May 2011 Election

[vikingTON]

Ideology driven cuts rather than pragmatism. You are a Tory!

[Ad Lib]

Ideology driven cuts rather than pragmatism. You are a Tory!

The Tories are not ideological enough. That's their problem.

Economics is always ultimately inseparable from ideology. Believing that cutting the number of people working in the public sector and public sector spending is the best course of action is no more ideological than the view that we need all of the half a million extra public sector jobs Labour created since 1997 and that we "need" all the things government has spunked taxpayers and creditors' money on in the last 10 years.

This assertion of ideological cuts is a hugely disingenuous suggestion. To anyone of an economic right inclination, what Osborne is doing IS pragmatic and what Labour is suggesting is ideological and not based in sound fiscal basis.

[Reynard]

That's a leap of logic and a generalisation in the same sentence. The way to get out of a recession is to balance your books (i.e. if you're not taking in enough to pay for your programme, you either raise taxes and do the same or more or cut spending and do a bit less, focusing on getting more bang for the proverbial buck) and to encourage foreign investment to create private sector jobs, as they generate more wealth than public sector ones (which, broadly speaking recycle money). Obviously there are a number of companies which depend on public sector contracts (which is a shite business model by the way, and leads to poor deals for the taxpayer as they pay millions in architect consultancy fees so new schools have abnormally shaped windows) but the real place for growth is in business start-ups and increasing your exports and reducing imports. That's done by letting companies keep more of the wealth they generate, which means cutting taxes to make your country more attractive than other countries as a place to set up base. You can have a lower rate of corporation tax and take in more actual money if more companies base themselves there as a result.

Cutting jobs does not mean cutting growth. Jobs are caused by growth and not the other way around. To cut the deficit government has to both collect more tax and spend less money. That's what a deficit is. The difference between your income against your debt, either in a given year or historically. Having people in lots of public sector jobs makes the country dependent on the state and means that ordinary taxpayers pick up an even bigger burden than if they were collecting benefits when the economy contracts and the private sector sheds jobs to keep afloat.

Government and government spending is the solution to virtually nothing.

There is this assumption based on not very much that 500000 people will be made redundant. This isn't going to be the case. The vast majority of the jobs will simply be people leaving employment due to retirement, changing job or whatever. Hiring freezes at various departments will see to this. The police have stopped recruiting until they get rid of enough retirals and chronically sick malingerers. The fire service is exactly the same and other outfits will follow suit if recruitment is what they decide to cut back on. Efficiency savings can be made elsewhere but you can bet your arse that the likes of the NHS managers will do their best to keep their little empires going and make the savings elsewhere.

The cuts aren't all that deep at all and they are spread over the next four years. What we are hearing is bitch whining from the left trying to doom monger.

[vikingTON]

The Tories are not ideological enough. That's their problem.

Economics is always ultimately inseparable from ideology. Believing that cutting the number of people working in the public sector and public sector spending is the best course of action is no more ideological than the view that we need all of the half a million extra public sector jobs Labour created since 1997 and that we "need" all the things government has spunked taxpayers and creditors' money on in the last 10 years.

Such as schools, transport, business investment, universities and the NHS.

Or are you referring to the banks? The banks that would have collapsed entirely and brought down the entire economy, savings, the lot with it had small-state economic hawks like yourself had their way.

[vikingTON]

There is this assumption based on not very much that 500000 people will be made redundant. This isn't going to be the case. The vast majority of the jobs will simply be people leaving employment due to retirement, changing job or whatever.

Changing job into where exactly? What evidence is there from the global economy that the situation is strongly improving and that the private sector can take the strain?

[the jambo-rocker]

A little of topic but...

I find it weird, perhaps someone can make sense of it to me. People go on about labour spunking away the taxpayers money, fair enough. Yet what I cannot fathom is that during that whole time, nobody made a sustained argument about where it was all going until the recession kicked? For nearly 13 years?!! And nobody saw this coming, and thought 'hey lets ask them about this'?

I know that it easy to criticse with hindsight but still, i'm not exactly the heaviest follower of politics...

[Reynard]

Changing job into where exactly? What evidence is there from the global economy that the situation is strongly improving and that the private sector can take the strain?

People change jobs you know, for a whole variety of reasons.

The turnover of staff in the public sector runs at 8% per annum. This includes retirals, death, people moving away from an area. People changing jobs. Whatever. When someone leaves they won't get replaced. Obviously. Even if the turnover of employees in the public sector was half of that amount it still won't have to lead to compulsory redundancies.

Or have you decided that there are no jobs out there whatsoever or something?

[Reynard]

A little of topic but...

I find it weird, perhaps someone can make sense of it to me. People go on about labour spunking away the taxpayers money, fair enough. Yet what I cannot fathom is that during that whole time, nobody made a sustained argument about where it was all going until the recession kicked? For nearly 13 years?!! And nobody saw this coming, and thought 'hey lets ask them about this'?

I know that it easy to criticse with hindsight but still, i'm not exactly the heaviest follower of politics...

I criticised Labour for taxing and spending before the banks collapse. Long before it. Not maybe so much the fact they were spending the money, but how they were doing it. The fact that they created 500000 jobs in the public sector and that the general public saw f**k all difference in terms of better services etc etc. Theres no doubt at all they lobbed plenty of money at the NHS for example. But there won't be many of us that see an improvement.

Plenty of people criticised Labour for what they were doing. Fleecing the pension fund. Flogging gold reserves. Increasing the tax take. All of which was done during a boom to pay for basically f**k all.

[banterman86]

Theres no doubt at all they lobbed plenty of money at the NHS for example. But there won't be many of us that see an improvement.

Wasn't the NHS a bit of a bombscare pre-'97?

[Ad Lib]

Wasn't the NHS a bit of a bombscare pre-'97?

It was fine for the 3 operations I had as a child (all of which before the 1997 election). No complaints here.

Clearly there have been considerable improvements in the NHS in the last 10 years, but I'm somewhat sceptical that it should have taken the resources it did to deliver the same outcome.

[vikingTON]

A little of topic but...

I find it weird, perhaps someone can make sense of it to me. People go on about labour spunking away the taxpayers money, fair enough. Yet what I cannot fathom is that during that whole time, nobody made a sustained argument about where it was all going until the recession kicked? For nearly 13 years?!! And nobody saw this coming, and thought 'hey lets ask them about this'?

I know that it easy to criticse with hindsight but still, i'm not exactly the heaviest follower of politics...

It's because as a proportion of our GDP Labour weren't spending excessively at all. The banking bailout and recession changed the game - as renton may well show with another copy of that fateful graph. Right-wingers are now furiously trying to rewrite economic history in order to explain non-events and sweep over the massive steaming turd that free-market capitalism left on the rug.

People change jobs you know, for a whole variety of reasons.

The turnover of staff in the public sector runs at 8% per annum. This includes retirals, death, people moving away from an area. People changing jobs. Whatever. When someone leaves they won't get replaced. Obviously. Even if the turnover of employees in the public sector was half of that amount it still won't have to lead to compulsory redundancies.

Or have you decided that there are no jobs out there whatsoever or something?

If you reduce the supply of jobs in the public sector, more will be forced into the private sector. There are too few jobs already in the market.

[the jambo-rocker]

I criticised Labour for taxing and spending before the banks collapse. Long before it. Not maybe so much the fact they were spending the money, but how they were doing it. The fact that they created 500000 jobs in the public sector and that the general public saw f**k all difference in terms of better services etc etc. Theres no doubt at all they lobbed plenty of money at the NHS for example. But there won't be many of us that see an improvement.

Plenty of people criticised Labour for what they were doing. Fleecing the pension fund. Flogging gold reserves. Increasing the tax take. All of which was done during a boom to pay for basically f**k all.

I only became engaged in politics around the time that SNP came into power on my 18th. Anything before that and I draw a proverbial blank.

Fair enough, but then surely there must have been more people that had the same opinion, and brought this up during blair's days. The fact that a fair amount of people were distracted by this 'boom' in the economy without looking at the bigger picture is what I cant comprehend.

It annoys me though however how people react to the budgets of the NHS, even today, obviously it should continue to be well-funded, but they they could save so much more money if they actually looked at what they are spending on instead of skimming the surface, which the impression that seems to be given.

[banterman86]

Clearly there have been considerable improvements in the NHS in the last 10 years, but I'm somewhat sceptical that it should have taken the resources it did to deliver the same outcome.

No, that's a fair point.

To suggest the majority won't have seen an improvement is a bit...well, pish really. At least from my understanding.

[Reynard]

It's because as a proportion of our GDP Labour weren't spending excessively at all. The banking bailout and recession changed the game - as renton may well show with another copy of that fateful graph. Right-wingers are now furiously trying to rewrite economic history in order to explain non-events and sweep over the massive steaming turd that free-market capitalism left on the rug.

If you reduce the supply of jobs in the public sector, more will be forced into the private sector. There are too few jobs already in the market.

Yes they were. And they were creating jobs where none were actually needed in an effort to centralise everything. Make people rely on the state for everything. Give government more control over your life.

Correct. And no bad thing either.

[vikingTON]

Yes they were. And they were creating jobs where none were actually needed in an effort to centralise everything. Make people rely on the state for everything. Give government more control over your life.

So why is there no historical evidence for any overspend?

Correct. And no bad thing either.

It is when the private sector doesn't have the jobs and needs a strong domestic market to recover. More people on the dole increased state payments and damages consumer confidence. It's a vicious circle that leads to 1932 Hoovervilles.

[Reynard]

So why is there no historical evidence for any overspend?

It is when the private sector doesn't have the jobs and needs a strong domestic market to recover. More people on the dole increased state payments and damages consumer confidence. It's a vicious circle that leads to 1932 Hoovervilles.

There is no chance of a second recession here. The cuts that have been made are pretty modest and won't do any damage whatsoever. There won't be a slump. There won't be a million people "thrown out of work" either.

The deficit needs to be brought down and it will be. Taxation needs to be lowered to promote growth in business and government needs to get out of banking asap. Break them up, make them smaller or whatever but get out of it.

And the governor of the BoE needs sacked. He has been abysmal in all areas of his work.

[Ad Lib]

So why is there no historical evidence for any overspend?

Not directly answering your point, although spending in the health service jumped from 4.5% to 8.5% of GDP since 1997 according to the Treasury figures. I don't know the extent to which this includes PFI. Read into that what you will. Ask yourself how convincing the argument for almost doubling spending as a portion of GDP was, and similar levels of improvement could have been achieved by spending even (say) one percentage point less than that?

[vikingTON]

Not directly answering your point

ie not answering it at all. It was clear that the Tories neglected NHS funding and measure were taken to correct this. Without stressing the national balance sheet.

[capybara]

Spending review: why so soft on Scots and foreigners?

Read and digest people!

Wonderful stuff. Of course no mention of the billions of tax and duty that flows into the Westminster coffers. Also you need to take a step back on the figures. Swinney will tell you the cuts run a lot deeper.

[Reynard]

ie not answering it at all. It was clear that the Tories neglected NHS funding and measure were taken to correct this. Without stressing the national balance sheet.

Pure drivel.