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.

We don't need moolah here in Venus otherwise would gladly oblige..

whats the point if young Prof Cox says we are finished in X-billion years? (TIC)

To those saying that Labour caused the crisis by overspending, right up until the depths of the recession, the Tories backed and promised to match Labour's spending plans. I'll repeat that a different way - the Tories weren't saying 'you're spending too much', 'you're over budget', they were saying ' YOU ARE RIGHT TO SPEND THIS MUCH, WE WOULD DO THE SAME.

Perhaps this was not the right course, but you can't say it is all Labour's fault. And if you want to feel worried, remember Gideon said that Ireland was a 'Shining Example' and that he was going to emulate them....

Labour do have a plan - the Darling deficit reduction plan, which they are signed up to - to halve the deficit in 4 years, which by most economists is seen as being optimum. If the cuts force the country back into recession (and one more quarter where the economy contracts means we're right back into recession), no matter how much you've cut the DEFICIT GETS BIGGER. That's why you don't cut too fast in a recession, because you need to stimulate growth to get out of the recession.

Hear Hear LilyBolero!

Tories Match Labour's Spending Plans

It was only later when the financial crisis hit that they changed this pledge, and one thing you don't do in a massive recession is to slash spending, because you NEED to grow your way out of recession. Alistair Darling handled that aspect masterfully imo, and that is why come the election we were back into growth.

I hear what you are saying Lily. Yes, the Tories did promise to match Labour spending plans. But to me that was just what politician's say to get in power (ie. anything).

The fact remains that they were not in charge during that time so you cannot say it's not labour's fault just because someone else said they'd spend the same. Labour were in charge, ergo they are ultimately responsible.

If I am driving down the street at breakneck speed and straight into a wall, who's fault is it? Mine or was my mate responsible too because he said if he was driving, he would drive just as fast?

And yes, usually in a recession the govt would spend more money to boost the economy. Except we have no money to spend. We're up to our neck in debt and borrowing MORE would actually cause an even bigger confidence crisis. And that's really all a recession is. A loss of confidence.

I think that's a bit disingenuous really - the Tories are justifying everything they are doing atm by saying 'But Labour don't have a plan...'. The role of the opposition is to hold the Government to account, and if they actually thought spending was too high, they should not have promised to match it. And if they said that 'just to get into power' then they are liars. (Well, we know that anyway by how they have abandoned their manifestos).

The debt/deficit does need to be tackled, but it is not as unusual historically as the Tories would make out, and reducing it more slowly and allowing more economic growth to help ease the burden is a perfectly rational and accepted way of approaching it (taking the Keynes approach). But it is being used in order to tackle all sorts of idealogical things, that frankly are not essential to deficit reduction. And if the cuts tip us back into recession, as I said earlier - guess what - the deficit and debt get WORSE. Tax revenues go down, benefits payments go up, unemployment goes up, homelessness goes up, investment goes down....

They also need to be fair and be seen to be fair. Atm they are grossly unfair. The Child benefit is a good example of that - policy is rushed out, and massive anomalies are left in. That cut is going to really hit us - we lose 10% of our income. Meanwhile familes on about DOUBLE what we earn keep it. Madness. It doesn't even save that much money, and goes against the basic principle of taxation, whereby partners do not have to disclose their financial affairs to each other (that is why couples are taxed individually).

The Government might pull it off. Might. The rich are not yet going to be hit, it is the poor and middle income households who are bearing the brunt of this. The rich won't notice. I hope that the 21 millionaires in the cabinet however will adopt a more flexible stance over the cuts, as if we get another quarter of economic contraction, then they MUST adopt a plan B, or we really will be emulating that 'shining example' of Ireland.

I'd like to add another spin on this. Does this economic crisis really exist or is it an excuse to shoo in unpopular ideologically driven reforms? It's a contorted paraxox whereby a crisis created by a greedy criminal minority is being used to further cement this demented status quo.

www.truth-out.org/rachel-maddow-naomi-kline-gop-strategy-disaster-capitalism-video68318

Check this out if you wanto see why the UK's going in this direction...always playing catch up with the States.

Hi Lily. You are not the only one being affected by the CB cut. I am too.

I understand Labour's role as opposition is to hold them to account. But there is a credibility issue where you oppose all cuts and don't suggest any of your own. At least if the Tories promised to match spending, it's a concrete policy - despite if it's right or wrong. And that's where I think Labour are failing. If they want to be taken seriously they have to map out in greater detail what they would do.

And whilst I understand that cutting the deficit slowly is "rational", so is cutting it quickly even if you disagree personally. It depends on the type of person you are. If you are in debt, you can either pay it off slowly and over a long time. Just like Carol Voderman who used to push those stupid consolidation loans. Or you can decide to take the pain for a few years, knuckle down and pay as much off as possible. Both are completely valid choices.

Also when Canada did a huge budget cut a while back, one of the lessons learned was that its better to cut things quick and get the pain over & done with.

NiceGuy, you are doing the classic Tory thing of comparing the deficit to a household budget. The problem with that is that when the cuts start to cause contraction in the economy, that is like someone saying 'I have £x of debt, therefore I must not spend any money. I cannot pay petrol money to get to work, so I must give up my job'. When in fact the job is what is needed in order to pay off the debt.

Hey, it might work. But it is at best a gamble, and I really hope it doesn't fail, because if it does, things are going to get a whole lot worse, fast.

As far as the CB cut goes, I know I'm not the only one, and actually, if it was done fairly, it would be a pita, but I wouldn't be so ANGRY about it, because it could then possibly be justified. As it is, it is a bad bad policy that will reward some people whilst penalising others, pretty well randomly, and that is not a good way to make policy. And of course cutting it in the way they are doing does nothing to address the 'children as income' culture that exists in some households (I know several, who are on to children 7,8,9 because they will get another dollop of CB).

glasnost

Yes,we do hang on Americas coat tails. I am never sure what we get in return

From a PM points of view it is nice to be mates with the biggest boy in the political playground.

But they should at least start saying "NO" to some USA suggestions.

'Labour do have a plan - the Darling deficit reduction plan,'

The same A.Darling who was Chancellor under Brown? Why would we want to follow his advice?

Abr1de, because, contrary to what the Government would have you believe, Darling managed to actually steer a reasonable course through hideously difficult global economic times. The fact that unemployment didn't rocket, inflation didn't soar uncontrollably, interest rates stayed low is testament to that.

If you listen to Darling speak, he talks a lot of sense, along with a fair whack of humility as well - he is a good economist. Brown was not good news as PM really, and it was a terrible job for Darling, to be chancellor under Brown, who had been chancellor for 10 years. But most economists acknowledge that the Darling plan was working - when the Tories came into power the economy was growing. Now, it would seem that it is contracting, interest rates will have to go up sooner or later, inflation is racing away, and unemployment is rising. None of those things are conducive to reducing a deficit.

Should also point out that there is no mandate for such a fast, furious deficit reduction - more votes were cast for Lib/Lab combined, both of whom campaigned on a 'slower, shallower' programme of cuts than for the Tory Slash and Burn approach.

I don't actually mind Darling that much, tbh. But I think he'll have a job persuading some people to listen to him because he is part of a tainted brand, as you say.

First thing Labour could do would be to get Ed M. some elocution lessons or make him get his adenoids taken out. He sounds dreadful on the radio and it must be putting people off! Even if he's saying things we should be listening to.

I'm sure I heard that he has had speech therapy - I'm not prepared to criticise him for that! Ed Balls also had problems with speech- he had a stammer apparently.

The problem with Ed M is his lack of gravitas imo, although the Labour party is well ahead in the polls atm, EM's popularity is not great. I think really he should step down in 18 months or so, to give a really charismatic leader a good run up to an election. Not sure who though - possibly Douglas Alexander? Or Yvette Cooper? Alan Johnson would have been great too. I don't think David M can take over from Ed, but he could easily be the next but one leader, and would do a good job.

Actually even though I think Labour are in general a bunch of baffoon's who spend now and think later, I actually have a lot of time for Darling. I think had he have not been held back by Brown, he'd have done a much better job.

And as for their leader. Let's be honest. You could appoint Col. Gadaffi as Labour leader at the moment and they'd still beat the Tories/Lib Dems in the polls.

A large section of the electorate are a bunch of stupid morons who don't have a clue what an interest rate is, let alone what the word deficit means. Whilst we may not agree on ideaology on this forum, at least we are intelligent enough to debate the points.

It used to drive me NUTS how my ex would vote for Labour because "Tony Blair has a nice smile" yet could not name a single policy of any party.

lol @ nice smile, my gran used to call him "our cheshire cat" in very condescending tones.

and yy about the leader, ed is not right at all. and that's one reason why I don't like the AV system of voting, that's what got ed in ahead of david!

I dont know how I shall vote on AV...Before he was in Coalition Nick called it neither one thing or the other.

They will be lucky to get a 30 per cent turnout.

I must admit, I am undecided about AV too. Will wait and see I think.

Gabby, I think the phrase was 'miserable little compromise'

Loving the touching faith "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" If this unprecedented (except post-war creation of NHS/Welfare State which the Tories fought every step of the way) econ. crisis is true, why not combat it by increasing income via tax??? Filthy Keynesianism...The whole thing would be paid off if Tweedledum & Tweedledummer taxed their mates hiding off-shore e.g Cayman Islands, Jersey, etc. Barclays paid 1% tax last year. Remember that when your Teaching Assistant/SureStart Centre proves sadly unaffordable. Tough Choices.