To not understand why people are blaming the coalition for the cuts

[tetrea]

The Labour Party were in power for the last 13 years and it was the Labour Party that racked up a structural deficit of £160 billion and an annual debt interest payment and there is a broad consensus that this needs to be eradicated. Why are some people having a go at Cameron/Clegg/Osbourne/Cable etc for doing what the majority of experts say is needed.

Cuts are needed, yes. But it's where the cuts are being made that people have a problem with.

deja vu

Riven But the longer we have the deficit the more debt interest we have to pay and so the deficit will cost even more to pay off.

Experts - especially the ones employed by the Labour party - are rather divided on what is needed with views ranging from 'do nothing' to 'wait a few years then do something' to 'do a lot more than the coalition are planning'. :) And then there's the philosophical/political detail to haggle over... tax more & cut less?... tax less and cut more? And finally the nitty-gritty... welfare, defence, agriculture, the arts... which is the most important? Which is the most politically expedient!

Being cynical, I rather wish Labour were still in power and sorting out the mess in person. But being practical, I don't think we could have afforded that particular luxury!

I've had this conversation with you before Riven, and I pinned you to the floor and tried to force you to say where the money would come from

But I think a lot of Labour Party supporters do this airy 'Oh the money must be there' response - which is how we ended up in this mess in the first place!

There is a global consensus that sovereign debt must be susstantially reduced in order to promote economic growth and jobs Riven and surely Britain with the biggest deficit in the G20 must surely have to make some of the biggest cuts.

Britain has the highest deficit as a proportion of GDP in the G20. There are some countrys that have worse than ours eg Greece/Ireland but I don't think we want to be emulating them.

Erm they could have put up income tax by 1% as a start.

But that would have inconvenienced the rich, so that was an obvious no-no.

Far more expedient to take money of those who can't afford it, because they didn't vote for them anyway and therefore less votes will be lost.

Riven, I would like to hear you answer Quattro's questions, I would also like you to explain exactly where you think the money could come from and where perhaps you think Alistair Darling would've applied his greater than the condems cuts... All I see is wild arm-flapping and lashing out at others.

People are always going to blame the people who are making the cuts, not the ones that made the mess that led to needing the cuts.

It's very easy to get mad at someone who is on the TV every day telling you that they're taking some of 'your' money away.

It's very hard to get mad at someone who you never see, i.e. Gordon Brown. Haven't seen him since he announced who the new Labour Leader is.

Haven't they put taxes up, VAT goes up to 20% next Year so they are raising taxes

Cuts...OK

Cuts that effect the most vunerable members of society...Not OK.

This isn't difficult to understand is it?

I am also a fan of growth, and I believe that to establish worthwhile growth we need to invest more.

Others believe the exact opposite, only time will tell.

Life is not "fair" though. There will always be vulnerable in society. If you want equality one would suggest you embrace a communist utopia such as North Korea. We cannot simply throw money at a situation - equality is impossible.

From a logical perspective, of course "the poor" stand to "lose" more. If you don't have your hand out - it can't be taken from you.

I think that the cuts are ideological. They are using the economy to push their own agenda i.e; public services bad. Privatisation; good. It's a shmables.

Why would the Government deliberately want public services to be bad posh. Surely if they want to be re-elected then politicians will want public services to be of a high standard.

Can anyone explain how Gordon Brown is responsible for the recession and deficit in the US, or Greece, or any of the others struggling?

I really don't get how a worldwide recession and world banking crisis can all be the fault of the last Labour Government.

It's logic Riven, as I said. If you're not reliant on others then they can't take it from you.

I'd like to think that if I became quadraplegic tomorrow that my savings would see me through for a while and then I'd get back to work.

I'd love to know why you personally don't scoot back to the US and coin in a bloody fortune using your husband's scientific skills rather than scrape by week to week getting more and more upset about what you see as a personal afront to your well-being.