[Closed] Spending Review

So whats everyone expecting,

savage, unnecessary cuts aimed squarely at the favourite daily wail bogeymen which will impoverish those least able to afford it and will do so much damage to the country it may never recover.

it was only just recovering from the last round of tory cuts - and these will be far far worse. 25-40%

Ever get the feeling you have been had? The breathtaking chutzpah of the condems is amazing - nearly as amazing as the amount of folk who believe its needed.

No where else in the world is doing this.

Hey - we're only a trillion pounds in debt. What's the problem?

Massive cuts to benefits have already been announced - but of course that isn't going to harm the most vulnerable people in society is it.

Still waiting to hear about their plans to tackle the massive tax evasion that costs the country so much money though - strangely they are very quiet on that. I wrote to my MP about it and he never bothered to reply.

unnecessary

really? how do you suggest we continue to fund?

druidh

MYTH: Government debt is the highest it’s ever been

The UK’s government debt is at around 70 per cent of GDP (the total amount of goods and services produced in one year). That is certainly high, but it is far from unprecedented.

Government debt never fell below 100 per cent of GDP between 1920 and 1960. It is only in the past decade or so that it has become normal to think of government debt being stable at around 40 per cent of GDP.

MYTH: The UK’s debt crisis is one of the worst in the world

Just as the current level of government debt is not unprecedented historically, neither is it substantially higher than that of other countries.

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).

Much has been made by Cameron and Osborne of Gordon Brown’s ‘imprudent borrowing record’. They say that before the spending to stabilise the financial system, public debt was high.

But again, IMF comparisons of the level of public debt prior to 2007 showed the UK in a much better position than many comparable countries, such as France, Canada, the US and even Germany, the home of fiscal rectitude.

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Countering-the-cuts-myths

really? how do you suggest we continue to fund?

How did we fund it before?

I could cut a load of cash by turning off all the public building floodlighting, reducing the number of councilors, reduce the number of council vehicles and make them keep them running for longer, sell off all the leisure centres and libraries,and comunity centres.Oh and reduce the pensions for all new starters,if they dont like the conditions dont apply for the job.

No or very few jobs lost and a lot of money saved.

As Grumm says -

its nothing like as bad as the tories weant you to believe so they can push their agenda.

Some cutting is perhaps wise but not too much too soon. some tax rises would be wise - preferably direct taxation

Cracking down on tax avoidance would be wise - but the public servants who do this are being cut despite saving more money by chasing tax avoiders than they cost in salaries.

An approah rather like the concensus in the rest of the world.

Its an ideological approach not a rational one - and far too many folk have bought the propaganda. its hardly surprising as the majority of the media have been pedalling these lies for years.

We could of course just put up taxes, Britain still has pretty low personal taxes despite all the tabloid bullshit claiming otherwise.

the Lib Dem manifesto stated that they would:

• Tackle tax avoidance and evasion, with new powers for HMRC and a law to ensure properties can't avoid stamp duty if they are put into an offshore trust.

• Crack down on tax havens, which allow individuals and corporations to avoid paying taxes to developing countries.

• Propose specific policies to restrict pension tax relief and relief for charitable donations to the basic tax rate – both now seemingly abandoned – and a pledge to increase the capital gains tax rate to the income tax rate, also now abandoned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/20/tackle-tax-gap-deficit-reduction

it's what we voted for. its what we'll get...

1) Guardian readers sobbing into their gnocchi at pretentious North London dinner parties.

2) The government withdraw public sector job advertisements from the Guardian. The Guardian goes bankrupt. Subsequently, there is no longer such a thing as a Guardian reader.

3) Former Guardian readers still haven't woken up and smelt the (fair trade) coffee, pretentious North London dinner parties carry on regardless.

it's what we voted for. its what we'll get...

It's what who voted for? Virtually none of any of this was in any manifesto, as above. Even the tories didn't campaign on this kind of savage cutting.

bravohotel9er - nice display of your petty prejudices but are you able to actually comment on the issues?

it's what we voted for. its what we'll get...

No it isn't "what we voted for".

If you look at the election results, you will see that most people voted for candidates who were opposed to immediate spending cuts.

I agree that it's what we'll get though.

jam bo - Member

it's what we voted for. its what we'll get...

Its not tho - thats the key thing. NO party suggested 25 - 40% budget cuts.

Lib dem manifesto did not include cuts of any significance now, tory manifesto said much smaller cuts than they are doing.

Its an ideological con.

Even the tories didn't campaign on this kind of savage cutting.

but we all knew it was coming if they got in.

they did.

here it is.

grum - Member

bravo daily mailer

Nice display of yours. 😉

Most people didn't vote Tory.

Labour, the LibDems, and other parties, were opposed to immediate cuts. We are not getting what we voted for.

Most people didn't vote Tory.

or for the previous labour government.

But most people voted Labour, LibDem, nationalist, etc

Which bit don't you understand ?

More people voted Labour or Lib Dem, both of which were campaigning against immediate savage cuts, than voted Tory - so we haven't got what we voted for at all.

I'm not sure anyone was expecting quite how pathetic the Lib Dems would be in this 'coalition' though.

But most people voted Labour, LibDem, nationalist, etc

Which bit don't you understand ?

probably the part where all those disparate elements couldn't get their shit together and form a viable government.....

How the **** can you have a Conservative party and a Liberal party working together? One of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.

We need independence pronto mamma.

probably the part where all those disparate elements couldn't get their shit together and form a viable government.....

Let me explain to you again then.

If you add up all the people who voted Labour, LibDem, Scot Nat, Welsh Nat, & Green, the total you come up with represents the majority of voters. All those parties on election day were opposed to immediate cuts.

By all means argue about 'forming a viable government' .... if you so wish. But your claim that "it's what we voted for" is false.

HTH

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.

Let me explain to you again then

sounds a lot like sour grapes to me.

What, the [i]"facts"[/i] sound like sour grapes to you ?

OK

I never said I liked it, but under the electoral system that this country runs we got what exactly we voted for.

Just because on this roll of the dice it doesn't suit your particular political persuasion doesn't make it unfair. Maybe nu-labour should have pushed through electoral reform when they had the chance....

jambo - we didn't.

what is being done is not what was in the tory manifesto

The tories did not get a majority of the vote.

The trouble is that a lot of Labour sorts seems to forget that the Liberal Democrats are actually a proper political party (no laughing at the back!).

They don't exist solely to provide some sort of auxiliary top-up vote for under performing Labour governments.

The fact that many tribalist Labour voters in Tory/Liberal Democrat marginals choose to cast their votes for the Liberal Democrat candidate, in order to keep the Tories out, is all well and good, but, they have to realise that they're still voting Liberal Democrat.

Not Real Labour, not Continuity Labour, not I Can't Believe It's Not Labour, but the Liberal Democrats.

So, as a real party in their own right is it really such a surprise that they should seek to enter government? If so, then what's the point in the party existing in the first instance?

It's also a stretch to assume that ALL Liberal Democrat voters (or even a significant majority of them) would rather support Labour than the Tories.
In constituencies like Mid-Dorset (still Liberal Democrat, but only just), Romsey and Winchester (both Tory gains) and many others throughout the South-East and South-West, there are voters who will switch between Tory and Liberal Democrat, but never never never (and I really do mean never) Labour.

And neither did labour on the previous election, but I doubt you complained about that then....

Labour in the last government at least had a large majority of seats and did what was in the manifesto.

was waging an illegal war in the manifesto?

edit: my mistake, that was in the previous term, and still we voted for them.....

TandemJeremy - Member
Labour in the last government at least had a large majority of seats and did what was in the manifesto

How do you know? It seems highly unlikely that you've ever read it.

You can though, link here:
http://tinyurl.com/5jlku

Try and read Chapter 1 ('Economy') with a straight face!

Sfunny how the most obvious spending costs are never mentioned. To wit: one faded imperial power with aspirations way beyond its current tinpot status spend billions on unnecessary 'defense' budget to keep the deathpimps in business.

**** BAE systems and their bloodsucking buddies and pump the lot into medical research instead.

jam bo - Member

Just because on this roll of the dice it doesn't suit your particular political persuasion doesn't make it unfair.

😕 Who said anything about being "unfair" ?

I simply pointed out that your claim "it's what we voted for" was false.

Although I did agree with your other claim "its what we'll get".

**** BAE systems and their bloodsucking buddies and pump the lot into medical research instead.

i couldnt agree more

on no wait instead old vince cables just announced the condem plan to cut a massive chunk out of science spending, in complete contrast to the usa, germany etc etc

Most people didn't vote Tory

True, however Ernie, more people voted Tory than any other political party - you lost, get over it!

But most people voted Labour, LibDem, nationalist, etc

No, actually Ernie, [u]most[/u] people either voted Conservative or didn't vote at all!

the Lib Dem manifesto stated that they would:

However they got a minority of the votes, therefore their manifesto pledges are subordinate to the part of the coalition with the greatest public mandate.

Labour in the last government at least had a large majority of seats and did what was in the manifesto.

They committed to a vote on the European constitution in their manifesto, and did not deliver.

Remember - Labour only got 29.0% of the votes but took nearly 40% of the Seats in parliament - if you want to complain about fairness look at that - also remember that the VAST majority of English seats went to the Conservative party, so, at the very least the comment "its what we voted for" rings true in England, and since Scotland, Wales and NI have their own parliament to decide how their money is spent the fact that the majority of English people voted for cuts shows that their democratic wish should be fulfilled (and thats before we even discuss that Scotland is subsidised by English taxpayers money...)

How the **** can you have a Conservative party and a Liberal party working together?

This is the question I'm intrigued with over here in Oz - the 'coalition' is the liberal and the national parties..

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

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 [i]had[/i] 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.