Rio – Member

Its an ideological con.

No, it's what you'd expect from a Tory/Libdem government (has no-one read the Libdem constitution?). Now the previous government pi$$ing money against the wall to buy votes whilst pandering to its new middle class voters and at the same time pretending to be the Labour party – that was an idealogical con, this lot are just amateurs in comparison.

Most insightful post of the week.
The myth that anyone who votes libdem is more attuned to Labour than Tory really need de-bunking.
I know many who would be somehwere between Tory/Libdem and are really delighted to have a the pair of them in power.
For me, I agree with Labour spending more money on public services, what I despise though is the inefficient way this extra money has been spent, and the refusal to put the chequebook away 3-4 years ago when things started looking tricky with the economy.

To take the election period, in a way none of us got what we voted for. NONE of the parties would detail what cuts were needed. They couldn't otherwise no one would have voted for them. That sucks, but if one party had done it, then the other two would have singled them out as the "bad" party and they would have been decimated. IT was however quite easy to see through this pretence and realise that cuts were coming, just a bit faster and with more vigour with the conservatives.

tron – Member

Whoever got in would have had to swing the axe. That was clear to anyone with a brain before the election.

simply not true. No one had to. Its an ideological choice. We still have a low level of government spending and debt and a low level of taxation.

You have been conned

As can be seen from the figures Quoted in an early post. The government debt was quite manageable and higher taxation could easily have dealt with it – as our competitor countries are doing.

The competitor countries who have smaller deficits as %age of GDP, due to the fact they didn't have the economic genius that is Gordon Brown to dig a big hole for them?

We are not in the same position as our "competitor countries".

As for the wonderful lefty quotes about what's considered a normal debt for a country, if 40% is the current norm, then that's where the good interest rates are going to be. Not heading towards 70-80%. What the norm was 50 years ago is neither here nor there.

Errm – the competitor countries have larger deficits as % of GDP

IMF data (IMF World Economic Outlook Database, April 2010) shows the UK has the lowest government debt as a proportion of GDP among the G7 countries (the US, Canada, Germany, Britain, Japan, Italy and France).

They are not slash and burning their public services.

I say again – you have been conned into believing the situation is worse than it is to justify the wholesale destruction of UK civic society and public services on ideological grounds.

yes the deficit needed to be addressed but this is not the way to do it. No other country in the world is following this line. The cuts will increase unemployment and decrease tax revenues while increasing public spending to pay for the benefits these people will be on.

Errm – the competitor countries have larger deficits as % of GDP

Debt != Deficit. Try again.

oops – but the same basic arguement still stands.

Its not nearly as bad as Cameron wants you to believe

We are not insolvent and its easily affordable

No other country is doing what cameron wants to do

Most other counties in the world are doing what Brown did.

We remain a low spending low taxing country. Higher taxes are easily affordable

You have been conned

I'll spell it out for you.

Debt is what we currently owe. It's fairly regularly measured in telephone numbers, or as a %age of GDP.

Deficit is what we're going to be short of this year (ie, going to owe). Again, it's expressed as phone numbers of a %age of GDP.

This year's deficit goes into next year's debt figures. As far as I can see, the sums work out such that you can add the %ages together for a very rough estimate (obviously GDP changes over time). But if we start with a debt of 70% of GDP, run a 10% deficit, it's only matter of a couple of years before we're approaching 100% debt/GDP.

It's no good saying "Oh, we have a relatively small national debt, so let's carry on as per" when doing so means running a deficit of approx 12%. That 12% goes into your debt figure at the end of the year.

Anyway, don't take my word for it. See what our competitor countries have to say:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8569418.stm

No other country is doing what cameron wants to do

Most of the EU nations are doing what Cameron wants to do, his plans aren't particuarly radical: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10162176

tron – whats that wooshing noise?

I understand that – a simple error in my above post.

What you fail to understand is that you have been conned by a government ideologically opposed to public services who are using this as an excuse to destroy our public services in the name of profit for a few.

No one argues that deficit reduction is not desirable – just that slashing spending on jobs and services is not the way to do it. It will make the problem worse – aas understood from previous recessions. We will return to recession and the finances will get worse as a result of these cuts.

You will be sorry when poverty, crime, illhealth all rise as a result of this and the country is impoverished both financially and socially.

NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS TAKING THE CAMERON APPROACH!
despite many other countries having far worse financial positions.

Mopgrim – that is far smaller cuts than cameron is proposing.

@ this thread

NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS TAKING THE CAMERAON APPROACH!

Apart from Greece, Germany, France, Spain, …

You will be sorry when poverty, crime, illhealth all rise as a result of this and the country is impoverished both financially and socially.

I suppose that whilst I'm crying in the corner, you'll be waving the red flag and posting "I TOLD YOU SO" 18 hours a day…

The figures don't stack up. You don't understand the figures, so you can't see why we need to make cuts. Simple as that.

tron – its you that doesn't understand the figures I am afraid.

There simply is no need to make cuts on the scale Cameron is proposing. No other country is doing so. A small tax increase with moderate cuts would do fine – not 40% cuts in budgets. Cacelling vanity projects such as Trident for one.

The damage this will do to public services is enormous and may never be able to be recovered from.

The damage this will do to the economy is enormous – growth will be stifled which makes the deficit worse. We have already seen the first signs of this

its short-sighted foolishness. Once we lose these services we will find it very hard to regain them. There are much bettter ways of achieving deficit reduction that what Cameron wants – as other countries are doing.

I am afraid you have shown yourself to be gullible and to have been coned by Cameron and the tory press. I pity those who cannot see thru the right wing rehtoric

mogrim – Member

"NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS TAKING THE CAMERAON APPROACH!"

Apart from Greece, Germany, France, Spain, …

simply not true.

Had anyone else missed TeeeeJayyyy…..

40% cuts in budgets

25% overall seems to be the figure according to the BBC. If anyone here is conned, it's you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11207297

The above BBC report suggests that cuts of 25% are to take place over 5 years.

Cameron has told the depts to prepare for 25% – 40% cuts. That is the figures he wants. Simple fact. Some depts will be less than 255 – but as 25% is the overall cut wanted then some depts will be 40%

This will make us one of the lowest taxed and spending countries in the world.

I pity those who cannot see thru the right wing rehtoric

And I pity those who's political views are so entrenched in one belief or another that they are unable or unwilling to take a reasoned view.

Edit: your last post is classic TJ – completely ignoring the fact (which hopefully is correct, I have no real way of proving/disproving it) that the figure is a 5% cut per year because 25-40% sounds sooooo much better for your political agenda and belief.

Woody – I am quite open minded. Its just this is such an obvious con.

Woody – thats what cameron has asked the depts to provide 25% – 40% cuts.

5% a year for 5 years = 25%

that is his aim – to cut UK government spending by 25% in 5 years. This is what he has repeated stated.

We already have a small public sector with low tax and low government spend compared to other countries. This is why our public services are not so great.

TJ – see above edit

I did – thats my answer. Cameron has asked most government depts to prepare budgets with 25% – 40 % cuts.

TJ, if you think we have low taxes, then you're missing something.

I've been a 40% taxpayer for a long time, but now I have the joy of being a 50% taxpayer. Plus NI, of course. Oh, and zero personal allowances. Add to that the fact that pension contributions will, from next year, only attract basic rate tax relief, and I fail to see how your assertion can possibly be valid.

And you want to tax me more? Great, thanks a lot.

Blithely asserting that a bit of a tax hike would sort things out doesn't really make me feel especially warm and fuzzy – what are you suggesting, 70% perhaps? Totally impossible politically.

In the real world, the Tories know they have to get re-elected – soaking the rich and the middle classes will harm this, and they're proably at the limits of what they can do on personal taxation. Hitting the poor won't cost them any votes – they weren't exactly going to pick up many votes there anyway, were they?

5% a year for 5 years = 25%

It isn't you know. Compound interest, GSCE maths…

From the mail

Cameron orders Ministers to draw up 40 per cent spending cuts – the biggest in history

The proposed cutbacks are even more extreme than emergency reductions used in other countries such as Canada and Ireland and are double the amount of the Geddes cuts imposed after the First World War when Britain faced bankruptcy from government debt and waste.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291837/Cameron-orders-Ministers-draw-40-cent-spending-cuts–biggest-history.html

nickf – Member

TJ, if you think we have low taxes, then you're missing something.

Nope – missing nothing. Its a basic fact. UK tax take is low in comparison to most similar countries. This is an indisputable fact. As a % of GDP.

Especially when you consider our tax take covers most of the healthcare spending which in may countries is on top of taxation.

Speaking from down 'ere in the NHS, I – quite simply – resent much of the rhetoric that is accompanying these cuts. The country certainly isn't broke on account of my paypacket.

Still, I expect elderly care wards will shortly be overrun by BarCap executives anxious to play their part in the Big Society.

TJ quoting the Mail. We've got about 5 minutes before the universe self destructs in a massive cloud of WTF.

He had people plan out 40% cuts. He also had people plan out 25% cuts. Maybe, just maybe, he wanted to see what the effects of both might be? Or he wanted 25% all along, but asking for 40% first would make 25% seem a far better proposition? Or he wanted an absolute worst case scenario planned, in case our credit lines were pulled?

>TJ quoting the Mail.

Bl00dy Daily Wail readers get everywhere!

I thought you might find te Mail harder to refute.

taxation comparision – remeber to consider how healthcare whic is 8 – 16 % of gdp is funded – some of these countries you pay for some or all of your helthcare on top – netherlands france and germany deffo.
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Sweden: 54.2 % of GDP
# 2 Denmark: 48.8 % of GDP
# 3 Finland: 46.9 % of GDP
# 4 Belgium: 45.6 % of GDP
# 5 France: 45.3 % of GDP
# 6 Austria: 43.7 % of GDP
# 7 Italy: 42 % of GDP
# 8 Netherlands: 41.4 % of GDP
# 9 Norway: 40.3 % of GDP
# 10 Germany: 37.9 % of GDP
# 11 United Kingdom: 37.4 % of GDP
# 12 Canada: 35.8 % of GDP
# 13 Switzerland: 35.7 % of GDP
# 14 New Zealand: 35.1 % of GDP
# 15 Australia: 31.5 % of GDP
# 16 Ireland: 31.1 % of GDP
# 17 United States: 29.6 % of GDP
# 18 Japan: 27.1 % of GDP
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp

TJ, in Sweden you actually get something for your taxes. Like decent education, a well-run health service and the like.

Remind me how good our public services are, and try to sell me on why I should feel good about paying more?

I thought you might find te Mail harder to refute.

You must be gutted.

nick, while I don't agree with TJ's sensationalist wailing style or predictions, isn't it exactly his point that if we paid more, we'd get more?

It isn't you know. Compound interest, GSCE maths..

LOL …. but the compound interest could take it to 40% couldn't it, well couldn't it?. Of course it could, it's not maths, it's politics!

nickf – that 'cos they spend more on thier public service than we do! Significantly more

You cannot have good public services and low taxation.

You cannot have good public services and low taxation.

You can in Dave and Gideon's world. Big Society will provide them…won't it?

I'm with TJ on this, the Labour budget was a lot more pragmatic and kept the option for cuts should the need arise.

Labour and Coalition Deficit Reduction Plans

The Labour plan was to maintain growth while paying off the deficit later and for longer, this Condem plan assumes all factors will remain the same while the cuts are underway. It leaves us with no-where to go, reducing the deficit quicker but reducing growth at the same time.

And the IMF says:

“Most advanced countries should not tighten their fiscal policies before 2011 because tightening sooner could undermine recovery”

“An overly severe consolidation would stifle still-weak domestic demand. A fiscal target that demands too much too soon can damage the economy and thus the prospects for success of the fiscal target itself”

The problem with cutting spending to reduce the deficit is that it has the effect of reducing GDP. Therefore you find that £1million cut from the budget doesn't cut an equal amount off the deficit.

The better solution would be to take measures to increase GDP while making small budget cuts. This would reduce the deficit with the least harmful effects on the country.

Unless you have ulterior motives to cut public spending of course.

No point trying to rationalize about money and public spending with a socialist tron!

They have no capacity to understand the commercial world and are just jealous of those who have money.

They want everything handed to them on a plate, for free!

When a socialist gets into power, they deploy their Robin Hood ideology and naively assume that government money comes from a bottomless pit. There will be handouts and widespread waste, left right and centre,usually to the least deserving cases, to the detriment of normal tax payers.

E.G. The cushy benefit system has locked working class people out of the jobs market creating an new underclass and Fxxkwads like Jack Straw welcomed "with open arms" people from poorer countries to come here and work, to fill the vacancies that were unecomic for benefits claimants to apply for. France and Germany both put a restriction on migration because they realised how destabilizing this would be

Left to get on with it, socialists will blow everything and run up huge debt, leaving the commercial world to languish under a sea of regulation and restriction. In the end, we'd end up with a situation like there was in Russia 30 years ago, nothing will work, we'll all be reliant on the state and there will be no food in the shops – a communist state!

Don't waste your breath on them tron, it's utterly futile! They will be banging on about their ideology for ever and will continually try to undermine real progress.

They are the true enemy of the state.