The cuts are coming

[newwave]

The Con-Dem cuts are nearly here AIBU to hope that those who voted Tory get hit the hardest and lose the most.

I will admit to voting LD but i never expected some of them to be such a bunch of snide gits, as for Danny Alexander I want to stamp on his smug sneering face

I agree Riven that the Government has to be careful what it cuts but the OP seems to be suggesting that we can carry on business as usual and ignore the deficit. You can ignore the markets but the markets won't ignore you.

modre i am front line and have experienced the abuse you describe. I have to say tho i dont think my pension is that good as a part timer it doesnt really amount to much and i was made redundant and recieved about 6,600 for a job i had done for 12 yrs and am now bakc on the bottom scale. At the time i was made redundant I was single mum of 3 one 10 months and one with renal failure and i know for sure that the managers were paid staggering amounts even though most of them were due to retire within maximum of two years. I think when people talk about massive pensions it really on;ly the fat cats that get those and not us normal people.
Disabled children are looking to be getting the worse deal to be sure. It is really frightening for people.

Ok ... Deep breath and brace for flaming ... I voted Tory. I did it because Brown in particular had his head in the sand and refused to acknowledge the depth of the financial mess the country was in, and I did not believe that Labour 2010 would have taken the steps I think are necessary to get us out of the predicament. I don't even think they would have prevented it getting much, much worse.

When I voted I knew that it would have an effect on my pocket at the end of every month. It won't be pleasant, and I'll have to change my lifestyle to continue to live within my means, but that's the penalty for the situation we're in.

So go ahead - tax me a bit more - I expect to pay my fair share. Tax the high earners a well - many colleagues of mine are in this bracket and also expect to be hit.

I also want to see waste in the public sector cut, but one of the reasons I am expecting to pay more is to fund these cuts so that they do not impact front-line services any more than is inevitable. I'm not so naive that I believe this will happen without mistakes and pain at the front line, but I hope they can be minimised and put right quickly.

Our national debt is just short of £1 trillion. Our deficit is around £160 billion - so every year we spend that much more than we earn. That's about 10% of our GDP. What we're talking about with these cuts is reducing the deficit, slowing the rate at which our debt grows. If we don't then by the middle of next year our interest alone on the debt will cost £1 billion per week.

Imagine if you will the following thread:
"My credit card bill is £40,000 - AIBU to ignore it and keep spending £500 per month more than I earn?"

If you can honestly say you know how to get out of this situation other than by cutting back on your spending, then please will you tell me how?

I'm fortunate that there is some slack in my income, and I can afford to pay my share to help get out of the situation. I expect everyone in the country in similar circumstances to also pay their part. I expect my contribution to be used partly to protect those who genuinely can't afford to pay or suffer the cuts - I don't begrudge that money. I would object to throwing it down the drain on spiralling interest payments with no prospect of improvement.

So go ahead, flame me. I voted to cut the deficit.

I voted Lib Dem but I believe that the coalition has got broadly right regarding the cuts. The deficit is astronomical and unsustainable so needs to be addressed. The Labour Party ought to be ashamed of what they have done saddling the country will all that debt. You cannot borrow your way out of debt and so its now time that we as a country faced up to the facts and restore the public finances to acceptable levels others the bond markets will batter us and we will be in even worse shape.

The cuts are unavoidable, the current situation regarding debt interst payments is a disgrace and needs to be ended.

The cuts are unavoidable..but what you cut and how is cut is..

"The cuts are unavoidable..but what you cut and how is cut is.."

Indeed. But the sort of things people talk about as alternatives to what is being cut usually aren't big enough. Once the government, for political reasons, starts saying that everything the NHS does is inviolate, every other department takes a massive hit because the NHS accounts for a huge proportion of state spending. With 4-18 education similarly protected, the only things left that are substantial in revenue account size are higher education, defence and benefits.

Fortunately (), Labour now have as Shadow Chancellor an ex postman who says he needs the Dummies Guide to Economics in order to read his way into the job. So that's not going to be a train wreck of policy, is it? I'm really worried that Labour's response to the budget statement will be an incoherent mess easily ripped apart by the Tories, best watched through the gaps in your fingers, like watching some sort of early stage X factor horror show of deluded incompetents who believe they can sing. What the fuck was Miliband Minor thinking? Yvette Cooper is bright, capable and did a damned good job at treasury, and the same could be said of Liam Byrne or (if the stench of serial disloyalty can be overcome) Balls. Johnson is yesterday's man, knows nothing about finance, was deeply unimpressive at Health and is terminally associated with the past. What on earth is the point of making a man who will be out of front-line politics at the next general election and has no economic skill or experience shadow chancellor? Madness.

Riven the banks that were bailed out do have strings attached, they were nationalised and are owned and run by the state.

"AIBU to hope that those who voted Tory get hit the hardest and lose the most."

YANBU but it's not going to happen is it?

I didn't vote Tory (and would probably cut off my hand before doing so, to try and stop it from voting Tory) but ... cuts had to come. The Western economic system is in a COMPLETE mess, and cuts have to be made.

I agree with some of the cuts, but then, on the other hand, I think aiming at making masses of people unemployed AND cutting unemployment benefits at the same time is a disaster. Maybe I'm biased as my DF was out of work for ooooh, most of the 90s, I think that jobs should be kept for as long as possible, and should be the last to go.

But then, I don't know what I would do ultimately. It's tough. I do think cuts should be made with an eye to protecting the most vulnerable (disabled, children). I also think it's barking that in the last budget they DIDN'T raise taxes on tobacco.

OR, they could legalise marijuana, tax it to raise funds and then everyone else can get (legally) stoned and forget their problems. (and this is why I'm not in government).

YABU and nasty if you seriously want to penalise people financially because of who they voted for.

NO-ONE voted for a coalition government anyway.

The cuts are unavoidable, if you borrow money then you have to pay it back.

"t while bankers are still getting large bonuses, the Govt in't being repaid."

The bankers who are getting bonuses are investment bankers, who were not bailed out by the government.

The bankers who were bailed out are retail bankers, who are not getting bonuses (and never really did to any great scale).

Retail banks failed in part because of their dealings with investment banks. That's their lookout. The government cannot control the bonus structure of (successful, profitable) investment banks just because they happen to share a word in their job description with (unsuccessful, bailed out) retail banks.

The relationship between investment and retail banking is the word "bank". In the UK, at least, they have almost nothing to do with each other in ownership terms (LBG owns a small investment arm, which is about a zillionth of its assets and turnover).

The failure of retail banks has contributed to the problem. The bailout (which has cost, oh look, zero pounds - it was mostly in the form of assert guarantees which haven't been called in and for which the banks are paying top dollar, and injection of capital which has appreciated) has not.

LBG pay about £15bn a year for asset insurance, which has so far not been claimed on. LBG shares were bought by the government at (I think, I'd need to check) about 55p each, and they're currently worth about 75p each. Good business. Tidy little earner for the tax payer when they're sold.

As others have said, the UK finances come down to someone posting on Mumsnet to say "AIBU to run up £25000 a year on my credit car even though I earn £50000?" It doesn't matter if they're spending the borrowing on crack cocaine, nuclear weapons or feeding fluffy bunnies, the credit card company in the end is going to intervene. If Britain loses its credit rating, ie if the markets think we are going to default, we are completely and absolutely fucked, and the cuts being seen now will look like a walk in the park (with fluffy bunnies). If you think you can ignore the market, look at what's happening to Iceland and Ireland.

"Making thousands unemployed does not create money."

Paying people out of tax revenue to do useless jobs doesn't, either. The jobs that are created need to actually also create wealth, preferably exportable wealth. Do you have some suggestions?

Agree with tokyo. And with Riven (re: job creation). Getting rid of (reportedly) 1/2 million jobs is not the way to go to inspire confidence in the UK economy, get people to spend and revive the retail sector and give investors confidence in the UK.

Seriously, WHERE did Osbourne learn economics?

YABU, cuts would have been coming whoever was elected.

It seems to me that the rich are going to be richer and the poor are going to poorer. [hsad]

"service jobs still need to be done. TA's in schools, physios etc. Housing officers, Inclusion officer."

Which is lovely. But they cost money. Paying people to do those jobs doesn't create wealth, and the money needs to come from somewhere, especially if the money they are paid eventually flows out of the economy.

At the moment those housing officers and inclusion officers are being paid for by borrowing money, which (a) has to be repaid eventually (b) has to be serviced now and (c) has to be borrowed from people who are willing to lend it. I agree with you: we need those jobs done. Now, all we need to do is figure out how to pay for it. Because borrowing the money from China, which is what we're currently doing, isn't the best of strategies.

yep and we face a very real risk that we will be made homeless. Will the richer members of society face that will they fuck.