The true reason for deficit cutting.(91 Posts)
David Cameron is using the deficit as a cover to dismantle the welfare State and the role of the State for the above mentioned reasons, but none of this reality is being picked up by either Labour Ministers, Lib-Dem ministers, or the BBC Media. This reality is being dumbed down. The BBC media is compliant.
The very fabric of the role of what the State should provide in tax payers money to welfare, services and State pensions, is being whittled away under cover of reducing the deficit, and there is no opposition to it.
The Tory mantra of making painful cuts to reduce the deficit is little more than a smoke screen they hide behind to implement their ideology of reducing the size of the State, driving down wages, cutting benefits ect.
My guess is that they'd make pretty much the same decisions for ideological reasons even if there wasn't a deficit.
The cynic in me says how easy it is for the right wing comfortably well off, greed infested Tory supporters to ridicule and chastise people on the receiving end of Tory cuts in welfare. And how equally easy it is for the right wing press to encourage this, just to sell their papers.
The Thatcherist, hard line, anti social policies the Tories are forcing on us all makes them feel superior. And they perpetuate the suffering while living in their comfy homes without a conscience.
The Tories pretend to care about the pensioners having to choose between heating, or eating, the Tory's pretend to care about the family's wondering how they are going to feed their children today and tomorrow.
The Tories since Thatcher have been the same !
No longer a small "c" left of centre Conservative party with a good social conscience.
No, since the 80's they have been ultra right wing, hardnosed, and with no compassion but to condemn the poor to a life of misery and no hope so long as they can live in relative luxury.
This is how they want it, to keep the masses under their eternal control. The Tories only aim is power and control.
For that reason the Tories love it when the economy is bad, so bad that they blame the masses of poor for it. It is malicious and insidious.
And what makes it even more appalling is that the Tories actually do believe they are superior intellectually to everybody else.
This will be their downfall!, and I hope that this will be at the next general election in 2015.
The Tories deserve to be out of office for decades to come, if only to stop their bare faced arrogance.
Food banks in 21st century Britain, is as bad as the chronic homelessness we have, the awful old age poverty, and the low waged economy the Tories have nurtured throughout their 18 years of running Britain, 1979- 1997, and I might add, New Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, 1997- 2010, did nothing fundamental to reverse any of it.
Britain has suffered Thatcher's ideology for over 30 years.
Lets not forget SOME LEADER had to address the deficit, as Brown was in denial, Darling came clean and got set on my Brown’s ‘attack dogs’ – and that Labour’s solution to the deficit was ‘more of the same’ incompetence/spending until our interest rates borrowing £160 odd billion a year reached Geek levels (from the £50 billion a year now on our national debt) and the money ran out.
And ‘here is one I prepared earlier’ with the proof that Brown caused the largest post crash budget deficits in Europe.
ttosca…..while I can understand for YOU to write your claptrap, that YOU need to get up in the morning believing that Labour’s profligacy under Brown unnecessarily CAUSED the huge Budget Deficit the Coalition inherited, but you cannot ignore the facts on the previous page.
For a start, why are you comparing our debt/GDP/expenditure to OTHER European countries, when their economies were structured differently to ours?
How many European countries had spend £billions hiring one million plus more State workers from 1997 and a quangocracy that rose several fold to £170 billion, THAT RELIED on the ANNUAL £60-100 billion (direct and indirect taxes) from the now virtually unregulated City’s profits?
UK GDP was therefore an unsustainable government spending and debt (government, company and consumer) house of cards that was going flatline at the first major economic recession, but when the ECONOMIC recession is preceded by a FINANCIAL recession, as our country REVENUES collapsed (in the City and many private sector jobs) our FIXED COSTS built up Prior to 2008 not only remained, they increased as they do in any recession via the Automatic Economic Stabilisers.
So lets keep this simple and I’ve tried to find a source that is fair ( overly in my view) and try wasting your breath defending Labour by challenging the following link – with graphs and charts.
“During the years 2001-2007, there was a sharp rise in government spending. In real terms, government spending increased from just over £400bn (2009 prices) to £618bn in 2008-09.
As a % of GDP Government spending also increased from 36% of GDP in 2000 to 46% of GDP by the end of 2008-09
This increase in government spending contributed to budget deficits and higher public sector debt.
After a short period of budget surplus (due to spending restraint) in the late 1990s, the UK experienced a budget deficit of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007.
By historical standards, this is relatively low. It still met the Maastricht criteria of keeping budget deficits to less than 3% of GDP.
However, the budget situation was also improved by impressive tax revenues from the housing and financial boom. When the credit crunch hit, tax revenues rapidly dwindled causing a marked deterioration in public finances.”
•If the government had entered the credit crunch with a budget surplus and lower public sector debt, the government would have had much more room to pursue a real and sustained economic stimulus. However, because there was already a deficit, the recession caused a rise in the cyclical deficit. The deficit of 2009-10 of 11% of GDP was primarily due to the deterioration in public finances, only a small part of this deficit was due to expansionary fiscal policy (VAT cut)
•A great failure of spending decisions of the 2000s, was to allow budget deficits during rapid economic expansion. A budget deficit of 3% of GDP may have sounded relatively low. But, in hindsight, this exaggerated the underlying deficit because tax revenues were boosted by tax revenues which evaporated during the credit crunch.
I havent read any of ttoscas long posts properly
or even half of them
My life is too short for that.
fwiw, the other poster I said the same thing to, she changed about 1 month after I pointed it out to her.
So maybe ttosca will do the same?
Depends on whether she is more interested in mouthing off, or in what her actual message is.
Sheesh...even when I'm trying to help you by helpfully summarising what you say for those who don't have enough time to digest your longer posts, you have to be so mean to me.
I'm off for a quiet sob.
Those things I posted are the direct result of Coalition policies.
You keep saying "Everything was tickety boo before the Tories" because you have no arguments and have to construct a straw man.
Since you've been wrong about just about everything for the past year and a half or so about the economy, don't you think it's better if you just took a break for a while. Maybe took a vacation... did some reading?
See! It's all the Tories fault and life was tickety boo before the Tories came to muck it all up.
In fact, the Tory lies were SO f'ing effective that even Gordon Brown and Darling were believing it! I mean after all, they were also proposing cuts in public services to reign in the non-existent overspending.
And so on, and so forth.
The coalition has unleashed a shitstorm of hate and nastiness on society which is causing suffering and death to children, the poorest, the inform, and the most vulnerable.
The Tories are a thoroughly nasty party, and the sooner the public get rid of them and throw them in to the dustbin of history, the better.
Labour spending - or overspending - was not the cause of the financial crisis.
Here is the historical data for public spending as a percentage of GDP:
Before the financial crisis, it was not anomously high, by historical standards.
Labour's contribution to the economic crisis of 2008 was deregulation of the banks and sucking up to the City of London.
The global crisis was not caused by Labour's overspending. The Tory's have created a stategic narrative that Labour 'left the economy in a mess' due to public spending. This is quite simply a lie.
They have done this so that they can take advantage of the financial crisis to implement ideological cuts against social security and reduce public spending.
Meanwhile, since the Coalition have come to power:
1) The use of foodbanks has risen manyfold:
2) British real-term wages are suffering an unprecedented fall:
3) A huge increase in homelessness, forcing some people to Manchester to live in caves:
4) Disabled people who are unfit to work are declared 'fit to work', including someone with schizophrenia, and someone with terminal brain cancer:
5) Child poverty set to increase thanks to austerity measures, says the British Medical Association:
Come on guys & gals. Ttosca has clearly shown from the incredibly
long detailed posts that there isn't a debt problem.
Have you not read every word? Have you not understood?
If not you must be a right wing 'tory scum' sympathiser.
omg toadinthehole you are just allowing the evil tory lies to infiltrate your life <hysterical wail>
Labour did overspend. They allowed public-sector spending to keep pace with economic growth during an apparent boom. When the economy went south, they had no plan B.
If it is right for governments to spend their way out of recessions, it behoves governments during times of boom to reduce public spending as a proportion of economic activity as a whole. As it happens, this is precisely what the Tories did, and Labour too, until after the millenium.
His/her last post was very short & succinct. In fact probably the shortest I can ever remember. Maybe we have got our wish Breeze?
I will say something to you that I said to one other poster on MN some time ago.
If you genuinely care about what you are writing about, you will try and make what you posts more reader friendly.
Most or many posters have no desire to read the huge great long posts that you write.
Posts that are no more than half the size of what you write would be soooo much better.
Erm...i am understanding you perfectly. And all you have done above is disagree with how I've interpreted your position then actually agreed albeit using longer words.
> Oh right, i was nearly there then.
Far from it, it seems.
> - The coalition are lying to the public so well that most believe it
Members of the coalition have repeatedly lied to the public, specifically with respect to the causes of current financial crisis (by blaming Labour's alleged 'overspending'), and on the costs and amount of fraud related to welfare. That is correct.
> - Labour are pretty much the same as the coalition nowadays
Both mainstream parties are neo-liberal parties. Labour does not represent an effective opposition to the dominance of neo-liberalism
> - EU/IMF are representing the business class and conspiring against the public
There's no 'conspiracy'. There doesn't need to be any conspiracy, any more than Coca-Cola and Jaguar need to 'conspire' to lobby the govt. to lower corporate taxes. No conspiracy is necessary because the interests of businesses and the rich are strongly convergent.
> Basically it's one giant conspiracy isn't it?
No, quite the contrary. That's the very point, in fact. The point is that the interests of the rich and business class are strongly convergent with each other, and strongly divergent to the public.
> And we're all suckers.
I think you should stop talking for the grand 'we'. There has never before in history been this number of people protesting in the streets and demanding a change in the political economic system which creates war, misery, poverty, and environmental disaster.
> Well except you. You know the truth and have been kind enough to share that truth with us on MN. Except we're too thick and too brainwashed to understand that right?
It seems that you sometimes have difficulty understanding what I say, given that I have to repeat myself 1000 times and then you come out statements which totally misrepresent my opinion.
> I must admit, i haven't seen any evidence of massive civil unrest in the UK. Actually..there was that riot that lasted days. But from memory that was after the police shot someone and much of the 'anger' seemed to be directed towards PCWord, Comet & designer sports stores. Do you think that was because of the coalition's neo-liberal ideology? And the theft of plasma TV's was merely a protest at the status quo right?
There were riots because of underlying social problems of youth unemployment, hopelessness, and alienation. These problems weren't caused by the coalition, but they were exacerbated by it. These problems have existed for a long time. They appear to be getting worse.
> Interestingly enough though, the country with the largest amount of civil unrest has been Greece which had the biggest budget deficit. I haven't seen much rioting in Germany which pretty much had a balanced budget.
Amazing what mental contortions you put yourself through. You mean there has been the largest amount of civil unrest in the location where there has been the most austerity and the least amount in the place where there has been the least austerity? Is that what you mean to say?
'""""Why shouldn't we dismantle the welfare state? It'd make things interesting around here for one when the idle have to get off their fat arses and start working"".'
You do know the welfare state covers children, disabled people and the elderly or would you like them to get off their 'fat' arses too? Or just step over them starving in the streets ?
I cant be bothered to read yet another thread on this sort of thing.
fwiw, I agree with TheFallenNinja.
I like this thread so am bookmarking it.
Today I signed up to The People's Assembly. Despite having been fairly politically active during my lifetime, this is my first ever party subscription - and it's not even a party yet (watch that space.)
You are under a serious delusion that the majority of the public agree with you and hold your reactionary views. They don't.
My reactionary views? I'm just trying to understand your position. Like I said, it appears to me that your basis for your opinion is that:
1. It's all some giant conspiracy by shadowy figures who aren't really representing the 'citizens'
2. Voters have not shifted to the right but instead aren't interested. In which case I wonder why the surge in UKIP but whatever....
3. And those Tories who are so nasty, so evil, so incompetent have somehow managed to successfully lie to the entire population, the IMF, EU, OECD and more.
It just doesn't make very much sense to me, that's all. But then what do I know? Apparently I'm too dumb to understand.
The OECD has actually told Osborne to implement more austerity which, despite his rhetoric, has been comparatively modest thus far.
It is important to understand just why austerity is considered detrimental to an economy: it is because it reduces the amount of money in circulation and thus prevents economic growth from allowing debtors to pay their debts. However, what the Libcons have done is use quantitive easing to pump money into the banks (the biggest debtors around at present). This should mitigate this problem.
The alternative is to increase public spending direct into the economy, ie, old-fashioned Keynsianism. This sounds nice, but is in reality just a rehash of the the absolutely disastrous policy of Heath's Conservative government of 1970-74 and Wilson's Labour government of 1974-76, and the hyper-inflation they caused. To advocate those policies again in all seriousness means one is either uninformed or is an ideologue who disregards history.
The real villains of austerity are not in the British government but the German government, which refuses to allow quantitive easing to be used in the same way for the Euro.
The UK required a bail-out from the IMF last time its figures were so sketchy. Perhaps the Libcons deserve a bit of credit for avoiding that so far.
When did MPs last have their pay raised?
What was their pay 10 years ago?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.