A candidate for cuts

There IS a problem in this country. It is easy (although weak) to promise more than can be delivered. Such promises will make you popular and electable. It's what Labour worked on (an end to 'bust', we can spend all we like and not worry) and what they continue to do (well, some cuts are necessary but our cuts would be nice cuts). That the promises can't be delivered upon hardly matters to those politicians making them. 'Reality' is sometimes too unpalatable for the electorate.

Public sector chiefs. Not a one to be paid more than the PM.

All layers of middle management. Not a one to be paid more than front-line workers.

Let them scurry into, and rebuild the private sector with their tremendous talents....

Nick,

You are in danger of repeating your mistake of predicting the expenses scandal would be 'small beer'!!!

Look at what is happenning in Greece, or read the latest IMF warning on social unrest, or at least talk to your editing colleage in business: Robert Peston, who is now revisiting the Toxteth riots.

IT IS NOT HYPERBOLE!

Given the ONS has just revealed that public sector employees are paid more than private sector employees and that this number rises when taking into account pension benefits to 28% better compensated - are we now going to receive a grovelling apology from the TUC for its absurd allegations about the dark days to come? And are they now planning to retract their call for civil disobedience given their members are some fo the best paid people in the land? It looks faintly hypocritical.

Given the better job security in the public sector this amounts to a feathering of a rather large nest at the expense of the rest of the economy. Tax payers are forking out for the luxury the public sector lives in and there is no evidence that services have improved in the last thirteen years and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary in education and health.

So the first candidate for cuts has to be a freezing of benefits across the entire public sector followed by raising the contributions made by public sector employees to their unfunded pensions - in effect a double whammy. Then they will know how it feels to work in the real world and not their bubble land.

And then the coalition needs to continue to stress that it cannot solve the problem of the biggest structural deficit in the western world - before the banking crisis began - with the actions of one budget. It also needs to continue to repoeat to the end of the five year parliament that every single financial problem is one inherited from newlabour. After all; we don't stop calling a murderer by that name just because he has been behind bars for twenty five years. The grieving relatives and friends are left behind like the car crash fiscal position newlabour has bequeathed us.

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition - and long may they remain so.

It's a great time to be a tory...

It's just the beginning. The government have taken simplistic decisions with tough consequences the magnitude of which the cleggmeron junta has no measure of. They have wandered into a political minefield with no map and have forgot the path they originally took. Even their friends in the city and private enterprise have begun to abandon them!

As I said a couple of days ago we are in the phoney war stage. Those who will be cutting are flying a few kites to see what reaction they get. Those likely to suffer cuts are campaigning by highlighting (what they say are) are the likely effects. Still Nick the BBC has beeen kjeen to promoitoe debate on spending cuts before any pof us have the ncessary detail.

One thing which will be fascinating to see is whether Georgey Porgey keeps his nerve notwithstanding recent warnings about cutting too far and too fast from the IMF, the OECD and even Boris Johnson.

Fubar - I will come back to you in the other place - just need to deal with a few things first.

The Tory chairman of the Defence Select Committee seems to be implying that the lunatic Thatcherite inspired leadership at the MOD are a bunch of idiots. When the cuts are made will the tax evaders be expecting a windfall?

I don't believe in cuts. I believe in deciding what we can afford.

So a department should say that for £8bn it could provide 'this' level of services. For £10bn it could provide 'that' level. But for £6bn we could do only this.

I assume that the minister and department know more about their area than the Chancellor, so they should decide how the money should be spent with the Chancelor perhaps taking an overview to ensure that everything fits together. At the moment we seem to have the mentality that the Chancellor and his pals are telling departments what they can and cannot spend money on eg Winter Fuel payments OK, but Housing Benefit cut.

Seems like power is still being kept at the centre, with the view being what we can cut rather than what we can provide for our funds. A subtle but very important distinction, which will not avoid cuts. They got the title right 'Spending Review', but it sounds too much like a 'Cuts Review'

"Interesting that this time round the "shroud waving" is being led by the police and security forces."

Isnt it just, Nicholas, isnt it just?

Didnt you mention something a few weeks ago about a parade of "bleeding stumps"?? I'm sure it was you.

Part of this is as you say, shrill warnings from vested interests, some of them highly politicised (especially the police services) not wanting to disturb the status quo or anything that may remove their snouts from the trough.

The defence select committee link you've put up is slightly different. What they are complaining about (probably quite rightly) is the speed at which the SDSR is being conducted and who and what factors is driving it, which probably warrants a blog entry in itself.

The tie-ins to not only the financial situation but also the future role of the forces, and their structures are complicated issues that should not be dictated exclusively by the Treasury, although they must obviously have their input.

And Dr Fox, it is being implied, by watchers of this exercise, is being constantly outmanouvered by the deeply entrenched vested interests...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6272273/a-whitehall-cabal-has-fox-by-the-short-and-curlies.thtml

There's a wonderful irony about the Old Bill being in the vanguard of opposition to Tory cuts. Maybe they'll end up setting up picket lines and get some ex NUM members to 'police' them...

Nick, there is serious concern and unrest amongst disabled people that they are being labelled as workshy benefit scroungers. The repeated threats by Government officials to have a clear out of all the Incapacity Benefit scroungers is causing great anxiety amongst those who are genuinely not scroungers.
To those people who are genuinely unable to work (and in a recession who wants slightly damaged people when they can have whole ones?)the pronouncements by the Government that only those who genuinely deserve them will get disability benefits strikes fear into the hearts of all on benefits. Who decides who deserves benefits?
The fact is that most people forced to live on State Benefits would rather work but they can't. Their sole source of income is the State. Therefore it strikes fear into people's hearts when they hear all this fierce rhetoric about gettiong the scroungers back into work. We are not scroungers. Can HMG tell the difference?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/messageboards/F2322273?thread=7730285

Have the moderators started their strike early?

@ Cassandra (from yesterdays thread now closed)

Cassandra, I live and work wherever I can find work. I don't see what difference that makes to anything? At least I am prepared to get of my backside and move to where I can find work, I don't sit at home expecting someone to fund my life because there is no work where I live; and this is the reason I work abroad - there is no work for me where I live (only around London but the costs of living there are higher than here, simple economic choice really) Plus it's nice to see something of the rest of the world

I am British and still have a home in England which I visit when I can. Living outside the UK and traveling back gives a good perspective of how different countries operate, for both quality of life and cost of living. What I notice is that the UK has changed immeasurably in the 12 years I have been working abroad (off and on, I also worked for 3 years solid in the UK)

General attitudes are different now and I don't think they are better. Am not sure where you get the 'banging on from the sidelines' bit, I am a UK citizen and this is a public forum. You get bloggers commenting from all over the world on this forum, are you saying that the only opinion that is worth anything is that of someone from the UK?

I find that the best opinions are formed after looking at differing points of view, I merely said that I work and live in a (fairly) high taxed country - I don't mind the tax because I see the end results

My point is that I believe that UK taxpayers would be happy to pay more tax - if they could see the results from it, but that hasn't happened. I earn a reasonable living and have no problem paying more than most; it's only fair that I should, but I do want to see something for my money. Here I have no need for a car, public transport is excellent - but it comes at a cost and I can see directly that I get value for money from the transport system. Can you say the same for the UK? I think not, but this is because it is underfunded. There should be enough cash generated by road tax and fuel duty - but these duties don't get spent on transport

Which leads me to today's discussion: If we could get real value for our tax money then we would not see the need for cuts as big as proposed. We could raise the money via taxation. The issue here is that the taxpayer does not feel they get value as it is, and raising taxes would not be popular as no difference would be seen

I believe that the cuts should be lower than proposed and taxation should increase, there is scope and the UK is a low rate compared to a lot of countries, I think the cuts are too large; but we do need to make cuts, there are areas that are not required or 'nice to have' if we can afford it

It's worth remembering we are part of Europe, I can move freely around and work where I want, I merely exercise my right to do this. If more people did this they would find work, there is still construction work available abroad if you are willing to travel, one of the issues is that people expect to be given everything nowadays. I feel it has to be earned, but I don't wish to generalise on how it's earned (ie how many years of paying in etc etc)

Broaden your opinions a bit, you seem to concentrate on narrow tracts sometimes

And from the Beeb report that Nick mentions:

“Tory James Arbuthnot said the Defence Select Committee was worried the process was money-driven and not taking time to assess the threats to the UK”.

Wow, who would have thought all of this cost cutting stuff was Money driven – this James chap really is hot off the block here.
Still, better keep the Security forces & Military happy because we may need them on the home front if things get out of hand (got to keep the people under control don’t you know).

Seriously; there is a real Opportunity now for the Tories to develop efficient public services in our country, but I fear all we will end up with is a series of knee jerk reactionary cuts with no real end plan.

Of course, I’m assuming that their end game isn't the total dismantling of public services all together - surely not.

Agree with healthytoes #2 in terms of comparing to PM's salary, as long as you take into account his MP's salary of £60K as well.

We'll leave the fact that he's so rich that he doesn't have to actually work for another time...

So if the general consensus is 'No Cuts' pray tell, what is the alternative?

Cut the quango budgets, and fire most of the public sector managers.

I had to deal with a quango yesterday, and I saw first hand just how completely negligent and lacking in the most basic common sense they are. In this instance they were wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax payers' money because they were too stupid to see that the date that they'd picked for their "work" would automatically exclude about 30% of the very people that they were supposed to be helping. By simply picking another date they'd have avoided that.

Quite often these quangos seem to display a lack of common sense which just leaves you open-mouthed with your jaw on the floor, where you think to yourself "eh? did they really do that? are they really that stupid, or am I living in a parallel universe to them?"

The NHS is no better on this front, and never should have been ringfenced. The nurses/doctors are fantastic, but the managers are absolutely hopeless.

Whenever anyone from my family has dealt with the NHS there's always been about 3 or 4 separate procedures that you have to go through before you can get what you need. The private sector would simply send you straight to the relevant specialist, you'd see the specialist, and they'd begin/prescribe your treatment. But in the NHS you'd see your GP, who'd refer you to an NHS department, where you'd have a basic consultation with a nurse to repeat exactly what you'd already told your GP, then they'd make an appointment for you to see a specialist, then you'd see that specialist, the specialist would then tell you that they can't prescribe what you need as prescription must be done by a GP, so the specialist then writes a note to the GP, then you go back to your GP and get them to make out the prescription, then you (finally) go to the pharmacy to get what you should have been prescibed on your initial consultation. This kind of long/drawn-out process is something that simply doesn't need to exist; if the managers and the people in charge of the NHS organised things more like the private sector then they'd be able to cut their costs massively overnight without sacking a single nurse/doctor, and provide a much better service for patients at the same time.

The entire public sector needs a complete cull at management level, and they need to employ people from the private sector to manage things instead, because at the moment virtually everything in the public sector has massively bloated costs simply due to the complete inability of the managers to do their jobs properly.

Hyperbole?

Ok Nick - want a little challenge about which way crime rates are headed?

The tories intend to release thousands of criminals from jail, put millions out of work and at the same time cut the number of police.

We currently have the lowest level of crime for years, it fell again even during the recession. Put loads of criminals in prison, where they sure as heck can't burgle my house, and the number of crimes goes down. Thats a surprise.

Go on Nick, be specific - are you predicting crime rates will not rise?


(I hear that RIRA is to target bankers. Not all bad news then)

I repeat my question from earlier in the week - why do public sector workers (6 million) believe they are more important and deserve superior treatment than private sector workers (20 million)?

I for one do not intend to join the civil unrest nor approve it.

Is it not odd that the BBC have not made anything of the continuing disparity in pay and benefits between the public and private sectors? All I could find this morning was a brief reference to the average growth in earnings across the public and private sectors combined. This was at the foot of a piece on UK unemployment.
Surely the rhetoric of union leaders could only be justified if their position was going to receive the support of the country at large and so far there seems to be little sympathy for their position (and today's ONS data seems unlikely to help them).
Should police chiefs be entering the public political debate? If they anticipate problems with their future budgets should they not be talking directly with the Home Secretary?

4. At 10:53am on 15 Sep 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:
Given the ONS has just revealed that public sector employees are paid more than private sector employees and that this number rises when taking into account pension benefits to 28% better compensated - are we now going to receive a grovelling apology from the TUC for its absurd allegations about the dark days to come?
==========================

Surprise, surprise - thousands of teachers, lecturers, doctors, judges etc etc earn more than people stacking shelves in supermarkets and digging holes in the roads. Who would have thought?

Lets see a like for like comparison.

More interesting is the timing of this report - tories playing divide and rule. Those evil public sector workers.

Understand this, the biggest effects of these cuts is going to be on the so called 'private sector' - the first redundancies are already occuring in firms reliant on government contracts. People who would have built roads and schools. Next will be people who would have built aircraft carriers and supplied IT to the NHS. Followed by people who would have built and sold cars to the evil public sector employees, but now no one is buying.

"lunatic Thatcherite inspired leadership at the MOD"

Sout, you really dont do yourself any favours at times, you really dont.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but you wouldnt even know the front door of MOD Main Building from the Tradesman's entrance... If you'd just said "lunatic" leadership, I would probably have agreed with you.

Thatcherite? Dont make me laugh mate, they might be a lot of things, but they aint that.

Why does someone who has an obvious political intelligence end up making themselves look like a Mirror reading sloganeer instead? What a waste.

Is it just 'hyperbole'? Read this posting by Newsnight's Paul Mason from the 22 April this year, in point 4 he spells out what the bankers all think is going to happen when the penny finally drops with Joe Public...and this was BEFORE the election when, if Labour had won, the cuts could have been half as severe as they are going to be.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/04/election_zeitgeist_blackberry.html

I wonder if the police are going to use the terrorism laws against the likes of Crow and Serawotka, who are openly advocating and inciting public disorder?

Works on Icelandic Banks and people heckling the Home Secretary at conference time, so why not now??

Forty days detention without trial and a spot of extraordinary rendition to an island in the Caribbean ought to do the trick... Nah, not long enough. Ought to be 90 days at least...

And as for Bob Crow saying that pensioners and benefits claimants ought to be on a sit in on the M25 to bring it to a standstill (arf!), Bob.... go on Comrade, instead of getting the plebs to do your dirty work for you, why dont you lead from the front... please, please, please, please do it.

You'd look great with "Michelin" printed backwards on your forehead. Worth getting 9 points and a 12 month ban for.

6#

No problem Cass.

You're right about one thing though.

This is very much a phoney war at present. Lots and lots of bleeding stumps and dogwhistling from the useful idiots and not an awful lot of substance.

"Understand this, the biggest effects of these cuts is going to be on the so called 'private sector' - the first redundancies are already occuring in firms reliant on government contracts."

Too bad. Such is life. Means you have to go and work somewhere else. Better get that bike oiled up then.

I read that Bob Crow is recommending TU members bring the M25 to a halt with a sit-down.

Bob, I doubt if anyone will notice the difference. Suggest a rethink.

"I hear that RIRA is to target bankers. Not all bad news then"

You really are a teenage bedroom revolutionary arent you jon?

Idiot.

One Thing the police could do is stop harassing political protestors arresting them wrong and then paying out compensation. I have been on many protests with the lycra pants and capps and always the police have been out in massive numbers which has all been a bit OTT because the message was "politcial" and went to the hard of the meaning of ZaNu_liebour,

Even the Priest of Scotland called the Zanu_liebour HMG the greatest danger to the instiutuion of the Family.

19. At 12:08pm on 15 Sep 2010, Marilyn101 wrote:
I repeat my question from earlier in the week - why do public sector workers (6 million) believe they are more important and deserve superior treatment than private sector workers (20 million)?
=====================

Why do you think it's only the evil public sector workers who are going to be made unemployed?

So far all the redundancies are in the so called 'private sector' - eg. road and school contracts.

How many of your 20 million have jobs that are not directly or indirectly reliant on on government spending?

As for candidates for cuts Nick, how about these guys? Apparently theres plenty of them, so says one of their own....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312093/Fire-chief-Tony-McGuirk-s-devastating-verdict-bone-idle-public-sector.html

Most people (apart from supporters of Gordon Brown) understand that we can't spend money we haven't got - but are only keen on cuts that don't actually affect them personally.

People have to wake up to reality.

The people complaining the loudest are those who previously voted Labour.

"For whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall also reap" Galatians 6:7

24

Ref my #27

Correction... it was benefit claimants and pensioners, not TU members as I'd thought.

Either way won't make any difference to the UK's biggest car park.
Obviously Bob doesn't use it much.

27#

Not his own members. That would mean a loss of subscriptions. No, he's volunteering the elderly and those on benefits to do his dirty work for him. Quelle surprise.

....Well, I suppose its one way of getting the expenditure figures down isnt it? I cant see many of those Polish lorry drivers stopping in time to be honest... Maybe its an interesting idea after all. Looking forward to seeing Lefty10, Jon112, Grandantidote et al in the vanguard of the protest.

I'll even do a couple of laps first to find them... :-)

21. jon112dk

Fair comments; my Self employed building buddies are still smarting over the financial crash & are now talking about the fallout of Public contract cancellations - the future looks bleak for them.
Still, the local landlord is doing alright out of it; how’s that for “Trickle down” economics?

"How many of your 20 million have jobs that are not directly or indirectly reliant on on government spending?"

This is what we're about to find out, jon. Not for bedroom revolutionaries like you to pre-judge it.

26. At 12:32pm on 15 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
Too bad. Such is life. Means you have to go and work somewhere else. Better get that bike oiled up then.
=============

Hey, Fubar: full of empathy as usual. But then you whined when I had a chortle about your pin up boy Cameron experiencing a bit of 'pain'

I hear you don't even live here, no wonder you aren't bothered about the impending recession.

Is it right you are working for the EU?

Doesn't that make you 'public sector' ?

As for Crow calling for 'civil disobedience', it's time the law was tightened up.

If a Trade Union causes disruption to the public, the public should be entitled to sue the union for compensation. The Courts should be given powers to sequestrate union funds and seize all their assets in order to pay the compensation.

23. At 12:19pm on 15 Sep 2010, muggwhump wrote:
Is it just 'hyperbole'? Read this posting by Newsnight's Paul Mason from the 22 April this year, in point 4 he spells out what the bankers all think is going to happen when the penny finally drops with Joe Public...and this was BEFORE the election when, if Labour had won, the cuts could have been half as severe as they are going to be.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/04/election_zeitgeist_blackberry.html

Cheers for pointing this out, that's a fantastic article and well worth a read.

The Insanity of pre-announcing and trailing cuts.

Why do our politicians not understand that making announcements about possible cuts is doing far more real damage than the actual cuts will do?

My guess is that they are actually just as stupid and ignorant as they seem.

All this talk of cuts frightens the public and business so much that they will cut back on their actual expenditure now in case the cuts take place and that this will in itself collapse the economy.

The absolute hight of stupidity. But hey, we have a load of amateurs who have never run anything in their lives so what can we expect!

27. At 12:32pm on 15 Sep 2010, TheBlameGame wrote:
I read that Bob Crow is recommending TU members bring the M25 to a halt with a sit-down.

Bob, I doubt if anyone will notice the difference. Suggest a rethink.
====================

Yep, world's biggest car park on the average day.

Now one person sitting on each of the commuter/spiv train lines into London whilst using their mobile to phone the signal box, followed by another one a few miles further on for when then first gets arrested - that might be more interesting.

Citizen Crow, are you reading?

A candidate for cuts = CAFCA-SS and the Family Courts, An end to cherry picking forced adoption and finanical insentives and the whole "child protection" apparatus that has ballooned since 1997, see the Judges, Solicitors and Social Workers (whom voted Labour) squirm.

It is not supprise with the number of jobs dependant on borgeous HMG spending by GB/EB+CO that DC could not get an out right victory. It was naked buying votes with others monies

37. At 12:54pm on 15 Sep 2010, jon112dk wrote:

26. At 12:32pm on 15 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
Too bad. Such is life. Means you have to go and work somewhere else. Better get that bike oiled up then.
=============

Hey, Fubar: full of empathy as usual. But then you whined when I had a chortle about your pin up boy Cameron experiencing a bit of 'pain'

I hear you don't even live here, no wonder you aren't bothered about the impending recession.

Is it right you are working for the EU?

Doesn't that make you 'public sector' ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh get over yourself, you fool.

You're right, I got out and got a decent job somewhere else to make sure that when Gordon's chickens came home to roost that they werent covering my front door in guano. I did what I had to do and put my money where my mouth was, which is probably an alien concept to you.

And no, wrong, I dont work for the EU. My company's services are retained by a multinational organisation subcontracting to another multinational. Does me fine. It might make me public sector, it might not. Over the last 10 years, I've worked in both.

Perhaps the Government should be cautious in identifying public spending cuts. Embarking on a comprehensive spending review in haste will undoubtedly result in bad decisions being made. Surely a measured approach, taking the appropriate time to make cuts, makes common sense.
Taking domestic finances as an analogy, say a family had a 25 year £200k interest only mortgage (and no repayment vehicle) and an overspend in their monthly finances. Cutting spending on essentials (car insurance, road tax, food, etc) to pay of the capital and interest in 5 years would lead to ruin. Rather, responsible financial planning would be to make affordable cuts to non-essential expenditure so that they can switch to a repayment mortgage, whilst budgeting for interest rates rise above their current level during the term of the mortgage. Whilst interest rates remain lower than they have budgeted for, they can make overpayments to reduce the term of the mortgage and overall cost of servicing the debt.
The government would be wise to take a similar approach on the budget deficit and treat it as a repayment mortgage over 25 years, allowing the immediate breadth and depth of cuts to be reduced whilst managing the budget deficit responsibly. Affordable (efficiency saving) cuts could then be identified and made in the longer term with due evaluation, scrutiny and oversight.

Nick

Is all the police bleating about social unrest on the streets not just a charade so as to protect the very generous overtime payments that they currently receive?

At times like this, it's often helpful to ask yourself a simple question: What would the Swedish government do?

Well, for a start they would put taxes up - in the knowledge that tax rates higher than we currently have in the UK are fully compatible with strong growth in the economy. (They know this from first-hand experience.)

They would make cuts in government spending, but without the unnecessary and divisive claptrap about the pubic sector being a drain on the 'wealth creators', etc etc.

They would then sit back (possibly with a dish of cured herrings) and see what effect these initial measures were having. No undignified scramble to wipe out the deficit in record time. Softly softly catchy monkey.

I don't think Bob Crow should be calling for civil disorder - the last time I checked that was an offense?

Everyone has the right to peaceful protest, and this should be the vehicle used to demonstrate, not civil disorder. Perhaps the MET could ring him and ask him to explain what exactly he meant? Incitement to cause public disorder is a serious offense, he won't gain any support by disrupting ordinary people's lives like this

The most enlightening reason for these cuts came this morning from Mervyn King of the Bank of England.

For those who want to remain in denial what he said was that the problems stem from the West being happy to lose all there manufacturing jobs to the East and borrow huge amounts of cheap money from the same to spend on the cheap goods imported from them.

So where were the unions when all these jobs were going East?

He blames not only the banks but the policy makers {politicians] for encouraging this to happen.

It was always going to be unsustainable and the bubble had to burst so although it was easy enough to borrow and spend the cost of the payback is going to be cruel and hard.

The country has to go through a painful restructuring to even try to get back to where we were before monopoly money took over. The more people try to oppose it the harder and longer it will be.

Mervyn King says it will take a generation and it has to be done for the next generation.. Who would disagree?

#28 Fubar said -
---------------------------------------------------------------
"I hear that RIRA is to target bankers. Not all bad news then"

You really are a teenage bedroom revolutionary arent you jon?

Idiot.
---------------------------------------------------------------

For reference, Fubar was the one who was 'joking' about ZyklonB and the gas chambers yesterday.

What a charming individual he is.

CORNISHANDY@11

They could not care less about you dreadful plight. Those that have stolen from the People this last 10 years have not been brought to book.
Britains Financial and Economic collapse has been caused by greedy Bankers/Financiers, greedy Professional Politicians,and greedy ,ruthless Employers that have turned this Country into a cheap labour Transit-camp by throwing open the borders to all and sundry destroying wage rates and job opportunites for the Indigenous population.

Instead those at the bottom of Society are to be apportioned the blame.

The Disabled, the Underclass, the Working Class and the Lower Middle Class are to pay the Price.

Why have International Arrest Warrants not been issued for the aprehending of Lloyd Blankfein,George Soros and Bob Diamond( to name but three.)

Hardly surprising really though, is it Nick. I'm not even sure this is really worth talking about, just another link in the same unending chain that will no doubt only stop once there is no more need for cuts.

If you cut money to the police, they will have fewer resources to go after criminals.

Or how about, why is it that with all the money Labour pumped in claiming they would tackle the root causes of crime but this never actually happened?

People aren't born as criminals so clearly something happened to create them but instead of using money wisely and trying to resolve issues that have been growing in our society for years we get plenty of spending using money that will be paid for in future taxes and failing to solve the problems. Now we're in a place where the country doesn't have the money to tackle the criminals, the root causes of crime or the society that creates them. As Labour have already proven, simply trying to throw money at the problem still hasn't achieved anything so is throwing more money we can't afford at them going to help families when the country is forced in to bankruptcy?

Because we have failed to resolve the problems, we are now faced with the prospect of all the potential criminals out there realising that their lives may be far better committing crimes and taking the risk of getting caught, which will now be reduced because we can't afford to fund our police services.

Complete and utter failure by Labour of which the law abiding masses will now have to suffer. Yet Labour still claim that they can happily go on borrowing and spending to improve all of our lives and to protect the weak and vulnerable, provide opportunities to those that don't have them, etc. and I think we can all see how this plan has turned out thanks to their wise economic thinking over the past 13 years, not that the Tories are perfect as has been shown over the decades but given the choices I think the lesser of the 2 evils is a better outcome.

Same with the armed forces and the MoD, in a time of boom we were taken in to what I would consider to be unnecessary wars all because the leaders of the UK and the USA were extremely paranoid about the middle east. Well how long have the middle eastern countries been there with their leaders constantly going on about the west and its evil ways. It's bad enough seeing a cycle of hatred and anger between Palestinians and Israelis but let us not forget the attrocities committed by the UK in History in the middle east and they do seem to hold a grudge as the western world seems to have its own cycle with the middle east. Yet all the western countries do is continually provoke them in the name of peace, justice and democracy. No wonder this conflict has spanned so many years with the way the western world acts. Though I certainly do not condone any Terrorist acts in any way.

The best long term solution would have been to not interfere and let their country sort out its own problems on their terms, but the west just likes to continuously interfere in all international matters without due consideration of all the consequences.

So instead we have to wage pointless wars that cost money we don't have and once again we have found ourselves at the point of realising that there's no money to fund the campaign. So at the point where we should continue with the action started, once again we have the west backing down and running away and no doubt they'll be back to interfere another day in another pointless war that surely could have been prevented if we weren't continuously provoking them all the time.

So now we can't afford to run our armed forces, so not only have we annoyed the middle east, we have put ourselves in a situation where we have made ourselves a bigger terrorist target at a time when cuts mean scaling back on forces and equipment. The Labour government may as well have just declared war on their own couuntry.

The pot has simply been allowed to boil over by New Labour and now we're stuck with it.

However, if crime does start to get out of hand and the police can't cope, will this lead to individual vigilante behaviour by those that refuse to sit and take it because if this spiral ever starts then I'm sure the true chaotic nature of us humans will shine ever so brightly and this can be part of the New Labour legacy.

And now we have Gordon Brown doing talks, starting a charitable fund, writing a book and doing jobs he's not being paid for. So when can we invoice him for the trouble he helped cause?

Personally, I think it's about time we looked through History and started sending invoices to past Chancellor's for the mess they helped create because these things happen on their watch and they should start to take proper responsibility. Gordon may be acting all nice but I still don't think he's really learnt his lesson, I think instead of the money simply going to his own charity, he should be donating to the UK Treasury Charity and start cleaning up some of his mess so the most vulnerable can be relieved of some suffering but clearly that's much too difficult to do.

I say, as a simple suggestion, maybe it's time for a new social experiment to take place in this country. Take the poorest 20% of individuals in this country and swap them with the richest 20% of individuals in this country. Assuming people have seen the movie 'Trading Places' because I think everyone needs a new perspective on things. The gap between rich and poor grows and their perspectives are never going to be the same so maybe this idea of swapping can not only provide insight in to a different perspective on life but help to bridge gaps between different people within communities.

After all, humans are social animals so it's hardly surprising that similar people band together with poor people more likely to be in certain areas and richer people more likely to be in certain areas. Maybe it's time to start bridging those gaps and building a wider human society based on the values of helping each other so that together as a community we can create a society of opportunities where people are less likely to set foot on the path to crime, where they will embrace others and not fear or hate them.

It's not about the time of the 'Big Society' because size doesn't really make a difference to things but about the 'Shared Society' where it's not built on the words and rhetoric of the politicians who probably still don't have much of an idea of what they're talking about but built on the shared hearts, minds and values of people that want to create a future worth living in where everybody can aim for the stars together.

As long as there is division then change will never really happen. United we stand, divided we fall so let's start working on tearing down the walls and boundaries we insist on creating and realising that we can achieve far more together than apart. Let's stop the pointless arguing as it will not change what the government plan to do but instead do our part to stand together in weathering the storm rather than allowing it to divide, destroy and consume us.

Unfortunately, being the humans that we are, I doubt our nature will ever change enough to bring the real change that we all need so carry on with the arguing if you must.........

or accept that we can no longer live our lives in the same way and if the government has no money and businesses aren't prepared to invest then we can all simply let the axe fall and hope that it doesn't hit us, or we can get angry and argue defiantly that it's wrong.

I agree with cuts and so far the coalition are the only people setting the agenda because they are in government. Labour certainly haven't been honest and still continue to hide facts and live in denial. However, are they the right cuts to be taken? Then I certainly do not know, but to build sustanability we can't have ever increasing taxes because life is already hard enough with what taxes already do exist. Combined with the cost of living for the majority then cuts are the most viable option to start taking us towards sustainability and until we get there we will all have to suffer. The country has been growing unsustainably for years and now the country must contract to its equilibrium point and all the arguments show is that if you take our population and combine it with what's needed for a sustainable country then maybe this country doesn't even have the resources needed to look after its own people.

The same goes for the world, the world has finite resources and our current population is unsustainable so something needs to be done yet being the humanitarians we are we still continue to help unsustainability flourish. It just seems to be the way we are and why humanity will always be its own greatest enemy.

49#

One being a flippant bad taste remark from an internet nobody and the other being a stated threat from a known terrorist organisation with a track record of committing atrocities.

I made a flippant remark about a substance none of us would be able to get anywhere near, let alone get hold of if we tried.

Our teenaged bedroom anarchist friend is actively encouraging acts of terrorism by a known republican splinter terrorist organisation against innocent citizens.

You can tell the difference cant you Mark?
.
.
.
.
Oh hang on... Walter Wolfgang; the two arrested for reading the names of the Iraq war dead at the cenotaph; Brazilian electricians being shot by mistake on the tube and yet the commanders being promoted.... No, on reflection....... maybe you just dont know what you're talking about.

I realise that public sector managers are an easy target but please can I ask you to consider the following situation:

Imagine a private sector business where in 3 out of 4 years the board and hence the strategy of the business is fundamentally changed, and that many of the board members have not only no understanding of that business but any business or running an organistion.

Also the management of this business has to make dozens of returns that are almost but not quite about the same thing (oh and these aren't just numerical returns, detailed commentary is required), so each is a significant piece of work.

Then imagine that that business is subject to external audits of its operation and performance by half a dozen or more agencies, on top of mundane inspections for things like health & safety, etc. Obviously these agencies want the same pieces of information recorded and reported to them in different ways.

On top of this the business is required to provide answers to often complex but at the same time trivial / nonsense enquiries from anyone who wants to ask them and that there are a series of government appointed agencies who can take the business to task so take up a large amount time in preparing responses justifying why they have dealt with a matter in a given manner.

If that was not a crazy enough situation, over many years the boards (not the managers) have agreed assorted terms and conditions that make it difficult to actually require staff to work and imposible (except at a very high cost) to sack any - no matter how poor performance, etc.

And finally we need to remember that this business provides services that if they go wrong can see people killed or injured, live in poverty or discomfort or have their futures blighted.

That's why very few if any private sector managers ever consider coming to work for the public sector, and those that do consider do not stay long.

Nick,
Short and to the point. But haven't you already answered your own implied question? NHS ring fenced. So who is going to scream next? Other public services.

Actually, and here is a lead for free (I really should be an Editor - hint, hint), the NHS is making cuts and, possibly jobs, I understand, in some regions and all under instructions from the previous Government.

4. At 10:53am on 15 Sep 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:

'... So the first candidate for cuts has to be a freezing of benefits across the entire public sector ...'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this include all bonus payments?

21 jon...

an intersting but irrelevant flip around of an arguiment form the left that normally begins with an extended diatribe about hard pressed nurses versus bloated bankers.

Now you're suddenly all highly qualified professionals entitled to your money. But you don't take that attitude towards accountants, stockbrokers, chief executives, bankers, lawyers, do you? They are paid for more than they deserve according to every socialist.

You can't win this one; the numbers are the numbers and the fact is the public sector is now better paid on average than the private secotr, has better pensions (paid for by the taxes on the private sector) and has better job security.

The only thing Bob Crow has got right is his name; I'd be crowing if I was paid so well for misrepresenting the views of thousands of my members. Thousands of disputes have gone on far longer than expected because their leaders wanted them to not because management had failed to offer a solution; the union leaders just never presented the offer to their members.

it's a great time to be a tory...

32. At 12:40pm on 15 Sep 2010, DistantTraveller wrote:
Most people (apart from supporters of Gordon Brown) understand that we can't spend money we haven't got - but are only keen on cuts that don't actually affect them personally.

People have to wake up to reality.

The people complaining the loudest are those who previously voted Labour.

"For whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall also reap" Galatians 6:7

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are not a significant number of them programmed to automatically do that when their Party is in opposition?

re #127 from the previous Blog {closed early by the Mods, again}

127. At 11:35pm on 14 Sep 2010, meninwhitecoats wrote:
I am interested to see the general derision about Yvette Cooper for CoE - she is well educated :- PPE @ Oxford, Kennedy scholarship to Havard followed by a spell @ LSE - well qualified in every respect to do the job.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would have thought quite a lot of people would consider that CV a prime disqualification for MP let alone, Minister or Party leader and potential PM.

#46 Nar You have to ask yourself what would Thatcher do ?

#44 Are you suggesting that the payback for the last decade of profilgate spending be spread over at least the next 25 years on those that took no advantage for it ?

# 48 virtualsilverlady

"So where were the unions when all these jobs were going East?"

It's an interesting point. I find it hard to believe people would be willing to pay higher taxes (as has been suggested) while they still continue to demand cheap goods made abroad.

I recently saw Jeans on sale in a leading supermarket at £5 a pair. Consumers need to think about the age and working conditions of the people who made them....

Protesting about child labour and working conditions in foreign sweat-shops would seem to me to be a perfectly valid and honourable activity for our trade unions, brining these matters to the attention of the public. However, self-serving 'civil disobedience' such as sitting down on the M25 to protest against government cuts is another matter.

#48 its the MR2 versa TR7 debate really.

What it does show is the totall mess the uk had become by 1979. Even the reforms of 79-97 had not turned things around then came GB and his magic money tree throwing it all over the place to no good effect. Beliveing everybody else owed you a living if you chose to work (addresses can be supplied but they would get bloked!!). Allowing 1.5M EE over to do the work that should have been done by 1.5M UK peoples.

# 51. AlphaPhantom

"I think it's about time we looked through History and started sending invoices to past Chancellor's for the mess they helped create because these things happen on their watch and they should start to take proper responsibility"

It's tempting isn't it? Imagine if Brown had to compensate the country for the damage he caused to the economy! By why stop there? What about Blair who allowed him to continue in office, even though he knew he was unsuitable? What about Ed Balls, who advised him? Alistair Darling who carried on with his master's instructions? Mervyn King, who didn't speak out?

In the end, the people who are really to blame are those who voted Labour in the first place, not just once but three times. Unfortunately, we are all now being collectively punished for their foolish mistake.

"If you cut money to the police, they will have fewer resources to go after criminals."

So they say. Maybe it will result in them buying fewer BMW X5's in which to cruise the streets in search of doughnut shops and fewer corporate credit cards which they can then scam.

55#

What, you mean bonus payments to the civil service? It damned well ought to....

43. At 1:16pm on 15 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders

So you are in Belgium.

No wonder you don't care if your tory mates are taking the disunited kingdom back into recession.

Aren't there any bloggs in Belgium you could overwhelm with barely relevant posts ?

"Imagine a private sector business where in 3 out of 4 years the board and hence the strategy of the business is fundamentally changed, and that many of the board members have not only no understanding of that business but any business or running an organistion."

Hmmmm. Fundamentally unfit for purpose, wouldnt you say?

"If that was not a crazy enough situation, over many years the boards (not the managers) have agreed assorted terms and conditions that make it difficult to actually require staff to work and imposible (except at a very high cost) to sack any - no matter how poor performance, etc."

"And finally we need to remember that this business provides services that if they go wrong can see people killed or injured, live in poverty or discomfort or have their futures blighted."

Hence, in serious need of reform, despite thirteen years of "investment". The service is still garbage, the managers hamstrung, the direction decided by populist vote chasers and the public not getting the service they need or want as a result.

Now isnt that money down the drain and an example of poor leadership? Something this dysfunctional needs to be either cut down and started again from fresh or to have a rocket sent up a certain part of its virtual anatomy.

# 57 Up2snuff

"Are not a significant number of them programmed to automatically do that when their Party is in opposition?"

We know that politicians will say anything in opposition, but to be fair the Tories were advocating cuts long before the election and are sticking that now they are in government.

The idea that Bob Crow has some sort of moral authority to encourage civil disobedience in protest against the cuts would be laughable if it were not so serious.

Also, particularly stomach churning is the spectacle of Labour's wannabe Leaders who are now trying to distance themselves from the very policies they helped to inflict on the rest of us.

51#

Very well said AP.

56. At 2:33pm on 15 Sep 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:
21 jon...
Now you're suddenly all highly qualified professionals entitled to your money. But you don't take that attitude towards accountants, stockbrokers, chief executives, bankers, lawyers, do you?
=====================

Decent pay for a qualified and experienced accountant - no problem.

Million pound bonus and twelve million pension just as your bank goes bust and the taxpayer has to bail it out - only a tory would justify that.

...oh, and I'm not from the left. I just don't agree with the destruction the tories are intending to cause (again).

In his Q&A session at the TUC Conference the Governor of the Bank of England said the financial crisis was caused by the financial sector and policy makers.

He also said the suggestion that there were too many wealthy people avoiding tax was "persuasive".

The bottom line is that if the coalition governmet is to have any hope of addressig the deficit they are going to have to make good on the rhetoric of "we are all in this together".

That means:

1. Looking after the poor and disadvantaged;

2. Vigourously pursuing tax cheats AND benefit cheats; and

3. Ensuring the public sector does more with less and the private sector contributes more to the Nation/Community.

Could I suggest all posters focus on how we achieve these objectives rather than meaningless point scoring. Those are the politics of the past.

65#

Charlie Whelan pass you that little gem to type in did he? Or did you get it from the Miliband "How To Hold A Fundraiser" guide?


Or more likely you copied it from a twenty year old rag week magazine that was under a mass of empty baked bean tins and half empty Dorritos bags in the bedsit?

Come back and have a go when you've got the faintest idea about what you're talking about, chum or go back to "Have Your Say" with the rest of the mouth breathing untermensch. You're way out of your depth.

#67 me

Sorry for typo. Obviously I meant "sticking to that...."

Missing out the word "to" does alter the meaning somewhat.

"Million pound bonus and twelve million pension just as your bank goes bust and the taxpayer has to bail it out - only a tory would justify that."

Thats funny, it was a Labour PM that knighted such a person for his services to banking... Nothing to do with the tories...

Back in your half orange box, jon!

70#

By jove, I think the penny's finally dropped.

Dunno how long it'll take to achieve the stated objective, but... apart from the known Red Rosette Farm Animal Stool Sample brigade who wont buy it, at least the rest of us could have a go...

The fundamental problem is the bloated nature of support and management that the public sector accrues whenever it engages in anything. A brief review of the MOD forecast for April 2008 shows that it expected to have 194,500 service personnel on establishment supported by some 95,200 civilian personnel.

That means that projecting the force of one squad of 8 infantrymen for one year in terms of combat-effectiveness actually requires the input of approximately 12 man-years of effort. 4 man-years of which appear to be required to be spent staring into computer screens and sending meaningless e-mails....and that's before you have counted the time and effort required to produce their physical equipment and consumable supplies.

There must be a better way.

#70 Still looking for an answer to my suggestion then

Are you in favour of shutting CAFCA-SS, Family Courts and the Children Protection-SS ?

Its Simple, I have not been point scoring but looking for a view on the about ?

Nice to hear Mervyn agree is was the bankers fault...and that a debate on the timescale and severity of the cuts is perfectly sensible.

jon112dk. Robin and Fubar are simple creatures...you either agree or you don't, in which case you must be some sort of ultra left socialist, benefit scrounger, lazy public sector etc etc type. Must be comforting to see the world in such a way...and sad.

I believe Nick asked for the hyperbole to be cut...not much chance from the RWTs on this thread.

69 jon

And further.. who paid for the professional qualifications of doctors, teachers, nurses, policemen?

Tax payers funded their qualifications and taxpayers have a right to ask that they get value for money.

No banker, accountant, lawyer, engineer was trained at the expense of
British taxpayers - they either funded it themselves or it was funded by their private sector employer.

Is it any wonder they feel aggrieved that the public sector goes on
asking for more, goes on getting paid more and gets a bigger pension?

And now the TUC calls for all its members to a collective act of civil disobedience. Brilliant idea.

You are welcome to your opinions but I retain mine. The public sector needs to wake up and smell the coffee. And did I utter a single word about justifying the behaviour of bankers or their ridiculous erstwhile uber regulator; Gordon Brown? Your words not mine.

It's a great time to be a tory...

RocknRobin@78 you have made it very clear in many long winded posts that you think there should be cuts made to the public sector. Do you have any concrete proposals as to what cuts should be made or are you just having a general whinge.

I think people might also take you more seriously if you suggested sacrifices you are prepared to make to address the Nation's finacial problems. You just come across as someone with an ideological axe to grind.

1. What about all those in the public sector earning over £100,000 taking a ten percent pay cut.

2. I work in the private sector would be happy to pay a bit more tax if I could be convinced the government was cracking down on wealthy tax cheats.

78. rockRobin7 wrote:

No banker, accountant, lawyer, engineer was trained at the expense of
British taxpayers - they either funded it themselves or it was funded by their private sector employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 out of 10 for this comment my friend.
If they went to University or Collage, the chances are that these institutions were subsidised by the Tax Payer.

My company paid my fees, but the courses & collage were also subsidised by the Tax payer.
My salary was effectively subsidised by tax payer through tax breaks to my employer as an Apprentice.

Digby “Dog” Jones recently called on the Government to increase the number of vocational courses at Universities, no doubt expecting this to be done (at least in part) by the tax payer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10748313

Local news: A new skills Collage has just opened up in ForgottenVille to help build up the skills base for private businesses & this is paid for by...wait for it....the Tax Payer.

Not everything is as black & white as it would seem.
I agree – it’s a great time to be a Tory.

re #67
Agreed.

64. At 3:07pm on 15 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
55#

What, you mean bonus payments to the civil service? It damned well ought to....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed again. It's not just bankers that get bonuses.

The Ministry of Defence has been in the news recently, for obvious reasons, and my two brain cells (which have recently upset foredeckdave) despite the fluff covering them and the half eaten toffee stuck in front of one recall that the biggest Civil Service bonus went to someone at the MoD. And as the PM's salary is now regarded as a benchmark of all that is true and proper, I also seem to recall that the bonus was bigger than said salary.

re #61
Wheeeeee! Can I add fiat (money) 500 abarths to the mix?

Robin @ 78 wrote:
No banker, accountant, lawyer, engineer was trained at the expense of
British taxpayers

>>

This wins today's Biggest Blooper prize.

No78 RockingRobin - says it is a good time to be a Tory.
It must be great to know that little Willie Hague, in these times of austerity, can find £30,000 of taxpayers money to find a job, despite being unqualified,for his 'friend' following one of their 'escapades.

#79 still looking for an answer to #76,#70

No78RockingRobin,
Surely you are not suggesting that only professionals in public services were funded by taxpayers.
When I had the privilege of attending one of the countries top universities we were all funded by the taxpayer.Politically thick Tories appear to be becoming thicker.

78. At 4:44pm on 15 Sep 2010, rockRobin7 wrote:
No banker, accountant, lawyer, engineer was trained at the expense of
British taxpayers - they either funded it themselves or it was funded by their private sector employer
======================================

Old fubar is still banging on about labour, hasn't noticed they've gone, so I'll respond to yourself.

If I look out of my office window I can see lots of engineers being trained, at tax payer expense. People doing their law degrees are just a couple of buildings away, HEFCE is paying for them as well.

Bankers? Do they have any professional qualifications?

But all the same, shame you tory types are so keen on division.

The reality is that large numbers of the so called 'private sector' will be amongst the first to lose their jobs - it's already started.

I see none of the tory cheerleaders have taken me up on my original comment (#18).

The tories intend to free thousands of criminals from jail and at the same time cut the number of police.

Any one want to tell me the crime figures are not going to increase? Do you think they will go down?

Please, tories, I thought you were all in favour of law and order and harsh punishment. Tell me - do you support freeing criminals to save a few quid?

IR35@86 - I tried to respond at item 109 of yesterday's thread (i.e. re A Sign of Things to Come)

I should say I personally have absolutely no experience of the Family Courts, the Child Protection laws or the sex offenders register.

Jon112dk.

Another old chestnut that they conveniently ignore is: Where are the 2.5 million private sector jobs in five years going to come from ?

Que deafening silence...

No 22 Fubar,
I am not concerned about personnel favours.
Would you agree that Fox was the Thatcherite candidate when he stood against David for the party leadership?
Political intelligence - thank you for the compliment.

Those unions representing certain public sector workers should read the following article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8003324/Myth-of-the-underpaid-public-sector-worker.html

They ( the unions) need to wake up and smell the coffee, its the private sector that has had to take all the pain, it is about time the public sector shared some of the pain. There are plenty of jobs worths and pointless pen pushers that can be done away with.

One thing you have to give credit to, the Right Wing Press and the Tory Blog-Droids have done a brilliant job turning the 1 in 4 of the wotkforce who are in the "Public Sector" (now a homoginised single entity of some description) into the scapegoat and public enemy apparently to blame for the countries economic woes, which even Mervyn King admits was created by the "Financial Sector".

Strangely there is a perceptible sense of "they desrve it" coming through! as though a just punishment is about to be served up, but for what I'm not sure.

The most likely outcome to the current policies of cut quick cut deep is a marked increase in redundancies from the public sector, massive cumulative severence payments from the public purse, massive cumulative increases in Job seeker allowance, massive drop in tax take and consumer confidence and outlay. And this is supposed to be the recipe for recovery.

And I'd love to hear from anyone, just give an example of the likely emergence of a strong private sector growth to create these new jobs that the CONDEMS say will emerge?

On 30 June PMQs Cameron states that unemployment will fall year-on-year and 2.5million new jobs in the private sector will appear!!!!!!!

Does any sane person believe such garbage!!!!!!!

91 Craig.

You beat me to it at 95!!!!

As you say prepare for silence because they know its garbage just as we do!

Seems RocknRobin knocks off at 5pm on the dot. No doubt he would accuse the "public sector" workers of not working hard enough.

Seems it is only a good time to be a Tory between 9am and 5pm on weekdays.

89. jon.
before the election, labour consulted in detail with the police and they discussed cuts (scrimping etc) wherever possible without effecting frontline services. the percentage that came out was about 12%. it was agreed that any cuts above this would damage frontline services. the tory proposal of 25% is crazy and will hamper greatly frontline police services.

there is absolutely no economic model that shows the tory plans to reduce the deficit are better than one less harsh and over a longer time period.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

No93 Tenmaya,
Careful what you read in the Daily Torygraph. One of its recent owners the Thatcherite Lord Black has just been released from prison. Apparently he was a corporate gangster.

Eatonrifle.

Its a question often asked but never answered. As you say the spin dept.has been in overdrive...no doubt that nice Mr. Coulson has been briefing his friends at NI on the constant benefit scrounger stories.

I did post yesterday on the folly of Osborne's policy. In brief severe and rushed austerity drives have never solved fiscal crises...in fact if you look back at history they have only made things worse. James K Galbraith in his report on the US situation said :



"...But if the objective is to reduce public deficits, for whatever reason, then a large contribution from private credit is essential. One more time: without private credit, deficit reduction plans through fiscal austerity, now or in the future, will fail. They cannot succeed. If at the time the cuts take effect the economy is still relying on public expenditure to fund economic activity, then reducing expenditure (or increasing taxes) will simply reduce GDP and the deficits will not go away. Further, if the finances of the private sector could be fixed, then an austerity program would be entirely unnecessary to reduce public debt..."

(note: Galbraith's report was published in 2009...but is equally applicable to the present situation both in the USA and UK.)


Comparisons to Greece are also merely scaremongering. Our economy is significantly more diverse,our bonds have a much longer maturity life, and the Greek debt is mainly from overseas creditors...not indigeneous.

The much paraded example of Canada is also misleading. They carried out their programme at a time when their major export market (USA) was enjoying a boom...they also did it over a much longer timeline, from memory 11 years. In addition, although not significantly increasing taxation they increased the budget of tax collection depts in order to clamp down on evasion and uncollected taxes.

Osborne's plan to wipe out the structural deficit in five years is the economics of the madhouse. As the deficit remains after the initial austerity measures he will be forced by the fixed timeline to further and further austerity leading to ever decreasing economic activity and a persistent deficit....the death spiral.

I predict he will have to change course before the five years are over....if he is still in office.