A political three-card trick

Fairly risible really.

Tell the truth, and if the people are stupid enough to vote for the ones who are telling you "everthing is alright" then that is their choice, and their mistake to make. Do not sink to telling people what they want to hear, only to turn around and do something completely different. If the country goes bankrupt because the people are too stupid to accept the truth, well then they have got exactly what they deserve.

Those of us poised with plane tickets won't be made to suffer.

Last weeks budget already states that this/next years 3 year spending review will reduce the majority of departmental budgets by 20-25%

On budget day Peter anounced a 4billion cut in the NHS budget.

Cuts are on the way who every wins its just brown that is still telling us NuLabour Investment v Tory Cuts.

DO we really need 52% of the working public to work for the public secore and between 5-15% of the private sector jobs 100% reliant on public sector spending.

That leaves under 40% of the work force generating the taxes that pays for the NHS, the public sector, paying off the debt infact all goverment spending!

Quite simple , cut the no-jobs, the diversity co-orinators etc that are not contributing to anything productive , some of these are getting paid a lot of money when the perks are included, and keep the frontline staff in place, reform areas like the family courts to save money and have better outcomes for the children , maybe then there will be less violence in the class rooms too, allowing other to be taught in the process.

so when it the man of courage going to call the election then ?

what is the political dimension of him not calling it ?

So all the "fake" job creation that has occurred in the last 8 years in the public sector needs to be reversed.

Like the NHS get rid of the manaageemnt and allow the nurses and doctors to to there jobs

Icewombat

Hello. I'm no expert, but I think the 52% figure refers to the proportion of GDP now accounted for by the public sector. Only around 20% of those in employment work in the public sector. You can get at the difference by thinking about an example like the Trident nuclear deterent - a multi-billion pound chunk of GDP, but employing relatively few people. There don't tend to be so many equivalent examples in the private sector. Also, all spending on such things as child benefits, jobseekers' allowance, state pensions, etc are part of the 52% figure.

Regards,

Xenos

Hard to believe but George Osborne seems even more incompetent than Alistair Darling. Caledonian Comment

Cameron Flip-Flopping like the political dead-fish he is! I will be interested to watch Baby-Osbourne perform on tonights Chancellors debate and see how exactly he plans to fund this little give-away.
Likewise I'll be watching to see if Cable is really all he's cracked up to be or if he's just cracked!
And of course, the nations Darling. Interested to see how he stands up to some direct grilling on the Labour plans; he's the one we know the most about so I doubt we'll see much new. Thus far he's the only one I trust.
My bet: Osbourne will fluff it; Cable will be shown to be out his depth; Darling will let something slip that maybe GB would rather he didn't tell us. Not necessarily on the figures, another "Forces of Hell" type comment.
Should be interesting telly; either that or I'll be in a coma after 10 minutes....

I would love to still be working in the private sector, paying my taxes to fund the NHS etc but my job, but as with so many other jobs, it was transferred elsewhere in the world. This has happened over and over again, so it is little wonder that the government finds it difficult to raise the funds to cover the public sector. While the main parties complain when jobs are transferred in this way, there is nothing in their policies that will prevent this continuing to happen.

Oh, and of course on the comment:
"...two-thirds of voters told one poll that they believed that the national debt could be paid off by the government if, you guessed it, they spent money more efficiently."
I truly believe that the right to vote should be given only after the electorate have passed a basic literacy and numeracy test! That stat just scares me; that J.Public have such a basic inability to comprehend the reality of a situation...
That may work to Davey C's advantage though. The same group of deluded voters may believe that Dave really can keep NI at present level, cut the deficit and protect "Frontline" service (Whatever they are). Which obviously isn't entirely likely! No matter what colour your political leanings are, you have to question in detail which wand he'll wave or top-hat he'll get the bunny out of to acheieve that minor miracle...
Personally, my BS Detectors gone into overdrive since Osbourne announced that one this morning!

No bias there then, Nick.

While Gorgeous Gordon continues to hold off calling an election, the economy continues to go down the pan and into the sewer, and he denies the other parties access to key information, while electioneering himself at the taxpayers' expense.

Says it all really. Lying thieving weasel clinging on to power till the last possible moment, and utterly uninterested in the dire consequences of his behaviour on the nation.


Government as a force for good? Don't make me laugh!

I Get it, I Get it!

The way the conservatives will get the deficit down quicker than Labour is .....

By raising £10 billion a year less in tax

Brilliant,

Who said Gideon is a lightweight with no idea?

Well Nick

Sloppy reporting again pity you didnt explain in greater detail what is being proposed especially as you were there and had the first question; good job this was carried live on sky news.

For those who did not see the announcement, the Conservatives used 2 previous Government advisors Sir Peter Gershon and Dr Reid (ex Logica). Both of these gentlemen advised Gordon Brown about efficiency. They also advised what levels of efficiency could be achieved in 2010/11. Nick fails to mention that they had this advice both in this blog and in the BBC 6PM news. I wonder why that is?

Also, ministers have been all over the news stations this weekend talking about efficiency too. Ed Balls was proud talking about billions in efficiency, but they have NOT done anything about this and won't until next FY!!!!

So the Conservatives want to get the economy moving having taken advice from two of Gordon Browns advisors. Also the CBI and Federation of Small Business etc have said that it will cost jobs if this tax rise goes ahead.

Nick get it right stop comment and report news.

When are the parties going to present the voters of the country with a FULL businness plan, if we were starting a new venture or taking over one running already. we would have to produce one for funding and credit rating.
Labour know the true figures but wont let on
Conservative have an idea which they can not yet back up
L/D's have Vince!
Let us see the figures which they will produce their budgets from better still lets have the full businness plan in writting BEFORE we go to the polls!!!!

How can ANYONE vote for any government that allows sufficient slack in their organisations that they can make £ billions of cuts on "efficiency savings". What Labour is telling me is that they've been taking more tax from me than need be to fuel inefficiency. Even with all those consultants? Wasn't ONE (or more) of them a business analyst? A Time and Motion study person?

What with this sort of rubbish and the many recent scandals, dodgy chancellors and leaders that inspire almost no confidence, I'll bet the vote turnout will be negligable this time. Who wants to vote for one of this trio? If there's any turnout at all it will be protest voters.

Even if Vince Cable is the one sound person with a decent background in commerce - the only one who might stand a chance of sorting the UK economic mess out - there's Clegg who has never had a proper job in the real world. Inspire leadership? What?

None of them seems able to repair what is becoming an increasingly broke and nihilistic country.

How to reduce the deficit in two easy steps:

1. Cut 50% of all managerial staff in the NHS. Repeat quarterly until management is down to 2% of staff levels.

2. Sack all public employees who have any of the following words in their job title:
a) diversity.
b) co-ordinator
c) climate change
d) awareness
e) equality
f) carbon.

Job sorted.

At 6:11pm on 29 Mar 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:

"reform areas like the family courts to save money and have better outcomes for the children"

Blimey! If the following are typical of the widespread abuse of public funds you could wipe out the annual deficit at a stroke.

1. Legal aid, approaching £100k, provided to a Barrister to lie at the RCJ?
and
2. Social Services working hard to cover up a mother's assault on a vulnerable child.

In other news i note a new party is being formed to fight "corruption" in public ofice. I wish them well. Well worth my vote.
Social Services working hard to defe

My view is that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

When they were talking about the mess we are in they are accused of talking Britain down.

When they try and offer up an alternative they are accused of bad finances.

I know that is all part an parcel of the game, what I hope for is that alongside this they come out with a series of routes and tangible practices to actually make the cuts needed.

The one party that can stand up and actually give me a relative idea on where these cuts are coming from (in detail) will go a long way to winning my vote.

I am not holding my breath. Who knows maybe tonight will help

I have heard it reported that over 50% of jobs created in the past 3 governments have been public sector roles.

Can this number be true? It seems high to me. Happy to be directed to anything on the web if anyone knows more.

What is your problem Nick? Why don't you just realise that the tories cannot fess up to what cuts they are going to make because they aren't looking at the books yet are they? Labour continues to make vague 'promises' while having all the information at their fingertips. You should concentrate some hard questions in their direction.

There is a huge amount of public sector waste and it amazes me that at this time that there are more jobs still being created by government then the private sector. We have had ten years of debt,consumer and public spending driving the UK economy into the worst recession since 1945. Whilst two of those have been dealt with the government is still spraying our money around. Some will say that is exactly what should happen, but they are simply not helping the UK economy in the medium to long term.

If the Tories have a real plan and can deliver what they say on efficiency savings then it has to go back into the real economy of helping small and medium sized business get this country back on track.

Hopefully, when they have dealt a blow to the bloated public sector they will have the drive to deal another one to the banks. To me it is criminal that they have not come out with a plan to get them to deliver on their promises to get funding back to the same small and medium sized companies that are the backbone of our economy.

"The government 'efficiency drive' is one of the oldest tricks in the book. The trouble is, it's nearly always just that - a trick".

Saga when you do turn up, this fits with your comments on earlier blog...

Switch off and get back to what you were doing when you hear an MP talk about efficiency drives, or something to that effect.

The issue being, if it is a trick and they are all saying it, then we really are in a mess and more trouble than I can even care to imagine or indeed afford.

We need to cut the public sector and need to have a hard look at what we spend our tax monies on, we can not keep just employing more and more public sector workers.

amongst all this talk of reducing "waste and inefficiencies" from public spending i can only wonder what sum could be saved if fraud and abuse were eliminated.

If the Tory plans don't hold up they certainly caused panic in the Labour ranks. Brown, Darling and all the sychophants are screaming blue murder; if the policy is unworkable, why the rush to rubbish it. It strikes me that anything that Labour is opposed to must be a good thing for the electorate, and bad for the non jobbers and Unite paymasters, hence the panic. If Brown is so keen to save the economy why doesn't he call an election ? Things aren't going to improve as long as he's the incompetent incumbent of 10 Downing St.

Yes it may be a card trick the same one all parties are using . However it maybe slightly more credible as they will push the public sector to streamline things more than Labour as the unions will dictate when and what is cut . The fact that they will start sooner and have reversed the NI increase will help as employers in the private sector will gain more confidence and drive the economy on .Labour is the party of big targets and big waste

waits with baited breath to see if a public funded body censors, or prints, comments about public funded waste, inefficiency and fraud.

Comments like #3 really annoy me, because they are an unthinking attack on the public sector. That does not mean that I don't believe that public sector cuts are not needed, but the challenge which is not being made clear are where the cuts should fall.

First of all workers in the public sector pay taxes so approximately half the public sector wage bill goes back to the government. Secondly, lots of what the public sector does actually helps generate wealth for the country. People may say, 'could do better', but without transport, education and health this country would be even worse off.

The other point that is missed is that a large part of our debt has gone in bailing out (rightly or wrongly) the private sector. So the private sector is not such a great wealth generator.

The simple equation is that the public sector should help generate the conditions in which the private sector can generate wealth and the private sector pays taxes to fund the public sector. Its called symbiosis. The debate should be where do we stike the balance? It is a lot more complicated than private = good and public = bad. Of course everything could be free enterprise - tolls when you use any road, rival air traffic control companies, schools run by companies producing the sort of people the company needs (tough on the local Cadbury workers).

Glib staements like #3 do nothing to help solve a very real problem and are dangerous. If polticians read such comments and think that they are an indication of the level of thinking of the electorate, they may think that they can get away with anything.

Of course such statements may have just been put in by a devil's advocate to stimulate discussion!

The age of auserity will come when the public finances are in better shape it will slight cuts at first to ensure both the markets and economy do not throw a wobble

It does seem quite remarkable that one week the Conservatives are promising to cut public spending immediately, in order to reduce the National debt, whilst the next week we're all promised tax cuts!!
Can't see how on earth it adds up myself. What on earth happened to the Conservative ethos of sound economic management?

Can I just point out that Osborne isn't offering a tax cut, but offering to avoid a tax rise? The two things are clearly not the same thing. He doesn't even need to bother offering efficiency savings for avoiding a tax rise, or indeed offer anything at all. It's money that isn't there anyway, so why play Labour's no-winners game of pretending that efficiencies need to be found to pay for it?

Cameron was telling the truth in his speech a while ago (the one Nick has quoted) where he tells us that "cutting waste" and "efficiency savings" means unfunded. If he'd stuck to this, especially in the face of Gordon Brown's sophistry over cuts vs investment, he would have earned a great deal of respect ... not just from the country at large but (more importantly) from me. But he's gone and blown it. Blown it big time.

uncivil-civilservant I heard Ken Clarke and Ed Milliband on Radio 5 talking about this today. Now before they had even started I expected Clarke to make mince meat out of Milliband - however it turned out the other way around. Clarke started out ok but trying to defend it you could hear and knew it was wrong.

The debt has to be paid back - through various means. The tories are just getting desperate and this is a decision that Browns government would have taken 6 months ago - populist and stupid. And that is how it will be seen.

They are self destructing - its a shame as I wanted Labour out but I dont believe that stupid rash cuts after the election are the way forward. It has to be balanced with how the economy is doing. The LDs and Labour are the only two offering that option. Camereon has just taken another wrong turn in a desperate attepmt to be different. If they had the same policies as Labour they would get in by defalt - but they are talking themselves out of No 10 at an alarming rate. I was so close to voting Tory but not any more. Im heading for the SNP at this rate as im running out of people to vote for that I like.

#1 Greathayemaker

I hope there's a strike and you have to wait around the airport much longer than planned when you leave!!

Dont hurry back - your country does NOT need you!

I do a lot of work for the Public Sector as a contractor, and millions could be saved by helping people like me do our jobs quicker and better.

I did a back-of-the-fag packet calculation over how much I've cost the taxpayer for doing nothing at times - mainly as I find that, even with a months notice, things usually aren't prepared when I arrive. I've spent whole weeks not being able to do anything, and at my rates that is a lot of money.

The calculation came not short of a quarter million in four years. I'm just one mid-range, run-of-the-mill contractor, in a network of hundreds, if not thousands. So scale that up.

That's a lot of money for me, and lots of others, to be playing minesweeper and cursing the glacial pace it takes to do anything in the public sector.

I've worked on projects that could've been done for a quarter of the price. But no, a combination of empire-building managers, incredibly unhelpful department heads, archaic methods, inane union rules, egos wanting a massage and some incredibly incompetent staff and set-ups have inflated the time and effort required.

I've sat in meetings where managers have been sneeringly roadblocked from doing things by other managers - for no reason beyond they could and it made them feel all big and powerful. No skin off my nose, I can tolerate being sneered at if it means another few grand rolling into my bank because someone enjoys being an obstructionist idiot.

So deal with that, and you will save millions without damaging front line services. Deal with the use of contractors - some public sector HR departments are lazy and useless - and you'll save millions more.

The tragedy is that the public sector has some fantastic workers, let down by endemic incompetence, both at managerial and lower levels, who know they can get away with it as long as they don't push too far - anyone complains and they go trot off to the union and kick up an unholy fuss, so they're left alone.

And the quality ones are normally too busy taking up the slack to brown nose for a promotion, so they're not the ones who, ten years later, become the managers.

Mick wrote:
What is your problem Nick? Why don't you just realise that the tories cannot fess up to what cuts they are going to make because they aren't looking at the books yet are they? Labour continues to make vague 'promises' while having all the information at their fingertips. You should concentrate some hard questions in their direction.


==================================================================

Mick you are right, did you see Ed Balls on Andrew Marr did anything to not answer the question put about where the Labour cuts would be. He also said that making the known efficiency cuts (sic he couldnt say the word cut) were the "tough" decisions. Why have theynot made them yet?

Maxsceptic

Hello. I agree that public sector management has got too bloated, and needs to slim down.

But do you really think that an organisation the size of the NHS can run with only 2% of staff doing any administration ? Is there a model of this anywhere else in the public or private sector that you think works well ? Personally I wouldn't like to see clinical staff using their time on administration any more than they currently do, and I suspect modern healthcare is just too complex for 98 doctors and nurses to give a good service supported by only 2 managers/administrators.

Also, leaving aside the whole topic of climate change, are you really saying that you think co-ordination, equality, and diversity are all bad ? Always ? I mean, are you in favour of the opposite : Public services that are unco-ordinated, unequal, one-size-fits-all ?

Finally, I'm afraid that even if your suggestions are implemented rigorously, and they didn't have unforeseen cost consequences (eg money wasted through poor management) the lump sum they'd save wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit !

So I agree radical new thinking is needed; but we need to look a bit harder before being satisfied we've found the answers.

Best wishes,

Xenos

New Labour has been caught on the hop. This is the first firm 'promise'. Something which has been lacking from the Tories up until now. And at last puts clear blue water between the main parties.

You talk about a "trick" but what about New Labour's crafty plan to cut the 'deficit' using fantasy growth and spurious figures?

The only opinion that matters is that of voters. Osborne's plans to scrap most of New Labour's stealth NI tax hike which would hit most ordinary folk is to be applauded.

Using the word "trick" is a tad bit naughty. Doesn't this just boil down to trust and honesty?

https://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/tory-tax-break-or-election-bribe.html

It's really curious.

Nick Robinson devotes an entire article about 6 billion in 'unspecified' savings by the Tories.

Nick Robinson raises scarcely a murmer about far more billions of questionable savings claimed by Labour in their recent propaganda-fest (laughingly called a 'budget')

Can there be any question that Nick Robinson has abandoned the last vestiges of political neutrality in favour of being a propagandist for the Labour party?

"It is the political equivalent of a three-card trick - a promise to cut taxes and cut the deficit whilst not cutting frontline public services.

There's no doubt that each of the cards the Conservatives played today is electorally popular."

This is factually incorrect. The Conservatives did not promise to cut taxes: they promised not to raise the by as much as Labour plans. Please correct this error.

Interesting comments by people saying this is a tax cut. Can you cut a tax that has not yet been implemented? Surely this is just a proposal to reduce the amount of the proposed tax rise.

£6Bn will still be raised by this measure.

In my opinion the BBC are very poor at political balance.
There are two issues one spending money you do not have.(This am Alistair Darling was saying there is no money left. This pm new just printed £180 million to be spent on the Post Office).
The second is on promoting jobs in the private sector.(last month unemployment fell 30,000 Alistair Darling created 20,000 new jobs with wages and NI payable).
Whilst Nick Robinson suggests Alistair will be the next labour Chancellor
he forgets the tax years involved in his opinion above.(What is he going to say to Ed if he is wrong?)

#17 yeap right on, the amount of waste in this area is TITANIC,
let alone the costs that occur as a result of the problems manifest
on society at large,

This waste has been going on since 1997 BUT they have refused to do anything about it, what a profiglate waste of hard working peoples taxes.

Anybody that has tried to point this out has been accused of being a terrorist or extremmist by the Gov and its supporters.

I have seen studies that put the full life cycle cost at around £20billion per year, over 13 years that a huge amount of money.

It is quit simple inefficient large governement with a social engineering programme has failed the working class and there familes of this country, which is why we have a broken society today.

The BBC have just about convinced me that we cannot trust the Tories to tell the truth and Gordon Brown's pronouncements can be taken at face value.

As far as the BBC are concerned its still Tory Cuts against Labour Investment, and Labour efficiency savings are viable whilst Tory savings are pie in the sky.

I think I've got the message from the New Labour spinning, publically financed (on pain of imprisonment) brodcast media.

I'm not sure that blocking a proposed tax RISE is the same as promising a tax cut....

The Tories will not be able to make firm commitments without being able to see the books. It's actually a scandal that opposition parties are kept in the dark. If a PLC tried to keep the accounts hushed up, the directors would be struck off or face criminal charges. There should be NO secrecy with GB plc's accounts.

So, the only question voters will have to ask themselves is this: Who do you want as the next prime minister?

Do people really want another five years of Brown?

This general election lark is new to Gorgeous George after forcing himself into the pilot's seat.His technique of buying his future votes seems to be still working well and with mandy working his flaps he might bring us all safely to earth.
Unfortunately at this stage of the flight I am stood at the door with chute firmly attached looking to miss some of the crap he has left all over the ground.

There are two very important observations(which may not be generally understood) to make in the current debate

a) None of the cuts measures proposed or to be proposed by any of the parties will reduce the DEBT; on the contrary the debt will continue to grow. Reduction of the annual DEFICIT(the amount by which annual spending exceeds annual income) will just result in the debt growing more slowly.

b) None of the parties will declare their full hand until after the election; to do so before hand would result in certain defeat.

No - its a con-trick - also known as a Conservative Trick.

The IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) is even against the planned NI cut.

The Tories have basically done an U-turn - what happened to the age of austerity they were talking about a month ago.

Basically they have got scared by the opinion polls so decided to offer tax cuts in the hope that no-one asks questions and they can bribe their way into power. Nevermind whether they can actually do it or what damaging cuts they will make to do it.

The British public want a serious economic discussion - not the sham policies proposed by plastic Cameron and his wet Osbourne.

Brown is not only our unelected Premier, but also the arch-exponent of 'The King's New Clothes' trick. This is to say that every claim to have done the nation a favour in this or that endeavour has turned out to be just so much hot air which, when analysed, is swiftly shown to be without any foundation in fact. We are all worried about Cameron and his team - are they up to the job of improving upon the existing administration? For God's sake, how can they possibly be as bad or, unbelievably, perhaps worse? Let us be done with this Prince of Thieves who is almost solely responsible for all but bankrupting our country.

I am reminded of the famous Monty Python cheese sketch, where John Cleese is attempting to buy some cheese.

The shop owner is unable to offer any cheese at all, apart from some camembert which is "a bit more runny than you'd like it".

Cleese replies he doesn't care how runny it is.

I feel much the same about Tory economic predictions. I don't care how 'runny' they are, whether all the sums add up, or whether they can give full details on every policy at this stage.

I just want Brown to go. ANYTHING has got to be better than this.

31. At 7:15pm on 29 Mar 2010, John Reeks wrote:
Can I just point out that Osborne isn't offering a tax cut, but offering to avoid a tax rise? The two things are clearly not the same thing. He doesn't even need to bother offering efficiency savings for avoiding a tax rise, or indeed offer anything at all. It's money that isn't there anyway, so why play Labour's no-winners game of pretending that efficiencies need to be found to pay for it?
because he's already committed to spending the money it would raise in his earlier plans.

#44 , seems the BBC moderators are out to twist the debate again, slowing posts down and then not sending a email to explain why they have not been posted.

if they cut the licence fee by £100 I woul dhave £100 spend in a more
productive manner. Wonder how many highly paid staff at the BBC donate to the labour party ?

Do people not realise that it is possible to do more than one thing at a time?

It's not a question of reducing taxes (actually not increasing them) or reducing the deficit. Growth is the biggest antidote to debt so anything which strangles growth is surely the worst thing for us at the moment. The raise in NI would in a short-sighted view put extra money in the exchequers pocket this year and reduce the defecit by a small amount, but in the long term would further unbalance our economy and leave us in a far worse position to accelerate and grow.

All this talk of flip-flopping of Tories etc is nonsense. yes they are saying two different things but they aren't mutually exclusive and thankfully there are people out there who can hold more than one thought in their head at any one time.

It's absolutely criminal that the government aren't being fully villified for admitting that over the last 13 years there have been inefficiencies of 11bn. They've just been caught with their trousers around their ankles, spraying our money against the wall and have the temerity to announce it proudly as an example of their economic competence in handling the defecit....

#48 the age of austerity is coming , but it might have to wait until after the next election , after labour win this one and have to reap the whirlwind that they have sown, and then implode, the when the Tories win with a Thatcher Mk2 can the right things be done for the whole country not just the sovietised areas that support labour,

As friends in the bureaurcracy always remind: It costs a lot to save money in government.
Another distraction: the question is: What are they doing right now to prevent this from happening again? Not in the future but right now.

We need to look at this issue from a long-term perspective. A Tory chancellor called Kenneth Clark left Nulabour with an unbeatable financial legacy. The books were balanced and the economy was set to take off.

No matter what the criticisms of Tory policy, they allowed Bliar and Brown to benefit from the upturn and then to squander those benefits. Don't forget the Gold sale - at the lowest price in years - the Pensions rip off, the 10p income tax to name but a few. We now face Trillions of debt, a large part, not due to the Financial Crisis but due to the mismanagement and fantasy forecasting and economics of Gordon Brown.

The Tories have a credible legacy of financial prudence while Bliar and Brown benefited from a global upturn and then wasted the opportunities. GET RID OF BROWN and we stand a chance of credible and sustainable recovery.

Keep Brown and we face union strikes and a return to 'Scargill-type' (modern day UNITE) industrial relations and a downward spiral in our countries standings and economic fortune.

GET RID OF BROWN AND GIVE OUR COUNTRY A CHANCE.

#54 IR35_SURVIVOR

So you think we might get another 'Thatcher'? One that will take us deeper Europe like Maggie did by signing the Single European Act?

After all - that was her greatest achievement. Everything else she did was just recessions, joblessness and the poll tax. Pretty rubbish really.

Perhaps the next 'Thatcher' will even take us fully fledged into the single currency and a federal superstate

Can report back on the "Chancellor's Debate" on Channel 4. All three of them - Darling, Cable, Osborne - did extremely well. Especially Darling and Cable. I'd be happy with either of those guys running the books. But let's not forget George Osborne. Yes he trailed in a poor third - but that's still a podium position and he came over slightly better than I thought he would.

What most of most of us mean by efficiency savings is reducing the number of paper clips we use, not redecorating the office as often, turning the heating down and such like - essentially spending less on things. The amount that can be saved, in the public sector, on efficiency savings is relatively small. When politicians (Tory, Labour & LD) use the term efficiency savings, it is a euphemism for making people redundant. The more "efficiency savings" they say they'll make, the greater the number of people they are making redundant. Each one of these people has to be paid redundancy and then unemployment &/or other benefits. The saving is their net pay (since they no longer pay NI or tax).
These people then have just enough income to buy essentials which reduces growth (fewer goods bought = lower growth) so you have to make more people redundant to make greater savings to account for lower growth....
Also when all these people stop spending there is no point producing the non essential goods they can no longer buy so the people making them (Private Sector) get made redundant and they no longer can afford non essentials so the people (Private Sector) making their non essentials get made redundant….
I'm not saying there shouldn't be massive redundancies in the public & private sectors but one should not be blasé about making promises which require "efficiency savings" without knowing what it means and what the consequences are.
I’ve seen a figure that Osbournes proposal will cost at least 4.3 billion that’s an awful lot of jobs.
I would suggest that some of the people on here who think sacking people is an easy option get the job of giving the people who’ll lose their jobs the news but looking at some of the comments above I think they’d actually enjoy it. So instead I’ll just hope that they’re some of those who’ll lose their jobs - and remember working in the private sector won’t necessarily mean that you’re safe for the reasons given above.

Just watched the Chancellors' debate.
1. Alistair Darling (and Gordon Brown before him) has absolutely no concept of how to run an economy - hence the reason why the country is in the financial mess it is in today.

2. Vince Cable came over as quite knowledgeable, and had one or two things that might be beneficial, but overall his left wing policies would be even worse than Darling's - like changing captains on the Titanic when it already far too late to change course.

3. Osborne was disappointing - not because of his knowledge or ability, but because he was just not brutal enough in what has to be done. Some questions from the audience were clearly looking for answers that a new, far less government-run/government-intrusive economy was being looked for, and Osborne failed to give that assurance, which was a real missed opportunity.

Overall though, Osborne came out (just marginally) ahead of Darling and Cable as to who's got the best policies to pull the UK out of the mess.

NATIONAL INSURANCE IS A TAX ON JOBS. If national insurance is increased fewer jobs will be created by the private sector, and the economic recovery will be slower. Since all politicians agree that economic growth is required to reduce the deficit, putting up national insurance is crazy and George Osborne is correct. If any tax is to be put up, it has to be a tax that discourages consumers from borrowing and spending - VAT. Employers national insurance should actually be cut significantly - it is the only way, together with training, to reduce unemployment and the benefit bill.

sagamix 58

Thought Vince was clearly the best. Darling and Osbourne roughly even although Osbourne had the 2 most unpleasant moments due to blows struck by Vince.

Thought Osbourne's summing up went pretty well.

56 OWl

said

"The Tories have a credible legacy of financial prudence "

====

I'd see the Doctor about that amnesia problem if I was you.

2 Recessions

Record unemployment

Record interest rates

Massive underinvestment in Schools, Policing, NHS and Defence.

Squandering of Oil revenue and Privatisations paying for unemployment.

Massive hikes in VAT from 12.5% to 17.5%

VAT on Domestic Fuel

Higher rates of income tax

And NOW...NOW. these economic Gurus think its a good idea to raise the IHT threshold during the next parliament when even they admit we will still have a budget deficit!!

Yeah, right, "give our country a chance" as long as its not the sort of chance we had between 1979 -1997.

Increasing NI next year is typical of the Labour Party's cynical approach to taxation. Avoid an income tax rise because that is unpopular and increase NI instead in the hope that people don't notice it and defer it - so that people don't think that it's a nasty measure. The same has happened as regards deferral on fuel duty. There have been many stealth taxes in the Gordon Brown/Alastair Darling era. So its refreshing to have a measure to block this wicked attack on low and modest income earners. Roll on 6 May.

It was a pretty mediocre performance by all three.

I got the feeling that they had already conspired that telliong the truth was not going to be an option. Just play safe and keep on with the reassurances that it will be alright some time in the future.

How far in the future though no one is prepared to say.

Eatonrifle 63

Can't let you get away with that. It's pretty much universally acknowledged (except amongst die hard labour supporters) that the economy was in immeasurably better shape in 1997 than in 1979. Don't need to take my word for it just look at what the IMF have to say.

It's also pretty self evident that the economy is in far worse shape now than it was 13 years ago.

We clearly need a change of direction and nwe won't get it under 5 more years of Gordon Brown.

59 Spothelemon

Wise words indeed.

My take is similar.

This "waste" that is supposedly so obvious never actually gets found, look at the last 30 years, its been said by every opposition party of all hues.

What they actually mean is that there are some things we did in the past that we now no longer want to do, those people who previously did those jobs will be made redundant etc etc as you stated...Redundancy costs, Benefit costs, social costs, stigmatisation and loss of the previous role.

eg Both the Tories and Lib Dems say they will axe the RDA's (this is "their waste" the role they no longer want to be carried out, just one example of course. Every opposition promise a quango bonfire (that never gets lit)

Remember the Saatchi and saatchi 1979 poster with the very very very long dole queue? It was prophetic then about what was round the corner and if Sham Cam and Boy George get in with Ashcroft's tax fiddle money, its more of the same.

SAME OLD TORIES

58. At 9:11pm on 29 Mar 2010, sagamix wrote:
Can report back on the "Chancellor's Debate" on Channel 4. All three of them - Darling, Cable, Osborne - did extremely well. Especially Darling and Cable. I'd be happy with either of those guys running the books. But let's not forget George Osborne. Yes he trailed in a poor third - but that's still a podium position and he came over slightly better than I thought he would.

Saga - given your in-built bias, to extend anything positive to GO suggests to me that he must have impressed a neutral greatly. For me they were all pretty impressive as you say. Trouble is Cable will never be in power and Darling has a control freak for a boss.

Tonights debate...disappointing!

CAble hands down winner which was a shoe in as the middle ground candidate, he did sound very plausible.

But how could you have that debate and not even touch on the IHT policy and the Marriage tax relief shambles???

a great advantage to have the last say on summimg up.

Darling didn't have a pop at the others at all he just pitched on his record , wheras Osborne went for the attack on Labour rather than why he would do a better job.

61 Richard Plac

said.

"If any tax is to be put up, it has to be a tax that discourages consumers from borrowing and spending - VAT."

So you want a regressive tax that penilises the poorest most and you wan't to suppress the buying of goods and services?

Are you George Osborne's Economic Advisor? You seem to have his nose for a cracking policy.

Watched the first ten minutes and conclusion of the "Chancellor`s debate.Found it stilted and unconvincing. The formal setting on seperate podiums and studio audience were both distractions.The podiums distanced the speakers from the audience, while the presence of the public made them guarded and scared to put a foot wrong.

Darling should have contested Osborne`s statements on the gap between rich and poor and child poverty more directly,perhaps he`s unaware of the evidence.Cable is the frustrated radical, aware his party is a spectrum of opinion not a government in waiting.

Is this a rehearsal for the Leader`s debates? I hope not,the thought of three waxworks mouthing platitudes for an hour is more than the spirit can bear.

Eatonrifle 67

But the situation right now is different due to the staggering amount of waste under this government over the last 13 years. There's far more room for efficiency savings than there's ever been but they clearly won't happen under New Labour.

I mean what sort of government says it has identified savings now but won't implement them for another 11 months. Sheer lunacy.

56. At 8:57pm on 29 Mar 2010, Wise Owl wrote:
"We need to look at this issue from a long-term perspective. A Tory chancellor called Kenneth Clark left Nulabour with an unbeatable financial legacy. The books were balanced and the economy was set to take off."

Ken`s financial legacy was a debt higher than when Labour entered to recession and a deficit about the same at 3.5% of GDP.

I don`t normally bother to correct foolish generalisations based on nothing in particular, but found your name irrestible.I can just imagine the suburban semi with a name like woodlands in the porch and pictures of Baden Powell in the hall.

66 Jobs

I agree it was better than 1979.

It was also better than 1980, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 92, 93 94, 95, and 96.

Yes?

You seem to have re-written history in your own head.


Yes we were in a better economic shape in 1997 than 2010 BUT that is mostly down to the massive amount of money spent propping up a failed world banking system as has every other country increased their debt and deficit to do the same.

That is also pretty much universally acknowledged except by the economically illiterate.

By the way feel free to disagree with the years above.

Eatonrifle 69

You might as well say how couldn't it touch upon 'No more boom and bust' or 'prudent with a purpose' or 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts'.

Thought the questions were pretty fair and well balanced on the whole.

71. At 9:48pm on 29 Mar 2010, bryhers wrote:
Watched the first ten minutes and conclusion of the "Chancellor`s debate.

Doesn't really qualify you to have a worthwhile opinion does it.

Terrfic spoof cartoon in The Times today a paraody of the Labour pledges.

Labour pledges to:

"secure ambiguity
raise fuzziness
build haziness
protect the ill defined
strengthen woolliness"

Labour: A future vague for all.

lmao!

The Chancellors debate was a huge scoop for C4 and informative.

IMHO, the level of political skill on display was very high and this debate will probably be seen in retrospect as the highlight, as the so-called leaders debates are already in a deadening straight-jacket of rules.

The Cable comment on the cartels operated by banks, legal firms and large accounts was profound - he was not going to mentioned the political cartel operated very successfully by Labour, Conservatives and Lib-Dems though in our England.

I was puzzled by a number of items:

a) small business - these politicians seem to have absolutely no idea how hard it is to run a small business, let alone make a profit and the Government, through its regulations, particularly the mind-blowingly complex tax system, which even has accountants complaining, is a gross impediemnt. That is why the vast majority of small businesses are one-man/woman bands - these politicians were just paying lip-servcie here - they should ask the Canadians how to treat small business.

b) tax credits - how can this system work well when it is predicated upon an inaccurate PAYE system?

c) when politicians say 'we have no plans' - alarm bells start ringing for this blogger so expect 20% VAT after the election.

That is enough from me, however a female relative watching said that George Osborne looked the smartest, with a nicely ironed shirt, 'dapper' she said.

So, the Tories are a shoo-in because Osborne got his shirt ironed :-)

73. At 9:55pm on 29 Mar 2010, bryhers wrote:
Ken`s financial legacy was a debt higher than when Labour entered to recession and a deficit about the same at 3.5% of GDP.

True - but for the figures to be the same/similar after ten years of growth (boom) is an absolute disgrace.

Economics = Mathematics + Politics + Sugar to taste

Problem we face is mathematical.

Politics, economics and sugar has nothing to do with it.

28 - "First of all workers in the public sector pay taxes so approximately half the public sector wage bill goes back to the Government"

Eh? This "New Labour" mathematics never ceases to amaze me.

Someone earning £20k would pay about £2,720 in tax and £1,600 in NIC.

In the 'olden days', "approximately half" would have been around £10,000. Now, it seems it is £4,300.

Tell you what, lend me £20,000, I'll give you approximately half back next week and approximately the other half back a week after that. I'll even chuck in £500 interst. CAn't say fairer than that can I?

#74 Yes we were in a better economic shape in 1997 than 2010 BUT that is mostly down to the massive amount of money spent propping up a failed world banking system as has every other country increased their debt and deficit to do the same.

NO actually we were in worse shape in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

It was just that we were ODing on debt and very few realised it.

Now it's cold turkey.

Hopefully the one thing that this debate might cause is for more people to realise the dire straights we are in.

Labour doubled the debt before the BANKING crisis erupted. Now it looks like it will be doubled again (hopefully not under Labour).

Poor you Nick - being called a Labour supporter after your humble beginnings as tory spokesman at university.

A balanced piece of journalism.

79 Also you are forgetting the differential - in 1997 the debt as a percentage of GDP was on its way down - which continued until Mr Brown let loose.

78 - A voice of reason!

The lkes of sagamix think tax advisors spend all their time dreaming up wizzy schemes to outwit the chancellor. No chance. We spend most of our time simply making sure that our clients can meet the never ending demands of compliance. personal tax returns, corporate tax returns, PAYE year end returns, P11d forms, forms to report share options, VAT returns, PAYE compliance visits, enquiries, understanding the never ending changes of taxes by our beloved leader. 3 completely different capital gains tax regimes, changes every year to capital allowances, caahnges to tax reliefs, overhauls of the Trust regime, the almsot inevitable withdrawal or change to rules recently introduced as the beloved leader realises he's made another cock-up, nil rate bands of CT introduced then withdrawn, IR35, attacks on so-called income shifting, the withdrawal of the 10% tax band follwed by the hasty shambles of increased personal allowances (which STILL leaves some low paid workers worse off while those on around £27k are BETTER off!)...and on and on and on.

Without a tax advisor the average businessman would either have no time to run their business or almost inevitably pay more tax and be charged huge penalies simply by not being able to understand the ever changing rules. Brown is just a tinkerer. He really does not have a clue about the real world.

It's only after we've done all THAT that we can do our wizzy scheme work.

watched the chancellors debate and thought it was a complete sham. where was the heated detailed debate. the nitty gritty? darling managed to look composed and nervous at the same time. vince seemed rather dull but in a friendly grandad sort of way. and osborne.... the most horribly sanctimonious opportunistic fake piece of acting ive ever seen.....
the whole process was a complete waste of time.

spot the lemon @ 59

"When politicians (Tory, Labour & LD) use the term efficiency savings, it is a euphemism for making people redundant."

This is key. People talk very blithely about the government making efficiency savings and cutting waste, and one’s mental image is of doing things better, working smarter, or stopping doing things which nobody in their right mind should be doing in the first place, but the reality isn’t this at all. The powers that be are not talented or astute enough to deliver that. The reality, if these “savings” are to made, if this “waste” is to be cut, is a heap of public sector workers getting sacked. Losing their jobs at a time when it may be next to impossible to get another. On the dole. Contrary to the perception in certain quarters, public sector workers are not “non wealth creators”, they’re not a “drain” (or no more than the rest of us are) and most of all they are not pretend people but real ones; with real mortgages to pay and real families to support. It may well be that our fiscal position means this has to happen but it should be a last resort, should be minimised, should not on any account be embraced. To greet public spending cuts made necessary by gross and sustained malpractice in the City and on Wall Street (the perpetrators of which are free and clear) with even a single clap, let alone a round of applause, let alone a rousing cheer, is to be suffering a terminal case of Perspective Lost.

Eatonrifle 74

Yes, I agree that 1997 was better than all the years you mention, so not sure why you say I've re-written history.

I don't agree that our position in 2010 is all down to the credit crunch. If this were true we wouldn't have been first into recession and last out. We wouldn't have suffered the biggest increase in debt of any major economy. And the credit crunch doesn't explain why manufacturing has declined 3 times faster under Labour than under the Tories.

You heard it here first .... I predict a hung parliament with a Lib-Dem/Green coalition emerging as the new government on May 7th ... thats it, I cant stand the current puerile political scene any longer... I'm off to do some intensive bird watching and walking in the North East. I'll be back around May 8th to receive all those plaudits for getting it right ..

79. At 10:14pm on 29 Mar 2010, muppetcentral1 wrote:
73. At 9:55pm on 29 Mar 2010, bryhers wrote:
Ken`s financial legacy was a debt higher than when Labour entered to recession and a deficit about the same at 3.5% of GDP.
True - but for the figures to be the same/similar after ten years of growth (boom) is an absolute disgrace

The growth in revenue went to pay catch-up on underfunded public services like health and education.You may disagree with the policy,I think it was a worthwhile objective.

No point being party political about this (although I notice some comments above do just that, and no doubt some highly partisan comments will follow...)

As I saw the debate, they all did pretty well. Darling is clearly Labour's strongest performer (just ahead of Ed Miliband) and he spoke clearly and rationally. The problem is that he is muzzled by the brutes Brown and Balls, and that he was the only participant in the debate who cannot be Chancellor post-election. Whatever good stuff he may come out with is nullified by the horrifying prospect of Ed Balls.

Cable was good, although I was puzzled by some of the applause received. He didn't say anything hugely insightful and was in the enviable position of having no pressure on him: all he had to do was point out flaws in the plans of the other two. Nice ideas on the £10k income tax threshold but he didn't say how he'd pay for it. Hypocritical given that he attacks the others for a lack of detail. Also got away with the myth that he called the crisis right from start to finish, and no-one mentioned his dithering on the mansion tax. A media darling, liked by the electorate: in short, a huge asset to the Lib Dems, and their best prospect of getting a big job in a hung parliament.

As for Osborne, far better than I (and I imagine many others) predicted. If Labour are targeting him as the weak link, the strategy might not bear as much fruit as they hope. Eloquent, unfussy and to the point. I think he did well to point out that Labour is currently in power and has been for the last 13 years. It's perfectly correct to demand more from the Tories in terms of detail, but the current government shouldn't be let off the hook. Probably lucky to get away with few questions over his judgment on Northern Rock, while he was able to skate over the details of his NI plans because all of them are guilty of vagueness.

I would say Osborne was best, followed by Cable, then Darling, but there was very little in it. On audience reaction, Cable won hands down, with Darling and Osborne in joint third. The most positive aspect was that the debate was civilised and based on policy.

Very good news to read Labour's U turn on the proposed £20,000 death tax as reported in The Telegraph.

But Nick, this has all the Hallmarks of a political three-card trick. How can Labour fund this when at the same time they are also promising free residential care, as reported in The Times?

How is Alistair going to fund that? Is he just going to print more money? It wouldn't be the first time, would it?

At 10:01pm on 29 Mar 2010, muppetcentral1 wrote:
71. At 9:48pm on 29 Mar 2010, bryhers wrote:
"Watched the first ten minutes and conclusion of the "Chancellor`s debate.
Doesn't really qualify you to have a worthwhile opinion does it."

Perhaps not,I thought the format inhibiting and only Cable summoned any real passion.It lacked political theatre,any sense of the throb of power behind the facade of civilized discourse.Not the Ides of March,more the vicar`s tea party with Darling pouring the tea and Osborne handing round the cakes.

#1 greatHayemaker

"Those of us poised with plane tickets won't be made to suffer."

Fortunately for the Scottish end of the UK electorate there is no need to be poised with plane tickets. A vote for independence will suffice.

#87 saga

This is key. People talk very blithely about the government making efficiency savings and cutting waste, and one’s mental image is of doing things better, working smarter, or stopping doing things which nobody in their right mind should be doing in the first place, but the reality isn’t this at all. The powers that be are not talented or astute enough to deliver that. The reality, if these “savings” are to made, if this “waste” is to be cut, is a heap of public sector workers getting sacked. Losing their jobs at a time when it may be next to impossible to get another. On the dole. Contrary to the perception in certain quarters, public sector workers are not “non wealth creators”, they’re not a “drain” (or no more than the rest of us are) and most of all they are not pretend people but real ones; with real mortgages to pay and real families to support.

Just a thought, Saga, but is there any real difference, theoretically speaking, between paying someone benefits to be on the dole, and paying people wages to do a pointless job? Apart from the specific financial differences of course, that is.

I'm sure you'd agree that there's a definite perception that in much of the public sector there are people being paid to do jobs for the sake of it. Whether or not you think it's true is up to you, but every person I've ever spoken to who works in the public sector has said the same thing - that it's full of so many pointless managers and middle-managers busy trying to justify their own existences along with many other favoured staff doing next to nothing useful. Whilst at the same time (and to me this is key) there is also a dedicated core of public sector workers who go over and above the call of duty regularly in order to keep the services going.

Paying someone to do a pointless job, to me, is just as bad as paying someone to sit at home and have babies. Welfare shouldn't be a lifestyle choice under any circumstances but public service shouldn't be charity either.

To me, the reason that our public services are in the ridiculous state that they're in, despite the spectacular amount of money thrown at them by this government, is because of bad management by the people who spend it.

So if cuts in the budgets mean that these bad managers have to go out on the dole, I can't see that being a bad thing. Unfortunately, it probably means that these bad managers will be the ones swinging the axe instead, meaning things will get far worse.

What is needed more than anything is a complete review and overhaul of the way the public sector works so that it can be run more cheaply and more efficiently. Labour, to me, have proven that they've no interest in doing this, so it's up to the Tories to prove that they do.

sagamix 87

'Contrary to the perception in certain quarters, public sector workers are not “non wealth creators”, they’re not a “drain” (or no more than the rest of us are)'

But come off it Saga, many of them are. I agree there are unproductive areas in the private sector as well but they've been shedding jobs for months now so it can't really be fair for the public sector to be immune.

No one likes people being made redundant, but there isn't any option right now. All I would ask is that it isn't the private sector that has to bear all the pain. As someone who claims to believe in fairness I don't see why you find this so hard to accept.

Yes Andy (85), the mechanics of a half way decent tax regime. Sure it could - should - be simplified. Sure we should - could - clamp down on evasion more than we do. Make a start on that, in other words. And sure we could - should - make some upward revisions at the middle and top personal end, and on the corporate side, and on the death side, to raise a few more tens of billions of pounds per annum than we do at present. The deficit demands that we do this (and there is scope, as you know, with us being a relatively lightly taxed country) but on the whole, our tax system is more than okay. Not something to boast about when talking to foreigners on holiday - don't mean that - but something we can take a quiet pride in. If you doubt this, just take a look at the disaster unfolding in Greece. This is what can happen when a country doesn't go about collecting its tax properly. Shudder.

distant traveller,

"Very good news to read Labour's U turn on the proposed £20,000 death tax"

I agree. How much are they increasing it by?

one lars melvang,

"Whatever good stuff AD may come out with is nullified by the horrifying prospect of Ed Balls"

Brown has promised to leave Darling in place.

jobs @ 88 (%)

"I don't agree that our position in 2010 is all down to the credit crunch."

Correct. Please see your post number (plus 12% Brown). We've done this to death.