how will these cuts affect you?

[Paul88]

Here is Gideon's answer and much more:

ow.ly/44j5Q

great that we actually all have access now to what goes on in the committee rooms - rather than just the soundbites the media choose to report.

So we don't trust the Office for National Statistics any more .... YouTube is more credible? And, more generally, why is it surprising that someone with money has a cushion against the effects of recession and spending cuts? If we didn't know that wealth brings security and independence, we wouldn't tell our kids to get good qualifications, strive to get a better job or spend £1 playing the lottery, surely?

Is this the same Labour MP, Chuka Umunna who was recently blaming the Tories for being soft on the banks because he felt the amount of tax paid was too low. Despite the fact it was for a period when when Labour were in charge?

And as for the question "Who has the lowest debt"? What a stupid question. The fact is that we are in DEBT. Doesn't matter if your mate has a bigger debt than you have. It doesn't make it any better does it? It won't mean you don't have to pay it off. The earlier you pay your debt off, the easier it is in the long run.

And of course, just criticism but not one suggestion from Labour.

Isn't Chuka gorgeous...........

Thanks for the link OP. I can't wait for one of these mendacious, devious members of the ruling class's panic attacks to be caught on camera. He just coloured slightly. They can't ALL be impervious to human emotion.

Hello Chil, Niceguy. Where I live there are no tories - I suppose I keep coming back here as it makes a change from everybody agreeing.

But you need to do better than that.

Chil: This is a youtube clip of a select committee hearing. This is where ministers get held to account. Which things do you think George is lying about? And yes we know George doesn't need state handouts - but I don't see why that makes it ok to destroy the lives of so many others - thousands of families will lose their homes through the housing benefit cap.

Niceguy: So, assuming you still have a mortgage, does that mean you never go on holiday? Never eat out? Pay the debt off first? Or did you take the line that it was more sensible to save up the money for a house than take out a mortgage in the first place?

When so many are claiming that all the debt was caused by Labour's policies it is very relevant that the UK has a lower debt than other countries.

As for suggestions from Labour their policy on deficit reduction is very clear: it needs to be done, but not this quickly and not with such destructive consequences.

Hi Paul, your analogy is inaccurate. Yes I have a mortgage and yes I still go on holiday and eat out. But the difference is, my mortgage is managable and I reduce the balance every month.

If I was overspending each month and having to take out a personal loan each month to cover my outgoings....then I certainly wouldn't be going on holiday or eating out.

And that my dear sir is what's happening now. We're borrowing £160 billion a year on top of the debt we already have accrued. And you are suggesting we still go out for dinner, have a foreign holiday because Hey, our mate Barack has a much bigger debt than we have and he's still spending like a fish! Well great, good for him. When he goes bankrupt, do you want to follow?

And as for Labour's very clear policy, name one specific cut they've either supported or proposed themselves? VAT? libraries? Child Benefit? Legal aid? I don't mind which or even if either of us agree? Which one would they cut?

Obama is hardly a positive role model for how to run an economy

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160581711895732.html

He raised the federal debt ceiling from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion in Feb 2010 to stop the US government from technically defaulting.

This additional $1.9 trillion could run out as early as Apr 5 2011! Obama is running out of time fast ... he risks the whole federal government going into paralysis.

Exactly my point. Just because our friends abroad are in worse shit than we are, doesn't mean we can carry on regardless.

Nobody suggests carrying on regardless. But please can we stop claiming that the global financial crisis was labour's fault. It wasn't and the point about the clip above is that George Osborne is basically forced to publicly admit that - as well as that he and his banker friends will come out of it completely unscathed while thousands lose their jobs and homes.

It wasn't ALL labour's fault. Of course not. The banks have to take the lion share of the responsibility for acting like a bunch of lemmings.

BUT

Labour were the government in charge for the last 13 years and purposely adopted a light touch approach. They even scoffed at more conservative nations like France & Germany and tried to lecture them on how to do it.

So whilst they are not completely responsible, they do share a fair bit of responsibility for at the very least, looking the other way whilst the good times rolled.

In fact, my main points nowadays is trying to make people understand that the cuts we're facing are not all because of the banking crisis. The overwhelming majority is because of reckless overspending for three decades but again, since Labour inherited a balanced budget, they and they alone are responsible for the deficit and debt caused during their reign.

For a moment I agreed with you. Then you contradicted yourself. The banks have to take the lion's share of the responsibility - YES - Labour alone are responsible NO. The banks caused the financial crisis, which led to a recession, huge drops in tax revenue, huge increases in benefit payments. Labour got stuff wrong in the last few years but the real cause of the current pain is the banks.

Even Mervyn agrees: "He laid the blame for the financial crisis, the bailout and subsequent austerity cuts directly on banks in testimony to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee on Tuesday."

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8354727/Mervyn-King-is-surprised-anger-at-bankers-is-not-greater.html

I've not seen the full transcript but from what I understand, Mervyn King at the time was expressing sympathy for those who are suffering now.

The need for a banking bailout is of course by its very definition caused by the banks but like I said earlier, Labour must share a fair bit of responsibility for not reigning them in earlier. Just like if I turn a blind eye to my children's behaviour and later they get caught stealing, I must morally take some of that responsibility. The buck stops with me as a parent and them as a government.

The interpretation that this meant he is directly blaming the banks for all the cuts is a bit of a stretch. Like I've said before, the banks pulled the trigger on the crisis but the government's reckless overspending loaded the bullets.

Simple maths dictate that you cannot overspend for thirty years and assume everything will be ok forever. The day of reckoning was coming. We just didn't know when and what would cause it. Now we do.

glasnost

They can't ALL be impervious to human emotion.

Two thoughts, are they Human :o and what makes you think they have any human emotions or at least those like empathy and compassion, not much evidence ot it is there.

"Overspend for thirty years" !!! You are really losing it in this thread....

Of course if the tories had been in there would have been much more regulation of the banks. Not.

Labour did not cause the financial crisis

George admits it, when pushed; Mervyn agrees.

Just because tory politicians have been repeating it for six months does not make it true, it is a lie and they are using it to justify a purely ideological destruction of the state.

NG2

Simple maths dictate that you cannot overspend for thirty years and assume everything will be ok forever. The day of reckoning was coming. We just didn't know when and what would cause it. Now we do.

If you agree that the Bankers are responsible a for part of the reccession why are they the only ones who appear to have not been hurt by it. Would it be because they are part of the Tory/Finance/Big businees conspriracy to make the poor pay for the cock up that they did so little to cause.

It seems that the guilty walk away from the "crime" and the victim gets punished.

The reductions in spending are to reduce the structural budget deficit that we have. The banking bailout hasn't contributed to this and we had one before the banking crisis even started. I'm obviously not saying that the banking crisis didn't contribute to the recession but it was far from the only reason we have a budget deficit and hence cuts.

'Hello Chil, Niceguy. Where I live there are no tories'

No Tories? I pity you, do you live in the socialist hellhole of North Korea?

No it is called paradise :o I hear the Tories plan to privatise it and charge an entry fee :)

Actually Paul88, we've probably been overspending for more than thirty years. If you want to look at the figures, you'll find that in the last three decades, we've managed to have a neutral/surplus budget twice. Around about 1989 & again 2000-2001. Both times were shortlived before spending went off again and money needed to be borrowed.

Conventional "wisdom" was that running a deficit is fine because one day economic growth would mean tax revenue would increase and cover the deficit. In theory that is ok but after thirty years, you have to wonder when this will happen.

I could take the view that if I earn £1000 per month that an overspend of £50 a month is fine because soon, one day I'll get a payrise. Except after thirty years of overspending by £50, should I start to think my logic is somewhat flawed?

Or should I carry on spending and blaming the fact my rich boss isn't paying me enough?

CUTS

Most of us have not been told yet by either government or councils.

Vague hints have been given or leaked. In six months it may be clearer. "Gabby"

all this talk of debt and deficit was only mentioned after the banking crisis. UK economy no different to other equivalent countries and no different to ours for most recent history. it's as foolish as saying you hav e to pay off your mortgage in 4yrs because you're £150k in debt. The govt want cuts because THEY ARE TORIES. That's what they do. The cuts have affected me by attending meetings/stalls/demos of my local anti-cuts group. If enacted the cuts will make my life bloody impossible. I'm disabled, DP is f/t carer. (deserving poor, therefore can be patronised)

You are right, the talk only happened after the banking crisis but it doesn't mean it wasn't there. It just means that MP's (from all sides) were happy to let the good times roll and didnt plan for the day of reckoning. This is an inherent problem when our MP's only look to the next election rather than where the country should be in say 20 years time.

And it indeed would be foolish to say we have to pay our mortgage off in 4 years.....that's not what's being said. What's being said is we have to cut our deficit (overspending) within 5 years. Remember, whilst we run a deficit, we're not really paying any of our actual debt off.

Simple maths dictate cuts are needed. The only questions are where and how deep. Luckily I don't have to make those sorts of calls because as you can see, no matter what is decided to be cut, someone is always against them.

so we are agreed then

Labour did not cause the financial crisis

sorry to keep repeating myself but the tories have been repeating the lie that it was all labour's fault for so long some people have started to believe it

OMG. It really is like talking to a wall isn't it? If only life could be simplified to a simple one liner.

Look, what do you mean by financial crisis?

If you mean the budget deficit then yes, that is virtually ALL Labour's fault. They inherited a balanced budget. It was balanced whilst they stuck to Tory spending plans, then it came off the rails when Gordon Brown decided he knew better. Yes, at the end, the deficit went up because of the banking crisis but this will turn us a profit in the long run so is less of a concern than the structural deficit. That's all on New Labour. Now perhaps the Tories would have done the same thing. Let's assume they did. If they had, you'd be screaming from the rafters that it was their fault wouldn't you?

Labour were in charge. They are responsible. FACT.

Did they cause the banking crisis? Not directly no. The banks did that. BUT and its a big BUT were Labour responsible? Yes, they share that responsibility, since they were only able to do that under a purposely lax Labour policy designed to woo financial companies to the UK. In fact, Gordo thought he was so clever that he preached his mantra to other more cautious nations like France & Germany.

It's like this, if my child at school today punches another child, is it my fault? No. Am I responsible. Yes.

Labour did not cause the banking crisis.
Labour did cause us to be insufficiently prepared for it.
Labour did cause us to be more exposed to the crises due to an overreliance on an underregulated finance sector.

If the conservatives had been in power they almost certainly would have done the same.

This does not reduce Labours culpability.

Why does the highly entertaining Gabby Loggon always tag her posts "Gabby"? It makes me chuckle every time.

Could she enlighten me?

Failing that could I just say that IMO it's pretty churlish and superfluous to be here retroactively doling out blame for the banking crisis to this'un or that'un. It's the political/financial system as a whole that's toxic and should be scrapped. Until then these disasters will be cyclical even though I fear this one is pretty much terminal. Once we get back to having a viable leftwing alternative to the total tories and partial ones who lord it over all of us the better off we'll be.