£12 billion in welfare cuts
Comments
-
Why do all the Tory tosspots here and everywhere else keep banging on as though anything other than an out and out Conservative government would be "Going back to the 70's"?
That was over 40 years ago for fucks sake!
Ok ban me.0 -
well its a democracy, and your party didn't win, so you need to get over it
What percentage of the electorate voted for the tory party in the 2015 GE? 36%
As for the 70's... If I was to buy the same house in the 70's how much would it cost compared to todays prices?
How much was the cost of petrol back then?
Did miners still have jobs and did we have a industrial nation back then, rather than a nation of zero hours contracts in call centres?
The best quote I heard about the miners strike (1984-85?) was "We were just striking for the right to work"."The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
well its a democracy, and your party didn't win, so you need to get over it
What percentage of the electorate voted for the tory party in the 2015 GE? 36%
As for the 70's... If I was to buy the same house in the 70's how much would it cost compared to todays prices?
How much was the cost of petrol back then?
Did miners still have jobs and did we have a industrial nation back then, rather than a nation of zero hours contracts in call centres?
The best quote I heard about the miners strike (1984-85?) was "We were just striking for the right to work".
How many mines did Thatcher close compared to Wilson?0 -
I think I will go on strike for the right to be good looking, rich and famous. And witty.0
-
i started this thread as i couldnt believe people could be so stupid as to vote back in the Tories and their equally stupid austerity policies, that hit the middle classes downward, the hardest.
Money is super cheap to borrow and this country is falling apart, we ve just had the longest ever recession and seen the richest get even richer, the poor get even poorer and yet still with the promise of a cut in income tax, we all go baa and vote on v short term dubious self interest.
for those that disagree, look at our weak defence forces, our cuts to Policing, our inability to police our borders, our shitte education system and despite austerity we are borrowing more than ever the labour party did and investing even less in our future as a nation.
Borrowing may be cheap at the moment, but who is to say it will always be so. Like all the folks that max out the 0% credit offer on a new credit card and then struggle to pay it back when the interest kicks in.
The national debt is rising, of course it is, because we have a DEFICIT.0 -
Why do all the Tory tosspots here and everywhere else keep banging on as though anything other than an out and out Conservative government would be "Going back to the 70's"?
That was over 40 years ago for f***s sake!
Ok ban me.
So you are a 'Tosspot' for no other reason than voting for a party that you didn't?
Banging on about the 70s? That would be in response to things like this post.Not me fella, always been left of centre in a seventies labour kind of way.0 -
A higher percentage than voted for Labour or any other party. The Conservatives won, get over it.
What percentage of the electorate voted for the tory party in the 2015 GE? 36%"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
i started this thread as i couldnt believe people could be so stupid as to vote back in the Tories and their equally stupid austerity policies, that hit the middle classes downward, the hardest.
Money is super cheap to borrow and this country is falling apart, we ve just had the longest ever recession and seen the richest get even richer, the poor get even poorer and yet still with the promise of a cut in income tax, we all go baa and vote on v short term dubious self interest.
for those that disagree, look at our weak defence forces, our cuts to Policing, our inability to police our borders, our shitte education system and despite austerity we are borrowing more than ever the labour party did and investing even less in our future as a nation.
Borrowing may be cheap at the moment, but who is to say it will always be so. Like all the folks that max out the 0% credit offer on a new credit card and then struggle to pay it back when the interest kicks in.
The national debt is rising, of course it is, because we have a DEFICIT.
But i thought the whole idea of austerity was to reduce and eliminate the deficit? thats how it is being sold isnt it?
Personally, i d like to see MORE cuts, i think there is soooo many areas of council and government services that need to be cut or got rid of.
the Police, cant see them, cant report crime - anyone tried phoning room 101 to report a crime?, so huge room for cuts.... and have households take out insurance to a private rapid response force.
Same for fire services and NHS GP's.
Other council services? take dog wardens, cornwall has one, what good can ONE person do? why bother? libraries - get rid, if people want a book, go to waterstones, road mtce - households should be responsible for repair outside there own homes and parishes responsible for roads in their area.
M way and A road tolls for all else, works for the french!
Same with leisure centres, sell them ALL off for housing, parks - the same. there are plenty of green fields to walk in and plenty of private leisure centres, if you can t afford these, then rivers, lakes and sea provide a free alternative.
Adult care? havent people got relatives? make them look after their old and disabled folk.
Working tax credits - if your so thick your in such a poorly paid job, why should the state support you?
Housing benefit - wtf is that about? if i cant afford a hoilday, i dont get working Holiday benefit! so again get rid, landlords would have to reduce rent or they d get nothing.
I hope this piece is read by Osborne, he can get some ideas.0 -
Starting to make sense at last.the Police, cant see them, cant report crime - anyone tried phoning room 101 to report a crime?, so huge room for cuts.... and have households take out insurance to a private rapid response force.
Same for fire services and NHS GP's.
Other council services? take dog wardens, cornwall has one, what good can ONE person do? why bother? libraries - get rid, if people want a book, go to waterstones, road mtce - households should be responsible for repair outside there own homes and parishes responsible for roads in their area.
M way and A road tolls for all else, works for the french!
Same with leisure centres, sell them ALL off for housing, parks - the same. there are plenty of green fields to walk in and plenty of private leisure centres, if you can t afford these, then rivers, lakes and sea provide a free alternative.
Adult care? havent people got relatives? make them look after their old and disabled folk.
Working tax credits - if your so thick your in such a poorly paid job, why should the state support you?
Housing benefit - wtf is that about? if i cant afford a hoilday, i dont get working Holiday benefit! so again get rid, landlords would have to reduce rent or they d get nothing.
Just take a few examples:
Policing - reported crime keeps on going down, it's now less than half what it was 20 years ago. Why isn't the police budget?
Fire - ditto: less than half the number of callouts. And the majority of those are false alarms.
Dog wardens - owners should be responsible for dogs, end of. Strays? Shouldn't be too difficult to catch and humanely put down the (ir)responsible human.
Working tax credits - actually these have the effect of artificially deflating wages, and their chief purpose was Brown's "everyone a client of the state" agenda. Surely it would be better to cut taxes for the lower paid than tax them then give some of it back? Now which party was it that was proposing to do that? Ah yes, the Tories. The same party whose time in office has seen the increase of the proportion of total tax that is paid by the richest 1%.
Road Tolls - ah yes, "works for the French", that well-known beacon of state largesse and anti-austerity!
GPs - there are over 5,000 more GPs now than there were 10 years ago (that's just in England). Mostly because a) being a GP is such a sh1te job that doctors really don't want to do it any more than they have to, so they almost all refuse to work out of hours, and b) the vast amounts of unnecessary crap that people go to doctor for.0 -
A higher percentage than voted for Labour or any other party. The Conservatives won, get over it.
Can't get my head around how / why they should form a majority Government, when the majority voted AGAINST them.
Under their proposed trade union legislation, would 36% even be enough to mount a legal strike?
Why don't we have proportional representation? Because they're clinging onto power (however looks like it's the banks who run this place)."The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
A higher percentage than voted for Labour or any other party. The Conservatives won, get over it.
Can't get my head around how / why they should form a majority Government, when the majority voted AGAINST them.
Under their proposed trade union legislation, would 36% even be enough to mount a legal strike?
Why don't we have proportional representation? Because they're clinging onto power (however looks like it's the banks who run this place).
40% of the total union membership, under their proposal.
So Cameron is PM of an illegal Government, that's big saving toward deficit reduction.0 -
Labour (or any other party) could have just easily formed a majority government under the same rules if they got enough votes. Same rules for all parties. If Labour had won the last general election, would you still be moaning about the 'system'?A higher percentage than voted for Labour or any other party. The Conservatives won, get over it.
Can't get my head around how / why they should form a majority Government, when the majority voted AGAINST them.
Under their proposed trade union legislation, would 36% even be enough to mount a legal strike?
Why don't we have proportional representation? Because they're clinging onto power (however looks like it's the banks who run this place).
Now Osborne needs to get on with it as he has a democratic mandate to do so. As I said before (possibly earlier in this thread), all they will doing is returning welfare spending to the same level as existed in the latter years of the last Labour administration.
And jut a little reminder - in order to spend money, you have to earn it
. There seems to be an assumption that we can just increase spending and the money will magically appear from the evil rich/multinationals etc, without considering the real world impact of jacking up taxes :roll: "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Labour (or any other party) could have just easily formed a majority government under the same rules if they got enough votes. Same rules for all parties. If Labour had won the last general election, would you still be moaning about the 'system'?A higher percentage than voted for Labour or any other party. The Conservatives won, get over it.
Can't get my head around how / why they should form a majority Government, when the majority voted AGAINST them.
Under their proposed trade union legislation, would 36% even be enough to mount a legal strike?
Why don't we have proportional representation? Because they're clinging onto power (however looks like it's the banks who run this place).
Now Osborne needs to get on with it as he has a democratic mandate to do so. As I said before (possibly earlier in this thread), all they will doing is returning welfare spending to the same level as existed in the latter years of the last Labour administration.
And jut a little reminder - in order to spend money, you have to earn it . There seems to be an assumption that we can just increase spending and the money will magically appear from the evil rich/multinationals etc, without considering the real world impact of jacking up taxes :roll:
oddly, i dont disagree with you, had labour won, they certainly would nt be calling for PR but that our political leadership can attract so few votes, is shameful and not good for democracy should the levels fall even further.
for me its about where the cuts fall, at present its the poor, the disabled and kids via schooling and services that will get clobbered.
sometimes i think that an across the board income tax rise of say 2% would be a fairer way of rising money.
Services that are cut to the bone dont give vfm and therefore become ineffective, there comes a point when they are paying just lip service to what they should be doing and would be best off disbanded.0 -
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:Can't get my head around how / why they should form a majority Government, when the majority voted AGAINST them.
NO THEY DID NOT
Precisely 0% of the electorate put a cross in the box marked "Anti-Tory". The same number who put a cross in the box marked "Anti-Labour" or "Anti-Russell Brand" for that matter.
The FPTP system is the one we have had for a very long time. It has its flaws but it has its strengths too. It tends to favour centrist parties, and despite what rabid lefties like to think, the Conservatives are a centrist party (so are Labour and the Libs).
If you throw in the other "right wing" parties (UKIP and the NI Unionists) then they got well above 50% of the votes cast. And please, don't even try to claim the support of those who didn't care enough to vote - how pathetic.
Even the elitist left wing "the people are too thick" comentators are more honest than the absurd "the Tories didn't really win" crowd.0 -
well of course the tories won, the rules are the same for all but still some 64% didnt vote for them.
but as almost all successful nations DO NOT use the fptp system, perhaps we need to look at a more representative and less divisive system
just because "its always been this way gov" doesn't mean its the best method or do you think Germany is a less well governed country than the UK?0 -
Sounds like you want to vote for a party that supports electoral reform mamba.
Broadly speaking, for England anyway, that can be boiled down to any party that isn't Labour or Conservative.
Take your pick!
I think that generally it is underestimated how much the shape of the electoral system shapes the debate and type of governance that occurs, and that not enough thought or rhetoric is given to looking at which system will consistently produce quality governance (regardless of political creed).
You may feel the same.0 -
Policing - reported crime keeps on going down, it's now less than half what it was 20 years ago. Why isn't the police budget?
Fire - ditto: less than half the number of callouts. And the majority of those are false alarms.
Well what are you suggesting? You can't just say cut the number of police and firefighters in 2 because they have less work to do - you need the spare capacity for, e.g. policing football matches, large fires, motorway pile-ups...
Not to mention the fact that more visible policing might deter crime, therefore saving money elsewhere.0 -
M way and A road tolls for all else, works for the french!
The French don't have such high fuel duties to pay for building and maintaining roads. Besides, why would you want to deter people from using the motorways which encourage greater fuel efficiency, are safer and means they aren't driving through towns and villages?Same with leisure centres, sell them ALL off for housing, parks - the same. there are plenty of green fields to walk in and plenty of private leisure centres, if you can t afford these, then rivers, lakes and sea provide a free alternative.
What a good idea, with our increasingly obese nation, why not make exercise for kids more difficult and expensive?Adult care? havent people got relatives? make them look after their old and disabled folk.
Sometimes it's too difficult. Your average person has no medical expertise and with increasing life expectancy, it's very difficult to look after the very elderly. Take it from me, I've witnessed it in my own family.Working tax credits - if your so thick your in such a poorly paid job, why should the state support you?
They support employers who pay such poor wages.Housing benefit - wtf is that about? if i cant afford a hoilday, i dont get working Holiday benefit! so again get rid, landlords would have to reduce rent or they d get nothing.
Again, welfare for the rich.0 -
"There seems to be an assumption that we can just increase spending and the money will magically appear
Isn't this what banks already do? Loan out money they don't physically have, effectively printing money and hoping you'll pay it back eventually. If we were all to do "a run on the bank" they could not give all of us our savings back.
If the Government want to sort out this so called crisis, where has all the £850 billion they used to bail out the banks gone? Ask for it back. Surely the banks haven't spent it on awarding themselves big multi-million bonuses? Evil Duncan Smith would have you believe the poor and disabled have taken all of this money.
So when do we get our money back or make a profit from this bailout? Or don't we?"The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
Not the point I was making."There seems to be an assumption that we can just increase spending and the money will magically appear
Isn't this what banks already do? Loan out money they don't physically have, effectively printing money and hoping you'll pay it back eventually. If we were all to do "a run on the bank" they could not give all of us our savings back.
If the Government want to sort out this so called crisis, where has all the £850 billion they used to bail out the banks gone? Ask for it back. Surely the banks haven't spent it on awarding themselves big multi-million bonuses? Evil Duncan Smith would have you believe the poor and disabled have taken all of this money.
So when do we get our money back or make a profit from this bailout? Or don't we?
This was about how a country matches its income and its expenses - when you have a deficit there are three categories of things a country can do: increase taxes, increase borrowing or reduce spending. Or some combination of the three. And where a country tries to raise taxes through increased taxation there is often a behavioural aspect to his which means that the effect is often not as much as expected - or sometimes counterproductive: I can repost a link if you are interested in a real UK example. Conversely, reducing taxes can increase tax revenues - this is something where I have direct first hand experience."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo, the problem with increasing taxes and reducing Government spending. Is the consumers can not afford to spend, therefore there is less money circulating in the economy.
Even I find the Grauniad slightly biased, but this link is an interesting read all the less... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/great-austerity-shell-game"The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
Stevo, the problem with increasing taxes and reducing Government spending. Is the consumers can not afford to spend, therefore there is less money circulating in the economy.
Even I find the Grauniad slightly biased, but this link is an interesting read all the less... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/great-austerity-shell-game
At the same time, we are very good at buying foreign goods when we do spend money.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Agree the Guardian is biased but Richard D. Wolff goes a step further than the sandal wearers rag normally goes - he is the prominent marxist economist in the US according to Wikipedia so I think we can draw our own conclusions on that article...Stevo, the problem with increasing taxes and reducing Government spending. Is the consumers can not afford to spend, therefore there is less money circulating in the economy.
Even I find the Grauniad slightly biased, but this link is an interesting read all the less... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/great-austerity-shell-game
A big part of the problem with debt is that we pay interest on it - currently around £50 billion a year. I'm sure you can work out what that could be spent on that is of more value. This is also in an era of low interest rates - when rates increase, new borrowing costs go up. Same when the level of debt are seen to be too large and the market imposes a risk premium on the country trying to borrow - you can see how this can become a vicious spiral if not managed. That's why it is important to manage the national debt. And the common sense answer when you have borrowed too much is to spend less.
There are people who will claim that spending less removes economic stimuli, but I have seen no evidence that every £1 of additonal spend results in more than £1 of extra revenues - typically due to waste, inefficiency etc the return is less than 100% so extra spending overall will tend to make the national debt position worse."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo - if the government isn't paying for it, someone else is. That spending doesn't disappear. If people need to pay for sh!t, it doesn't really matter if the gov't does it or they do it - it needs to get spent.
As such, running down gov't debt usually increases private debt. Fairly sure it was private debt in the USA that caused the financial crisis in 2007/8 originally.
And as for treating public finance like private finance, I've said it a million times - it's not the same thing.
Here's an Oxford professor of Economics explaining why it's not the same thing.
He refers to 'mediamacro' which is a type of macro-economics that makes little macro-economic sense, but was pedalled extensively in all usual forms of media, and thus has permeated the discourse on economics, despite not being economically sound.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/uk-mediamacro-myths-introduction.html
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/mediamacro-myths-summing-up.html0 -
Rick,
Two things.
1. You are working on the assumption that 'things' have to get spent, i.e that spending cannot be reduced. Not necessarily the case as spending has been lower in the past. Part of the answer is working out what is really needed and what is not and making the changes. I don't claim to have all the answers on how to slve the current overspending issue but we survived pretty well in the past wih much lower level of spending, so it is definitely possible - I would say desirable.
2. Regardless of of the differences between public and private debt - and yes there are differences - the bottom line is that whether you are a person or a state, if you get into a position where your debt is not sustainable (often from a point of view of servicing the interest), then you have a problem. Common sense really."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo...
He refers to 'mediamacro' which is a type of macro-economics that makes little macro-economic sense, but was pedalled extensively in all usual forms of media, and thus has permeated the discourse on economics, despite not being economically sound.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/uk-mediamacro-myths-introduction.html
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/mediamacro-myths-summing-up.html
Interesting article.
How about setting council tax according to income instead of the proposed 'Mansion Tax'? Billionaires in houses in Kensington can pay accordingly. People who have lived in their own houses for years and lie in an area where the house prices have risen through no fault of their own and they pay a disproportionate amount of their income in CT, without necessarily realising an proportionate increase in income.
How about putting rent authorities back in which will cap the HB payout instead of capping how much benefit a household can claim - bear in mind, the vast majority of it is HB. The Tory proposal is the wrong way around the problem.
How about tackling the macro economics of short termism?
How about closing all the tax loopholes and getting rid of 'Non-Dom' status? The Inland Revenue regularly meet with stinking rich clients and agree mutual tax payments on what would be considered 'fair'- wrong, wrong wrong.
How about obligating companies like Tesco to employ a minimum percentage of people in full time hours with proper pensions and proper working contracts so that those employees are not being subsidised by the welfare state and Tesco aren't in effect profiting?
How about a tax break for couples where on person chooses to work whilst the other raises the children/
How about tackling the housing crisis?
How about capping shareholder dividends to a percentage and allowing the remainder to be re-invested tax free? Re-investment levels in the UK are a paltry 1.5% compared to Germany - 6 to 8%.
How about copying the German model of boardrooms where all stakeholders are present from representatives of local communities to shop floor worker reps, thereby changing business in the UK to a collective culture, benefiting all, not just a few?
How about tax breaks for small businesses and legislation forcing banks to limit the charges levied on them? [Cashing cheques, Counting Money?!?]?
Getting rid of Pay Day loan companies...
Why is the immediate response to cutting deficit to cut the welfare bill? Sure as hell, if I pay an extra 5% of my income on extra council tax or whatever back door tax [Road tax, fuel Duty, VAT - insert your own bugbear] it will effect my standard of living but if Stanislav from the Ukraine living in Chelsea who buys and sells guns on the back of selling Europe Gas, probably would not suffer one iota, if he had to spend an extra 5% on whatever tax but the difference in revenue would be huge.
The very wealthy should pay more, after all it is their mess far more than it is the ordinary bloke in the street.
Saying that taxing the rich more will drive them away is a totally flawed argument.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Stevo, the problem with increasing taxes and reducing Government spending. Is the consumers can not afford to spend, therefore there is less money circulating in the economy.
Even I find the Grauniad slightly biased, but this link is an interesting read all the less... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/great-austerity-shell-game
At the same time, we are very good at buying foreign goods when we do spend money.
Do we make goods anymore? Or did Thatcher wipe our industry out ?"The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
Spending will almost certainly rise on pensions, health (ageing and less healthy population), education (increasing numbers of children) and maybe the military (unless things calm down with Russia), energy (replace power stations which are to be closed in the near future), transport (HS2).
So I'm not sure how much scope there is for any significant short-term reductions in spending, apart from a few false economies. I suppose welfare if the housing market collapses and housing benefits spending gets slashed.
0 -
Agree the Guardian is biased but Richard D. Wolff goes a step further than the sandal wearers rag normally goes - he is the prominent marxist economist in the US according to Wikipedia so I think we can draw our own conclusions on that article...Stevo, the problem with increasing taxes and reducing Government spending. Is the consumers can not afford to spend, therefore there is less money circulating in the economy.
Even I find the Grauniad slightly biased, but this link is an interesting read all the less... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/great-austerity-shell-game
A big part of the problem with debt is that we pay interest on it - currently around £50 billion a year. I'm sure you can work out what that could be spent on that is of more value. This is also in an era of low interest rates - when rates increase, new borrowing costs go up. Same when the level of debt are seen to be too large and the market imposes a risk premium on the country trying to borrow - you can see how this can become a vicious spiral if not managed. That's why it is important to manage the national debt. And the common sense answer when you have borrowed too much is to spend less.
There are people who will claim that spending less removes economic stimuli, but I have seen no evidence that every £1 of additonal spend results in more than £1 of extra revenues - typically due to waste, inefficiency etc the return is less than 100% so extra spending overall will tend to make the national debt position worse.
But what about future investment? the country has a huge shortage of ambulance staff, low pay and increasing work load (now even trying to recruit in australia) poorly educated kids mean industry struggles to recruit, lack of adult social care...bed blocking in hospitals and i could go on and on! cutting budgets may mean short term debt reduction but 5 years down the line?
hmrc figures from 2012/13 state that tax EVASION is 3x higher than benefit fraud, which does the Government go after? yep benefit fraud - hmrc have a list of 1000 top tax evaders, yet only one prosecution.
what the right wing always seems to target is the most vulnerable, so when SNP suggest some very mild form of land reform, Lord Astor (yes Camerons relative) claims a Mugabe style land grab.... meanwhile, limiting total benefits and chucking people out of their homes goes on un noticed - £23k might sound a lot but bearing in mind this includes rent, its not a huge amount and yet, the tories( nor labour)wont countenance rent control, which would have a huge impact on public spending.0 -
Stevo...to Wikipedia so I think we can draw our own conclusions on that article...
A big...less.
There...worse.
But...line?
hmrc figures from 2012/13 state that tax EVASION is 3x higher than benefit fraud, which does the Government go after? yep benefit fraud - hmrc have a list of 1000 top tax evaders, yet only one prosecution.
what...spending.
What do you say to that Stevo?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
