Pro-Cuts Rally

[smashingtime]

I wonder if this rally will be given more air time than the 'Hardest Hit' one on Wed. AIBU to think this is going to be seriously inflammatory?

Darth, councils choose what they cut, not David Cameron. Many deliberately cut things that will cause a stir whilst hanging on to expenses they want to hang onto.

Do you know that if in Englad, you can find anything they have spent over £500. You'd be staggered as to what they choose to prioritise whilst bleating about 'targetting the vulnerable'.

Who is your council?
I'll have a look for you.

You are just blethering now.
Carry on, dear. If it makes you feel better.

jack-

There is no parallel between dictatorships taking on debt which they cannot pay back and which is lent at extortionate rates, and a G7 country like the UK taking on debt with a AAA credit rating.

As I've said 1,000,000+ times before, the UK level of debt is historically very low. After WWII, the UK had a debt which was about three or four times what it is now, and we managed to create the NHS, National Insurance, and other social welfare programs. We can pay the debt back because we have the means to do so.

There have already been numerous alternatives to cuts given by many groups and economists. If you're fixated on reducing the deficit and debt through public spending cuts, then you're not going to think any of them are 'credible'.

The fact that New Labour would have made cuts is irrelevant to me. As far as I'm concerned they're two sides of the same coin.

As to responsibility - we (the adults) voted in a Labour government and they followed a policy of slack banking regulation, encouraging private debt, and public borrowing (at the top of the economic cycle). In a democracy we all take responsibility for that, I'm afraid.

Not really, jack. You may have noticed that in our so-called 'democracy', we have very little say in how things are run. You may have noticed that none of the three mainstream parties even discussed what cuts they were going to make during the last election. You can also be certain that the Tories, who are basically bankrolled by the financial sector:

More than half of Conservative donors 'from the City'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12401049

Would have deregulated the banking sector as well. The fact is, the mainstream parties are basically parties of the ruling class. They don't exist to serve our interests.

The Tories (or any other party which wanted to keep Capitalism chugging along) would have had to encourage people to take on debts as well. The reason being is that wages in real terms (that is, taking in to account inflation) have basically stagnated or decreased in the past few decades, while the cost of living has increased. So people are getting poorer and poorer.

The only way to keep the economy going to get people to keep buying stuff that they can't afford - that's why credit was used to put money in to the hands of consumers. Now the bubble has burst, and no one has any money to spend, so the economy is fucked once again.

I, on the other hand Darth, never forget (much as I would like to) your penchant for cliche and sentimentality.

It's a fairly circular argument; Westminster blaming the Council for funding cuts and then Council blaming Westminster for tying their hands by vast reduction in funding.

Seems to me that some essential services should be ring fenced with the Councils able to make local decisions as to who qualifies per the criteria, for instance for social care.

Besides, if central government are in fact funding care for the disabled, and the Council cuts it, how is this not fraud?

People just want the best for themselves and theydo no want to pay for it if possible Yearscan go by with nothing done and then when cuts are announced there are protests ! I spoke to an elderly couple the otherday who said Cameron would do greatthings. Asked about NHS -they had never thought about it: but yes they do want the NHS but no do not want to pay for it! They would rather have the money for holidays. Who pays then for their NHS? Just met an old man who waited 9 hours for an ambulance and 16 hours in casualty;GET IT PEOPLE DO NOT CARE!

'GET IT PEOPLE DO NOT CARE'

I think people do care, but they have lost hope, they have heard all of the lies and spin before, and no longer believe the lies they are told. People care, but do governments care?

ilovemydog

because it's not ring fenced funding.

I think most people do want to pay for the NHS. It is other things they don't want to pay for e.g. Trident, wars, bank bonuses, MPs expenses, home flipping etc. But they are powerless. We have FPTP, AV was defeated. How will things ever change?

Powerlessness does cause an awful lot of issues doesn't it?

Most people have a set of things they are happy to pay for and many of the tings targeted by cuts seem to correspond with the 'happy to provide' lists- special needs provision, school trnasport for disabled kids, NHS, old people's lunch clubs....

Trouble is that th people with the least obvious messages often shout loudest for some reason- so protect our park and plant more flowers is ehard more than the people wanting the disability team to remain becuase people assume the council know that. And then people have started to think that there's no point; this is true for many LD voters (not all) I know, who think they voted LD and got Tory anyway. They have given up, esp. since the AV vote.

And it's my guess that people are not willing to lose the things they use whilst finding it quite easy to write people who have had bad luck (disability, redundancy, children in care etc) as having amde their own beds. Thing is you can create the conditions for success but not mitigate the bad things that can take it away: and many people are simply too weak to admit that tomorrow it could be them. Making it A N Other group protects them, or so they hope.

I don't think Central Government should ringfence budgets, we elect local represesentatives to carry out the wishes of local people and so politicians in London shouldn't interfere in their business.

Labour local authorities are deliberately inflicting harsh cuts on public services for political reasons - the "bleeding stumps" strategy.

Thankfully, Eric Pickles' transparency revolution has exposed them for what they truly are.

Think of the money they could save by cutting all taxpayer funded union officials, massive publicity budgets, translation budgets, diversity co-ordinators, five-a-day-consultants, and all the other hordes of public sector non-jobs. Just think of what they could achieve if they insisted on private sector levels of productivity - or better yet, privatised most of their services!

Instead, Labour councillors are increasing their persnoal allowances, increasing chief executive pay, and cutting services for the vulnerable. If people vote for Tory councillors, then by and large (though sadly not always) they get efficiency and low council tax. With Labour, they get the opposite.

'Think of the money they could save by cutting all taxpayer funded union officials, massive publicity budgets, translation budgets, diversity co-ordinators, five-a-day-consultants, and all the other hordes of public sector non-jobs. Just think of what they could achieve if they insisted on private sector levels of productivity - or better yet, privatised most of their services!'

...or gave contracts to the third sector who will do things much cheaper and in many cases more efficiently. Problem is, most of the contracts given to charities have been withdrawn by councils with the loss of many jobs. I thought the idea was to give these organisations more work rather than reign in/axe services. This may not be the governments plan but is certainly what councils are doing!

"There is no parallel between dictatorships taking on debt which they cannot pay back and which is lent at extortionate rates, and a G7 country like the UK taking on debt with a AAA credit rating."

ttosca - so you do realise that the bond markets differentiate between types of debt - good. The question is - from the bond markets perspective, at what level of debt does the UK move from manageable to unmanageable & when do we lose our AAA rating?

I'm not sure how relevant WWII is as a datapoint - a lot has changed since then. Our national debt is much larger than many northern European countries and certainly larger than Germany - who seem to be recovering from the last recession more quickly than we have.

Anyway as I have said many times - our government is doing nothing to reduce the debt - they are just trying to bring down the deficit.

"The only way to keep the economy going to get people to keep buying stuff that they can't afford - that's why credit was used to put money in to the hands of consumers. Now the bubble has burst, and no one has any money to spend, so the economy is fucked once again."

That's certainly a good summary of Labour's 13 years in power.

I'm not sure what you see as the alternative. But I would suggest producing stuff people actually want and need, having effeciently run public services which are fully funded by tax revenue (not debt) and tackling housing issues by building new homes - not over-inflating the housing market with out of control housing benefits.

WWII is a totally pointless comparison

1. It was easy to reduce the deficit (and thus debt) by cutting military spending after 1945. It was reduced from 37.5% of GDP to 5% of GDP between 1945 and 1950. Today it is only 2.5% of GDP.
2. Private sector saving was higher in the 40s and 50s making it easier for the government to borrow.
3. Demographic factors were more favourable in the 40s and 50s. There was a young growing workforce (baby boomers), boosted by immigration. Now we face an ageing population with increasing demands on health care and pensions.
4. The current public sector debt of £1 trillion is only 20% of the total govt liability. There is another £4 trillion in pension liabilities. Such a pension liability did not exist in 1940-50s.

I love threads like this. I remember who to avoid in the other threads.

Bad form to hold grudges Looby.
I make a point of never carrying grievances across topics.

But sometimes, there are such fundamental differences in the way people think that you simply can't help but dislike someone, surely?

I notice that often people who consider themselves left wing are more likely to dislike those who are right wing. I also notice that those people are the ones who rarely have a coherent argument. This is not always the case obviously, but it is a trend I have noticed.

Those who genuinely understand that other people can have a different politcal opinion to them without hating them are those you can have a good discussion with.

I have friends of all different political persuasions and enjoy a good debate with them often. I do not hold grudges due to differences of opinion on politics.

Someone will now point out that it is ok to hate conservatives because they are all utter shits......