Waste not...

As usual, you are behind the curve on this one.

Of course, people are concerned about where the spending cuts are going to go. The country is in a financial mess and getting us out of it is going to be painful. Natural instinct is for people to always believe that cuts should affect them personally as little as possible - unfortunately, this is not always the case.

The BBC and other media would have done their job better if they could have done this type of exercise at the time when the debt was mounting up with no attempt to reduce expenditure. Why were you not asking people then how long the country could continue to spend much more than the tax revenues received - even during times of debt fuelled growth booms?

RE CockedDice,

I don't think that is entirely fair, they may well of got a different response when the debt was mounting up because we have been consistently sold that cuts are needed as a necessity.

I agree a before picture would of been nice in order to show how views have changed if at all.

So basically you are confirming the view that the tories have no genuine mandate for the suicidal cuts they are planning?

I think CockedDice has it absolutely spot on, to be frank. Instead of the feeble, supine, happy-to-be-manipulated behaviour the lobby and the MSM exhibited during the Blair and Brown era, there should have been a damn sight more difficult questions like these being asked.

The fact that we were lied to for 13 years about the financial position didnt help. And the MSM did nothing to bring it to our attention until the cat was out of the bag. Lazy, ineffective journalism.

"These anxieties grow louder the further north you are, when you speak to women not men, and to those who work in the public rather than the private sector."

How odd, LOL. Wouldnt be in the labour heartlands, would it Nick? Where the party has been waving the coalition/ABL bogeyman around, trying to scare the natives, if buying their votes has failed?

"Those barely suppressed doubts and fears are the reason the politicians were so cautious at election time. However, in the past few days the debate has begun to open up again. Gordon Brown's old ally Ed Balls has warned that even the policy his party advocated at the election risked driving the economy back into recession."

Quelle surprise. Blinky shoots himself in the foot yet again. Honestly, the man must have feet resembling mature truckles of Emmenthal by now.

At risk of getting this thread closed within a a record single digit number, 'A new BBC poll demonstrates' is usually enough to raise a wry smile.

But in this case, fair do's, and for the neatly recycled piece, which does suggest a commitment to waste reduction.

However, if 'the BBC' is trying to engage in debate, especially on cuts, it might be better that every talking head with a selective cause were not given headline treatment on a case by case basis, especially when seldom troubled by having to answer why they think they are special and who they feel should do without so theirs can prevail.

ps: Private wonderings by anyone are of questionable value, journalistically. Unless attributed and subsantiated, they remain at best the opinion of the author.

NIMBI'ism is universal. We all want cuts to hurt somebody else!

The public debt cuts need to be gigantic for two reasons: first the British taxpayer had to bail out half the World's banks because they were based here, and second the taxpayer cannot pay the increased tax increases without killing the economy.

The latter point (taxpayer cannot pay...) is not right of-course as the cuts will be just as damaging as the same amount of money needs to be extracted. [I will not go into the absurdities of PFI/PPP funding again here - except to note that these methods inevitably lead to this same problem.]

Overall, the real problem is still the level of private debt. You can't run a society with houses at 12 times income in the capital and with first purchase ages of 52 fro men and 59 for women. This is the real problem!

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

John-f-H @7

You're right that the high level of private debt means that the scope for the consumer to drive growth from this pointed is very limited - not to mention the silly income levels required to get on the housing ladder.

Unfortunately, it suited the last government to allow the debt boom to continue as it was the only means to fund their ever increasing public expenditure.

Cocked dice has a point, in a democracy the role of the press is to keep the legislation honest.

Now for 13 years it has not been able to do that. Now there are retired General's questioning the veracity of Prime Ministers and Defence ministers, labour politicians who hid behind the veil of secrecy now trying to blame the former editor of the News of the World for their woes 7 years after he left the paper. At least 3 professional footballers gagging the press about their philandering ways. Also we have US citzens suing each other in UK courts for libel? Surely this tells us that the the law is out of sync?

This to me points to bad laws passed to quickly by a government with an agenda it wanted to keep secret from the population. The nod to the banks to keep bringing in the money, by whatever means, the changing of how both inflation and unemployment were measured are testimony to this. How can you justify not having the cost of your mortgage/house prices in the inflation figures? The current HMRC fiasco points to a similar conclusion, somebody got it very very wrong and as usual we have to pay. The phrase used to be Caveat emptor, why does this not apply to the Government?

Sorry I have gone of on a rant. The press should have held the gov ernment to account earlier, in 1997 at least, we might not have had the dome then. Now the BBc look to be chasing the horse long after it bolted. The stable keeper has changed but the manure has been left.

I like the metaphor for the debate on the 6 billion during the election. The house however was not burning down but was merely showing signs of subsidence. The choice now is which parts of the sprawling edifice to let collapse so as to spend the money saving the rest.

My fear is that the current government will let some pieces collapse and merely paper over the cracks in the rest. The only piece they appear to show any sign of fully shoring up and repairing is the vault, however it is the weight of the ever exapanding vault which is causing the subsidence.

There is however little point asking the residents of the house which parts to let go and which repair - almost without exception they choose pieces they do not use to let go and repair the bits they use whether it is the bathroom or a superfluous luxury gazebo in the garden.

Maybe I am on the wrong blog. Maybe this is for the students of politics, the obsessed with politics and more.

Most of us just don't have the time to pull the meat off the bones you know.

Most of us are sensible honest law abiding English people who know what's good for us. We know the basics of intelligent handling of our own household finances and trust that this new honest coalition government will love this country and we do (Blair and Brown DID NOT, they were into ruling the world) and do what is right, if not popular, pro bono publico.

I once worked for a department within a huge successful financial institution. This department was set up to trouble shoot and resolve some embarrasing and costly mistakes made by a cavalier and inefficient arm of the business in the past. We all knew from day one that if we did our jobs right we would be doing ourselves out of a job.

This is entirely the edict by which the coalition may fear they have to work to.

However, I feel, in this case, if they do their jobs right, yes they will suffer unpopularity from those not too bright individuals who can see no further than their noses, but in the end they may well be returned with a resounding cheer and a huge majority. My hopes anyway...

oh, BTW, feast long on the pic. of the budget portfolio case above. That is soon to be dumped (which colour wheelie bin) and replaced with a brand new one. Ha!

None of the Parties were honest with us . However all of us knew what was that CUTS had to come hence the result of the election for a hung parliment. Perhaps we thought all parties might try solve this massive problem together. I for one feel that pain now can give us gain in the future. It may also act as a spur away from the dependancy culture we know have .

I think I'm onwe of the 25% who don't believe in the need for cuts, and no, I'm not economically ignorant. Ten years of four per-cent inflation would result in a very manageable deficit, thank you very much; not my opinion but that of the IMF. And as for the comment that you can't run a society where the average house price is five times the avaerage salary, well, yes you can. Mass home ownership has been a feature of the UK economy for only 30 years or so. Until the 1980s most people couldn't afford to buy a house, and didn't aspire to. What's changed is people's aspirations, but just because people feel they ought to be able to afford a house doesn't make it true. The return of the large-scale landlord is just as likely as the return of the owner-occupier; by the way, I don't like that idea, I would much prefer a country where people could afford to buy houses, but just because I like the idea doesn't mean it has to be true.

As long as we can afford the interest, and can pay down the principle in a planned and affordable way, debt doesn't matter too much.

But I'm in a minority, so I have to be wrong,

John

"At a hairdressers down the road customers expressed their fears that the government might cut the wrong things."

Maybe discount this. Only natural to have such morbid thoughts when waiting for your annual snip.

Good blog though, Nick. The election "debate" in this area was a charade. My view has always been that we should take a measured approach; our march back to fiscal health should be just that - a slow steady hike - not an undignified and panicky (and potentially counter productive) scramble. That Ed Balls has come around to agreeing with me is not particularly exciting (corks will stay right where they are) but it's welcome.

StanleyRIP

I agree that house prices should be more realistic, If this had been the case in the recent years alot of people who told lies on their mortgage applications would not have done so.This would have cuased less of a subprime culture .However the last goverment spent much more than we earnt and any loan has to be paid back at interest.The longer we take the more interest we pay.

4. Fubar_Saunders
"The fact that we were lied to for 13 years about the financial position didnt help."


I think 13 years is pushing it a bit Fubes.

The government were held to account up to the point of the Andrew Gilligan report on WMD and Iraq. That was a pivotal changing moment in reporting not just for the BBC - for which it was traumatic - but also for the rest of the MSM.

Only the independent bloggers stood up to the government but even then it took a long time for their message to get out. The rise in personal credit levels were there for all to see but the consumer fuelled boom to an extent silenced the doom sayers.

People and organisations that opposed the government's views were disparaged publicly and in some cases brutally. Effectively it did not pay to say anything. In the Westminster Lobby journalists would be excluded from the scoops or briefings if they became too hostile in quizzing Cabinet Ministers or the PM

We have all had it too good now we have to beat our backs until they bleed! Ed Balls may be a Johnny come lately but he has the courage to question the nearly established conventional wisdom of Micawber moneynomics which equates the management of the economy to a simple balance sheet issue. All cuts will have consequences for the direct services and for the effects on the economy. Half a million public sector workers losing their jobs will not only cost a packet for severance but will engender demands on other services and transfer payments and reduce their spending on the private sector. There is inefficiency in the public sector which should be purged but there is not profiteering found in the private sector as exampled by £150 sunglasses that cost less than a pound to make but require enormous overheads and margins to deliver the product to the customer.

Our "march back to fiscal health" first has to negotiate the obstacle course of a reduced, and still reducing, manufacturing base.
Or if you like, we pay ourselves too much to enable the company to make products and sell them (aka: we don't buy our own products because they're too expensive).
Fortunately the costs of foreign produced goods are rising fairly rapidly and may soon price themselves out of our shops.
Whatever.
The same problem will still exist in five years. We will have reduced services and reduced manpower from same, but have heightened unemployment and thence increased benefits !

Who knows who will "win" in five years. I expect it to be the most believable liar, as always.

The electorate, as well as being fickle, are also easily fooled.

In court, juries are not told of any previous convictions the accused may have, in case this predisposes them towards a guilty verdict irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, the Tories' previous crimes against the North cannot be concealed. In some parts of the country, they won't get a fair trial, even if they cut sensitively and judiciously (which they probably won't). Those on the right for whom any public spending is anathema will of course revel in talk of 25% reductions in budgets - probably bay for more. But politically, they are irrelevant because they'd only vote Tory anyway. Voters who swung to the Tories in the last election will turn away if they judge that cuts are unnecessarily brutal or driven by ideology rather than economics. And the judgement may be harsh rather than fair because the Tories have previous.

I have just tried using the calculator thoughtfully provided by the BBC ( https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11069101 ) to explore levels of cutting. The target is to obtain £50 billion in savings.

I find that across-the-board cuts of 8% save £52.7 billion.

If we make no cuts to health, then 9% cuts on everything else saves £48.3 billion, while 10% saves $53.7 billion.

Applying the level of cutting that the government has been advertising, namely 25% for all except health, saves a whopping £134.25 billion!

So, is the calculator accurate, is the target of £50 billion per year wrong, or is the government using the economic situation as a smokescreen for swingeing cuts made for ideological reasons?

The problem is that during the run-up to the elction, nobody wanted to 'frighten the horses' - any party displaying any candour about possible spending cuts immediately saw their poll ratings slide. Hence the debate was never going to occur before the election, and it was ineveitable that after the event we would be faced with David Cameron's 'age of austerity' that he had become too afraid to talk about.

You along with the BCC and the Lib Dems and Conservatives using this survey to justify their cuts fail to understand what this survey "proves" and what the real issue is

This survey "proves" that 60% of people want the deficit cut, but not by how much, this survey will cover those who think it should be cut by 1p to those thinking it should be cut completly!

Considering the fact that all 3 main parties said they would cut it, the fact that they have far more than 60% of the seats in parliment would perhaps have allerted you to this without wasting license fee payers money commisioning such a survey!

The debate is not about if there should be cuts, but how big they should be!

Your failure to undertand this Nick, and the BBC's seeming to want to debate a point that no-one is debating is shocking!

This survey, research and article have been a complete waste of my license fee.

Any chance of a refund?

It will be interesting to watch BBC coverage of the cuts/return to recession. As Nick admits, national coverage has been weak so far.

Local BBC has been far better.

They cover four large conurbations. One has a tory local government which is cutting services - making thousands redudant directly and tens of thousands indirectly. Local BBC report each cut, each local business that collapses, each drop in consumer confidence/sales (the cuts city is down, the 3 other cities are up comparitive to same period last year). Latest is the 50 construction skilled trade aprentices building firms had taken on in preparation for new contracts, now cancelled, and the young people now on benefits.

Good work by the local BBC reporters.

We are now becoming aware of the tory intimidation of the BBC which is restricting exposure at the national level.

Has the BBC got the integrity to forcefully cover the return to recession when their own livelyhoods are at stake?

#16 Sagamix

Not sure who is advocating "an undignified and panicky (and potentially counter productive) scramble."

I assume you mean the Coalition.

Eliminating the structural deficit over a 5 year period just seems sensible, and the focus on the structural deficit rather than the deficit itself correct (to allow for global economic circumstances outside our control).

We are`still at least a whole Parliament away from starting to reduce the national debt.

So the coalition is increasing the national debt by 500 billion (from memory) and debt interest payments will be higher in 2015 than they are now.

Put like this the coalition are trying to steer a course between reducing the deficit and maintaining demand. Scylla and Charybdis. A`difficult task.

16. At 10:59am on 06 Sep 2010, sagamix wrote:
"That Ed Balls has come around to agreeing with me is not particularly exciting (corks will stay right where they are) but it's welcome."

Not something I thought you would be admitting to. Agreeing with Edd the Balls who is now calling for not just returning to the spending culture that he and Gordon had fueled but also increasing public spending. (From an interview on the radio).

We do really need a debate, not the cuts but rather what we can afford and how we will pay for it.

This I feel would then draw lines in the sand.

Debt is the name of the game and the UK will spend more than £30 billion servicing our public debt while our private debt stands at;
•Secured debt: £1,239 billion
•Unsecured debt: £218 billion
•Credit card debt: £58.50 billion

It is now estimated that the average debt in the UK is now at £65,000 for every man, woman and child and on top of that the national debt is forecast to hit a trillion even with our current fore casted cuts.

So Saga you and Edd plan to reduce this over what sort of time scale. Perhaps you have been to Ocean finance and got one of those plans. A pound down and the .........

23. At 11:23am on 06 Sep 2010, younghal wrote:

The calculate is roughly correct but can't take into account such things as the PPP / PFI programmes that the last goverment were so keen on using. Costs for these programmes have now gone through the roof due to refinancing costs which were a major part of these delivering at affordable levels. It is thought that the majority of these programmes will end up costing much more than where first thought. There are NHS Trusts that are paying more than 10% of their budgets to pay for these programs. Which is why so many are now struggling to deliver the level of service. Nice to have a nice new shiny hospital if you can't afford the staff to operate it.

Tax avoidance. That's what should be cut. You'd have your £6 billion tomorrow if they got on the cases of big corporate schemes that are making all the rest of us have to pay up. I saw a Labour person on one of the news programmes saying that they had tackled tax havens, but the evidence is very much to the contrary. Is this going to change? I don't think so. Look who's advising the Coalition on cuts. 'Nuff said.
Regards, etc. RWWCardiff.

StanleyRIP @15

And as for the comment that you can't run a society where the average house price is five times the avaerage salary, well, yes you can. Mass home ownership has been a feature of the UK economy for only 30 years or so. Until the 1980s most people couldn't afford to buy a house, and didn't aspire to. What's changed is people's aspirations, but just because people feel they ought to be able to afford a house doesn't make it true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real factor that has caused house prices to increase is the relaxing of the lending criteria by the banks.

If banks go back to limiting loans to 3x income in all cases (and I am not advocating this!) you would see house prices drop off a cliff regardless of the population's aspirations for home ownership. It is the ability to obtain mortgage debt that has driven the housing boom not a change in its desirability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

'Ten years of four per-cent inflation would result in a very manageable deficit, thank you very much; not my opinion but that of the IMF.'


The problem with this approach is the simple fact that we still need to borrow at least £150billion a year. If you were considering buying gilts as a foreign investor and thought the Government would try and inflate their way out of trouble would you be happy to lend at current rates of around 3%-4%?

Arguably incresing government debt is different to personal debt - because government debt is passed down to future generations. So what is brown's justification for the massive expansion of government debt under his period of office? Debt versus GDP reached a low of 29.33% in 2002 - at the end of the first 5 years of labours reign. Remember for at least a couple of years the government stuck to conservative spending plans. From 2003 through to 2010 (est) debt v GDP rose to 53.15%, and don't forget that GDP rose over 35% in the same period so the increase in actual debt was for it to DOUBLE, from £340Bn to £680Bn. In a statement of the obvious at least some of the boom was created by increasing public spending when arguably it wasn't needed. And this ignores the future plans of Brown which were for debt to expand even further taking us back to the 60's and 70's in terms of debt versus GDP.

Of coure we like public spending that benefits us and dislike public spending that benefits others but not us. But we're not foolish enough to think that borrowing £1 in 4 of what the government spends is sustainable in the long term. But was life all that terrible back in 2002? If we could get back to those sort of levels of public spending we'd be allright - wouldn't we?

#1 yeah about 3.5 years behind the curve

#16 if the cuts or prudant spending had been adherred to since 1999 then we would not be in this mess in the first place.

Two comments.

1. For Nick to try to take the moral high ground on the lack of a deficit cutting debate during the election campaign is outrageous. If there was not sufficient debate on this topic I think the BBC and you Mr Robinson (as the BBC's political editor) have to take your share of the blame. You could have run this series of programmes before the election.

2. It seems to me that a blog from the BBC's political editor should cover the political issues of the day. Instead Nick you seem to be writing pieces on an agenda determined by the Number 10 media machine. Have you ever considered that this may mean you miss stories which Number 10 does not want discussed?

Back in the Thatcher Recession of the early Eighties I had a nightmare in which all the money had run out and people were begging for jobs in the street.

I cheered myself then that `they' wouldn't be so stupid to allow that to happen.

Then along came New Labour and the genius of Chancellor Gordon Brown. As you know he was so clever he managed to abolish boom and bust. So the nation went on a spending spree racking up huge debts. But why worry, there will be no more boom or bust?

Then there was the mother of all booms followed by the mother of all busts which remains with us to this day. Then the money ran out......

Nothing wrong with my dreaming, it is my analysis of reality which is faulty: `they' did allow it to happen. This is probably why they chose not to be candid at the election: they felt stupid.

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

26. At 11:34am on 06 Sep 2010, jon112uk wrote:

We are now becoming aware of the tory intimidation of the BBC which is restricting exposure at the national level.

"We"?

It sounds like you have some inside information on this, care to share?

Amongst all the gloom you say:
I recall Gordon Brown's white anger when I asked him repeatedly in an interview whether he was being straight with the public about the need to cut spending. Interviewers, I was told through thinly stretched lips should never question the prime minister's honesty


Hahahahahaha bigest laugh of the day

"Instead of the feeble, supine, happy-to-be-manipulated behaviour the lobby and the MSM exhibited during the Blair and Brown era, there should have been a damn sight more difficult questions like these being asked."

Except the problem being that during the Blair/Brown era the national debt was dropping for most of the time, only rising about half as much as they had cut it in the latter part - only the impact of bailing out the banks and the recession that followed actually started raising the debt significantly and problematically, and by then the media rightly had other issues they were covering.

Source: https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html (which is based on stats that are easy to find elsewhere)

3#

Nope. He's not saying that at all. What he is saying is that there IS a mandate, providing it happens to someone else and not the respondent.

Completely different.

18#

How many years do you figure it was then?

17#

"I agree that house prices should be more realistic, If this had been the case in the recent years alot of people who told lies on their mortgage applications would not have done so.This would have cuased less of a subprime culture ."

Genuine question, how do you work that out? Mortgage fraud and sub-prime do not necessarily go hand in hand. And, you havent mentioned buy to let as being a major factor in pushing up prices and squeezing the first time buyers out either, regardless of their levels of earnings.

"I think I'm onwe of the 25% who don't believe in the need for cuts, and no, I'm not economically ignorant."

I'd seek a second opinion if I were you.

"once I suggested that perhaps they might like to give up their tax credits or their free bus pass they became rather less keen"

Yes, this is rather indicative of the blind following of the cut, cut, cut policy without anyone actually knowing how it will effect them.

We're all in this together apparently, it's just a shame that the majority of us don't know what exactly "this" is and what it's going to mean for us.

10#

Good analogy, like it.

Nothing like stating the obvious is there!

Of course most folk know and agree to cutting cost, we have to - it's as simple as that. The big argument will always be how much and from where

We all know the money has to come form somewhere, the problem is that each different person has their own idea of what would be best to chop; and this is usually the items that they don't personally require!

Middle England (whatever it is now) will want welfare cutting (scroungers etc etc, blah blah) and people on welfare will want tax credits for the middle classes cutting - and ne'er the twain shall meet

I do think that the coalitions' plans for an across the board 25% are too high and it will affect public confidence and have a knock on effect on jobs in the private sector. I think they are wrong to follow New Labours' policy of sticking to plans whatever the cost - just because you can't admit you were wrong

They should reassess the situation and if they feel they can cut less now to help the economy in the wider sense then they should do so, and admit they got it wrong. There's nothing bad in saying that the initial assessment was a bit wrong but it's been put right

A bit of honesty is all I ask.....

OK - i'll get my coat....

One of the easiest ways to cut the debt and reduce spending is further integration with the EU. Lets abolish the international development (aid) department and transfer this role to the EU, using the extra funding that Gordon gave the EU with the UK's reduced rebate.

"Ed Balls may be a Johnny come lately but he has the courage to question the nearly established conventional wisdom of Micawber moneynomics which equates the management of the economy to a simple balance sheet issue. All cuts will have consequences for the direct services and for the effects on the economy. Half a million public sector workers losing their jobs will not only cost a packet for severance but will engender demands on other services and transfer payments and reduce their spending on the private sector. There is inefficiency in the public sector which should be purged but there is not profiteering found in the private sector as exampled by £150 sunglasses that cost less than a pound to make but require enormous overheads and margins to deliver the product to the customer."

Watty, what the heck are you on about? Blinky a "johnny come lately"?? He's been involved in the New Labour project for about 15 years. As for courage, like Brown he wouldnt know courage if it bit him on the backside.

Oh and incidentally, with private sector sunglasses, you dont HAVE to pay 150 quid, if you think its a rip off. You can buy a ten quid pair or less from TK Maxx if you'd prefer. We cant control what the private sector charges, unless we vote with our feet. Typically, apart from banks that Labour bailed out because it was politically expedient to buy the votes in the areas they were based in, private companies arent, by and large, controlled by the state. The public sector is an entirely different kettle of fish.

35#

How very convenient of you Cassandra to have such a selective memory when it comes to the likes of Whelan, McBride, Bad Al Campbell et al and yet end up foaming at the mouth about Coulson. Them No10 Comms chiefs are rascals, arent they?? You ever heard of "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em"?

"We are now becoming aware of the tory intimidation of the BBC which is restricting exposure at the national level."

Hah. You reap what you sow, mate.

"Has the BBC got the integrity to forcefully cover the return to recession when their own livelyhoods are at stake?"

Funny how their own livelihoods werent at stake when large numbers in the private sector were getting made redundant or forced to take shorter hours or pay cuts in order to stay in a job, eh Jon? Dont recall you making too much noise about that when Brown was top dog.

What short selective memories you lefties have.

#23 I find all these numbers make reconciliation difficult and I am not sure that the BBC does enough to keep us on the right path. Could the £50bn number be the additional cuts (over those pencilled in by the previous govt) that the current govt needs to achieve to meet its aim of eliminating the long term element of the deficit within the life of the current parliament? The current deficit is of the order of £150bn per annum, Labour had announced their plans to reduce the deficit by £57bn per annum over 5 years of the parliament and we are told that the structural, or long term, part of the total deficit is just over £100bn.
So Labour's £57bn plus the additional £50bn target of the present govt equals £107bn reduction by 2015. The balance of some £45bn is assumed to be eliminated by the economy's return to normal growth.

23.

Imagine how relieved you would feel if instead of having both legs amputated as you expected before the operation, you wake up after the op and find out that it is only one that was removed? The carefully managed 25% or 40% cuts headlines are precisely that, over promising pain and under delivering on it is always preferred to the reverse for physcological reasons.
The headlines have been all about preparing the population to agree that the goal and general methodology is desireable - which seems to have worked on 60% of the population thus far.

Also remember the people paying for the Conservatives expect a return on their investment - that return is either business (i.e. outsourcing of such functions as auditing etc.) or reductions in taxations which affect them more (IHT, top rates, capital gains etc which they can fiddle with to minimise their overall tax bills).
Why else was Danny Alexander at pains to try to rule out such giveaways during the course of the current parliament recently, clearly the scale currently being requested/suggested in media releases is in excess of purely what is required solely to fix the deficit.
Part of the theoretical cuts was always to provide for reductions in certain taxes as contained in the Conservative manifesto and to pay the extra required for other of their pledges.

The Libdems will have made a success of the coalition if they keep cuts solely for the purpose of reducing the deficit and not for political gimmics that benefit only the Conservatives supporters.

37#

No 10 Comms chief involved in media manipulation and shock horror, maybe even civil offences.

I mean, in the wake of the last lot, its hardly "hold the front page" news is it?

It is certainly newsworthy but at the end of the day when we do see how the coalition are going to cut spending we may yet be pleasantly surprised at just how crearive they have managed to be.

This is what is really annoying Labour for they have no idea what is going on. Not something they can cope with after years of having their own way and wasting money on an unprecdented scale. It is this wasting of so much that can make it easier to cut in ways that are palatable.

We have already seen how they are not going for across the board cuts but are looking at many smaller ways of saving money. There will be a lot of huffing and puffing in the meantime but it is not even about whether there should be a cut in spending it is all about how clever they are at doing it.

From the political perspective, it is completely understandable that none of the mainstream Parties wanted to mention the public spending cuts that would have to come following the General election, because nobody ever got elected by promising lots of very bad news.

In fact, they still are'nt.

Namely, the full horror of our fiscal situation, the National Debt, which since I last looked a few days ago, has now gone up by another couple of billion pounds to £945Bn.

Instead, all political and media focus is on reducing the annual deficit, as if that is going to magically produce some significant improvement in our fiscal position.

It won't and that is very easy to visualise why not.

Say you currently owe the bank £945,000 and promise that you'll reduce your spending next year so that the difference between your income and your outgoings will 'improve' to -£75,000 so at the end of the year, why, you'll only owe the bank £1,020,000.

I'm sure the bank manager will be very impressed with this 'improvement' in your fiscal standing - not.

It is not naturally in my nature to paint it black but in this case the only other colour involved is red, lots of it.

#28 Before the election I got a phone call from a debt manaagement agency , not that I needed it, talking about a HMG back scheme to write off/reduce debt, I gave my name as Gordon Brown 10 Downing Street with a fast appraoching debt of £1 Trillion and could he help , the person on the other end was not amunsed, Oh the irony of it all

Dear oh dear!

Q: Does the prime minister believe entirely Andy Coulson's denials?
A: [No verbal response, although the spokesman did appear to nod faintly.]
Q: I didn't hear that.
A: That's what I said.
Q: But does the prime minister believe Andy Coulson?
A: Andy has made the position clear, and there have been a number of reports over the past few days but none of those reports change anything as far as the prime minister is concerned.
Q: Just to confirm ... I'm asking you if you can say he believes Andy Coulson.
A: Obviously he accepts the position, obviously.
Q: Does he believe the statement?
A: Obviously he accepts the position.
Q: I note that you're not saying he believes Andy Coulson's statement.
A: This has been gone over many times in the past. The prime minister accepts the position. He has full confidence in Andy Coulson. And he continues to do his job.

It doesn't matter who you are, where you live, or whether you work in the public or private sector, most of us cannot be spared pain from cuts of between 25 - 40% that has been bandied around lately - though I think the 40% is purely Tory propaganda to help make 25% cuts seem less painfull " ... it could have been worse!"

People are going to lose jobs, possibly homes too because polititions and the financial industry in this country got it wrong (and mostly couldn't care less what happens to the British public) we're only here to pay for the mistakes of our leaders and pay taxes to bail out failing banks!

If you work in the private sector, big cuts to public sector spending could very well affect you too, as these days most public sector works and contracts are carried out by private companies, from construction of car parks, school refurbishments, new highways, new computer systems, to school meals etc. So it won't be just the public sector workers losing jobs and their homes!

Dear old Fubar - I think Coulson ad Campbell are equally despicable and should both be pursued. Whereas you apparently think it is ok if your side does it but not okay if the other side do it. In my view that is an intellectually and morally bankrupt position.

Would it be rude to ask if you could try to boil some of your points down a bit. Multiple long wordy posts make it difficult for other posters. Of course we all still think your contributions are very useful.

50 Fubar Saunders

Off topic it may be but for those who won't let it rest the list you have just quoted is sufficient to make us all foam at the mouth.

Thank goodness the Coalition has someone like Coulson who understands how the dirty side of political spin operates.

After all you can't fight a pitbull with a poodle.

Wow, the BBC is very touchy about the Coulson affair! Comments removed just for alluding to it - without repeating any allegations. In fact, mine (37) just cited Number 10's own press release. Amazing how easy it is to stifle discussion if you've got the money to hire the right lawyers.

the problem with this govt is that most of the cabinet, a large number of their voters and all their financial backers/donors will not be hit personally when it comes to harder and faster cuts. or not as badly as others. infact george osborne himself has stated publically that recession/bust is part of the natural cycle of capitalism. i really couldnt think of a more apathetic, imoral bunch to to start weilding the axe.. perhaps at the very very least and as a matter of principle and public relations before they cut welfare or public services they should insist their donors/backers start paying the proper rate of tax, get rid of tax avoidance schemes (invest more in the investigation of this instead of cutting hrmc investigators) and then start to deal with tax havens. then perhaps increase taxation for those who can afford it. but then again if they did that they wouldnt be CONservatives (were all in this together lmao) would they.

Is the real issue not whether there are cuts but how big they should be and where should they fall? And then what exactly are the implications if the cuts are not made. We seem so ignorant of the implications and yet neither the BBC nor Labour are doing enough to inform and educate.
Ed Balls is a (almost) lone voice arguing for no cuts at all, presumably not even those announced by the govt of which he was part, but even he would surely agree that it would be "prudent" to have a plan for both deficit reduction and debt reduction over time as well as a plan for the balance of spending and tax to meet those reductions.
We, the population, should be having a debate about how the reductions should be achieved (in terms of the best balance between spending cuts and tax increases) and when the reductions should commence and then how fast it is necessary to carry out the reductions.
The govt has said it will protect spending on the NHS and I daresay there would be a huge level of support for this (in the absence of any explanation as to what that implies for other spending or taxation) but what level of support is there for protecting international aid? Should we be spending billions on two aircraft carriers, the benefits from which may be limited, if only because we will not have aircraft capable of flying from them?

ah fubar. i see you are back from the ukip conference in torquay. i hear that you were originally offering to host it at your house in belgium, but decided the poster "we dont like europe" might have upset the neighbours!

Judging by the interviews on Breakfast News this morning, the public now seems to believe that the requirement for cuts is due to an overspend on public services. Nobody mentioned the banking crisis. I'd like the BBC to ask the public whether they feel that our roads and schools are too well maintained, our hospitals too clean, our armed forces too well protected or our students too well taught before they agree that we have spent too much on public services. How soon we forget that it is the superstars in the City that got us into this mess, and excessive public spending was needed to save their skins. Perhaps some of the beneficiaries of the City's genius could help us out of the mess before we raid the public sector spending budget.

41. At 12:42pm on 06 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
3#

Nope. He's not saying that at all. What he is saying is that there IS a mandate, providing it happens to someone else and not the respondent.

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

Mandate means: you tell people clearly what you will do if they elect you, the people then go ahead and elect you.

As Nick appears to be saying, the tories were at best economical with the truth about the extent of their cuts.... yet despite the disastrous record of labour, the tories still could not obtain a proper majority.

The liberals - the only people who's vote really counted - said nothing about backing disastrous levels of cuts.

They have no mandate for putting millions out of work and putting the economy back into recession.

Nick - still no comment on Mr Coulson.

I think your silence on this issue speaks volumes.

Can I just check something. In 2006 Labour were in power and 2 people from the NoW went to jail for phone taping (hacking into voicemail messages). They held an enquiry and could not find a reason to charge Coulson then? Have I missed anything or forgotten part of the sequence?

Now we have Prescott et al shouting again for an enquiry, what do they think will be found this time? Did the terms and conditions of the last enquiry prohibit the truth being uncovered? If not why scream for more public expense? Or perhaps they have more faith in the impartiality of this government.

Either way with Balls stating that the last Labour government would have brought about recession, and Prescott doubting the veracity of their enquiries I think we are well shot of them.

The cuts hwerever they fall now stand a chance of being fair something that I doubt would have happened before May.

#23 younghal

Unfortunately I think you have included a 10% cut in the welfare bill too.

Cutting the state pension, child benefit, tax credit, disabilitity living allowance, winter fuel payments, unemployment benefit etc would have a fortunte given that this is bar far the biggest area of spending.

However, it would be political suicide and would leave the poorest in society much worse off.

Back to Nicks point about honesty though - everyone is going to have to share the pain here and hopefully the star chambers and brightest civil servants will try to spread the load evenly, and explain it clearly so everyone says 'fair enough', tightens their belts a bit and moves on.

However, I'm not sure the media, opposition etc are going to let that happen and there will be juicy headlines about how certain groups are worse off and a few millionaires (who don't use many public services) aren't sharing the burden, despite paying very large tax bills. Non-doms excepted!

R.

Why does every debate about everything have to turn into panto style, self congratulating, egotistical and stereotypical tit for tat?! The sensible answer is that just as with business or household budgets, debts would ideally be brought down and managed. For me the spending cuts are being pursued too quickly and the government is playing high stakes to get the finances where they want them. I can only assume that this is due to political will rather than financial prudence. I think that the government knows that we need to cut spending and that this is a once in a generation to cut it in one fell swoop. If the economy starts to recover they would find further cuts harder to justify, so they are cutting things they don't like alongside overspending, all to help their core voters - people who's main political aim is to pay less tax.

Once the economy picks up (which is almost inevitable despite the rhetoric), the public's hundreds of billions of pounds invested in the banks will magically shrink to a half-price sale to companies and investors ingratiated with the government. The government will have 3 dreams come true at once - reduced debt (to allow tax cuts), the public sector shrunk (to allow tax cuts) and control of the banks back with their old friends. For anyone who thinks I'm joining the party line tit for tats, I'm not. I think that both of the main parties would do similarly with the banks and their business chums. The main difference is that Labour want a large public sector, Conservative a minimal one. There doesn't appear to be a middle ground right now. The Liberals on the other hand appear to have sold their voters on the left down the river - I feel sorry for anyone who was gullible enough to vote for them!

@4 - Fubar_Saunders:

What a load of tosh you speak. We were not lied to for 13 years. Maybe you just didn't listen to what you were being told?

Labour made one mistake - they spent to heavily when things were obviously going to turn. They should have stocked the nations finances in the good days to protect us in the bad, instead they continued the record investment this country required after Thatcher and her savaging of the welfare state, the NHS and Education. It's a big mistake, but in regard of the countless good that government did against this one particular bad, I can accept that. The malicious lies perpetuated by the likes of you spouting verbosely that Labour lied for 13 years and the BBC was their willing mouthpiece make me seeth. Where would we be now if they hadn't have turned around the wholesale destruction of this country's fabric but the previous Tory infestation that obscenely attempted to call itself a government?

Ah yes, those tired old arguments about tory cuts versus labour investment, caring Gordon vs unprincipled and ideologically driven Dave.

This is like asking someone who's overweight if they should stop eating and if so what will they cut out of their diet?

The answer to the first question will inevitably be they'd like to lose weight, yes. The answer to the second would be qualified by various likes for pies, chips, cream cakes, alcohol... the list would go on just like the list for peoples' pet public services will go on.

The argument that we can afford all these services was lost long ago; we wouldn't have been staring bankruptcy in the face had newlabour not thrown money on PFI projects that will cost eight times the investment to pay off, one million extra public sector workers and a tax system so complicated that 10 million have overpaid due to the creaking HMRC computer.

The mess left by newlabour will have a terribly long tail but there is widespread agreement that 'something must be done'. As will all issues of this importance, time is of the essence and shirking the of responsibility of the reduction of our shocking debts will just encumber whole generations to come. Why anyone is listening to Ed Balls; the man who installed a tranquillity centre inot his department at the heart of the financial crisis is surely a man is a bit like taking advice on drinking from a man about to have a liver transplant and has ordered a large G&T. He is so much in denial about the newlabour years it is hard to come to the end of the list - the dreadful mess of grade inflation in education; the burdgeoning budget deficit; the ousting of Tony Blair; the cabal of smear merchants headed by Damian MacBride. It's all too depressing.

This debt problem will be sorted out by the coalition and it's got nothing whatsoever to do with newlabour unless they feel like offering an apology.

It's a great time to be a tory...

26 jon112uk

Fair comment except that at national level it is harder to find concrete examples of spending cuts. The NHS for example is a national body but administered at a local level. Indeed whilst policy is done in Whitehall local councils etc do the doing.

Equally many people only have a hazy idea about what a billion is. Oh, they know it is 9 zeroes preceded by a 1, but the concedpt is alien. So at local level the cuts can be identified. Then consider Whitehall itself: at the best of times it is opaque (whichever political party is in power) and at worst plain deceitful.

You are correct also on the knock on effects, which will further damage the economy. The other problem is the authenticity of national statistics: the previous government ackowledged a problem with employment, unemployment rates and claimant rates as they did not stack up. GDP collation is also now suspect with the debate focussed on how big the error margin is.

Will the political class be mature enough to debate the issues directly? Quite frankly so many of them have so little real life experience I doubt they can relate to the general public anymore.

silverlady@61 wrote:

"Thank goodness the Coalition has someone like Coulson"

>>

Exactly what Labour are thinking.

lefty 10.

How many of those in the labour party in the HoC will feel the effect of the cuts?

About 0. You make party political points but dont realise how foolish they sound.

#62. I agree but I think you will see the comment was rremoved on the ground of relevance.

I have a mate who works in a party HQ. One of his jobs is to monitor the BBC discussion boards. If a comment does not fit his view of the world he uses any possible technicality to complaqin about it and have it removed.

#59 - funnily enough many of my (private) company's main contracts are essentially paid for by the public sector. If income from the private sector is cut by 25% we'd be reliant on a mystical increase in private sector work (which looks to me as if it's mostly going offshore to cut costs). We'd probably need to cut at least 10% of our on-shore workforce - over a thousand skilled people losing their jobs, potentially their homes. There are lots of large private companies in a similar position. This is why I worry that the cuts are being rushed through too quickly and that it's a high stakes gamble. I'd sooner see sustainable cuts over a longer period and less pain for the populace.

#63 lefty

Nobody in the entire government will be affected by any of the cuts!

They earn too much money, it will be lower and middle income earners (as always) that get hit by this, this has always been the case and always will be

I agree with you that these people will bear the brunt of these cuts, but please stop banging on about Conservative MP's and ministers being the only ones who won't be affected - Labour and the LibDems have a lot of extremely wealthy members as well

The cuts have to come - surely you must agree that something has to give?

I don't agree with the 25-40% figures (not confirmed though) as I think that is too much too soon, I would prefer lower numbers now with a plan to reactively adjust the level of cuts as and when they are needed

66 @ 27

Okay John, I suppose “panicky scramble” is a bit lurid but it’s the image which keeps popping into my head. We could talk in terms of numbers instead, of course, but the trouble with that is it often gets misunderstood. Whether deliberately or accidentally, I don’t know, but I recall the time I demonstrated that Gordon Brown was 12% responsible for the state of our public finances – this exact figure - and certain bloggers (although not you, to be fair) became overly exercised about how I could be so precise. There was a margin of error obviously (I should have quoted a range of a point or two either way) but this seemed to be lost in translation; found myself going to the barricades over 12% when it could easily be 11 or 13 (even 13.5 at a push). Crazy. So safer to stick to images – but only relevant ones, such as this likening of our journey back to fiscal health (zero deficit, debt at 40% of GDP) to a sustained trek across some very rugged countryside. As we both know (since I guess we’ve both done one), the way to approach this is to pull on a sensible sweater, waterproofs and a sturdy pair of boots, then hoist the rucksack, head down and start walking. One foot after the other, steadily onwards we go, same pace until we get there. Which we will, providing we’re going in the right direction. This is my approach. Ed Balls’ too. What we don’t do is don speedos and a flimsy singlet and, first village we get to, start gallivanting up and down the High Street grinning and waving at people and giving it the big “I am” – which is what Osborne is doing. All very well doing that (probably get on the news) but in the meantime myself and Ed are disappearing off over the horizon.

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

The reason that Nick Robinson finds apprehension about the cuts in the North of England is that many can remember the indiscriminate butchery of manufacturing industry and concentration on finance during the Thatcher era. A great contrast to what happened in the German economy.

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

Bryn the Cat. I count at least two mistakes in your first two sentences of your second paragraph!!!

I think you will find the manufacturing declined faster post 1997 than it ever did before it.

Now as for whether or not we were lied to I refer you to the book "The Journey" where Mr Blair speaks about his idea to give the Bank of England its independence, Gordon Brown claimed it as his idea and the Ed Balls says he wrote the paper. Now only one of those is telling the truth the other two are telling lies. If that is the case now is it not logical to conclude that this is not the first time they have been economical with the truth.

Following that logic I would say that all three at one time or another have lied to the people of the UK.

Mr Blair himself admited that he was manipulative which leads you to suppose he would say what you wanted to hear rather than the facts.

Now I am not saying that previous legislations were not equally at fault, but you did categorically say that labour did not lie to the British people.

58#

Cassandra.

Not only are you leaning against an open door but you're also off topic.

Nobody gives a stuff. Cant you see that?

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

sagamix @80.

Goodbye Ed, goodbye sagamix.

Good of you to leave the messy business of clearing up the deficit to those who know what they are doing.

What an entriely typical newlabour attitude - spray around the debt and mess and leave someone else toclear up after you.

It's a great time to be a tory...

Bryn:

"Maybe you just didn't listen to what you were being told?"

Oh, I did listen. I listened to "Iraq has WMD's ready for 45 minute launch". I listened to "I'm a pretty straightforward kinda guy". I listened to "the UK economy is best placed to weather the downturn". I listened to it all. I just didnt believe a word of it. If a member of the NL government told me it was raining, I'd have to go outside and see if I got wet, to make certain.

"Labour made one mistake - they spent to heavily when things were obviously going to turn. They should have stocked the nations finances in the good days to protect us in the bad, instead they continued the record investment this country required after Thatcher and her savaging of the welfare state, the NHS and Education."

Your first line sums it up exactly and by saying so, you reinforce the line that your pathalogically hated opponents accused Brown of time and time again. "They failed to fix the roof whilst the sun was shining."

Record investment. Dont make me laugh Bryn. Record investment is not the same as "throw money at it", let alone taking into account Brown's famous double book keeping act. I cannot dispute that they spent money on these services, but proportionally, you have absolutely not got the increase in quality of service that you got concurrent with the amount spent. Absolutely not.

"It's a big mistake, but in regard of the countless good that government did against this one particular bad, I can accept that."

A big mistake? You can say that again! "In regard of the countless good"... Countless good, eh? Like what? Taking us into two unjustified wars? Cash For Peerages? Demolition of civil liberties? Putting your kids in hock to China and the Middle East for the next 60 years? MRSA? C-Diff? 40 million screwed up PAYE Records? Selling your legislature out to Europe's unelected? A police "service" that couldnt catch a cold? "Countless Good"???? LMAO!!!!!

"The malicious lies perpetuated by the likes of you spouting verbosely that Labour lied for 13 years and the BBC was their willing mouthpiece make me seeth."

Well, you'd better get used to seething mate. Or, as you're a cat, maybe that should be "hissing". They're not malicious lies perpetrated by me mate, they are historical fact. And the sooner the scales fall from your eyes, and you take them red blinkers off, the less seething and disappointed you're likely to be. Trust me, it'll be better for your stress levels.

"Where would we be now if they hadn't have turned around the wholesale destruction of this country's fabric but the previous Tory infestation that obscenely attempted to call itself a government?"

The sixty four million dollar question, Bryn. There would certainly still have been a credit crunch. There probably would still have been both Iraq and Afghanistan. There would still have been the same boom and bust theres always been. The interesting bits would have been around the triumvarate regulation of the financial markets, but really, thats all window dressing.

You know why? Because what you had for the last thirteen years was effectively a tory government anyway, albeit one with raging financial incontinence since 2001. Because Blair knew that was the only way that they were ever going to get elected, following the 1992 Sheffield disaster of Kinnock. Brown was the joker in the pack. All the likes of you got thrown was scraps of red meat from the likes of him and Prescott to make it look as if they were still red, still labour. Rubbish. All they were is what they figured they had to be to get elected. They stole the Tories clothes. Thats what threw the Tories into chaos for ten years. They couldnt get their heads around it.

Thats why we've had 12 odd years of the red tories and blue tories. Why else do you think everyone is crowding out the centre ground?

Take off your blinkers of hatred Bryn and see it dispassionately for what it is. No matter how much you hate the tories with every sinew and fibre of your being, the modern Labour party of the last 15 years cared about you even less. And you fell for it.

Bryn the cat and sagamix and others. We need cuts pure and simple thats a fact BUT should not be a percentage a fixed like 20,40,60 etc one of them might be the general target direction, first it must be about what the state is for, what it limits are and also what the members are perpered to pay into, obviosuly the first jobs of the state are, and there are others

1) defence of the nation (RAF,RN,ARMY)
2) defence of it citiazen (police)
3) NHS but with out clear limitations.
4) Education for the socail and ecomonic needs of the nation to prosper
(this might well be at odds with the 50% target of going to university
etc)

So what is required is systematic reform and on this would be the
whole Child protection situation in the UK

starting with CAFCA-SS and the Family Courts that need cutting cutting untill all the judges and magistrates and the hanger on solicitors feel the pip squike and the children best interests are at last adhered to, as stated in the 1989 children act from the Tories that has been jerry mandered under the NU_labour regime to mean "Father bashing".

#66 I fear that there remains some confusion about the causes of the deficit which the current govt is attempting to reduce. The deficit is the net shortfall of revenues against the costs of the public sector and welfare benefits, currently running at about £150bn per annum. The bail out of the banks is not part of this equation although it will be part of the accumulated govt debt currently about £1bn, a figure that rises to between £3bn and £4bn if one includes other govt liabilities. In March of this year Darling estimated that the cost of the bail outs was £6bn, a relatively small percentage of the total debt. Indeed such has been the rise in value of the govt shareholdings that £6bn figure may now have reduced to zero.
In time future govts will have to address the accumulated debt, which will continue to rise during this parliament. It will take many years to reduce to more manageable levels, hopefully the govt will make a large profit on its bank shareholdings and use the proceeds to reduce debt.

67. At 1:48pm on 06 Sep 2010, jon112uk wrote:

41. At 12:42pm on 06 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
3#

Nope. He's not saying that at all. What he is saying is that there IS a mandate, providing it happens to someone else and not the respondent.

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

Mandate means: you tell people clearly what you will do if they elect you, the people then go ahead and elect you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Errr.... yeah, thats what its MEANT to mean. I think you'll find thats somewhat out of fashion, mate. Otherwise, we'd have had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, would we not, if any manifesto was worth the paper it was printed on! Admirable sentiment, but breathtakingly naive.

"As Nick appears to be saying, the tories were at best economical with the truth about the extent of their cuts.... yet despite the disastrous record of labour, the tories still could not obtain a proper majority."

ALL mainstream politicians are "Economical" with the truth, with some of them being completely alien to it. Not just the tories. "Yet, despite..." - yes, its undeniably true. They couldnt get a proper majority for three reasons. One, current electoral boundaries make it harder for a majority tory government to be returned, regardless of the numbers of VOTES as against the number of SEATS - which is why Labour are howling away like wolves about the current proposed AV vote, despite being in favour of it before the election: Two, Cameron is a weak an ineffective leader who is nothing more than Blair-Lite. He's not what is needed and there has been a leakage of tory votes away to the likes of UKIP and others. Three, there is Labour's client state, the significant numbers of tribal voters who would vote for a cowpat if it had a Labour rosette on it, no matter how much it stank. Those who saw the benefits of Brown's largesse. Their votes were effectively bought.

"The liberals - the only people who's vote really counted - said nothing about backing disastrous levels of cuts."

Thats their lookout. They just wanted power. First time they've been in government for 80 odd years. You think they give a monkeys what the public thinks? Dream on mate.

"They have no mandate for putting millions out of work and putting the economy back into recession."

Not worth answering. Pure red meat, chest beating, picket line conjecture.

"The argument that we can afford all these services was lost long ago" - 73

Oh come on, Robin. Wealthy country like the UK can most certainly afford decent public services. If both main parties sign up to this (preferably the tories too) and run fiscal policy accordingly, we wouldn't get these periodic dramas. All so unnecessary.

68#

And your constant banging on about it when nobody else is listening speaks volumes about you. You're a record with a scratch in it, Cassandra. Give it a rest.

63#

Same old same old, eh lefty. You keep banging that drum mate. At least you'll have a gig to go to at Christmas when BA are on strike again.

"but in the meantime myself and Ed are disappearing off over the horizon."

Hallelujah, there is a God after all. Saga, whatever you do, dont leave Yvette behind, theres a good chap!!!

79. Mightychewster.
hi mighty,
Of course labour mps will earn a decent enough salary to be shielded from the effect of cuts. Its true also that there are some wealthy labour party donors who wont be effected by these cuts. But the overall point is that the conservative party generally represents the most wealthy in society. From big business to those on the highest earnings. Or in other words... the minority. Its quite appalling that they will be the ones to decide where the cuts fall. Bearing in mind that the majority of those making these decisions have never had to worry about money in their lives. The lib dems haven't the power or will to apply moral pressure to these decisions (look at what they said before the election). At least labours main funding comes from thousand of working class people. Union power will keep them in check to a degree and however week new labours socialism is, its far better than what this coalition represents. There is so much abuse going on in regard to those on the lowest incomes its sickening. They bear the brunt of the worst aspects of capitalism again and again. Yet at the other end of the spectrum there are different rules. Its ok to use tax havens. Its ok to use every trick in the book to avoid paying tax. Its ok to be a billionaire and pay minimum wage to staff who struggle to make ends meat. Its ok to reduce police numbers because if you live in a gated community with private security it doesn't matter. Its ok to starve the nhs with money because they can pay for private healthcare. Its ok to underinvest in education because they can spend thousands paying for private education. The list is endless. There are those who just don't give a damn and care more about the size of their bank account than anything else (76). so in summary mighty you are correct to say labour mps wont be effected. But it doesn't mitigate immoral conservative philosophy (greed over moral inteligence) especially when they are in power.
and dont forget when labour came into power how decimated public services were. it took a hell of a lot of money to bring it up to anywhere near scratch. 120 new hospitals built/refurbed i think. lets hope labour wont have to spend the same amount again after this round of decimation.

#23. and a couple of other responders:
If you cut £1bn of spending then you'll instantly cut a lot of tax (including national insurance even though that's not officially a tax (because in my view it is blatantly a tax)) income, so to save £1bn you'd have to cut a lot more than £1bn.

The country could do with a discussion of the absolute bare minimum that the nation should provide people with and aim at that - should the state / NHS provide enough to stop people starving (I assume so), should it make sure they can all go on 2 weeks holiday to Spain each year etc.

The problem with public discussion is probably that too many voters would vote for all of 1. less tax; 2. less work required of them; 3. more public services provided to them and their relatives - and would be upset by an absence of any of those 3.

69 exilled.
The cuts howerever they fall now stand a chance of being fair.
-------------------------------
hi exilled. just to let you know, the earth is actually round (not flat). and elvis is definately dead!

Waste not...
Whether inadvertantly or not, your title says it all: “Waste not”.
I believe that "tough choices" must be made by the Banking Commission to protect people from increasing deficits, or a repeition of the econmoc crisis; the longer this is delayed, the greater the potential for damage. Are we not paying interest against the deficit now?
1. Investment banking must be seperated from mom & pop, or regular banking.
2. Capitilazation must be different for both types of banks because one is hedging and betting and one is not.
3. Once regular banking has been segregated, the flow of loans from them to small business will open up.
4. Institute a Tobin Tax against any and all foreign exchange transactions in order to a) capitalize any more financial institution failures as well as b) provide money for social programs since the bailing out of investment (speculative) financial institutions took this money away from taxpayers to begin with.
Gordon Brown may not have been right to squelch the word “cuts”, but he was right about one other thing:"We should not be in this place! Don't give me all this about spending cuts!" You were right, Mr. Brown. It was the speculation, the gambling, the derivatives and credit default swaps of investment banks that placed the UK in this place of debt.
The public should be upset about Cameron’s (now dropped) "age of austerity", his painful choicers. Since investment banks and bail-outs put the UK populace into this position, it should be financial regulations and some sort of Tobin tax that takes them out.
Nick Clegg once warned of the need for "savage cuts" – if only he had been referring to tough financial institution reform and regulation.
I’m sure there is some wastage in the Governmental departments, but I’m getting a little fed up with the taxpayer carrying the burden. What did they do? Was it the public's job to know about soverign debt and all the financial instruments that could compromise soverign debt?
As for George Osborne’s "Star Chamber", what is decided therein should shape the economic and political future of the UK for years to come. The decisions should make it clear that those who have placed the economy in such jeopardy must pay for their betting, gambling and speculation, and this will start with a Tobin Tax.
The impact should fall where it belongs.
If some banks chose to relocate rather accept the regulations, so be it and good riddance.
The seperations of investment banks from mom & pop banks is vital; it will open up lending, stimluate lending, and get businesses back on track & hiring.
Around three-quarters of voters tell pollsters that spending cuts are necessary to cut Britain's debt. Yes, I agree, but let’s cut bank bonuses, let’s cut the gambling, let’s see a courageous Coalition Government take this one on.
For all the debates that I have seen or read about, I do not see: The Banks caused this. Let the banks pay.
What will be the first country to institute the type of financial reform that is necessary?

75 pdavies65

Very witty

It also takes some of the immediate pressure off labour being proven to be just empty vessels making a lot of noise.

Have they really got nothing more constructive to talk about after their long long holiday?

Oh! And I forgot their lack of a credible alternative to either Blair or Brown?