The true reason for deficit cutting.

(91 Posts)
ivanhoe Tue 21-May-13 13:02:32

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.

Ivanhoe.

MiniTheMinx Tue 21-May-13 17:02:16

The elite right wing corporatists and their puppets are waging a class war.

They have spent three days deliberating over side show identity politics......gay marriage as a distraction and the right wing media are lapping it up.

We do not have a free press. In the states four major corporations own all media from news to kids TV. The picture is much the same here.

sweetkitty Tue 21-May-13 17:06:26

Agree with everything you have said hmm

ttosca Tue 21-May-13 20:13:31

MPs Get 30% Pay Rise, Average Worker Gets 20% Pay Cut

It was announced yesterday that MPs could receive a 30% pay rise, seeing their wages rise £20,000 a year to £86,000. Meanwhile, the average wage earner in the UK has seen their wages drop 20% in real terms since 2008. The government is certainly Making Work Pay…just not for 99% of the population.

Increased access to personal debt (credit cards, loans, store cards, buy now pay later, hire purchase etc.) has been masking the expanding gulf between cost of living and wage inflation for decades.

In the ten years between 1999 and 2009, the annual salary rose 13.6%. During the same period, house prices went up 130%, a loaf of bread went up 147%, and a litre of petrol went up 42%. This goes some way to accounting for the fact that personal debt rose during this period by 158%.

In the last five years, wages have increased by just 10%. The UK Essentials Index which focuses on the kinds of everyday items which the UK’s working and non-working poor buy, showed an inflation rate of 33% during the same period. This means that for the poorest working people, their wages are worth 20% less than they were back in 2008.

It’s getting worse. In the UK today, the cost of living is rising at four times the rate of wages. In fact UK wages are falling faster than any other ‘developed’ country. As a result, the three most expensive benefit payments in the UK are not ‘out of work’ benefits. 65% of the total spent on working age benefits, is going to people in work.

Tax Credits, Housing Benefit and Child Benefit, totaling £56.4bn a year, have been set up for the taxpayer to subsidise poverty wages.

The non -poor are also facing cuts in their income under the guise of austerity, with the average disabled person in receipt of state support losing £4,600 a year.

The Wage Hike of the 1%

The same Executives cutting their employees’ wages in the name of austerity were simultaneously approving inflation busting pay rises for themselves.

The average pay of Executives in the FTSE 100 rose an average of 12% in 2011 alone, with 25 companies boosting Executive pay by 41%.

The Banking Sector, whose excesses led to the banking bailout that triggered ‘austerity’ – are enjoying bumper bonuses.

The aptly named Rich Ricci, Head of the Barclays Bank investment division, received a £17.5m bonus on budget day this year. It would take the average worker 656 years to earn this much.

RBS received £45bn from the UK taxpayer in bailouts after its investment division brought the bank to its knees. Yet, in 2010, RBS increased the bonus pool for its investment arm by 5%, despite making a loss that year.

The MPs who facilitated the lax regulatory system which allowed for both the bailout, the exorbitant bonuses and the executive pay rises, will now receive their own reward. As of 2015, MP pay will rise between £10,000 (15%) and £20,000 (30%) a year. On top of this, our 650 MPs claim almost £90m a year in expenses – £138,461 each per year, no top of their salary.

We are not ‘all in this together’.

The most important realisation the average UK citizen can make now, is that there is no such thing as austerity. What is actually underway is a transfer of wealth, from the have nots to the have lots. The government is not cutting spending, it is 4% higher now that in 2008. It is transferring spending from public services that help the poorest in the land, to tax cuts, wage hikes and privatisations that help wealthiest in the land.

One cannot simply wait this thing out. While the majority remain procrastinating moderates, the noose is simply tightened around our collective throats, choking off the possibility of a fight back. In the words of Mark McGowan, The Artist Taxi Driver – even if you think you cannot stop this madness; as an absolute minimum you put up a resistance.

To quote an African Proverb, made famous by the Dalai Llama:

“If you think you are too small to change the world, try sharing a room with a mosquito.”

Be the mosquito.

Take Action

Sign the Petition – for no MP pay rises while they continue with austerity.

The Artist Taxi Driver is making a movie called ‘Its Not a Recession, It’s a Robbery’ going around the country interviewing those being enriched and defrauded by austerity. You can sponsor the project here.

UK Uncut – join the campaign to get wealthy people and corporations to pay their fair share.

Time Banking – become a part of the new economy – of time not money. You can use skills and talents to earn time bank credits, and cash them in for goods and services from others.

https://scriptonitedaily.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/mps-get-30-pay-rise-average-worker-gets-20-pay-cut/

MiniTheMinx Wed 22-May-13 09:18:34

Petition signed.

I agree, "What is actually underway is a transfer of wealth, from the have nots to the have lots"

purits Wed 22-May-13 09:42:28

My guess is that they'd make pretty much the same decisions for ideological reasons even if there wasn't a deficit.

Surely you cannot object to ideology.shock What you really object to is that someone dares to have an ideology that differs from yours. Left wingers always want to force their views on others, they cannot abide free will.

Haven't read the rest of the thread. Too long and ranty. I stopped when I got to the bit where you frothed at others daring to have different views.

When someones "different view" leaves families homeless and/or starving I think its fair to object.

The necessity for food banks in this country in this age is disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

niceguy2 Wed 22-May-13 10:12:15

Food banks are there to plug a short term gap usually caused by a specific reason such as a delay in getting benefits. Certainly the one I volunteer at, that is one of the common scenarios for the customers. They do not continually dole out food.

Their existence isn't as a result of ideology but the fact that our benefits system is complicated, bureaucratic and takes too long to process claims.

Yes the fact that more people needing them is sad but as Ttosca I'm sure will agree with me, this is as a result of the global recession.

TheFallenNinja Wed 22-May-13 10:16:10

What a fantastic conspiracy theory.

So why are the richest in this country continuing to get richer? If theres a global recession and a deficit here, why are banks (that we bailed out) still paying out bonuses? Why are MPs salaries going up by 20%?

The global recession is now nothing more than something to hide behind. Its a poor excuse used to explain away the poverty in this country.

ThreeDudesOnABus Wed 22-May-13 10:23:19

So?

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.

The left has this crazy idealogical idea that the state must provide employment and/or benefits for all. Idealogy gone mad.

And thats me out.

Cannot be arsed trying to explain to another (insert bad word here) why they are full of shit.

niceguy2 Wed 22-May-13 10:30:59

Threedudes, you are simply trolling. No-one reasonably wants the welfare state to be dismantled. In reality it's nowhere near being 'dismantled' despite the left wing rhetoric.

Even IDS has admitted that despite all the changes and 'cuts'. That all the coalition have managed to do is slow the rate of growth.

I agree with wannabe.
At this rate, next year it will be like old victorian times of many homeless living on the streets. Disease and malutrition sweeping through the uk, children without food or anywhere to sleep.
Yes cuts needed to be made, but i think David Cameron has gone too far-This will be the end of the conservatives, as nearly everyone is a loser under them, unless you have money flowing from your earholes.

Rant over

Abra1d Wed 22-May-13 10:35:18

We spent too much money over the last twenty years. Period. We can never ever return to those days of splashing it around. People like my husband, who will probably never work again, having been made redundant two years ago at the age of 57, are the victims, but there was something inevitable about it. Other cultures are hungry, do not have huge welfare budgets, and will work for less and now we are a global workplace there is no way of 'protecting' ourselves from them.

Very, very harsh times. And wait until interest rates go up. A lot of people have actually prospered in the last two years because mortgage rates have gone down. That will change at some point--they will shoot up.

If "We" spent too much why is it only the poor who are suffering so badly?

Yes theres the "squeezed middle" but squeezed isnt the same as starved.

There is a whole section of people in this country who are not affected by the recession or the cuts, a large chunk of that group could even be blamed for the high spending etc. "We" are not in this together at all.

It's all very well say "we spent too much money", but that isn't an excuse to throw people out on the streets and starve them is it?!

And in answer to the ops question, the real reason for the cuts is a Class divide-Pure and simple.
The conservatives have always aired onside with the mega rich and always been at war with the poor.

niceguy2 Wed 22-May-13 11:03:52

The poor are 'suffering badly' because the money isn't there anymore to spend on them. For the last two decades the money spent hasn't come from tax revenues but instead from borrowed money.

If we want to improve the welfare state then the way to do it is to stimulate the economy. Get more people in work, get more tax revenues that way and spend less on stupid government projects.

We cannot and should not continue to fund our welfare state from borrowed money.

I agree with you niceguy.

It just seems really off that millions are being paid out to bankers who work for banks that are making a loss, yet joe bloggs down the road is being demonised for relying on £71 a week to live on.

I am not against the cuts for the sake of it. I understand that the pot is running dry. What I am against is the cuts on the disabled and the vulnerable against a backdrop of pay rises for company directors and bonuses for reckless bankers.

The poison and lies that this government have spread has to stop.

MiniTheMinx Wed 22-May-13 11:24:14

The left has this crazy idealogical idea that the state must provide employment and/or benefits for all. Idealogy gone mad

P........lease.

Why do we have so much unemployment?

If you understand anything about economics understand this: The worker is free to contract with an employer to sell his labour. This process concentrates capital in the hands of the employer whilst only allowing the workers enough (or under neo-liberalism not enough) to reproduce that labour tomorrow. Workers lack the capital to create their own work under this system where monopoly banks ONLY lend to large businesses. Capitalism creates unemployment.

It creates unemployment through two main mechanisms. The first is material/economic the other is in the fact that the economic reality leads to a sort of cultural paralysis where the working class/wage slaves/unemployed become totally reliant upon wages or benefits.

I am way to the left of labour, closer to where left wing thinking originates!! and I am not in favour of creating/perpetuating welfare dependency. I can tell you who is though?

niceguy2 Wed 22-May-13 11:29:12

But payrises get taxed so in actual fact are good for tax revenues.

As for bankers, it's a tired & worn topic. If you look at the banks we actually had to bail out, none of them were actually as a result of the casino style investment schemes.

Northern Rock, B&B and HBOS all got into trouble because they lent too much money to too many business & homeowners and didn't have enough saver deposits to cover. Mortgages are long term loans, repayments are over decades.

RBS failed because they paid a ridiculous amount for ABN Amro.

Basic poor management rather than reckless gambling on the stock exchange. Those with large investment arms like Barclays (narrowly) avoided having to get a bailout.

niceguy2 Wed 22-May-13 11:32:10

Capitalism creates unemployment.

Yes, but only because socialism/communism creates fictious jobs which cannot otherwise be reasonably supported by the economy. And at some point these collapse under their own weight.

Look at socialist Britain in the 70's and look at how well China, USSR did following ultra left wing policies. Not to mention the stunning success of North Korea. I mean everyone there has a job. That must mean noone is starving right? hmm

MiniTheMinx Wed 22-May-13 11:39:40

yawn.

No communism does not create factitious jobs. All work has social value, caring, education, nursing, child care, even housework. Capitalism obscures the social nature of labour through market mechanisms.

Banks create factitious capital that is not backed with any other commodities. This money actually has no value therefore save social power that people have over others.

What happens in the interim between capitalism and (real) communism has been in the past large state dominance of economics. The reasons for this are too complex to get into here.

MiniTheMinx Wed 22-May-13 11:41:50

North Korea.............just tell me how many military bases uncle Sam has spread all over the globe? and explain why we have a global economic system of exchange, where we take to the market jumpers for coffee, or wool for wheat? Might North Korea be starving because of trade sanctions?

niceguy2 Wed 22-May-13 12:32:19

As I've said before, communism & socialism are fine on paper. In reality they are crap because they go against human nature yet rely upon humans to make it work.

Capitalism isn't great but it's better than the above and works better in reality than any other system we've found to date.

The acid test really is this. How many 'successful' states pursue left wing policies? I can't think of any.

New Labour only won power again after Blair dragged them to the right. And due to the rise of UKIP we can see that the nation has stepped to the right, leaving very few (but vocal) people bleating on about what we should be doing (in their opinion)

ShadeofViolet Wed 22-May-13 12:38:53

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.

Oh look, IDS has come for a browse on MN.

MiniTheMinx Wed 22-May-13 12:41:28

Human nature.........we are so far removed from our nature that we don't have any concept of what it was or likely to be at any time in the future.

What sets man apart from Animals is that man shapes nature is using it to create the things he needs. Bees need pollen but do not take up nature in order to maximise pollen production! at least no in any conscious way.

In shaping nature, we shape our own nature.

Some might argue that having a welfare state is civilised, whilst others put forward the view that helplessness strips people of their human dignity. I would agree with those on the right in this respect. Capitalism hasn't always existed but it is only under capitalism that unmet human need drives the formation of welfare.

If our ancestors were to look upon what is happening in the world now, they might conclude that allowing children to die of starvation and evicting their parents from the land to make way for capital accumulation is barbaric in a world where we have the capacity to feed everyone.

MiniTheMinx Wed 22-May-13 12:43:34

The acid test really is this. How many 'successful' states pursue left wing policies? I can't think of any you need to study history 1945-2013 to figure that out! why not, I challenge you to read up about American foreign policy over that time frame. You will then know the answer to your question smile

I totally agree with your post OP.

TheFallenNinja Wed 22-May-13 14:03:06

But the difficulty is that one section of society (the ones in employment paying tax) believe they are unfairly funding another section of society (who are the benefit claimants). Of course one day you could be in one section, the next in the other when I suspect the attitude would change accordingly.

Personally I'm not bothered who rally's to which political flag, I just would like to see the state not waste money.

The state wastes more money when families are driven to such lengths that social services then come in and kids go into care. Because their disabled mother could look after them with support, but that support is withdrawn.

So instead of paying for the original support, now the government is paying social workers and foster carers. Its not saving anything.

Same with benefits. Leave a family to scrape by and the first thing to get cut is the food budget. You might save a few hundred pounds on the benefits per year, but then what are you spending through the NHS when poor diets lead to health problems etc.

wannabe makes good points in her post. The knock on effect these cuts will have will cost even more money than the money the government will save, not to mention the affect on retail and business as those people will not be able to afford essentials, which of course brings money to shops and businesses.

The effect on social care, and the wellbeing of youngsters will do untold damage.

ivanhoe Fri 24-May-13 15:22:59

Well said wannabedomesticgoddess

ivanhoe Fri 24-May-13 15:28:17

As stated in my OP. Cameron is using cutting the deficit as a cover to reduce the State and cut welfare. End of story.

We British are largely like sheep, particularly middle England.

ivanhoe Fri 24-May-13 15:29:30

""New Labour only won power again after Blair dragged them to the right. And due to the rise of UKIP we can see that the nation has stepped to the right, leaving very few (but vocal) people bleating on about what we should be doing (in their opinion)""

Bang on.

ivanhoe Fri 24-May-13 15:32:25

""""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"".

How jolly interesting. I'm amazed it's not been thought of before ?

CogitoErgoSometimes Fri 07-Jun-13 10:24:03

I think it's delusional to believe it's 'the right' that exclusively wants to see a scaling back of welfare. It's not even those in comfy homes or the right wing press. Traditional Labour party supporters, who can't be tarred with the middle England 'sheep' label, are very angry. People like Brown's Nemesis Mrs Duffy, know (because they live in the real world and are not at all romantic about poverty) that effort is not necessarily rewarded, those who need help are often unable to get it and far too many are taking the piss. Why else would Balls and Miliband be making announcements this week that they would also reform the welfare state if/when they are back in power? Their grass roots supporters want them to represent workers... not welfare.

BaconKetchup Fri 07-Jun-13 16:26:30

Didn't Ed Miliband announce the other day that if Labour get into power next they will not be reversing any of the cuts, and indeed will be continuing with an austerity programme?

That means what Cogito said is correct.

ttosca Sat 08-Jun-13 15:26:24

I've posted many times the report that shows the majority of the public is misinformed about how much is spent on welfare, in what departments, and the level of fraud.

=============================

New research commissioned by the TUC shows support for government welfare cuts is based on ignorance and misinformation.

A recent poll shows many people’s assumptions about welfare spending are wildly inaccurate, that those who are most likely to be wrong about the realities of welfare are most likely to support government cuts, but that – when provided with accurate information – people shift from supporting government plans to opposing them.

For example, on average people think 27% of the welfare budget is wasted on fraud. In fact, by the government’s own figures, fraud accounts for only 0.7%.

wwinn.org.uk/news/support-for-welfare-cuts-based-on-myths-and-misinformation/

---

Voters 'brainwashed by Tory welfare myths', shows new poll

Survey shows public ignorance of the level of benefits and who gets them

Ministers were accused of demonising benefits claimants in an attempt to justify their controversial decision to increase most state handouts by less than inflation.

Polling commissioned by the Trades Union Congress suggests that a campaign by Tory ministers is turning voters against claimants – but only because the public is being fed "myths" about those who rely on benefits.

The criticism comes before a crunch Commons vote next Tuesday on the Welfare Benefits Uprating Bill, which will ensure that most benefits and tax credits will rise by only one per cent for the next three years. Labour, which will vote against the measure, tried today to answer Tory claims that it is "soft" on scroungers by announcing a "tough love" plan to force adults who have been out of work for more than two years to take up a government "job guarantee" or lose their benefits.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voters-brainwashed-by-tory-welfare-myths-shows-new-poll-8437872.html

ttosca Sat 08-Jun-13 15:31:01

Cogito-

> Why else would Balls and Miliband be making announcements this week that they would also reform the welfare state if/when they are back in power? Their grass roots supporters want them to represent workers... not welfare.

and

Ketchup-

> Didn't Ed Miliband announce the other day that if Labour get into power next they will not be reversing any of the cuts, and indeed will be continuing with an austerity programme?

---

The answer is two-fold

1) Pure political pragramatism: The Tory scum and right-wing press have so far successfully propagated myths about welfare and welfare claimaints. Rather than challenge these myths, they calculate it would be easier to campaign on the commonly-accepted narrative.

2) Labour is no longer a party which represents workers in any case. It is neo-liberal party, and as such, can ultimately be expected to defend the interests of the ruling class.

ttosca Sat 08-Jun-13 15:59:11

Also, when you hear Tory's talk about 'making work pay', you should read that as 'reducing social security payments'.

In reality, as everyone should know by now, the majority of social security is paid out to people in work.

The problem is that work doesn't pay, not that social security is too generous.

If the Tory scum really wanted to 'make work pay' they would enact a Living Wage as a legal requirement. They won't. Quite the contrary, they've suggested that the min wage should be allowed to 'wither away' over time by not keeping the rate up with inflation.

So, thanks to the Tories, we'll continue to have a situation where tax payers subsidize businesses who pay pittance wages to their employees.

In other words, welfare for the rich, Capitalism for the poor.

niceguy2 Sat 08-Jun-13 22:44:35

Yawn...yes yes, it's all the fault of the Tories. Life before they came along was just ticketyboo and we lived in a socialist utopia.

Tories are scum, the economy is in the shitter because of them. The Lib dems are scum I expect for getting into bed with them. Labour won't change anything because guess what....it's the Tories fault. Is there anything which wasn't the fault of the Tories?

CogitoErgoSometimes Sun 09-Jun-13 07:49:19

"Rather than challenge these myths, they calculate it would be easier to campaign on the commonly-accepted narrative"

Or... it's not myths. The 'commonly-accepted narrative' is the truth, in other words. There is no great popular demand for extreme socialism or communism.

CogitoErgoSometimes Sun 09-Jun-13 07:52:34

"support for government welfare cuts is based on ignorance and misinformation."

To claim that this all boils down to the electorate being stupid is rather insulting and patronising, don't you think? hmm

ttosca Sun 09-Jun-13 15:17:19

Oh, good show, Cogito, going for a play to the gallery!

What I said was that people were misinformed about welfare, thanks to the relentless propaganda coming from the Tories and the right-wing press (as that article shows). I didn't call them stupid.

In fact, the public appear to be considerably smarter than the Tory apologists, since, when told the actual facts about social security spending, the numbers for people who support or oppose cuts to social security typically swap the other way around.

In other words, when the public are made aware of the realities of welfare spending, as opposed to Tory lies, they no longer support the cuts.

It's not surprising that the only way the Tories can maintain this level of support - as abysmal as it already is - is through lying.

ttosca Sun 09-Jun-13 15:18:08

Smith. Shapps. Now Cameron lies to Parliament on NHS stats

I’ve written recently about the gross abuse of statistics by the DWP and by Grant Shapps on behalf of the government, which led to public rebukes by Andrew Dilnot, the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority.

This is not aberrant behaviour. The Tory party has a strong track record of statistical distortion and even outright lies. David Cameron lied to Parliament last year about new private sector jobs created under his government (an offence that used to lead to automatic resignation if discovered). Last week, he was at it again.

During PMQs on Wednesday, during a typically woeful and arrogant performance in which he barely referred to an opposition question let alone answer one, Cameron was challenged by a Labour MP on the massive increase in A&E waiting times. Here’s the exchange:

Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): Yet again we have no answers from the Prime Minister, who blames everyone but himself and denies that there is a crisis in A and E. Let me give him one more chance to try to give an answer. Why does he not admit what everyone in the health service knows—his £3 billion reorganisation has diverted attention and resources from patient care and he has betrayed his promises? May we now have an answer?
The Prime Minister: The abolition of the bureaucracy that this Government have brought about will put billions of pounds extra into the NHS, but the point that the hon. Gentleman has to take on is that this Government made a decision, which was not to cut the NHS. We are putting £12.7 billion extra into the NHS.

£12.7 billion extra into the NHS. David Cameron knows this to be untrue. He knows it because, like his ministers Iain (Duncan) Smith and Grant Shapps, he and his government were rebuked late last year for making similar false claims on NHS spending. Here’s how Sky News reported it:

he [Dilnot] said the UKSA‘s calculations were based on what he considered “the most authoritative source” of national statistics on the subject – the Treasury’s Public Spending Statistics publication.

“On the basis of these figures, we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real terms was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10,” he said.

Even the Telegraph, normally a tame Rottweiler for the Tories when it comes to the NHS, got saw the reality of the matter and got in on the act with this headline:

Image

When the £12 billion claim first reared its head, it was challenged robustly by BBC Politics Show host Andrew Neil. Interviewed after his speech to the Conservative party conference last autumn, Jeremy Hunt tried to claim that the Tories had put this extra money into the NHS.

Neil, to his credit, shot back that this was “pure propaganda” – and revealed that the funding increase was £60 million – far less than matching inflation, and therefore a substantial real-terms decrease.

But the truth about NHS spending under this government doesn’t end there. A huge amount of the money that the coalition puts into the NHS simply goes in the front door and straight out the back. As I reported last year, in the 2011/12 fiscal year, the Treasury ‘clawed back’ no less than £1.4 billion from NHS funds, while siphoning off another £1.5bn for other uses – dwarfing the paltry increase in budgeted funds.

But it gets worse. The clawback for the 2012/13 year was even higher – at £2.2 billion.

The reality of the NHS funding situation is no secret, and is certainly not something that Cameron could claim to be in ignorance of or that it slipped his mind.

No matter which way you cut it, Cameron – knowingly – lied to the House and should resign immediately, were it not that such things are more likely to lead to promotion than to resignation under this government, as Jeremy Hunt’s case showed last year. Not only that, but he repeated a lie that he’s already been rebuked about and told not to repeat.

I have therefore written to Andrew Dilnot at the UKSA as follows (with a copy to Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham):

Dear Mr Dilnot,
Last Wednesday (5 June), David Cameron claimed during Prime Minister’s Questions:
“We are putting £12.7 billion extra into the NHS.”
Looking at Treasury spending statistics, I see a nominal, but not real-terms, increase in NHS spending compared to the last year under the previous government, but certainly nothing like £12.7 billion. Since the Treasury routinely claws back well billions from the NHS – some £2.2 billion during 2012/13, up from £1.5bn in 2011/12 – Mr Cameron’s statement was a bald lie. He did not say that NHS budgets had increased, but that more was “put into” the NHS – which is not true when the Treasury is clawing back far more than the nominal increase.
And even if this were not the case, budgets have not risen by £12.7 billion – or at all in real terms according to yourself late last year.
Since you have been so good as to rebuke the government over false statistical claims on at least a couple of occasions this year, please would you take a look at this matter and do so again?
See the following links for further information:
http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/the-govts-1-5bn-backdoor-nhs-theft-on-top-of-its-1-4bn-claw-back/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-treatments-rationed-hit-cash-1777836
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/02/18/revealed-tories-siphoning-nhs-money-to-the-treasury-despite-promises/
I look forward to your response.
Best regards,
Steve Walker
The SKWAWKBOX blog

Can I ask you to do the same, to make sure that this issue receives the attention – and eventually the public rebuke – that it deserves? If you want to send your own complaint to the UKSA, the email address is authority.enquiries@statistics.gsi.gov.uk.

Can I ask you to do the same, to make sure that this issue receives the attention – and eventually the public rebuke – that it deserves? If you want to send your own complaint to the UKSA, the email address is authority.enquiries@statistics.gsi.gov.uk.

You might want to copy it to your MP, too – a complaint from Sheila Gilmore MP to Andrew Dilnot led to the rebuke on ESA benefit lies, so some MPs do pay attention to such things and take action. If you want to find your MPs details, you can look them up very quickly at www.theyworkforyou.com.

Jump in and let’s turn up the heat on Walter Mitty David Cameron for his persistent, arrogant lies!

https://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/smith-shapps-now-cameron-lies-to-parliament-on-nhs-stats/

CogitoErgoSometimes Sun 09-Jun-13 16:43:21

Me playing the gallery?... LOL. Sorry tossa but your track record of deliberately and rather too-obviously filling the MN boards with nothing but the most emotive far-left propaganda makes you a very black sock-puppet of a pot to start dishing out criticism to this particular kettle...

BaconKetchup Sun 09-Jun-13 16:55:13

Cogito "tossa"? was that a freudian slip? grin

ttosca Sun 09-Jun-13 17:21:54

Cogito-

Maybe some day you'll start arguing with facts instead of rhetoric all the time.

niceguy2 Sun 09-Jun-13 17:25:56

<cough>kettle....this this pot......you're black<cough>

BaconKetchup Sun 09-Jun-13 18:11:21

Hahahaha ttosca that's so hypocritical it almost sounds like it's purposefully a stupid post or something.

Who is the one who copies and pastes/writes out swathes of all this emotive waffle?

ttosca Sun 09-Jun-13 18:36:44

It's not emotive waffle, it's the basis on which to have arguments.

I could either post my opinions-as-facts because thats-what-I-reckon because that's-what-read-in-the-Daily-Mail or I can actually link to articles which contain facts and assertions about the real world.

I'm not suggesting anybody accept anything I post at face value. In fact, I post them precisely so that they can be challenged.

Niceguy usually just comes out with ideology and nothing to back anything up, though he occasionally makes some bumbling effort to challenge links to govt. stats and so on.

Cogito almost never does anything but spout ideology. He never challenges any of my facts or statistics or posts facts or statistics of his own.

If I just posted my opinion and nothing else, I would be accused of being a 'left-wing ideologue'. And when I post articles which actually discuss facts and numbers, I am 'accused' of 'cut and paste'.

There is no way to satisfy the right-wing ideologues, so I'm not going to try.

niceguy2 Sun 09-Jun-13 20:24:39

Mate, your opinions make members of Socialist Worker seem a bit right wing. Practically everyone is to the right of your ideology.

Labour aren't repealing anything, the Tories actually seem pretty centre right now and UKIP are now firmly on the right. Given their popularity it seems the entire country has shifted significantly to the right.

So when you say there is no way of satisfying the right wingers, you actually mean the overwhelming majority of the population yes?

ttosca Sun 09-Jun-13 22:23:05

When are you going to start actually addressing the arguments?

Support for the coalitions policies are based on lying to the public. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

=====================

Church leaders demand ministers apologise for "misrepresenting the poor"

An alliance of 11 churches condemns Iain Duncan Smith and Grant Shapps for their misuse of benefit statistics.

-

As I've regularly noted on The Staggers, rarely a month now passes without one of David Cameron's ministers being rebuked for some act of statistical chicanery (or, indeed, the Prime Minister himself). And it's not just the number crunchers at the UK Statistics Authority who are concerned. An alliance of 11 churches, including the Methodist Church, the Quakers and the Church of Scotland, has written to Cameron demanding "an apology on behalf of the government for misrepresenting the poor."

The leaders, including the Right Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, and the Right Revd Nick Baines, Bishop of Bradford, highlight three of the most recent offences:

- Grant Shapps's claim that "nearly a million people" (878,300) on incapacity benefit dropped their claims, rather than face a new medical assessment for its successor, the employment and support allowance.

- Iain Duncan Smith's claim that nearly 8,000 people moved into work as a result of the introduction of the benefit cap (for which, as I recently reported, he now faces a grilling from the work and pensions select committee).

- Duncan Smith's claim (yes, him again) that many people were applying for the Disability Living Allowance before the new Personal Independence Payment was introduced in order to avoid the new medical test.

They write:

"All three of these statements have drawn on high quality Government statistical data which has then been misused and misinterpreted. All serve to undermine the credibility of benefit claimants. They were all released at the same time as major changes to the benefit system, which will reduce the level of support many families receive.

"It is disturbing that these three instances conform to an apparent pattern of misleading and sometimes wholly inaccurate information from the Government when dealing with the issue of social security; a practice that has added to the misunderstanding and stigma which continues to pollute the debate around poverty in the UK. We are concerned that these inaccuracies paint some of the most vulnerable in our society in an unfavourable light, stigmatising those who need the support of the benefits system. No political or financial imperative can be given to make this acceptable."

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/church-leaders-demand-ministers-apologise-misrepresenting-poor

niceguy2 Sun 09-Jun-13 23:00:45

So let me get this straight then.

The coalition are lying to the public. They've been so good at it that everyone is suckered into the lie, that's what you are saying isn't it? And I guess therefore these lies are SO effective that Labour feel they have no choice but to continue on this unpopular path because spending money we blatantly have would lose them more votes than cutting essential services.....confused

I guess then that the IMF and EU are also suckered into the coalitions lies about the fact that cuts are necessary (let's put aside the argument of how much and how fast).

But you....you and your trusty computer's cut & paste feature are the ones who can see through the lies....

Yeah....right.........biscuit

ttosca Sun 09-Jun-13 23:41:27

That the coalition have consistently lied to the public is a matter of record.

Your delusion is that you think 'everyone' agrees with you. They don't. Support for the mainstream parties is at an all-time low whilst contempt for politicians is at an all-time hight.

People are not apolitical - far from it, they have just realise that true power and representation lies elsewhere, which is why in the past couple of decades, you have seen the public protest in unprecedented numbers.

This will continue as the ideology of neo-liberalism impoverishes and immiserates a greater and greater portion of the population. When there is little or no middle-class left and people have nothing left to lose, there will be massive civil unrest. Expect it.

I've already addressed the point about Labour many times, as I tend to explain things to you many times. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

The IMF and EU have admitted that austerity has harmed european economies. In any case, the IMF is not concerned about promoting the well-being of citizens in the EU or the world. That's not its remit. It is concerned solely with promoting free-trade and opening and creating new markets.

Had the austerity measures worked like their ideology said it would, and growth was restored, yet at the same time, wages continued to declined, wealth inequality increased, and more people relied on foodbanks (as is happening now without growth), then the IMF would have considered it a success. They IMF represents the business class, not the public.

CogitoErgoSometimes Mon 10-Jun-13 07:16:13

"He never challenges any of my facts or statistics or posts facts or statistics of his own."

He is a she, thanks. And I don't think it's written anywhere that a point of view is only valid if it's accompanied by huge great bodies of text that show somebody else's opinion. Do you turn up in the pub for a chat with a wheelbarrowful of newspapers or (heaven forbid) your laptop just in case someone asks you what you think? hmm

CogitoErgoSometimes Mon 10-Jun-13 07:27:57

Barman "Nice day sir"
ttossa "You're merely spouting the rhetoric of the right-wing press and you are too thick to know you are being manipulated. Here, let me delve into this weighty satchel & read you a four page conspiracy theory about a government weather cover-up written by someone in the Huffington Post who of course has no ulterior motive and who I therefore believe unquestioningly"
Barman (puzzled) "The sun is shining and we have seating outside. Can I get you a drink?"
ttossa "Not only changing the subject but you can't be bothered to substantiate your ridiculous 'shining sun' assertions by matching my four page article with one of your own! "
Barman (sighs) "Next...."

CogitoErgoSometimes Mon 10-Jun-13 07:32:06

grin

niceguy2 Mon 10-Jun-13 07:53:07

Oh right, i was nearly there then.

- The coalition are lying to the public so well that most believe it
- Labour are pretty much the same as the coalition nowadays
- EU/IMF are representing the business class and conspiring against the public

Basically it's one giant conspiracy isn't it? And we're all suckers. 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?

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?

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.

Ehhn Mon 10-Jun-13 08:41:31

The reason MPs salaries go up is because they vote on their own pay rises. This should reveal that actually both sides of the political spectrum are self serving. But then, if you or I got to vote on whether we and our colleagues got a pay rise, I think we all would say yes. The system needs changing.

I'm a social democrat politically and I personally cannot stand what has happened to higher education and tuition fees. Having said that, in our constituency we have a Tory MP who is genuinely a good guy and who works hard. I think talking in grand scale terms of ideologies often obscures the individual good that people do. The best way to change things is not to conjure great conspiracy theories but to encourage meaningful grassroots activism - active membership in political parties, helping people register to vote and joining pressure groups.

BaconKetchup Mon 10-Jun-13 11:35:42

niceguy Cogito grin grin

ttosca Mon 10-Jun-13 16:21:16

Cogito-

> He is a she, thanks. And I don't think it's written anywhere that a point of view is only valid if it's accompanied by huge great bodies of text that show somebody else's opinion. Do you turn up in the pub for a chat with a wheelbarrowful of newspapers or (heaven forbid) your laptop just in case someone asks you what you think?

No, Cogito. When you make assertions about the real world - such as claims about social security and so on, I expect you to actually back up what you say with facts. At the very least, a link would do.

Otherwise we're in the realm of exchanging nothing but speculation and unfounded prejudice without any basis in reality.

ttosca Mon 10-Jun-13 16:22:28

Niceguy-

You are under a serious delusion that the majority of the public agree with you and hold your reactionary views. They don't.

ttosca Mon 10-Jun-13 16:45:06

Cogito: To passerby... "Nice day, sir!"

Passerby: "Indeed it is. Lovely sun shining today!"

Cogito: "It is lovely! Did you know that the Sun is actually a giant yellow ballon with a huge lightbulb in the middle of it?"

Passerby: "Erm... sorry?"

Cogito: "I said, did you know..."

Passerby: "Yes, I heard what you said. That's a joke, right?"

Cogito: "Not at all. It's a well-known fact."

Passerby: "That's not true at all. It's not a yellow balloon. It's a star which burns hyrdogen in a fusion reaction to create heat"

Cogito: "Nonsense!"

Passerby: "No really, it's true. Where did you get the idea that it was a giant balloon?"

Cogito: "Look, it's my opinion, OK!?"

Passerby: "But your opinion isn't based on anything. You just made it up. Look, it says right here in this online encyclopaedia that the Sun..."

Cogito: "You're ridiculous, man! Every time a man holds an opinion, you expect him to use references and notes, etc. How rude! Good day to you, sir!"

Passerby: "Err... good day."

When did MPs last have their pay raised?

What was their pay 10 years ago?

Genuine questions.

ttosca,

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.

niceguy2 Mon 10-Jun-13 21:21:29

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.

garlicgrump Mon 10-Jun-13 21:59:08

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.)

Ilikethebreeze Mon 10-Jun-13 21:59:48

I cant be bothered to read yet another thread on this sort of thing.
fwiw, I agree with TheFallenNinja.

infamouspoo Tue 11-Jun-13 08:13:25

'""""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 hmm?

ttosca Tue 11-Jun-13 15:56:16

niceguy-

> 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?

niceguy2 Tue 11-Jun-13 16:53:25

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.

ttosca Tue 11-Jun-13 17:06:06

Oh Jesus Christ...

Ilikethebreeze Tue 11-Jun-13 17:38:28

ttosca.
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.
Thank you
hth

niceguy2 Tue 11-Jun-13 23:20:28

His/her last post was very short & succinct. In fact probably the shortest I can ever remember. Maybe we have got our wish Breeze? smile

Ilikethebreeze Wed 12-Jun-13 07:36:20

smile

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.

BaconKetchup Wed 12-Jun-13 11:33:23

omg toadinthehole you are just allowing the evil tory lies to infiltrate your life <hysterical wail> wink

niceguy2 Wed 12-Jun-13 12:20:37

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.

ttosca Wed 12-Jun-13 15:44:22

Toad-

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:

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/uk-public-spending-1963

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:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19953938

2) British real-term wages are suffering an unprecedented fall:

falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/the-fall-and-fall-in-the-real-wages-people-are-taking-home

3) A huge increase in homelessness, forcing some people to Manchester to live in caves:

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/scandal-greater-manchesters-hidden-homeless-4303590

4) Disabled people who are unfit to work are declared 'fit to work', including someone with schizophrenia, and someone with terminal brain cancer:

www.politics.co.uk/news/2012/11/12/man-with-terminal-brain-cancer-told-he-s-fit-for-work

dpac.uk.net/2013/05/welfare-reforms-not-fit-to-work-leading-doctors-protest-at-cruel-disability-tests/

5) Child poverty set to increase thanks to austerity measures, says the British Medical Association:

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/16/austerity-increase-child-poverty-doctors

ttosca Wed 12-Jun-13 15:48:34

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.

niceguy2 Wed 12-Jun-13 16:16:52

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.

ttosca Wed 12-Jun-13 16:40:39

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?

niceguy2 Wed 12-Jun-13 16:47:01

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.

Ilikethebreeze Wed 12-Jun-13 17:20:25

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.

ivanhoe Thu 13-Mar-14 16:46:29

MiniTheMinx , Well said.

ivanhoe Thu 13-Mar-14 16:47:15

Yes.

ivanhoe Thu 13-Mar-14 16:47:32

MiniTheMinx , Well said.

Isitmebut Mon 17-Mar-14 14:40:50

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.

www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/automatic-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.

www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

“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.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now