pay their taxes.