Condem Government 100 Days Old Today

[Woodstock Jag]

Nice of you to be so conversational. As always JB, you really do add something to the debate. Snide sarcasm and ill informed opinion mostly, but there you go.

 

I'm not a big fan of Labour, but they aren't hell bent on destroying public services like the Tories. Yes, Labour got into bed with the banks, but the Tories would have been even more relaxed about the whims of the market - Tories don't believe in State interference with business. However, whilst Labour overreached itself in it's spending commitments, the Tories would have let ordinary people sink to Dickensian levels of squalor, as they seem bent on doing again now.

 

So, JB, when the Tories campaigned on reducing the deficit by efficiency gains only, why didn't they mention abolishing 40% of the State? Why did they say that the Winter Fuel Allowance and Child Benefit were safe in their hands when they plainly aren't? Why did they say that NHS would be ringfenced when in England it has to find £20BN of savings?

 

 

Oh behave! The vast majority of the cuts they're looking at are in respect of making those who are better off less likely to be entitled to benefits designed to help the poorest. Are you seriously suggesting to me that families earning £50k a year need Child Benefit?

 

They're not "abolishing 40% of the state"; they're making 40% cuts to meet deficit reduction targets. That's not the same thing at all.

 

They said that "front-line services" in the NHS would be protected. That's not the same as saying that spending would not fall (although it's not actually falling; they're giving it a real-terms increase, but the precondition of that is that the NHS must also make savings to help protect those front-line services. An excellent place to start would be to reduce the ridiculously high numbers of NHS Managers and Development Strategists, who contribute very little but command salaries far in excess of the nurses and cleaners on the actual wards.

[hamiltonjag]

What do you think Labour would have done in 1979? Point caller?

I don't think they would have embarked on butchering the UK's industrial infrastructure and putting the boot into the working clas destroying whole communities. You don't even remember 1979 let alone the misery of the subsequent Thatcher years. "Point caller?" What's YOUR point, child?

 

 

 

Large short-term job cuts now vs more and longer-term job cuts later. Propping up your economy with lots of public sector jobs just means money gets recycled rather than created. You need to look at the bigger picture to see why we can't afford to throw good money after bad.

Public Sector jobs that support the poorest and most vulnerable in Society - Social Work, Community Work, Childcare Services, Housing, not to mention the excellent work carried out by Vol Orgs who depend on Grant Support from Local Councils. Why don't YOU look at the bigger picture when the effect of all this hatchetry takes hold? (I am trying my hardest to be as polite as possible here btw)

 

 

The Lib Dems didn't actually oppose the VAT rise. They didn't rule it out, but accused the other parties of failing to disclose it in their budgetary plans when it was so patently secretly planned by both Tory and Labour. Both Labour and Tories said "we presently have no plans to raise VAT" whereas the Lib Dems said "VAT increases haven't been budgeted for, but any change in rates of tax must reflect the economic conditions at that particular point in time".

Semantics. Lib Dems LIED and whored themselves to get into power

 

With respect to the timing of cuts, they've made perfectly clear that they've changed their minds as a result of the impact of the debt crisis on the Continent in and around the election, in addition to the discovery that the structural debt was several billion more substantial than Labour had been publicising.

They "changed their minds" oh well that's ok then. Not like lying through their teeth to the Electorate at all then really is it?

[jaggybunnet]

Nice of you to be so conversational. As always JB, you really do add something to the debate. Snide sarcasm and ill informed opinion mostly, but there you go.

 

I'm not a big fan of Labour, but they aren't hell bent on destroying public services like the Tories. Yes, Labour got into bed with the banks, but the Tories would have been even more relaxed about the whims of the market - Tories don't believe in State interference with business. However, whilst Labour overreached itself in it's spending commitments, the Tories would have let ordinary people sink to Dickensian levels of squalor, as they seem bent on doing again now.

 

So, JB, when the Tories campaigned on reducing the deficit by efficiency gains only, why didn't they mention abolishing 40% of the State? Why did they say that the Winter Fuel Allowance and Child Benefit were safe in their hands when they plainly aren't? Why did they say that NHS would be ringfenced when in England it has to find £20BN of savings?

 

 

1. no a bit of banter/humour.

 

2. is it really, or just that your ill informed opinion is different from what is blatenly obvious to anyone who opens there eyes.

 

3. that was before they found out how bad things really were and not the bluff that labour had been trying to hide.

[B.C.G. JAG]

1. no a bit of banter/humour.

 

Sorry JB, but I find the kind of crowing here absolutely sickening. Woodstock typifies the uncaring attitude of Conservatism - public services don't make money and therefore less important in our society than the needs of the business community. Whether or not you intend it, there is a perception of gleeful rejoicing in the destruction of vital services, and that turns my stomach.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

Sounds like some bitter Labour supporters who are unable to accept the democratic choice of the voting public. This is not Florida 2004. I think the Conservative Liberal Democract coalition (Condem? I'm criniging at the use) have done better than I thought. I wanted the Lib Dems in in a coalition government. Cameron and Clegg are working together as all coalitions should do and they need some give and take like all coalitions. If we get AV electoral voting (and I hope we do) then coalitions will be more common especially as the 2 party state is diminishing with every election. At the end of the day we have huge amounts of debt. We need to cut it. It is not going away unfortunately.

[Blackpool Jags]

Cracks starting to show, but as I said, the LibDem's are somewhat compelled to hang on to the Coalition no matter how many of their policies are stamped on, just to preserve the hope and promise of PR. However I think it's going to be a short lived romance and I see another election within 2 years. Will anyone bid more?

 

Cracks are indeed showing, and the Glib Dem conference in a week or two will be interesting as their grassroots members - ie those not amongst the 1,000s who've already torn up their party memberships in disgust at their leadership's readiness to felate Cameron and his top boys just to savour a whiff of power - will reveal their feelings on telly. I look forward to that.

 

It's one thing to participate in the spirit of the democratic process by forming a coalition with the party holding the most seats; it's an another matter entirely to prop up a regime whose policies and core 'ethics' are, in most cases, diametrically opposed to what you fundamentally stand for. The pre-election Leaders' Debates were clear testimony to the then massive gulf between both parties on the most basic of issues. But when the chance to emerge from political obscurity flashes a bit of thigh, Clegg and his henchmen are in with the Tories like a rat up a drainpipe.

 

As they said then, vote Liberal and you'll get a Tory government.

[Woodstock Jag]

Woodstock typifies the uncaring attitude of Conservatism - public services don't make money and therefore less important in our society than the needs of the business community.

 

Sorry, BCG but that's just not what I'm saying at all and I find it deeply insulting that you're suggesting that. Public services don't exist to make money: they exist to serve the public. What that doesn't mean is that they should have a big blank unaccountable chequebook backing them. Government should not be spending more than it takes in in taxes; to deny that is to ignore the most basic rule of economics.

 

It isn't about the needs of the business community being "more important" than public services; quite the opposite. They are mutually dependent. Unless the business community thrives, public services can't be funded. Therefore you have to tailor your fiscal policy to suit the former in order to sustain the funding in the long term of the latter.

 

I think Lambies Lost Doo has perhaps overstated the bitter Labour element, but the sentiment is definitely prevalent. What the "don't cut" brigade's argument is tantamount to is "Thistle should buy Kenny Deuchar for £200k and we'll get promoted". Now having Kenny Deuchar would be great and getting promoted would be great, but if he's going to cost us £200k when we're already in debt and losing money, we're going to have to accept we can't afford the intrinsically good Kenny Deuchar, indeed if we want to bring anyone in we have to try to sell. As and when we're on a more stable financial footing, with spending down and revenues increasing over time, we can maybe think about signing up the next Kenny Deuchar when funds allow it, but for now we've got to reduce our debt.

[Blackpool Jags]

Woodstock Jag: I think your post illustrates precisely what BCG Jag is getting at: by floating the Kenny Deuchar hypothesis you describe, fundamentally, a transaction. Public Services are not businesses and should never be considered as such. The NHS maintains people at a certain standard of health with the result that they are generally employable and are thus able to contribute taxes and NI to the benefit of those who are not.

 

When Nye Bevan finally won Parliamentary approval for the bill to introduce the NHS, it was in the face of bitter opposition from the Tory Party, most of the Liberal Party, the Royal College of Physicians, the BMA and, to their undying shame, the Royal College of Nursing. These organisations were champions of the status quo, deeply rooted to the concept of healthcare being available only on the basis of ability to pay.

 

Furthermore, the principal voices of opposition to the introduction of an NHS free at the point of need cited the state of the post-war economy as the chief reason why such an innovation was neither practicabe nor affordable.

 

Certainly since the advent of the Tory-in Labour-clothing, Blair, and his cohort of pragmatists, the Labour Party is visibly a shell of its old egalitarian self. Nevertheless, if it's guiding moral principles we're looking for, they ain't gonna be found within a country mile of the Tory Party. Leopards don't change their spots, they occasionally attempt to re-colour them.

 

Ethical Public Services can only be reduced to transactional entities in the minds of those who are either cold to the concept of egalitarianism or those who are too young to have experienced it.

[B.C.G. JAG]

What the "don't cut" brigade's argument is tantamount to is "Thistle should buy Kenny Deuchar for £200k and we'll get promoted". Now having Kenny Deuchar would be great and getting promoted would be great, but if he's going to cost us £200k when we're already in debt and losing money, we're going to have to accept we can't afford the intrinsically good Kenny Deuchar, indeed if we want to bring anyone in we have to try to sell. As and when we're on a more stable financial footing, with spending down and revenues increasing over time, we can maybe think about signing up the next Kenny Deuchar when funds allow it, but for now we've got to reduce our debt.

 

Wouldn't a better metaphor be to say that the Thistle Board were axing 40% of the players? In this scenario, the BOD would argue that finances dictate that they have to make these huge cuts to get the debt down immediately, even if it means being unable to field a full team. So whilst the team gets relegated into oblivion and the club goes into administration, the fans ponder whether it might not have been better to make sure that a team was maintained with less drastic reductions, and that maybe some of those who had gotten us into the financial mess in the first place took some responsibility for the cost.

[Woodstock Jag]

Wouldn't a better metaphor be to say that the Thistle Board were axing 40% of the players? In this scenario, the BOD would argue that finances dictate that they have to make these huge cuts to get the debt down immediately, even if it means being unable to field a full team. So whilst the team gets relegated into oblivion and the club goes into administration, the fans ponder whether it might not have been better to make sure that a team was maintained with less drastic reductions, and that maybe some of those who had gotten us into the financial mess in the first place took some responsibility for the cost.

 

No, a better metaphor would be to say that they are axing 40% of their player budget because they made a big loss the previous season. It means that they then have to work off a smaller first team squad, and fight a lot harder to avoid relegation, but if they do, the very existence of the Club is sustained and they're a lot stronger for it. Simultaneously, we look for new revenue streams, by looking to see what we can offer other parties to incentivise reciprocal assistance (c.f. cutting corporation tax to boost business and overall tax receipts).

Edited August 19, 2010 by Woodstock Jag

[twinny]

Right, I spent quite a while this morning trying to make this post with repeated error messages, let's see if it works from home...

 

Sorry JB, but I find the kind of crowing here absolutely sickening. Woodstock typifies the uncaring attitude of Conservatism - public services don't make money and therefore less important in our society than the needs of the business community. Whether or not you intend it, there is a perception of gleeful rejoicing in the destruction of vital services, and that turns my stomach.

 

Agreed. It may be down to reducing costs, but don't doubt for one second that the conservatives are not enjoying the destruction of public services, which in times where people are out of work will be relying on them a great deal. Yes, the upper middle classes don't really need benefits, but it's hitting the lower middle class who do.

 

I also find the bringing forward of the rise in the age for retirement ridiculous, it might make sense in rich areas where people are healthy enough to work until they're 70+, but there are many areas in the north of England and the west of Scotland where men generally don't live to that age. At least with the previous government waiting 40 odd years to implement the rise gave the chance of aiming to improve health in those areas first. People really shouldn't have to work until they drop.

 

There are other ways to try and reduce the deficit, and as BCG Jag points out in other thread cuts seem to be being made willy nilly without thinking them all through, such as the abolition of the UK film council, an area where there has been a successful level of growth. How about the Robin Hood tax, an absolutely brilliant idea, as supported by Bill Nighy? But no, that would hurt the bonuses of really important bankers <_ that if used in the short term would surely be better at reducing deficit than a vat rise which will inhibit spending.>

[Woodstock Jag]

Agreed. It may be down to reducing costs, but don't doubt for one second that the conservatives are not enjoying the destruction of public services, which in times where people are out of work will be relying on them a great deal. Yes, the upper middle classes don't really need benefits, but it's hitting the

lower middle class who do.

 

This is sensationalist nonsense.

 

There is absolutely no good reason why any benefits whatsoever should be paid to a family earning more than £50k a year. They just don't need it. So far as I can see, phasing out Child Benefit for those on higher incomes makes perfect sense. Why, for example, does a family on £40k a year need £1760 or so being handed out to them by the government for simply having two children, when you could instead be paying families on £20k or less a year £3520? Which makes the bigger difference in averting poverty and suffering? Universal benefits are a total nonsense and they should all be means tested.

 

I also find the bringing forward of the rise in the age for retirement ridiculous, it might make sense in rich areas where people are healthy enough to work until they're 70+, but there are many areas in the north of England and the west of Scotland where men generally don't live to that age. At least with the previous government waiting 40 odd years to implement the rise gave the chance of aiming to improve health in those areas first. People really shouldn't have to work until they drop.

 

The simple reason is we can't afford it. The benefits bill has gotten out of control, and the support we give to the vulnerable costs more than we're getting back in taxation as it is. I personally don't buy into the idea that people should be substantially assisted by the state to retire unless they are physically no longer able to work, anyway, and emphasis should shift towards a system where those wanting to retire before the age of (for example) 70 should be given tax incentives to save for the years up to the age of 70. I also don't know why you've said the government want people to work until they are 70+, because the plan is to raise the retirement age to 67 and to end compulsory redundancy at 65 in certain employment areas, so as to allow those who want to continue to work to do so whilst being able to afford the cost of support for the elderly.

 

There are other ways to try and reduce the deficit, and as BCG Jag points out in other thread cuts seem to be being made willy nilly without thinking them all through, such as the abolition of the UK film council, an area where there has been a successful level of growth.

 

HOW MANY TIMES! They didn't cut anything from the UK Film Council! They abolished the body that was notorious for inefficiency relative to other film funding organisations, and are going to redirect the existing funding elsewhere. That's not cutting it!

 

How about the Robin Hood tax, an absolutely brilliant idea, as supported by Bill Nighy? But no, that would hurt the bonuses of really important bankers That if used in the short term would surely be better at reducing the deficit than a VAT rise, which will inhibit spending.

 

I didn't see Labour venturing this when they ploughed money into the banks, did you? Also, just placing a "Robin Hood tax" on speculative activity doesn't actually solve the problem. For one, it is legalised theft, with no clear proof of redistributive effect. Secondly, the figures they use correspond to the profits the Banks were making about 4 years ago: at the height of the boom (global banking profits 2006 were circa $788bn c.f. $120bn in 2008-09); in more turbulent economic circumstances, to raise the money they're claiming would be raised would be comparable to imposing a surplus corporation tax of somewhere between 50% and 350% on corporate activity, which not only would prove such a massive disincentive to banks that they would almost completely cease trading in Britain, but also because the state OWNS the banks, they're robbing Peter to pay Paul, by preventing the recovery of the banks and not getting the money back that they ploughed into it in the first place. What would be much more sensible would be to use the State's power as a majority shareholder to veto excessive bank bonuses to executives and agree a repayment plan on our investment at a substantial but not crippling rate of interest.

 

The problem with people trying to say "tax the bankers boo hiss" is that it is precisely in the short term that that wouldn't work. What matters more just now is that if the UK can't manage its public sector debt, it will lose its AAA credit rating, meaning that in the medium to longer term it will be much more difficult to borrow to finance extraordinary public expenditure commitments. We've put the cart before the horse by spending more than we take in when times are good; we should be building up a surplus when times are good so that when times are bad we dip into that instead of creditors.

[jaggybunnet]

Woodstock Jag: I think your post illustrates precisely what BCG Jag is getting at: by floating the Kenny Deuchar hypothesis you describe, fundamentally, a transaction. Public Services are not businesses and should never be considered as such. The NHS maintains people at a certain standard of health with the result that they are generally employable and are thus able to contribute taxes and NI to the benefit of those who are not.

 

 

Ethical Public Services can only be reduced to transactional entities in the minds of those who are either cold to the concept of egalitarianism or those who are too young to have experienced it.

 

so what you are saying is that because labour were either too weak or inept, they allowed the public sector to grow to the extent where we cant afford to pay them and instead of realising this and trying to solve the problem they thought they would make it worse by continuing to borrow with no plan to pay it back. your choice, weak, inept or both.

 

 

there are far to many public sector jobs at the moment be it in the NHS or MOD to name a couple, and before anyone comes on foaming at the mouth about nurses and cleaners, no I mean the thousands of managers that pick up the big wages along with a massive pension.

 

if labour had looked after the finances properly this could have been averted or at least been manageable, they didn't we are in a mess

[jaggybunnet]

 

There are other ways to try and reduce the deficit, and as BCG Jag points out in other thread cuts seem to be being made willy nilly without thinking them all through, such as the abolition of the UK film council, an area where there has been a successful level of growth. How about the Robin Hood tax, an absolutely brilliant idea, as supported by Bill Nighy? But no, that would hurt the bonuses of really important bankers That if used in the short term would surely be better at reducing the deficit than a VAT rise, which will inhibit spending.

 

 

so you dont think banks would up there charges to make us pay for this ????

[Vladimir Putin]

 

 

With respect to the timing of cuts, they've made perfectly clear that they've changed their minds as a result of the impact of the debt crisis on the Continent in and around the election, in addition to the discovery that the structural debt was several billion more substantial than Labour had been publicising.

 

This has since been proved to be absolute nonsense. Nick Clegg did initially claim to have changed his mind after conversations with Mervyn King, only for King himself to say that he hadn't given Clegg any new information. Clegg then claimed to have changed his mind before the election on the radical need for spending cuts - which begs the question as to why he didn't share this information with the people who were going to vote for him.

 

He defrauded those of us who voted for the Lib-Dems on the basis that they shared an oppostion to reckless Tory spending cuts. My Lib-Dem MP hasn't even bothered to reply to either of the emails I have sent asking her why she and her party have signed up to a coalition that stands in direct opposition to many of the things the Lib-Dems theoretically (as recently as April of this year) stood for.

 

Any Lib-Dem MP with an ounce of respect for their consitituents should resign and run in a by-election stating that they support what is effectively a Conservative government (lets be honest, the Lib-Dems have got next to nothing out of the coaltion, other than a few second-rate ministerial cars, a referendum they will probably lose, and an overblown sense of self-importance ) and are asking for an endorsement as such. With the coaltion apparently so popular for governing in the 'national interest', surely none of the Lib-Dem MPs believe they would have any problem winning such a by-election.

[Vladimir Putin]

Government should not be spending more than it takes in in taxes; to deny that is to ignore the most basic rule of economics.

 

 

 

Another basic rule of economics is that you don't slash public spending when the economy is at risk of slipping back into recession. The private sector will not pick up the demand, and temporary increases in government spending is widely recognised by many economists, if certainly not by ideologically driven small-state Conservative politicians, as necessary to avoid a double-dip recession or, worse, a depression.

[jaggybunnet]

Another basic rule of economics is that you don't slash public spending when the economy is at risk of slipping back into recession. The private sector will not pick up the demand, and temporary increases in government spending is widely recognised by many economists, if certainly not by ideologically driven small-state Conservative politicians, as necessary to avoid a double-dip recession or, worse, a depression.

 

 

is that 13 years temporary.

 

 

wheres that blinkers smilie admin?

 

the obvious hatred of the tories seems to have blinded you to all the damage that labour have done and that like it or not we have to make cuts, not nurses, polices and the likes but the mangers, but that wont happen because these are the people that labour put in to make these decisions.

[Vladimir Putin]

is that 13 years temporary.

 

 

wheres that blinkers smilie admin?

 

the obvious hatred of the tories seems to have blinded you to all the damage that labour have done and that like it or not we have to make cuts, not nurses, polices and the likes but the mangers, but that wont happen because these are the people that labour put in to make these decisions.

 

What blinkers? You seen to be implying that I'm a tribal Labour supporter, when in fact I have never voted Labour. Also, how can departments cut between 25-40% while at the same time only cutting 'managers' and other backroom staff?

[jaggybunnet]

What blinkers? You seen to be implying that I'm a tribal Labour supporter, when in fact I have never voted Labour. Also, how can departments cut between 25-40% while at the same time only cutting 'managers' and other backroom staff?

 

 

where? i said blinkered to labours mess and that there is no choice but to make cuts.

 

i dont agree with all the cuts and one of them may be my job, BUT i do at least admit that they have to happen or we end up with another 13 years of horror

[Woodstock Jag]

Another basic rule of economics is that you don't slash public spending when the economy is at risk of slipping back into recession.

 

Not at all; it depends on the extent and timing. If you can withstand the short-term hit from cuts in spending, reducing the deficit in the process, it puts you on a more comfortable footing to borrow (where required) to stimulate growth in the long-term. Continuing to spend when your debt racks up is akin to using one credit card to pay off another; it only defers and worsens the problem.

 

The private sector will not pick up the demand, and temporary increases in government spending is widely recognised by many economists, if certainly not by ideologically driven small-state Conservative politicians, as necessary to avoid a double-dip recession or, worse, a depression.

 

Economists couldn't be more divided about the effect of cutting spending commitments. If anything, they are suggesting that deficit reduction by spending cuts in countries with large structural deficits (such as ourselves) is slightly preferable. The predictions at the moment rate the chances of a double-dip recession still being improbable. The suggestion that Labour wouldn't have made just about as significant cuts, after Alistair Darling harping on about the deepest cuts since Margaret Thatcher, is laughable.

 

I don't even see why people see less state as a bad thing. Labour presided over some of the most intolerable and draconian and illiberal aspects of our society in years: ID cards, biometric passports, excessive anti-Terror legislation, invasion of another country without the backing of the international community and more besides.

 

The con Labour pulled was to mortgage our futures with PFI putting things off the books, instead of rationally increasing spending in-line with their means. They raised people's expectations as to what the state was capable well beyond that they could sustain. Short-term political benefit necessitating painful re-adjustment when things went wrong.

[twinny]

This is sensationalist nonsense.

 

What? You're saying that those who have been made redundant don't deserve any help from the state?

 

There is absolutely no good reason why any benefits whatsoever should be paid to a family earning more than £50k a year. They just don't need it. So far as I can see, phasing out Child Benefit for those on higher incomes makes perfect sense. Why, for example, does a family on £40k a year need £1760 or so being handed out to them by the government for simply having two children, when you could instead be paying families on £20k or less a year £3520? Which makes the bigger difference in averting poverty and suffering? Universal benefits are a total nonsense and they should all be means tested.

 

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I never said anything about families on 40k a year deserving benefits.

 

The simple reason is we can't afford it. The benefits bill has gotten out of control, and the support we give to the vulnerable costs more than we're getting back in taxation as it is. I personally don't buy into the idea that people should be substantially assisted by the state to retire unless they are physically no longer able to work, anyway, and emphasis should shift towards a system where those wanting to retire before the age of (for example) 70 should be given tax incentives to save for the years up to the age of 70. I also don't know why you've said the government want people to work until they are 70+, because the plan is to raise the retirement age to 67 and to end compulsory redundancy at 65 in certain employment areas, so as to allow those who want to continue to work to do so whilst being able to afford the cost of support for the elderly.

 

When the plans for rising the retirement age were brought forward by the current government, I'm sure it was reported that it was planned to increase further over time. People should be entitled to a good retirement, life shouldn't only be about work. Compulsory retirement in certain job areas is very important, look at the amount of teachers who complete their training then don't get jobs, raising the age of retirement will make it even more difficult for those starting out on their profession who will most likely have the most up to date training. If they want to continue working they can do supply work, which actually often pays more.

 

 

 

HOW MANY TIMES! They didn't cut anything from the UK Film Council! They abolished the body that was notorious for inefficiency relative to other film funding organisations, and are going to redirect the existing funding elsewhere. That's not cutting it!

 

I haven't seen how they are redirecting those funds, that seems to have been a guess about what they were doing that you invented.

 

I didn't see Labour venturing this when they ploughed money into the banks, did you? Also, just placing a "Robin Hood tax" on speculative activity doesn't actually solve the problem. For one, it is legalised theft, with no clear proof of redistributive effect. Secondly, the figures they use correspond to the profits the Banks were making about 4 years ago: at the height of the boom (global banking profits 2006 were circa $788bn c.f. $120bn in 2008-09); in more turbulent economic circumstances, to raise the money they're claiming would be raised would be comparable to imposing a surplus corporation tax of somewhere between 50% and 350% on corporate activity, which not only would prove such a massive disincentive to banks that they would almost completely cease trading in Britain, but also because the state OWNS the banks, they're robbing Peter to pay Paul, by preventing the recovery of the banks and not getting the money back that they ploughed into it in the first place. What would be much more sensible would be to use the State's power as a majority shareholder to veto excessive bank bonuses to executives and agree a repayment plan on our investment at a substantial but not crippling rate of interest.

 

Legalised theft? Surely you can make that arguement about any tax? If the banks want to take the risks they have in the past, which is one of the main reasons behind the collapse of the economy, a tax on their transactions seems perfectly plausable. It would hardly prevent the recovery of the banks which are already making profits again and already giving bonuses to the top staff.

 

The problem with people trying to say "tax the bankers boo hiss" is that it is precisely in the short term that that wouldn't work. What matters more just now is that if the UK can't manage its public sector debt, it will lose its AAA credit rating, meaning that in the medium to longer term it will be much more difficult to borrow to finance extraordinary public expenditure commitments. We've put the cart before the horse by spending more than we take in when times are good; we should be building up a surplus when times are good so that when times are bad we dip into that instead of creditors.

 

I can't argue with that, that was a major mistake over many years. However to impact greatly on the rate of unemployment, which was starting to come down just before the new government came in, and subsequently increase VAT which will inhibit spending and hurt those who have already been financially crippled. That's not sensationalist, that's the truth. A tax on the banks, who are currently more able to afford those taxes than the general public, is much much fairer.

 

Anyway, I usually keep out of political debates on here, it just seems so pointless.

 

With regards to Jaggybunnet's reply that it would simply be passed on to the public through interest rates, I'm sure that would be fairly easy to regulate.

[Woodstock Jag]

What? You're saying that those who have been made redundant don't deserve any help from the state?

 

No, I'm saying it's sensationalist nonsense to suggest that the government are somehow "enjoying" the suffering people face in light of cuts.

 

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I never said anything about families on 40k a year deserving benefits.

 

What, exactly, were you talking about then? The government are looking at Universal Benefits, and looking to see if they can taper them off with respect to those who are on higher incomes! All of this stuff about "lower middle class families" (by which I presume you mean those earning under £40k per year, yes?) suffering as a result of changes to Child Benefit is a total non-sequitur.

 

When the plans for rising the retirement age were brought forward by the current government, I'm sure it was reported that it was planned to increase further over time. People should be entitled to a good retirement, life shouldn't only be about work. Compulsory retirement in certain job areas is very important, look at the amount of teachers who complete their training then don't get jobs, raising the age of retirement will make it even more difficult for those starting out on their profession who will most likely have the most up to date training. If they want to continue working they can do supply work, which actually often pays more.

 

"Over time" being to 67 at some point within this Parliament and estimates that it will rise to 70 by about 2050. It's hardly as though the intervening 40 years won't be enough to turn efforts towards improving the life expectancy in Northern England and Scotland, is it?

 

The big problem with teachers is less to do with teachers not retiring and more down to the obsession successive governments have had with reducing class sizes, and taking on too many people into teacher-training posts to try to meet the targets, before realising they hadn't the money to employ them all.

 

 

I haven't seen how they are redirecting those funds, that seems to have been a guess about what they were doing that you invented.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10761225

 

The DCMS said film funding would continue but would be distributed through other bodies.

 

Current lottery funding for film is £26 million per year. This is expected to increase to £32 million after 2012.

 

Direct government funding, currently about £25m a year, is being considered as part of the ongoing spending review.

 

In a statement, the DCMS said it was "clear that culture and creative industries will not be singled out as a soft target, and that the government will champion the value they bring".

 

Big invention from me there...

 

Legalised theft? Surely you can make that argument about any tax? If the banks want to take the risks they have in the past, which is one of the main reasons behind the collapse of the economy, a tax on their transactions seems perfectly plausable. It would hardly prevent the recovery of the banks which are already making profits again and already giving bonuses to the top staff.

 

No it can't, because the methods of taxation that the state currently uses typically confer tangible infrastructural and service benefits on those who they tax and spread the burden across society, rather than simply punishing wealth creation. The tax is even called a "Robin Hood Tax" and that really says all you need to know about the motive behind it.

 

The purpose of a "Robin Hood Tax" is to cream-off profits, therefore actually relies on the speculation which generates wealth rapidly continuing. If you want to stop speculative activity, you should approach it with, for example, a Tobin Tax. The way you make banks behave sensibly isn't to hit their profits, because they then pass the burden down to their customers. You have to use a combination of water-tight banking regulation and taxes aimed at deterring the activity, rather than assuming the benefit of it.

 

The Banks made a profit in the last 6 months, but the state-owned ones in particular are forecast to make substantial losses again over the next year or so. As I said before, emphasis on the government's part in respect of bonuses should be to veto them as majority shareholders. They are by no means secure money-makers in the medium-term, and taxing them, as I said earlier, is robbing Peter to pay Paul for as long as we own a majority stake in them.

 

I can't argue with that, that was a major mistake over many years. However to impact greatly on the rate of unemployment, which was starting to come down just before the new government came in, and subsequently increase VAT which will inhibit spending and hurt those who have already been financially crippled. That's not sensationalist, that's the truth. A tax on the banks, who are currently more able to afford those taxes than the general public, is much much fairer.

 

Unemployment has to rise because the state can't afford to keep on as many people as it is currently, and small businesses can't afford to keep as many staff on, because their productivity has plummeted due to the lack of availability of secure credit. That's just a fact of life. It's not going to be pleasant, but within 2 years you will see business growing substantially again, and employment figures will be assisted considerably by placing lower corporation tax burdens on businesses, exempting new businesses from NI on the first few employees and delaying the employers' NI rise.

 

The VAT increase is something that should have been done a long time ago. If you look across Europe, the vast majority of countries have had a static rate of VAT between 20 and 22%. Bear in mind that many essentials are VAT exempt, and the utilities are taxed at 5%, and won't be affected by the hike. What would make a much more meaningful difference than worrying about 2.5% VAT would be if the government applied more pressure on utilities companies to pass-on a greater proportion of their always increasing profits (unlike the banks, you'll note!) to their customers through lower electricity and gas bills.

 

Anyway, I usually keep out of political debates on here, it just seems so pointless.

 

Of course they are, but where would we be without arm-chair politicians...

 

With regards to Jaggybunnet's reply that it would simply be passed on to the public through interest rates, I'm sure that would be fairly easy to regulate.

 

It's been notoriously difficult to regulate to date. They pass it on in draconian overdraft charges, less lucrative interest rates to savers, and higher interest rates on borrowers (see why despite the BOE base rate being something like 1% most mortgages are well above 5%).

[Mediocre Pundit]

I've deleted a long post I was about to make and will add this short one instead. The anti-capitalist agenda from some posters here is astounding. The anti-Tory agenda from some is shocking (mainly in how blinded these people seem to be by their own self interest and bias, which is so bad that they are only able to see self-interest and bias in those espousing the other side of the argument)

 

Rather than debate I choose to no longer care. Why? Because my side has won. Capitalist free market economics (with a little state intervention to smooth the edges) is proven to be the beat way to run an economy and no matter who governs the UK this will hold true. Trade Unions will never get back the power that they once had. And, right now, the Tories are in power (with a LD party that agrees with their core values a lot more than the lefty posters on here want to understand) So, in conclusion, ha ha, deal with it leftys. Enjoy foaming at the mouth (be careful to watch your fluid levels when you add mouth foaming to the pissing and moaning) and I'll sit back and enjoy watching the current government fix the country.

[Woodstock Jag]

MP, you never fail to raise a smile!

[jaggybunnet]

Anyway, I usually keep out of political debates on here, it just seems so pointless.

 

With regards to Jaggybunnet's reply that it would simply be passed on to the public through interest rates, I'm sure that would be fairly easy to regulate.

 

 

the point being is that if labour had done just that (regulate) then we would not be in half the mess we are in.