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.

It's an interesting list of criticisms, but they are not putting forward an alternative. No-one is. It's easy to knock (whether from a well or ill informed position), but not it seems to come up with anything better.

Yes its a very interesting list of critics. For the Conservatively inclined, we also have here the previous conservative spokesman on the economy, Lord (Robert) Skidelsky ;

"The truth is that it?s not the fear of government bankruptcy but governments? determination to balance their books which lowers business confidence, by reducing expectations of employment, incomes, and orders. It?s not the hole in the budget but the hole in the economy which is the problem.?

Some historical perspective;

"Here are some interesting figures. In 1919 the National Debt stood at 135% of GDP ? as a result of heavy wartime borrowing. By 1920, after a year?s inflationary boom it was down to 130%. By 1922 it was up to 171%? Why? Because there had been a huge deflation and rise in unemployment in 1921. In the deflationary decade of the 1920s, the debt hardly reduced at all. Nothing could more clearly illustrate the fact that the debt falls when the economy rises and rises when the economy falls."

Oops vesela, that's what I get for trying to multitask

My main point still stands, the GBP did not vote for these cuts. The options were clearly laid out prior to the GE and the voters rejected the tories plans. So much for democracy eh, when we get them anyway?

This is what he said on repaying debt, and future ge

?Unlike households, governments don?t have to repay their debt. They can borrow almost without limit, especially from their own people. If interest rates go up, they can print more money to force them down again. Printing money won?t cause inflation to go up if there is a lot of unused capacity.

Another myth is ?the burden on future generations?. Provided the debt is mainly held by British citizens, there is no net loss of income from any debt repayment: it is a matter of future taxpayers repaying future bondholders.?

Vessela - I suspected that. Polly Toynbee keeps making the same mistake.

So, using OECD measures the UK has the highest structural deficit of the G7.

Total debt level wise we had the third lowest of the G7 in 2010. It is the structural deficit which we need to deal with - hence the cuts. We spend more than we can possibly raise - even when our economy is healthy and our tax revenue at it's max.

Meditrina - the debt can be reduced by growing. Before the recession the deficit was kept below 3% GDP. Bailing out the banks and extra spending caused by the financial crisis is what caused it to rise (to now, 9% GDP).

If our GDP rises, then the deficit will shrink, as a proportion of GDP.

But the governments cuts will shrink our GDP, not the deficit. So the deficit, as a proportion of GDP, could actually rise, even though we will be suffering cuts.

HH - you are also confusing debt with deficit, I think.

So what measure would be out in place? It's all very well to say "growth will solve it", but what does that mean in terms of setting a budget?

It seems "all talk no trousers" atm.

Jackstarb - the money spent by a government does not disappear through public spending. It pays wages to people in this country. Those people support the private sector, and also pay tax back to the government from their wages. They also pay tax back to the government when they spend that money.

One way it can 'disappear' is e.g. if it is used to pay profits to foreign investors and company owners. This is what the NHS reforms will allow - our taxes will pay private profits to external companies.

HH - are you talking about the 'Keynsian multiplier'?

A beautiful juxtaposition. On one side of our screens, we have Red Ed mouthing empty platitudes to the demonstrators. On the other, we have masked anarchists destroying London and attacking the police, throwing lightbulbs at them.

It says it all, really.

The unions and Labour should call off their thugs.

Jackstarb - no you are confused. They are linked.

Meditrina - in terms of setting the budget, it means we need growth. We cannot make this level of cuts when we are on the verge of plunging back into recession.

We need to encourage and stimulate growth, increase employment.

The police are demonstrating too, but not in uniform of course.

longfingers, am just back from the march. It was fantastic - lots of very normal people who just want what's right, so public services maintained. It wasn't militant or violent, but good natured and determined.

You talking of the very few, not the many. Please don't tar us all with your DM views.

Don't be so absurd longfingernails, the very small number of protestors (a couple of hundred) along Oxford Street are a fraction of those who marched peacefully (about 200 000 on a conservative estimate). And if you asked any of them if they were affiliated to the TUC or the Labour party they would laugh in your face.
It is just laughable watching the 24 hour news channel reporters desperately trying to find a story of trouble and mayhem all afternoon, and the anarchist demonstrators appear to be outnumbered ten to one by photographers! What a shame the media can't make their coverage proportionate- twenty minutes on the vast numbers of peaceful marchers, twenty seconds on the balaclava hotheads- then people like yourself longfingernails would not be so easily duped. Try exercising some common sense and intelligence as you watch the news next time.

And if you think there is anything 'red' about Ed Miliband then you can't have watched or heard anything he's ever said or done!

What's "right" isn't to maintain public services, but to slash them - far more so than the meagre cuts we have had announced so far.

We cannot go on providing so many non-jobs sapping the taxes of our children.

We should take public spending, as a proportion of GDP, down to 30%.

I so don't want to live in your world longfingernails. Each to their own, but we will never agree. And you haven't yet apologised for your previous post. So ridiculously un-thought out, that it's hard to take you seriously.

'masked anarchists destroying London'

wtf are you on about?

The Guardian reckoned about 450,000 protestors btw, and they're pretty moderate in their estimates.

Rosebud05 I am talking about the masked anarchists destroying London.

The ones you can see, live, if you switch on your TV or go to a news website.

There are a few hundred people around f & m and a few other flash spots in the city (just arrived home from the march). The ones outnumbered about 10 to 1 by the tsg.

They're hardly 'destroying London'.

LFN - bit of paint throwing, grafitti, smashing a few shop windows owned by notorius tax-avoiders. Back to LFN fantasy land.

There has been a fire at Oxford Circus, property damaged (Top Shop, a branch of RBs and others, 13 arrests, 4 police injured and 1 hospitalised.

What do you think the news channels are concentrating on? That fire was very photogenic.

So it's ok to smash shop windows?