Redundancies

[newwave]

Are on the increase so will those who voted Tory please go to the front of the queue after all why should those who detest the Tories suffer for the actions of Tory supporters.

Would those who oppose union actions such as strikes and work to rule to protect jobs and wages please join the Tory voters.

Next will the members of boardrooms who fund the Tories and the bankers who caused the recession please go and stand on those trap doors and put the ropes around your necks, thank you. What?s that you say Sir Scumbag?, no no no you wont be getting a bonus for doing it and you cannot claim on expenses.

We must thank Bob Diamond for the following wise words and for taking the time out from counting his ill gotten gains loot-- to say "the government must continue with the austerity measures except for the rich, powerful and well connected of course.

Time to find my I didn?t vote Tory badge.

Maybe the people who voted Labour, the party which spent like drunken sailors during an economic boom should be first in the queue?

If Tories bankers caused the recession, who the hell caused the boom that preceded it? The boom was built on a lie. It was always going to end badly.

It is the scum Tory policies which are exacerbating the downturn, it is Tory policies which will send us into another recession.

It is the Tories which are protecting their rich mates and screwing everyone else.

It is the Tories who want to remove the 50p tax band for the rich

It is the Tories who want to allow private companies to pillage the NHS

It is the Tories that are destroying public services

It is the Tories that are shutting or causing the closure of youth services around the country

It is the Tories who are causing NHS waiting times to shoot up

It is the Tories who are causing the cancellation and/or rationing of operations

Were all in this together, don?t make me laugh.

If you?re a Tory voter then you?re complicit in this

Hooray for the tories I say. Crazy labour policies got us in this mess. Too easy to always blame the bankers and people on high wages.
How are Tories causing Nhs waiting times to shoot up??
Some areas are still controlled by Labour , its a democracy not dictatorship.

Sorry to hear you're being made redundant newwave... what line of business are you in?

CES, sorry but I am not being made redundant.

"My line of business" the sale and design of building maintenance systems, camera and acces systems plus fire alarm systems.

COCC, "Too easy to always blame the bankers", of course it is because to a large degree it's their fault, it all started with Lehman Brothers.

"Hooray for the tories I say" well at least you are honest in not giving a shit about those that are/will be suffering due to Tory policies.

"How are Tories causing NHS waiting times to shoot up" by cutting financial support, the ringfencing of the NHS is a sham.

Labour overspent and cuts need to be made. People that lived responsibily will not face hardship. Those that thought that the good times would last forever will struggle, but that's life.

"People that lived responsibily will not face hardship"

Is that right?, so a person who has lived within their means but has now lost their job and cannot find another one can still meet all his/her/families basic and financial needs is going to be ok, well thats comforting to know, shame it is not true.

"Labour overspent and cuts need to be made"

Bullshit, the UK was living well within it's means until the greedy scum in the financial centre tanked the economy.

If you're anything to do with construction I'd have thought you'd be quite happy with coalition policies to make the planning system easier to navigate. Would have thought you'd also be quietly thankful for the deficit reduction plan which, although harsh in the short term, means the UK is paying over the odds for its debt... hopefully resulting in us being better placed to take advantage of the upturn when it comes.

What the UK government is doing is being replicated across the western world at the moment. Everywhere from the US to Ireland governments are under great pressure to make savings & trim budgets. In 2008 it was private sector workers bearing the brunt, now it's public sector workers most at risk. It's a terrible thing for anyone to be made redundant - I've experienced it both directly & indirectly in the past - but economies are cyclical, businesses rise and fall and public spending can only be as large as the revenue available to support it. In the meantime, we still enjoy a very good welfare system to help those who are having problems.

BTW... Labour did overspend during the good times. Brown's stated 'Golden Rule' strategy, whereby a surplus would be generated in boom years, offsetting deficits in lean years was unfortunately abandoned as they kept on spending. Growth targets were routinely overstated... and spending plans put in place to match that growth. I think Darling says that in his memoirs. If they'd adhered to the 'Golden Rule' the correction we're now experiencing would still be tough but it wouldn't be so drastic.

In the meantime, we still enjoy a very good welfare system to help those who are having problems.

STILL being the operative word, after the Tories finish with their policies I doubt it will be a "very good welfare system" to help those who are having problems.

"harsh in the short term"

No problem with that if it was being paid for by those with their snouts deepest in the trough, by those (bankers) who did the most to cause the reccession. But these people are getting away with "financial" murder pure and simple.

Dave said:

"those at the top will bear the highest burden"

Then Gideon increases VAT which affects the poor the most
Now Gideon wants to reduce the top rate of tax which means nothing to the poor but benefits the well off.

"no banker in the bailed out banks will be getting a bonus of more than £2.5K"

That was just a lie to con the electorate before the last election.

"The NHS is safe in our hands and were all in this together"

Yeah! right.

Same old spiteful nasty Tories, they will never change.

BTW... Labour did overspend during the good times. Brown's stated 'Golden Rule' strategy, whereby a surplus would be generated in boom years, offsetting deficits in lean years was unfortunately abandoned as they kept on spending. Growth targets were routinely overstated... and spending plans put in place to match that growth. I think Darling says that in his memoirs. If they'd adhered to the 'Golden Rule' the correction we're now experiencing would still be tough but it wouldn't be so drastic.

We would have an 8% deficit instead of an 11% deficit, and we would still be experiencing a recession/depression, seeing at it is a global financial crisis, not a national one.

Labour overspent and cuts need to be made. People that lived responsibily will not face hardship. Those that thought that the good times would last forever will struggle, but that's life.

You should be ashamed at yourself.

Disgusting.

An 8% rather than an 11% deficit is a 28% difference. It would have meant that a lot of the cuts happening now would either not be happening at all or not to the same extent. Budgets would have to be trimmed by 10-15% rather than 30 and 40%. The global recession would still be happening but the correction to the economy - as I said earlier - would not be so drastic.

The banking industry gets a lot of the flak. However, we need it to be successful again generating income the way it was before the crash, but covering themselves against risks rather than expecting bail-outs. The temptation to tax it into the Dark Ages has to be offset against the likely outcomes.

"If you're anything to do with construction I'd have thought you'd be quite happy with coalition policies to make the planning system easier to navigate. Would have thought you'd also be quietly thankful for the deficit reduction plan which, although harsh in the short term, means the UK is paying over the odds for its debt... hopefully resulting in us being better placed to take advantage of the upturn when it comes".

This is the thing some of us see further than our own narrow self interest.

As I have said I have no problem with deficit reduction if those that caused it and those who have their snouts deepest in the trough pay for it.

It seems though that the boardrooms of the banks believe in private profit but when it goes pear shaped because of their greed it's public debt and to put salt in the wounds they still want their bonuses and to carry on as before the 2008 crisis. Filth and scum of the highest order.

An 8% rather than an 11% deficit is a 28% difference. It would have meant that a lot of the cuts happening now would either not be happening at all or not to the same extent. Budgets would have to be trimmed by 10-15% rather than 30 and 40%. The global recession would still be happening but the correction to the economy - as I said earlier - would not be so drastic.

Unlikely, seeing as the cuts are primarily ideology driven rather than driven by good financial sense. In the first place, many of the cuts are a false economy; the cuts in public services such as Jobcentres and youth centres will ultimately cost more than the short-term amount of money they safe. Secondly, it is precisely during times of recession when it is unwise to put hundreds of people out of work and to cut public spending. We are seeing the results of this disastrous policy already: the economy is still in no better shape than it was after the bailouts in 2009.

The banking industry gets a lot of the flak.

As it absolutely should - since it is the primary cause of the recession.

However, we need it to be successful again generating income the way it was before the crash, but covering themselves against risks rather than expecting bail-outs. The temptation to tax it into the Dark Ages has to be offset against the likely outcomes.

No, not really. We need to shift the economy away from casino gambling and into a 'real' economy of providing goods and services and scientific research. We don't need to build another house of cards which will just fall down on all of us again. Next time, there won't be any more public money for private bailouts. If it happens again, expect violence.

Who caused the boom, if not the financial sector?

Who caused the boom, if not the financial sector?

The boom was an unsustainable financial bubble caused by the banks gambling with their depositors financial futures which would have been royaly fucked if the public had not bailed out the banks.

It sticks in the craw to hear Bob Diamond come out with the following classics:

The austerity measures are essential and must carry on (he "earns" in excess of £8 million)

It is time for the banks to stop showing remorse (give us our money back then you can)

The banks dont need any additional regulation (yeah right)

"This is the thing some of us see further than our own narrow self interest."

Well... I think if we're to have the economy firing on all cylinders with goods, services, scientific research, banking and other aspects of the financial industry... then it's not 'self-interest' to set the stall out so that those businesses have a fighting chance of being successful, creating jobs and generating the taxes that pay for the public services. With the best will in the world, however worthy the work of Job Centres & Youth Centres are, they don't create jobs or revenue.

Well, let?s look at the numbers shall we.

The bailout cost (including the cost of the bailout, bankers bonuses AND subsequent loss in tax that a profitable bank would have paid since 2008) approximated £850 Billion, or to keep things simple £0.85 TRILLION

In 2000, including all the off balance "Mickey Mouse" accountancy (PFI, Public Sector Pensions an other sundries which we already know that we will be obliged to pay for in the future), Britain had a total debt of around £2.1 TRILLION.

On the eve of the financial crisis (also defined as the height of the boom), just eight years later, before a single pound of our money was used to bail out the banks, or unemployment had started to rise, our debt had doubled to around £4.2 TRILLION (entirely due to Mr. G. Browns fiscal policies)

This is the evidence that Labour's spending was unsustainable before 2008 and 2.5 times as damaging to our economy as the banking crisis has turned out to be.

Anyone who advocates deliberately and further increasing our borrowing at this time simply doesn't understand economics.

For those of you who want a better perspective on the debt and deficit problem:

==========================================================

UK National Debt

The UK national debt is the total amount of money the British government owes to the private sector and other purchasers of UK gilts.

UK public sector net debt was £920.9 billion (equivalent to 60.6 per cent of GDP of National GDP) ? (note this excludes financial sector intervention.)

Source: Office National Statistics [1] (page updated July 18th, 2011)

If all financial sector intervention is included (e.g. Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds) , the Net debt was £2252.9 billion or 148.9% per cent. This is known as the unadjusted measure of public sector net debt.

The Public sector net borrowing PSNB (annual government borrowing) for 2010/11 was £143.2 billion or 11.7% of GDP.

The equivalent OBR forecast for 2011/12 is £122 billion.

After a period of financial restraint, National debt at a % of GDP fell to 29% of GDP by 2002. Then, national debt as a % of GDP increased from 30% in 2002 to 37 % in 2007. This was despite the long period of economic expansion. It was primarily due to the governments decision to increase spending on health and education. There has also been a marked rise in social security spending.

Since 2008, National Debt has increased sharply because of:

Economics Recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits)
In particular, tax receipts from stamp duty and income tax were badly hit by recession.
Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.

Although 60% of GDP is a lot it is worth bearing in mind, that other countries have a much bigger problem. Japan for example have a National debt of 194%, Italy is over 100%. The US national debt is close to 71% of GDP. [See other countries Debt]. Also the UK has had much higher National Debt. e.g. after the second world war it was over 180% of GDP.
Cost of National Debt

The cost of National debt is the interest the government has to pay on the bonds and gilts it sells. In the first six months of 2010, the debt interest payments were £21.6bn, suggesting an annual cost of around £43bn (3% of GDP)
Future of National Debt

It is estimated National debt will could rise close to 100% of GDP by 2012. It is way above the government?s sustainable investment rule of 40% maximum.

However, the debt situation can be improved through:

Economic Expansion which improves Tax Revenues and reduces spending on benefits like Job Seekers Allowance
Improved performance of banks increases prospect of regaining financial sector intervention
Government Spending cuts and tax rises (e.g. VAT) which improve public finances.

However, there is also a danger spending cuts could reduce economic growth and therefore hamper attempts to improve tax revenues.

www.economicshelp.org/blog/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

''Labour overspent and cuts need to be made. People that lived responsibily will not face hardship. Those that thought that the good times would last forever will struggle, but that's life.''

FreddieG - we have always lived responsibly. We have never been in debt, been very careful about money and lived without even during the 'boom' times. Now we have BOTH been made redundant directly as a result of tory policy to cut spending and I have no idea how we are going to manage. How is that not being affected??

I have friends who vastly overspent - holidays, tv's, more tv's huge house and they are still sitting very pretty on low interest rates and spending as if there was no tomorrow. How is that struggling??

Slippy, let's be clear though. Cuts were inevitable no matter which party got into power. So whilst you can blame the 'tory policy' for your redundancies, chances are that the same would have happened if labour was in power still. In fact arguably worse because they didn't really have a plan and so wouldn't have been able to maintain market confidence and I suspect we'd have ended up like Greece.

It's shit and I agree that life isn't fair. I've always hated debt and been careful too. Especially during the boom times when I knew one day the gravy train would stop. My job is far from secure and I am very worried about the next six months.

Yet I'm told i'm 'rich' enough to lose my child benefit whilst my friends whom are living the credit card lifestyle and earn more than us are seemingly not rich enough to lose CB.

Yes niceguy2 you are right - cuts were inevitable but it was the speed with which things have suddenly been cut which I think has been down to Osbourne. We were hit because we work for charities and funding was very suddenly slashed. It is a nonsense because the work we were doing was relatively cheap but prevented crisis situations from occurring. Now the cost will be more to the state in the long run in terms of prison sentences and care.

I'm not sure that Labour would have implemented cuts in the same way. No common sense appears to have been applied by local authorities on what continues to be funded and what doesn't. This will come out in the wash when it is all too late and meanwhile families like mine who should have working parents will cost money to the state in benefits. Totally ridiculous...

Hi Slippy. Hope you both find something soon. It really is a torrid time at the moment.

But as far as I am aware (i'm sure i'll be corrected if I am wrong), but yes the Tories have cut funding significantly to local authorities but how they then pass on those cuts are a matter for them. So I guess if your council isn't a Tory controlled area then they also must share some of the responsibility.

But the bottom line is we couldn't continue how we went on. Whether or not we needed to cut so much, so quickly is a matter of opinion. Some people when having a lightbulb moment will elect to cut right back and get their debts paid off ASAP. Others will prefer a slower approach and pay back over longer. both are equally as valid. Personally five years seems a long enough time to just get the deficit under control. I don't like the Labour's idea of cutting the deficit in half over four years which then implies another four years of cuts just to break even.