TUC National Demonstration Against Cuts

Wubbly.
What's stopping poor parents from doing this?

niceguy-

You really don't listen to any arguments at all, do you? You just keep repeating the same mantra about overspending and borrowing, and asking the same rhetorical question about 'what is the alternative?' - when that question has been answered a number of times.

Jogon, look at the free schools policy. You see the government are now considering scrapping the standard admissions policy for parents who are involved in setting up the school? Article from The Independant That's one way to ensure your kid's education isn't affected, just club together with your pals and keep the riff raff out. Much cheaper.

So richer kids don't have TA's, then?
EVERYBODY who uses state education will be hit but the better off wil be hit harder, as I've already clearly outlined. Schools with poor pupils will be substantially LESS hit.

"Where are you getting the idea that education for the poor will be hit?" From the fact that teaching assistants' posts and/or hours are being cut in our LEA.

Niceguy2 (and anyone else interested in economics).

Article on some recent research showing why fiscal strategy won't work in the UK.

In plain English - why we can't spend our way out of a recession or low growth.

"You're over simplifying surely Niceguy?......Spend, spend, spend is as bad as cut, cut, cut."

Yes and no. I am simplifying but ultimately its the truth isn't it? We can't borrow money indefinitely and neither can the government. You borrow money, one day you must pay it back. And the only way you can do it is to spend less. Or are you suggesting there's an alternative?

And yes, the debate is over when and how much to cut. But here I would say that there never is a good time. If we had cash reserves saved up during the good years, I'd be more inclined to say let's cut later...after all we saved up for a rainy day. But we didn't. During the boom years, our government did the spend spend spend and now it's time to cut, cut, cut. Why? because the money ran out and market conditions are such that banks are no longer willing to lend to governments they feel are not taking their debt seriously.

ttosca - Atchly in investment terms there's a decent chance you'd see a better ROI on champagne (if you bought a good vintage) than solar panels, which in many cases will break before saving you enough to recoup your outlay.

On a more serious note, though. When did a society's empathy and compassion come to be equated with the extent of its state-funded services? Is that really a 1:1 equation? This isn't a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely not sure of the answer, though my hunch is that this isn't the case.

My kids go to a state school in a comfortable, middle class area.
As such, their school will lose substantial money in real terms as it is being siphoned off for poorer schools.
As we are in a terrible situation nationally wrt finances, I accept this and that it is " fair".

Just means the bloody PTA has to work harder!

Can you not look to some fundraising glitter, through the school/PTA? ( I know that's far form ideal and I don't mean to trivialise what must be a complete kick in the teeth, BTW)

I would not be cutting children's services.

I dunno... some people.... you tell them what is ACTUALLY, REALLY happening out there and if it doesn't suit their ideological view of the world then they pretend it's not true.

My daughter is having appointments cancelled left, right and centre. Cardiac and orthoptic. Both hers and the boys' paediatrician is retiring in Dec, no plans to replace her so how are they supposed to have their development reviews?

THIS IS HAPPENING.

My daughter's extra educational provision HAS been withdrawn.

THIS IS HAPPENING.

Jogon, that's not the case for those with additional needs. Funding is being WITHDRAWN. My daughter used to have loads of support for her social communication needs, she doesn't now. That will lead to a poorer outcome in her education.

It's not rocket science.

Where are you getting the idea that education for the poor will be hit?
It's actually the reverse. The pupil premium means that schools with high numbers of free school meals will be better funded than those without.
The well off will be ok - they can use private education and the poor will be ok.

Those in the middle will be hit. As per usual with the coalition, it seems.

The only thing to change are the words. So instead of overspending we call it a deficit. Instead of "spending money" we call it an "investment"

For some reason people would think I'm stupid if I overspend for 30 years and in the belief that one day I'll be ok because I'll earn more.

No, it's called 'investment' because spending money often actually leads to a return greater than the amount spent. If your household bought solar panels and saved money on electricity, then that would be 'investment' since it would save household money. Painting the house might also be an 'investment' since it might increase the resale value of the house. However, buying 100 bottles of expensive champagne is probably not an 'investment'.

When the state spends money on education, research, healthcare, infrastructure, etc., it is 'investing', not spending. An educated and healthy populace creates productive workers and entrepreneurs, research leads to patents, infrastructure leads increased economic activity and increased mobility.

There is a reason why most economists agree you can't cut yourself out of a recession: it reduces economic activity, puts people out of work, decreases tax revenues, and increases welfare costs.

Wook - sadly everything has a price. Have you asked yourself why the last government chose to borrow - rather than to fund spending by putting up tax rates?

The last government was also choosy about it's compassion. Apparently the local government spending formula ignored the poorest people who happen to live in Tory voting constituencies. In these areas child poverty actually increased under Labour.

Another gem from the Becket book was the 1976 Labour government going cap in hand for an IMF loan - only to ask for too much as they had got their sums wrong..

You're over simplifying surely Niceguy? We all agree we need to reduce the debt, but how it's done is what we're arguing over. Spend, spend, spend is as bad as cut, cut, cut. G.O. is cutting in the hope the Private Sector will step in to grow the economy. I'm arguing that they can't in such a climate. Marry that with the State having to support the newly unemployed from the Public Sector and we're in one hell of a mess. They're taking one hell of a gamble by cutting so hard so quickly.

Worse, that only some folk deserve to be treated with humanity, empathy and compassion- those that 'deserve' it...

Rose - your point about a global Economy is correct. But that just means our government has less control over our economy. And it narrows the options for dealing with a massive overspend.

Yes Glitterknickaz the idea that humanity, empathy, compassion are commodities we can either afford or not afford is just weird to me

Jack there are lots and lots of other interesting quotes in that book- read the lot!!

Plus.... it's not statistics and percentages. These are people, human beings, being denied a basic education or the healthcare that they need. Some are children like yours. There are parents out there like me who have no idea what the future will hold for their kids as it is.... the educational playing field never will be level but now their end of the pitch has been seriously undermined.

CARDIAC CARE. That isn't about fairness. That's a two year old little girl who goes BLUE and is not getting correct treatment.

But yeah.... keep number crunching.

Those comparisons aren't sound at all. It's unfeasible to talk about national economics - all economies are global these days.

And you really can't compare household domestic budgets with National economics. It just doesn't work like that. If it did it would be easier to fix.

Of course it's not as simple in practice but the comparisons are in general sound.

My budget
Outgoings > income = debt

Govt
Govt Spending > Tax receipts = National Debt

The only thing to change are the words. So instead of overspending we call it a deficit. Instead of "spending money" we call it an "investment"

For some reason people would think I'm stupid if I overspend for 30 years and in the belief that one day I'll be ok because I'll earn more.

But if I replace the words "overspend" with "deficit" and "earn more" with "economic growth" then people think "Oh ok.....that sounds reasonable!"

Yet £200 million was spent on scrapping Nimrod.

Wook - I just looked up 'When the Lights Went out' - it does indeed look interesting. One quote from the book which stuck out was from Jim Callaghan?s speech to the 1976 Labour conference:

?We used to think that we could spend our way out of a recession? I tell you in all candour, that option no longer exists.?

Smee Regarding the school building program - if you believe in managing the economy fiscally - then spending large amounts of public money at the top of an economic cycle is a bad idea, as it 'over heats' the economy. Spending large sums of money borrowed under PFI contracts - even worse. Wasting much of the money on sloppy tendering processes and architects 'wet dream' projects......and Polish builders second homes???

I'd have preferred a well funded yet modest refurbishment and rebuild. Properly managed and controlled.

£70 million was spent in launching missiles and keeping warplanes in the air on the first two days of conflict.

Or spending billions on 'reforming' the NHS?