[Archived] Election

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

You get paid what you are worth.

Not if you're Morten Gamst Pedersen.

[colin]

To be honest I'd imagine that 99.9% of em don't even care

"To be honest" why are you bothering? Your imagination thinks that "99.9% dont even care."

So why bother posting such irrelevance?

[tashor]

Why? Because its main desire is to cut government spending driven by Tory ideology. The more alarming the structural deficit can be made to appear, the easier it is to justify the cuts.

This is not difficult to understand but apparently beyond your comprehension.

Why is high government spending (my money - not theirs) a good thing...

Not a hard question..

[BuckyRover]

Wrong again. The entire economic debate is a mass of spin and nowhere more than in the way Osborne has made the reduction in the structural deficit the core aim of government policy. In his Budget speech he said: 'Because the structural deficit is worse than we were told, my Budget today implies further reductions in departmental spending of £17bn by 2014-15.'

The structural deficit is an artificial concept. Its size depends on the assumptions that underpin it, the central one being the assumption about how much productive capacity in the economy will be permanently destroyed by recession. This is guesswork - guess high and the prediction goes up; guess low and it comes down.

Note the structural deficit bears no relation to the actual deficit. In fact the coalition inherited an economic situation that was better than predicted in Alistair Darling's last Budget - the actual deficit was lower and growth has been higher. But by focusing on the 'structural' deficit, the ConDems can ignore this good news and paint the picture as darkly as it wants.

Why? Because its main desire is to cut government spending driven by Tory ideology. The more alarming the structural deficit can be made to appear, the easier it is to justify the cuts.

This is not difficult to understand but apparently beyond your comprehension.

I have been well and truly duped.

[jim mk2]

Why is high government spending (my money - not theirs) a good thing...

Not a hard question..

With an easy answer.

This country's roads, railways, waterways, airports, ports, drainage systems, telecomms, postal services, and other sundry infrastructure, schools, hospitals, doctors and nurses, defence systems, armed forces, fire services, police services, etc have all been provided by in large part or to some degree by public money. Even the ConDems recognise the value of spending on infrastructure with plans (started by Labour) for a high-speed rail network. In short, government money has helped to build this nation into one of the most successful and prosperous on the planet.

Next.

[BuckyRover]

The fact that we are spending 6.5% of GDP on debt interest at the moment and that it is forecast to rise to around 10% of GDP by 2015 (even with austerity measures) is a lie?

[tashor]

With an easy answer.

This country's roads, railways, waterways, airports, ports, drainage systems, telecomms, postal services, and other sundry infrastructure, schools, hospitals, doctors and nurses, defence systems, armed forces, fire services, police services, etc have all been provided by in large part or to some degree by public money. Even the ConDems recognise the value of spending on infrastructure with plans (started by Labour) for a high-speed rail network. In short, government money has helped to build this nation into one of the most successful and prosperous on the planet.

Next.

That wasn't the question...

I asked why HIGH government spending is a good thing NOT why do the government spend any money at all...

Indeed the "my money" I referred to was/is all earned by myself and my wife working for two of the services you list.....

Our income more than doubled under the labour government..

Doesn't mean that was money well spent though.

Lower public spending can easily provide for a better public service than we had under labour and allow ordinary folk more money in their pockets to spend on what they want (not what the labour party wanted to spend on bribes to their indentured public servants) and to boost the private sector with this spending to provide jobs based on actual demand and need.........

[Rover Down Under]

I asked why HIGH government spending is a good thing

Oh that’s an easy one, clearly the country will fall apart without the thousands of equal opportunities officers, street football coordinators and community environmental empowerment managers that are absolutely vital and totally worth their huge salaries. Of course if you don’t feel like working you can earn loads by sitting on your arse all day, save for the 7 times you will need to lie down to have the 7 feral kids you need to claim the extra benefits and the home that no hard working couple could ever hope to afford because landlords have driven up the rental prices so high in order to fleece more money from the public coffers. How else could you rip the fabric of society apart better than encouraging people NOT to work and to live off those nasty, evil people who decided to go out and make something of their lives and put in an honest days work.

Naturally, high Government spending has nothing to do with Labour trying to buy itself back into power to further decimate the country and reduce us all to the lowest common denominator, all in the name of “equality”, does it? Ahhhh....don't you all miss Labour Britain?

[jim mk2]

Lower public spending can easily provide for a better public service .........

Does not compute.

Try again.

[Paul]

I've only seen the BBC news but wonder how people view the proposed pension increases? £7000 pa seems like a better starting point especially for couples who I guess will be treated as individuals?

I asked this question for two reasons, firstly to get folks' opinion and secondly to prove something to myself. Reading this thread, and many similar ones, it's clear the degree of division for some people is so great they are unable to see good for bad. I shall likely always be a Labour voter though I'd be prepared to change this in five years time if the country is being well run and, unlikely IMV, ordinary people are being well treated. Governments are good and bad, clearly Labour made mistakes, the Conservatives have made mistakes, in the past and already in this term, but I can't see a single contributor to this thread who seems prepared to acknowledge positive action.

Surely this pensions announcement is a serious piece of very good social, economic planning? How it will be paid for is a question but I feel the Tories should be applauded for the move. There may well be a sting in the tail but on the face of it this seems a very positive move?

[thenodrog]

Does not compute.

Try again.

Never mind the quality, feel the width'.

[JAL]

Wrong again. The entire economic debate is a mass of spin and nowhere more than in the way Osborne has made the reduction in the structural deficit the core aim of government policy. In his Budget speech he said: 'Because the structural deficit is worse than we were told, my Budget today implies further reductions in departmental spending of £17bn by 2014-15.'

The structural deficit is an artificial concept. Its size depends on the assumptions that underpin it, the central one being the assumption about how much productive capacity in the economy will be permanently destroyed by recession. This is guesswork - guess high and the prediction goes up; guess low and it comes down.

Note the structural deficit bears no relation to the actual deficit. In fact the coalition inherited an economic situation that was better than predicted in Alistair Darling's last Budget - the actual deficit was lower and growth has been higher. But by focusing on the 'structural' deficit, the ConDems can ignore this good news and paint the picture as darkly as it wants.

Why? Because its main desire is to cut government spending driven by Tory ideology. The more alarming the structural deficit can be made to appear, the easier it is to justify the cuts.

This is not difficult to understand but apparently beyond your comprehension.

Jim its all designed to attack or stamp down the wages and the unaffordable pensions that the City and the banks cant deliver, yes, of the public sector, but also we must not forget the private sector aswell.

A government that fails the reign in £45-100 billion in missing tax payments but pays out £30 billion in benefits, yet sees this benefits area as the more important route to attack, says it all.

None of us can deny that it all leads to less police on the streets, nurses, doctors etc., whilst the main players run off with the money, great plan just wish I was in on it.

[Al]

I asked this question for two reasons, firstly to get folks' opinion and secondly to prove something to myself. Reading this thread, and many similar ones, it's clear the degree of division for some people is so great they are unable to see good for bad. I shall likely always be a Labour voter though I'd be prepared to change this in five years time if the country is being well run and, unlikely IMV, ordinary people are being well treated. Governments are good and bad, clearly Labour made mistakes, the Conservatives have made mistakes, in the past and already in this term, but I can't see a single contributor to this thread who seems prepared to acknowledge positive action.

Surely this pensions announcement is a serious piece of very good social, economic planning? How it will be paid for is a question but I feel the Tories should be applauded for the move. There may well be a sting in the tail but on the face of it this seems a very positive move?

Not if you are already on a pension and are going to have a second class pension for the rest of your life. 'Dave' is fond of the word 'fair'. How is it fair to discriminate against the current, and many of the future, pensioners.

[tashor]

Does not compute.

Try again.

I spend £100 on the best value ingredients I can source, prepare them and take the resulting food direct to those in need - lots of full tummies.........

I give £200 in taxes - the labour government pay for advertising/offices/staff expenses /research/awareness courses ("we are an equal opportunity employer") etc. etc. etc.- resulting, finally, in enough money to buy a Tescos "luxury" oven ready meal for one ( only the best is good enough............) and then a campaign to complain that the likes of ol' tashor are not donating enough of their money as so few have been fed hence increase in Taxes and loss of money to the real economy.........

Geddit ( I though not .................)

[berkshireblue]

Does not compute.

Try again.

Jim - Your reply here is the crux of this whole matter, you live in a world where you think the more you spend the better a service

Its a mentality of militants, public sector die hard and unions

Are you Bob Crow in disguise?

I have living evidence of where I took 1.2million off one very small council's spend on leisure and public complaints went down and service and standards went up

We are on page 112 of this debate and you still wont acknowledge the public sector is inefficient and many many cuts can be made which will effect nothing

[broadsword]

That certainly makes sense.

We've been forced into it by the European Court of Human Rights.

We don't have any choice in the matter.

As for this joint defence thing with France, I can barely believe it. It just shows how much of a mess the contaminated "New Labour" and their failed ideology left behind if we're having to do that to save money.

[BuckyRover]

We've been forced into it by the European Court of Human Rights.

We don't have any choice in the matter.

As for this joint defence thing with France, I can barely believe it. It just shows how much of a mess the contaminated "New Labour" and their failed ideology left behind if we're having to do that to save money.

That is a very good point. I don't see this treaty as being part of Tory ideology, quite the opposite I would say.

[thenodrog]

We've been forced into it by the European Court of Human Rights.

We don't have any choice in the matter.

Well lets ignore em then. Rules are made to be broken. Human rights don't seem to mean much anywhere else on the globe so why should we bother with them? How much do human rights cost us btw? Lets bin em and spend the money on equipping OUR armed forces.

[Mattyblue]

Jim - Your reply here is the crux of this whole matter, you live in a world where you think the more you spend the better a service

Its a mentality of militants, public sector die hard and unions

Are you Bob Crow in disguise?

I have living evidence of where I took 1.2million off one very small council's spend on leisure and public complaints went down and service and standards went up

We are on page 112 of this debate and you still wont acknowledge the public sector is inefficient and many many cuts can be made which will effect nothing

Nice one berkshire, you have summed up 112 pages of jimmk2 nonsense in one post.

[jim mk2]

Jim - Your reply here is the crux of this whole matter, you live in a world where you think the more you spend the better a service

Its a mentality of militants, public sector die hard and unions

Are you Bob Crow in disguise?

I have living evidence of where I took 1.2million off one very small council's spend on leisure and public complaints went down and service and standards went up

We are on page 112 of this debate and you still wont acknowledge the public sector is inefficient and many many cuts can be made which will effect nothing

Having lived through the 1980s when Tory cuts last decimated public services, there is no doubt that increased public spending leads to better services. Labour inherited in 1997 woeful public services not even worthy of a third world country and the money they spent over the past 13 years has gone some but not all the way to redressing the balance. in my opinion they should have spent much more. But this is the choice we make - private affluence and public squalor under Tories or a balance between the two under Labour. I know which I prefer. You reference to Bob Crow is just silly and something only to be expected from a Conservative voter.

It should be repeated that the ConDem government's strategy of slash and burn to public services is not necessary and is not inevitable. They employ a statistical sleight of hand to paint a picture of Labour's recklessness that belies hundreds of new schools and hospitals nationwide. They do not distinguish between debt and deficit. Debt needs to be put in a historical perspective and identifed how much is tied up in the package that rescued the banks and there needs to be an honest debate about why it was necessary for Labour to run the deficit to help the economy through the recession and how it can be run down in a measured manner.

By doing so it will be possible to show the government's folly in destroying people's jobs, homes and dreams in the name of economic discipline. And it will also then be possible to resist the inevitable phase two of the Tories' ideological assault, when they seek to fill the gaps in provision created by cuts to public services with contracts for big business.

[arachnica]

Having lived through the 1980s when Tory cuts last decimated public services, there is no doubt that increased public spending leads to better services. Labour inherited in 1997 woeful public services not even worthy of a third world country and the money they spent over the past 13 years has gone some but not all the way to redressing the balance. in my opinion they should have spent much more. But this is the choice we make - private affluence and public squalor under Tories or a balance between the two under Labour. I know which I prefer. You reference to Bob Crow is just silly and something only to be expected from a Conservative voter.

It should be repeated that the ConDem government's strategy of slash and burn to public services is not necessary and is not inevitable. They employ a statistical sleight of hand to paint a picture of Labour's recklessness that belies hundreds of new schools and hospitals nationwide. They do not distinguish between debt and deficit. Debt needs to be put in a historical perspective and identifed how much is tied up in the package that rescued the banks and there needs to be an honest debate about why it was necessary for Labour to run the deficit to help the economy through the recession and how it can be run down in a measured manner.

By doing so it will be possible to show the government's folly in destroying people's jobs, homes and dreams in the name of economic discipline. And it will also then be possible to resist the inevitable phase two of the Tories' ideological assault, when they seek to fill the gaps in provision created by cuts to public services with contracts for big business.

Of course, there is a slight problem with this argument - the facts. Public expenditure rose by 40% (in real terms) between 1979 and 1997. There were year on year increases in every year except 1988-89. NHS spending rose in every year after 1980, including huge increases in 1980-81 and 91-92.

So surely by your logic, public service quality improved during the 80's - or was your previous statement incorrect?

[Rover Down Under]

Of course, there is a slight problem with this argument - the facts.

Sums up absolutely every one-sided rhetoric to spout from his mouth, but don't expect a response, facts are completely anathema to him and every loony left diatribe vomited from said mouths.

I also lived through the eighties, and nineties and noughties and I can tell you we got a helluva lot more for a lot less under the Tories than under Labour, more is always nice but it doesn't equate to better services.

[Mattyblue]

Having lived through the 1980s when Tory cuts last decimated public services, there is no doubt that increased public spending leads to better services. Labour inherited in 1997 woeful public services not even worthy of a third world country and the money they spent over the past 13 years has gone some but not all the way to redressing the balance. in my opinion they should have spent much more. But this is the choice we make - private affluence and public squalor under Tories or a balance between the two under Labour. I know which I prefer. You reference to Bob Crow is just silly and something only to be expected from a Conservative voter.

It should be repeated that the ConDem government's strategy of slash and burn to public services is not necessary and is not inevitable. They employ a statistical sleight of hand to paint a picture of Labour's recklessness that belies hundreds of new schools and hospitals nationwide. They do not distinguish between debt and deficit. Debt needs to be put in a historical perspective and identifed how much is tied up in the package that rescued the banks and there needs to be an honest debate about why it was necessary for Labour to run the deficit to help the economy through the recession and how it can be run down in a measured manner.

By doing so it will be possible to show the government's folly in destroying people's jobs, homes and dreams in the name of economic discipline. And it will also then be possible to resist the inevitable phase two of the Tories' ideological assault, when they seek to fill the gaps in provision created by cuts to public services with contracts for big business.

Big business in public services? hmmm where have I heard that before, PFI per chance?

And as for public services in this country being 'third world' by 1997, utter, utter garbage. A close family member spent much of the 1990s in and out of the hospital, the facilities and treatments were hardly third world.

Unfortunately, the recruitment of thousands of NHS middle managers and their ilk on big wages and bigger perks may add to the NHS bill, however better treatment does not automatically follow. The same can be said for the rest of the public sector, however this is to be expected from a party that has no regard for taxpayers money.

[den]

Unfortunately, the recruitment of thousands of NHS middle managers and their ilk on big wages and bigger perks may add to the NHS bill, however better treatment does not automatically follow.

No Matty, but it did.

[Mattyblue]

No Matty, but it did.

Of course it did, the NHS spend has been vast and I am glad that health spending is being protected.

However, the waste from vast amounts of staff (non medical), to procurement contracts, to that shambolic IT system has been nothing short of scandalous. Just think of the billions frittered away from a service so vital.