Parties' spending cut differences

if lib dems win more votes that labour - surely nick clegg should head any lib-lab coalition govt?

I do hope that any unfunded pledges on future jobs/industry and infrastructure are challenged tonight

In the last debate Gordon Brown promised a new wave of industry in Britain that only the private sector can pay for - £1 - £2 Trillion of investment needed to give millions and millions of real jobs that are needed - outside of the public sector so that taxes can be paid.

To do this business freindly policies are needed when, currently, business is now leaving Britain

I do hope that Mr Brown's lies about it all happening next time - are going to challenged?

The UK need s tiger economy super business friendly environment - possibly outside of the EU/reformed EU - or we are all sunk as a third world country

Just ask Mrs Duffy!

Is anybody now listening to newlabour?

I somehow doubt it after their little brush with the electorate yesterday.

Taxi for Brown!

Those mixed race families on Labour's PPB last night must be earning enough to not have handouts then?

'Who's been most honest'

Surely that should be 'Who's been the least dishonest?' We are talking politics here!

So brown not only in denial about the issues surrounding imigration
he is in denial about the cuts required.

if so many people are on tax credits of some sort does that not say that
the economic situation has never been addresses and is a way for the state to BUY votes ?

Nick, in the interests of fairness, if you are going to promote the Labour party election broadcast, shouldn't you provide the same service to all parties?
Also, IMHO, all the main parties are agreeing to keep the election focused on tax and spend while agreeing to ignore the more important EU and immigration discussion, where they are all very weak.

the other thing about 1992, was that it was the last time the incumbent pm made the election pitch to "vote for experience".

what we ended up with was 5 years of dithering weak government with a wafer thin majority, desperate to cling onto power. i don't want that again from either party - much rather a coalition government with a comfortable majority.

after 1992 we also got a savage round of tory spending cuts that hurt some of the most vulnerable people in our society. again, if we'd had a coalition government, the lib dems would have been there to stand up for more fairness.

i am really fed up with this tory lie that a coalition government will lead to some kind of greek-style financial meltdown. its total garbage. apart from anything, greece doesn't even have coalition governments - it has majority governments like the uk. but that didn't stop it getting into trouble. germany on the other hand DOES have coalition governments - yet it has the strongest finances in europe. go figure.

and if the financial markets really are so worried about a hung parliament, why is it that for weeks the polls have been pointing to a hung parliament, yet the markets haven't so much as blinked. could it be that actually the markets are quite comfortable with coalition governments? could it be that they looked at the lib dem manifesto and actually liked its honesty about where the cuts and tax rises will come?

i for one definitely want to see a coalition government, preferably with nick clegg in charge. the lib dems will make sure that vested interests like the banks and the unions bear their share of the pain. because a lot of pain IS coming, whoever wins power. so the big question is who do you trust to do it fairly? george osbourne? i don't think so.

Yes, the IFS conclude that the Liberal Democrats have been (by a distance) the most honest and realistic of the parties when it comes to addressing the deficit. Suggest all those tory supporters for whom the Big D is the only game in town (or who say they think that) consider switching accordingly. If they don't, one will be forced to conclude that all their frowny "man of the world" talk about our debt crisis is just that ... talk ... and all they're really "concerned" about is the return of "their chaps"; tribal politics, no more no less. Mmm?

I blame Sue!

Well, that is one confused mess, eh?

Personally I think it's very annoying none of the parties will speakplainly about this, but since their approval goes down if they so much as mention it, for once I cannot really blame them; people do not want to know. My approval for the Tories actually went up significantly when they seemed to be admitting things would be bad and cuts had to be made, but they sure have backtracked, though they still get a point for mentioning it when Labour refused to, the Lib Dems too, but to be honest it seems we cannot make a fair jusgement on which of the three, if any, are better for us economically at this time.

I've enjoyed, as much as one can, the last two leader's debates, which have had more policy detail than detractors say, but I dread how tonight's will go with them running in circles and desperately trying not to talk about these very vital issues while accusing the others of...not talking about these very vital issues.

All this cutting will collapse the property market....

And then the economy.

because NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THE ABSURD LEVELS OF PERSONAL DEBT!

We need an integrated strategy that acknowledges the interconnectedness of the economy as well as the hugely damaging effect of a something for nothing wealth creation system based on somewhere to live! Property speculation MUST be banned (Taxed out of existence - Capital Gains Tax on all property transactions.)

We need to make things again. We can. We used to do it. We have the education. We have the people. (But making things is still crippled by a financial sector that runs an exchange rate for its own benefit and not for the general benefit of the country.)

Massive tax rises.
Massive public spending cuts.
Anything else and the markets will eat us alive.
Forget the deficit, think of the Labour debt, heading for £1.4tn plus all the off balance stuff liek PFI's and public sector pensions. The Left bleating on about not having to start paying this off soon is sickening. We really are in a Greece style mess and we need a Greece style approach to solve it.

"An unexpected visitor arrives at the front door. He is an anonymous man in a grey suit carrying a clipboard. His presence is enough to turn a happy family scene into one of anxiety and anger. Dad tells the family: "He's just told us he's cutting our tax credit." Mum complains: "It's not fair.""

No doubt the man with the clipboard had to walk up a long drive, past the BMW whilst admiring the well manicured lawn, since the Tory's are only planning to cut tax credits for those families bring in over £50k.

"it's not fair" said Mum.

"Well", explained the man with the clipboard, "the thing is, Labour have been wizzing money up against various walls for the last 13 years and basically we've run out. There's none left. I'm afraid you and your children will be paying for Brown's fiscal insanity for many years to come."

"I blame those bloomin' immigrants", said Mum.

"Oh dear", said the man, "here we go again".

"That is why the prime minister refused again and again to use the "C-word" - cuts"

Which is ironic, as I imagine many of the Prime Minister's colleagues were using the "C- word" yesterday.

All I care about really is that they put money back into the further education system. We are losing several maths lecturers this year as a result of the cuts.

An engineering degree without maths... that'll be interesting.

Sagamix

Give it a rest about the £6bn THIS year.

What's your view of the future, year on year. Would the extra NIC money be better in the hands of the Government to spend or better left in the hands of employees and businesses to spend.

In whose hands do you think the money would be most likely to be spent wisely?

If you think the Government, just how little do you think Gordon should leave us? Just a bit of pocket money, maybe to buy a treat of a bag of sweets at the weekend whilst all other spending is dictated by Brown?

This should now be a really easy choice for the electorate. The events over recent days with Greece etc have proved Brown and Clegg completely wrong over the economy and the Conservatives right. Cuts in Government spending should have happened long ago, the continued spending has just added to Britains enormus debt.

None of the parties have been able to tell the truth over the cuts needed because of Browns insistence not to have a spending review. The public is living in denial and the only party who tried to be honest, was the Conservative party who were rewarded with lower poll ratings after Osbornes speech 'the age of austerity'. The public has no one but themselves and Brown to blame for not understanding the scale of Britains problems.

Now with living standards falling, the devaluation of Britains currency, inflation, printing money merely to prop up Britains debt and an ever shrinking private sector, which pays Britains taxation for Government spending. If the public do not see sense now and kick Brown out and dismiss Clegg, who at this time is offering unaffordable tax cuts of 17 billion, as a mere opportunist, they never will.

No more boom and bust, should go down in history as the biggest untruth ever told and a lesson to all those that believed you can spend more than you earn as a Country.

Bigot?

B..rown

I..s

G..oing

O..n

T..hursday

Taxi for Brown!

we the public are as guilty as the parties are we know that cuts have to come but do not want to hear it , so we can say they did not tell us . If the present goverment had done a spending review ( as the IFS said on Monday ) all 3 parties would have been forced to be more upfront. Even Vince Cable is saying that some middle income families should loose some benifts . I agree but there are a lot of so called poorer families that who have never worked and get everything from the state . that need to take thier part of the pain.

#8 benagyerek

Wake up to the real world. I work in construction and clients both private and public are not making any decisions at all because of uncertainty. Weeks of negotiations about coalitions will not help this at all.
In what ways are the lib dems planning on making sure the unions bear their share of pain, as for there plans as for their plans for the banks if taken without other countries we would see the spectacular fall of one of the few successful British industries.
Are you not in the least bit perturbed by the thought of politicians who for months have been calling their opposite numbers everything under the sun sitting down making grubby deals in a desperate attempt to stay/get into power. Then after 5 years going back to name calling again.

There you go again thinking that cutting public expenditure is like turning off a tap. Cutting most items of public expenditure recreates spending under other public budget heads either directly like making public sector workers redundant (severance pay + more benefits) or indirectly through reduced private spending (more unemployment and tax take)resulting from cutting public capital spending or chopping transfer payments.

Our political leaders may not be bigots but they are poor at both maths and economics.

I was recently reading about INEOS taking their business offshore to avoid UK tax rates.

They pleaded with the government to get a tax break in the recession and got nowhere, now they are moving to Switzerland to avoid the high tax rates here (28% vs 10%)

Jim Ratcliffe stated "their is no question we would have felt a moral obligation to remain. We could not have left if they had helped us out"

They expect to save £390 million over four years...

It is unbelievable that this government did not think to help and as part of any help place a guarantee on this company to remain for a set period. It is just bad business.

So best part of a £100 million will go missing from the tax purse each year they are away. Not to mention job cuts in this country and the rest.

Once again, I am left with the feeling that the short sighted views of not holding a review in the storm and getting a true idea on how bad this may be would have been better for everyone.

Whoever wins is going to hit me very hard. I know that, I am just waiting for the grim reaper to appear.

Tonights debate is going to swing my vote one way or another, it has to as I have no time left. But I am left with the feeling that it is not going to matter either way as it is looking increasingly likely that I will be left listening to them all fight over the cuts and tax rises for the next year at least.

God it gets me down.

I fear that benagyerek is not living in the real world of UK polotics . As much as his suggestion appeals more to me than anyone from the Labour party it wont happen . The choice will end up Brown or Cameron as Prime minister as the Liberals are even more handicapped by our system than the torries so vote Liberal and we are likey to get Brown even in a LibLab pact. This is scarry

#8 we have had a large majority Governement for the last 13 years
just look at the mess they have created.

Greece the first domino to fall
spain looking shakky
UK making a run for third place.


it all very good say we want this and that as rights BUT somehow it has to be paid for.

I have not seem ZaNU_liebour raising the taxes on the very rich like some of there supporters.

I see that patrick Pichard is out supporting ZaNU_liebour , he has millions why does he not pay 50% on ALL his earnings he would still have million to play with bit of a problem that, 13 years of inaction

"you can't, he says, do a weather forecast during a hurricane."

well, there you go; that helps to explain why Brown's such a disaster for the economy/country.

During a hurricane you have constant weather updates on tv explaining exactly where the hurricane is, where it's going, what damage it's doing, and how to protect yourself against it if you're in its path.

The tv stations don't say "sorry, there's a hurricane, so we'll stop all our weather bulletins and come back again when it's all over."

no; the tv stations say "there's a hurricane, and we'll keep you up to date as much as we can. the power might go out, but we'll do our best to keep broadcasting so you all know what's going on; we're in this together with you and we'll do our best to keep the info flowing".

Brown's words/analogy is a perfect example of doing totally the wrong thing.

When there's a hurricane, you do everything you can to monitor it, tell people what's happening, and to protect yourself. You don't stick your head in the sand and pretend it's not happening.

It's a perfect example of why Brown's approach is always so horribly damaging to the country; his basic logic/reasoning is completely twisted and just doesn't make sense.

12. At 10:22am on 29 Apr 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

All this cutting will collapse the property market....

And then the economy.

because NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THE ABSURD LEVELS OF PERSONAL DEBT!

We need an integrated strategy that acknowledges the interconnectedness of the economy as well as the hugely damaging effect of a something for nothing wealth creation system based on somewhere to live! Property speculation MUST be banned (Taxed out of existence - Capital Gains Tax on all property transactions.)

We need to make things again. We can. We used to do it. We have the education. We have the people. (But making things is still crippled by a financial sector that runs an exchange rate for its own benefit and not for the general benefit of the country.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Very good point!

Temporarily allowing many foreign banks to stave off another banking crisis with criminal exorbitant levels of interest for British people - but will itself lead to distaster when borrowers default comprehensively.

A banker told me recently that the very high levels of interest are required because of the high default rate of borrowers - in other words - if you are a good reliable payer of your credit card interest - you're paying the debts of those who default.

(Sorry Banxsta - buy you said it - message for another off this blog who is almost too scared to read the next post)

Nick, I don't know what you are worried about - house prices are, allegedly, rising at 10% per year.

Yippee!

The UK can base its entire econom around bubble economics and everything will be well in the World as long as a 2 up 2 down terrace in Swansea is worth half a million!

Stop talking to economists and bankers - get an estate agent to tell you their views on Britain plc.

Bubble, bubble, bubble... I smell trouble ahead...

Perhaps if the parties would devote more energy and effort to explaining their own policies rather than rubbishing those of others, the quality of the debate - and our capacity to make an informed choice of who to hire to run the country - would improve.

Or is it that none of them really have a clue as to what they might do, but don't like to admit it? Or are they plain lazy? It is, after all, much easier to rubbish someone else's idea than come up with a viable one of your own.

A coalition government is not as atractive as it sounds Yes some of the best run countries have them but so dose countries like Italy who have ellections every other year and at the moment our system is not set up to help it work when Gordon Brown can still be PM if he is third in the share of the votes if we are going to embrace this Idea the STV is the only way and that wont Happen

#10 I Blame Thatcher.

#16 yeah you can see the result with the PM and former chancellor,
he has no basic maths letalone a degree and see the mess we are in.

17. At 10:32am on 29 Apr 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
If you think the Government, just how little do you think Gordon should leave us? Just a bit of pocket money, maybe to buy a treat of a bag of sweets at the weekend whilst all other spending is dictated by Brown?


Maybe some Swedish tax rates? Ideologically you seem to assume a high tax system cannot work. However, this is not the case.

"An unexpected visitor arrives at the front door. He is an anonymous man in a grey suit carrying a clipboard. His presence is enough to turn a happy family scene into one of anxiety and anger. Dad tells the family: "He's just told us he's cutting our tax credit." Mum complains: "It's not fair."
That is the start of Labour's latest election broadcast which warns of the cuts the Tories are planning for families."


I think that telling the family face-to-face is very commendable. It would be all to easy to notify them by mail. Shows compassion in difficult circumstances. :)

Labour's election strategy -

1 Start by creating a fiscal deficit of epic proportions

2 Wait for someone to offer to clear up the mess

3 Loudly criticise them for being mean and nasty

How stupid do they think we are?

All parties are culpable for dumbing down the election debate but one has led the way.

#17 and this is the ideological question that does not seem to be being
addressed.

1) Gordon Brown only knows how to spend everyone money ie a Gordon Brown commands driven society.

2) We actaully have the brains to decide for our self what to spend it on

quit simples really

sagamix 9

"Yes, the IFS conclude that the Liberal Democrats have been (by a distance) the most honest and realistic of the parties when it comes to addressing the deficit."

Actually, no.

I suggest that you go over to the IFS website, read and digest the information presented there to the extent that you are able to, and then head back here and review what you have just posted.

For starters, the words "honest" and "dishonest", or any other words or combinations of words of broadly the same meanings, do not appear at all in their analysis.

I know you are a permanent victim of your compulsion to trivialise and sensationalise, especially in those areas like the economy, where you display zero understanding of the subject - in that respect, I feel a little sorry for you. But please understand that these are important issues, and polluting the board with your partisan graffiti gets us precisely nowhere.

I think the political establishment have finally caught up with me

My son a first time voter received a mailshot this morning in an unmarked envelope in the inside it contained a letter with his first name on it... Trouble was I had to go nearly three miles to the local post office to collect it and it cost me £1:32 for the privilege as he is a final year school student and wouldn't be able to collect it.

The irony is he has come to the same conclusion that manifestos are simply fairytales and that politicians promises are not worth a packet of crisps.

If you want to reduce the debt then taxes will have to rise as the UK European contribution will inevitably rise and the rebate reduce interset rates on borrowing will rise service costs will rise tax revenues will fall as the public sector suffers redundancies and cost cutting pensions will increase with an ageing population.

Yet what are we told no tax rises... This simply politician speak for income tax (doesn't include fuel duty alcohol duty tobacco duty Insurance Premium tax, airport tax, road tax, National insurance, Mortgage taxes, capital gains, VAT or its extension etc etc.

Efficiency Savings is politian speak for cuts however these save money in the council school police NHS etc but they take money out of the economy cause people to default on mortgages and increase the Social security bill and have a knock on effect in every shop and factory in the country as fewer items are purchased which means capacity drops then there are the social effects of fewer teachers nurses police etc.

Cuts to public sector pensions yes great idea from the right wing Tory press... Doesn't most of the money invested comes from the pension funds who are major players in industry and commerce supporting the makers, producers and distributors in the country. Also there is the human cost as we have seen with a number of pension funds where people are promised a set of returns or a guaranteed income at retirement only to find out 20 or 30 years down the line that not only are they not going to get what they were promised but they have no time left to make alternative provision. It is a scandal tantamout to legalised fraud...you would have to be insane to pay into a pension from the age of say 25 because all indications are that like the promises of politicians they ain't worth the paper they are printed on. Then there is the surpluses I seem to recall my Local Government scheme surplus was used to keep the Council tax low but I may be wrong, these should be there for the lean times as in the story of Joseph and the Fat and thin cows.

The political parties should get together and agree a consensus on treatment of those of pensionable age as it affects every man woman and child of whichever political persuasion and look at Pensions saving for retirement and health care and support...but that ain't likely to happen.


RESULT Ive just had a call from Local Lib Dem chairman apologising for the unpaid postage and advising He has put a cheque in the post (...doesn't cover the fuel with all that duty at rural prices and the time and inconvenience though look on the bright side at least the local Post Office was still open)

Nick Clegg has stated Quote "We will put money back in the pockets of ordinary families"

Like the case of the election leaflet Mr Clegg

You shouldn't have removed it in the first place

Whenever any politician tries to say what they actually think, they get torn to pieces by the media, so you can't really blame them for saying as little as possible.
If a single one of them laid out exactly what their plans are, how long would it be before Neil, Sopal, Paxman, Humphries and the other reptiles were crucifying them for your entertainment?

Anyone going to book a Taxi for Brown?

I saw the Labour party political broadcast last night and did not find it at all informative about policy or vision

It was basically an advert saying if you vote any other way but Labour then you will probably get cancer and die

Not at all in good taste and I thought it was in particularly bad taste and ill mannered to suggest that the other parties would abandon cancer patients without a thought

Not cricket at all i'm afraid - poor show

The IFS stuff is certainly interesting.

It would probably have been better for "national economic transparency" if the Trasury had carried out the normal public spending review that would (under normal circumstances) have been published before this election?

It would have given the electorate an idea of just how bad things will be for years.

Brown and Darling said it would be unrealistic to conduct that exercise in times of such economic turmoil. That sounds like total evasion.
After all, governments around the world have to forecast the annual budget arrangements - and we keep getting told that wonderful economists / politicians (like Brown...??????) can predict our future.

So when could we expect a pblic spending review?
We aren't in any sort of stable economic environment and won't be for some time.
It looks like Greece is going down the pan, Portugal and Spain are at risk and government borrowing is likely to be far more expensive in future.
In the UK, Labour has PLANNED to increase our debt levels, massive borrowing is inevitable and the cost of servicing that will rise significantly.

Both Canada and Sweden had major economic problems within recent times. Of course, from a population perspective they are much smaller than the UK. But both countries adopted a very aggressive approach to reduce public expenditure. Both countries seem to have survived...

I still don't get the notion that, if you stop public spending, the GDP must fall.

If people keep their own money (rather than seeing it pumped through QANGOs before getting some benefit back), they will probably spend it.
That means the money goes into the economy and hence becomes part of GDP.

There is virtually no incentive to save, as banks offer derisory returns on investments, so better to buy your daughter a bicycle today than save for a moped when she gets to 17...

If you spend your own money at Tesco, M&S, B&Q, wherever or via British Airways (and thus indirectly with BAE and Rolls Royce), how is that a worse situation than having tax taken and gradually reduced in effective delivery value because there are so many layers of government agencies that absorb big chunks of the value?

Jobs in either private or public sector only have value if they deliver something worthwhile enough for people to be happy to consume.

If Brown had said that any salary/remuneration that rise beyond 10MIL should bear a 90% tax rate, I'd have applauded (especially in companies that the government owns or controls). That part of income that exceeds 5MIL should pay 75% - great. And so on, so that some real relationship between high income and tax-take is established.

But what did Brown choose to do? He raised the taxes on the lowest income people. Taking away the 10p tax-band meant that there was a massive impact on people with the least. And forced them to become supplicants for costly-to-manage "special payments" or should that be handouts, rather than leaving them with their OWN money.

For goodness sake. People who don't have a lot simply have to spend what they've got to make life happen. That dribbles into the GDP and supports jobs across all parts of the economy. How on earth does it help if you shove in multiple layers of state-enforced controls before the same money gets spent?

I simply don't believe that Brown, Balls, Cooper, Burnham - even Cameron or Clegg - know how they should spend my money in my interests better than I could work it out...

And that's from a bloke who quite deliberately (more or less compos mentis) has chosen to vote for Labour, Liberal, Tory and Independent candidates over a life.

What people continually forget is that Gordon Brown has been behindthe creation of massive personal debt, encouraged the housing game and this ultimately led to the credit crunch from which we all suffering.

None of which he has admitted to. Do we really want another 5 years of power clinging desperation from a man who can't even listen to the concerns of his own voters.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

The questioning of the leaders in the previous debate was extremely weak and allowed to many rhetorical superficial sound-bytes.

Cost of tackling the UK budget deficit?
Cost of overseas aid? Wars? WMD?
Cost of job UK creation?
Cost of UK infrastructure?
Population control to reduce public sector costs?

What is their action plan apart from stealing the excellent policies of the Green Party (after the general election)?

Hopefully, the leaders will be challenged about economic statements that were spun in the previous leaders debates; that were without any financial justification or basis?

It is difficult to ignore Brown's utterance yesterday. Even if he hadn't been recorded he shouldn't have said what he did; he shouldn't even have been thinking it. On the other hand, at least for once he was being honest - clearly a mistake.
Just as it will be a mistake for him and the others to spell out what cuts they will be looking at. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and we are a lot more clever than turkeys. We don't want to be told the truth as we're ostriches.
Brown's problem is his record of overspending and increasing regulation - or is it a problem?
Overspending is sensible as borrowing costs are so low so you may as well "have it now" as you get nothing for money in the bank.
Regulation is comfortable since the more we are told what to do and what to think the less we have to go to the trouble of making up our own minds.

re 22. At 11:05am on 29 Apr 2010, watriler wrote:

"Cutting most items of public expenditure recreates spending under other public budget heads either directly like making public sector workers redundant (severance pay + more benefits) or indirectly through reduced private spending (more unemployment and tax take)resulting from cutting public capital spending or chopping transfer payments."

That's true, but only in the short term; in the long/medium term you save a fortune. Yes, it costs money to make un-needed public servants redundant, but ultimately you expect them to get a real job some time after they're made redundant.

eg it might cost you £50k in the first year to make an un-needed public servant redundant (redundancy costs and unemployment benefit), but after the first year (assuming they get a real job), they make a net contribution to the real economy instead of being a net drain on the tax payer.

So, if you don't make an un-needed public servant redundant, then it costs you, say, £50k per year for a huge number of years and they provide no benefit whatsoever to society (considering pension implications too, it means you're paying something like half a million quid over 10 years in actual costs to the tax payer for someone who's pushing bits of paper around a desk for £30k/year).
So, ordinary tax payers get a bill for half a million quid to keep someone in a job that nobody needs them to do for 10 years.

If you make them redundant, then it costs the tax payer, say £50k (instead of half a million) because the costs of that are only for one year; after that year the cost is no longer being shouldered by the tax payer because that person has (hopefully) found another job.

To say that the state needs to create false jobs paid for by the tax payer purely to massage the unemployment figures is a false economy; they need to drive the private sector forward and stop having so many people dependant on the public sector jobs market.

Also, you don't actually need to make people redundant; you can simply not replace people who retire/leave that you don't need to replace.

This happens every day in the private sector, and for good reasons; if you didn't do it in the private sector then you'd go bust. The government needs to have the same approach (ie "is this person actually needed for us as an organisation to do our jobs properly? no, well he/she shouldn't be working for us then")

What the government is doing would be like a private company borrowing money to buy their own products so that they can say that they're doing well because they're selling lots of stuff.

12. At 10:22am on 29 Apr 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

We need to make things again. We can. We used to do it. We have the education. We have the people. (But making things is still crippled by a financial sector that runs an exchange rate for its own benefit and not for the general benefit of the country.)

Yes we can! And we can make one or two things better than anyone else. But unfortunately for the vast majority of what we used to produce and sell we can't compete with other countries who are doing it much more cheaply. Brits are still inventing stuff, but our 'global economy' means that it's being made in factories overseas and there simply aren't nearly as many British jobs for British workers. The people who benefit are the company owners - that's one reason why the 'wealth gap' is growing. The pendulum will swing back of course, and when those countries have become rich and we are poor then they'll outsource their manufacturing to us. But that's a long way away.
The country you are looking for, and perhaps miss, has gone I'm afraid.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It is impossible for us to have a sensible discussion about this as we do not yet know the size of the hole we are looking into.

How much do we need to cut, what do we need to save, how much will tax have to be raised.

What we need now is for the Government to come clean and tell us how bad it actually is. All I hope is that it is not like the proverbial iceberg which is what everyone is forecasting.

I think that it is insulting for Gordon Brown to now tell us that he cant tell us where we are when they choose to hold off on a spending review. A review that surely would have given us the figures that we all need to understand what is required.

Is it not about time that government realises that it acts on our behest rather than them governing us.

33 - Sweden.

"Median Swedish STATE pension income as a percentage of median working
population income - 51%"

This would equate to a median basic state pension of around £14k in the UK. Over twice what we actually get. Of course, in Sweden higher paid employees will receive much higher STATE pensions.

In other words, you GET something for the taxes you pay in Sweden, not least that you actually have your own state pension pot i.e. not the unfunded stuff we suffer in the UK.

I'm fully aware that I some countries high taxes can work. In the UK under Labour it just gives them more money to wizz against the wall.

Well here we are on the day of the last of the Prime Ministerial debates, and the important subject, the economy.

I sniggered over breakfast, when the commentator on BBC World News said this was Labour's strongest card. Nuff said about that.

So, both Labour and the Lib Dems are convinced we need take not action till next year. Meanwhile our problem grows.

None of the parties are being open about exactly what they will cut, but we all have a very realistic idea.

Look the deficit, the gap between what we as a country earn and what we spend, is £168 bn, give or take. That's what we borrowed in the year just ended, and there is no sign, yet, of any reduction taking place.

The governments take in income tax, from the lucky people who have a job, is £154 bn, so even doubling the rate of tax wouldn't reduce the deficit to zero.

Equally, the governments income is marginal (it is a tax on activity and profits) and as rough rule of thumb is at around 20%. So if we want an increase in economic activity and profits to be able to take 20%, and cover £168 bn, then economic activity needs to grow by £800 bn. These numbers get out of hand.

We cannot reduce the deficit simply by raising taxes, that's self destructive.

We cannot reduce the deficit by relying on an outstanding rate of economic growth, that's cloud cuckoo land.

We can borrow to finance that in the short term, but what lender is going to keep standing there saying it's alright to spend more than you've got, or are ever goling to have.

It is disingenuous to pretend that there can be no cuts. It is becoming increasingly clear that, no matter what the politicians may say in order to get elecetd, they are going to force us to accept some very unpalatable medicine.

I have already indicated, on a post yesterday, that even cutting 1 million public sector jobs will only make a small dent in the deficit. Its not just jobs, it will be services. It will be forcing aconomies. It will be reducing bureaucracy (these may in fact be the public sector jobs that have to go)- Note, Nurse aren't bureaucrats!!!!!!

Now if you want to behave like an ostrich, ignore the current, highly public plight of Greece, and now Portugal and Spain, all of whom are running budget deficits with no visible means of paying them off, and pretned that we'll be OK, then keep your head buried firmly in the sand, and don't be surprised when you get a nasty pain in the rear end some time soon.

Otherwise, be sensible, and support taking action NOW, however painful it will be.

You know it makes sense.

Clinton was right-it is all about the economy. Trouble is the only one who knows our true debt is Brown-he made it and he is not telling. I dont care who "gets in" as long as it is NOT Labour. Whoever may be the new PM he/she is in for a shock when they first look at the books-poison chalice indeed. Why do we not hear what the true cost of PFI is to be? How much debt is Brown hiding? Rochdale confirms that Brown is NOT to be trusted at all(as if we did not already know that-but confirmation is appreciated) and so his cronies of Mandy Balls Cooper et al are not to be trusted either by association.So perhaps,finally,we will draw a line under Labour,and particularly Brown that says "never again", and goodbye forever to Mandelson;he wont be missed at all.

Checked it, JR (37), and I'm right as usual. Course they don't use words like "honest" and "dishonest" - they're the IFS for heaven's sake - but the inference is clear. My number 9 post is a valid interpretation; it holds. Put a different (pro Tory) spin on it if you want to ... if you can rather, since I know you want to.

It's more than just the parties revealing the scale of their cuts, it's about the total lack of a coherent plan for dealing with escalating debt.

In "normal" times (i.e. not the run up to a General Election), the fate of Greece, Portugal and Spain would serve up a severe warning as to how the cost of servicing our own national debt could spiral out of control.

Spending cuts, quantitiative easing and taxes increases can only go so far. There comes a point - Greece has arrived there - where an economy has passed the point at which those measures have failed.

The fact that the present Brown administration has shut the books and sat on them until after the election is far more than just a political ploy. It's almost treasonable, or would be if the opposition parties were prepared to tackle the bigger issues head on.

It's becoming a very dangerous game. Let's be clear, economic meltdown could be more damaging than a terrorist attack and strikes to the heart of our democratic processes.

What's happening re the BBC moderators.
Why have my posts being removed when they break no rules only question Gordon Brown's mental state.

That's a good one, Robin (19), did it take you long? Nailed you at number 9 though, haven't I? ... your deficit fretting is just a front for wanting your tory party back in power. Tribal politics. I'm right aren't I, Robin? Course I am. You'd be voting Lib Dem if you were really worried about the deficit. And you're not, so you're not. Mr Perceptive, that's me. Yes indeedy.

42. At 11:46am on 29 Apr 2010, fairlyopenmind15 wrote:

But what did Brown choose to do? He raised the taxes on the lowest income people. Taking away the 10p tax-band meant that there was a massive impact on people with the least. And forced them to become supplicants for costly-to-manage "special payments" or should that be handouts, rather than leaving them with their OWN money.

For goodness sake. People who don't have a lot simply have to spend what they've got to make life happen. That dribbles into the GDP and supports jobs across all parts of the economy...


I fell into that tax band and like millions of others, because I've always saved rather than spent, receive no hand-outs from anywhere.
The only thing I've ever been handed is my wonderful, liberating bus-pass, and it looks as though they're about to take that away again.

Thing is that no politician has ever been in the situation that you describe. They've always been financially comfortable and seemingly find it impossible to empathise with anyone who hasn't. I think that's because, almost by definition, they're not really very interested in other people.

GB sincerely regrets his 10% tax 'mistake' - but not because it caused a problem for people on low incomes - it was because it caused a problem for him. I use GB as an example. It could have been any one of them.

Nick

what gets under my skin is the way Brown and Labour have got away with setting the stage for the election by not having a spending review.

The contracts need to be reviewed in order to work out the costs and the spend of each departments budgets.

Labour purposefully did not conduct that review because they would have had to come clean about the scale of the mess they have created.

Now as far as I can see the only ones to mention this is the IFS.

I think you the media have been manipulated by Labour when you bang on at the other parties about not telling the truth about cuts.

If I were going to take over a business I would not commit my self to any action that I would take until all of the required information had been supplied to me.

This is the real world of how takeovers are carried out.

So there is one reason that the electorate cannot be given the true picture and that is Labours attempt to hide the truth and create a situation that make it impossible for their opponents to be clear about what they will do.

Please point this out when the spending cut subject comes up as it is a key factor.

andy @ 17

"Give it a rest about the £6bn THIS year."

Haven't mentioned it on here, Andrew. No, I'm happy that people understand the point now - did a hell of a lot of work (on the thread the other day) to make sure that they do. Case closed.

As to your general question: do I believe it's better to leave money in the hands of individuals and businesses rather than for the government to spend it? No, I don't. Not as a matter of ideology anyway (which is the small state argument for answering Yes) - I judge each and every piece of government spending on its own merit. Invading far off Muslim countries, for example - not keen on that. Replacing Trident - same. Servicing the welfare costs of mass unemployment - ditto (although you have to, if you don't act to prevent it). So, you know, all depends. Don't mind a bit of government spending on health care and education and transport and the like, I have to admit. Asked Robin (above) to start calling me Mr Perceptive, but on second thoughts perhaps Mr Pragmatist would be better. Leave it to you, Andy. What would you prefer to call me? ... Mr Perceptive or Mr Pragmatist?

50. At 12:16pm on 29 Apr 2010, Chris London wrote:
...Is it not about time that government realises that it acts on our behest rather than them governing us.

The government now acts at the media's behest. I don't know about you but I certainly don't feel that the media represent me.

maidstone richard @ 21

"Wake up to the real world. I work in construction and clients both private and public are not making any decisions at all because of uncertainty. Weeks of negotiations about coalitions will not help this at all...
Are you not in the least bit perturbed by the thought of politicians who for months have been calling their opposite numbers everything under the sun sitting down making grubby deals in a desperate attempt to stay/get into power. Then after 5 years going back to name calling again."

the ideological differences between the parties are really not very big. this isn't the 1980s any more. the reason they call each other names is because the voting system encourages them to. when you always have one party in power with a majority, there is no incentive to cooperate. least of all in the middle of an election campaign.

but the real issue is this: there are some very very big structural problems in this country that need to be faced up to. not just the deficit. also pensions and care for the elderly. but no party is willing to be totally honest about the need to address these issues, because unfortunately the electorate tends to shoot the messenger. saying "i will cut x" or "we need to raise the retirement age" just creates a rod for your own back - all the other parties leap on it and hit you with it.

but privately, all the politicians know these issues need to be addressed. so what we need is a cross-party "coming out" agreement, where they jointly admit the existence of these problem. this way none of them is the lone messenger to be shot. yes, of course there will be differences over how to tackle these problems. but you cannot have that discussion until all parties have agreed to be candid with the public that these problems even exist.

as for weeks of post-election negotiations - it won't happen. everyone knows the real choice is either a tory majority or a lib-lab pact ex brown. the only big open question is who would lead lib-lab? i wish more people would openly say it should be clegg. of course if clegg says it himself, he will be accused of "arrogance".

"In what ways are the lib dems planning on making sure the unions bear their share of pain, as for there plans as for their plans for the banks if taken without other countries we would see the spectacular fall of one of the few successful British industries."

lib dems are not beholden to big business or to unions, because neither are their paymasters. lib dems have to get by on a fraction of the donations the other two do, and the vast majority of their money comes from small contributions from individual members.

as far as their banking policies go - i worked 6 years in investment banking, and was stupidly overpaid. i was not proud of that fact, so i quit in the spring of 2008 - as it turns out just before the global financial crisis. no, i did not see it coming.

because of this, i am fortunate in having a much better insight into what is wrong with the global financial system. the basic problem is that the banking system got too big and too leveraged, and the people who worked in it had too much incentive to take excessive risks because of the bonus culture. big bonuses also cause massive social dislocation in london, e.g. by pumping up property prices to such unaffordable levels. and the big bonuses also sucked all the talented people out of the regulators and the ratings agencies that were supposed to be monitoring what the banks were doing.

of course i don't want to see the international banks frightened away from the city. but actually i don't think this will happen, because the rest of the world IS moving in the same direction as the lib dems. see obama's plans. see the imf's tax proposals. actually both more radical even than the lib dems' plans.

but even if it does come to that choice, i actually think we would do better without the financial services sector. yes it would be a big loss to the economy (and the government's budget). but the risks of an overbloated and overleveraged freewheeling banking system are toxic. just ask iceland. we were very lucky that the govt had enough money to bail the banks out this time. now we are back into another financial bubble, making everything look rosy and hunky-dory again. but if we get complacent and don't make deep reforms to how the banks operate, the next time the bubble bursts our government will be swept away, just like iceland, dubai and now greece. i don't want that to happen to my country.

and if you think i am scaremongering, then i suggest you try googling willem buiter (now chief economist at citibank) or martin wolf (house economist at ft) on the subject. or for that matter, mervyn king (governor of the bank of england).

I fear your average voter is unwilling to listen to or absorb the truth and gravity of the financial situation, and as such, the political parties are understandably unwilling to "tell it as it is" since the first one that did would be committing electoral suicide.

So, we, the electorate, get what we deserve - because polls have consistently found that your average Brit doesn't comprehend, nor want to comprehend the truth. They'd rather live in "Soap" and "Celeb" land.

jim3227 @ 24

if lib dems get a bigger vote than labour, brown should go and clegg take over.

if people actually vote for the lib dem (which is what 49% of the uk population actually wants to do), instead of being scared into supporting one of the other two, then a lib dem government is exactly what they will get.

ref: https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/46c7f5ca-5091-11df-bc86-00144feab49a.html

Saga

I'm still looking out for that apology due to you for a comment made yesterday afternoon. A decent man deserves a decent apology.

Busy this afternoon. Tonights debate should be interesting.

56#

I had one moderated for mentioning Phil Glenister this morning. Unbelievable. To think that one of the BBC's biggest stars is a profanity that gets you moderated.

Thank goodness we are returning to common sense after the diclosure that politicians often find campaigning with the great unwashed -that's you and I- and the end of "something of a bigot"-gate.

One thing you can guarantee within the next week will be that even if you call out to your local politician or canvasser a "Oi you! Oi you! you're a bunch of (insert your favourite terns of abuse here)" they will smile sweetly at you and say "thank you for your kind words of support."

However having heard Tories speak in terms far worse thasn Brown did, I don't think it is particularly unusual. What was unusual was the Murdoch press/tv trying to get at Brown and so releasing something they would normally quite rightly delete. The nickname used by Party President Teresa May of the nasty party still applies esp at private meetings when they think the press is absent.

What would surprise me would be to hear a LibDem say it. Their MPs and canvassers are invariably the nicest altruistic people you will come across in politics (and often in general life). Far fewer LibDems are in it for power in the way Tories are totally absorbed by it and grabbing it anyway possible and Labour are often not far behind the Tories...The nice party the LibDems are often shocked in the way how so many Tory MPs started off in their supposed enemy at university...

As to Nick's comments why has he not set out the IFS's league table of badness/black holes/lack of truth which shows:
Tories £54bn
Labour £44bn
Lib Dem £34bn

In other words, the LibDems are by FAR the most HONEST and the Tories by far the MOST DISHONEST.

Add to this that the Tories got everything wrong in the past decade,
a)urging cuts to any proposed controls and legislation on the banks (which New Labour caved in to),
b)wanted Northern Rock to be allowed to CRASH causing a serious downturn in the housing market and leaving depositors with waiting years for any money and probably causing far greater impact upon banks who had loaned them money or had options written by them
c) opposed the 2 recapitalisations of the banks, thereby which would have created GROUND ZERO effect as every bank went under and almost every company and business went to the wall. This would have resulted in house prices collapsing and most shops shut and us eking out a foraging existence
d) opposed the Quantitative Easing which would have caused many companies to go to the wall and unemployment per Treasury estimates now be double what it is. If you add their arguing for cuts for the past 2 yrs jobs would be even rarer

Is there ANYTHING in the Tories economic proposals where they have got anything right? As a finance professional, I can't see anything and the CBI and many other employer groups tried to get the Tories to see sense.

Now that from the IFS we can see that the Tories manifesto shows that the Tories would in fact be sending us even faster into debt!

Let us see how many of the Tories on here, who have repeatedly expressed their economic concerns, will recognise their folly and show they are thinking people and so will now switch to the party which has provably in the past 5 yrs and in the future LibDem?

Let's see just how intellectually honest these Tories REALLY ARE or can be, if forced to!

Let's see them speak the truth on economic sense for once, now. Please...?

51. At 12:21pm on 29 Apr 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
33 - Sweden.
I'm fully aware that I some countries high taxes can work. In the UK under Labour it just gives them more money to wizz against the wall.
------------------
funny you should say this. i mean you are a tax adviser who spends his working life working out ways and advising your clients on how to pay as little tax as possible. you have even bragged about how low you get your clients tax liability. its the other extreme to those few on benefits who dont want to work. they are not doing anything ilegal but it does nothing to benefit the country it just suck money away. what a berk you are and morals to be ashamed of.

I notice, Yet again today that Brown dominates the News Home Page. Come on! Why?

He might be applying scare tactics - but be assured I am more terrified with what Brown can do to what's left of this country, than any tory or libdem. He's done a couple of good things during his tenure, sure, but he's made some appalling mistakes. He isn't anything like the good economist/chancellor some people pretend. He's a dead loss.

Just another of his mistakes and this country could be thrown into a Greece-like downward economic spiral. We're teetering on the edge at the moment.

No use pointing to the credit rating agencies: they can change their minds on the least provocation; and another mistake that threatens a rising deficit might be such a provocation.

Then you can expect the interest on your mortgages to be nearer to 10% than 2%.

No thanks, Mr Brown. Well... thanks for warning us about the Tories but you forgot to mention your mistakes; you're glad most have forgotten your unassuming admission of failing to regulate the banks... which is largely why we are where we are.

39. At 11:37am on 29 Apr 2010, Its_an_Outrage wrote:

Whenever any politician tries to say what they actually think, they get torn to pieces by the media, so you can't really blame them for saying as little as possible.
If a single one of them laid out exactly what their plans are, how long would it be before Neil, Sopal, Paxman, Humphries and the other reptiles were crucifying them for your entertainment?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

They will only get torn to pieces if there are holes in their plans, if they duck the questions or dont give a straight answer. Then a tenacious journalist should, and often does, get stuck in.

If they'd engage with the people when they should and answer our questions with a straight answer mate, then maybe we wouldnt need, or pay a lot of attention to the reptiles.

I dont often recall she-who-must-not-be-named being tripped up or ripped to bits in such a fashion.....?

What we need mate is more conviction politicians who stand or fall on what they really believe in rather than the vote-stealing, 24-hour-news-cycle-lobby-fodder types that we have now. "This is what I think, this is what we'll do. Dont like it? Dont vote for me."

51. At 12:21pm on 29 Apr 2010, AndyC555

Indeed, and I agree.

But I don't see how lower taxes, the Conservative mantra (though they won't be able to deliver it), helps the long term situation in the UK either.

I can see that applying current and perhaps higher tax levels in a different way might have some long term benefit if done well.

Lowering taxes allows employers to lower relative salaries. Though in principal it could be argued that it makes us more competitive in practice it usually results in higher profits from surplus labour. In any case it is a race to the bottom and the UK cannot succeed by competing in that way. The suggestion that it somehow benefits society as a whole is spurious. Can you think of an example of where it actually has?

There is little vision left in Politics right now and the current economic system is taking us the wrong way. No party is advocating significant change but the Conservatives will take us even further in the wrong direction.

60#

"What would you prefer to call me?"


Must not bite.... rise above it.... its a trap.....

I remember several elections ago hearing someone say 'one man's savings is another man's job loss', and I feel there is a lot of truth in that.

For example if many people decided not to buy a new car, but to hold on to their current one, then garages selling vehicles would have reduced income, and car manufacturers would have reduced sales, both leading to potential reductions in the employment of workers. (I appreciate that many cars are built outside the UK, but there are many UK jobs in the automotive industry.)

Again, if I decide to forgo a UK holiday, then hotels, restaurants, bars, etc. miss out on earning some money.

The government's intention is to halve the deficit over the next four years, which averages out to an annual reduction of around £20billion. This has to be achieved by either cutting expenditure (e.g. making savings) or increasing taxation (e.g reducing what people have to spend) or both. Either way it is likely to result in significantly increased unemployment, leading in turn to more expenditure by the government on benefits for those losing their jobs, and reduced tax income from the new jobless.

Altogether a very worrying prospect.

Are my fears unfounded, or does any political party have a viable solution? Perhaps tonight's debate may provide some answers, but I am not holding my breath.........

Spirit of Iona, each party is given an allowance which allows free postage on one brochure per elector in each constituency. All they have to do is take it to their local post office with the form and they don't pay. It was, I would suggest, your post office which is at fault and the post office staff should have recognised their error and not tried to charge you.

If the LibDems sent you a cheque they are being exemplary over the Post Office's error.

54 sagamix

"I'm right as usual."

You keep telling yourself that often enough, and you might start to believe it, but it will be a long while before anyone else does.

"the inference [that Labour and Conservative plans for the economy are more dishonest than the Lib Dem one] is clear."

Had you bothered to read the IFS documents, and I don't believe you have, you would have realised that they are a sober assessment of the content of the plans and a competent analysis of where important detail has been omitted. Their analysis is highly critical, justifiably so, but very even-handed, completely unlike your summary."

"My number 9 post is a valid interpretation...."

No it isn't. It is an account of a desperate spinner trying to find shiny nuggets of tabloid propaganda, in an environment entirely devoid of such things.

51. At 12:21pm on 29 Apr 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
'In the UK under Labour it just gives them more money to wizz against the wall'

How is it that government do this? What process do they use to actually destroy this money? Or is it just that they push it around in ways that some find ideologically offensive?

Do our large banks current ‘wizz away’ the proceeds of people’s hard work into the foreign bank accounts of already grotesquely wealthy derivatives traders?

@ 60 saga

Is there an option for Mr Pillock?!!

Nice to see old Saga back, demonstrating once again his masterly misunderstanding of the problem. That doesn't stop him sharing his views with us, whether we want to or not.

Just thought I'd check but on "something like a bigot"-gate has got 130 posts in 4 hrs whereas the economy and the Tories the biggest deceivers has got half that!

Good to see some of our posters have minds of Churchillian grandeur and can see the big picture...

Ooops but maybe not if we recognise Churchill's most famous quote about the 1945 Election that 'Labour were members of the Gestapo'...Now maybe as we all know he was often drunk and he'd had a couple too many bottles of champagnes by lunchtime...

I dread to think what HE would have said if he'd just been accosted by the likes of the fragrant Gillan Duffy?

Oh but what a different age, when the Tories could regard 'the great unwashed' as knowing their place and people like Mrs Duffy would ever have been let near Churchill. Indeed in the Radio 4 programme a week ago on the 1945 election, I read that in 1945 he had ended up being booed so often at public meetings that he'd had to stop doing them...!!

Oh how the Tories and Dave Cameron would love to re-establish their lazy sense of entitlement...!

As Greece has shown so well you can't spend more that you earn. The priority for any government therefore has to be creating more tax income. This can only come from business doing better or taxing people more. It seems that listening to the people that create the wealth makes more sense than listening to economic academics (many who depend on government spending to exist) and these business people almost universally support the Tories approach to the economy.

Uh-oh Nickys back.

The nurses must be away at a union meeting and forgot to lock their pc....

"68. At 1:15pm on 29 Apr 2010, lefty10 wrote:
51. At 12:21pm on 29 Apr 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
33 - Sweden.
I'm fully aware that I some countries high taxes can work. In the UK under Labour it just gives them more money to wizz against the wall.
------------------
funny you should say this. i mean you are a tax adviser who spends his working life working out ways and advising your clients on how to pay as little tax as possible. you have even bragged about how low you get your clients tax liability. its the other extreme to those few on benefits who dont want to work. they are not doing anything ilegal but it does nothing to benefit the country it just suck money away. what a berk you are and morals to be ashamed of."

Well, unless you deliberately organise your tax affairs to pay MORE than you need to, you're being a hypocritical berk.

"lefty10 wrote:

funny you should say this. i mean you are a tax adviser who spends his working life working out ways and advising your clients on how to pay as little tax as possible. you have even bragged about how low you get your clients tax liability. its the other extreme to those few on benefits who dont want to work. they are not doing anything ilegal but it does nothing to benefit the country it just suck money away. what a berk you are and morals to be ashamed of."

It is worth remembering that if thet tax system was fair and clear Andy wouldn't have a job. The only reason tax advisors have jobs is because the entire tax system is set up in such a way that innocent people end up paying too much tax.

I assume that if you consider someone who helps recover money being taken out of the pockets of innocent people is a berk that you also feel the same about people on benefits? As you have so nicely provided a parallel between the two.

Consider this tax advisors do not suck money away from the country - as they can only work within tax law it is clear that the money they save their clients should never have been taken in the first place.

If it should never have been taken in the first place then obviously the government shouldn't be relying on it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

mr N @ 65

"I'm still looking out for that apology due to you for a comment made yesterday afternoon. A decent man deserves a decent apology."

Thank you - so rare for me to get called a "decent man" - I like it! Prefer that even to Mr Perceptive or Mr Pragmatist - pls see 60.

And yes, I know, "sagabigot ... sounds about right" ... a lovely little post from a tory story character called "Chris London".

Not expecting an apology, of course.

Valuable insight into the interior life of some of these extreme right wing types.

63#

And thats why they'll get what they deserve next week.

43. At 11:47am on 29 Apr 2010, sircomespect wrote:
What people continually forget is that Gordon Brown has been behindthe creation of massive personal debt, encouraged the housing game and this ultimately led to the credit crunch from which we all suffering.

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

Sorry but no Gordon is not behind these things - the people who borrowed the money and proclaimed that what they wanted was to own a house and see it rise in value forever are behing these things.

Gordon is responsible for not recognising a bubble as what it was and then acting to stop it getting out of control and precipitating the collapse. Labour is to blame for wasting their turn at the top and not rebalancing the economy and falling for the city will save all stupidity left to him by the prior incumbents. He is guilty of all these things - but then many many others are likewise guilty - after all a significant minority of the elector voted for all these things.

No one forced people to borrow more money than they could reasonably afford or forced them to ignore the downsides - banks and credit cards may have made it easy, the BOE by keeping rates low and Brown by targetting low inflation ignoring house prices may have made it easier to borrow, Brown by stupidly declaring boom and bust over may have inflated peoples expectations that it would always be cheap to borrow - but no one forced anyone to over borrow.

This is all part of a significant majority (or may be its a minority now) of the electorates auto-response to any issue which is to blame someone else and not take responsibility for their own actions.

I listened to a angry sounding Labour voter on the radio over lunch - of course I'm voting Labour what have the Tories ever given me.
No questioning over whether what was given was earned or who was picking up the tab and how they might be able to afford it.
A culture of entitlement - some feel entitled to support for ever on the state becuase the rules say they can - some feel entitled not to pay full share of taxes as intended because the rules say they can - we are entitled to the benefits of all advances in healthcare whether we earned enough to pay for it as a nation or not.etc etc etc

Culture of me - not one which recognises one is only a single member of society and for all the effect it has on me , me has an effect on it , especially if most people are me.

sorry I appear to have come over all ranty.

However for the many failings he has and bad choices he made - blame him - but don't blame him for other peoples choices or for sleepwalking themselves into trouble.

I'm pretty well fed up of hot air. NO politician EVER tells the truth if they know it will harm heir chances come election day. ALMOST ALL voters prefer to vote for the party they believe offers somehing for them. Once elected politicians will do as they please with no reference to election manifesto rhetoric on the grounds that they didn't know how things would turn out. Having been politically awar since the mid 60s and voted since the late 60s (when you had to be 21 to vote) this is myno doubt jaundiced view. ANYONE, including Nick Robinson, thinking one party can make what must ammount to massive cuts in public spending OR massive tax rises either directly or indirectly lives in a fools paradise. Costing promises is, as anyone with an 'apporth of sense realises, comparing the number of grains of sand in two buckets.

Do we get to be told tonight the size of the National Debt including Public Finance Initiative and Student Loans? Labour launched their campaign in a PFI hospital in Birmingham that will cost £2.5 billion, and boasted they had built 113 hospitals via PFI, as well as a load of university and school buildings. The taxpayer ultimately picks up the tab for that. The taxpayer will also pick up the tab for any students who don't repay their loans: outstanding loans are already 10% of GDP and rising by £3.7 billion per annum. Even if you take only the hospitals and accept that the average one is only half the size of the one in Brum, that adds up to £141 billion in outstanding PFI debts - which is 97% of GDP. Add that to the decalred debt of 68% of GDP, plus Student Loans, and we are looking at £255 billion (175% of GDP) of monies where the lender is directly looking to the taxpayer to pony up... and that doesn't include PFI debts in the education sector. Greece is at 125% of GDP but then they haven't had our Enron-style PM at the helm hiding debts in 'securitisation' structures. Brown will be lucky not be indicted for Securities Fraud in the US after all this comes out - selling gilts to US persons based on a prospectus that hid substantial liabilities. Then he really will wish he had not supported the new extradition treaty.

Sorry, I've been off-line for a day.

Who was Gillian Duffy?

If as Nick Robinson claims, the three main parties are looking to protect spending on health and education, whilst making cuts elsewhere, that is an excellent solution maybe for England. However, as we all know, health and education budgets for Scotland are solely the responsibility of the Scottish government. When will the main parties grasp the nettle and acknowledge this fact?

We await tonight's economic debate with bated breath, perhaps we will get some revelations???

However if Cameron is going to ensure no rise in business taxes to protect jobs, that is a good thing for all business and employment.

Nicky 67

Jumping ship with still a week to go are we?

If the article in the Torygraph proves to be right and that the Party walking into Power nest week walks out in five years or sooner not to return, surely there is logic for you to turn to Tories rather than the Lib/Dems. Just imagine 5 years of Tory leadership and then never never again. But hold on, there is that % chance that the Tories could get the Country back on course and then never be removed. Decisions eh - Think I go for a lie down and maybe the wheels will fall off another campaign.

Can we ALL JUST remember that a HUGE PART of our deficit WAS CAUSED BY CASINO TRADING BANKS?

18. At 10:49am on 29 Apr 2010, Susan-Croft wrote:

Of course your post as usual leaves out some facts which your conservative ramblings don't mention.
Greece's debt as a share of GDP was 115-120%, compared to the UK's 54%, and while our economy is slowly growing, Greece is still in recession. The UK has had periods of much higher national debt in the past. Government borrowing was over triple current levels in 1950. Interest rates are low in the UK, meaning the cost of financing national debt is low. The rate on long term gilts (30 years) is 4.1% (and it's fallen since the start of 2010) This means we spend a relatively small percentage of GDP on debt financing. The average UK debt maturity is 17 years. This is a much longer time period than other countries and means we have to refinance a small % of debt than before. We have independent monetary policy and have more flexibility to avoid the potential of deflation. This is not to say the situation is not very serious but a bit of POSITIVE counter, against your pessimistic right wingism.
You will note that a majority of conservative supporters are higher income earners than labour and lib dem. So faster and harder austerity plans will hit and hurt lower income earners harder (please bear in mind the income levels of the group of people/bankers who caused this mess in the first place). I notice the conservative posters are usually on larger detached-semi properties and more lib dem/lab on terraced housing. Im sure you have noticed this too.
Its clear that large cuts will have to be made whichever party is elected. Its also clear that there is a big difference in how to do this and which parties will try and protect those most vulnerable. The moral choice is simply not conservatives.

The Conservative party was honest about having to make cuts. They called it 'an age of austerity' that they would usher in back at their conference in 2009. The response was for them to dip sharply in the polls shortly afterwards.

The three main parties were quick to notice and made sure no such mentions of cuts/austerity were passed again.

If you're aware of the situtation in public finances you know that cuts are going to come after the election. However the average Joe Bloggs is still more likely to vote for the man that says he can magic a way out of this mess without them no matter how unrealistic that claim is.

So no, unless all three parties come clean no one individual party alone is going to let on about what's going to happen with their finances.

So at the risk of sounding unpopular I hereby place the blame on you, the voter.

jr @ 75

"It is an account of a desperate spinner trying to find shiny nuggets of tabloid propaganda, in an environment entirely devoid of such things."

Calm down for goodness sake! You sound like you're completely losing it. What's up? - you still worried about the Libs? Guess you must be.

The IFS indicate (it was a lead item on the evening news yesterday) that the Lib Dems have disclosed a substantially higher percentage of where they want the axe to fall on public spending than either Labour or the tories have so far managed.

Make of that what you will. I've told you what I make of it. By all means comment on it yourself - I'm sure you can weave it into the fabric of the "tory story" if you try hard enough. It's what you do, isn't it? (when you're not spockerising me to kingdom come).

IDL @ 77

"Is there an option for Mr Pillock?!!"

No, there isn't. Hurtful.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

tory and ? @ 78

"Nice to see old Saga back, demonstrating once again his masterly misunderstanding of the problem. That doesn't stop him sharing his views with us, whether we want to or not."

Okay, well done for writing that.

Now explain what you mean by my "misunderstanding" of the problem. Tell me which problem you're referring to, and where you think my misunderstanding (lol) is.

Then I'll explain why you're wrong.