I'm at a loss - why are the LD's being punished and who is voting Tory?

[smashingtime]

It feels to me as though the LD's are being punished for the Coalition but really it is mostly Tory policies which are in the process of ruining the country. The Tories haven't done badly in these elections so are most people really unaffected by cuts or is it the grey vote that is making the difference?

I have not read the whole of the thread but here is my take on the original post as an ex LD voter.
I am extremely angry with them because they have abandoned any principles that they had - and all for what? The only thing that they seem to have achieved from this process is to make Clegg et. al. feel more important than they did before. Does anyone really take them politically seriously? Can anyone point to any policy of this coalition and seriously say that policy x is a LD policy? They are in government without being in power and this has alienated their core vote. In addition, what Clegg has done over the student fees is unforgiveable, a complete betrayal, and I for one will raise a glass when the good people of Sheffield dispatch him to obscurity at the next election.
It used to be possible to believe that a LD govenment would be different in someway, indeed this was their USP. Voters like me have nowhere to go now - an irresponsible, unapologetic, uncomprehending Labour party who have left us with a massive structural deficit, lapdog LDs drunk on their own self importance whilst achieving nothing progressive, and Conservatives rushing through a lot of ideologically driven change on the back of an economic crisis. Cameron and Osbourne must piss themselves laughing everytime he thinks about the way things have turned out.
Where does a progressive voter like myself go?

They are being punished because there appears to a lot of people who believe that the Government can spend more than it collects in perpetuity or that if we ignore that the country has an enormous structural budget deficit then it will just go away.

What utter nonsense. You appear to have bought in to the Tory narrative hook, like, and sinker.

ttosca - the fact of our structural deficit is not a Tory narrative. Labour, who presided over the forming of it, had belatedly recognised the problem at the time of the last election and were planning their own substantial cuts to public spending. We, as a country, are spending far more on public services than we are collecting through taxation and this cannot go on idefinitely without seriously effecting future generations.

Burro

Most governments since 1974, both Labour and Conservative, have run structural deficits. Running a deficit is neither rare or even necessarily harmful.

spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdEdNdWlxdGhJVHE1WE9OYlVQazZUcWc&hl=en#gid=2

We, as a country, are spending far more on public services than we are collecting through taxation

As many countries have for decades. The 'deficit crisis' was not caused by too much public spending, but by the financial crisis and recession (and subsequent loss of tax receipts).

and this cannot go on idefinitely without seriously effecting future generations.

Our debt as percentage of GDP is historically very low. We are not amassing some huge unprecedented debt, as you seem to imply. Our problem is a high deficit, not debt, which is causing us to pay high interest payments which are wasteful. The solution to this problem is economic growth and making the people who caused this crisis pay for it - not he public.

In layman's term's, what ttosca is saying is:

1: "It's ok, our mates are all spending more than they earn too. And noone would have noticed if the banks hadn't f*cked it all up"

2: "It doesn't matter what we owe, our only problem is how much we're overspending by"

Anyone with half a brain can see the flaw in that logic. Unfortunately ttosca cannot.

ttosca - thanks for the reply.
If there is not really a problem as you imply, Why did all of the main parties propose large public spending cuts at the last election? Do you know something that they don't - despite them being able to see the books?
As for your other points, In the first few years of new Labour a small surplus was actually generated and this was used to pay down some of our debt. This action is really in the public interest as it frees up more money in the future to be spent on real things (and not just debt interest). Your ideas of a perpetual structural deficit can only work if we can rely on guaranteed economic growth in the future. As recent events have shown, we cannot predict the future, therefore this is not a good assumption to make. Most people, I suspect, would like a close to zero balence sheet (or small surplus) during times of economic growth and a smallish increase in public spending to smooth a recession. We cannot do this atm because of the irresponsible spending of the last Labour government.

niceguy

1. What part of most years since 1974 governments have run a deficit do you not understand?

1. What part of our debt is historically very low do you not understand?

Burro-

If there is not really a problem as you imply, Why did all of the main parties propose large public spending cuts at the last election?

On the contrary:

^The Conservatives sought last night to destroy Labour claims that they would cut public services by issuing a formal pledge to match Gordon Brown?s spending plans.

In an echo of New Labour?s own 1997 manifesto promise to match the Tory Government?s projected spending levels, George Osborne vowed last night to stick to Gordon Brown?s plan of increasing public spending by 2 per cent in real terms over the next three years.^

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html

---

The rest of your points are valid. I'm not saying that it is wise to run a perpetual structural deficit. What I'm refuting is the idea that we're in some sort of public spending crisis, or some sort of debt crisis due to public spending.

This is entirely false, though a convenient narrative for the Tories to perpetuate.

Of course it is wise to reduce the structural deficit in good times and increase public spending during a recession to stimulate the economy.

However, the deficit problem we are encountering today is not the result of profligate public spending. It is the result of financial crisis which has increased borrowing and caused a recession and loss of tax receipts. Even if the structural deficit before the crisis was at 0%, it would still, now, after the crisis, be over 8% - and our interest payments on this deficit would still be hugely wasteful.

You also note that it is a good idea to increase public spending during a recession. The current government is doing the very opposite - it is imposing drastic cuts - and the outcome is as expected: a prolonged recession and economic stagnation.

ttossca; you're doing a great job!
niceguy2; accept defeat with good grace in the face of ttossca's superior genius and all round balanced rationality. That is my advice. You will not accept it because you will never accept that I, too, have already claimed the high ground of reasoned argument but you have spurned it in favour of 'the sky is falling' with Nick Clegg. Now, his sky is falling.

ttosca;
I am not going to trawl the internet to find arbitrary articles that support my point of view, it is pointless and does not add to the debate. It is true (IMO) to say that most of the last election campaign focussed on the scale of cuts that we would have to endure and in the final analysis there was very little difference between the Tories and Labour plans. I am sure that there are very many articles that I could cite to support this view. It may have escaped your notice but in April 2011 the government had to lend a record amount of money for that month (April), and these records have been broken several times in recent months. In fact the government even had to borrow money in January - the month when they get a massive boost in revenue due to income tax receipts. These things suggest that something unusual is happening (that was recognised by all parties last year) and we cannot go on spending money we don't have. All three main parties support this view so to call it a 'Tory narritive' is misleading, perhaps 'rational narritive' would be a better epithet.
You accept that you cannot run a perpetual deficit and even when the current proposed cuts have been implemented in full we will still run a deficit. I think that you accept that lending more just stores up more problems for the future - therefore the responsible thing to do is to reduce public expenditure whilst trying to reduce the state imposed barriers to wealth creation by private individuals.

Ttosca, so why is the ft saying the numbers are too big and the markets are spooked?

Abr1de I hope things turn around for you really soon, but I'm sure they will.

As for those of you who pooh-pooh'd her work ethic and attitude, how dare you suggest that I am only where I am due to wealth? I'm where I am because I don't give up. I've cleaned toilets and stripped beds to buy food and I always believe I can improve my lot. To say it is because you believe my parents are rich belittle everything I've ever done. :(

Incidentally, I am alone in chuckling at the irony of ttosca (yes she of the 'Tory narrative') citing the Daily Telegraph to support her arguement!

the reason all those organisations and institutions say pretty much the same thing is because they share the same priority - creating comfortable conditions for free market capitalism. If you believe free market capitalism causes human misery while it creates private wealth, you might conclude it's not worth supporting when that support causes even more misery. You might conclude : their crisis, their system, their problem.

aliceliddell;
You could argue that they all say similar things because they have all studied the evidence and all come to a similar conclusion on the basis of a rational analysis. It is all of our problem and I am taking my share of the pain caused by these cuts along with everyone else. This 'their problem' stuff does sound juvenile - the state of the economy effects all of us - particularily if you have a family to support.
As for capitalism causing misery, living standards in the UK have never been higher as a result of the capitalism that you so despise. Even since I was a child in the 80s, the average wealth of a member of society has improved drastically and compared to earlier decades we are unimaginably better off. It was not that long ago that children starved in this country (and not through parental neglect), people died of routine illnesses etc.. Yes, you can argue that material things do not make you happy per se, but they certainly can make the unhappiness more bearable. This wealth that we all enjoy is a result of our form of liberal capitalism.

Burro and Alpine-

I disagree. At the last election, there was very little talk of what cuts will need to be done, because they knew very well that it was a vote-loser, so they all three conspired to keep silent on the issue.

Furthermore, you and Alpine seem to be missing my point.

I am not saying that there isn't a very large deficit problem at the moment. There is no need to talk about needing borrow money to make your case.

I am saying that the deficit problem was not caused by huge amounts of public spending - and by that I mean spending on public services like healthcare, social welfare, etc.

These things suggest that something unusual is happening (that was recognised by all parties last year) and we cannot go on spending money we don't have.

That is just my point. We are not 'spending money we don't have' in the sense of huge amounts of money being spent on public services and wages for public servants. For example, the amount we spend on the NHS, as a percentage of GDP, is pretty average for europe. Quite a few countries spend considerably more.

We have a deficit, that is, our revenue is less than our expenditure, not because we're spending huge amounts of public services, but because we are experiencing a recession caused by the banking crisis. The recession has caused a huge loss in tax receipts and caused the welfare bill to soar, as more people are unemployed. We also had to borrow money to bail out the banks, which we're paying interest on.

It is the banking crisis which caused our deficit to jump from 3% before 2008 to over 11% now.

Do you understand now?

If the argument is how we can now reduce the deficit, which was caused by the gambling bankers, then you can either argue that:

a) The public should pay for a crisis not of their own making, but balancing the sheets through the cutting of (not excessive) public services. or

b) The bankers and those responsible should bear the brunt of the hardship. There are many ideas circulating how this could be done. The Robin Hood tax is one (already implemented by a bank in France), as well as the new bill proposed by Caroline Lucas of the Green party which will require tax transparency for UK companies.

The plan so far as been almost all a) and no b). This has been a disaster, as the economy is grinding to a halt as spending is cut. It is time to invest in public services, preserve jobs, and make the people who caused this crisis pay for it.

ttosca; Your analysis is simplistic and it does not really matter who is to blame in terms of how we have to resolve things. The situation we are in arose partly because of a lack of effective regulation which is a government function.
It is not a simple choice between a and b, perhaps more a case of a and b. The problem is that caning the banks would definitely choke any recovery that might happen as they would lend even less money to business. Do you really think that we could tax the banks to the tune of an extra £150 billion or so per annum and that it would not effect our economy?
The money spent bailing out Northern Rock and the others will be recouped (and a profit made) when the part nationalised banks are returned to private ownership.
A structural defecit is exactly that, the difference between expenditure and income. Labour had thrown so much money around that we already had a structural deficit before the banking crisis and this was during a time of economic growth - this was the main mistake IMO. The banking crisis just exascerbated this. If Labour had been more prudent we would be in a position to invest more now - unfortunately we are not.

ttosca, i understand just fine. It's you who doesn't accept that black is black.

If things are really so cushdy, why did Labour, Lib Dems AND the Tories commit to cuts prior to the election?

Why is it that every government who has been running a deficit now making cuts to try to balance the books?

Surely if it was just a big Tory lie, you wouldn't expect Labour to buy into it? Or the rest of the world? Or are the Tories so powerful now that they have the ability to scare the USA into massive budget reforms?

And answer me this question. If you borrow money (the very definition of a debt) and you keep borrowing (ie. deficit). If you've been borrowing since 1974.....dont you think it's about time you paid some of it back?

Bear in mind all the moaning you & alice are doing is in response to a cut in the deficit. We've not even scratched the actual debt itself yet!

Typical socialist claptrap. It's all the rich's fault. Go tax them instead. And I thought that type of thinking died in the early 80's.

Oh and Alice. I'm still waiting for a single policy from the socialist party you so fondly support. Just one will do. If the Tories have it so wrong and Labour along with them. Then you can only say they are wrong if you can say what you'd do differently. Otherwise you just sound like a toddler having a tantrum.

I'm away for a few days now so take your time to think of one. Have fun.

niceguy-

If things are really so cushdy, why did Labour, Lib Dems AND the Tories commit to cuts prior to the election?

This is becoming very frustrating. I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying 'everything is cushy'. Please go back and read my posts more carefully. In fact, my last post explicitly said the opposite:

I am not saying that there isn't a very large deficit problem at the moment.

The main parties may have committed to cuts, although they certainly didn't talk about it very much if you recall, because it was a vote loser. Remember the debate between the big three? Do you remember how much time was spent talking about making cuts? Not very much.

In any case, at the time of the election, the financial crisis had already hit, and we were at the beginning of a recession. They realised that this would cause a large deficit problem. So instead of doing the right thing and making those reponsible and those who are most able to afford it pay for the crisis, they decided to make public sector cuts and make the public at large pay instead. This suited the Tories fine, since they wanted to carry on their Thatcherite agenda in any case.

Why is it that every government who has been running a deficit now making cuts to try to balance the books?

Because big business and the wealthy elite basically run democracy in Capitalist states, so they are making the public pay for their crisis.

Surely if it was just a big Tory lie, you wouldn't expect Labour to buy into it? Or the rest of the world? Or are the Tories so powerful now that they have the ability to scare the USA into massive budget reforms?

You're confused again. The financial crisis was global in nature. That's precisely the point I'm making. Some of you seem to be trying to pin this down on New Labour's 'profligate' spending. But as you note, many Western Capitalist countries are making cuts to public services in order to balance their deficits caused by the financial crisis and recession.

You mention the USA, but in fact, the cuts in the USA have not been nearly as drastic as those in the UK. Obama, in fact, recently remarked about this and criticised Osbornes approach to reducing the deficit. Obama commented that economic growth was needed as much as cuts (or even moreso). It looks like he was right, because the UK economy has been flatlining for over a year.

And answer me this question. If you borrow money (the very definition of a debt) and you keep borrowing (ie. deficit). If you've been borrowing since 1974.....dont you think it's about time you paid some of it back?

A state borrowing money is not the same as an individual borrowing money on a credit card. That's a poor analogy. No, you can't keep borrowing more and more forever. Though if you have economic growth, your deficit in relation to your GDP can remain the same. In any case, I'm not suggesting we keep borrowing. I simply want to dispell the alarmism about the debt. The UK debt is historically low, and lower than many other european nations. The problem the UK is facing is not a debt problem, but a deficit problem. That is, revenue from tax receipts is lower than expenditure. Prior to the crisis it was 3%. It is now 8%. This is not because of huge increase in public spending, but because of the recession.

Bear in mind all the moaning you & alice are doing is in response to a cut in the deficit. We've not even scratched the actual debt itself yet!

The UK debt level is historically low and compares favourably with other G8 nations.

Typical socialist claptrap. It's all the rich's fault. Go tax them instead. And I thought that type of thinking died in the early 80's.

You would rather tax the poor and cut public services and make them pay for a crisis not of their own doing? You would rather continue to fund bankers bonuses in the million whilst money for education, libraries, health and the arts are cut?

I thought that kind of thinking died in the 19th Century...

ttosca;
I noticed that you avoided my question so I'll ask it again. Do you think that caning the banks to the tune of 150 billion per annum (as you suggest as an alternative to spending cuts) would help or hinder any recovery to our economy? IMO this action would do more damage than the cuts will do and would probably bankrupt some more institutions thus starting another crisis.
Your argument seems to hang on the supposition that there should be some morality in the governments response to our problems. In an ideal world perhaps, but in reality I (and most others I suspect) want the quickest and most effective way out of the mess. That is the utilitarian response - the most good to the most people. As pointed out, the consensus amongst all liberal capitalist governments is to cut public expenditure in these circumstances. As I said, if we had not been overspending during the boom years prior to 2008 we would not feel so much pain now (look at Germany for instance, who are well placed to weather the global recession). Your whole approach seems to be based on wanting to exact retribution on some arbitrary institutions that you blame for a global recession. In reality, we were all complicit in the circumstances leading to the crash, banks, governments (not regulating properly) and consumers as well (blinded by greed).
Do you understand now?

Great post, ttosca.

Caning the banks would help imo, Burro. Liberal capitalist governments are run by the banks. Apparently even in the relatively good old days of the last twenty years it is only the top 10% whose standard of living has risen. So yes - make them pay some of it back.

What sort of economic recovery did you have in mind, anyway? Back to the old days when the rich got richer and the poor poorer? To me economic recovery means more money invested in jobs and education, more money invested in the National Health Service. That's the sort of economic recovery I want to see.

The only way to deal with the deficit is to raise taxes - where else can the money come from? That will raise the standard of living of the vast majority of us, but will not hurt those who have so much money they won't even notice it's not there.

Where I do agree with you, Burro, is that people are greedy. Banks cashed in on that and encouraged and manipulated it in order to squeeze more money out of us for themselves. Now they need to pay it back.

Mellowfruitfulness;

You have completely missed the point - caning the banks is not an option as it would really choke any recovery. The recession was partly caused by a lack of liquidity in financial institutions, hence the quantative easing program. Taking more money from the banks will mean that they cannot lend as much to business - an essential component of the recovery.

We can only enjoy a free education (up to university age), a national health service and all the other state services if business is providing tax receipts to the government. That is why an economic recovery is so important for all of the things that you hold dear. So yes, I do believe that wealth creation by private businesses and individuals is a good thing - although from the tone of your post I'd guess that you do not. By taxing wealth creators more you are essentially eroding the motivation for them to create wealth in the first place and this move would in all likelihood be counter productive, particularily in an increasingly global business world.

The liberal capitalism that you seem to despise has provided unprecedented living standards for the people of this country. I am always shocked that so many people do not recognise this - the poor have not got poorer in terms of real material things - in fact living standards have never been higher for all. Relative incomes have become more stretched in recent years but to me that does not equal poverty. If you want to see really poor people you would need to visit another country. The reason why politics has become stale and boring is because of the relative success of previous governments in raising living standards across the board in the UK - there is not really that much to argue about anymore.

Burro: 'Taking more money from the banks will mean that they cannot lend as much to business - an essential component of the recovery'.

I don't agree. They might not choose to lend to small businesses, but they still could if they wanted to.

Yes, big businesses should pay their taxes - if they did we would not have such a big deficit. The majority of the population are better off when everyone pays their taxes.

Yes we need people who are good at making money, but I don't believe that wealth trickles down of its own accord - not unless governments force the people at the top to share it.

'The liberal capitalism that you seem to despise has provided unprecedented living standards for the people of this country'. You see, I just can't agree with that. To me, good living standards mean jobs for young people, free health care, free education, free care for the elderly. It doesn't mean trudging past huge gated mansions where you can just about glimpse a couple of flashy cars parked in the driveway and a wealthy banker greedily counting up his gold in the parlour window.

What liberal capitalism has done is produced the economic crisis that we have today.

And if you want to look at poor people, watch 'Poor Kids' on BBC Iplayer. The poor are here and now.

MellowFruitfulness;

I was bought up in the 70s and 80s in a poor area. Are you seriously saying that people have less now materially than they had then? Look inside their houses and then remember what it used to be like. If you go back another couple of generations then the difference is far more stark. My grandmother was one of 10 children, 8 of whom died in childhood to a preventable disease. This sort of thing just does not happen in the UK now, thank god. To say that we are poorer materially now than previous generations is IMO a complete denial of the truth. Yes, we do not have a perfect society but it is far better than it was - that is my point. And the improvements are generally due to the wealth created by the liberal capitalism that we have lived under. In fact, it could be argued that the extra wealth that has been created in recent years has caused many other types of problems (like a lack of social cohesion etc). These sorts of problems are what I think you are alluding to with your seeming envy of rich people. The government cannot just shut their eyes and magic jobs for young people, but you can be sure that the punitive taxation that you want will damage their prospects.

I am saying that some people have much less now - both materially and spiritually - while others are much better off. The ones who are better off don't need help. The problem lies with the minority who are in dire actual, not relative, poverty.

I agree that society is better now for most of us, but it is due to the improvements in post-war health care and the welfare system, which were funded both by people paying their taxes and the government distributing the money more intelligently. The people at the top have recently got immeasurably richer under liberal capitalism, I agree, but that doesn't help the rest of us if they don't pay their taxes.

I'm not envious of rich people (I am rich btw), but I'm angry at social injustice. I admire people who have the energy and talent for making money, but I believe that luck plays a big part in it too, and I would like to create the same sort of 'luck' for more people. The way to do that is to make sure that as many people as possible are healthy and well-educated.

Punitive taxation? No - a fairer system.

Well perhaps we agree more than I thought. I am glad that you concede that things have improved for the majority - which is all realistically a government can be expected to achieve. I feel that the people on the margins need more than money thrown at them and the problems there are much more complex than just saying that they are poor (drug abuse, lack of education, lack of ambition, low expectations etc).

What has bothered me about recent governments (both Labour and Tory) is the way that they have pandered to the super rich whilst making up the shortfall by taxing the middle classes. To me it is the political equivalent of issuing speeding tickets. The special arrangements for non-doms and non tax paying corporations registered abroad but trading here spring to mind and should really be addressed. No party seems to have the stomach for this fight and are seemingly petrified to do anything that will redress this imbalance. I agree that there should be a fair price to pay to live here, it is generally a great place to live and very attractive to all sorts of people. However, I do not agree that the price should be too punitive as that would be self destructive and people can choose where they live. Incidentally, I doubt that the two things that I have suggested above would make a very large dent in our deficit btw.

As an example of what I am talking about, I have a full time job but also work privately in my spare time. I often wonder whether the private work is worthwhile of the time it takes (there are plenty of other things I could be doing) as it is taxed at 40% - a large chunk of the moneys charged. If the rate of taxation went much higher I would probably stop doing the work as it just aboput makes sense to do it now. The work I do is quite specialised incidentally. Higher taxation is a disincentive to economic growth which we both agree is necessary to fund the things that we want.