Greg, can I now punch Osborne in the face?

DonDaddyD

The sequel to the very successful: Greg, can we now get rid of Osborne please?

I'm now asking [Greg - Osborne's greatest supporter. Some say he has a shrine in his house dedicated to him and that he likes to be called George when in bed....] whether I can punch him in the face!

Why?

Well, Osborne, when in opposition, led us to believe that the UK losing its triple A (AAA) credit rating WAS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN. He used this fear mongering to justify hacking and slashing public sector services and benefits*, continually telling us that it was the last Government's fault. He lorded it over Labour that the UK initially kept its AAA credit rating when other countries (France, the USA) had lost theirs. The UK kept its credit rating on the premise that Osborne's economic policy would do a few things:

(i). Cut public spending
(ii). Reduce the deficit
(iii). Somehow deliver economic growth (but he never really got to that bit).

It has done none of the above. We are borrowing more, the deficit isn't being reduced and the economy isn't really growing, it was, albeit artificially so, right up until the last election. We were in economic recovery.

So because Osborne's plan has failed we've lost our AAA rating and what does he have to say?
<< Paraphrase >>

It doesn't matter.

I was right all along, its the last Government's fault.

My plan is working.

<</Paraphrase>>

Now, sure, if every country or the Western World's most significant economies/currencies have their credit rating dropped then it creates a near as can be level playing field. The point is that his plan isn't working, hasn't worked and the Country is arguably worse off than when he was given the reigns.

(You need to spend to encourage enconomic growth. Economic growth is the only way you can recover from a recession and pay back a deficit - the solution is a balancing act where you are continually reducing the amount you ae spending. Where labour went wrong is that they invested in public services whereas they should have pumped more money into the private sector up and down the nation as private sector services are more likely to be self sustianing once the public funding is pulled, where as public service rely on public funding). It isn't that hard.

CiB

Why not start by punching Brown G and Balls E repeatedly and viciously in the face for a couple of days? That would be a lot more satisfying and more deserving on their part too.

I love amateur World Economics threads. They raise the mood with the simpleton 'Govt doesn't know what it's doing why don't they do what I can see is the obvious answer?' approach to it all.

estampida

yes, yes you can

we should have taken the hit with all the QE 4 years ago, but no struggle on, pay off the bank debts, and we are still here stuck in sh1t

its all down to the old fuddy duddys and voting....

David got voted in cos "he has nice pick cheeks and his wife has nice teeth".... "dont like that 1 eyed scotsman"

and as Osborne is worth millions....... so he has no idea how the real UK works and survives

we need a change and it needs to be now, 2 years from now the conservatives will be bribing for a second term.............

walkingbootweather

If Greg really loved Osborne as you say he'd no doubt like to be called Gideon (his real name) rather than George.

Your analysis that Private Sector is good and Public Sector is bad is wrong though IMHO.

I'd rather see public money being spent on Housing, Health, Education, Social Care and Infrastructure. Rather than award work to private organisations that need to generate big profits, and then rely on benefit system so that the poor can afford inflated rates, we could build and maintain quality public facilities.

rick_chasey

AAA rating was dropped because of poor growth prospects.

Difficult to cut deficits when economic growth is low / non existant, especially with high unemployment.

Osbourne was wrong to stake everything on the credit rating. His arguments on why it doesn't mstter now are broadly right, but that will be lost in the cacophony of howling at the original mistake.

davmaggs

walkingbootweather wrote:

If Greg really loved Osborne as you say he'd no doubt like to be called Gideon (his real name) rather than George.

In is nearly always a good rule of thumb that when an internet poster uses the name Gideon, then they are without doubt going to be an idiot. I don't think I've seen an exception to this rule (like those that use EUSSR).

back to the original question for DDD. There have been virtually no cuts, the subject (and the evidence) have been done to death on this forum many times so give it up.

The UK is in for another 10 years of this. The re-trenchment of the state hasn't even yet started, but it will come when the maths finally doesn't add up. Services that so many see as vital or a right are more often than not actually fairly new and unthought of (for the state to be doing) only a couple of decades ago. So adjust your self-entitlement expectations or be badly disappointed.

tailwindhome

He's rejecting the Dark Side Greg. Do some of that lightning sh*t.

rick_chasey

davmaggs wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

If Greg really loved Osborne as you say he'd no doubt like to be called Gideon (his real name) rather than George.

There have been virtually no cuts, t.

Eh?

Evidence?

notsoblue

I think part of the problem is that people accept the overly simplistic solutions to complex economic problems that politicians put forward, and then are surprised and disappointed when reality doesn't neatly align with them.

walkingbootweather

Rick Chasey wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

If Greg really loved Osborne as you say he'd no doubt like to be called Gideon (his real name) rather than George.

There have been virtually no cuts, t.

Eh?

Evidence?

The cuts, in terms of number of people and services have been far greater than Osborne originally envisaged but this had perversely led to greater net spend because making people redundant, and re-organisation is expensive. The problem is that Osborne can cut budgets to public sector but not really dictate where cuts fall. It would probably have been cheaper and less painful all around if cuts and change had been more gradual.

davmaggs

Rick Chasey wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

If Greg really loved Osborne as you say he'd no doubt like to be called Gideon (his real name) rather than George.

There have been virtually no cuts, t.

Eh?

Evidence?

Any entire web site dedicated to showing all the numbers:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total ... g_2012UKbn

The trick of course is to take out debt payments and possibly inflation to get real terms numbers.

veronese68

CiB wrote:

I love amateur World Economics threads. They raise the mood with the simpleton 'Govt doesn't know what it's doing why don't they do what I can see is the obvious answer?' approach to it all.

This is why I should go into politics, but I only ever want to be in opposition. Easiest job in the world, just sit there and every time you wake up tell anyone that'll listen that the government doesn't know what it's doing. So long as you don't do anything stupid, like get voted in, you'll never be found out.

rick_chasey

walkingbootweather wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

If Greg really loved Osborne as you say he'd no doubt like to be called Gideon (his real name) rather than George.

There have been virtually no cuts, t.

Eh?

Evidence?

The cuts, in terms of number of people and services have been far greater than Osborne originally envisaged but this had perversely led to greater net spend because making people redundant, and re-organisation is expensive. The problem is that Osborne can cut budgets to public sector but not really dictate where cuts fall. It would probably have been cheaper and less painful all around if cuts and change had been more gradual.

So there have been cuts. There just isn't a deficit reduction.

Glad we cleared that up.

davmaggs

Not quite so simply as that blanket statement.

It is easy to point to a particular service to say that it has been cut, particular at the local level. But when you look at overall spending, and even accounting for debt payments then it isn't so black and white.

DonDaddyD

CiB wrote:

Why not start by punching Brown G and Balls E repeatedly and viciously in the face for a couple of days? That would be a lot more satisfying and more deserving on their part too.

I love amateur World Economics threads. They raise the mood with the simpleton 'Govt doesn't know what it's doing why don't they do what I can see is the obvious answer?' approach to it all.

Armchair politics. I'm also a World Class football manager and have led Arsenal to the Euro Cup, FA Cup, League Cup and Premier League titles in one season on Championship Manager, I know what Arsene Wenger should do!

DonDaddyD

DDD wrote:

davidmaggs wrote:

There have been virtually no cuts, the subject (and the evidence) have been done to death on this forum many times so give it up.

I put it to you, that you will find in my first post that I said:

DDD originally wrote:

The UK kept its credit rating on the premise that Osborne's economic policy would do a few things:

(i). Cut public spending
(ii). Reduce the deficit
(iii). Somehow deliver economic growth (but he never really got to that bit).

It [Osborne's economic policy] has done none of the above. We are borrowing more, the deficit isn't being reduced and the economy isn't really growing, it was, albeit artificially so, right up until the last election. We were in economic recovery.

So where in my post did I say there have been cuts?

I await your apology.

walkingbootweather

Perhaps the Bank of England should consider negative interest rates? Sounds to me as if this might be a really good idea.

walkingbootweather

DDD - think you may have got some of your quotes mixed up above. You may want to edit.

Done - thanks

davmaggs

I'd say DDD that no-one has to have a degree in English to work out that your hyperbolic phrase "hacking and slashing public sector services and benefits" could also be shortened to "cuts" for the rest of the board.

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

I'd say DDD that no-one has to have a degree in English to work out that your hyperbolic phrase "hacking and slashing public sector services and benefits" could also be shortened to "cuts" for the rest of the board.

No, that is an assumption on your part. A wrong one.

I can prove that funding for public sector services has been hacked/slashed/cut (you choose the preferred hyperbolic term or we can settle on 'reduced'). It is acknowledged that funding to public sector services has been reduced. You almost go as far as writing it yourself:

davmaggs wrote:

The problem is that Osborne can cut budgets to public sector but not really dictate where cuts fall.

What you have done is taken what I have written and lept, in error, to an unfounded conclusion. Unfounded because there is no basis for it in my original post save for your assumption of what you think I meant. Astonishing really given that my post clearly stats that he has failed to cut public spending and is borrowing more....

So, unless you can actually point out where in my post I have written what you accuse me of meaning, I think we can accept that you are mistaken, and given your follow up post, in possession of an inability to admit when you are wrong.

DDD

davmaggs

You've used someone else's quote, and stuck my name on it. WBW made a comment about where cuts fall etc.


edit: also try out the web link I posted. I just tried 2010, 2011, and 2013 (projections)

The budgets allocated to Health, Education and Defence have not been cut (I exclude welfare and pensions as they are always going to expand and contract). You might argue fiscal drag, but even then we are talking about small amounts.

The idea of "slash" is simply not true.

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

You've used someone else's quote, and stuck my name on it. WBW made a comment about where cuts fall etc.

OK and in that I made a mistake. How about this:

DDD wrote:

...You almost go as far as writing it yourself:

Davmaggs wrote:

It is easy to point to a particular service to say that it has been cut, particular at the local level.

What you have done is taken what I have written and lept, in error, to an unfounded conclusion. Unfounded because there is no basis for it in my original post save for your assumption of what you think I meant. Astonishing really given that my post clearly stats that he has failed to cut public spending and is borrowing more....

So, unless you can actually point out where in my post I have written what you accuse me of meaning, I think we can accept that you are mistaken, and given your follow up post, in possession of an inability to admit when you are wrong.

DDD

Because from where I'm typing my point still stands.

davmaggs

see my edit. Your claims simply aren't true.

What you are witnessing is the restructuring of organisations and changes in where they put their money. This might well mean that you see despair and doom in individual areas, but in reality the amounts that they are being given by the treasury remain very similar for the last three years.

DonDaddyD

Davmaggs, in my original post did I or did I not write:

The UK kept its credit rating on the premise that Osborne's economic policy would do a few things:

(i). Cut public spending
(ii). Reduce the deficit
(iii). Somehow deliver economic growth (but he never really got to that bit).

It [Osborne's economic policy] has done none of the above. We are borrowing more, the deficit isn't being reduced and the economy isn't really growing

Did you or did you not accuse me of suggesting that there have been 'cuts'?

Do you accept that you were wrong on that.

Now, we can argue till we are blue in the face whether funding to public services has been reduced or not. You have your website and I work within a public service and go to CEO meetings, Director meetings, Governor meetings, Service User, carer, patient and third sector forums, consultations relating to Save our Hospital/Library/Fire Station/A&E. CCG/CSU (Clinical Commissioning groups and Clinical Support Units) meetings and knowing that some NHS organisations have to make 5% savings and turn a surplus (3-4% is staff reduction teritory) within a financial year, while having less money being given to them by commissioners/councils to deliver already existing services because commissioners and councils have less to give (whether that's becuase they've been given less to run their own services I don't know).

But the fact remains, in my original post I never gave any indication of the thing you accused me of.

Edit: I do accept that the Government is spending more public funds due to reorganisation and restructuring. I wish someone would whistle blow on the shambles that is NHS commissioning restructuring. What we have is exactly the same as the PCTs, its all the same staff etc but with GPs now at the top - it cost millions probably billions and what we've got is GPs not listening to their constituents or the business advisers (CSUs) as they prioritise their primary care services over acute/specialist services which they have no experience of.

I can accept that on the face of it it appears that the Government is spending even more on public services. However, if the additional money is going to resturcturing, reorganisation and paying off redundancies and not the services themselves (and we can see that with the closure of A&Es, fire services, armed forces redundancies etc) then how can we say that public services spending has increased when in reality it clearly hasn't. Once the above has been achieved its not like the same amount is going to be given to those services. It's not like new services/hospitals/schools/A&E's, libraries etc are being built - and there are less jobs. No this isn't 'cuts' (in the layperson sense) but there is a clear reduction in the moeny going towards public services themselves. Benefits have also been reduced, however, if there are more people claiming benefits then that becomes a counter weight and more money will have to be spent providing benefits even though each individual will be claiming less than they would before all the changes.

rick_chasey

Reducing the deficit doesn't necessarily mean reducing public spending.... nor does it necessarily mean reducing public debt.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

Reducing the deficit doesn't necessarily mean reducing public spending.... nor does it necessarily mean reducing public debt.

I agree,

But Osborne would have the general populous believe that they were all related. Reduce public spending/debt will help to reduce 'THE DEFICIT that the last Government left us with' and he wanted to do this in five years... (Does the guy even like the British public?). Austerity England (5% tax reduction for the top earners) and we are all in this together.

For me the issue has always been that while I believe public spending needed to be addressed and benefits needed to be tackled (for cultural and financial reasons) it didn't need to be as brutal and as fear mongering as Osborne went about doing.

We've had costly reform changes, most of which have been ill thought out and built on ideological principles more than anything else. Most accepted this under the premise that this approach would help contribute to our economic recovery and reducing the deficit. Osborne said that it was essential we did this to secure our AAA rating (help recovery and clear debt blah blah). It hasn't because and its stifled economic growth.

Financial pain has been felt and it need not have been so severe.

The Man needs a punch in the face.

Paul E

It's like listening to a rambling speech by sir humphrey appleby in Yes Prime Minister.

cookeeemonster

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Reducing the deficit doesn't necessarily mean reducing public spending.... nor does it necessarily mean reducing public debt.

I agree,

But Osborne would have the general populous believe that they were all related. Reduce public spending/debt will help to reduce 'THE DEFICIT that the last Government left us with' and he wanted to do this in five years... (Does the guy even like the British public?). Austerity England (5% tax reduction for the top earners) and we are all in this together.

For me the issue has always been that while I believe public spending needed to be addressed and benefits needed to be tackled (for cultural and financial reasons) it didn't need to be as brutal and as fear mongering as Osborne went about doing.

We've had costly reform changes, most of which have been ill thought out and built on ideological principles more than anything else. Most accepted this under the premise that this approach would help contribute to our economic recovery and reducing the deficit. Osborne said that it was essential we did this to secure our AAA rating (help recovery and clear debt blah blah). It hasn't because and its stifled economic growth.

Financial pain has been felt and it need not have been so severe.

The Man needs a punch in the face.

I pretty much agree with you.

Everyone else on this forum is a south west London Conservative voting ponce :P

davmaggs

DDD you really have lost me. The words you use like "brutal" and "slash" simply do not fit the figures that are public record. As passionate as you are being, you are not arguing with fact, but with localised anecdotes.

Even accepting your anecdotes, those cuts you quote are tiny percentages. If we get anywhere near Greece, Spain or Ireland levels then you are talking 20%, not 3%. Honestly the whirlwind hasn't even touched Britain, we haven't even felt a whisp of what could well come our way.

I don't doubt the turmoil locally and the pain to the employees (I know from contact with various agencies that people are getting a kicking), but the numbers are public record.

What could have happened is that the management down at the sharp end ignored the reality for too long and planned for rising budgets and commited to longer term purchases (e.g. CapEx spending like buildings or aircraft carriers), are stuck with wage rises that didn't gel with annual treasury freezes or inflation so it means bigger cuts on the shop floor. Speak to a lot of people at various departments and the bloat had became crazy in the boom, there was a binge of spending on nonsense and on people/stuff that shouldn't have been taken on.

I don't want to make this a public vs private sector row either, but I've seen three downturns now and the job losses and closing of departments even within successful companies happens all the time.

bushu

namby pamby hoes, YES it is time to dish out the punishment..

End of, and no not just osbourne! All the other twats that claim to represent you need a good kicking too!
no matter the party they are all liars and thieves in my eyes and lucky we don't have severe state punishment lined up I'd happily cut out all their lying tongues and send em to prison with all the scroats they have failed in our lifetime

rjsterry

bushu wrote:

namby pamby hoes, YES it is time to dish out the punishment..

End of, and no not just osbourne! All the other twats that claim to represent you need a good kicking too!
no matter the party they are all liars and thieves in my eyes and lucky we don't have severe state punishment lined up I'd happily cut out all their lying tongues and send em to prison with all the scroats they have failed in our lifetime

Anyone decrying the standard of British politicians should cast their eyes over to Italy (or many other places) and thank their lucky stars we are not in their situation. They're not perfect by a long chalk, but they're a darn sight better than most others I've seen.

As for the basic premise of DDD's opus, I think the really damning thing is that both he and davmaggs are right: we seem to have managed to cut spending on public facilities and services without actually saving any money.