Well, Clegg thinks it’s about ‘no pain no gain’ and that it’s all about necessity. Osborne says this today:
We simply cannot afford to increase public debt at the rate of £3bn each week. Our huge public debts threatened financial stability and if left unchecked would derail the economic recovery. Public borrowing is only taxation deferred and it would be deeply irresponsible to continue to accumulate vast debts that would have to be paid off by our children, and our grand children for many decades to come.”
But even more patronisingly and smug faced from free markerteer, Dave Laws who says: We also promise to cut with care, we are going to be a progressive government even in these tough times.
How the hell can you cut with care? Surely an oxymoron..?
But the thing is, they don’t need to cut. Have a look at Richard Murphy’s blog who argues:
And none of this is necessary. As was reported yesterday, because Labour’s policies were working the budget deficit was £5.5 billion smaller than expected at the end of March – the saving Osborne is looking for by cutting was, in other words, achieved by spending instead.
Yes – I mean that – it was achieved by spending. When there is no private sector demand to take up the slack in the economy – and that is the case now – then only government spending can do the job, create demand, create work, create wealth, and generate government revenue to pay down debt - which is exactly what has been happening – and which works.
This is the virtuous cycle Osborne will destroy.
That’s the flaw at the heart of the Con Dems economic policy.
It is what will pull their government down.
I am sure another area the Con/Dem alliance will be itching to attack is the benefits system …..
Oh yes cuts ARE needed, if only to clear out the deadwood workers and jobs. Labour created a large bunch of pointless or counterproductive jobs, and put quite a few w*nkers into good jobs. I speak with 2 family members in senior positions in local government. My taxes are handed over ONLY to be used wisely; they aren’t just some automatic fund for you to play PC government with.
Oh yes they do.
Rick and Frank, Oh know they don’t!!
Oh, and on the issue of taxes…. what about the billions lost in tax evasion and avoidance, eh? What about closing down tax havens? Ah but Osborne et al don’t want to upset their wealthy friends….
I believe that more than half of all new jobs over the past 12 months were public sector. That costs but it also brings in tax revenue and spending power. Take away the public sector support and your economy shrinks and you’re coughing up dole money, housing benefit etc.
My taxes are handed over ONLY to be used wisely; they aren’t just some automatic fund for Osborne to rejig the system so his cronies can make a pretty penny.
“I believe that more than half of all new jobs over the past 12 months were public sector. That costs but it also brings in tax revenue and spending power. Take away the public sector support and your economy shrinks and you’re coughing up dole money, housing benefit etc”..
Spot-on Chris!
The way the Con-Dem government is going about things is like a child who sees a burning chip pan and throws a bucket of water over it in a panic.
We’re all ConDem’ed.
Another thing; you would have thought that the charity world of all people would be concerned about all these job losses, but apparently some of them see it as a juicy opportunity:
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/1003527/Craig-Dearden-Phillips-Lib-Dems-wont-save-charities-inevitable-spending-cuts/
Indeed Tim, the third sector do see this as a juicy opportunity esp. re welfare benefits system…
Harpy “know they don’t”? Brain faster than hand, or the product of education cubed?
Harpy – tax dodging: I agree, but that doesn’t affect my argument.
Chris – Osborne’s chums: I quite agree, but that doesn’t affect my argument.
You Labour types not being prepared to admit that a single public sector job is unnecessary is what lost you the election. You seem to think money grows on trees. Oh, and defence just happens, you don’t have to spend money on those nasty warry soldiers. Cutting defence spending 4 times with 2 wars on is not even funny. It’s lethal.
Can we also please not repeat the old lie of public sector spending on salaries bringing in tax revenue and spending power, as if it’s some kind of free lunch. If I, not working in the public sector, am taxed less I’ll spend it, all of it. This then generates more private sector jobs. Never mind the libertarian argument that the Government shouldn’t be taking any money from me it doesn’t absolutely need.
Let’s hope the coalition brings us an alternative to either Labour waste or Tory rip-offs. I might point out though that Mr Blair doesn’t seem to be doing too badly financially after 10 years in power.
CUT DEFENCE
Sure, cut defence. But then don’t start 2 wars halfway round the world. For anyone who says scrap defence entirely, I have one word: Srebrenica. As with the public sector, you can’t do what you haven’t got the equipment for, and you can’t spend what you haven’t got. Will you lot please address the non-political issue of living within your means. You can’t say “save the jobs of every last diversity policy discussion facilitator” without saying how you will address the deficit. And no, “tax the rich” does not count as a policy. You need to come up with concrete proposals that won’t just have the bankers upping sticks and moving abroad, taking all the jobs with them. Gordon had 12 years to regulate the banks better and didn’t. Ask yourself why. “Tax the middle class” appears to have been GB’s tactic, but that’s just led to emigration too, which the Labour Government hasn’t dared measure. So now there are, for example, almost no physics teachers left. Another thing Gordon had a policy for but again refused to actually measure the numbers. For a targets-obsessed government, if they aren’t measuring the numbers it’s because they know they’re VERY bad.
So – save the jobs, cut defence etc. HOW, exactly?
“For anyone who says scrap defence entirely, I have one word: Srebrenica.”
Well if we’re trolling instead of debating…
“save the jobs, cut defence etc. HOW, exactly?”
Arm the poor.
Give us a rest with the “live within our means” crap. Wasn’t me getting rich pushing equity release schemes as a substitute for a living wage and it won’t be me getting rich from growth in the baillifs and debt recovering industry. I don’t see those arseholes worrying about making rent.
We’ve been mugged and now we’re being charged for drycleaning the muggers’ bloodied cuffs.
Well, you’ve been mugged, I’ve just emigrated.
The lack of a living wage is a consequence of mass immigration (thank you Labour), and everybody buying cheap stuff from countries without a living wage. Yup, I kept buying British, did you?
To repeat the earlier point about lack of banking regulation, go see GB about that one, or Peter “we are very comfortable with people getting very rich” Mandelson.
You seem to have quite a victim mentality, I’m not sure arming the poor would be a good idea in your case. Besides, the poor are armed, given the constitution of the Armed Forces, but there doesn’t appear to be any kind of coup in prospect. And the civilian poor are armed too, certainly in the East Midlands. They just don’t seem to be very organised, and spend most of their time stabbing each other.
And anyone titling themselves Nodefence earns an absolute in response.
Expats who complain about “mass immigration” are my very favourite type of hypocrite.
Well, I expect you meet so many hypocrites in the Labour party that you have favourites.
My immigration took 3 years, I’m self-supporting and I bring a skillset that’s in high demand. The difference between immigration (to which I have never objected) and mass immigration. No hypocracy.
Any chance of an intelligent response to the banking crisis happening on Gordon’s watch?
I might add that where I am now has had no bank bailouts, and I opted to come in 2006 (Unexpected crash, my a*se).
I’m not a member of the Labour Party, I just hate Tories, dishonest arguments and the idea that rich people and money have more right to cross borders than poor people do.
Well, good, and I’m not a Tory, nor are any of my arguments dishonest. Rich people and money, if that money is invested, are an accepted route of immigration in every country I know of. Are you against that? Poor people are also allowed into practically every country, if they bring skills which are needed. Most decent countries also admit refugees. The question, in every society since the term existed, is what does a new person (immigrant) bring, and what do they take? The majority of people in the UK feel that the welfare state is something they have paid into, and they would like it to be there, at an acceptable standard, when they need it. Essentially, I have left UK because I disagree with what the Government has been doing in my name (invading Iraq, for instance), and I’m not getting my tax money’s worth. People also like to feel that new immigrants are not taking jobs that leave them or their children unemployed. This is just as true where I am now. So, what conditions would you set for immigration, and would you have a numerical limit?
As for mass immigration in general, oversupply of labour brings reduced wages. Once the minimum wage is hit, it then brings reduced quality of working conditions. Poorly regulated companies then make larger profits, and squirrel it away abroad. This has all happened under New Labour. So much for them being the party of the workers. And the average Brit no longer cares, because they look at price on their, for example, contact lenses and ignore the fact they are posted from Jersey. This is blatant condoning of tax-dodging. So we have an irresponsible population now, so I’ve set sail for pastures new.
So, as usual, give up the argument when you get asked to come up with workable alternatives. No thanks sez you, I’ll just have another glass and switch to railing on about something else. I do pity you, but you are thus part of the problem, not the solution.