So Ed was right: 'too deep & too quick'

DonDaddyD

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-16730098

Now this is being attributed to Clegg but Ed Miliband has been saying it for a while.

So if the Government speed up tax cuts for low and middle income earners does this mean Labour was right about cutting tax too quickly and too deeply?

That Ed isn't being acknowleged and his Shadow Chancellor hasn't even been seen, heard or reported (to the wider/general public) as challenging the Government's policy demonstrates Ed's unpopularity and how lightwieght his Shadow Cabinet is (Chaka Umana excluded). Seriously Labour's media machine is shite.

meanredspider

The Head of the IMF didn't seem to think so

First.Aspect

Well, not that many of the cuts have taken effect yet, and you don't have any other outcome to compare it to.

The Tories (and lib dems) would no doubt argue that if they hadn't done this, we'd be paying 6% interest and have to cut more deeply for longer overall.

We will never know, but for at least the next three we will have to put up with a comedy wrestler (Ed Balls) arguing with two out of touch career politicians who were born millionaires (Camerron, Osbourne). Bungle from Rainbow will also be there.

jds_1981

First Aspect wrote:

We will never know

& so everyone will be reinforced with their prior beliefs...

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

The Head of the IMF didn't seem to think so

I watched newsnight on Tuesday night and Mason suggested that the IMF were saying to the UK "absolutely don't cut less, and spend more if you can" or something along those lines.

They say the US will falter if they don't keep up the stimulus, and that the Eurozone needs to sort themselves out so they can start dealing with their growth, rather than just their debt.

t4tomo

Cuts Cuts ???? there weren't any cuts we just didn't increase spending by as much as we were going to. Public spending is as high now as its has ever been as the coalition hasn't has time to dismantle the pointless layers of bureaucracy Labour invested our taxes in.

rick_chasey

At least Clegg is taking the strategy he told his party members.

1st half of gov't > consensual, look like Lib Dems can govern (he totally failed, but stuck to the plan)

2nd half > with the above gained credibility (fail..) differentiate from Tories.

adwt2004

Let's be honest about things, owing over 1,000,000,000,000 means we will never honestly pay that back. For the last 6 months I own absolutely no shares and have no faith at all in the ecomony improving - i'm very fearful. The kind of cuts required to rein in this debt are of the order of many tens of billions a year for many years or even decades. It won't happen. Basically the public want spending to continue and the debt problem to be solved, they also don't want to contribute more tax either. Impossible.

The only way this will occur will be through devaluation so expect inflation to surge ever higher. The government only has two choices, default (i think it should) or pain and suffering through printing of money and rampant inflation. The easy option is the last one as it forces the public to pay more without having a direct tax increase. They won't default as anarchy would ensue. I want to emmigrate!

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-16730098

Now this is being attributed to Clegg but Ed Miliband has been saying it for a while.

So if the Government speed up tax cuts for low and middle income earners does this mean Labour was right about cutting tax too quickly and too deeply?

That Ed isn't being acknowleged and his Shadow Chancellor hasn't even been seen, heard or reported (to the wider/general public) as challenging the Government's policy demonstrates Ed's unpopularity and how lightwieght his Shadow Cabinet is (Chaka Umana excluded). Seriously Labour's media machine is shite.

WRT the 'giver or taker' thread, it seems most of us on here would not fall into the lower or even middle income category, so we are likely to be the ones paying for this. As whatsisname off of Moneybox was saying this morning, £380 a year probably makes quite a difference if you are on £12-15K (household income), but not so much if you are up in the high £20Ks. So from that point of view, it is fairly well targetted. Mind you, at the rate inflation is going, it won't be long before the tax threshold is close to £10K anyway.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

Mind you, at the rate inflation is going, it won't be long before the tax threshold is close to £10K anyway.

I don't understand that, can you explain?

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mind you, at the rate inflation is going, it won't be long before the tax threshold is close to £10K anyway.

I don't understand that, can you explain?

The tax allowance goes up regularly in line with inflation. It'll be £8K next tax year anyway
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm

TheStone

Didn't everyone agree that the growth of the last decade was based on unsustainable debt? Once that's the case, how can that level be maintained or even increased without more unsustainable debt?

We won't have growth for a long, long time and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The bubble has to deflate for any kind or recovery to emerge.

The interest rate thing is a full on lie. The bank of england have printed money to cover all of the last two years deficit. There is no real market for gilts any more. The whole thing is rigged.

The government is still borrowing/printing a massive portion of GDP, which makes 0.2% growth either way meaningless.

DonDaddyD

Those that say the cuts haven't happened yet are mostly right, they haven't. Interest rates are being kept at a time when people may need to borrow (seriously so many 0% interest credit cards knocking around you'd think it was a perioud of economic boom) and the rate of paying back debts is also mostly managable.

The problem with all this talk about cuts is perception. The Tories have used buzz words like 'cuts, austerity, sacrifice' to great effect to firmly blame Labour for the "mess they've gotten us into". The one thing they failed to anticipate is the knock on effect all this doom, gloom and blame mongering has had on consumer confidence.

"Won't buy X item yet as I'm worried about 'cuts, austerity, sacrifices' etc". Is a thought process shared up and down the Country. That or "wait for the sales/production to stop on said item so it's being sold off cheap/buy online from the cheapest place possible probably abroad".

So while in reality very little has been cut we think it has and we fear our pockets being hit even further.

So if not "too deep and too quickly" then certainly "too much and too often" has been said about the cuts. And the fear it places in the hearts of Joe Blogg public I'd say is a large contributing factor to our stalling/shrinking economy.

Dave and Osbourne may have shot themselves in the foot there.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Dave and Osbourne may have shot themselves in the foot there.

Nah, they're intentionally frontloading. Things will suddenly get better before the next election.

W1

adwt2004 wrote:

Let's be honest about things, owing over 1,000,000,000,000 means we will never honestly pay that back. For the last 6 months I own absolutely no shares and have no faith at all in the ecomony improving - i'm very fearful. The kind of cuts required to rein in this debt are of the order of many tens of billions a year for many years or even decades. It won't happen. Basically the public want spending to continue and the debt problem to be solved, they also don't want to contribute more tax either. Impossible.

The only way this will occur will be through devaluation so expect inflation to surge ever higher. The government only has two choices, default (i think it should) or pain and suffering through printing of money and rampant inflation. The easy option is the last one as it forces the public to pay more without having a direct tax increase. They won't default as anarchy would ensue. I want to emmigrate!

The curious thing is that I know that, you know that, everyone knows that - and have known that for at least 3 years. But the stock market isn't worth nothing, companies are still trading, the "housing crash" hasn't happened and there hasn't been mass unemployment. Most people appear to be keeping their heads above water. So if we know there has to be armagedon, why hasn't it happened yet?

Yet people are still buying houses, governments are still building things, there have been no "real" cuts. At the moment, we can manage our debts (although £30bn a year in interest is tough to take). If we can maintain the status quo, together with our contiental neighbours, it might be that the economy just rolls along for a decade or so.

Either that or everyone defaults and the whole world collapses.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

adwt2004 wrote:

Let's be honest about things, owing over 1,000,000,000,000 means we will never honestly pay that back. For the last 6 months I own absolutely no shares and have no faith at all in the ecomony improving - i'm very fearful. The kind of cuts required to rein in this debt are of the order of many tens of billions a year for many years or even decades. It won't happen. Basically the public want spending to continue and the debt problem to be solved, they also don't want to contribute more tax either. Impossible.

The only way this will occur will be through devaluation so expect inflation to surge ever higher. The government only has two choices, default (i think it should) or pain and suffering through printing of money and rampant inflation. The easy option is the last one as it forces the public to pay more without having a direct tax increase. They won't default as anarchy would ensue. I want to emmigrate!

The curious thing is that I know that, you know that, everyone knows that - and have known that for at least 3 years. But the stock market isn't worth nothing, companies are still trading, the "housing crash" hasn't happened and there hasn't been mass unemployment. Most people appear to be keeping their heads above water. So if we know there has to be armagedon, why hasn't it happened yet?

Yet people are still buying houses, governments are still building things, there have been no "real" cuts. At the moment, we can manage our debts (although £30bn a year in interest is tough to take). If we can maintain the status quo, together with our contiental neighbours, it might be that the economy just rolls along for a decade or so.

Either that or everyone defaults and the whole world collapses.

Not sure it's quite as rosey as you make out.

Unemployment is very high, especially among young - and it's well known being unemployed young scars your future earnings.

For example...

TheStone

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Tories have used buzz words like 'cuts, austerity, sacrifice' to great effect to firmly blame Labour for the "mess they've gotten us into". The one thing they failed to anticipate is the knock on effect all this doom, gloom and blame mongering has had on consumer confidence.

You could argue that both ways. Labour are saying: 'don't cut now, we're still in trouble'

The differences between the two parties are mostly in the language they use. The Tories talk of massive cuts as it's want their followers want to hear. Labour talk of no cuts as it's what their followers want to hear. In reality they were both going to make small cuts.

The cuts will probably have to get bigger. There's only so much printing and/or dumping our problems on the next generation possible.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

adwt2004 wrote:

Let's be honest about things, owing over 1,000,000,000,000 means we will never honestly pay that back. For the last 6 months I own absolutely no shares and have no faith at all in the ecomony improving - i'm very fearful. The kind of cuts required to rein in this debt are of the order of many tens of billions a year for many years or even decades. It won't happen. Basically the public want spending to continue and the debt problem to be solved, they also don't want to contribute more tax either. Impossible.

The only way this will occur will be through devaluation so expect inflation to surge ever higher. The government only has two choices, default (i think it should) or pain and suffering through printing of money and rampant inflation. The easy option is the last one as it forces the public to pay more without having a direct tax increase. They won't default as anarchy would ensue. I want to emmigrate!

The curious thing is that I know that, you know that, everyone knows that - and have known that for at least 3 years. But the stock market isn't worth nothing, companies are still trading, the "housing crash" hasn't happened and there hasn't been mass unemployment. Most people appear to be keeping their heads above water. So if we know there has to be armagedon, why hasn't it happened yet?

Yet people are still buying houses, governments are still building things, there have been no "real" cuts. At the moment, we can manage our debts (although £30bn a year in interest is tough to take). If we can maintain the status quo, together with our contiental neighbours, it might be that the economy just rolls along for a decade or so.

Either that or everyone defaults and the whole world collapses.

Not sure it's quite as rosey as you make out.

Unemployment is very high, especially among young - and it's well known being unemployed young scars your future earnings.

For example...

I don't think it's rosey, I just don't think it's as bad as it, by all accounts, should be.

Unemployment is high, but you would expect, if the whole world economy was collapsing, it would be much worse than it is.

rick_chasey

I guess so.

It probably shows how far we've come re economic management over the last 80 years.

rjsterry

Re: whether the cuts are happening or not: to take a topical example, police numbers are at their lowest in 10 years, with 6000 fewer officers in the last year alone. If that isn't a cut, then what is?

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

I don't think it's rosey, I just don't think it's as bad as it, by all accounts, should be.

Unemployment is high, but you would expect, if the whole world economy was collapsing, it would be much worse than it is.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Maybe it's a byproduct of having a better/higher standard of living than, say, that of the generation living in the 1970s, 20s or 30s etc.

But while it's not all rosey but with all that is going on you'd expect things to be a little more bleak...

Perhaps all that stress testing has paid off... and this is what global/financial metldowns will be like from now on.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

Perhaps all that stress testing has paid off... and this is what global/financial metldowns will be like from now on.

That may be the case if it was finished. It isn't.
There are years of this to go and nobody knows how it is going to pan out.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Re: whether the cuts are happening or not: to take a topical example, police numbers are at their lowest in 10 years, with 6000 fewer officers in the last year alone. If that isn't a cut, then what is?

Is that police numbers as in officers on the street or the entire police force including the administrators we don't see?

If it's the later is that loss in numbers purely a brutal axe or in part the result of making some processes/services more efficient and by extension a reduction in no longer needed workfore?

That may be the case if it was finished. It isn't.
There are years of this to go and nobody knows how it is going to pan out.

Back to the perpetuation of fear mongering. "Stack the beans as high as the ceiling goes!". On the face of it the recession and these times of austerity haven't been as bleak as we thought. I was expecting 1920s depression (where everyone's a squatter) or something more akin to the 70s or Greece.

Fact is it hasn't been as brutal as you'd think it would be.

The Rookie

Well seeing how Gordon was convinced we could spend our way out of recessions (and that has proven time and time again to never work, it just delays it - oh look what's happening this time) why should I listen to the new shadow chancellor who was so close to him (he was almost up his &%$#), no thanks I'll think for myself ta.

Simon

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Re: whether the cuts are happening or not: to take a topical example, police numbers are at their lowest in 10 years, with 6000 fewer officers in the last year alone. If that isn't a cut, then what is?

Is that police numbers as in officers on the street or the entire police force including the administrators we don't see?

If it's the later is that loss in numbers purely a brutal axe or in part the result of making some processes/services more efficient and by extension a reduction in no longer needed workforce?

That's 6000 officers; another 8800 civilian staff axed as well.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Re: whether the cuts are happening or not: to take a topical example, police numbers are at their lowest in 10 years, with 6000 fewer officers in the last year alone. If that isn't a cut, then what is?

Is that police numbers as in officers on the street or the entire police force including the administrators we don't see?

If it's the later is that loss in numbers purely a brutal axe or in part the result of making some processes/services more efficient and by extension a reduction in no longer needed workforce?

That's 6000 officers; another 8800 civilian staff axed as well.

Ah I'll sit back down then.

CdrJake

The cuts haven't even started, and therein lies the problem as the wider public are feeling deeply affected already through job losses and increased cost of living. We are barely half way through the first act of this 3 act play.

The cuts should have happened two years ago when the coalition came to power and then they should have been deep, quick and a one time only deal. The public can forgive once but they cannot forgive twice.

Have I been affected by the current economy? Only in the sense of my job being threatened with redundancy twice in the space of 12 months (once while on active service in Afghanistan!) but unlike many of my colleagues I would survive without a job, I don't need to worry about the money. And there is the rub, the people who caused this economic crisis (mostly those I went to school and university with!) are unaffected and yet will bemoan the the fact their annual bonus will be a couple million less than last years 25 million bonus!

Over the past 6 months since Nic was made redundant I have seen another side to life. Mostly that she's too damn proud to take any financial assistance from me beyond help with fuel money to get to university once a week, but also that taking someones job away is also taking away their sense of dignity.

By messing around this way this Government are simply prolonging the pain for the majority, but then they won't care as long as they don't feel the pinch themselves. But then perhaps if they did they might actually do something about it.

TheStone

CdrJake wrote:

By messing around this way this Government are simply prolonging the pain for the majority, but then they won't care as long as they don't feel the pinch themselves. But then perhaps if they did they might actually do something about it.

Yep. The economy will collapse, it's just a question of doing it over a short period, or an indefinite period. We're taking the second option and following Japan route to a zombie economy.

We could have just let those that caused the mess (bankers and over leveraged property empire 'owners') suffer for a bit.

One generation have all the wealth and we're now subsidising that wealth by borrowing from our children. When this is all done, people will be studying these mistakes for centuries.

Wallace1492

CdrJake wrote:

The cuts haven't even started, and therein lies the problem as the wider public are feeling deeply affected already through job losses and increased cost of living. We are barely half way through the first act of this 3 act play.

The cuts should have happened two years ago when the coalition came to power and then they should have been deep, quick and a one time only deal. The public can forgive once but they cannot forgive twice.

Have I been affected by the current economy? Only in the sense of my job being threatened with redundancy twice in the space of 12 months (once while on active service in Afghanistan!) but unlike many of my colleagues I would survive without a job, I don't need to worry about the money. And there is the rub, the people who caused this economic crisis (mostly those I went to school and university with!) are unaffected and yet will bemoan the the fact their annual bonus will be a couple million less than last years 25 million bonus!

Over the past 6 months since Nic was made redundant I have seen another side to life. Mostly that she's too damn proud to take any financial assistance from me beyond help with fuel money to get to university once a week, but also that taking someones job away is also taking away their sense of dignity.

By messing around this way this Government are simply prolonging the pain for the majority, but then they won't care as long as they don't feel the pinch themselves. But then perhaps if they did they might actually do something about it.

Agree with the Cdr here.

None, but none of the Banks have changed their ways. They are still run (mostly) by the people who's decisions brought this crises along, and are still as greedy as ever. Yes, they have to give lip service to the criticism they got, but it is water off a ducks back.

Lloyds almost went under in their greed to swallow up HBOS and corner the mortgage market. None of the others are any better.

W1

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Perhaps all that stress testing has paid off... and this is what global/financial metldowns will be like from now on.

That may be the case if it was finished. It isn't.
There are years of this to go and nobody knows how it is going to pan out.

True but - why isn't that being factored into the markets already? If it's so obvious, why is anyone buying a house, or a new car etc? I mean those figures are down, but they aren't zero - not by any means.

W1

Wallace1492 wrote:

None, but none of the Banks have changed their ways. They are still run (mostly) by the people who's decisions brought this crises along, and are still as greedy as ever. Yes, they have to give lip service to the criticism they got, but it is water off a ducks back.

I'm not sure that's true - they have slowed lending to small businesses.

The banks cannot win - on the one hand, they are being told they can't take risks. On the other hand, they are being criticised for not lending to small businesses, which are the highest risks around.