Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to be dismayed people still think cuts are the route to recovery

120 replies

wigglylines · 07/05/2015 07:42

The cuts are harming our economy, not helping it.

The idea that austerity can get us on the road to recovery is a lie!

Even the IMF have criticised austerity.

Let's get this clear, austerity is idological. The tories want to cut public services, and are using the economic crises (caused by global forces NOT Gordon Brown!) as an excuse.

Cuts harm our economy and the people in it.

We need to invest in the people in our economy to get it going, not bring the country to its knees.

If you believe that Labour caused the crisis by being irresponsible and the Tory cuts are the way forward, can I ask where you get your information from?

Is it by any chance the Murdoch press?

Have you never considered that maybe you are being manipulated - you do know Murdoch has a massive vested interest in the Tories getting in again, right?

OP posts:
hellsbellsmelons · 07/05/2015 10:03

But how can a recovering economy and working people being better off now, NOT be better for US?
This seems to be something that no-one can explain to me.

Tanith · 07/05/2015 10:03

I don't understand how they could justify the millions spent on Margaret Thatcher's funeral.

Austerity? Cutting benefits? Desperate measures needed to save our Economic bacon?

But fine to squander all that money on a full blown state funeral that a good number of the population didn't want.

JassyRadlett · 07/05/2015 10:04

External forecasters were consistently and rightly more pessimistic about the fiscal outlook than both Tony and latterly Gordon.

And Dave and George. Curious how people often miss out the bit where the Conservatives were planning to match Labour spending right up until the crash.

Viviennemary · 07/05/2015 10:07

I'm more dismayed by people thinking spend spend spend is the way out. It's never worked before so I can't see why it would work again. Gordon Brown (who I really liked) said he would end boom and bust. He didn't. So I lost faith in Labour and won't be voting for them for at least the forseeable future.

peggyundercrackers · 07/05/2015 10:08

I agree with Ptolemys

JassyRadlett · 07/05/2015 10:12

I'm more dismayed by people thinking spend spend spend is the way out.

Aren't all the major parties promising cuts? Again?

JohnCusacksWife · 07/05/2015 10:14

Actually the IMF praised the UK Government approach and said the balance of cuts to spending was correct -

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32346214

PanGalaticGargleBlaster · 07/05/2015 10:14

Jassy

Still does not deflect from the fact that Labour were the ones in actual power with their hands on the econimc levers making bad call after bad call. The Tories were in opposition, not controlling the economy, saying any shite to get relected, promising a slash in public spending was not really voter friendly material in a pre economic crash world!

Pointing at the opposition party saying 'they would have done the same' is a feeble excuse.

addstudentdinners2 · 07/05/2015 10:15

I think the key issue here is where the cuts are coming from. They are hitting society's most vulnerable and most poor. That is where the problem lies for me.

JassyRadlett · 07/05/2015 10:19

I'm not a supporter of any particular party, just think it's useful sometimes to point out facts in clearly partial posts.

The fact is, it wasn't 'all the economic brains vs Tony and Gordon all on their lonesome'. It was a lot more complex than that, and the Conservatives were backing Labour's spending plans. Whether they thought it was sensible or they were just saying 'any old shite' to get elected is up for discussion; I'm not sure the latter would inspire me to trust them...

Samcro · 07/05/2015 10:20

the sad thing is the people who think cuts are good, are the ones least affected(for now) they are normally the temporary able bodied who cant see that taking from the most vulnerable is wrong/

DoraGora · 07/05/2015 10:22

And there's the whole non moral question about do they work.

PomeralLights · 07/05/2015 11:04

Does anyone else feel really massively conflicted about UKIP being the only party proposing to increase minimum wage to level of personal allowance? I mean, I'm not going to vote for them but excellent policy, no? I really hate the way tax credits shore up rich business owners and that is somehow painted as being the fault of the evil poor. Such a broken system. I don't want to vote for tax credits but equally I don't want to vote for taking them away being borne by the people reliant on them IYSWIM

Mistigri · 07/05/2015 11:18

Austerity has been pretty much debunked as good economic policy actually. Those economies which have suffered true austerity (a group which does not, incidentally, include the UK) have done much worse than those which have adopted a less austere post-crash strategy (quantitative easing et al).

The UK could have done more to encourage demand, but any "austerity" has been strictly reserved for people at the bottom of the economic heap, and public sector workers. Business owners, employees in top tax bands and landlords have, in contrast, profited from considerable public largesse in the last five years. This has undoubtedly (I don't think you will find many serious macro economists who will disagree) impacted the recovery, which has been very weak by most sensible measures.

The UK press have sold deficit reduction as the sole pillar of good economic management - but a deficit for a country with its own currency is not like a credit card debt. The problem is that most of the debate has been dominated by people with zero understanding of macro economics, or with a political incentive to foster misunderstanding by the general public.

Dawndonnaagain · 07/05/2015 11:23

UK recessions, post war.
1956. Tory Government.
1961. Tory Government.
73 - 75 Tory Government.
80-81. Tory Government.
1990. Tory Government.
2008 - 2010. Labour Government.
We're not out of the woods.
Pan. I suggest you do some reading, had we followed Tory fiscal policy we'd have had a deeper recession. In fact, when they took power, it became deeper. Osbourne has borrowed more during this period of government that Labour did during the whole of their last tenure. We are heading back toward a recession if you take a look at the figures.
Not a Labour voter.

irretating · 07/05/2015 11:40

Actually the IMF praised the UK Government approach and said the balance of cuts to spending was correct -

That means nothing really. The first two years of Tory government was the time in which they made most of their brutal cuts, and the time the UK economy stopped growing as a direct result of that. The Tories then backtracked on their slash and burn policies and opted for a much more moderate approach (the same sort of approach they criticised Labour for wanting to take).

Also, true story, countries in recession that ignore IMF guidance generally do better and recover quicker than countries that follow IMF guidance.

irretating · 07/05/2015 11:48

I was reading one article by an economist who said the boom is the time to make cuts, not the bust. And even then, care should be taken with cuts because not all government spending is equal. Some spending has a low return for investment, other forms have a high return.

I think this sounds very sensible, wait until the good times, make cuts but sensible ones. Spend money where there is a good return, save money where it doesn't. Welfare spending has a good return iirc.

worksallhours · 07/05/2015 12:38

"If you believe that Labour caused the crisis by being irresponsible and the Tory cuts are the way forward, can I ask where you get your information from?"

PESA data.

I would suggest it is you that doesn't understand what happened between 2001 and 2008, and you that is being manipulated by the so-called "left-wing press".

It was clear by 2005 that Brown's spending levels during a time of "boom" were going to be exceptionally problematic when the boom was over. He indulged in a form of anti-Keynesianism whereby he spent over receipts every single year from 2001 onwards -- and those receipts were clearly inflated by the cheap money that was circulating the globe and pouring into British GDP.

Once that cheap money spigot stopped, as it was always going to do, GDP collapsed, as it was always going to do, and tax receipts collapsed, as they were always going to do. Hence the deficit turned from being a deficit in the tens of billions to a deficit being in the hundreds of billions -- nearly twice the annual cost of operating the NHS in the first post-crisis year.

This was entirely avoidable. In fact, had Brown stuck to 2001 ratios, we would have been sat on a nice little pile in 2008 after the crisis, which would have meant no cuts and money available to cushion the blow of contracting GDP.

And that would have been proper Keynesianism.

Not only that, but in order to stick to their manifesto pledge of sticking to Tory spending plans in their first term, Labour needed to find another way to spend to "prove" their eternal pile of bollocks spin that Tories simply didn't spend money because they hated poor people. Except when they got into power they realised there wasn't actually any money to spend on entirely new hospitals and schools.

So they used capital instead. And the way they did that was by using a tool designed for investment in quasi-goverment-driven commercial enterprises, such as the Channel Tunnel -- that tool was PFI, which was NEVER designed for enterprises where ongoing funding would be provided through state spend.

So now we have a situation where the NHS has to pay the company that now owns the hospital where my MiL works because the Labour government sold it to them £12,000 to widen a doorway by two inches so that it is wheelchair accessible.

And Labour activists talk about Tories privatising the NHS?! It would be hilarious if it wasn't so blind.

"And austerity is a failed, damaging economic policy, rejected by the rest of the world - as explained by a Nobel prize-winning economist"

Paul Krugman is not a Nobel prize-winning economist. There is no Nobel prize for economics. Alfred Nobel never set one up. Instead, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economic Sciences, which is not granted by the Nobel Committee.

Austerity is rejected by the rest of the world ... except for the Northern European nations in the EU, the troika and the IMF, which are busy applying slash and burn tactics to Greece, which has fuck all leaway because it is locked into the Euro and the markets will not lend the state any money. Indeed, the IMF loves austerity when it comes to strait-jacketed nations paying back loans.

And Paul Krugman is known for actually suggesting that the best way to solve the US economic depression would be for aliens to invade and cause huge amounts of damage. I am not joking.

Hilariously, considering your opening post, Miliband's pledge is to achieve a budget balance by the end of his first term. Not only that but he pledges to get the national debt falling as soon "as soon as possible in the next parliament".

There is no way in a cat's hell he can do that without significant tax rises and spending cuts.

worksallhours · 07/05/2015 12:41

Pomeral ... Does anyone else feel really massively conflicted about UKIP being the only party proposing to increase minimum wage to level of personal allowance?

That was also a LibDem policy in 2010.

Dawndonnaagain · 07/05/2015 12:46

an alternative look at the facts and figures

Fannyannieanne · 07/05/2015 12:52

Wow - works - an amazing post thank you!

And I agree with you and Ptolemy and Pan Grin

worksallhours · 07/05/2015 12:57

Oh for crying out loud, the overwhelming majority of Brown's "bank bailouts" were in the form of loans, loan guarantees and recap schemes through the BoE.

It had no impact on operational spend. The bank bailouts did not "create" the deficit.

Thisishowyoudisappear · 07/05/2015 13:10

cuts have been made to the poorest in society under the current govt. They scrapped the highest tax band ffs! It makes me sick hearing people who have never known anything even approaching poverty preach about how cuts are some sort of moral good. It makes me sick that benefits are subsidising employers and landlords but the recipients are increasingly shamed and belittled. We're supposed to be happy that the economy is back on track (for how long, who knows) partly due to vicious cuts to vulnerable people but we're also supposed to be happy that the ridiculous house price bubble continues to swell and the richest aren't suffering at all.

BTW I'm a homeowner, receive no benefits, DH is a higher rate taxpayer.

Fannyannieanne · 07/05/2015 13:28

They scrapped the highest tax band ffs!

They didn't at all. For 13 years under Labour the highest rate was 40%. Weeks before the election it was raised to 50% as Labour knew Tories would reduce it, which they did, to 45%.

That does not detract , however , from the fact that Labour were giving their rich friends a 40% tax rate for 13 years whilst the Tories effectively gave their rich friends a raise to 45%.

worksallhours · 07/05/2015 13:28

"ridiculous house price bubble continues to swell"

A significant amount of that current swelling, particularly in London and other urban centres (Manchester comes to mind), comes from foreign money pouring into the British housing market as it is perceived as a "safe haven".

So you get scenarios where an estate in Southwark has been compulsory purchased and all inhabitants "removed", only for the subsequent development units to be entirely retailed as an investment opportunity in the Far East.

Ordinary British people cannot compete against that kind of wall of international money.

For that reason, I do see a place for Miliband's Mansion Tax, but don't think it will cut it -- and I get sick of hearing luvvies squeal about it. What we really need is extra council tax bands above the current highest.

It is frankly ridiculous that a property of the size and value that would cost somewhere in the region of £12,000 a year in property taxes in New York only costs £2000 in council tax in London; it just makes Britain a cheap place to park your cash in housing.

And we all pay the price for that.