BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 03:12 PM

"And another thing; there is a cynical manipulation of this issue to make the public believe that the only solution to a fiscal deficit is to make cuts in public spending."

Not just that, but it's a right-wing wet dream!
Ooh, look Capitalism has destroyed the economy and because a supposedly 'lft-wig' party were in power at the time, nobody noticed that it was Capitalism wot did it, bloody brilliant! Now we can easily railroad the stupid public into destroying all those inconvenient public services they like so much! Hip Hip Hoorrah!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 03:39 PM

street politics... march in London and other large cities

special education teachers, parents and children, carers and their charges,

We need a celebrity organiser

If Bob Geldorf could do it for G8... who then for GB?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM

We need to march in our City Centres, Tam, and gather at our War Memorials..

All it takes is just ONE person to start the ball rolling, but..that person has to have access to Radio, TV or Newspapers....and therein lies the difficulty.....

Unless....unless just phoning up various newspapers might do the trick...?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM

Those "genuinely" disabled will have nothing to fear. The government will means-test the handouts and the tax credits, this is aimed at cutting fraud and simplifying the system.

Millions of people simply believe it does not pay to work due to the generous handouts provided by the previous government. Welfare spending now accounts for a staggering 1/3 of all public spending. It is fact that the benefits bills had soared by 45 per cent under the previous government.

The best one has to be the one-year limit put on sickness benefit claims, also abused is the working tax credit, thankfully these are frozen for three years. Regarding the mobility allowances for people in care homes, research has shown that the payments were never or rarely used for transport by the claimants or transport was provided by 90% of the homes in the study. Some recipients tended to horde the payments.

We have to ensure that work pays, there will be a new cap on benefits that will ensure that no family can receive more on benefits than they would if they were in work.We owe that to the hard working young couples that pay their way through life rather than leech.

Housing benefit payments are another thing that is greatly abused, they will be slashed by increasing the age threshold for the shared room rate from 25 to 35. Why should we house people who decide not to work for a living ?

Frankly I thought the government did not go far enough, the finances of this country are in a mess thanks to Labour, attacking agreed rewards to successful executives in finance sounds more like childish jealousy. If you want to employ the right people that can make you money, then you have to reward them.

Regarding irresponsible street protests, they went out with the sixties, why burden the police with such nonsense, and who will take responsibility of those elements within who smash windows and deface public property like we witnessed on numerous previous gatherings ?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:55 PM

"and gather at our War Memorials.."

I mentioned the huge debt we experienced post WWII, which the post war government responded to by building much of the social infrastructure we now value greatly, including the NHS for example.

The Great Depression which preceded WII, caused people to starve to death (as indeed they do under Capitalist systems) this was one of the reasons people got a bit bugged by it. So after the war the UK thought they;d do things a bit differently. That's all over now though, because a minority coalition of disparate parties has "decided" on the behalf of the electorate that they'll do as they please. Nothing new there then.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM

I recently saw a news interview with a youngish man with Parkinson's Disease... obvious tremors and muscle weakness and he failed the new incapacity reassessment trial in his town Burnley. He got a 0 score.   

"Anyone who scores below 15 points in total will be deemed fit for work and placed on jobseeker's allowance, which in some cases could result in a reduction in benefit of about £25 a week."


Ok... so if there are so many already on JSA and only so many jobs to go around.. what are these retrained disabled people supposed to do. They are going to need more support in order to work (let's ring the mobility and disability access bells again). Where is that money coming from? Not from the government. Not from the private sector. Certainly not from bankers making donations to charities.

from this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11510726

SNIP

"We believe that this test is fundamentally flawed," Richard Hawkes, chief executive of Scope, said.

"It asks people to do things like pick up a coin off the floor or can they take their pen out of their top pocket. The test does not ask people what previous work they have done, it doesn't ask people what support they might require in the work place."

There are already concerns about the way incapacity benefit tests are being conducted.

The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) has reported a 57% increase in the number of people challenging the outcomes of their tests and mental health charity Mind says that, in 40% of cases, initial verdicts are being overturned at appeal.

"From all the claimants I have met, I believe the vast majority have been genuine," CAB's Paul Hogarth, who has supported 60 people at tribunals in Burnley over the past year and won in 85% of cases, told Today.

"It comes back to the fact 'is the pressure on the medical professionals to fail the vast majority of these claimants or is it going to be a genuine assessment?"

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:09 PM

"Those "genuinely" disabled will have nothing to fear."

Oh please.........

Come down off your holier than thou throne for a moment, and come live in the REAL world with those who lie awake at night worrying about their disabled children, parents, or paying their bills.

Tell that to the many people who's only respite from caring was to know they could leave their needy loved ones in a special day unit, to allow them a few hours or a whole day of freedom from caring 24/7.
Tell them that, when these special units close down, as they're already talking of doing down here.

There are many "genuine" people out there who are already doing exactly that.

And you may not have noticed, but......there are hardly any jobs out there and the ones that do exist are already being followed up by a whole gang of desperate people.

You're not Nick Clegg are you?
Or...David Cameron?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:13 PM

This is all bollocks, you would be happy without a doubt if there was another labour government doing exactly the same - they had no solution to the disgraceful deficit they built up. All these changes were going to happen anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:13 PM

"Regarding irresponsible street protests, they went out with the sixties, why burden the police with such nonsense, and who will take responsibility of those elements within who smash windows and deface public property like we witnessed on numerous previous gatherings ?"


The (peaceful) Poll Tax marches got the dreaded Mrs. Thatcher to do away with the Poll Tax, and it was the beginning of the end of her reign.

The 60s are coming back, in case you haven't noticed, but this time, not just in date, but also in age....because it's that generation, MY generation (i'm 55) that's severely pissed off BIGTIME, because we remember better days, in a world that cared, in a time when life was far easier, far less competitive, farfarfar less controlled, far more intelligent, diverse and individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:17 PM

Those " genuinely"   disabled will have nothing to fear.

Clearly I misjudged Richie.

I'll spell out some of the information that has been in the links he evidently didn't bother to open, and in the media reports he hasn't troubled to read.

People in care homes who have been ruled eligible for the higher rate severe disability allowance are "genuinely" disabled by any standards. The Disability Allowance has two parts - there is a "care" component and a "mobility" component. People in residential care do not receive the care component, or any other benefits - they are passed directly to the care home. However there is one exception, the mobility component, which is payable to the person with the disability. They can use it to buy a powered wheelchair perhaps, or to pay for a taxi to take them out, or to enable a relative to visit, and so forth.

And that is what it is now going to be taken away from them. Not because of anything they have failed to do, or anything they have done - but because the government have the power to do it and have chosen to use that power.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM

VTam, I have been on 'sick benefit' in the past - and as you know it wasn't for a bruised knee or something. It's exceedingly hard to qualify.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,folkiedave
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM

The tug that dragged the £1,000,000,000 submarine was due to be cut in the defence review.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:28 PM

Bonzo, do you actually listen to folk music or are you just an attention seeker? I for one feel seriously tired by your self-promotion. If you don't dig folk music, how about taking your breast-beating down the club? There are enough specialist enclaves for the penurious of wit to suit you without wasting your important time here surely?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:37 PM

CS... I was just pointing out it is going to be near impossible to qualify with the new reassessment test. If that man with Parkinson's was deemed fit for work... and the man with terminal cancer with weeks to live was deemed fit...

The new reassessment test is a one size fits all test and is an insult to people who have varied abilities. Many charities and the Citizen's Advice Bureau agree.

THE BENEFITS TEST
Claimants are put through a variety of tasks and are awarded points, with anybody getting more than 15 being deemed unfit for work.

The tests include:

Being able to go up and down two steps with support from another person or a handrail
Having to sit at a desk for 30 minutes without getting up
Raising their arm to the top of the head as if to put on a hat
Raising their arm as if to put on a coat or jacket
Picking up a moving 0.5 litre carton full of liquid
Picking up a £1 coin
Completing a simple task such as setting an alarm clock
Walking more than 50 metres without stopping
Pressing a button, such as a telephone keypad
Turning the pages of a book

How do any of these tests apply to an actual job?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 06:57 PM

Well, a lot of them are things that might be useful skills in a lot of jobs - but in themselves wouldn't add up to you being able to do the job, or even any job.

After all, a chimpanzee would probably be able to pass all those tests, and score well over 15 points...

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: BTNG
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 08:55 PM

The likes of Bonzo3legs and Richie Black are simply wind up merchants who really have noth of any substance to contribute to a useful discussion, therefore they need to be ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:28 AM

Those of us who have an overdraft at the bank; how about offering to clear it on the same terms as the banks clear theirs? I.e. zero interest, no pressure to pay and a loan term of 120 years?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:35 AM

Well said Richard Black.

"Bonzo, do you actually listen to folk music? "

Well actually yes, we were at the opening night of the Show of Hands tour last week - and your point is?????

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:54 AM

hhmmmm Bonzo at the Arrogance, Ignorance and Greed tour. Checking out the opposition?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:54 AM

or did you think you could pick up some tips?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 06:28 AM

Well actually I just went to listen to the music, if that's alright with you!!! Opposition - they are fellow musicians, what they sing about is of no consequence, I just happen to believe that they make one of the best sounds in folk music.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 07:58 AM

"what they sing about is of no consequence,"

LOL! What a complete oaf you are, bozo. It's the whole point. Just shows how out of touch with reality you really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 08:33 AM

You see as usual, leveller's type needs to resort to public insult, he obviously went on the same course as easby.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 08:37 AM

Mr Cameron - and Gleggy - talk about every strata in society being asked to clear the country's debt, but surely that isn't fair!
Here are figures drawn from the H.M. Tax Office:

"93% of all wealth in 1999 was held by the top 50 per cent of the population"

Surely, any moral person would say that the 50% of the population, who possess 93% of the wealth, should be asked ( i.e. made) to clear the debt and not the 50% who are managing on only 7% of the country's wealth

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 08:38 AM

B3L - what then is the point of writing lyrics at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 09:08 AM

"You see as usual, leveller's type needs to resort to public insult, he obviously went on the same course as easby."

Ah, glad to see that I'm a "type". Bozo, as you seen to enjoy humiliating yourself in public, why shouldn't anyone else join in? It's such FUN!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:56 AM

Bonzo, I was interested in your comment about SoH being 'fellow musicians'. I've never seen a post from you about music without some overt reference to right-wing political views. What do you play? What sort of songs do you sing? Do you gig at all? Professionally? Is it possible to come and see you play? I'd love to see the reaction to your view of the world in the average folk venue.
Your response to the leveller above is also interesting; remember your comment that all that had been said by others on the thread was (quote) 'bollocks'? Isn't that just a little bit insulting?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:37 PM

"sn't that just a little bit insulting?"

I think we should assume that was the idea.

It's as well to remember on the Mudcat that all it takes is a click on the name at the head of a post, and all our previous posts can be revealed. It can be quite enlightening, as mandotim pointed out there.
.................

This thread is drifting somewhat, as threads do. But drifting into a squabble rather than a diversion.

Meanwhile the cuts are with us, and the question of what to do about them. My inclination is to pick out the monstrosities which cannot be defended, and which bring into contempt people who try to defend them, rather than just a broad front denunciation of the cuts across the board, which can make it easier for the perpetrators and their friends to dodge.

And the issue of the decision to take money from people in residential care is just such a monstrosity which cannot be defended". That's not the reason I keep on coming back to it - I do that because it's such a disgusting policy, and one that will directly hurt people I know. But it is also a decision which has the capacity to do real damage to those responsible, and where there is a real possibility that it could cause the coalition ranks to waver, and that a reversal of the policy before it takes effect is on the cards.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:44 PM

Crow Sister,
I think you asked about how the UK reduced its deficit after WW2. I found this interesting paper from the IFS

MEASURING THE UK FISCAL STANCE SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR

See page 6 therein. The debt was reduced by a combination of inflation, economic growth, and low annual deficits in the 1950's, but also because it was so big it would have been hard not to to actually borrow enough to keep it that high (that's what they seem to be saying).

I guess the difference between now and is that there are many more places investors can put their money now (not just UK Gov bonds), and we had competitive manufacturing industry to help growth.
cheers
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:41 AM

Thanks for flagging that up KP, I'll take a look and see if I can understand.

Otherwise, just announced is the sell-off of publicly owned forests and woodlands for a measly 1 billion. I guess that's to ensure that there's no public land remaining where all those who have had their homes repossessed or been evicted, can go to erect a tent to kip in.
Kinda weird, because I was thinking about the tent cities that have been springing up in America and musing on how soon it would be before public land in the UK bares witness to the same kind of thing. But seems there won't even be a ditch for folks to park up in shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:58 AM

There is nothing like a tent to seriously get up the noses of the property developers who think that they have a God-given right to cream off the biggest chunk of the welfare budget in charging massive private rents.

Living for free on common land must surely be seen as stealing from the rich property owners, a bit like the poor in the middle ages being hung for poaching rabbits - as an aside I wonder if that is where the expression better to be hung for a sheep rather than a lamb come from?

Maybe the less wealthy should be content to sleeping ten in a room - think of all the HB the property owners would get for that, and of course the right would point their fingers at those living in overcrowded conditions as being benefit scroungers.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:32 AM

The thing is, all this happening and NO-ONE is taking a stance against it!

I'm so fed up of writing on messageboards about all this crap...

Yesterday I got half the folks on my bus discussing everything that's happening, and they're all as angry as we are. They said how fed up they are with it and how they can't see a way out...
And I said..

"Hey, WHEN was the last time you sat on a bus having a conversation like this?"

"Well...never." came the reply...

"EXACTLY!" I said..."And THAT is what is difference, THAT is what is starting to happen. We are ALL beginning to TALK to each other as never before...and with that, because of that, change *will* happen."

The Stiff Upper Lip and the Mustn't Grumble of the past is starting to fade *into* the past...And it's that attitude which has kept us all so silent for so long, and let these bastards get away with all they have...

Selling off our forests and woodlands is just about the final straw for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mauvepink
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:02 AM

One has to believe that the government would listen to anyoe who takes a stance. They never listed to the people over the Iraq War and, it seems, they never listend to the people in this last round of electioneering.

How soon before they introduce laws that will take away the right to gather on streets and complain about all that is going on? How soon before the very Police forces they are cutting down have to defend their policies on the sreet? Will we see more innocent pedestrians beaten and knocked down on the pavements of Britain? They are not listening to the Charities Commission. They are not listening to the experts who tell that this WILL impact the poorest the most. They will not listen to anyone who is not singing their song. They are listening to each other.

I still have no idea how this can be done if the backbenchers - who I see as our possible saviours - rebel and make them listen. People will remember all those who have betrayed their election promises.... but then again, maybe not.

We are rabbits caught in the headlights of an oncoming juggernaut and juggernauts tend to take no prisoners. They will clean the prisons out of criminals and make criminals out of those who try and bring change by peaceful means. I am becoming scared and so disillusioned the more I see and hear from people around me. Is anyone else scared of the immediate future?

I have less to be frightened of (I think) than most of my clients. It's having a terrible effect on some of them. When will they start listenin to the people gai?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:50 AM

I'd like to express my admiration for what Mandotim has said above, totally nailing the big lie that the deficit is something to blame the Brown administration for. At the time of reduction of bank regulation the only complaint that the cuntservatives had was that it did not go far enough. Well where would we have been then?

But, mauvie, try to gather and complain anywhere near Parliament or Downing Street. You'll soon see that any right to do that was taken away several years ago (and the po-lice also use antiterrorist legislation to back themselves up).

We already know that the po-lice will use violence against and even kill protesters (and people just trying to get home)

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:24 PM

that's why you don't demonstrate outside parliament... you demonstrate outside the fat cats homes.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 04:49 AM

"...nailing the big lie that the deficit is something to blame the Brown administration for."

How does that work, then, Richard Bridge?

Let's see... Labour came to power in 1997 inheriting a fairly healthy economy. When they left power 13 years later there was a huge deficit. If it's not "something to blame the Brown administration for," then who? The banks? But the banks were operating under a regulatory regime introduced by Mr Brown. The buck stops at his desk; anything else is sophistry.

I realise that to one of your ideology all economic woes must be laid at the door of capitalism; but (leaving aside the fact that "the banks" is not the same as "capitalism") it's still sophistry.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 05:11 AM

Ringer; it would be helpful if you dealt in facts, rather than mythology. The bank regulatory regime was tightened under both Blair and Brown, (though clearly not enough) with the Tories complaining all the way that deregulation was a better idea. Please read my post above; prior to the bank-generated financial crisis, the UK economy was indeed healthy; The bank bailout cost £950bn (and growing), and our current deficit is £850bn. Even the mathematically challenged should be able to work out that the current deficit is entirely the responsibility of the banks and their reckless and self-interested approach to lending and buying bad debt. Until the banking crisis, we were actually repaying national debt at a healthy rate. The banks were indeed subject to a regulatory regime; but the reason for the crisis was that they operated in such a way that they ignored the first commandment of banking, which stands above any external regulation; the rule of prudence, that says 'thou shalt safeguard thy depositors money'. To that extent, it is not necessarily capitalism that is to blame; it is the version of capitalism practised in the USA and the UK. This version emphasises short-term personal and corporate gain over long-term economic growth. If you really want to know more, read Will Hutton's excellent book 'The State We're In'. I'm happy to debate this with you, but not on the basis of ill-informed posts like your latest one.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:05 AM

But you neglect to point out the mistakes in my post, Mandotim. If it's "ill-informed", as you say, you should be able to do that. Until you do, all your verbiage looks like BS to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:12 AM

OK Tim, thanks for the explanation about the banks. Makes sense. 950 billion loss caused by the banks.

What doesn't make sense, is during the 13 years of Labour in charge, is why the f*** didn't they make sure the situation with the Banks couldn't happen?

Tony Blair and Gordon (I am Mr wonderful) Brown, were supposed to be so good, how come they f***** up on the Banks? They had 13 years to put stringent measures in. In those 13 years the Conservatives were not in power, so can hardly be blamed for such a f*** up.

I know you socialists think you are gods gift to the world, but we as a country have a 950 billion loss on our hands and are having to pay the cost. Not f*****g Blair and Brown. Oh no, they are set up for life and very wealthy, laughing all the way to the bank.

Discuss

I'll get my puke bowl.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:17 AM

Oh by the way, I think all our Political parties are a load of shite, and couldn't run a business to saves their lives.

I vote for the party that can offer the best options at the time, whoever the party is. At least I vote.

This time, I voted against Gordon Brown. What an utter load of shite he was.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:23 AM

This thread is going around in a loop. Half of those contributing must live in cloud cuckoo land or just anti-establishment throw backs from the flower power era.

Yes there are genuine disabled people who deserve all the help they can get. On the other hand there are young couples (many live in my area) that have three kids, rent paid, council tax paid, heating allowance, school uniforms paid for and a generous weekly handout. They can visit the local bars three nights and will never work as it just doesn't pay them.
Is that fair ?

An astonishing £192 billion is spent on welfare payments each year, a figure which ballooned by nearly half during the free-spending New Labour years.

The Chancellor announced concrete plans to take hundreds of thousands of people off benefits, and put them into work, he will give himself scope to deliver meaningful tax cuts in the run-up to the next Election.

It is time to reward young industrious couples struggling to pay their way and who contribute to the economy and reward for their sacrifices.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:31 AM

Evidently Ringer dashed off that response to mandotim's post without actually reading it with any attention.

The primary responsibility for financial crisis was that of the banks, both in the UK and in other countries, particularly the USA. The policy of regulation, backed by the Tory opposition, was a contributory mistake. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have anything to be proud of in this respect, because both were united in favouring that policy (except that the Conservatives criticised Labour form not carrying it even further).

However even without it there would still have been a major global financial crisis, and it would still have been necessary to incur enormous costs in order to reduce the damage caused to this country.

The question of how we got here, and who is to blame is important enough, but it is not immediately relevant in deciding what are the right things to do now.

Imagine a shipwreck in which a group of survivors decide that the only answer to the problem of survival is to start eating other members of the crew - and when others object, they dismiss those objections, on the grounds that the people objecting had been responsible for steering the ship on the rocks.

I think that the priority should be protecting the interests of those who are liable to be eaten.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lox
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:31 AM

"The Chancellor announced concrete plans to take hundreds of thousands of people off benefits, and put them into work,"

By reducing the amount of public sector jobs and by shrinking the economy as a whole thus initiating huge numbers of redundancies in the private sector.

So there will be more unemployed - and less social welfare to look aftr them.

Genius!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:43 AM

Er; I think I acknowledged that banking regulation should have gone further under Labour, and at no point did I praise Gordon Brown. What I was seeking was balance; it's fair to blame people when they are in the wrong, and to the extent that they are wrong, but not otherwise.
OK Ringer, some simple corrections; you claim Labour inherited a 'fairly healthy' economy. This depends on your definition of 'health'. If you mean 'balance of payments', then yes, the Coservatives had reduced debt over their term of office (though not by as much or as fast as Labour did prior to the banking crisis.) If you mean structural health, that's a different matter; the Tories systematically destroyed manufacturing in this country, leaving a gross over-reliance on service organisations and - significantly - financial services. That structural weakness is a major factor in our current problems, along with the equally systematic destruction of medium-sized companies. (Contrast Germany, which places great importance on manufacturing and the 'Mittelstand' companies). And yes; Labour didn't do enough to restore our manufacturing base, but fair analysis shows they didn't destroy it in the first place.
I explained about the different versions of capitalism as a way of correcting your view, but you don't seem to have understood this point.
I also pointed out the error in your analysis of banking regulation, and the responsibilities of banks irrespective of regulatory frameworks. Banks have grown to see 'making profits and bonuses' as their prime function; their 'mission', if you like. Whilst this may be ok for many commercial organisations, banking has traditionally had a different function in the economy, which I described as the 'first commandment'.
This is a complicated situation we are in, and reading and careful analysis is of value when trying to understand the issue. I'm not taking the standard left-wing line that says 'it's all the Tories fault', or 'down with Capitalism'; that's not helpful, but neither is spouting the opposite as a right wing knee-jerk response to a logical argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 07:33 AM

>I had hoped that as the father of a child with severe disabilities (who sadly died last year) we could expect that whatever else David Cameron might do, he could be relied on to refrain from targeting people with disabilities when it came to imposing cuts.

I suppose I should have known better. <

Here, here, I see he has conveniently forgotten his situation with his child but I expect he was fortunate enought to have a big enough silver spoon in his mouth to pay for it. Ordinary people are not as fortunate and as always Mental Health and caring profession gets hit the hardest time and time again for the people who need help the most. I agree there are some people out there who make it bad for everyone else but it shouldn't be assumed that because someone is unable to fill out a form properly without making mistakes that it is the peron's fault and be fined how ridiculous. You will have autistic people up and down the land being fined especially as with my son the diagnosis wasn't properly confirmed until 3/4 years ago. If someone fell through the net again he/she could find himself/herself in all kinds of difficulties. Lucky he has a team now who will speak out for him now but others might not be so lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 07:42 AM

Am I reading the latest correctly - pensions to go UP to a uniform £140 per person per week? No means testing (but taxed)?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/State-Pension-Set-To-Rise-To-140-A-Week-For-Everyone-Under-New-Government-Plans/Articl

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM

That link to sky doesn't work. This one to the BBC does - Vince Cable vows 'decent' state pension for all

It might be a "vow" by Vince Cable. But he and his party colleagues have already demonstrated that "vows" by Lib Dems are not worth very much. And "not worth very much" overestimates their value.

At most it can be seen as "an aspiration". A "long-term plan".

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:34 AM

I'm afraid I can see only BS still, Mandotim. I asked you to point out the mistakes in my post -- all you managed was a quibble about my reference to the economy in 1997 as "fairly healthy".

And all your guff about capitalism, and Tories backing regulation, is irrelevant: you haven't addressed my main point, which is that governments are ultimately responsible for the economy (are you not familiar with the expression, "the buck stops here?"). No one but a fool denies that the banks were at fault, but the government, under whose regulation the banks were acting, have ultimate responsibility. Voters understand this ("It's the economy, stupid").

Governments are quick enough to claim credit when the economy surges (as did Mr Brown, hubristically preening himself over 137 -- or however many -- consecutive quarters of growth), but they can't run away fast enough when things get tight ("It's America's fault"). Even though American sub-prime lenders may have provoked the crisis, our last government was guilty of introducing a regulatory regime which allowed it, guilty of not having seen it coming and terminally guilty of not having provided, in the fat years, for the inevitable lean years to come.

Would you, or the condescending McGrath of Harlow, like to try again? Tell me why the last Labour government isn't responsible for our current economic woes.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:46 AM

Why condescending? You mean I don't get hot under the collar about disagreements but try to keep reasonably polite?

How I'd put it would amend your formula: No one but a fool denies that the government, under whose regulation the banks were acting, were at faultNot an enormous difference really.but banks have the ultimate responsibility for their own actions".

But for the Tories to talk as if they had not backed deregulation all the way and then some is breathtaking chutzpah.

But more significantly, the issue now (and the one the thread is set out to discuss) is not how we got here, but what should be done now, and what should not be done.

Is it actually true that there is no alternative to eating the weaker members of the crew ?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:48 AM

Why condescending? You mean I don't get hot under the collar about disagreements but try to keep reasonably polite?

How I'd put it would amend your formula, Ringer: "No one but a fool denies that the government, under whose regulation the banks were acting, were at fault but banks have the ultimate responsibility for their own actions". Not an enormous difference really.

But for the Tories to talk as if they had not backed deregulation all the way and then some is breathtaking chutzpah.

But more significantly, the issue now (and the one the thread is set out to discuss) is not how we got here, but what should be done now, and what should not be done.

Is it actually true that there is no alternative to eating the weaker members of the crew ?