TUC National Demonstration Against Cuts

And if you think there is anything 'red' about Ed Miliband then you can't have watched or heard anything he's ever said or done!

Don't be so absurd longfingernails, the very small number of protestors (a couple of hundred) along Oxford Street are a fraction of those who marched peacefully (about 200 000 on a conservative estimate). And if you asked any of them if they were affiliated to the TUC or the Labour party they would laugh in your face.
It is just laughable watching the 24 hour news channel reporters desperately trying to find a story of trouble and mayhem all afternoon, and the anarchist demonstrators appear to be outnumbered ten to one by photographers! What a shame the media can't make their coverage proportionate- twenty minutes on the vast numbers of peaceful marchers, twenty seconds on the balaclava hotheads- then people like yourself longfingernails would not be so easily duped. Try exercising some common sense and intelligence as you watch the news next time.

longfingers, am just back from the march. It was fantastic - lots of very normal people who just want what's right, so public services maintained. It wasn't militant or violent, but good natured and determined.

You talking of the very few, not the many. Please don't tar us all with your DM views.

The police are demonstrating too, but not in uniform of course.

Jackstarb - no you are confused. They are linked.

Meditrina - in terms of setting the budget, it means we need growth. We cannot make this level of cuts when we are on the verge of plunging back into recession.

We need to encourage and stimulate growth, increase employment.

A beautiful juxtaposition. On one side of our screens, we have Red Ed mouthing empty platitudes to the demonstrators. On the other, we have masked anarchists destroying London and attacking the police, throwing lightbulbs at them.

It says it all, really.

The unions and Labour should call off their thugs.

HH - are you talking about the 'Keynsian multiplier'?

Jackstarb - the money spent by a government does not disappear through public spending. It pays wages to people in this country. Those people support the private sector, and also pay tax back to the government from their wages. They also pay tax back to the government when they spend that money.

One way it can 'disappear' is e.g. if it is used to pay profits to foreign investors and company owners. This is what the NHS reforms will allow - our taxes will pay private profits to external companies.

So what measure would be out in place? It's all very well to say "growth will solve it", but what does that mean in terms of setting a budget?

It seems "all talk no trousers" atm.

HH - you are also confusing debt with deficit, I think.

Meditrina - the debt can be reduced by growing. Before the recession the deficit was kept below 3% GDP. Bailing out the banks and extra spending caused by the financial crisis is what caused it to rise (to now, 9% GDP).

If our GDP rises, then the deficit will shrink, as a proportion of GDP.

But the governments cuts will shrink our GDP, not the deficit. So the deficit, as a proportion of GDP, could actually rise, even though we will be suffering cuts.

Vessela - I suspected that. Polly Toynbee keeps making the same mistake.

So, using OECD measures the UK has the highest structural deficit of the G7.

Total debt level wise we had the third lowest of the G7 in 2010. It is the structural deficit which we need to deal with - hence the cuts. We spend more than we can possibly raise - even when our economy is healthy and our tax revenue at it's max.

This is what he said on repaying debt, and future ge

?Unlike households, governments don?t have to repay their debt. They can borrow almost without limit, especially from their own people. If interest rates go up, they can print more money to force them down again. Printing money won?t cause inflation to go up if there is a lot of unused capacity.

Another myth is ?the burden on future generations?. Provided the debt is mainly held by British citizens, there is no net loss of income from any debt repayment: it is a matter of future taxpayers repaying future bondholders.?

Oops vesela, that's what I get for trying to multitask

My main point still stands, the GBP did not vote for these cuts. The options were clearly laid out prior to the GE and the voters rejected the tories plans. So much for democracy eh, when we get them anyway?

Some historical perspective;

"Here are some interesting figures. In 1919 the National Debt stood at 135% of GDP ? as a result of heavy wartime borrowing. By 1920, after a year?s inflationary boom it was down to 130%. By 1922 it was up to 171%? Why? Because there had been a huge deflation and rise in unemployment in 1921. In the deflationary decade of the 1920s, the debt hardly reduced at all. Nothing could more clearly illustrate the fact that the debt falls when the economy rises and rises when the economy falls."

Yes its a very interesting list of critics. For the Conservatively inclined, we also have here the previous conservative spokesman on the economy, Lord (Robert) Skidelsky ;

"The truth is that it?s not the fear of government bankruptcy but governments? determination to balance their books which lowers business confidence, by reducing expectations of employment, incomes, and orders. It?s not the hole in the budget but the hole in the economy which is the problem.?

It's an interesting list of criticisms, but they are not putting forward an alternative. No-one is. It's easy to knock (whether from a well or ill informed position), but not it seems to come up with anything better.

Here are some very good reasons against the cuts the government are making:

falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/what-do-the-experts-say

This includes the expert opinion and analysis of 3 nobel prize winners in Economics, so I think they know what they are talking about (unlike good old crazy george osborne.)

jackstarb - she means debt. Madam - it's the deficit that's the problem.

wubbly - did you mean "65% of people think they don't go too far?" not "do" go too far - that was the 35%. (There were 8% don't knows, so the figure for those who thought they didn't go too far was 57%).

I'm rather encouraged by the fact your read it Rohanda.

"Osbourne also includes the 850 billion we spent bailing out the banks as public debt."

Really? Where are you getting your figures?

Madam - can you define what you mean by "second lowest deficit". Absolute figure? Percentage of GDP? In 2011? Structural or total deficit?

I marched against the war on terror - these were huge and peaceful, since though the policing has become far more militant and unrest is more of an issue amongst the protesters.

I took my dd on marches then, don't think I would take a 7 year old now. Find a group that you feel safe with, or go with an organisation who will stick by you - any union groups in your area going? - They will protect you and dd.

Hope the turn out is good. I don't work in the public sector but understand that the Govt are just hacking away whilst planning on spending in areas such as the High Speed Rail network which seems bonkers.

Keep alert and enjoy the camaraderie

That figure doesn't surprise me. I know perfectly intelligent, decent people who genuinely believe that 'we have no choice'. It still leaves 65% of those polled think they do go too far.

Of course, the government don't act on the results of polls. However, in the general election, of those who voted, the majority voted against the cuts proposed by the tories.

There is nothing elegant or measured about that peice. It's merely mocking the outlandish claims of some ananrchists groups - hardly 'elegant' in any sense of the word.
Measured? - rather misses the context of the measured look at the purpose of the day and the presence of tens/hundreds of tousands of people who have given up a day of their time and travelled down to London to express their concerns at what the govt. are doing to the social infrastructure of our country - a desire to turn it into "McBritain" where the costs of the 'cuts' will fall largely on the poor.

moondog: