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.

Rose - your point about a global Economy is correct. But that just means our government has less control over our economy. And it narrows the options for dealing with a massive overspend.

Worse, that only some folk deserve to be treated with humanity, empathy and compassion- those that 'deserve' it...

You're over simplifying surely Niceguy? We all agree we need to reduce the debt, but how it's done is what we're arguing over. Spend, spend, spend is as bad as cut, cut, cut. G.O. is cutting in the hope the Private Sector will step in to grow the economy. I'm arguing that they can't in such a climate. Marry that with the State having to support the newly unemployed from the Public Sector and we're in one hell of a mess. They're taking one hell of a gamble by cutting so hard so quickly.

Wook - sadly everything has a price. Have you asked yourself why the last government chose to borrow - rather than to fund spending by putting up tax rates?

The last government was also choosy about it's compassion. Apparently the local government spending formula ignored the poorest people who happen to live in Tory voting constituencies. In these areas child poverty actually increased under Labour.

Another gem from the Becket book was the 1976 Labour government going cap in hand for an IMF loan - only to ask for too much as they had got their sums wrong..

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.

No, it's called 'investment' because spending money often actually leads to a return greater than the amount spent. If your household bought solar panels and saved money on electricity, then that would be 'investment' since it would save household money. Painting the house might also be an 'investment' since it might increase the resale value of the house. However, buying 100 bottles of expensive champagne is probably not an 'investment'.

When the state spends money on education, research, healthcare, infrastructure, etc., it is 'investing', not spending. An educated and healthy populace creates productive workers and entrepreneurs, research leads to patents, infrastructure leads increased economic activity and increased mobility.

There is a reason why most economists agree you can't cut yourself out of a recession: it reduces economic activity, puts people out of work, decreases tax revenues, and increases welfare costs.

Where are you getting the idea that education for the poor will be hit?
It's actually the reverse. The pupil premium means that schools with high numbers of free school meals will be better funded than those without.
The well off will be ok - they can use private education and the poor will be ok.

Those in the middle will be hit. As per usual with the coalition, it seems.

Jogon, that's not the case for those with additional needs. Funding is being WITHDRAWN. My daughter used to have loads of support for her social communication needs, she doesn't now. That will lead to a poorer outcome in her education.

It's not rocket science.

I dunno... some people.... you tell them what is ACTUALLY, REALLY happening out there and if it doesn't suit their ideological view of the world then they pretend it's not true.

My daughter is having appointments cancelled left, right and centre. Cardiac and orthoptic. Both hers and the boys' paediatrician is retiring in Dec, no plans to replace her so how are they supposed to have their development reviews?

THIS IS HAPPENING.

My daughter's extra educational provision HAS been withdrawn.

THIS IS HAPPENING.

My kids go to a state school in a comfortable, middle class area.
As such, their school will lose substantial money in real terms as it is being siphoned off for poorer schools.
As we are in a terrible situation nationally wrt finances, I accept this and that it is " fair".

Just means the bloody PTA has to work harder!

Can you not look to some fundraising glitter, through the school/PTA? ( I know that's far form ideal and I don't mean to trivialise what must be a complete kick in the teeth, BTW)

I would not be cutting children's services.

ttosca - Atchly in investment terms there's a decent chance you'd see a better ROI on champagne (if you bought a good vintage) than solar panels, which in many cases will break before saving you enough to recoup your outlay.

On a more serious note, though. When did a society's empathy and compassion come to be equated with the extent of its state-funded services? Is that really a 1:1 equation? This isn't a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely not sure of the answer, though my hunch is that this isn't the case.

"You're over simplifying surely Niceguy?......Spend, spend, spend is as bad as cut, cut, cut."

Yes and no. I am simplifying but ultimately its the truth isn't it? We can't borrow money indefinitely and neither can the government. You borrow money, one day you must pay it back. And the only way you can do it is to spend less. Or are you suggesting there's an alternative?

And yes, the debate is over when and how much to cut. But here I would say that there never is a good time. If we had cash reserves saved up during the good years, I'd be more inclined to say let's cut later...after all we saved up for a rainy day. But we didn't. During the boom years, our government did the spend spend spend and now it's time to cut, cut, cut. Why? because the money ran out and market conditions are such that banks are no longer willing to lend to governments they feel are not taking their debt seriously.

Niceguy2 (and anyone else interested in economics).

Article on some recent research showing why fiscal strategy won't work in the UK.

In plain English - why we can't spend our way out of a recession or low growth.

"Where are you getting the idea that education for the poor will be hit?" From the fact that teaching assistants' posts and/or hours are being cut in our LEA.

So richer kids don't have TA's, then?
EVERYBODY who uses state education will be hit but the better off wil be hit harder, as I've already clearly outlined. Schools with poor pupils will be substantially LESS hit.

Jogon, look at the free schools policy. You see the government are now considering scrapping the standard admissions policy for parents who are involved in setting up the school? Article from The Independant That's one way to ensure your kid's education isn't affected, just club together with your pals and keep the riff raff out. Much cheaper.

niceguy-

You really don't listen to any arguments at all, do you? You just keep repeating the same mantra about overspending and borrowing, and asking the same rhetorical question about 'what is the alternative?' - when that question has been answered a number of times.

Wubbly.
What's stopping poor parents from doing this?

State funded services do noy equal empathy or compassion necessarily- that's not quite what I was organising. Though I do think there is a moral basis to the concept of the welfare state ie that we are responsible for each other, as people within the same society.
Take big chunks of the state away and people are not going to miraculously start to 'man up' or whatever horrible phrase, and especially not with no jobs to go to. Things will clearly not get better and society will have no moral foundation- what will it be, if we don't accept that we need to collectively look out for the vulnerable? If people don't accept that basic premise then yes, I don't think you could possibly say society was any longer empathetic or compassionate.
I certainly don't think that having the stateshould replace anyone's individual responsibility for themselves but in the egs Glitta gave whether the individual took responsibility would make no difference: a child with SEN can't suddenly, alone, miraculously work towards giving themsleves the same capabilities as everyone else, so TA support can be useful. A child who needs to see a medical specialist can't just make lifestyle changes to stop being a 'burden on the state'!!!

Organising??? I think I meant suggesting hard day at work!

Jogon hmm I wonder what factors could possibly be preventing parents in the poorest areas from setting up free schools?

I'd have thought that was obvious really Jogon if you apply a little logic.

No?

Okay then, despite some increasingly common stereotypes that poor people are actually evil geniuses plotting how they can wrangle the next quid out of your pocket, most people are poor because of the circumstances of their lives. Language barriers, mental health issues, disability, learning difficulties etc.

In our instance, my DH is working full time and caring for DS and myself as I'm ill. Neither of us have the time, energy or, frankly, the wherewithall to organise a free school.

I'm guessing we're not unique....

Yes it's really disingenuous to pretend that anyone can set up a free school and the only thing stopping people is themselves. In law there may be equal opportunity for anyone to do so but in reality there are many many barriers to the most disadvantaged. To pretend otherwise or feign ignorance as to why this might be is just silly.

Besides anything else, the poorest neighbourhoods are those most likely to already have an academy (and don't get me started on those)

All political parties are committed to the welfare state but the money has run out. All parties would have cut.

Not everyone agrees cutting will harm the UK. You invest in countires if they are prudent. If we cut we may not lose ouf AAA international credit rating which is very helpful to our success. If you don't cut and don't balance the books people don't want to invest here.

I am sure there is a difference in view between right and left no the thread as to the Lord helps those who help themselves but no political party has any plan to dismantle the welfare state and had a Labour got in we would have been cut cut cutting away almost as hard.

No political party is proposing to take big chunks of the state away,. The Coalition is tinkering.

The bigi ssue is labours over spending is leading if the points on the thread above are correct to some poorer people losing some services. The finger of blame should be pointed at Labour. Howeer if people choose for political ends to point it at the Coalition I am sure it will cope and in 4 years the Tories will win a resounding victory.

Right and those who are not able to help themselves should go to hell, yeah Xenia?

'Take big chunks of the state away and people are not going to miraculously start to 'man up' or whatever horrible phrase, and especially not with no jobs to go to. Things will clearly not get better and society will have no moral foundation.'

Well Wook you make the basic mistake of assuming that existence of a 'service' is evidence enough of its efficacy. It isn't.

'In law there may be equal opportunity for anyone to do so but in reality there are many many barriers to the most disadvantaged'

And again Wook, what is your alternative? Are you seeking special dispensation from the law of the land for those poor little poor folk? Rather like all these universities now being forced into accepting students who don't make the grade?

How patronising.

The alternative is don't spend fucking millions of pounds of tax payers money setting up 'free' schools.