Would you scalp George Osborne

Butterd2

I'm not going to write a big missive about my views, however I am really cheered to see a majority of sensible well thought out posts on the subject.

I am getting sick of lazy journalism, on the TV in particular, which whenever a cut is announced they run off and interview someone with a vested interest who says it is wrong, disgraceful etc;

Cut child benefit: Interview a mother "but think about the children"
Cut police funding: Interview a policeman "crime will go up"
Cut a Quango: Interview a quango employee "er, erm, mmm"

It's easy to criticise, very few people (Labour included) seem to a credible alternative.

simonaspinall

W1 wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

W1 wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Could be very relevant to the road infrastructure in the future - a regulated industry providing roads, tolls and enforcement cameras with the profits going to the management companies. In fact, I think the government has earmarked about £75bn over 5 -10 years to do this. Maybe then with decent modern speed cameras people really will be caught and evidence of bad driving will end up in court with the guilty being appropriately sentenced.

Going well O/T - but speed cameras don't catch bad drivers (nor drunk drivers, uninsured drivers, unlicenced drivers), just those breaching what are often fairly arbitrary limits.

Well, the latest generation of video analytic and 3G Digital camera technology has ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) which can capture an accurate pic, read the number plate, cross-ref against a database held by the DVLA and check insurance, VED details etc.

Admittedly it can't catch drunk drivers etc but they never claimed that could happen. What analytics can do is record movement and detect if a car is conducting illegal manouveres, the extent to which they are breaking the speed limit. The 3G technology can stream to a central system and can automate a lot of the manual processes which occurred previously - Making this a lot more attractive in cost terms to a private company.

So speed cameras don't catch catastrophically bad drivers but they can get a lot more intelligent - and manage traffic flow and monitor incredible trends.

The only restriction will be the approval by the DfT and the DVLA as it takes about 5 years to get any technology through. It is the way of the future for camera technology though. More processing power, more software and more accurate collection and processing of data on traffic.

But you still then need to deal with those people. You need to find out who they are (car not registered to anyone?) find out where they live, send them a summons, take them to court and then get them to pay up.

I'd rather have £75bn pumped in to having more police who can actually target bad driving/no insurance/no licence drivers, taken them off the roads and take their cars away... That seems much more effective to me!

True. I wasn't suggesting the new technology would do anything more than be a glorified version of the current cameras - It would remove a lot of manual admin though.

Have to agree with you on the police traffic point - You could put satellites in orbit with laser beams on acting as judge/jury/executioner for driver 'correction'.

UpTheWall

Greg66 wrote:

Herbie The Dog wrote:

Who was it in the Nazi party who said "the principle and which is quite true in itself and that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily"

I think that came from an episode of the X-Files.

How d'you feel about, ohh, I dunno... Climate Change?

Well said. The evidence did not change radically over the last decade, but did you notice that climate change went from being a fringe issue that
- in politics only the green party backed
- in media the only people that backed it were some of the lefty columnists in the guardian
- hippies that were all mother earth.

Then in 2006 there was a sea change. Suddenly the mainstream political parties started to support the idea, people started to talk about it more, it became socially unacceptable to question it. In short, it became a belief.

I'm not saying whether it's true or false, I'm simply backing up your point that often we have emotional changes of mind, or perhaps I should say groupthink, rather than due to any rational reason.

Interesting what sociologists would say about this...

tailwindhome

Waddlie wrote:

Aye, just continue with your willfully uninformed nonsense then...

Oh now there's no need to be like that.

Cut and pastes rarely either educate or inform (though they do occasionally entertain)

*reads article*

What is it you think your article proves/ supports?

W1

MatHammond wrote:

W1 wrote:

Going well O/T - but speed cameras don't catch bad drivers (nor drunk drivers, uninsured drivers, unlicenced drivers), just those breaching what are often fairly arbitrary limits.

I'm struggling to reconcile this with your position on red light jumping - aren't red lights just "arbitrarily placed traffic priority signs"? Surely speeding drivers are bad drivers, unless you think in that particular case adherence to the law of the land should be optional?!

Well that's obviously not correct is it Matt? Traffic lights are generally placed at junctions, rather than at arbitrary points. Ped crossings are perhaps more "random" I suppose.

And actual speed limits are rather arbitrary because they are just a number on a stick - is 31 automatically dangerous in a 30? Is 29 always safer? Should the limit be 33, or 47? What about limits in other countries? France's motorway limit is 78mph when converted from KPH to MPH. And the enforcement of them reflects this too - hence some discretion.

None of that applies to red lights.

And, so that we are clear, it is not the danger of RLJing that I object to, nor that it is "bad" cycling. It is the enforcement of the negative stereotype of all cyclists due to the selfish asctions of a minority (which we all have to suffer) that is my main objection to RLJers.

Finally I'm not sure that speeding drivers are always "bad" drivers - you can be a bad driver who is driving under the speed limit, you can be an excellent driver travelling at over the speed limit (such as police drivers).

UpTheWall

Coopster the 1st wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

cjcp wrote:

That yet another Labour Govt left us knee-deep in the financial do-do again?

Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, to name but a tiny few countries in lumber Mrs T instigating the deregulation of the banks and the promortion of their casino stylee gambling, the word GLOBAL immediately preceeding the word recession for the last few years

those Labour tendrils don't half stretch a long way

I'll counter that with Canada and Australia. Why are these two of the best countries at the moment and neither having been affected in anyway like the UK?

If a different road had been taken rather than the 'spend your way out of debt' approach, we would be looking at a completely different budget today...

I believe South Korea spent their way out of recession.

These aren't simple arguements

UpTheWall

Asprilla wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

My 'inside' view of the NHS

Having spoken to computer contractors there(earning 350-600per day) saying that its a gold mine porly managed projects going way over budget with systems designed on the back of a fag packet.

these guys are there for the long haul (+2years) permies could do the same job easily enough costing significantly less

so yeah there's quite a lot of wasteage that's even before you get to levels of management

Finding permies is easier said than done. My IT function is currently about 50% contractor and the new CTO wants to bring that down to 25%. Unfortunately, since almost all work is funded on a per project basis you simply can't get perm people in.

Also a large percentage of IT workers are contract only and are unwilling to become perm.

It often works out cheaper to use contractors. Although the headline salary looks bigger, have you seen all the other areas the company saves? Here are some savings for starters:
- lower employers taxes
- no pension
- no training
- no sick pay
- no holiday pay
- less costs to central functions like HR, etc.
- no redundancy costs
- more flexible workforce....

i could go on

singlespeedexplosif

Going well O/T - but speed cameras don't catch bad drivers (nor drunk drivers, uninsured drivers, unlicenced drivers), just those breaching what are often fairly arbitrary limits.

'breaching what are often fairly arbitrary limits'. It's called 'breaking the law'. You know, like murderers are just breaching what are (to them) fairly arbitrary levels of human decency, that kind of thing. Whether it's arbitrary or not, if you act like a cock, stop whining if you get caught.

The Rookie

Herbie The Dog wrote:

Sure...Labour made some mistakes but this problem lies firmly at the feet of the bankers, startig with Lehman Brothers. Whichever party was in power would have done the same which would have resulted in the same deficit.

Not that same old BS again!

The whole world is responsible for the banking crisis, for every irresponsible lender, there is an irresponsible borrower! The Labour gov't 'record growth' over their first ten years was based on increasing levels of debt, both governmental and individual, actively encouraged by Labour policies, then the banking crisis was a 'big surprise'? The whole economy was being used as a giant Ponzi scheme, then the new money ran out!

During times of good growth government levels of overall debt MUST come down, a recession is inevitable at some time (despite what Gordon claimed), and at certain segment will always be blaimed for 'causing' it (more accurately its triggering it, its always coming!) and you need something in the cupboard, but oh poo, when the inevitable happened the cupboard was bare and then as the recession bit and revenues came down, our Public Secotr Borrowing Requirement went through the roof.

NHS - free at point of delivery? Been to the dentist recently?

Simon

singlespeedexplosif

ooh...auto swear filter. nice. The original word was that signed for users of the middle lane. http://www.howmotorwayswork.co.uk/

W1

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

Going well O/T - but speed cameras don't catch bad drivers (nor drunk drivers, uninsured drivers, unlicenced drivers), just those breaching what are often fairly arbitrary limits.

'breaching what are often fairly arbitrary limits'. It's called 'breaking the law'. You know, like murderers are just breaching what are (to them) fairly arbitrary levels of human decency, that kind of thing. Whether it's arbitrary or not, if you act like a fool, stop whining if you get caught.

God, I should have realised that this would bring the mentals to the surface.

As I have explained above, they often are arbitrary figures.

Further, unlike murder (a great and logical comparative offence, I might add) there is specific discretion on enforcement of speed limits (10% +2mph) which, while not "official" is somewhat indicative of the nature of the offence.

And I don't think anyone is whining about it, are they?

f you really want to carry this on please just begin another thread.

neiltb

notsoblue wrote:

cjcp wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

cjcp wrote:

That yet another Labour Govt left us knee-deep in the financial do-do again?

Fannie May, Freddie Mac, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, to name but a tiny few countries in lumber Mrs T instigating the deregulation of the banks and the promortion of their casino stylee gambling, the word GLOBAL immediately preceeding the word recession for the last few years

those Labour tendrils don't half stretch a long way

I'll counter that with Canada and Australia. Why are these two of the best countries at the moment and neither having been affected in anyway like the UK?

If a different road had been taken rather than the 'spend your way out of debt' approach, we would be looking at a completely different budget today...

They are resource and extraction based economy (particularly Canada) with large areas available for mining and extraction with a much smaller population to support in relation to the resources available than say the US/UK.

But, esp. with Canada, they seem to have more conservative banks. Also, I thought Germany didn't have a huge supply of natural resources (could be wrong, though).

Germany has a huge export market. They actually make stuff there that other people want to buy. They weren't burdened by a cannibalistic service economy.

As a resident of the frozen north I can give a perspective on this. Our banks did avoid the worst, just. They were getting sloppy the couple of years before it all went wrong, subprime mortgages, 100% financing, they were pressured to chase the same profits as US banks. there just wasn't the time for it to get too bad.

We also spent our way into a period of stagnation, huge stimulus and govt spending, huge deficit and now starting to cut services. Our fithy oil resources help alberta but the overall economy less and the strong c$ is hurting our exports, unemployment is high, interest rates going up (pressure on housing as idiots bought too much at low rates).

Jobs that are available are less well paid (manufacturing jobs are about $5 an hour less to start) have less benefits and may be contract not permanent. Manufacturing also having longer layoff periods due to efficient practices with less sales.

Our banks are doing well though and thats all that matters, eh.

DonDaddyD

The general gist...

This:

clanton wrote:

I agree with the NHS as a principle but it needs modernising and trimming.

And this:

Waddle wrote:

.About £273 million of the money was not related to patient care....
The bulk of the money was spent on increasing competition in the health service and supporting bids for foundation status by NHS trusts, he added.

Brings forth the question:

"how do you expect both modernising and trimming to happen without spending money?"

Without knowing what is assumed as not relating to patient care....

If say you want to update the IT systems to improve quality of service or even implement a IT network or electronic data management of patient records then you'll have to pay someone to build it, pay to maintain it pay to implement it and pay to keep it. You may also need to pay to train someone in how to use it as most of these systems are bespoke/specific to the Trust's needs.

Costly yes, but doing so helps keep health care service current, up-to-date and efficient in todays market.

Let's clarify a few things:

Firstly each NHS Trust has to make a 3% saving each year.

The NHS overall has to make £20billion savings, this was agreed by the last Government (so they did do cuts) and about to be implemented. Along with the other cuts and yes these aren't directly aimed at the NHS but will affect the amount of money given to the NHS, through commissioning, to provide services.

The difference between the Health service (of which the Government allocates money) and the NHS, which is but a facet of the UK Health Service is: The NHS is not the sum total of the Health service in Britain, the health service budget also goes to other services, chatrities and organisations. So it is, I think, immediately unfair to single out the NHS as the sole cause of waste in the Health services.

Lets discuss size of the NHS. The NHS is divided into Trusts. In London alone there are:
31 Primary Care Trust (about to be abolished)
21 Acute Trusts
3 Mental Health Trusts
London Ambulance Service
15 Foundation Trusts (More on this later)

This isn't too many, there is more demand than supply for healthcare services in the UK.

To put things into perspective, most Trust's operate at above £100million pa. The largest I know of operates (that's operating to provide services, research, teach) at £300million.

Now that sounds a lot. But along with providing services to 4 London Boroughs (operating out of several sites not just hospitals) it also provides services to private clinics, international research to develop new treatments and drugs, specialist services, services to the rest of the England and Wales, services to prison inmates, secure units for long term stay patients (who aren't safe to be let out in public), care for patients living in the public (by way of care workers) and teaches students wanting to develop careers in healthcare (lectures are beamed around the World).

It has to staff these services, train the staff, provide facilities (buildings) for these services, IT services accommodation for long term patient, purchase subscription medicine and many more..

Why does it do all this? Patient care is important, we don't get to choose what type of care is and isn't important. It, the NHS and by extension the UK is a World leader in healthcare. It exists to raise the standard of healthcare. This is what the NHS does it doesn't make mone directly, it provides care and develops new types of care. It is a World leader at this and this costs money.

However, two industries Britain is reknowed for as a World leader: Aerospace development and Pharmacuticals (money is made from this, in part by work the NHS does).

But you don't think about the costs of keeping a patient in a secure unit, the man power to run that unit, feed, dress and treat both physically and mentally that person in the long term. The cost in utility bills, electricity, internet. And that is just one aspect.

Yes there is waste, but its too simplistic to blame IT, management, admin. Consider this:

Late 1990s and early 2000s the NHS had some of the worst IT and record keeping systems. Recent focus on improving this was done to improve the overall quality of the service, bring the NHS more inline with industry standards and help keep it as a World leader at providing healthcare services. I would still say, speaking from experience, that as a rule IT systems in many Trusts are 5 years behind private sector standards at best.

Yes an IT project may seem expensive, but when you consider the organisations operating costs, the value it would bring to both staff and patients and the position within the market, sometimes serious money needs to be spent to maintain a standard. The values of which cannot be measured in monetary gains.

Foundation Trusts:
Firstly the Tories want all NHS Trust to become these. In a nut shell its devolution. A Foundation Trust has the freedom to compete directly against private care and other Trusts to provide services to a particular area. It still gets money from Central Government by way of GP commissioning but gets to keep teh surplus to reinvest in services and developments. The Tories love it because it adds, in their belief, much needed competitiveness into the public sector healthcare services. The surplus means that these things get run like a business (the spend and create money). Each Trust can explore other ventures and more quickly implement new better, evidence/research based treament without going through the political red tape.

I have my position, which I haven't stated. Make your own mind up on waste.

UpTheWall

DonDaddyD wrote:

The general gist...

This:

clanton wrote:

I agree with the NHS as a principle but it needs modernising and trimming.

And this:

Waddle wrote:

.About £273 million of the money was not related to patient care....
The bulk of the money was spent on increasing competition in the health service and supporting bids for foundation status by NHS trusts, he added.

Brings forth the question:

"how do you expect both modernising and trimming to happen without spending money?"

Without knowing what is assumed as not relating to patient care....

If say you want to update the IT systems to improve or even implement a IT network or electronic data management of patient records then you'll have to pay someone to build it, pay to maintain it pay to implement it and pay to keep it.

Costly yes, but doing so helps keep health care service current, update and efficient in todays market.

Let's clarify a few things:

Firstly each NHS Trust has to make a 3% saving each year.

The NHS overall has to make £20billion savings, this was agreed by the last Government and about to be implemented. Along with the other cuts, yes these aren't directly aimed at the NHS, will affect the amount of money given to the NHS, through commissioning, to provide services.

The difference between the Health service (of which the Government allocates money) and the NHS, which is but a facet of the UK Health Service is: The NHS is not the sum total of the Health service in Britain, the health service budget also goes to other services, chatrities and organisations. So it is, I think, immediately unfair to single out the NHS as the sole cause of waste in the Health services.

Lets discuss size of the NHS. The NHS is divided into Trusts. In London alone there are:
31 Primary Care Trust (about to be abolished)
21 Acute Trusts
3 Mental Health Trusts
London Ambulance Service
15 Foundation Trusts (More on this later)

This isn't too many, there is more demand than supply for healthcare services in the UK.

To put things into perspective, most Trust's operate at above £100million pa. The largest I know of operates (that's operating to provide services, research, teach) at £300million.

Now that sounds a lot. But along with providing services to 4 London Boroughs (operating out of several sites not just hospitals) it also provides services to private clinics, international research to develop new treatments and drugs, specialist services, services to the rest of the England and Wales, services to prison inmates, secure units for long term stay patients (who aren't safe to be let out in public), care for patients living in the public (by way of care workers) and teaches students wanting to develop careers in healthcare (lectures are beamed around the World).

It has to staff these services, train the staff, provide facilities (buildings) for these services, IT services accommodation for long term patient, purchase subscription medicine and many more..

Why does it do all this? Patient care is important, we don't get to choose what type of care is and isn't important. It, the NHS and by extension the UK is a World leader in healthcare. It exists to raise the standard of healthcare. This is what the NHS does it doesn't make mone directly, it provides care and develops new types of care. It is a World leader at this and this costs money.

However, two industries Britain is reknowed for as a World leader: Aerospace development and Pharmacuticals (money is made from this, in part by work the NHS does).

But you don't think about the costs of keeping a patient in a secure unit, the man power to run that unit, feed, dress and treat both physically and mentally that person in the long term. The cost in utility bills, electricity, internet. And that is just one aspect.

Yes there is waste, but its too simplistic to blame IT, management, admin. Consider this:

Late 1990s and early 2000s the NHS had some of the worst IT and record keeping systems. Recent focus on improving this was done to improve the overall quality of the service, bring the NHS more inline with industry standards and help keep it as a World leader at providing healthcare services. I would still say, speaking from experience, that as a rule IT systems in many Trusts are 5 years behind private sector standards at best.

Yes an IT project may seem expensive, but when you consider the organisations operating costs, the value it would bring to both staff and patients and the position within the market, sometimes serious money needs to be spent to maintain a standard. The values of which cannot be measured in monetary gains.

Foundation Trusts:
Firstly the Tories want all NHS Trust to become these. In a nut shell its devolution. A Foundation Trust has the freedom to compete directly against private care and other Trusts to provide services to a particular area. It still gets money from Central Government by way of GP commissioning but gets to keep teh surplus to reinvest in services and developments. The Tories love it because it adds, in their belief, much needed competitiveness into the public sector healthcare services. The surplus means that these things get run like a business (the spend and create money). Each Trust can explore other ventures and more quickly implement new better, evidence/research based treament without going through the political red tape.

I have my position, which I haven't stated. Make your own mind up on waste.

Bloody well said my good fellow.

It's good to see someone put forward a good factual argument.

The Rookie

Indeed, but better still to show it intelligently by writing two lines and not requoting the 30 odd lines in the post directly above!

Simon

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes an IT project may seem expensive, but when you consider the organisations operating costs, the value it would bring to both staff and patients and the position within the market, sometimes serious money needs to be spent to maintain a standard. The values of which cannot be measured in monetary gains.

It's not about expense as much as it's about waste, and value for money (i.e. success).

You may be in a good position to answer this - how much has been wasted (not just spent, but actually wasted) already on the proposed NHS IT system that is already 5 years behind schedule?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/ ... me-failure

DonDaddyD

The cuts had to happen though.

The NHS has suffered from too many recent ideas and reform and needs to stick with one for the next decade just to re-address itself.

I truly believe that Foundation Trusts can do this with their added autonomy. It means that one Trust/NHS service in one part of the country will be completely unlike the another as each will be tailored to the immediate needs of the public it provides services to. I also think that managed properly they will require less money from Government as they seek other funding elsewhere. Private commissioners, use of building space etc.

There is a risk that they will become more corporate, but each Trust runs the risk of being blown out of the water by other Trusts and their regulatory body should they disassociate themselves from the patient, as they are the most important thing.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes an IT project may seem expensive, but when you consider the organisations operating costs, the value it would bring to both staff and patients and the position within the market, sometimes serious money needs to be spent to maintain a standard. The values of which cannot be measured in monetary gains.

It's not about expense as much as it's about waste, and value for money (i.e. success).

You may be in a good position to answer this - how much has been wasted (not just spent, but actually wasted) already on the proposed NHS IT system that is already 5 years behind schedule?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/ ... me-failure

That is such a loaded piece I can't take it seriously.

I also think you still don't get it or grasp the size of the project.

The first part of teh article was to tell the story of Barts and The London NHS Trust, where they suffered an atrticle. It doesn't give details of what computer system they were using, firewall or protection. But it doesn't surprise me. Internet and IT systems in the NHS aren't up-to-date. XP was installed in 2005, some PC's where I worked still used Windows 2000 and when the Trust uploaded a new website it wouldn't work because the server was 3 generations old and staff computers were running Internet Explorer 5. Why? Lack of funding at the time.

Now the second and unrelated partof the story is about the much larger National Project. Now given that there are some 100 Trusts in the UK serving millions of patients 100s of time, that's a lot of paper billions. Given that each of these 100 Trusts would have to bring their IT systems inline with the standard set and given that the industry standard is always evolving (faster broadband, 64bit processing over 32bit, different file version MPEG MP3,4,5 etc more angry and devasting viruses etc) I can see that project costing billions, taking a huge time and potential for slippage.

At a guess. Not saying its right but again far too simplistic to say waste and poor management when you don't even have a clue of (i) the scope (ii) what level of facilities you are initially dealing with).

This bit in the article leapt out at me:

No other country has managed to connect up its healthcare system into a single digital whole.

So the project itself is ambitious. Should it work, it would be incredibly marvelous though, hand on heart. Tories may abolish the project though, if it hasn't been already.

Edit:
Oh this backs up my assessment of the NHS' IT systems late 1990s:

Before Labour came to office in 1997, the NHS had a patchwork of computer systems, some ancient, some state-of-the-art, but almost all of them small and local and incompatible. Brennan notes there could be 40 in a single hospital. In 1998, at a gathering to mark the service's 50th anniversary, Blair spoke via an experimental medical video conferencing system to a clinician at the Royal Free. [/quote[

UpTheWall

I know some people that have been involved in the big project - the spine.

The stat I was told is that it's the largest database after the US national security one.

These guys were working serious hours, pushign the technology to the max to try to deliver this revolutionary project, but with moving goalposts, and funding due to shifting political short term needs, it became a major headache.

One of my friends involved in some of the IT architecture was not just doing it for a job, he was genuinely behind the system as he thought it would so revolutionise the way the nhs worked.

neilmacd

The Tory cuts announced yesterday are entirely ideologically driven.
It's Thatcher style politics taken to a whole new level.

Cameron, Osborne et al to a degree I have no issue with as they're dyed in the wool Tories & doing what they always said they would.
Clegg, Cable & the other lib-dems are a disgrace though. Merest sniff of power and they've abandoned everythign they stated they'd do during the campaign. Problem with the Lib-Dems is that they could promise the earth pre-election in the knowledge that they were never likely to have to deliver it. Clegg has become the apologist in chief for the crap that the tories have dished out.

With regards to tax avoidance, there are loopholes all over the place that people willing to exploit with some basic accountants advice can do fairly readily.
On an individual level it probably wouldn't have such a massive impact but it's corporate tax avoidance aided & abetted by Osborne himself that sticks in the throat i.e. Osborne waiving a £6bn tax bill owed by Vodafone.
Tesco are another prime example.
If the government actually bothered their backside and reined in these tax loopholes and got the revenue that's due to the country then the cuts wouldn't necessarily need to be so deep.
IT's not just the corporate organisations though that are at it there's the uber-rich landowners who leech more in land subsidies from the state than is paid out in benefits but the Tories won't touch them - turkeys & christmas spring to mind.
Successive governments have failed to do anything about tax avoidance though.

The cuts are necessary but the bull of the tories that this is all Labours fault is nonsense. Financial crisis was sparked by banks in America lending to people with no credit worhtiness. Loans turned into bad debts which they then packaged and sold on to other banks which when it all went tits up caused the credit crunch which turned to full blown recession and the banking crisis which needed the bailout of governments the world over. Not specifically a Labour thing & the tories would probably have done exactly the same thing had they been in power.
One area where Labour were definitely at fault though is the HBOS-Lloyds merger. They basically pushed Lloyds to take over HBOS without due diligence being followed properly and didn't disclose the £26.5bn bailout from the BoE that HBOS had 2 weeks prior to the takeover by Lloyds. Darling should be held responsible for that one. HBOS should have been sllowed to go bust.

W1

neilmacd wrote:

HBOS should have been sllowed to go bust.

And with that you undermine your whole post.

What do you think the consequences of that would have been?

HBOS is the largest mortgage lender in the UK. If it went bust it would call in all it's loans - immediately. What do you think that would have done to the country?

Let me put it this way - we probably wouldn't be on here discussing these cuts, which only represent Labour's excessive spending, that's for sure......

Are you a Lloyds shareholder BTW?

notsoblue

The Moral Maze covered some of what is discussed here last night btw, was quite interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 0_10_2010/

I'm willing to bet pounds sterling that W1 has a poster of a scantily clad Melanie Phillips on his locker door :P

W1

notsoblue wrote:

The Moral Maze covered some of what is discussed here last night btw, was quite interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 0_10_2010/

I'm willing to bet pounds sterling that W1 has a poster of a scantily clad Melanie Phillips on his locker door :P

Having just googled said "thing", I can assure you that I do not.

Anyway, I don't even have a locker :P

Edit - God, she write for the Daily Mail. Please, I've just eaten.

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

The Moral Maze covered some of what is discussed here last night btw, was quite interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 0_10_2010/

I'm willing to bet pounds sterling that W1 has a poster of a scantily clad Melanie Phillips on his locker door :P

<shudder> Inside your head is an unsavoury place Mr Notsoblue

il_principe

neilmacd wrote:

The Tory cuts announced yesterday are entirely ideologically driven.

And I thought I could be cynical. Of course they're not entirely ideologically driven, that would be lunacy of the highest order.

There was always gonna be a lot of pain, why don't we wait and see how things pan out instead of bleating pathetically.

Clarion

We know how things are panning out already - the poor are suffering, frontline services, even in a supposedly ringfenced area like the NHS are being slashed, and we are expected to do more & more for less & less.

The BBC has been shafted as a 'thank you' to Rupert Murdoch.

Meanwhile, the rich don't have to worry.

bigmat

Il Principe wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

The Tory cuts announced yesterday are entirely ideologically driven.

And I thought I could be cynical. Of course they're not entirely ideologically driven, that would be lunacy of the highest order.

There was always gonna be a lot of pain, why don't we wait and see how things pan out instead of bleating pathetically.

Not entirely idealogical perhaps... Its a shame that there is any opportunistic slashing going on though. Cuts are necessary, but I would have liked to see a slightly more measured approach and less whooping and hollering by the Tories. Interesting that the Labour line now seems to be that the level of cuts is a "gamble", rather than bad per se. I think in truth there is a lot of common ground between the parties and if the ideologies could be stripped away we might get an outcome that was both fair and effective.

il_principe

MatHammond wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

The Tory cuts announced yesterday are entirely ideologically driven.

And I thought I could be cynical. Of course they're not entirely ideologically driven, that would be lunacy of the highest order.

There was always gonna be a lot of pain, why don't we wait and see how things pan out instead of bleating pathetically.

Not entirely idealogical perhaps... Its a shame that there is any opportunistic slashing going on though. Cuts are necessary, but I would have liked to see a slightly more measured approach and less whooping and hollering by the Tories. Interesting that the Labour line now seems to be that the level of cuts is a "gamble", rather than bad per se. I think in truth there is a lot of common ground between the parties and if the ideologies could be stripped away we might get an outcome that was both fair and effective.

I'd imagine that labour would've done something v similar, it was always going to be a very painful exercise. Ironically they'll now be hoping that the economy doesn't grow, so that they are proved right. Anecdotally, the small business that I work for has already posted record turnover for October, from our perspective things seem to be looking up...

davmaggs

The cuts aren't large at all as spending is still rising. All sides made their proposals sound large so the markets would be reassured.

Darling said that he'd go for 20% cuts and Osbourne came in at 19% and even then that only takes us back to the levels in 2006/7. Alan Johnson has yet to what he would cut to meet his own party's 20% target, which is why he is on the back foot.

So, the question I ask of those who want no cuts is how would you cure the problem of £1 in £4 of goverment spending being borrowed?

neilmacd

W1 wrote:

neilmacd wrote:

HBOS should have been sllowed to go bust.

And with that you undermine your whole post.

What do you think the consequences of that would have been?

HBOS is the largest mortgage lender in the UK. If it went bust it would call in all it's loans - immediately. What do you think that would have done to the country?
Are you a Lloyds shareholder BTW?

I am actually but that's not the whole story - part of the reason HBOS was in the state it was in was because of some it's shambolic practices.

A bonus scheme in Retail Banking where even if you got the lowest rating (i.e. this person is incompetent) in reviews you were entitled to a bonus of 5% of your salary more as you went up through the review ratings. Car allowances for Team Leader roles in call centres and the way some of the sites are kitted out defies belief - in some sites they have artworks which need to be locked up at night.
They have sites where the building has 8 people in it in a site which can hold 400.
& this doesn't even take account of some of their commercial lending practices.
They basically poured money into a big black hole then Lloyds bought them out which necessitated Lloyds being bailed out through GAPS.
Remember when they published the first set of merged results Lloyds heritage £3bn profit - HBOS heritage £13bn loss

They maybe shouldn't have been allowed to go bust but Lloyds in particular Eric Daniels should have been a damn site more careful before taking them over to keep in with Darling & co.