cuts are pushing us into a double-dip recession

[darleneconnor]

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijzMRzu10jnYoqIb69_R0hrzgnoQ?docId=4c0373e5575c4481ba144f9b11dd5e83

This isn't good news.

heroine- Its more interesting to note that the economies that are doing better are the ones with a well regulated banking sector, a diverse economy and low structural deficits

No, I agree the LibDems were caught between a rock and a hard place (certainly the back bench Libdems). The front bench LDs - Nick Clegg, Danny Alexander, David Laws (as was) are very right wing naturally. They probably had to side with the Tories, but they should not now be imposing such massive changes to things like the NHS.

Especially for LadyBlaBlah ...

The tories - putting the n in cuts.

its a mistake to think the swing was 'for the tories' it was 'against the status quo bit a bit' only abot 150,000 votes influenced the election and many voted in marginal seats for whoever in their constituency was the strongest opposition to labour - that said more votes in the country were anti-tory combined . I am looking forward to AV coming in when we will see a better picture of who peoples first preferences really are.

On the structural deficit points peole are confused between trade deficit and the deficit in public spending - exporting loads and rosy ideas about british manufacturing won't solve that - if we want to be a major manufacturing exporter we have to reduce working conditions, and pay or go for niche manufacturing (which is what we are doing) which is different from mass exporting.

The spending that labour did made a huge difference to the success of many industries as well as bail out the banks - the tories are merely suggesting that we effectively fund private industry instead by cutting back on public spending, then giving tax breaks to business- its a shift in philosophy from paying for services that benefit the whole and shore up the base from which the country works (eg every worker entitled to healthcare, schools, roads, police ambulance, fire, university etc) which in fact improves the workforce and minimises costs to business versus a tory philosophy that sees business as the engine to create money for shareholders. in fact if there were no public services, business and private individuals making money from businesses would need to supply healthcare, education, police etc to protect their businesses anyway - its just that that wouldn;'t form a strong society, In the US (often used as a shining example of 'free markets' - even though the crash started there) they had food queues run by chuches for middle class people under bush - a real victorian model of massivel rich and poor everyone else - even in the US some societal forces seek general societal services, but their voice is less powerful than in europe and that explains the poverty (whole swathes of the south living on less than £5,000 a year) and crime rates.

The conservatives are not concerned with making the country strong they are concerned with a small sector taking money out of the economy for themselves - and not on a meritocratic basis, but because they feel they have the right.

Most people who vote tory think deep down that if they align with the conservatives it will, in some way, make them richer and more professional or middle class - it doesn't, it means largely you are supporting a party that doesn't care about you, only that you create an environment where wealthy people can use their spare money to make more money for themselves whilst taking away public services so that the gap is further widened. Its abominable.

"its a mistake to think the swing was 'for the tories' it was 'against the status quo bit a bit'"

Labour lost more than 6% of the popular vote and and 26% of their seats.

So I'd say that it was certainly against Labour more than "a bit".

The Tories picked up an extra 4% of the popular vote and an extra 100 votes. So not the 145 seat landslide of 1997 but a significant swing, 2/3 of a landslide is certainly still very much "for the tories"

"that said more votes in the country were anti-tory combined"

That's normal in first past the post. Even in 1997 more votes in the country were anti-Labour. I think that it's very rare that any party wins a majority of the votes, certainly not in any general election that I recall. So saying that this election was "anti-tory" is like saying the 1997 election was "anti-Labour"

"I am looking forward to AV coming in when we will see a better picture of who peoples first preferences really are."

But yes I agree with you there.

"Most people who vote tory think deep down that if they align with the conservatives it will, in some way, make them richer and more professional or middle class"

I'm not a Tory voter but I think that's a nasty caricature that almost demeans Tory voters as being unworthy of debate because their purely selfish and actually mislead. It's like a Tory labelling Labour voters as benefit scroungers or public sector workers happy to take other peoples tax money for themselves.

People who vote Tory often do believe that a low tax small state is genuinely the way we should be going.

And that is a valid argument to be having, trying to just brush them aside saying that they're voting for a party that doesn't care for them and are selfish is just wrong. It leads to the kind of polarised and hateful divisions you see in US politics where reasoned debate and discussion become almost impossible.

And the "small state low tax" vs "big state big tax" debate is not only worth having it is in my eyes the essential debate we should be having because, as said above, "big state, low tax & maxed out Credit Cards" just hasn't worked.

Badgers....the voice of reason.

Ah I suppose you missed the extensive work the Labour government did into restricting bank charges and in forcing credit card companies to always take payments of the highest interest balances first rather than the other way around did you? _ check your credit card information - the companies are claiming that they are doing this for 'customer service' reasons - but it was forced on them!
The reason we have a credit culture is because we have employers who pay to little and banks who lend too much labour was fighting on both fronts on this, when the tories wanted no minimum wage and less regulation of the banking sector.. get the fact straight before you start being 'the voice of reason' - lets not forget that the tories have raised income tax each time they have been in government, and also lets not forget under whom we had the last high unemployment, closure of large industries and a runaway financial sector (not to mention a runaway stock market!)

"The reason we have a credit culture is because we have employers who pay to little and banks who lend too much labour was fighting on both fronts on this"

And did the Government borrowing to fund expenditure that it couldn't afford set a good or a bad example when it comes to "credit culture"?

Was the Government borrowing ever increasing sums year on year on year helping to discourage a "credit culture"?

Was the Government's inability to save in the good years so that credit had to be used in the bad showing the people of this country how to avoid a "credit culture"?

We've developed a credit culture and the Government was one of the best examples of the stupidity of living on credit and of poor financial planning.

If Labour are/were such an enemy of the banks then why were they doing pretty much everything possible to get this country deeper and deeper into debt with them? Why didn't we follow the example of pretty much every other European nation and either save in the good times or work hard to reduce the deficit? Why weren't we working hard to reduce our dependence on them?

They're such a great enemy of them that they landed us with a £140 billion yearly deficit that they're making money on. I'd love to have an enemy like that, one that comes along and gives me huge sums of money rather than try and give me nothing.

And the previous Tory Government was just as bad.

"and also lets not forget under whom we had the last high unemployment, closure of large industries and a runaway financial sector"

OK so let's just call it one all between the two previous Governments, accept that they're both equally bad and hope that now there's a scape goat (the banks for Labour, Labour for the Tories) and the parties don't have to admit their own culpability they might finally make some changes.

"And did the Government borrowing to fund expenditure that it couldn't afford set a good or a bad example when it comes to "credit culture"?

Was the Government borrowing ever increasing sums year on year on year helping to discourage a "credit culture"?"

And yet they are forcing students into massive debts that will force most to repay for 30 years. How is that consistent with 'not building a future on debt?'

Note that the tories are encouraging their banking friends to extend more credit..... :) I love millionaire tories who don't understand the negative balance :)

TWEED!

"Note that the tories are encouraging their banking friends to extend more credit.'

Credit does need to be extended by the banks, it's how businesses can invest and people can buy houses or cars.

There's nothing intrinsically bad about credit, however there's good use of credit and bad use of it.

On the one hand you've got an individual, business or Government saying "can you lend me £x so that I can invest it in a new house/new business/road project. My normal income will more than cover for my usual expenses, the interest on this loan and the capital payments to actually pay it off." That's OK.

On the other you've got an individual, business of Government saying "can you lend me £x so that I can pay my usual expenses. Yes I'm earning my normal income right now but I can't cover my usual expenses. And my normal income won't cover my usual expenses next year yet alone the interest and capital for what you're about to lend me. So I'll be back next year to borrow the same amount amount again plus a bit more to cover the interest you'll be charging me for this loan." That's quite clearly bad.

And successive Governments have basically been abusing credit in that bad way for years now.

"And yet they are forcing students into massive debts that will force most to repay for 30 years. How is that consistent with 'not building a future on debt?'"

You could argue that student loans are an investment and therefore a good use of credit.

However personally I'm not sure about that and I have my own concerns about them aside from that.

I don't think the student loans can be seen as a good use of credit - I don't even see how the system can possibly work, as if most students don't pay them back, then there is a big black hole in the government's balance sheet.