It's a judgement, stupid

The Tory - Lib dem cuts are already having starting to bite in frontline services.

The decision to cut £1.2billion from local authorities and the cutting of PRG mean that many charities that deliver services for councils will be hugely undermined by the arbitrary cut. They do not have the ability to trade there way out of this mess and often depend on the management costs to keep themselves afloat.

Many will see this behaviour as a dishonest betrayal by government. They simply do not understand the damage they are doing.

The macho wish to make cuts in this financial year will cause a double dip recession and we have three silly little boys in charge.

But whilst we have been talking about this for months the clock has been ticking.

We're fast approaching the point where the Labour Party would have been unveiling expenditure cuts (using their judgement) on a more extensive scale than Lady Thatcher's government in the 1980s.

Lord Myners produced a succinct commentary on the last government's fiscal policy last week which was spot on.

Whichever way you look at it even from the bleakest angle, and whatever your prescription of where to go from here" things are not "a lot worse than expected" This clearly shows up this was just political spin. "New" politics at work again. Alastair Darling has full right to demand an apology for the slurs of the last week or so.

As i have said in many other posts i still agree with teh labour policy on cutting the deficit. cutting now will de rail the economy so i think we should cut in 2011 when we are more stable as a economy. pulling money out of the ecomomy NOW would put us in a depression not a recovery!

And i also think George osbourne should stop blaming others and get on with the JOB in hand!!!!

The drop in predicted growth in the economy from 3.2+% to 2.6% arises because the coalition realises that its 6-62 billion of cuts will damage growth but wants to lay what blame it can on the last government. Unfortunately, they haven't gone far enough. Somewhere in the range 1.5-2.0% would be more realistic, but they don't want to tell us that, do they?

We will see what happens on 22nd JUne, and how the BP situation, and the SPanish Banking crisis change things

Economics is not an exact science...seems to me you choose which economists to believe based on your ideology. Failing that as with OBR you put the best spin on it.

Therefore, the Coalition's race to cut, cut, cut is ideological and profoundly mistaken in my view.

We are bound for DD recession.

Welcome to Cameronland.

Sad but true, Nick, the politics trumps the economics all day long. What the Coalition need is for the UK economy to get worse - much worse - in the near term (which they can duly blame on Labour) before a recovery later on (for which they can duly take the credit), nicely in time for an election. The economy bouncing back quickly - in the next year to 18 months, say - would be an unmitigated disaster for them, since it would be obvious (even to the Public) that Labour's pre May 2010 policies were the right ones. So, we take a dive and then (mid 2013 or so) we come up for air and start swimming again; that's what all of their economic policies will be designed to bring about. Let's see if they can do it ... no slam dunk, since considerable skill and guile is required. Step one - the sine qua non - will be to cut public spending by too much and too quickly.

Wait till you see whats proposed be for jumping to conclusions, It will be a bit like the big dipper at Blackpool but you can catch your breath when the carriage stops so stop worrying its possible the medicine with a bit of sugar not so bad after all, except the treatment will last a lot longer.

I am not an economist but I know fans of large government, ie Labour support public spending to boost economy whereas small government supporters say this has no effect on overall growth and if there is already a sovereign debt problem the underlying defecit will increase still further. What happens if another bank crisis comes along or interest rates rise so our cost of servicing debt increases even further? Seems to me a lot of people are still in denial about the scale of the problem!! The answer must be in encouraging growth in private sector by lowering corporation tax, national insurance etc and reducing overall beaurocracy, encouraging entrepreneurs and getting the banks to lend to businesses. Using labour's and the TUC approach to this problem if you are maxed out on your credit card they would just increase the limit? Does not sound financially viable to me in the long run.

If Bertie Wooster's scheme to make thousands unemployed and cut billions from government contracts with private firms is such a good idea for private industry why has the survey of business confidence just shown the greatest FALL in more than 15 years?

Listening to a local businessman on the news. His workers are just back on to full time working producing heavy duty electrical gear for the railways. Just about to start re-hiring skilled workers he laid off. Now he hears Bertie Wooster is going to cut billions from capital projects. Says maybe he needs to hold back on the hiring.

That's 'business confidence' at the sharp end from a real business - not the dodgy theories of a public schoolboy.

With Clegg disclosing that Public sector pension costs will double in just 4 years, it's clear we need, with the utmost urgency to:
a) Cut the number of pensionable employees in the system - by 1.5 million seems reasonable by the end of this Parliament (thus returning them to 1997 levels). A further 1 million should go in the following 5 years.

b) Raise the retirement age to 70, on a tapered basis; 75 becomes the new retirement age wef 2025

c) Pension contributions rise from 6% of salary to 10% (w.i.e.)

d) The maximum pension payable becomes £50k, irrespective of contributions.

Who appointed these 'experts' to this 'Independent' office?

I saw no adverts in the newspapers asking for applications for these important posts. So did the appointments follow the Nolan Rules? - probbaly not.

How much are they being paid - some openness please would be refreshing.

According to the WIKI entry for it it is not even a statutory organisation.

The announced cuts of £6.25 billion will have minimal effect on the economy.

Now, the £60 to £200 billion of cuts and tax rises just about to come WILL have an effect - a boost to the private sector as the State is cut down to 25% of GDP from a lunatic level of over 50% (as now)

Does anyone else remember the episode of Blackadder where Lord Percy offers to lend his friend his secret life savings in order to save him from the Bishop of Bath and Wells? Alas, he can't as Lord B has already 'seen it, pinched it, spent it.'

Remind you of anyone?

There are lies there are dammed lies then there are statistics, we should add economics to this! The only certainty is that politicians will claim they have the answers, if your a tory/LibDem you will faithfully agree with all that all the governement do and say is essential, if you are a labour you will claim that the labour party was right, all of which can be supported by economics.

In truth none of the parties can be trusted, this new politics is just another variation of spin.

grahambc1 @ 3.

Totally agree.

Also,if I hear Osbourne give another of his "the end is nigh" speeches I think I'll scream.

Where's our new CST, Danny Alexander ? Am I the only person who thinks he looks like a graduate on work experience?

Scorpio33 @ 9.

Sorry mate you've lost me.

5. At 6:40pm on 14 Jun 2010, bertsprockett wrote:
The drop in predicted growth in the economy from 3.2+% to 2.6% arises because the coalition realises that its 6-62 billion of cuts will damage growth but wants to lay what blame it can on the last government. Unfortunately, they haven't gone far enough. Somewhere in the range 1.5-2.0% would be more realistic, but they don't want to tell us that, do they?

May I suggest you actually read the OBR report today, prior to making inaccurate comments

The 2.60% figure is based ONLY on the Budget from Darling, and does not take the £6.2bn into account

What a farce this is turning out to be.

Osborne talks about the OBR figures as if they represent Reality or Fact Or Evidence.

They are FORCASTS.... PREDICTIONS... EDUCATED GUESSES you Oaf Osborne!!

Made by the same people who made the last lot of the above only with a different name plate on the door. The only thing that we know as Reality is what has already happened and that is borrowng came in LOWER.

The Policies of these Clowns will guarantee not only a lowering of growth or even recession again but hunreds of thousands of people needlessly thown out of work and services decimated with thos remaining in work paying taxes to fund the increasing welfare budget!!!!

And what really gets my goat is that it is now impossible to differentiate between the LIbs and Cons, the Libs have just been morphed into Tories.

What I'd also like to hear from one of the Identical Clegerborne Dumb Triplets , is what were the much Trumped Scorched Earth last minute spending splurges from the last government that they claimed to have found???

You'd think they'd be pretty keen to go public on those....... Cue Silence.

1. At 6:18pm on 14 Jun 2010, balancedthought wrote:
The Tory - Lib dem cuts are already having starting to bite in frontline services.

The decision to cut £1.2billion from local authorities and the cutting of PRG mean that many charities that deliver services for councils will be hugely undermined by the arbitrary cut. They do not have the ability to trade there way out of this mess and often depend on the management costs to keep themselves afloat.

Many will see this behaviour as a dishonest betrayal by government. They simply do not understand the damage they are doing.

The macho wish to make cuts in this financial year will cause a double dip recession and we have three silly little boys in charge.

Your last paragraph tends to suggest that a change of name might be a good idea

11 Jom112

Yeah. the business confidence survey after just one month of "Woosters Wisdom" is scary and speaks volumes of the damage already wreaked by these amateurs.

I mean have you seen Danny Alexander facing an interview... He is visibly trembling... Its embarrassing, I feel sorry for the guy but if you put a National Park Press Officer into a job so far beyond his abillity no wonder he's petrified.

A pitty the whole country must suffer because of this folly....


My advice for any enterpreneurs out there...Go into the UB40 Printing business...the demand is about to rocket.

HUGE ACCOUNTING ERROR DISCOVERED

'Admin error' leaves MPs short changed
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10313808.stm

Note the speed of response when THEY are UNDER paid!

Well, the first OBR report and what do we have..."impossible"..."major uncertainies"...thanks a lot guys, you've really nailed it.

Basically, this report has no more authority than the previous Govt's figures...just another stab in the dark.

Meanwhile, Bertie Wooster carries on regardless.

19 & 21

Just because you are still unable to grasp the fact that your beloved overspending Labour Party LOST it doesn't mean that simply being abusive about Osborne will actually achieve anything, other than making you look like a bad loser

Ultimately we need to cut the deficit

Darling said so before the election, so why do you seem in denial?

Liam Byrne confirmed that all the money was gone

You are talking as if today was anything other than the OBR comment on Darling's budget

I get the feeling that you haven't read the report, may I suggest you do, it is only 5 pages

AFTER the budget on 22nd June you will have the detail you seem to expect now

THere was scorched earth spending, which is why several civil servants requested letters of direction to protect themselves

The reality is that you seem to think that having a deficit of £158,000,000,000 is perfectly ok, and we can carry on borrowing like there's no tomorrow

Well, thankfully there wasn't for Gordon Brown, and we now have a chance to repair this damaged country

Frank Field has already uttered more sense in 5 minutes than the previous 13 years of New Labour, and it is clear why Tony Blair marginalised him

We just cannot keep pending more than we earn

What makes you think we can?

Nick Robinson wrote:
"it showed that growth is going to be lower than forecast and, as a result, the structural deficit - the borrowing that doesn't go away simply as a result of economic growth - is going to be bigger."

Since the structural deficit does not depend on the growth forecast I fail to see how Nick Robinson can be making any sort of sense at all.

8. sagamix wrote:

What the Coalition need is for the UK economy to get worse - much worse - in the near term (which they can duly blame on Labour) before a recovery later on (for which they can duly take the credit), nicely in time for an election.

Saga, are you saying the coalition are deliberately setting out to crock the economy to win the next election?
Why, that's almost as bad as suggesting New Labour deliberately created a bloated public sector to stay in office... 'jobs for votes', I think was the phrase.

12 Happydad

says

b) Raise the retirement age to 70, on a tapered basis; 75 becomes the new retirement age wef 2025.

========

Ermmm well so you want 74 year old coppers, soldiers, firefighter, nurses etc.

Well all I can say is that I hope its your house on fire or you getting mugged in the street waiting for Grandad to come your rescue.

An Idoubt that 74 year old fighter pilot would be that great either oh at least when you're in that Old Peoples home you'll have something on common with the staff.... Your Age!

We say or write:

1) The Conservatives have said...

2) The Liberal-Democrats have said...

3) The..er.. Labourers or The Laborious Party? have said...

Labour ... A hellish word and a hellish name for a political party.

Also, why do the members of the aforementioned party (particularly the female members) speak, and generally present themselves, in an uneducated manner?

In the House of Commons they, the Laborious females, scream and shout in a most unpleasant and ill-mannered fashion.

In theory the private sector could pick up a lot of the slack, especially via SME's.

However, this would require the dead hand of Government bureaucracy to be lifted.

It also requires local Government to understand that ability to pay is crucial to business rates.

For example, yesterday, a chap who has recently started a business and was looking for a retail outlet, told me that he heard of a shop in a promising location that was only about £4500 pa rental.

But, he soon found out that the business rates for the shop were around £7000 pa, which explained why the shop had been vacant for a considerable time.

The public and private sectors are often uneasy bed-fellows, connected but strangely disconnected.

"It's a judgment, stupid"

Well, Nick, whows judgment are you endorsing?

The blokes who created a "Don't worry about the money we took from your wallets because we know how to spend it better than you", or blokes or gals who say - actually if you earned money it is really your's, but if you don't mind we will take a bit of it.

But we understand that what you earn is your own money and whatever we take away from you is a bit of social rebalancing.

I don't mind payig taxes. I just don't like the idea that what you earn is a national resource that some damnfool politician believes is a national asset to be plundered at will.

Goodness knows, Brown was a distaster. But we - the People - put up with a wastrel for a decade. Why and how could that have happened?

Kevinb

No one has said spending should continue at the same level.

Where did I say that?

Are you aware what happened in the 1930's Kevin? I'm sure you are. Do you see any similarities with today and the current version of the "Theasury View".

And what happened?

19, 21, 27 and the entire pile of drivel.

Oddly enough, Etonrifle's ability to believe any old Labour nonsense in the light of every factor pointing towards an opposite truth is the sort of blind faith that has helped to create today's Britain.

"See that line of German trenches, Eton? We need you to climb out of ours and walk slowly towards theirs. everything will be alright. I promise."

Kevinb @ 24.

No one disputes the deficit needs to be reduced.

The problem is Osbourne and his eagerness for deep and indescriminate cuts which at this time will result in thousands of jobs lost not only in the public sector but also the private sector...as demand, already dangerously low, falls thru the floor.

Darling had a four year plan to reduce the deficit...not a mad rush based on ideology and what appears to be europe-wide blind panic.



Small businesses will be ruined, large ones severely damaged.

#17 Craig Welcome two Tory land well yes wait and see whats proposed 22nd June before jumping two conclusions
The Blackpool ride is not so bad when you've try-ed it
So wait and see before making harsh statements

#7 Craig Jones wrote:
"Economics is not an exact science...seems to me you choose which economists to believe based on your ideology. The Coalition's race to cut, cut, cut is ideological and profoundly mistaken in my view."

As I pointed out on the previous blog, there has been a general focus on a European-wide exit strategy from the fiscal stimulus of the last two years. This is already being implemented in euroland, and researched by economists employed by the EU and the IMF. Of course there is a debate about the models used, but there is also scope for rational analysis. We can profitably view the coalition's strategy, once we hear next week's budget, in this context.

Rightly or wrongly Vince Cable justified his changed approach to economic policy immediately after the election by reference to the threatened European sovereign debt crisis.

We've also learnt today that Labour planned 44 billion pounds of cuts, more than they admitted to before the election.

Reference the budget.

I trust that all business people and investors will be seeking sound tax advice after the budget.

The Government is being forced by Labour's financial insanity to take measures it would rather not have so it's even more impotant that those that have earned wealth do all within the law to keep it for their loved ones. Anyone disagreeing had better be able to detail the amounts above their actual tax demands that they are donating to the Government.

21. At 7:58pm on 14 Jun 2010, Eatonrifle wrote:
"...have you seen Danny Alexander facing an interview... He is visibly trembling... Its embarrassing, I feel sorry for the guy but if you put a National Park Press Officer into a job so far beyond his abillity no wonder he's petrified."
==============================

I didn't know he was a national park press officer (!) - at least he has a track record of holding down some sort of job.

My understanding is Bertie Wooster has never held down a proper job in his life ...

* baronet's son

* public schoolboy

* history student

* NHS data entry clerk

* chancellor of the exchequer

Obvious 'career' progression really. No wonder things are going so well.

It's a judgement, stupid, but is it even an independent judgement?
The OBR is an Osborne creation. Sir Alan Budd is a political appointee.
Who's to say that the OBR has got it right, or even close?
The OBR is supposed to restore independence & therefore credibility to fiscal forecasts. This was a task that belonged to Treasury for as long as I can remember. But Osborne argues that Treasury is a ministerial department and that means unduly influenced by ministers – Ah, well...what's wrong with that? Didn't voters elect the Ministers, put their trust in the Ministers?
Is there evidence that treasury messed up? No.
The fact is that all fiscal forecasts will turn out at least somewhat wrong. That's why we call therm "forecasts" (i.e. projections, expectations).
Because of this fact, there is no reason to assume that the OBR's forecasts will be any more accurate than Treasury's.
Let’s assume that George Osborne knows about forecasts; let's assume that Lib-Dem, Vince Cable also knows about forecasts.
So what’s really going on with this OBR? Why have forecasts been dumped here?
Osborne knows the forecasts are going to be wrong; so, he makes them somebody else's responsibility.
Osborne knows that the forecasts are going to create demand for huge spending cuts; so, he makes OBR the bad guy.
Okay, assuming that Osborne knows what he’s doing, what is it that he’s doing?
OBR is not actually a new organisation. It was established in 2009 by the Conservative opposition, principally in response to the Treasury's borrowing forecast in 2008. Who was the head of the 'shadow' OBR? Sir Alan Budd. Who's the head of OBR - Alan Budd. The difference? Now the taxpayors pay him instead of the Government.
The idea that the OBR is 'independent' is far-fetched. In fact, the OBR is a move away from independence in forecasting.
The process by which Osborne appointed Alan Budd leaves the door open for Osborne to face accusations about playing with the country's finances.

31. At 8:42pm on 14 Jun 2010, Eatonrifle wrote:
Kevinb

No one has said spending should continue at the same level.

Where did I say that?

Are you aware what happened in the 1930's Kevin? I'm sure you are. Do you see any similarities with today and the current version of the "Theasury View".

And what happened?


There is no comparison between now and the thirties

If you think spending should not continue, by how much would you cut now?

The conservatives (and mr forget my policies and what I said before the election clegg) now want to deflect the reasoning for their already thought out agenda of cuts by simply blaming labours policies as a reason to do it.
We live under a system where, the wealthy, millionaires/huge corporations pay millions of workers the minimum pay possible, or just under or just over. A wage that sometimes doesn't and sometimes does just enough to keep the wolves at bay. A simple life of trying to stay afloat and simply exist. And this is all before the upcoming austerity measures. And after a recession ( a natural occurrence in this form of capitalism) where thousands have their homes repossessed, thousands loose their jobs, thousands are suffering depression, are on drugs or are alcoholics. Huge amounts of crime, social disharmony etc etc. not to mention the devastation on the environment as a result of the current capitalist continuing over production, decimating the worlds limited resources. Anyway BACK TO THE CUTS...
They say the poorest wont be effected.

The poorest fifth of the population pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest fifth."
The Top 20 % of income earners earned 51% of total national income.
The Bottom 20 % earned 2.3% of national income. After the receipt of benefits this was 6.8%
Nine million people in the UK receive income support from the government
Income inequality is higher in the uk than in almost any other european country. of the 27 EU countries, only 4 have a higher rate than the UK.  The proportion of people living in relative low income in the UK is twice that of the Netherlands and one-and-a-half times that of France
Nearly 13 million people live in poverty in the UK – that’s 1 in 5 of population.

2.2 million pensioners in the UK are living in poverty.
7.2 million working age adults in the UK are living in poverty.
Women are the majority in the poorest groups.
London has a higher proportion of people living in poverty than any other region in the UK
Although the number of children who are in workless households is somewhat lower than a decade ago, the UK still has a higher proportion than any other EU country
More than half of all the children in low-income households have someone in their family doing paid work. Among working-age adults in low income, more than half now live in families where someone is in paid work.
Around one in five young adults aged 16 to 24 were unemployed in 2009.  This proportion has been rising since 2004, when it was one in eight
In 2009, a quarter of workers earning less than £7 per hour worked in the public sector.
Around 4 million adults aged 22 to retirement were paid less than £7 per hour in 2009.  Two-thirds of these were women and more than half were part-time workers.

The most commonly used threshold of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the average (median) British household income in that year. Approx 13½ million people in the UK were living in households below this low-income threshold.  This is around a fifth (22%) of the population.
The collective wealth of the country's 1,000 richest people rose 30% last year in the wake of the economic crisis. Their combined wealth rose by more than £77bn to £333.5bn, the biggest annual increase in the 22-year history of the Sunday Times rich list. The number of billionaires rose by 10 to 53.
The retail tycoon Sir Philip Green and his wife increased their wealth from £3.83bn to £4.1bn, but fell from sixth place to ninth. Who wants to know a sales assistants hourly wage at top shop?
The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth,
It is estimated that 800 million of the worlds population go to bed hungry every night.

Anyway anyway...i digress...and..the list could go on and on.
In conclusion....i wonder WHY a large proportion of the deficit could not be paid back by those who could afford it?? tax rises should moraly and practically be a priority for those who could afford it as well as proper efficiency savings. Moreover when this government of millionaires say the poor wont be effected......that's a lot of people that apparently wont be effected......and you would have to be a mug to believe it.
I wonder how the bankers who caused this mess are doing? Living in poverty? Or laughing in luxury?
talking of luxury.....i wonder how cameron and clegg will be effected by these cuts?.....
















.

27. At 8:33pm on 14 Jun 2010, Eatonrifle wrote:
12 Happydad

says

b) Raise the retirement age to 70, on a tapered basis; 75 becomes the new retirement age wef 2025.

========

Ermmm well so you want 74 year old coppers, soldiers, firefighter, nurses etc.

Well all I can say is that I hope its your house on fire or you getting mugged in the street waiting for Grandad to come your rescue."

such limited thinking is so typical of Labour. There are currently 50 and 60 year olds in the military. Do you think they are front line troops? Of course not. If back-room tasks are done by the older, it releases the younger for the front line.

What is your answer? That the retirement age is NOT increased? How will we afford it? (I realise that a question about affording things is anathema to Labour supporters but you must learn to grow up and address it.)

AndyC555 @32.

Utter drivel...I think not.

An example of utter drivel: Cameron comparing national debt to household debt. Totally different. Comparing the two is known by economists as "economic ignorance."

So I guess its a case of which drivel you believe.

Scorpio33 @ 34.

Been there. Born 1963...lived thru the hellish 1980s.

Why do journalists who are supposed to write in English refer to the Government as the Coalition? Were previous Governments referred to as the Party Sheep?

The Government has been operational for nearly a month.
The Government will be delivering a budget next week.
The Government claims that fiscal budget-balancing is now more essential than fiscal stimulus.

The Coalition is The Coalition. The Government is the Government.

If BBC employees want to stay as journalists, then they should learn to refer to entities by their names, and not refer to them according to their whimsy.

33. At 8:44pm on 14 Jun 2010, Craig Jones wrote:
Kevinb @ 24.

No one disputes the deficit needs to be reduced.

The problem is Osbourne and his eagerness for deep and indescriminate cuts which at this time will result in thousands of jobs lost not only in the public sector but also the private sector...as demand, already dangerously low, falls thru the floor.

Darling had a four year plan to reduce the deficit...not a mad rush based on ideology and what appears to be europe-wide blind panic.



Small businesses will be ruined, large ones severely damaged.


I just don't understand how you can draw those conclusions. This is precisely what has been happening to business over the last two years, particularly with the lack of liquidity for SMEs

You are utterly mistaken to think any cuts will be indiscriminate. If that were the case, then why ring fence the NHS?

As Osborne said in HOC last week, the reason for getting back into surplus, is to be able to cut taxes and create jobs!!

Let me ask you how much YOU (not Darling) would cut the deficit by, and where you would reduce spending

We are spending around 29% more than our income, give or take a percentage, due to the changing figures

IF we had not started to reduce the deficit, then the markets would start to raise bond rates and this would hurt us more than anything


It is all very well decrying the markets, yet Gordon Brown has left us £700bn in debt, which will double in this parliament, whatever we do

So as we need to borrow a further £700bn, what the markets think is vital, and we need to maintain our AAA rating

If you don't start to cut now, then it all goes pear shaped. In fact, Labour delaying the election has actually caused great damage, with the associated delay in getting on with it

37

Tiresome, and inaccurate

Never mind

He is doing better than a tired one eyed Scottish History Teacher

41 Andy

And when there's thousands of 70 year old POlice officers in "back room" jobs, You won''t be the first to use the term "non job" will you Andy.

The idea of retaining people to that age on the payroll as their productivity/effectiveness diminishes is nonsense... and I think you said I was talking drivel.

Welcome to Planet Tory

40

Suggesting that 13 million people live in poverty in the UK is just ridiculous

In Somalia two people got killed by the state simply for watching the World Cup

A 7 year old boy was hung in Afghanistan, because the Talliban thought his parents were informants

Thousands of children are dying every day in the Niger and Chad

THAT is poverty

In the UK it is about time the definition was reworked, as the current definition is an insult to those in real need now, in other parts of the world, and to those in our country's history who really did live in poverty

Having a roof over your head and food to eat, means you are not in poverty

Obvious we have some homeless people, and sadly that will always be the case

Trying to blame the month old government for the statistics you mention, is of itself stupid, as clearly any statistics apply to the previous government in any case

Less well off, yes

Poverty?

NO

40 - Just to let others feel better about themselves...no, I couldn't be bothered to read it all either.

Some garbage about the homeless and drug addicts as if a Government in power for mere weeks was responsible then followed by the usual class war mumbo jumbo about evil mill owners and poor down trodden workers.

If Labour could stop for 5 minutes patronising those who earn 60% of the national average and treating them as if they could never better themselves and need Government help, I suspect we'd all be better off.

The old 'poverty' labels are being discredited and rightly so. So long as people have opportunities, all else is up to them. They should be able to keep their successes and be responsible for their failures.

We often hear it said that you cannot spend more than you earn.

Especially in the context of Government spending.

However, whilst that is generally true of individuals, families and businesses and will eventually lead to the debts becoming overwhelming, that is not quite true where Governments are concerned, at least not for a very long time.

And the reason for that is quite straightforward, Governments have one advantage that no individual, family or business has - the ability to create (print) money.

They can even dress it up in sophisticated terms and call it something like 'quantitiative easing'.

So, when a successful businessman (turnover £6M last year) said to me recently 'Why don't we just refuse to pay foreign creditors all this interest?', I suggested that would'nt be a good idea but that they could very well end up with considerably watered-down pounds to spend.

Money, it's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands
And make a stash.

Labour said their cuts would be harsher than under Thatcher.
How soon we (and they) forget.

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

46 - personally, i wouldn't discount a person just because they were 70. I've known many healthy, active, wise people of that age.

Such a shame you belong to the blinkered 'put them in a box' Labourite brigade.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in front of a few such people and tell them how "diminished" they are. My mum, for example, 71 years old and recently ran a 10k in 1 hr 10 mins. Perhaps you could tell her how diminished she is. How much she is in need of Labour's patronising.

"patronising" seems so apt for Labour these days. "Patron" The idea that they are superior and are handing out largese to those beneath them.

Lefty, your comments go on and on and although you make the point that the rich receive 50% of national income they also provide 53% of all direct taxation. See https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm. Statistics are provided by office of national statistics and are quite interesting. I believe in fair taxation but if the higher earners are penalised with an inproportionate level of tax they will either move abroad, taking their tax and possibly companies with them or will find ways to avoid paying it altogether. There will never be equality so we just have to find a way of helping the low earners as much as possible with a fair distribution on the rest of the workforce.

49

You should really be crediting Roger Waters if you are going to use his lyrics to avoid a copyright infringement

41. At 8:59pm on 14 Jun 2010, AndyC555 wrote:

Such limited thinking is so typical of Labour. There are currently 50 and 60 year olds in the military. Do you think they are front line troops? Of course not. If back-room tasks are done by the older, it releases the younger for the front line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought you were getting rid of all the penpushers not increasing them - make your mind up...such confused thinking

#49. JohnConstable wrote:

"We often hear it said that you cannot spend more than you earn .. whilst that is generally true of individuals, families and businesses and will eventually lead to the debts becoming overwhelming, that is not quite true where Governments are concerned"

Ironically, the Government is most concerned about its own debts, but doesn't give a damn about the debts outside government, which as it has trebled in the last decade to £1.5tn, is an obvious crippling burden on growth!!!!

#38 bluesberry wrote:
"The OBR is an Osborne creation"

Actually there have been a series of initiatives by the IMF and OECD to improve the transparency of member budgetary processes. See for example the IMF's 'Manual on Fiscal Transparency' (2007). The OBR should be viewed in this international context.

Those earning over £100K who make pension provision, have just had a 25% increase in their taxation

Isn't that enough to get the lefties of this world to give it a rest for 5 minutes?

50. At 9:33pm on 14 Jun 2010, TheWalrus999 wrote:

Labour said their cuts would be harsher than under Thatcher.
How soon we (and they) forget.

When you have the person who wrote the Labour Manifesto (Ed Milipede) now saying it was all wrong, it is hardly surprising that Labour, and Labour supporters just rewrite history

#22 DebtJuggler

Come on what else did you expect, the system was put in place by Duff Gordon and the NuLabour Numpties.

#40 lefty10

Gee I did not think it was that bad. But yep you are right what a legacy left by Duff Gordon and the NuLabour project.

No wonder those NuLabour wannabes want to disassociate themselves from the NuLabour train wreck.

52 Andy

If you can't work out the economic illiteracy of trying to retain an ageing workforce on the payroll, taking the potential employment away for people 50 years younger... well lets just say that comes as no surprise.

Oh and as my mum is 81 and lives independently I think I understand the needs and capabilities of older people.

Yes there are those who could work well past 75 but not the majority and not effectively in the majority of jobs. I know it, you know it, but your politics won't let you say it.

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

Did I dream it, or did the private sector (in the shape of the banks) bring not just the United Kingdom but the whole world to the verge of financial meltdown? Now there are calls to liberate the private sector to lead us out of the mess they dragged us in to! Is this collective goldfish-memory syndrome, or are we returning rapidly to the naked greed and arrogance of the 80s, when three million unemployed was deemed to be "a price worth paying" for "recovery"? I did notice that Clegg, Osborne et al studiously avoided mentioning unemployment in their speeches today. The coalition policies are a self-fullfilling nightmare. Confidence in the business sector has plummeted as they take on board the implications of the savage cuts in public spending, so any chance of a recovery is being stifled. We are on course for a double dip recession, and this time it really will be ill judged government policy that plunges us back into the hole we were beginning to struggle out of.

#44 KevinB wrote:
"As Osborne said in HOC last week, the reason for getting back into surplus, is to be able to cut taxes and create jobs!!"

Quite right.

Debt interest payments will hinder economic growth. It's interesting that the Left become angry about 6 billion of cuts but are perfectly relaxed about paying 60 billion or more a year to overseas investors ("taking money out of the economy").

There's also quite a body of evidence (Stephanie Flanders covered this some months ago) that fiscal consolidations based on spending reductions rather than tax rises are more successful, i.e. they lead to higher economic growth in the medium and longer term.

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

50. juliet.
i think the tax rate could go up higher for certain people before the flight effect would take place. it has been shown that recent tax increases didnt have the effect you suggest.
moreover...moraly...isnt it sad and an indication of a corrupt system that those on lower incomes should be crucified financially yet again because those who already are more than financially secure and could afford to dig deeper, wouldnt... at the expense of those already financially poor.

At 8:43pm on 14 Jun 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
19, 21, 27 and the entire pile of drivel.
Oddly enough, Etonrifle's ability to believe any old Labour nonsense in the light of every factor pointing towards an opposite truth is the sort of blind faith that has helped to create today's Britain.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly enough...... Substitute your name for Etonrifle's and Tory for Labour and see if the cap fits.
Offensive drivel to all the posters who genuinely want to contribute to the discussion.

At 9:56pm on 14 Jun 2010, Billythefirst wrote:
41. At 8:59pm on 14 Jun 2010, AndyC555 wrote:

Such limited thinking is so typical of Labour. There are currently 50 and 60 year olds in the military. Do you think they are front line troops? Of course not. If back-room tasks are done by the older, it releases the younger for the front line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought you were getting rid of all the penpushers not increasing them - make your mind up...such confused thinking"

No confused thinking at all. Pointless penpushers...let's get rid no matter what their age. Those that are worth keeping, let's keep whatever their age.

I guess you're worried as you're in the middle.

#40 lefty10

The poorest fifth of the population pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest fifth.

By the way I meant to ask… was this before Duff Gordon doubled the 10p tax rate.

64

There were big problems with RBS, Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley, as well as HBOS

It was not even the entire banking sector, never mind the entire private sector

Part of the fault lies with the FSA for poor regulation, and Gordon Brown for gazing lovingly into the eyes of the City, instead of listening to those that warned him of the dangers

The situation was worsened by how Labour dealt with it as well

So, you had a dream, remembered some of it, and seemed to have invented the remainder

In case you are interested, there are 500,000 people working part time in the private sector, who would like to be working full time, as a result of the recession

One of the reasons that unemployment has not been much higher so far, is that the Unions and Employers, and especially employees in the private sector have been very restrained with pay, and have taken jobs with pay cuts, rather than redundancies

In addition the prompt action of Mervyn King and the MPC in reducing interest rates, has helped both business and personal borrowing

Now the public sector needs to go through a similar exercise, as part of the reason for the deficit is the lower tax receipts due to the recession, meaning we cannot afford to keep overspending

There is no ill judged government policy, what has happened so far has been measured and sensible

I am afraid you should reflect on how much better the economic position would be had Labour made the correct decision and allowed Northern Rock to go bust

Then the bankers you decry, would have had a shot across their bows

Any idea, with an election coming up, why that didn't happen?

47.Suggesting that 13 million people live in poverty in the UK is just ridiculous
-------------------
https://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml
https://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=68016
https://www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam_in_action/where_we_work/uk.html
https://www.communitymission.org.uk/resources/statistics_on_poverty_inequality.aspx




In Somalia two people got killed by the state simply for watching the World Cup

A 7 year old boy was hung in Afghanistan, because the Talliban thought his parents were informants

Thousands of children are dying every day in the Niger and Chad

THAT is poverty
------------
yes that is poverty. but the common theme of pointing out people that are even worse off as if to say its ok...simply doesnt address the issue or the tradegy of it. or the how wrongly targeted cuts is just insult to injury.

67. At 10:21pm on 14 Jun 2010, lefty10 wrote:
50. juliet.
i think the tax rate could go up higher for certain people before the flight effect would take place. it has been shown that recent tax increases didnt have the effect you suggest.
moreover...moraly...isnt it sad and an indication of a corrupt system that those on lower incomes should be crucified financially yet again because those who already are more than financially secure and could afford to dig deeper, wouldnt... at the expense of those already financially poor.

Where do you get this nonsense from?

Who is being crucified? Explain...How? Explain
It is just rhetoric, with no substance

The tax threshold is going to be £10K by the end of the parliament....so tell me why you make these comments with no foundation to them at all

i must have been dreaming again! I missed the "body of evidence that fiscal consolidations based on spending reductions rather than tax rises are more successful". I do recall, however, that this was precisely the policy followed in the early 80s which gave us 16% interest rates, and devastated whole communities by ratcheting up unemployment. But of course it was the bad old nasty Tories who did that, not the nice new fluffy one, so it couldn't happen again could it?

36 AndyC555 talks about Labour's financial insanity -the chief element in that insanity -the rise in NHS spending at 7-8% per annum without organising taxes to pay for it is a major element in that insanity(perhaps £30- 40billion per annum)-for this we have the highest paid least effective (in terms of outcomes)health service of the nations of W Europe. Bizarrely, the NHS insanity seems to be shared by Cameron/Clegg. You can make a case that education 9which faces large cuts) contributes to future economic performance -whereas at least half of health spending goes on people who will never contribute to the economy again -so much for ensuring efficient use of more limited public spending.
29 John Constable makes a reasonable case for helping not hindering SMEs but the example he hints at involves shops. One problem we now face as a country is that, left to their own devices, most of the population (including almost the entire population of Westminster village)if required to set up an SME would end up opening a shop, or even worse peddling some doubtful financial service, or ,slightly better, offering bad haircuts, and shops mostly now sell stuff made abroad. We need more people who can design and organise making of stuff, or who write clever software that rest of world wants to buy if we are ever to 'rebalance' the economy. Sadly, I can't see the PPEists supporting science and engineering.

68.
i think andy c555 is just attention seeking. i just try and ignore him like others do on here. what is sad though is that he dislikes the working class so much or anyone on low incomes....yet his father was a bus conductor.
hopefully he will skip past this post and concentrate on more inane drivel. i suppose its funny in a way.

71

Obviously the stupidity of Willie Walsh and Unite and many of the BA employees excludes them from the common sense brigade.....

70. Roll_On_2011.
yep...mosly worse under the CONS.
At least new labour invested huge amounts in public services. i wonder what it would have been like if the cons were in again for the last 13 years. hospitals in tents......i train per day......and even more schools falling apart. im sure the new govt will get back to form. and then the underinvestment cycle will start all over again.

72

You miss the point entirely...

If the definition of poverty is less than 60% of the average wage, then we would always have poverty, even if everyone earned a minimum of £1M a year...

It is NONSENSE

At 9:46pm on 14 Jun 2010, juliet50 wrote:
Lefty, your comments go on and on and although you make the point that the rich receive 50% of national income they also provide 53% of all direct taxation. See https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8417205.stm. Statistics are provided by office of national statistics and are quite interesting. I believe in fair taxation but if the higher earners are penalised with an inproportionate level of tax they will either move abroad, taking their tax and possibly companies with them or will find ways to avoid paying it altogether. There will never be equality so we just have to find a way of helping the low earners as much as possible with a fair distribution on the rest of the workforce.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is an interesting article isn't it? The point of the article being, not the statistics, but the spin people put on them according to their own beliefs. You see top 10% of earners pay 53% of tax take, but you think this means the wealthy are over taxed. Another person sees the same statistic and thinks blimey those top earners must get obscenely huge pay packets if they pay that much tax.
If you follow the link to the right of the article to the ONS Household Survey you will find that it concludes that all income groups are hit more or less equally by direct taxes which sort of demolishes your argument.

Kevinb limits his critique of the banking fiasco to the UK. Our banks, and many others around the world, were conned by the ratings agencies which gave AAA status to toxic packages originating in the USA. Greedy bankers around the world bought in to these packages, which they barely understood, because the agencies assured them there were huge profits to be had. Now our current government is running scared of these discredited agencies. I really do find it incredible that we are expected to swallow the line that excessive public spending is the root of the problem, when economies around the world have been decimated by the morally bankrupt private sector bankers.

73. At 10:31pm on 14 Jun 2010, Kevinb

The tax threshold is going to be £10K by the end of the parliament
----------------
i will believe it when i see it. and it maybe that the benefit of this if it happens is eroded elsewhere.
anyway...i hope you are able to spend the time to read through this site thouroughly
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

By the way Nick has started another new thread on pensions.

blame @ 26

"Saga, are you saying the coalition are deliberately setting out to crock the economy to win the next election?"

Well, sort of. Not so much that they want to throw a spanner in the works of a purring Rolls Royce of an economy - since we're at best a plucky Allegro right now - but that they have more than one eye on how the economic cycle is going to hook into the electoral calendar. It makes enormous political sense for them to (a) paint it black, and (b) make some savage early spending cuts - allows them to blame (b) on (a) and both fair square on Labour. It's a win win. If the economy manages to take it without nosediving, they can say they were right to make the cuts; if it does "crock" things up (and nobody really knows for sure, do they?), they can make out it would have happened anyway - Labour again. The blame game. Deeply cynical. Must be quite some time since any incoming government have been bequeathed such a win win situation by its predecessor - truly a golden legacy.

To me it seems that Darling was on the right track and with a steady hand on the tiller this could have been over with rather less pain than Dave the doomsayer was suggesting last week but its clear now its down to ideology with the cuts,cuts,cuts mantra.

Osbourne frankly doesn't seem to have a clear idea of what is going on and as for poor Danny Alexander he does seem in the odd times I've seen him on tv look frightened by it all,but why if this odd and frankly weird alliance is the main man,he who saw it all coming Vince cable,sat in an office outside of the treasury? i still cant get my head round that move at all.

We all knew there was going to have to be cuts to balance the books if you follow politics at all we knew it was coming,oddly except the PM according to him a week ago,and are prepared for them but at what cost? destroy the welfare system?,destroy more jobs than is necessary?,cripple local councils by starving them of money?,schools,NHS? where does it stop all of these questions no doubt will be answered in the fullness of time and it'll be interesting to see if its "fair",i somehow doubt it will be fair to the majority of people in this country.

Kevin @ 79 wrote:
If the definition of poverty is less than 60% of the average wage, then we would always have poverty, even if everyone earned a minimum of £1M a year...

>>

Can you explain this comment? On the face of it, mathematically, it is nonsense.

At 10:31pm on 14 Jun 2010, Kevinb wrote:
67. At 10:21pm on 14 Jun 2010, lefty10 wrote:
50. juliet.
i think the tax rate could go up higher for certain people before the flight effect would take place. it has been shown that recent tax increases didnt have the effect you suggest.
moreover...moraly...isnt it sad and an indication of a corrupt system that those on lower incomes should be crucified financially yet again because those who already are more than financially secure and could afford to dig deeper, wouldnt... at the expense of those already financially poor.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get this nonsense from?
Who is being crucified? Explain...How? Explain
It is just rhetoric, with no substance
The tax threshold is going to be £10K by the end of the parliament....so tell me why you make these comments with no foundation to them at all
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now I know that Lefty does get a bit carried away but his heart is in the right place.
Since you're calling it 'nonesense' I would have thought it's up to you to explain why. But you don't. So it's just.....
On the 10K point. I can see how that helps a little for those on £7000 upwards, however (you knew there had to be one) there are a suprising number who in fact survive on less than this (less that the current tax free allowance) who will gain nothing despite, by definition, being the most in need. It also won't help however many peolple no longer pay tax by virtue of not having a job.

Kevin @ 79

No, you miss the point. Poverty is relative. If you earn £1m a year - to pick up on your example - and every other person on the planet earns £10m, you're poverty stricken. Can't you see that? Don't obsess about the precise "60% of average" measure - make it 40% if you like - but focus instead on the principle; the principle that poverty is not an absolute concept, it's relative to others and also over time. Because it is relative, poverty will always be with us (and a great deal of it too) unless and until we make serious inroads into inequality. Think about it. It's a QED.

Reference 64

The dream now appears to be turning into a nightmare. We are in the middle of the biggest con trick perpetrated by Government since going to war on Iraq because of a 45 minute launch capability of weapons of mass destruction. (Tell us often enough and we'll believe it) The private industries and banks have certainly failed. The bailed out banks should agree terms to pay off their debts (as they would remind us to do)and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.

15 MillicentHarper

Was that the episode where Sir Percy was painted in a compromising situation with said Bishop ?

Always laugh at Blackadder's response to the Bishop's attempt to destroy the painting; " we have the preliminary sketches".

Brilliant series.

79. At 10:51pm on 14 Jun 2010, Kevinb wrote:
72

You miss the point entirely...

If the definition of poverty is less than 60% of the average wage, then we would always have poverty, even if everyone earned a minimum of £1M a year...

It is NONSENSE
---------------

sigh. kevin i hope you are not on a late night yayo session again.
the 60% figure is based on what average earnings are. ie 60% of average CURRENT earnings doesnt allow you to financially stay afloat. It would be impossible for everyone to earn 1m a year unless it is 150 years in the future..in which case a loaf of bread would probably cost £2000. and 60% would not be able to let you stay afloat financially.
by saying there will always be poverty does not address the fact that the figure is 1 in 5. which is appaling...and this is before the cuts and after a lengthy recession!

I love all the posts arguing the toss over the fiscal problems and the likely Budget to cope with the deficit.

The Budget will be announced and there will be either riots in the streets or we will take it on the chin, screaming and moaning maybe.

My money is on the latter.

At 10:51pm on 14 Jun 2010, Kevinb wrote:
72
You miss the point entirely...
If the definition of poverty is less than 60% of the average wage, then we would always have poverty, even if everyone earned a minimum of £1M a year...
It is NONSENSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on whether your talking about relative nonsense or absolute nonsense. Or do I mean poverty?
If you earn £1M and everybody else averages £1.7M then you are relatively poor by that definition. On the other hand the quality of your reply is absolutely poor.
Anyway, with help from the Coalition and a severe dose of hyper inflation to follow we might be experiencing Mugabe type wages of £1.7M. Who knows? 'Not me,' says the OBR. 'Not us,' say the economists. 'Nothing to do with us,' say Labour' 'It was the last Labour Government's fault,' say the Coalition. etc.
Maybe we really will have to sort it out ourselves!

So the OBR has started work and what has it discovered?

What does its independent figures say?

Oh .. that doesn't fit the Tory propaganda...because they say that Alistair Darling and the Labour government were broadly right in their predictions on growth and borrowing.

The Labour government would have eliminated most of the structural deficit. Alistair Darlings predictions were well within the margin of error (if slightly above what the OBR says is the average/most likely scenario).

And yet we have had weeks of the Tories saying the public finances are all much worse than they expected.

KevinB is still saying that Labour conducted a 'scorched Earth' policy when all the evidence is to the contrary - in fact borrowing is lower and the Labour governments' figures added up pretty well.

So when will all you Tory bloggers finally admit that Labour didn't lie about the state of the economy - they played a straight bat.

You may disagree with the economic decisions over the years, but the desperate attempts to throw mud at Brown and Darling and try and smear them and suggest they have been deliberately misleading about the state of the economy is frankly despicable.

At least have the honour to apologise and admit you were wrong.

42. At 9:06pm on 14 Jun 2010, Craig Jones wrote:
AndyC555 @32.

Utter drivel...I think not.
An example of utter drivel: Cameron comparing national debt to household debt. Totally different. Comparing the two is known by economists as "economic ignorance."
So I guess its a case of which drivel you believe.

Craig,

It's funny to learn that when individuals have tried to make their personal/household debt management a big part of their personal lives you could suggest that economists who say that the difference between personal and national debt is "economic ignorance".

So, you think that governments live in a parallel world where the money that politicians take out of an economy driven by a privately sponsored or generated "real" money, should end up in some public pool...

Don't you think that's a bit silly?

How much of the total public sector spend actually rolls back into something worthwhile? No idea.
Gets a bit tiring, though, when young kids think they should breed and expect that somebody else should quite naturally pay to support them and innocent children.






while





Scorpio33 @ 34.

Been there. Born 1963...lived thru the hellish 1980s.

27. At 8:33pm on 14 Jun 2010, Eatonrifle wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Fatuous comment
all the examples you quote retire with full pension after 22 years service - ie somewhere between 40 and 45. Service beyond those ages is optional.

And all those examples need back-up office staff who do not need to be physically fit, but need experience and wisdom - which is why Generals tend to be 60+.

You, clearly, have neither.

If you have a roof over your head, a fire in the grate, food in your belly and clothes on your back, then you are NOT living in poverty.
The '60% of median earnings' definition is a statistical absurdity, anyway.

You can add 10% of the UK are gay (correct figure, 1%); an increase in VAT to 20% 'would cost an average family £30 per week' (only if they earn £300k pa); 10% are disabled (actually under 1%) and so on. The pressure group asks a loaded question of a small focus group and then claims it as an accurate representation of the UK population to push their own agenda.

Add free health care and education for your brood and I'd suggest virtually no-one other than the homeless are in poverty in the Uk and the quicker all public funding for the organisation pushing such clap-trap is ended, the better.

Removal of any charitable status would be a good start.

I lived through the 1980's too - great decade!

I'd have to exclude the popular culture, though - music and clothes were dire.

Good morning Mr Robinson and others
Yep blue Sky's again plenty of sunshine coming your way.
Todays thoughts Isn't it ironic i recall Gordon browns fine speeches on taking up office,
You remember G.D.P, and fiscal studies .
Translated into .
Gordon's,
Downward ,
Polarization,
Spending.
I just wonder what its like to be such a genius.

Because its going two take a good coalition to sort it all out,
I think i will take a leaf out of sagas book and have a Barbe on the patio Put on a few old seventy eights starting with Handles water music
if i can find it as the old woman melted a few down for plant pots a few years back Followed by Obarmys new release ,
Shrimp boats are coming their sales are in sight,
Plus nelson eddy and Mac-Donald my desert is waiting.
See you all later.

#18. Kevinb 'inaccurate comments' in #5.

I was down the pub last night watching the Italy v Paraguay match so I missed the misleading comments on #5. I claimed that the lower limit for growth in the economy was 1.5%. On Newsnight last night Sir Alan Budd said his lower limit was also 1.5% (you can check with the IPlayer). Good for Sir Alan! He agrees with my figure. So much for inaccuracy. On the other hand, if Sir Alan is erring on the side of realism, it won't go down well with George if the OBR is expected to paper over the cracks in his economic knowledge.