Why is the coalition making a public spectacle of picking on the poor?

[ttosca]

We're living in truly Orwellian times when the British state removes all avenues for the individual to hold it to account

We all know that the government's plan to fix "broken Britain" is predicated on blaming our national scapegoats: the undeserving poor. Sitting at ease behind closed curtains, fecklessly "breeding" life that they haven't the means to feed, we are told, the poor are the real scourges of a society in which the richest 10% own 40% of our country's wealth. They do not deserve the same rights that we might expect, were we ever to find ourselves in their position, because, truth be told, we are better people than those awful scroungers. And just when you thought such treatment of our poorest citizens couldn't get any worse, the coalition is proving itself willing to plumb new depths.

Leaked internal documents from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have shown that it is tabling a proposal to charge people who challenge a decision to strip them of their benefits. There is no mention of refunds for those who manage to win their appeals. That's right, some of the poorest in our society could be forced to put up and shut up, even when a government department is at fault.

In the last year, nearly a million people had their benefits stopped and of those who appealed against the decision at independent tribunals, 58% won their case. It leaves me wondering about the efficacy of such a manoeuvre. This is a department that gets its decisions more often wrong than right. Why does it have the mettle to even attempt such a policy? I guess you have to admire the pure chutzpah of this public-school cabal.

Aphorisms often appear too trite to tell us anything meaningful, yet this is not the case with the assertion attributed to Mahatma Gandhi that "the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members". The Tories have transformed what should be our national shame into a public spectacle in which we should all revel in kicking those on the rung below us; it's easier that way to forget about what is happening above you.

Rather than question why parts of our stake in the bailed-out Lloyds Banking Group could be sold at a £230m loss, we are supposed to champion draconian measures such as cuts to disability living allowance. The DWP's own figures show that only 0.5% of those claiming incapacity benefit do so fraudulently, yet the company it placed in charge of carrying out its work capability assessments, Atos Healthcare, judged a third of claimants to be fit to work. These are the sorts of people who stand to lose if the government charges them for appealing against a process that is skewed against them.

The policy seems like a kite-flying exercise to gauge just how far we are willing to go when it comes to making the most vulnerable pay for the City's excesses. If, as I hope and pray, the measure is deemed too extreme and is shelved, Iain Duncan Smith's department will still come out smelling of roses. To the Tory heartland it continues its incessant drumbeat of being "tough" in "lean" times. To the rest of us, it hopes to appear measured and able to accept criticism.

We should distrust any government that is willing to go where this policy would take it. To call it Orwellian would be a sober assessment of facts rather than an emotive exaggeration. When the state removes all avenues for the individual to hold it to account in respect of how it treats them, we are living in hard times indeed.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/21/coalition-spectacle-picking-on-the-poor

Exactly. They are just numbers on a screen or piece of paper. Communities, families, people don't count, just cuts and savings.

The bedroom tax, was one of the worse policies they have made. IMO it's ridiculous. If you can't pay the tax. do you have to move from your local community? Change your children's school etc, it's nonsense. Cameron has a nice (very large) house in the hamlet of Dean in West Oxfordshire, would he Clegg or other politicians like to downsize?

When Cameron wanted to get is daughter in a school in London he bypassed over 12 local schools, to get his daughter in a small faith school around Park Lane, he said that his daughter was used to the small village environment of her last school. David Cameron also attended the church of that school for two years whilst leader of the opposition. What's good for the masses is apparently not good for him!

Cameron's a hypocrite. Like most politicians!

So lets recap WHY in yet another shite legacy from Labour the coalition think that freeing up social housing bedrooms for those no longer using them (children have gone), for those in cramped social housing 1 or 2 bedroomed flats (with children).

Labour found countless £££££££billions for fat, wasteful government, YET BEFORE THE CRASH, this was THEIR social housing housing record.

england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/212038/Factsheet_Social_Housing.pdf

Social housing supply– By Shelter

“There are more than 3.8 million social homes in England. The number of social homes declined by 10 per cent between 1998 and 2007."

"However, the number of new lettings19 fell by one third during the same period (see Table 6). As a result,households in housing need have to wait longer as fewer homes become available."

At the end of March 2008 there were 1.77 million households on local authority housing registers (or housing waiting lists) for the allocation of a social home.

So after inheriting an economy that had GDP grow for around 26 conseq quarters, in 11-years of Labour during the best economic decade for several decades, BEFORE the crash that lost about 7% of GDP output and PLUNGED this country into annual spending budget/ over £1 trillion of nation debt - Labour STILL had 1.77 million households on waiting lists????

Yet it is the coalition causing hardship for the poor? How ideologically ignorant CAN you possibly get.

Ironmaiden999…Re your totally irrelevant (but predictable) ‘class’ smear on Cameron and children’s education - bearing in mind Labour’s historic ideology on Comprehensive Schools – do we REALLY want to go down the last Labour administrations record on private education e.g. Blair and most of the rest of his cabinet??

Do we REALLY want to ask WHY when doubling to trebling the education budget/debt, Labour politicians STILL sent their own children to private or the pick of the State schools?

Well now we do know, what they knew, that a left-wing government and a left-wing teaching establishment with a HUGE budget STILL produces THESE results.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24433320

"Young adults in England have scored among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests."

"A major study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows how England's 16 to 24-year-olds are falling behind their Asian and European counterparts."

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10631728/Pupils-cannot-count-out-change-due-to-poor-maths-skills.html

“Pupils 'cannot count out change' due to poor maths skills”

“A study by Nationwide finds that more than half of secondary school pupils struggle to work out change in their heads, prompting claims that maths lessons are leaving them "unequipped for everyday situations"

Another example of Labour’s ‘services’ to the poor when they had a one off opportunity for an open cheque book, just think how they’ll ‘help’ the poor without any money left?

So let me sum that up.. Labour bad!! Yes we know that. We noticed. I'd rather vote for the Monster Raving Loony party than Labour.

But that's not a good enough excuse for mistreating people now while helping those that they apparently do consider to be real people.

It doesn't excuse attempting to apply sanctions illegally and we're perfectly entitled to question their morals too.

As for the one bedroom thing there is a lot we could say about that, but I recommend you read the 1000 post threads which spelt out just why that was a really bad idea and how your simplistic interpretation won't work.

I will mention one thing though to give you something to mull over. They sanction people for not moving to a smaller social housing home even if they admit they have none for them to move to.

"I will mention one thing though to give you something to mull over. They sanction people for not moving to a smaller social housing home even if they admit they have none for them to move to."

I now have, and it is a serious flaw as clearly there are not many empty homes, but those 'open' moving from a multi-bedroomed dwelling, surely could find a 'swap' with one of the many more smaller household properties within their area, looking to go larger - surely multi region council websites that offer 'choices' could facilitate own region or surrounding area swap shops.

The "What we stand for" pages have been on our website since before I first joined... Indeed it was the first thing that attracted me to the party... That precedes our 2010 manifesto by some margin....

Social housing is there for a good reason, back in the day people who could afford their own home would often opt or council houses instead. With rents sky high and house prices unaffordable, even for middle aged professional, ,social housing and the communities around them are more important than ever.

UKIP has previouly promised to make locals, those whose family has lived in the area for some time, the priority for social housing.

We would make work pay, increasing the tax threshold so that if you only earn £250 a week then you keep £250 a week.

We would reduce the pressure on social housing by controlling immigration and scrap the bedroom tax. This would also ease pressure on our roads, health service and the jobs market. At present if 9 Europeans and a Brit go to the job centre no-one knows who will get the job, except that it is unlikely to be the Brit. Next time he or she goes the odds won't have changed, in fact under the liblabcon men they'll probably be worse.

We believe in equality under the law so would not strip our youngsters of their rights ( unlike both labour and the tories).

Everyone from whatever community would be able to compete for a place in a Grammar school ( and I hope technical schools too ) so that the rich have no advantage in sourcing state education.

Also we'd increase the military budget and spend it on the troops, not jets which cost half their weight in gold....

Most importantly we don't operate on a London first and only basis, which all of the old, failed, parties are guilty as sin of. You can quote millions of jobs created if you like, we all know that 80% or more will be in London and the rest slave or zero hour contracts.

Frankly labour and the tories might as well just be members of a PR department for the largest corporations in the country. They are all HQed in London, the press is in London, the civil service is in London and all of the money is spent in London.

No sane person supports the tories so they have to bribe big business with slave friendly legislation to keep the donations coming in...

Isitmebut I'm glad you agree that that is flawed and yes sometimes I'm sure swaps can be arranged. Some of those may be happening now. But even those are more difficult than they sound.

Let's think of a few scenarios. Easiest one should be some old guy in a 3 bedroom house. A single guy wouldn't be in a place like that normally, but perhaps his wife died and the kids left home. So he could swap with someone who needs 3 bedrooms.

But the people entitled to 3 bedrooms probably won't be in a single flat anyway. They are likely to be squashed into a 2 bed flat and he isn't allowed to take that one.

How about a woman with 2 young kids in a 3 bedroom. She was probably thrilled to get a place with a little garden for them to play in after living in a tower block. They are too young to need a bedroom each so she needs to find a two bed flat (without a garden). But right now she has a job. Not a great one, but she feels better for doing her bit. Her mum helps with the kids so she needn't take time off for dentist/doctor trips or when they are ill and she in turn helps out her mum.

So she gets offered a 2 bedroom flat 200 miles away. She can't take her job with her and it means taking the kids out of school. She won't have a babysitter now so even if she finds another job that will be a problem and she probably won't see her mum again.

Oh and at some point the kids will need a bedroom each so she will need to apply for a bigger place again which she probably won't get.

Not every case is like that, but there are enough of them that you have to doubt the wisdom in the plan.

Oh and I'm not sure if they have made an exemption for disabled people since I last looked, but at one point if you had a home especially fitted out with ramps and such you were still expected to move to a home without all that. Presumably they'd install new ramps in the new place and rip them out of the place you left.

Making people downsize seemed such a good idea that they didn't think it through in terms of real costs and social costs. It made for a good soundbite and sadly all politicians seem to think in those terms.

They pretend that this policy is about fairness i.e. that people in overcrowded accommodation should swap with people in what they call underoccupied homes.

But it isn't, because if you can pay the bedroom tax, then you can stay in what they call an underoccupied home. It is only if you can't afford to pay because you have lost your job for example, that you have to leave.

"Mum was made redundant from her administration job and had exhausted her savings. With no spare funds to cover the 25% reduction in our housing benefit – equal to £137 a month – we had to move to a smaller two-bedroom property."

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/11/bedroom-tax-not-save-money

So if everybody could afford to pay the bedroom tax, then they would do nothing about people in overcrowded housing. Those people would have to stay there.

It is not about fairness, it is about money and it causes great distress and anguish for tens of thousands of poor people.

If they cut the foreign aid budget by 5%, they would probably save more than they do with this cruel policy.

And in Scotland, it seems that it may even cost more than it saves

"COSLA, the umbrella body for all local authorities in Scotland, concludes that the Bedroom Tax is costing more to implement in Scotland than it will save. This unpopular and unfair measure was supposed to save £50m a year on the benefits bill in Scotland. COSLA now concludes that the evidence is showing that it will cost at least £58m to £60m in Scotland this year.

Speaking ahead of a meeting of Council Leaders in Edinburgh on Friday Councillor Harry McGuigan, COSLA Spokesperson for Community Well Being said:

“We always said that this policy was ill conceived, unfair and unworkable and should be abolished. We are now seeing clear evidence that it costs more than it saves – a classic own goal by the Coalition government. Not only are they shown to be uncaring and out of touch with ordinary people. They are also revealed to be incompetent. They have managed to come up with a benefit cut that costs more than it saves.”

www.cosla.gov.uk/news/2013/11/bedroom-tax-costing-more-it-will-save

With an election coming up up politicians are ruled by private polling.
They ditch their consciences Rather sad

BackOnlyBriefly…..you made some very good points, as what looks like a good (arguably fair) solution on paper, it clearly has so many ‘every case can be different’ elements to it, the policy should not have left the drawing board along with universal benefits - but the charge that it was a vindictive policy or to raise money (after looking to freeze Council Tax rises for their whole parliament having seen huge rises for 13-years) is well wide of the mark.

Maybe the answer was to ‘encourage’ the downsizing of social/council homes where could be done, possibly by way of a ‘carrot’, rather than implement a financial ‘stick’ to try and help the focus and help solve a huge inherited problem - but I guess the temptation to try no capital cost solutions when the cupboard no longer exists, never mind bare, was too great.

Unfortunately in 2010 there were too many chronic economic/social problems, and a fat debt to deal with it, so arguably the coalition have tried to do too much too soon, but carrying on as we were was not a sustainable option, and just one term to do it in, a realistic concern.

No, it's just a shit, cruel, and vindictive policy, isitmebut. Just what you'd expect from the Tories.

ttosca....and this is a socialist government wasting £££billions like a drunken sailor in a brothel pre crash, caring about the poor and the homeless?

england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/212038/Factsheet_Social_Housing.pdf

Social housing supply– By Shelter

“There are more than 3.8 million social homes in England. The number of social homes declined by 10 per cent between 1998 and 2007."

"However, the number of new lettings19 fell by one third during the same period (see Table 6). As a result,households in housing need have to wait longer as fewer homes become available."

"At the end of March 2008 there were 1.77 million households on local authority housing registers (or housing waiting lists) for the allocation of a social home"

So is this nearly 2 million households, competing with the biggest influx of Europeans over such a short time since 1066, FEELING LABOUR'S LOVE?

If Labour had not betrayed the people they say they represent, there wouldn't be the need for the Conservatives to look for sticky plaster solutions until homes that Labour forgot to build, get built.

Isitmebut I'm glad we can agree on it being a poor policy. The question of motives is a bit murkier and more a matter of opinion.

It's never been as simple as a good party and a bad party and of course every party is actually a group of individuals.

Being poor myself I should in theory have Labour on my side while a Conservative should regard me as a regrettable, but natural, consequence of Capitalism. Not because they are evil, but because of their ideology/philosophy.

In practice Labour have a recent history of incompetence and arrogance that makes me feel "with friends like this I don't need enemies".

I did expect Tories to be better equipped to make decisions and I did wonder if fixing the country might in time indirectly make things better for me and others like me.

That hope has been shaken a bit, but I'm willing to admit it's early days yet. However their disregard for the poor is so much more extreme then I remember from before that many may not last long enough to see things improve. Maybe time has colored my my memories, but I'm thinking Margaret Thatcher was gentle and sweet in comparison.

Even the ones that may be nice enough at home with the family seem to be incapable of understanding what being poor means and perhaps they genuinely don't see it.

I had a conversation with a friend once which might illustrate what I mean (he is not rich but has never really been poor).

Him: "oh you should get that! it's only £300 and it's just what you need"
Me: "Yeah, but it will have to wait. I don't have any money"
Him: "You should buy it anyway in case it goes"

I probably had £5.50p in my pocket so imagine me looking at him and thinking silently "What part of not having any money didn't you understand?".

See he wasn't being mean. He just didn't understand what having no money meant. I imagine he thought I'd just sell some bonds or something to get the cash. That's what people do isn't it. Well off people don't have the same direct short term link between income this week and money for foods and other things for this week.

BackOnly Briefly….as someone who was brought up in a London council estate to working class parents, educated in a bolt standard comprehensive school, but by then working 12-hour days, usually without overtime, I climbed up the greasy corporate pole and did OK for myself and brought up three children in relative comfort, not worrying too much about bills, but due to work pressures, too few family holidays taken to now remember those better times..

So I have had lows, highs and now as wrinkly made redundant years ago, I have lows again, but as I have spent a lot of time reading about global politics and economics, I know what works to build a thriving economy with finances for policy options, and what doesn’t.

My father should have always been a Labour voter, but he worked in the Fleet Street print and although he greatly benefited from them personally, he believed that militant trade union practices would kill his and other industries, so discouraged me following in his footsteps via the nepotism route and became the first Conservative voter I ever knew.

In 1997 after we and five other couples of friends of ours voted, we met up in the village pub afterwards for a drink, and brought up what we usually avoided, politics. On a quick count to see if we could be a sample of the constituency voting intensions, we polled 2 votes each for the main parties. I had voted Conservative, but swore to everyone that IF New Labour convinced me that they were doing a good job, I could and would vote for them – but never did, as I followed their policies very closely, as saw their economy built on credit/debt sand

Hence I do not have to be a party stooge (as accused) to know, what I know, I have been very angry and screaming about what I was seeing for years, and my worry is for our children and theirs. What I can guarantee you is if Labour had won in 2010 after 13-years of already structurally going in the wrong economic direction, we would financially be in dire straights now - while socially, possibly still the same as 2010, but as our international credit lines and institutional investors dried up, the fall of in public services would have been more far more steep and painful across all areas, when it came.

So I have no intension of posting Coalition successes from a very low economic baseline, they could all be reversed from 2015, but I do take issue with one-sided comments either blaming the coalition for the state of the State in 2010, lying that Labour’s administration was blameless to where we are now , or worse that ‘all parties are the same’ - which on the records of their policies/administrations, they clearly wasn’t on several core policies. If there was an ‘alternative’, I’ve yet to see it in substance, only apparent so far in highly spun political opportunism.

isitmebut-

ttosca....and this is a socialist government wasting £££billions like a drunken sailor in a brothel pre crash, caring about the poor and the homeless?

No. New Labour weren't a socialist government.

“There are more than 3.8 million social homes in England. The number of social homes declined by 10 per cent between 1998 and 2007."

Social housing has declined steadily since 1980:

"In 30 years, social housing has gone from being three times the size of the PRS to now being smaller."

falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/social-housing-decline-why-has-it-happened

So is this nearly 2 million households, competing with the biggest influx of Europeans over such a short time since 1066, FEELING LABOUR'S LOVE?

New Labour weren't socialist. They continued the neo-liberal policies of their predecessors.

If Labour had not betrayed the people they say they represent, there wouldn't be the need for the Conservatives to look for sticky plaster solutions until homes that Labour forgot to build, get built.

The 'bedroom' tax isn't a sticker plaster solution. It isn't a solution at all. It will actually cost more than it saves, and it devastates lives. It's wrong both economically, socially, and morally.

ttosca….I understand that for many who have followed generations before them in voting Labour, that you have this inherent ‘need’ to rename Labour policies (neo liberal) that show the extend of their betrayal on the working classes to deflect, but to transfer the hatred for that betrayal to another political party, is bordering on a mental sickness

New Labour told voters what they needed to hear in 1997, but showed conclusively by introducing anti wealth policies within their first year in power they had not mentioned within their manifesto, Old Labour was running the economy

Reducing the tax benefits of Private Pensions (which also put up the cost of taxpayer funded Public Sector pensions), the graduated raising of Home Stamp Tax from a flat 1% the higher the price paid, the raising of Council Tax affecting the more expensive banded homes more, Health Insurance Taxed and the abolishing of Private Medical Insurance tax relief for pensioners - ALL showed socialism at the tiller.

As to housing for the poor, YOU OR THE LABOUR PARTY in blaming the Conservatives before them for the shortage of homes in 1997 are a disgrace, you all make the “scum” label you frequently use, look an understatement – as your immigration policy to put pressure on available homes WAS BY CYNICAL DESIGN – again, never requested at the ballot box in 1997, in fact you said THE OPPOSITE.

“The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us”

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1222977/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-outrageous-truth-slips-Labour-cynically-plotted-transform-entire-make-Britain-telling-us.html

“This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.

In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised 'firm control over immigration' and in 2005 it promised a 'crackdown on abuse'. In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages.”

“But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy For Neather wrote that until 'at least February last year', when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.”

“ It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.”

So how you, any other apparatchik, or Labour politician DARE call the Conservatives uncaring on social housing after Labour’s contemptible lies and betrayal to their own voters, is frankly as politically, socially and morally low as ANY IDEOLOGY could possibly get.

isitmebut-

ttosca….I understand that for many who have followed generations before them in voting Labour,

lol! I arrived in the UK in 1997 after 'New Labour' were elected. I am an EU citizen, and cannot vote in national elections.

that you have this inherent ‘need’ to rename Labour policies (neo liberal) that show the extend of their betrayal on the working classes to deflect, but to transfer the hatred for that betrayal to another political party, is bordering on a mental sickness

Even more hilarious! Both parties are neo-liberal parties. Both are beholden to Capital and the business class. Neither one represent the working class.

The Tories are arguably worse, as they have always been the party of the landed gentry and those who hold Capital. They have always been anti-worker.

The rest of your post is a hysterical rant about immigration, even though we were talking about something completely different.

Perhaps if the Tory scum saw immigration as an opportunity rather than a problem, then immigration and voting immigrants wouldn't be such a political problem for them.

Also, this:

As to housing for the poor, YOU OR THE LABOUR PARTY in blaming the Conservatives before them for the shortage of homes in 1997 are a disgrace, you all make the “scum” label you frequently use, look an understatement – as your immigration policy to put pressure on available homes WAS BY CYNICAL DESIGN – again, never requested at the ballot box in 1997, in fact you said THE OPPOSITE.

Is not an argument. The diminution of available social housing is done by design, by successive governments over the course of several decades. The problem isn't immigrants, the problem is lack of affordable housing.

Ttosca….I don’t care a cows when YOU got here, or why, how many ways can you try to deflect the blame for a Labour policy letting in 2 million new citizens, WITHOUT WARNING OR INCREASING THE NATIONAL HOUSING STOCK above previous averages, never mind social homes for the poorest in society.

By not acknowledging that simple ‘supply and demand’ fact, you can have no credibility in ANY class debate on here, never mind on political party housing policies RESULTING from Labour’s attack on their core voters, for their SELFISH political ends of staying in power as long as they can – when they already have a huge boundary advantage that only needs 35% of the vote to gain a majority.

Frankly is the Conservatives had done that to the people, I would be on every forum lambasting them, not blaming other political parties, but such is the class moral crusading ‘head screw’ people like you give yourself. Nurse, up ttoscas meds.

Tory led Coalition research shows there are votes in being nasty to the poor. Sad but true. Cameron/Clegg should rise above headline chasing.

Labour led polling research prior to the 2010 General Election must have told them NOT to mention in their manifesto Labour’s detailed plans on what THEY would cut, spend and raise general taxes (on top of National Insurance) so as to fool their voters that they would have painless solutions to a £150 billion annual overspend, they left.

Lets not forget that by 2010, we were 2 ½ years into the financial crash, Labour had lost around 7% of (GDP) economic output/wealth/jobs in 2008, it would have been clear to any fool of a government, in the worst recession in 80-years, that cutting expenditure was inevitable – so why didn’t they, other than to fool the voters?

Clearly if Labour in power had DIFFERENT solutions to help ‘the people’ that were painless, we’d have seen them prior to May 2010.

Labour didn't leave a £150 billion annual 'overspend'. It is misleading to use the term 'overspend' to describe a budget deficit in the middle of a recession.

The deficit spiked immediately following the crisis, because the recession meant loss of tax revenues and increase in social security payments due to loss of jobs.

You are deliberately conflating 'Current Deficit' and 'Cyclical Deficit' to mislead your readers in to thinking that recession deficit was caused a huge amount of public spending.

In fact, prior to the crisis, the deficit was within the 3% limit of the EU recommended amount recommended by the Excessive Deficit Procedure:

The Excessive deficit procedure, abbreviated as EDP, is an action launched by the European Commission against any European Union (EU) Member State that exceeds the budgetary deficit ceiling imposed by the EU's Stability and growth pact legislation.

epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:EDP

---

The Full Story, rather than your Tory scum propaganda, is that 2010 deficit was primarily caused by the financial crisis and its effects:

Record budget deficits in 2009/10 recession

Net borrowing reached a peak in 2009/10 with £167.4bn. This was due to:

1. The financial crisis which led to falling tax revenues
2. Expansionary fiscal policy including VAT cut
3. Higher spending on unemployment benefits during the recession.
4. Long term spending commitments, e.g. government spending increases in the early 2000s.

www.economicshelp.org/blog/5922/economics/uk-budget-deficit-2/

ttossca….If ANY government leaves a £150 billion plus ANNUAL Budget Deficit and needs to borrow for that year £167 billion NET (new borrowings + rolling over old borrowings/maturing debt) we have an overspend, based on the September 2007 structure of our economy – that was waiting to happen at the first recession – that Brown never budgeted for, as the fool believed he had “cured boom and bust”.

Due to Conservative budget plans Brown was forced to adopt in 1997, the Uk budget BALANCED in the early 2000’s, and Brown THEN started his spending spree, help by the ever larger taxes from City/bank growth his newly formed regulatory tripartite ALLOWED to happen.

Brown and the Financial Services Authority he formed have already APOLOGISED for this, how many more time do I have to show you the links, how many other countries in 2008 had to part nationalise their banks i.e. RBS and Lloyds?

Brown’s spending has cost this country dearly, as much of it went of doubling or near trebling unreformed budgets with little to show for it but debt.
www.taxpayersalliance.com/economics/2009/09/new-book-reveals-the-total-cost-of-gordon-browns-mishandling-of-the-economy-as-3-trillion-or-3000000.html

So what happens to Brown’s annual country budget when the UK relies on £60 to £100 billion of annual City (and related businesses), to help pay off much larger ministerial budgets that included around 1 million new employees and a hugely expensive quangocracy – that when the City profits/taxes fall and the cost of the inflated Public Sector doesn’t, it is guaranteed that a honking great budget deficit will follow.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html

And much of that ‘spending’ was also financed by borrowing from the Private Sector e.g. building of hospital and schools, that will come out of annual budgets for decades to come.
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8779598/Private-Finance-Initiative-where-did-all-go-wrong.html

And why was our Council Taxes rising each year over inflation, cumulatively rising around 110% over 13-years, and around 22% of every bill now just covers local authority pension liabilities?
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

And now the total Public Sector pension liability to come out of future budgets when due, tops £1.3 billion in 2013, £ 1 trillion unfunded and this is in IN ADDITION to the accumulating national debt of £1.3 trillion, currently costing over £50 billion in annual interest charges that ALSO has to come out of annual spending plans.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14134847

While ‘real’ jobs whose taxes might pay for all this was collapsing BEFORE the financial crash – during a global consumption boom.
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/million-factory-jobs-lost-under-labour-6150418.html

So THIS was the mess Brown and New Old Labour left, percentages to GDP OR WHAT THE EU THOUGHT means NOTHING if Browns spending was a giant Ponzi scheme, where huge government spending & debt and huge consumer spending & debt (including the newly minted public sector jobs) UNSUSTAINABLY INCREASES GDP, but like any economy built on ever more spending and debt, it collapses like a pack of cards.

Yet with the largest budget deficit in Europe, in May 2010 Labour promised us ‘more of the same’, that the budget deficit would increase and so would taxes to pay for all this incompetence, so interest rates would have been far higher funding all our debt, eating further into budgets and/or increasing our nation debt.

So regarding your 'you're a very bad Tory propagandist', and you should stop insulting and misleading your readers”, well back at you, from all the facts I have provided, inform the readers which ones are incorrect – and agree with me that THESE are the real issues and most of those responsible, are still in parliament.

Blah blah blah a lot of hot air.

Here is a link showing the entire eurozone historical deficit, before and after the crisis of 2008.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13366011

Almost every single country experienced a massive increase in deficit as % of GDP compared with immediately before the crisis. The UK fare's around the middle.

---

You say you don't deal with dodgy websites, so I'll return the favour to you: The Daily Mail and Taxpayersalliance don't count as legitimate websites.

Whatever problems Brown is responsible for, and there are many, the huge deficit post 2008 financial crisis is not one of them.