TUC National Demonstration Against Cuts

[OrangeBernard]

Who's going? I've just booked my train tickets. Its my first protest, any advice or tips? Bit worried about kettling.

I think you're right jackstarb, G.O. does see that as the way out. Trouble is I can't see how decimating the public sector's going to achieve that. Take for example the schools building programme (can't remember what it was called!). Okay, so it wasn't the most efficient, but it created jobs in the private sector - builders, architects, etc. Now that's largely scrapped they've got less work not more. It just makes no sense at all to me.

First public sector spend is being taken back to 2006 levels (I think). Very uncomfortable (especially for those it directly impacts) but not nearly decimation.

Second - for a spend led recovery to work - you really need a store of money (or at least not too much debt). Otherwise the debt consumes you before you reach recovery. Also, the UK is a bit of a leaky bucket when it comes to fiscal spending policies (we tend to spend our money on imported goods and many of our companies are foriegn owned). So government spend doesn't stimulate growth by much.

For the people it does impact upon it is decimation in lots of ways. You try losing your job and see how that hits you. Or losing the respite care which keeps you sane, or the youth services which keeps your troubled teenager off the streets. There are endless examples of things which matter disappearing.

fwiw, the opposition say they'll cut too, but more slowly and with a more measured approach. So given my example in last post regarding Schools Building Programme, where do you stand on that? My logic surely makes a kind of basic sense, so building schools employs builders and architects. So by cutting that bit of public funding, you're not creating private sector work, you're cutting that too.

Chil said (ages ago) "That period between '76 and '79 was less 'funky' and more 'deathknell of Britain'."
I'm reading a good book 'When the Lights Went Out' which is very readable and takes on lots of political and cultural myths about the 1970s. It's lazy to generalise and oversimplify that decade.

Quite Smee the public and private sectors are mutually interdependent and to suggest that the relationship is parasite/host as some do is just disgusting, and wrong on a factual level. So the public sector does not create wealth? So public sector workers don't educate, treat medically or support in any other way the workers who work in the private sector? Really? Public sector building programmes don't involve private sector workers? Really? The purchasing power of public sector workers does not have any impact on the retail sector? Really?

Jogon regarding the laptops- what would you prefer to see? The poor staying poor forever? Never empowered to participate in society by learning new skills? It's not like there will be many librraies around for them to use the computer in... Do you want the poor to wear a sackcloth and ashes and spend their days begging in the streets with a sign saying 'kick me' stuck to them?
I teach a really bright kid who has just been given a laptop for coursework and revision because he's on free school meals, and we're in a rural area and he's bussed in so can't stay back after lessons. So, this laptop- what a waste of taxpayer's money- he was born to a poor family so he should know his place right? How dare he be given an opportunity to have something that could help him improve his chances?! At the expense of the poor hard pressed taxpayer. He should have had a smack in the face and been grateful for it...

Wook, that's how Britain got 'Great' though, isn't it? That's what people are harking back to really.

What's wrong with workhouses anyway (as long as they are owned by the private sector) They could maybe even make profits?

wook's on a rant roll. Go for it, am with you all the way.

There is no money. We have to cut things. If you're in debt as a family you don't keep remortgaging forever. You cut back. That's all we're having to do here. It will pass. There are always economic cycles. This is no worse than the 1920s crash, better, easier in many ways.

Me too.

When that kid gets a job and starts paying taxes, calling the 'laptop' free doesn't really work does it?

Xenia, it sounds like you've swallowed 'The Economy According to Thatcher' and you just keep regurgitating the same shallow rhetoric.

But you're not suggesting the economy doens't work in cycles are you? Nor even perhaps that a b it less money and no ability to be too consumeristic (which presumably most of us realise is a dreadful moral fault of our age) might not actually do a lot of people some good? If money doesn't bring happiness should it matter if people who have a roof and food have a bit less?

I'm suggesting that the global economy is considerably more complex than a household economy and that there are many people who don't have a decent roof or decent food, and actually no or very little opportunity to be consumeristic and so, no, I don't think increases in for example child poverty will do anyone any good.

Though I too dislike the rabid consumerism of capitalism and wish we would just all stop it.

Xenia, I'm with Rosebud - national economics just aren't the same as those for a family. You can't compare the two and no economist ever would.

Nobody's denying we're in debt. It's how to solve it that's the problem. Arguably the twenties depression didn't end until the war, when spending had to be increased to stoke the war effort. That accelerated the economy via investment, not by cutting. Roosevalt's New Deal is also widely credited with helping lift America out of depression. That was all about the three 'R's and hugely invested in the social fabric of America to lift people from poverty. It was about investment basically not cutting.

If you want to keep people fully employed when an economy is slowing down, the government arguably has to step in. Osbourne's view is that the Private Sector will wade in and fill the void, but it's not proven historically in any way and is a huge risk. The lessons from the Great Depression show us that. So what if his plan fails and the Private Sector don't/ can't invest enough to bring us out of recession?? What's he going to do then?

Oh, there's plenty of money. It's not like there's not enough 'stuff' in the world. The UK is richer than it ever has been. The problem is one of priorities. When we need to wage war, there is money. When MPs want to relax the expenses rules so they can make more claims, there is plenty of money. When we want to give tax breaks to corporations, there's money. When we need money for Trident, there's money.

The UK is one of the richest countries in the world. If the establishment was forced to find the money for public expenses, it would find them.

Besides which, the UK debt is not even that high by historical standards. Yes, the deficit should be brought under control, but no, this is not a good enough reason to slash and burn public spending (which is counterproductive anyway).

UK historical debt levels:

falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/how-big-is-the-problem

If we are so broke why are we launching missiles at Tripoli yet expecting the disabled to be shoved into poverty and indignity?

Or spending billions on 'reforming' the NHS?

£70 million was spent in launching missiles and keeping warplanes in the air on the first two days of conflict.

Wook - I just looked up 'When the Lights Went out' - it does indeed look interesting. One quote from the book which stuck out was from Jim Callaghan?s speech to the 1976 Labour conference:

?We used to think that we could spend our way out of a recession? I tell you in all candour, that option no longer exists.?

Smee Regarding the school building program - if you believe in managing the economy fiscally - then spending large amounts of public money at the top of an economic cycle is a bad idea, as it 'over heats' the economy. Spending large sums of money borrowed under PFI contracts - even worse. Wasting much of the money on sloppy tendering processes and architects 'wet dream' projects......and Polish builders second homes???

I'd have preferred a well funded yet modest refurbishment and rebuild. Properly managed and controlled.

Yet £200 million was spent on scrapping Nimrod.

And you really can't compare household domestic budgets with National economics. It just doesn't work like that. If it did it would be easier to fix.

Of course it's not as simple in practice but the comparisons are in general sound.

My budget
Outgoings > income = debt

Govt
Govt Spending > Tax receipts = National Debt

The only thing to change are the words. So instead of overspending we call it a deficit. Instead of "spending money" we call it an "investment"

For some reason people would think I'm stupid if I overspend for 30 years and in the belief that one day I'll be ok because I'll earn more.

But if I replace the words "overspend" with "deficit" and "earn more" with "economic growth" then people think "Oh ok.....that sounds reasonable!"

Those comparisons aren't sound at all. It's unfeasible to talk about national economics - all economies are global these days.

Plus.... it's not statistics and percentages. These are people, human beings, being denied a basic education or the healthcare that they need. Some are children like yours. There are parents out there like me who have no idea what the future will hold for their kids as it is.... the educational playing field never will be level but now their end of the pitch has been seriously undermined.

CARDIAC CARE. That isn't about fairness. That's a two year old little girl who goes BLUE and is not getting correct treatment.

But yeah.... keep number crunching.

Yes Glitterknickaz the idea that humanity, empathy, compassion are commodities we can either afford or not afford is just weird to me

Jack there are lots and lots of other interesting quotes in that book- read the lot!!