[Closed] What happens if the coalition breaks down?

If Ireland had not implemented cuts then they would be a whole worse position than they currently are.

Gosh, it sounds like they've been really very lucky then - my mistake, I thought they were in the shit.

Is that what they refer to as "the luck of the Irish" ?

[i]I am however very good at pontificating on subjects I know little about
[/i]

Which, i would have thought, would make you just as qualified as anyone we have running the country now.

Sure the cuts are not popular but whats the alternative?

Tax the flippin rich more heavily! Most of our laws surrounding money are made up to suit them, not the Nation as a whole. Start to rein in this obscene culture of Greed which has become so prevalent. People are more concerned about having new luxury goods like big tellies and cars etc, than they are about the provision of much needed health care, education, etc. All 'MeMeMe I'm all right Jack F- the rest of you' without enough consideration to behaving as responsible members of a Society.

People have slipped into the mode of thinking of 'I'll sort myself out, but Society has to sort me out if I need it', without thinking that they themselves could do more to put [i]into[/i] society, than taking out.

All this talk of 'Big Society', but I don't see loads of Tories rushing to volunteer at local health clinics to make up for the lack of staff dues to the cuts.

You need to look at the bigger picture before whinging about cuts to your local school, bus service, council jobs etc.

Cheeze. You just need to look at the bigger picture mate. Your view is so narrow it's almost a single molecule thick...

MancJon, the better off already pay proportionally more tax than the less well paid. That's is how it should be. But what's the alternative? Communism?

People need some incentive to start the businesses, work hard and take that risk? If most of their incomes went in tax then why bother? These businesses employ us all don't forget and without them none of us would have jobs.

It's up to you at the end of the day. If you want to earn money then you need to work hard. If you don't then feel free to sit on the sofa all day. That's what a capitalist society is all about at the end of the day. Please don't complain about some boss or 'fat cat' who earns more than you. It's your choice what you do with your life at the end of the day.

But what's the alternative? Communism?

Oh for the love of the sweet baby robin; I give up. 🙄

(Goes off to nail jelly to a wall as it's far more fruitful than trying to make a blinkered Tory see the folly of their ways)

[img] [/img]

Yes it is! And it's crying about the evil Tory cuts which will mean it goes hungry, suffers from malnutrition, won't be able to afford a decent education, and will therefore not be able to realise much of it's actual potential and ability to be a fully productive member of Society...

NothernStar you're talking rubbish, Greece, Portugal and Ireland all went for the massive cuts/austerity strategy it pushed them over the brink. We've got that to look forward to.

Growth is far more important than reducing the deficit (the debt is not a problem, it's actually quite low compared to the past) and encouraging growth will give us the means to reduce the deficit quicker without harming those who will be affected by the politically motivated cuts.

[url] http://www.progressives.org.uk/articles/article.asp?a=7919 [/url]

So instead of referring to ‘cutting' the deficit, we should start talking about ‘closing' it. Understandably, the concept of the deficit gets all too easily conflated with the more familiar idea of debt. But the concept isn't all that hard to explain if you frame it right. Talking about ‘closing' the deficit makes clear in its very imagery that the deficit is not debt, but is simply a gap.

How does this help? It could underscore that deficit reduction is about getting two sides of the equation right, and drive home the need to achieve growth. Margaret Thatcher's favourite household budget analogy of balancing the books could actually be turned to our advantage here.
If the deficit is the gap between what you spend in a month and what you receive in at the end of a month, then clearly there are two ways of closing that gap. One is reducing spending - what the government is doing - and the other is increasing your income - what the government is not doing.

If we are to push the government hard on asking where growth is going to come from, talking about closure of the deficit gap, rather than simply ‘cutting the deficit', sets us on firmer ground. Otherwise, the image of the deficit in everyone's mind is of a big pile of debt that needs to be cut down to the ground by diverting resources away from public spending into paying down that debt. Worse, it remains ‘Labour's mountain of debt' rather than coalition's deficit that it promised to close.

[i]That's what a capitalist society is all about at the end of the day. Please don't complain about some boss or 'fat cat' who earns more than you. It's your choice what you do with your life at the end of the day.
[/i]

I'm not complaining about people who earn a lot of money. I worked in IT and earned a very good living but i still would happily have paid more tax than i did.

It comes down to what sort of society you want to live in. I want to live in a society where the better off look after the less well off because i think that benefits us all.

And it's a myth that it's all down to the individual person, a myth propogated often by the right. When everyone has the same chances in life, educational, career etc. then i would agree. But it isn't like that.

Basically I don't think the Lib Dem membership is as left-leaning as you do.

Maybe you live in a different area to me ? My experience of Liberal Democrat members is that they have in recent years, been considerable to the left of New Labour. Indeed much of their criticism of the last Labour government was based on the allegation of how right-wing it was. I don't recall a LibDem criticising New Labour for being too left-wing. All of which must make this pact between Clegg/Cable/Alexander and the Tories extremely uncomfortable for many LibDem members.

{edited because I couldn't nest my quotes properly!}

The links I gave were to polls taking a nationwide sounding of the Lib Dem membership. That said, I agree the Coalition is probably uncomfortable for many Lib Dems (Conservatives too!), but I think this has more to do with current popularity rather than position on the political spectrum.

On a separate issue, Elfin, mancjon, what level of taxation would you want to see imposed?

the better off already pay proportionally more tax than the less well paid

These businesses employ us all don't forget and without them none of us would have jobs.

If you want to earn money then you need to work hard.

But what's the alternative? Communism?

Hahahaha........if you're not a Conservative you must be a Communist ! 😀

That line works so well amongst right-wing nutters ........ it particularly appeals to American redneck/Tea Party halfwits.

Wunun...

Oh ffs. 😡

(Storms off in a huff)

Vote for Ernie! ( or should that be votes for Ernie?)

MancJon, the better off already pay proportionally more tax than the less well paid

they pay more *income* tax, but not more tax overall. Less well paid spend more on goods, services and highly taxed items such as fuel, as a proportion of their income.

Elfin has already told you. Tax the better off people more instead of cutting front line services that many of the less well off depend on.

Why? They already do through the progressive tax system. Why should they pay more? How is that fair? Obviously you are not in that sort of income bracket so it's easy for you to call it as a policy and think that will solve the problem. Interesting that, shall we say, the left leaning corner only call out nurses, police, fire brigade, the forces etc when talking about cuts to public services where surely most of the cuts will be in the non essential services such as the big government departments that grew like topsey under Labour. And as such do not contribute to the economy overall.

Allegations such as the Tories only being in government to line the pockets of the super rich at the expense of everyone except the super rich only serve to highlight the person making them as a bit, well, simple in the head.

What we cannot escape from is that we have a huge and unsustainable debt that needs to be reduced. And Labour economic policy has to take its fair share of the blame for the mess we are in today. The problem with a debate like this on a forum like this is the people from either end of the ideological spectrum convinced they are right and not interested in listening to an alternative view point that may have some merit.

Lifer why did Portugal, Greece etc go for substantial cuts? Not for no reason I assure you. You don't seem to understand what you're talking about. It was their insolvency in the first place that caused the problems - the cuts are merely a necessary way of dealing with it.

I'm no expert but I could point to a hundred articles that disagree with yours but I don't honestly have the will or the time.

non essential services such as the big government departments that grew like topsey under Labour.

Such as ? Defense?

What we cannot escape from is that we have a huge and unsustainable debt that needs to be reduced.

Check your numbers - it is not that high in absolute terms, relative to previous or in comparison to similar counties. don't buy the tory propaganda

What we cannot escape from is that we have a huge and unsustainable debt that needs to be reduced

*sigh*

[img] [/img]

Thanks for the vote of support TJ, unfortunately like binners, I'm not standing for election, preferring instead my role with the 'ground troops'.

the better off already pay proportionally more tax than the less well paid

just remind me again how much Phillip Green paid on the £1.5 billion he funneled through his wife's Monaco bank accounts? What...nothing? Not a single penny? And that * is presently advising the government on financial policy, and one of the signatories to the letter urging Gideon on with his austerity measures.

Yip. The super-rich really do contribute don't they. Just not financially. The audacity of this present shower is beyond *ing belief. Its absolutely immoral.

NorthernStar - Member
Lifer why did Portugal, Greece etc go for substantial cuts? Not for no reason I assure you. [b]You don't seem to understand what you're talking about[/b]

I know the difference between debt and deficit, which you obviously don't.

It was their insolvency in the first place that caused the problems - the cuts are merely a necessary way of dealing with it.

[i]One[/i] of the ways of dealing with it. And look how well it's gone for them!

I'm no expert but I could point to a hundred articles that disagree with yours but I don't honestly have the will or the time.

😆

[i]Why should they pay more? How is that fair? Obviously you are not in that sort of income bracket so it's easy for you to call it as a policy and think that will solve the problem.[/i]

Ermm, read my last post. I was in that income bracket and probably will be again when i go back to work. It's fair because how much money do i really need to make my life comfortable. How much do i really need to buy/own when an extra 1p/2p in my personal income tax could make a "real" difference to someone struggling to get by.

If you don't see that as fair then i guess we won't agree.

Here's a simple example. In Salford, CAB had 8 credit advisors to help people who were struggling with debt. Due to the cuts that is now down to 3. So it's more than halved at a time when many people need it most.

"No cuts to frontline services" was, i seem to remember, one of David Cameron's pledges.

And i'm not saying Labour aren't part of the problem, they are. And i haven't said we don't need cuts, again read previous posts.

Do you not think that a society where everyones needs are met is better than a society where we leave those at the bottom to struggle whilst the better off people just ignore them ?

I think you will find yo are standing Ernie I have forged your signature 🙂

Vote for Ernie!

Wishy washy guardian reading liberals for Ernie!

Check your numbers - it is not that high in absolute terms, relative to previous or in comparison to similar counties. don't buy the tory propaganda

So, to use the same argument, those on a low income / complaining about the cuts etc they're not actually all that big in absolute terms either. Wow, so you can't afford the latest flat screen plasma telly. Oh, my heart bleeds for you. In absolute terms you are still rich compared to a significant percentage of the world population. Does it not seem like a colossal waste of money to be paying interest on a vast sum (in actual, real numbers) and getting precisely nothing for it or is better to try and cut that waster money so that it can be invested in national infrastructure, services etc?

Why should they pay more? How is that fair?

Why is it 'fair' that certain people in certain jobs get paid considerably more than others, simply because that profession generates more 'money' than another? Why is the generation of wealth so much more important than treating the sick, educating the young, or cleaning up everyone else's mess? Hmm?

Wealth is created via exploitation. The least exploitative jobs, such as health care and cleaning etc, pay the least. Those who do such jobs surely 'earn' the right to a decent standard of living, healthcare, education etc? No?

If we are to have a system where the generation of wealth is such a central factior in the formation of our society, then at least have another system which ensures that no-one need go without. Is it 'fair' that some fat-cat can relax in some mansion somewhere, while those who actually put more hours in, and arguably benefit society on a [i]Human[/i] level more, struggle to be able to afford to live in poorer housing? Is it?

Lifer, your National Debt as a % GDP graph ends at 2000 (or shortly thereafter)...

Edited after seeing your graph below to say thanks for that, but without adding another post to the thread.

Allegations such as the Tories only being in government to line the pockets of the super rich at the expense of everyone except the super rich [s]only serve to highlight the person making them as a bit, well, simple in the head[/s] are actually supported by a hell of a lot of damning evidence (as Binners points out).

FTFY.

So, anyone who can see through the Tories' crafty plan is a bit, well, 'simple in the head', then? Really? And what makes you so intellectually superior then, pray tell?

[img] [/img]

Since 2008, National Debt has increased sharply because of:

•Economics Recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits)
•In particular, tax receipts from stamp duty and income tax were badly hit by recession.
•Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.

It is estimated National debt will could rise close to 100% of GDP by 2012. It is way above the government’s sustainable investment rule of 40% maximum.

However, the debt situation can be improved through:

•Economic Expansion which improves Tax Revenues and reduces spending on benefits like Job Seekers Allowance
•Improved performance of banks increases prospect of regaining financial sector intervention
•Government Spending cuts and tax rises (e.g. VAT) which improve public finances.
However, there is also a danger spending cuts could reduce economic growth and therefore hamper attempts to improve tax revenues.

[i]Wow, so you can't afford the latest flat screen plasma telly. Oh, my heart bleeds for you.[/i]

I'm not sure that is an alternative argument so much as Daily Mail ranting.

There are many families in this country for who, believe it or not, having a flat screen plasma tv is the least of their concerns.

I love the way my secret adversary now puts "More boring Ernie polemic" tags on threads in which my contributions are both short and minimal. I know that the intended purpose to wind me up, but it really does give a sense of smug satisfaction to know that someone is so rattled by my comments, but yet lacks both the tools and intellectual capacity to challenge me, that they have to resort to "attack by tags" ! 😀

Bikingcatastrophe - Member

Check your numbers - it is not that high in absolute terms, relative to previous or in comparison to similar counties. don't buy the tory propaganda

So, to use the same argument, those on a low income / complaining about the cuts etc they're not actually all that big in absolute terms either. Wow, so you can't afford the latest flat screen plasma telly. Oh, my heart bleeds for you. In absolute terms you are still rich compared to a significant percentage of the world population. Does it not seem like a colossal waste of money to be paying interest on a vast sum (in actual, real numbers) and getting precisely nothing for it or is better to try and cut that waster money so that it can be invested in national infrastructure, services etc?

They're not cutting to reduce debt, they're cutting to reduce the deficit. Which can be reduced far more socially effectively (for want of a better phrase) by encouraging growth.

What is happening here is the classic shock doctrine/disaster capitalism which is used to reshape the economy in the interests of private business, not the state.

What is happening here is the classic shock doctrine/disaster capitalism which is used to reshape the economy in the interests of private business, not the state.

Absolutely bang on the money there Lifer! Anyone who's read the book can see Dave and co are following it letter for letter. Maximum exploitation of their "window of opportunity".

To finish my point, confirmed by some on here. I have come across a lot of people who don't understand the point of saying that half the population are of below average intellegence and find it to be shocking. What hope do you have if people don't understand basic definitions.

I love the way my secret adversary now puts "More boring Ernie polemic" tags on threads in which my contributions are both short and minimal. I know that the intended purpose to wind me up, but it really does give a sense of smug satisfaction to know that someone is so rattled by my comments, but yet lacks both the tools and intellectual capacity to challenge me, that they have to resort to "attack by tags" !

😀

Look upon it as a 'Tag of Honour'.

Lifer your post contradicts itself. Who provides the exports, growth, wealth and jobs we need? Yes by enlarge its private business and not the public sector.

This government seems very pro-business and pro-exports which can only be a good thing. Sustainable wealth is not created by borrowing more and more money. At least this government seems to understand this however unpopular it seems to be with lots of you on here.

Who provides the exports, growth, wealth and jobs we need?

Who farms/mines/produces the raw materials? Who works in the farms and factories? Who treats the workers when they get sick? Who teaches the workers' children? Who cleans up after everyone?

Who provides the backbone of the actual industries and services the rich get wealthy from? Eh?

Or is it only the captains of industry and business that actually matter, or do any work?

Typical Tory shortsightedness- let's just forget the working classes exist....

Elfin safety please explain how we will survive as just a nation of public servants? Sure we need a balance of both private and state but under the last government the balance has swung far too much in the favour of state and all the red tape that entails.

You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder when it comes to people doing well for themselves. Successful business paying its tax is how we can afford to educate our children and provide the NHS we all care about so much. This stuff won't pay for itself you know.

Well i've just reread the entire thread and i can't see where Elfin says we should all be public servants. Perhaps you could point that bit out.

[i]Successful business paying its tax is how we can afford to educate our children and provide the NHS we all care about so much. [/i]

But what makes a business successful. The execs yes but also the many people who work for that company. And is it really fair that the execs earn so much more than the workers they employ.

The issue of fairness has come up a few times in this thread and still no answer from the more right wing people. So a straightforward question -

Do you think it's fair that some people can earn so much when there are many people struggling to make ends meets. Do you really believe that people at the higher end of the wage bracket actually "need" all that money.

High standard of education and a healthy workforce is very important to the private sector.

Why is it not fair for execs or directors to be paid a lot more than the workers?

It's the directors that took the risk to set up the business in the first place and usually the directors that put in the hard work and long hours from day one?

Why should they not be rewarded?

Unbelievable!

Some directors take risks setting up businesses many don't. They are appointed by their friends for favours given and received

You seem to have a big chip on your shoulder when it comes to people doing well for themselves.

Oh here we go....

I do have an issue with obscene levels of wealth whilst others struggle to make ends meet, or go without what should be considered basic necessities. Ergo, a very small minority enjoying fabulous wealth, whilst others are denied adequate healthcare, housing and education etc through no fault of their own, let's not forget, is something I am opposed to, yes. No-one [i]needs[/i] multiple houses, loads of cars, etc etc. The fact that some people seem to feel they are entitled to such vulgar riches just serves to illustrate how greedy and selfish some people can be.

So, by your reckoning, 'doing well for yourself' is something that can only be measured in material wealth, then?

Herein lies the problem.... 🙄

Why is it not fair for execs or directors to be paid a lot more than the workers?

I have no issue with being paid for success, but this simply isn't the case. The sky-rocketing rise in boardroom pay is utterly disproportionate to the results being achieved by these people. Productivity and profitability are not increasing yet their wages are - and at a staggering rate. This is due to the system of non-exec directors rubber-stamping each other mutually huge pay increases

Meanwhile the 'rest of us' have wages that are, at best, stagnant, and for most people, genuinely decreasing

Northern star - in a mixed economy fair reward is acceptable - however some just stick their nose in the trough and take no risk - look at the money being paid to the directors of the nationalised banks for a gret example. Waht risk are they taking? How can a remuneration of millions be justifiable?

Northern star - in a mixed economy fair reward is acceptable - however some just stick their nose in the trough and take no risk - look at the money being paid to the people in charge of the trade unions for a gret (sic) example. Waht (sic, again!) risk are they taking?

😉

No-one is saying they shouldn't be 'rewarded'. It's the level of 'reward', in relation to how much others are 'rewarded', that people take issue with.

Why should a nurse, who saves someone's life, not be 'rewarded' accordingly, for such a valuable job? I notice it's questions like this that you fail to answer...

😉 and more 😉

Why should they not be rewarded?

No-one is saying they shouldn't be 'rewarded'. It's the level of 'reward', in relation to how much others are 'rewarded', that people take issue with.

Why should a nurse, who saves someone's life, not be 'rewarded' accordingly, for such a valuable job? I notice it's questions like this that you fail to answer...