OT - Governments war on the NHS - Tory's first casualty

DonDaddyD

CiB wrote:

Gawd it's lefty corner again. It's not difficult to gauge DDD's stance on this and that it's another excuse to waste some screen ink, not when the thread title includes the words 'war on NHS' and 'first casualty'. Blox.

You judge me too quickly.

You would be surprised as I'm not as left as you think or I thought.

"War on NHS and first casualty". As of yet I haven't given a truly personal opinion of whether I agree or disagree with it. I've mostly posted to gauge others thoughts.

tailwindhome

CiB wrote:

It's not difficult to gauge DDD's stance on this

I think it's impossible to gauge DDD's stance on this.

el_presidente

TailWindHome wrote:

However this doesn't explain why the Child Trust Vouchers at 1/2 billion cost should go, more than the National Savings, ISA, Premium Bonds, Tax breaks on pensions.

None of your other examples involve a lump sum payment from the government irregardless of whether the recipient actually saves any money. I expect tax breaks on pensions to be one of the next things to be reduced. I believe NS and Premium Bonds make a net profit for the goverment, and ISAs make a profit for the banks though as we know have a large influence over politicians.

tailwindhome

CIB

You're obviously anti labour and pro tory (I know, you tried to keep it subtle but I seem right through it)

Had Cameron been in power over the last parliment what would have been different?

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

CiB wrote:

It's not difficult to gauge DDD's stance on this

I think it's impossible to gauge DDD's stance on this.

I kinda know why, but why is that?

el_presidente

TailWindHome wrote:

CIB

You're obviously anti labour and pro tory (I know, you tried to keep it subtle but I seem right through it)

Had Cameron been in power over the last parliment what would have been different?

Not a lot, that's the tragedy really. They might have spent a bit less and taxed a bit less but I suspect the overall position would have been similar.

tailwindhome

el_presidente wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

However this doesn't explain why the Child Trust Vouchers at 1/2 billion cost should go, more than the National Savings, ISA, Premium Bonds, Tax breaks on pensions.

None of your other examples involve a lump sum payment from the government irregardless of whether the recipient actually saves any money. I expect tax breaks on pensions to be one of the next things to be reduced. I believe NS and Premium Bonds make a net profit for the goverment, and ISAs make a profit for the banks though as we know have a large influence over politicians.

That is the key benefit over the scheme over and above say increasing Family Allowance. It provides the family with 'seed money', an asset which they can add to in a tax efficient manner and encourage an attitude of saving for the future.

Granted the other schemes have these lump sums, but they have greater (though I haven't google the stats) costs to the public purse in terms of the tax revenue foregone

While not everyone benefit from the vouchers did chose to save, there is clear evidence that a large and growing proportion did.

I always thought saving for the future was a Tory value?

el_presidente

TailWindHome wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

However this doesn't explain why the Child Trust Vouchers at 1/2 billion cost should go, more than the National Savings, ISA, Premium Bonds, Tax breaks on pensions.

None of your other examples involve a lump sum payment from the government irregardless of whether the recipient actually saves any money. I expect tax breaks on pensions to be one of the next things to be reduced. I believe NS and Premium Bonds make a net profit for the goverment, and ISAs make a profit for the banks though as we know have a large influence over politicians.

That is the key benefit over the scheme over and above say increasing Family Allowance. It provides the family with 'seed money', an asset which they can add to in a tax efficient manner and encourage an attitude of saving for the future.

Granted the other schemes have these lump sums, but they have greater (though I haven't google the stats) costs to the public purse in terms of the tax revenue foregone

While not everyone benefit from the vouchers did chose to save, there is clear evidence that a large and growing proportion did.

I always thought saving for the future was a Tory value?

a) there's no money
b) there's no money
c) there's no money


Child Trust Funds are simply first in the queue becasue it's easy just to stop paying. In the Emergency Budget I suspect ISAs may well get a haircut. National Savings and Premium Bonds encourage people to lend money TO the government, these will not be cut.

cee

CiB wrote:

The country is now on the edge of financial ruin. Thankfully we have a coalition that agrees on the need to make cuts. There's no option; the financial world agrees and expects as such.

While I agree that the country is on the edge of financial ruin (how close to the edge I am unsure...) and that cuts need to be made (I think brown also agreed with this fact...it was just the timing of when to introduce the cuts and the manner in which they chould be introduced was different?)

Is there not still some disagreement between various figureheads in the financial world about the timing of when cuts should occur, and how the transition to cuts should occur?

I thought there was but your statement seems to ignore the other stuff I have read...unless that debate has either changed significantly in the last week, or if we are only hearing the tory line on what they think is the best thing to do.

I believe cuts are needed. I believe cuts are needed sooner and deeper than labour were talking about...but am unsure as to whether the tory/lib timetable is actually the one which would have the best outcome. This comes from the uncertainty in the debate in the financial world.

Ultimately..its better than not cutting, for reasons mentioned..i.e. having the ability to raise loans unlike greece.

Someone else said it too.

The private sector took these cuts a year ago. The public sector always needed to catch up, but I don't necessarily agree that cutting 30% in administrative spending equates to laying off 30% of the workforce. Anyone who knows anyone who works for the NHS will have examples of inefficiencies where real savings could be made by changing the process whilst mainting the same level of staff.

davmaggs

This isn't about a policial stance anymore, although GB tried to position it like that during the election and it seems to have some believers.

The current cuts at £6bn are only 2 weeks worth of borrowing. This year it will be about £145bn, whilst last year it was somewhere around £170bn. We are spending more on interest payments than on education.

The reason I say that it isn't about politics any more is that there is no longer a choice. The cuts simply have to be made. No matter who won the election Britain has reached the point where the compounding interest is almost at the point where we can't make it back, but GB and team made it sound optional.

We were on this path before the banking crisis so it also can't be blamed on global events.

Porgy

CiB wrote:

The govt who inherited a decent economy,

no - the government inherited a shakey old economy built like castles in the air - with no root in anything real. It was just bad luck that the world economy - equally shakey for decades now - went completely tits up as Labour were in power.

GB behaved like a liberal tory chancellor throughout new labour's period in office. Blair threw socialism out in 1996 - don;t you remember?

Eau Rouge

davmaggs wrote:

The current cuts at £6bn are only 2 weeks worth of borrowing.

It's over 2 months worth of borrowing from the 2006-2007 year though, quite significant.
Over the past 3 years the government has spent about £170m propping up the banks alone, to say nothing of the other money spent on propping up the rest of the economy. That interest in the banks will, at some point, be sold and probably for a profit, but at the least shouldn't need to be repeated every year from now on.

Hard cuts do need to be made, UK plc has stretched itself a bit far, but it's not like this is all wreckless or out of control.

BR 1979

CiB wrote:

Gawd it's lefty corner again. It's not difficult to gauge DDD's stance on this and that it's another excuse to waste some screen ink, not when the thread title includes the words 'war on NHS' and 'first casualty'. Blox.

We've finally got shut of the biggest bunch of wasters ever. The govt who inherited a decent economy, p!ssed it all up the wall in an orgy of spending & borrowing, who never once considered that it might be a good idea to build up a bit of surplus or to keep debt in check, who floooded the market with our gold reserves and wondered why they didn't raise as much as they expected, and who steadily created an army of people dependent or just used to being on the benefits system. Heck even we get benefits. What sort of system is it that takes a load of tax off me, passes it through a ridiculous beaurocracy and then gives it to my wife in the form of Childrens Tax Credit. I can give it to her without employing 10,000 people to pass it round until it gets back to us 4 months later. Jeez. I'll be first in the queue cheering to give it back when Dave abolishes CTC.

The country is now on the edge of financial ruin. Thankfully we have a coalition that agrees on the need to make cuts. There's no option; the financial world agrees and expects as such. If Brown & Darling were still at the helm with Mandy pulling the levers we could kiss goodbye to any idea of us ever coming out of this debt. We'd still be borrowing to fund 'the plan'. FFS and all that.

No one organisation is sacrosant or immune from cuts. Live with it everyone. Cuts are a coming. If that includes the NHS so be it. It's far too big anyway now and has so outgrown its original purpose and premise that slimming it back a bit won't be such a bad idea.

</rant at bloody lefties who think that only Brown can possibly govern this country. Good riddance to the useless clot>

Thank God. I had given up hope of ever reading anything other than Socialist claptrap on this forum.

shouldbeinbed

DDD cuts are coming, live with it, I've got clean underpants on and have taken to carrying a nice comfy basket round for when I get the chop.

I do take issue with the 'pain of the private sector' yes they took a pasting over the last two years but before that things were going well and pay was rising nicely, all the people I knew in private were getting far better pay rises than my bit of the public sector. compared to the real inflation rate, I've taken an effective pay cut every year for a over decade, justified by the various chancellors by saying that public sector pay needed to be kept in check during the good times to help you out in the leaner times.

we didn't and still don't all get judges, mandarins or government ministers pay and inflation busting rises.

nice to see the cabinet have agreed to hand back 5% of their salaries too, must be tough for them having just seen them double for their new role - I'd be far more impressed if they'd agreed to keep working for their backbench salary.

Whichever way, it's peanuts but this is a pathetic gesture from generally already very rich and vastly over average earners. If my pay had jumped £60 odd grand overnight, I'd be offering a hell of a lot more than 5% back if I wanted to appear credible to the people and families who I'm going to be destroying.

Edit - reads a bit like socialist claptrap - I'm still jaded and sick of them all, out for their own vested interests one way or another, labour let me down & the unlikley lads will do me over,

tailwindhome

BR1979 wrote:

Thank God. I had given up hope of ever reading anything other than Socialist claptrap on this forum.

Why is it when I see CIB's avatar in a thread I can hear the 'Imperial March' from StarWars


Dum Dum Dum Da Da Dum Da Da Dum

DUM DUM DUM DA DA DUM DA DA DUM

ExeterSimon

TailWindHome wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

no those stupid Childrens savings vouchers have already gone!

Why stupid?

They seemed liked a decent idea, encouraging families to build a nest egg for their kids future, benefiting from tax free interest.

+1

We actually did what the intention was....£250 as a nice starter plus a top up when he's 7. We put a bit in each month and when he's 18 he's forecast to have a nice nest egg of around £16000. Not bad savings for someone who's just 18.

Now with child number two (currently being worked on) he or she won't have that initial boost and we won't get the other tax savings with top up that the CTF offers. So come 18 he or she will have a lot less than their brother.

With the excelerated cuts the Shameron/Snake-in-the-Grass Clegg alliance are doing we're heading for a double dip recession or even worse...a depression.

Before Clegg betrayed millions of Lib Dem voters he backed Labour's plans to with-hold spending cuts for a year.

Funny how a bit of power makes you forget your principles.

symo

Get this Labour ruins the UK everytime it comes to power.

The last labour government inherited a booming economy and what did it do? The idiot chancellor announced he would sell off the UK gold reserve, thus crashing the world gold price meaning that he got sweet FA in real terms for it. Oh and those PFI contracts that built lovely new schools and hospitals, turns out under the tories they weren't profit making enough for big business so labour got rid of the profit caps on them. Hence why in some schools it costs the local government £500 to put a shelf/change a light bulb.

Oh and why do you think Labour have consistently changed the goods basket for inflation monitoring? So they can keep interest rates artificially low, so citizens of the UK and overvalue their houses thus contributing to the GDP.

As for the NHS, the reality is it has become bloated in the middle and at the top and those are the only places cuts can be made without sacrificing front line staff, ironically they are also where the higher wages are.

Honestly the UK under New Labour was a land of people consistently patting themselves on the back about how clever they were, in reality we make very few things the world wants and have screwed 2 generations over so that we can all have a cheap imported flat screen TV. Well done Labour.

The Rookie

TailWindHome wrote:

However this doesn't explain why the Child Trust Vouchers at 1/2 billion cost should go, more than the National Savings, ISA, Premium Bonds, Tax breaks on pensions.

Is it possible that the means tested Child Vouchers were benefiting lower income families

Because it IS £1/2B, you can't say only £1/2B, its a shed load of money that has to be paid back!

No, by the time the CTF vouchers were cashed in that person would be close to working, when £500 (and as RPI is now higher than interest rates they are devaluing) is pretty meaningless, my 16yo has got a part time job at £200/month, so £500 even to her is pretty meaningless in that context.

The last govt was expert at spending more money than they got in, wven in 2007 when the economy was healthy, as soon as a recession came we were going to be royally jiggered.

Just as well Gordon put an end to boom and bust or we would really be in the mire - what an IDIOT.

Simon

symo

Ah yes, the trotsky reply. Yes withdrawing from the ERM and Black Wednesday was painful, for a few months. This last former socialist chancellor though has completely destroyed our economy for two generations and caused manufacturing and industry to decline at a greater rate than under any other government.

Game Set Match.

snailracer

I don't think you can really blame the decline of manufacturing on any government in a free market economy. The circumstances of the UK favours a financial-services based economy, where a strong pound works to the detriment of the manufacturing sector.

The strength of the financial services sector actually encourages government borrowing, because the bondholders comprise the financial sector (pension, insurance companies) which in turn pay more tax to the government.

Rebalancing the economy, by boosting the manufacturing sector, is possible but then the economy is no longer "free" and that tramples on a lot of values we hold dear in the UK. Plus, I am not convinced that the foreign manufacturing-based economies are doing a whole lot better than we are.

el_presidente

ExeterSimon wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

no those stupid Childrens savings vouchers have already gone!

Why stupid?

They seemed liked a decent idea, encouraging families to build a nest egg for their kids future, benefiting from tax free interest.

+1

We actually did what the intention was....£250 as a nice starter plus a top up when he's 7. We put a bit in each month and when he's 18 he's forecast to have a nice nest egg of around £16000. Not bad savings for someone who's just 18.

Now with child number two (currently being worked on) he or she won't have that initial boost and we won't get the other tax savings with top up that the CTF offers. So come 18 he or she will have a lot less than their brother.

With the excelerated cuts the Shameron/Snake-in-the-Grass Clegg alliance are doing we're heading for a double dip recession or even worse...a depression.

Before Clegg betrayed millions of Lib Dem voters he backed Labour's plans to with-hold spending cuts for a year.

Funny how a bit of power makes you forget your principles.

yes but your families share of the national debt is already £80,000, god knows what it will be by the time your son is 18.

Also, due to inflation, if he is lucky then his £16,000 may buy a reasonable Ultegra-equipped bike or a nice telly.

Porgy

symo wrote:

Get this Labour ruins the UK everytime it comes to power.

The last labour government inherited a booming economy and what did it do? The idiot chancellor announced he would sell off the UK gold reserve, thus crashing the world gold price meaning that he got sweet FA in real terms for it. Oh and those PFI contracts that built lovely new schools and hospitals, turns out under the tories they weren't profit making enough for big business so labour got rid of the profit caps on them. Hence why in some schools it costs the local government £500 to put a shelf/change a light bulb.

Oh and why do you think Labour have consistently changed the goods basket for inflation monitoring? So they can keep interest rates artificially low, so citizens of the UK and overvalue their houses thus contributing to the GDP.

As for the NHS, the reality is it has become bloated in the middle and at the top and those are the only places cuts can be made without sacrificing front line staff, ironically they are also where the higher wages are.

Honestly the UK under New Labour was a land of people consistently patting themselves on the back about how clever they were, in reality we make very few things the world wants and have screwed 2 generations over so that we can all have a cheap imported flat screen TV. Well done Labour.

I bet you were one fo the ones who thought that after Blair chucked out Labour's socialist remit that Labour were "fit to govern". Now Labour's more Tory than the Tory policies and the world global crash have brought Britain to its knees - everyone blames "left wing" Labour for it.

Makes me laugh.

artaxerxes

all the people I knew in private were getting far better pay rises than my bit of the public sector.

erm, I work in the private sector for a software company and no one here has had a pay rise in 3 years. Although we don't physically make anything, we sell our software to companies around the world against tough global competition. We have also been doing quite well in the last couple of years while most of the UK economy has tanked. This is the kind of value-added business the UK needs more of to help pay our way in the world.

symo

Porgy wrote:

symo wrote:

Get this Labour ruins the UK everytime it comes to power.

The last labour government inherited a booming economy and what did it do? The idiot chancellor announced he would sell off the UK gold reserve, thus crashing the world gold price meaning that he got sweet FA in real terms for it. Oh and those PFI contracts that built lovely new schools and hospitals, turns out under the tories they weren't profit making enough for big business so labour got rid of the profit caps on them. Hence why in some schools it costs the local government £500 to put a shelf/change a light bulb.

Oh and why do you think Labour have consistently changed the goods basket for inflation monitoring? So they can keep interest rates artificially low, so citizens of the UK and overvalue their houses thus contributing to the GDP.

As for the NHS, the reality is it has become bloated in the middle and at the top and those are the only places cuts can be made without sacrificing front line staff, ironically they are also where the higher wages are.

Honestly the UK under New Labour was a land of people consistently patting themselves on the back about how clever they were, in reality we make very few things the world wants and have screwed 2 generations over so that we can all have a cheap imported flat screen TV. Well done Labour.

I bet you were one fo the ones who thought that after Blair chucked out Labour's socialist remit that Labour were "fit to govern". Now Labour's more Tory than the Tory policies and the world global crash have brought Britain to its knees - everyone blames "left wing" Labour for it.

Makes me laugh.

Errrrr Gordon Brown was a full on left wing socialist before the New Labour get into power at any cost remit. Never presume anything as I am a lifelong Tory, my personal politics are of a paternal state a la Whitelaw if you must know.

As for the global crash, proven to have started in the UK at a US investment bank. But then again I am just spouting information on the internet for the sake of it.

Read "Fantasy Island" and then come on and have a reasoned and well argued debate.

rjsterry

One of the best things about being a lefty is winding up right wingers (righties?)

snailracer

Tories privatise trains & buses.
Public transport ticket prices skyrocket, roads fill with cars and commute times slow down. All these factors drive up house prices, which fuels global credit meltdown.
So there you have it, it's all the Tories' fault and WE ARE BACK ON TOPIC! :P

TheStone

It's well worth reading GB's mansion house speech a couple of months before northern rock.
Most of the 'global' problems came from London.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... _68_07.htm

There a book called 'Gordon is a Moron'. Very biased. but shocking. Still not sure if he
deliberately tried to ruin the country or whether he's really that stupid.

Cuts have to come and there will be a further recession/depression. To pretend we have
growth with govt borrowing 15% of GDP is nonsense.

Edit: wrong link

snailracer

TheStone wrote:

It's well worth reading GB's mansion house speech a couple of months before northern rock.
Most of the 'global' problems came from London.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002 ... economy.uk

There a book called 'Gordon is a Moron'. Very biased. but shocking. Still not sure if he
deliberately tried to ruin the country or whether he's really that stupid.

Cuts have to come and there will be a further recession/depression. To pretend we have
growth with govt borrowing 15% of GDP is nonsense.

Northern Rock failed in 2007, 5 years after the speech you linked to.

The speech is general political blather, I can't see any connection between your claims and the contents of the speech.

The problems were caused by the global financial sector trading in dodgy subprime mortgages originating from the USA.

UK government borrowing was/is less than that of comparably-sized economies, such as Germany and France:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ublic_debt

TheStone

Sorry wrong speech. Try this one:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... _68_07.htm

TheStone

snailracer wrote:

The problems were caused by the global financial sector trading in dodgy subprime mortgages originating from the USA.

UK government borrowing was/is less than that of comparably-sized economies, such as Germany and France:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ublic_debt

The debt is not that comparable. The UK has very little of it's debt on the public balance
sheet. When we build a school, we don't borrow the money, we get a private company
to borrow the money, then lease the school off them. Likewise housing. Our total debt is
even higher than Japan.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ ... debt.thtml

The US subprime was the first alarm bell, but the problems were caused way before that.
Banks were allowed to leverage too highly which caused 10 years of high inflation. This
was not matched by wages, so we now have too much debt in the system.