Spongebob – rarely have I see such tosh

Its useless arguing with right wingers. They are so wedded to their ideology that they are incapable of seeing the truth

One little error in your polemic -Our "cushy" benefits system is actually much meaner than most in Europe.

It's good to see that both sides of the argument can be as stupid and hysterical as each other. 🙂

Under Labour we spent more than they should, under the Tories we're gonna spend less than we should. It all balances in the end….

tiger – why "more than we should" still far less than most competitor countries. We could easily afford higher spending than we have

Just a few points:

(i) the "25% across the board cuts" are no such thing, it is however true that there will be 25% cuts to the unprotected departments (NHS, Education and International Development are protected from the cuts). The level of cuts elsewhere is so high because these departments are being protected. The 40% is a doomsday scenario but is being produced to ensure that spending is viewed on a government wide basis so if "good spending" would need to be cut in one department to reach the 25%, some "bad spending" in another department's 40% case can be sacrificed for it.

(ii) Because of the protected departments, government spending will actually rise over the term of the parliament, albeit not in real terms.

(iii) Saying cuts were not voted for by the majority of voters is cherry picking as it assumes that everyone was voting solely on the economy and nothing else in any party's manifesto. The Lib Dems were pretty clear they would support whoever won the popular vote, which they have duly done. These arguments go round in circles – after all more people didn't vote Labour than didn't vote Tory.

(iv) Comparing levels of state debt often involves comparing apples with oranges as different states are funding different things, for instance France still have substantial state industries whose borrowing will be reflected in their state borrowing figures.

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

Like those notorious socialists at the IMF you mean? There's plenty of very much non socialist economists that agree that the severity of the crisis is being exaggerated – ask yourself why that might be.

For exactly the same reasons that others understate it – it supports their view better. As usual the reality lies between the hysterics of TJ-types and spongebob-types for whom the debate and getting their own 'side' to win is more important than the real world effect of it.

I feel strangely moved by SpongeBob's rant. I imagine him, standing defiant and alone, armed only with a picture of Bob Diamond, defending us from millions and millions of Russian Shock Army troops.

Mine is not hysterics – I am really very concerned about the damage this policy will do.

I just hope to open a few eyes to the giant con trick that is being run here

And the free market banking system has really helped us out recently, eh Spongebob?

TJ

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

I consider that hysterical. You may disagree but I reckon more people would agree with me than you. Guess we'll see in the long run.

tiger – why "more than we should" still far less than most competitor countries

We spent more than we raised in tax – should have raised more or spent less.

TandemJeremy – Member
Its useless arguing with right wingers. They are so wedded to their ideology that they are incapable of seeing the truth

i agree totally TJ, that link to redpepper was laughable.

Clubber – we will for sure. Well hopefully not as I think the condem government will fall fairly quickly so most of this damaging stupidity will not happen.

Fair enough tiger

i agree totally TJ, that link to redpepper was laughable.

Care to dispute the facts in any of the points they made then?

All three parties said they would cut the planned rises in future spending, they just all, for the main, avoided saying how and where those reductions would be made.

Care to dispute the facts in any of the points they made then?

Having given it a quick scan:

Most of the facts are picked up from reputable sources. However, they're not presented in cogent argument, and many of them are irrelevant to the current situation – ie, acceptable debt levels 60 years ago.

A lot of the cause and effect stuff is way off too – for one, the effect of government spending is affected by public opinion, so increasing spending into a recession can have very little or negative effects as the public realises that they're going to have to pay for it sooner or later, and start saving rather than spending. I'm not going to go through it point by point, as I'll be here all day, with TJ asking for journal references 🙄

By the way TJ, you seem to be on here almost constantly. Is it your day off or something?

Spongebob – rarely have I see such tosh

Tell me Spongebob, did you run a right-wing dictatorship somewhere in central or south America in the 1980's? Just wondering.

Don't know why you are bothering with these people TJ, You are preaching to the converted. While Cameron tries to cover up the systematic destruction of the public services with words like "big Society" the people you are arguing with are the f*ck society converts from the 80's.

I'm sure we can argue all day, but actions speak louder than words and actions are something the French public do and and the spineless British don't. What a nation of individuals we have become where all we can do about something is grumble about it.

NHS is not as 'protected' as it looks: long before the election, the whole of the south west SHA was signed up for 10% cost savings over 3 years. (google CRES, fact fans) I believe this is the case for the other SHA's too. That's about 3% a year (sorry can't do the cumulative maths off the top of my head) which in my team is 1.5 staff nurses per year. Or a consultant over two or three years. But we've only got one of those anyway. There is certainly no question of cutting costs anywhere else as we hardly spend anything on drugs (av. £250 per patient per year!) and have just signed up to an all-encompassing PFI deal. Yay!

TJ
Clubber – we will for sure. Well hopefully not as I think the condem government will fall fairly quickly so most of this damaging stupidity will not happen.

Which is exactly why I think you're being hysterical – if they really do try and make things as bad as you suggest, I don't think they'll be able to stick together through it. I reckon that both Tories and LibDems have too much to lose by not sticking with it for a good while so they'll both be forced to compromise. They need to make it through 5 years to avoid being completely trashed in an election so politicians (of all parties) being primarily interested in themselves or their own agendas will keep them together. At least that's what I hope.

I can't help feeling that we have a model of how to make a happier, healthier nation right in front of us. It is a model that has less people and less power, but both of those things seem like a good idea to me. The Scandinavian countries, particularly Denmark and Sweden, seem to really focus on using government to enrich the lives of actual people, not make it easier to do business. Now, I'm not saying they're perfect, but I'd give 50% of what I earn in tax to live in a Britain more like Denmark.

Surely the point of all this – governments, economics, democracy – is to make us safer and happier, not more powerful, richer, less healthy and less happy as our system currently does? And if that's not the point, then why not?

Most of the facts are picked up from reputable sources…

So broadly speaking, no you can't really find much wrong with it. 😛

clubber – it's very difficult to see how the Lib Dems can stomach the proposed Tory benefit cuts which will hit the most vulnerable in society

There's at least one with a conscience.

Bob Russell, another veteran Lib Dem MP, said colleagues were horrified by the announcement that had been made with no warning. He said: "I don't want to make things worse for people. I've spent 40 years trying to make them better.

"Lib Dem MPs need to find out what is being done in their name."

Tim Nichols, of the Child Poverty Action Group, pointed out Mr Osborne's previous claims about the cuts announced in his emergency budget had been shot down. The Institute for Fiscal Studies had shown those who are worst off, particularly families, are bearing the brunt.

Mr Nichols said: "The cuts have already been proved unfair. This is also a grave risk for the economy. The poorest spend immediately in our economy, keeping businesses open and people in jobs."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/09/10/george-osborne-makes-4billion-benefit-cuts-115875-22550309/

Now, I'm not saying they're perfect, but I'd give 50% of what I earn in tax to live in a Britain more like Denmark.

Me too, but too many people in this country have such entrenched selfishness and materialism that they would never go for it. I blame Thatcher. 😐

mansonsoul

Well said – I'd add Netherlands to that list of countries. tax and spends is a bit more than here and a bit less than Scandinavia

So broadly speaking, no you can't really find much wrong with it.

I can find plenty wrong with it. As I said, it doesn't make a cogent argument. On the surface, it looks fine, but the facts quoted are not relevant to the points being made. And the theory behind the article is very poor.

Take the point on what historic borrowing levels have been – it's about as good an argument as saying that Land Rovers are relatively good for the environment compared with Ford Mondeos, on the basis that the smallest engined Land Rover emits less CO2 than the ST220. None of the facts are incorrect, but it's not a good argument.

an all-encompassing PFI deal

The projected NHS PFI spend seriously boils my urine.

I've followed this thread for a while and not bothered to post anything up until now.

I work in a public sector job that in all probability won't be there in a few months time. The strange thing is, after working in the public sector for a few years, I can't wait to get out of it. The level of inefficiency and mindless overspending I've witnessed over the last 6 years has shocked me. The sad truth is we need some very stringent cuts to be made and sooner rather than later; there is a huge public sector employment bubble in the UK right now and it simply isn't sustainable. We need to trim the public sector back so that it only provides essential services and tighter limits on efficiency and spending need to be put in place.

Whilst it all seems very dramatic at the moment I honestly believe that the coalition government is doing the right thing. And I say that as somebody who will probably be looking for a new job very soon.

he sad truth is we need some very stringent cuts to be made and sooner rather than later; there is a huge public sector employment bubble in the UK right now and it simply isn't sustainable. We need to trim the public sector back so that it only provides essential services and tighter limits on efficiency and spending need to be put in place.

Why? Justify that statement.

The level of inefficiency and mindless overspending I've witnessed over the last 6 years has shocked me.

I do wonder if some people work in a different public sector the one I worked in, and the one my girlfriend currently works in. 😆

dear grum, i will not be wasting my time nit picking at your favourite publications. I will not be clicking a link to the daily mirror. I will not bother to bite at the standard pointless harking back to 'Thatcher'.

but regarding Red Pepper i will simply quote directly from the publication.

To respond effectively to the coming onslaught, we will have to engage with a deep crisis of working class confidence. To do so requires not only vigorous, unapologetic counter-propaganda, but collective action

a clear frank admission that what they spout is 'unapologeitc propaganda' taking facts out of context, spinning tiny threads of truth and manipulating statistics to their own political ends.

as bad as the far right and not so different really.

Well that was a really convincing argument.

as bad as the far right and not so different really.

😆

Almost Godwin's law there.

Take the point on what historic borrowing levels have been – it's about as good an argument as saying that Land Rovers are relatively good for the environment compared with Ford Mondeos, on the basis that the smallest engined Land Rover emits less CO2 than the ST220. None of the facts are incorrect, but it's not a good argument.

You still haven't actually said why you think it's wrong though.

I'd give 50% of what I earn in tax to live in a Britain more like Denmark

Not sure I'd want to live in Denmark, but taking your point isn't this part of the problem? A lot of us have been or will be paying close to 50% taking into account tax and NI, but we've ended up where we are, not in some Scandinavian-style big government utopia. The last government is the best advertisment I've seen for not letting the government spend your money, regardless of your political persuasion.

A lot of us have been or will be paying close to 50% taking into account tax and NI

Er… the much quoted 50% tax rate isn't on all your earnings is it. Even someone earning 100k a year isn't paying anywhere near 50% in Tax and NI.

And that's assuming you are paid a salary – many people on higher incomes are registered as businesses etc and are much more 'tax efficient'.

soobalias i think the point is the counter propaganda is there to counter the equally bullsh!t spin being pumped out by cameron and co and the murdoch times/sun/sky media empire
and lets not forget who is the governments communications officer? a murdoch employee who it seems is more amoral than alistar campbell(that in itself is a terrifying achievement)

quite frankly one lefty website doesnt stand much of a chance against that kind of money and power

and while i can well believe that parts of the public sector need sorting out to deal with inefficiency blanket cuts are a stupid idea, its an arse backwards way of doing things;
surely reforming and improving the public sector will ave money
cutting their funding will not make them more efficient

Even someone earning 100k a year isn't paying anywhere near 50% in Tax and NI.

Tax is not just Income Tax and NI. To talk about tax rates, you really have to consider all the other taxes paid – VAT, Fag & Booze Duties, Fuel Duty etc.

Still, if you find the graphs for tax as a %age of income, it's roughly a U shaped curve.

Rio – its the othe rway round – even our last goverenment spent significantly less as a % of gdp that the scandenavian countries. The difference between a tax take of 40 % of gdp and 50 % of gdp is huge. For example when labour came to power NHS spending was under 8% of gdp, it rose to nearly 10 % of gdp – most of our rivals spend 11 – 12 % of gdp.

we still don't spend enough to have the services we want.

want scandenavian style services then pay scandenavian style taxes. Our services are still starved of funds – thats why they are not great

and as for this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11225197
cutting the science budget just shows how stupid this government are
the usa and germany are increasing science spending by millions because they know in a recession you need to innovate to get out
(the entire condem recovery plan is based on a mystical 40% increase in exports that will appear from where exactly)

parts of the public sector may be overpaid an inneficient but i can guarantee to you that science isnt one of them, on a measly budget we are world class leaders in many fields, consistently producing scientists and publications at the top of the game.

and scamndanavia is a lovely place
but taxation there is way above what we pay here, have you ever tried to buy a pint in oslo thatll be 8 quid
or a bottle of spirits or wine – go to the state run liquor shop get a ticket and queue up to hand over 30-40 quid!

You still haven't actually said why you think it's wrong though.

It's factually correct, but it doesn't stand up as an argument. I believe it's what my philosopher mate would call a non-sequitur.

Another example would be me saying that mountain biking is unhealthy, because I concussed myself doing it once.

Even someone earning 100k a year isn't paying anywhere near 50% in Tax and NI

PAYE plus NI on 100K including employers contribution comes to about 45%. Not a million miles from 50%, and I did say "close to".

Almost Godwin's law there.

But I give you mogrim's law:
In any debate about public spending during the lifetime of the current government, at some point someone will call the Chancellor "Gideon".

I'm not quite sure why this is: given he changed his name when he was still at school it hardly seems relevant, after all noone (not even the most rabid of right-wingers) ever called Gordon Brown "James".
Perhaps calling him Gideon makes him sound less British, playing up to subconcious old testament prejudices? A little like the way Tea Party members in the US always call the president Barack Hussein Obama?