Alan snubs Tina

One word describes this man - 'dinosaur'

And has he turned orange a la Tony Blair, his erstwhile mentor?

let the games begin..

"For the moment I see more politics than economics here. Labour have decided not to have an argument about the need for cuts nor to have one about welfare reform but, instead, to position themselves ready to say "I told you so" if growth falters and as defenders of child benefit and critics of bankers bonuses."

Well put. And this is precisely why the strategy cannot work. The public already knows exactly what Labour are doing, quite as clearly as you do, Nick.

What they actually want to hear is economics, not poorly disguised party posturing.

And absolutely nothing to say 'on interest payments'

Why should anyone in this country pay the the mistakes of the party formerly known as newlabour?

All labour party members should be surrendering their salaries and wages in their entirety until the mess left by their public sector spending and banking deregulation is paid for. No one else is to blame for their mistakes.

Charity begins at home. And labour largesse with deficit reduction should begin at home.. with their members paying for it.

Alan Johnson says: "We support specific tax rises ....". Which tax rises precisely Mr Johnson? Looking forward to the detail.

I agree Nick it is smart politics and (perhaps unfortunately) it is politics not economics that win elcctions.

Everyone agrees the deficit must be cut but there is at least some risk that the Coalition cuts will stifle an early recovery. Even some of the Coalition's own front bench have acknowledged that if the economic outlook gets worse the depth and timing of the cuts may need to be revisited.

In answer to question how would Labour cut the deficit - bash a banker! That is going to be very popular with the voters - my sense of it is that they are hated even more than politicians. What makes it even better is that the bankers will continue to be their own worst enemies - paying out huge bonuses and threatening to take their bat and ball and go home if they do not get what they want.

Britain would only follow Ireland's path if we adopted Labour's policy of doing nothing about the debt problem. The fact that Labour still don't get this shows why they are unfit for government. Ever.

Of course this strategy could leave Labour looking pretty silly if the economy is recovering strongly by 2015.

Further reason why Ed Miliband's choice of Alan Johnson was an excellent one.

Seems eminently sensible to me. He's right to be concerned that the govt has focused so much on cuts, and has seemingly taken it's eye off of growth.

And it's good to hear someone attacking banker bonuses. Such high payments are not necessary, and fears that the best bankers will flee the country are ridiculous.

More of the usual garbage from the postie.

"Labour have decided not to have an argument about the need for cuts nor to have one about welfare reform but, instead, to position themselves ready to say "I told you so" if growth falters and as defenders of child benefit."

Very helpful.

Very very helpful.

Not.

#6
How would doing nothing lead to us following Ireland, when Ireland introduced massives cuts?

The risk is, as we have seen in Ireland, that massive cuts destroy growth and spending, increase unemployment (therefore increasing welfare payments and decreasing tax revenue). We need to learn from their experience. Even the credit reference agencies are downgrading them now, because they fear they will not have the growth available to repay their debt.

9 months ago Osborne was heralding Ireland as the path to follow on reducing the deficit - he's not now, is he?

If ever there was a 'huge risk' taken with the economy it was to believe that we had removed the cycle of 'boom and bust', and to, therefore, not worry about building reserves to mitigate against such a situation.

It was Gordon Brown who took that risk, building up a deficit even before the recession, so that when the banks had to be bailed out we had to borrow billions.

A risk he took and lost and one we will all be paying for, for years.

The problem with Labour when they were in power they could never prioritise and every program that came down the pike was approved, funded a bureaucracy established. Gordon Brown's clever adaptation and extensive use of PFI meant the country's true debt position was carefully disguised and was in true alignment with the practices in the City Labour now so decries. Darling and Byrne realised this when they took over the reins at Treasury and even before the election admitted severe cuts (worse than Thatcher)were required and that there was no money left. What the country wants is for the usual partisan politics dropped or suspended and for opposition to come together in unison about a need to act and to set priorities. For Alan Johnson to remain vague and simply oppose cuts for the sake of it and some vague unproven notion about jobs and growth is no worthy of a usual very credible politician. He should go away, study his economics text books, have a session or two with Darling, speak quietly and privately with the Chancellor and his team - and then come back with his alternative. Prudence, reality checks and priorities should be the watch words of the day.

"8. At 12:35pm on 18 Oct 2010, Thom Brooks wrote:

Further reason why Ed Miliband's choice of Alan Johnson was an excellent one."

If Red Ed is not really red, but magenta - and at heart a deep tory fifth columnist designed to make the Islington Mafia forever unelectable in future....

Ah Postie has actually said something, and without the aid of his economics primer.

He supports tax rises, meaning somebody else has to pay, without specifying what taxes, how much to be rasied, and who will be paying. Standard Labour policy for the past 120 years.

Now he sounds exactly like Brown Darling, and the mantra they chanted all the way into and through the election campaign. They didn't win a mandate then, and I suspect they still wouldn't, not that they are likely to get the chance in the near future.

You only have to look at the inane smirk and the gleam in George Osbourne's eye when he talks about structural deficit, cuts and austerity to see that he absolutely relishes the chance to roll back the welfare state. It's blatantly ideological. How many Tories voted for the two money-pit wars we've been involved in since 2001? They had thirteen years to formulate policies and what have they come up with? A nebuluous and laughable Big Society seemingly based on the a new political ideology based on Mickey Rooney's "I know, we'll put the show on in the back yard", and typical Conservative cuts that affect the most vulnerable in society.

"A rising dole queue means a bigger welfare bill. And less tax coming in."

Agreed, however, this conveniently omits to mention that if 500,000 public sector jobsworthy's (not frontline workers)are part of that queue, then the taxpayer will be saving paying out £25 billion per year in pay at a cost of £13 billion maximum non working benefits (at £26K per year), overall saving to taxpayers £12 billion per year.

How about the BBC gives us all a rebate for the license fee it has spent on the last few months worth wall to wall Cuts coverage? I keep expecting Austin Tasseltine to turn up.

Whilst Johnson has decent ministerial experience we now by his own admission he is a dunce when it comes to economics. He's taken a political stance which he he is not qualified to understand nor is he competant to comment. He is the 'Anyone but mr & Mrs balls' candidate. Without David m (who was probably a shoe in for chancellor in Ed's eyes) the cupboard was really bar. they don't trust Ed B or his wife so we get Postie pretending he knows whats going on when clearly he's up to his neck and drwning!

Very sad state of affairs for an opposition to be in

He's got some brass neck to argue that the cuts are timed politically.

Labour wouldn't come clean about the need for cuts in the run up to the last election and deliberately held back the crucial spending review until after the election had been fought.

Thus delaying the necessary action by at least a year.

He must think we were all born yesterday

Spot on with the comment that Johnson is playing politics and not economics. I seem to recall that Alistair Darling admitted that VAT would have gone up under labour. What I really cannot understand is labour's opposition to means testing of benefits, or is this further political posturing. I am not rich, but am comfortably off and simply cannot see why benefits such as child allowances or winter fuel payments should not be taxed for higher rate tax payers; that is a long held view as a conservative voter, even if it would cost me in tax terms. It is reported today that a number of large investors in government securities, which we must continue to sell to finance the deficit, have indicated that they do not wish to see any backsliding in deficit reduction plans. How would Alan Johnson pacify them with his views if he were in power, or would labour be content to see a sterling crisis? It is the sort of cheap posturing which does not make for a credible opposition.

More politics than economics.............of course it is...from a man who freely admitted he knew very little about economics! Alan Johnson will play to his strengths....POLITICS. he doesn't have to say anything about the detail of economics for a good few years yet..and won't either.

"Tina is the justification for the U-turn on VAT, on rocketing tuition fees, on means testing child benefit and £6bn of in-years cuts."

Who was it that raised VAT by 2.5% last January, saying it would not impact on the economy? - Labour

Who was it who planned raising VAT to 20% before the election? - Labour

Who was it who introduced tuition fees and planned increasing them? - Labour

Who was it that doubled tax for the lowest paid workers? - Labour

Who is it defending high rate taxpayers being subsidised by low paid workers? - Labour

People need to wise up if they voted labour or ever intend supporting them again.

As regards growth, I seem to remember that there was a big hoo-haa during the election when the Tories wanted a cut in NI for business to encourage growth - and Labour violently disagreed. So much on Labour concern for genuine growth.

Public reaction to Labour pronouncements on the cuts can probably be broken down into three sorts.

(1) Labour broke it. They are in no position to moan about someone else trying to fix it.
(2) Labour don't have any serious proposals of their own. They are just saying the opposite of whatever the government says, even if they are hypocritical in the process (Miliband on child benefit cuts for higher-rate taxpayers).
(3) Labour have become the party of the worried public sector employee. So Labour would say that, wouldn't they?

Overall, there seems very little traction here for Labour.

4 Tim Johnson

Alan Johnson says: "We support specific tax rises ....". Which tax rises precisely Mr Johnson? Looking forward to the detail.

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

Don't hold your breath Tim!

Labour's policy in a nutshell:

"There is an alternative, we've got one but we aren't going to tell you what it is."

Johnson said last week he knew nothing about economics.

Clearly he hasn't learnt anything in the past week.

This man is clearly out of his league.

Labour's strategy is to depend on the coalition losing the next election instead of them winning it.

Miliband minor does not see Johnson as being in the shadow (or should that read 'shallow') position in 2015. But who, exactly is waiting in the wings to take over?

He can't choose Balls or Cooper as they will challenge him for the leadership.

Unless there is some quality in the new intake, Labour seems desperately short of real talent.

7. Forlornehope
Of course this strategy could leave Labour looking pretty silly if the economy is recovering strongly by 2015.
----------------
yes.. if you live in a nice house (gated probably) with no money worries..read the daily mail, holiday 3/4 times a year, drive a merc...then its quite possible that the misery and destruction to peoples lives caused by over cutting and ignorant and selfish ideology may pass you by. of course its not just about how to get the economy back into shape...its about how you do it while protecting low paid and vunerable people and making sure those who can afford it contribute their fair share..

I am staggered that Labour still wants to beat up bankers to pay for Labour government mistakes. I may not like the bonuses bankers get, but banking is probably the only industry capable of delivering growth in a short enough time. Where does Johnson think growth will come from? Certainly not from policians.
Until labour can genuinely apologise for totally destroying government finances, we are doomed to listen to a verbal game that is simply the politics of envy.

He probably has an idea about what Labour would do if they were come out with a policy which gave us an idea of what they would do to tackle this problem (civil war between the party ) as they are more dived on this than they potray the goverment. He is possibly right to wait and see before jumping LEFT or Right.

RockRobin @ 3 - The Tories enthusiastically supported banking deregulation. In fact at the time they argued Labour's deregulation did not go far enough.

I am not sure which is worse - you did know this and chose to forget it to suit your current position or you did not know it.

Was it a great time to be a Tory when they were enthusiastically supporting banking deregulation?

Alan Johnson looked like a fool on the Andrew Marr programme because he argued that reducing corporation tax whilst reducing loans to manufacturing companies aws being bias towards the financial services sector whilst snubbing manufacturing.

From what I am aware manufacturing companies also pay corporation tax, thus any tax cut in corporation tax will benefit manufacturing as well.

"Johnson did not spell out an alternative policy but sketched out..."

You can stop right there. We need to sort out our economy. We are interested in firm ideas and firm actions.

Alan seems perfectly nice. If he wants to do sketches of trees etc in his own time, that's a wonderful hobby.

But not on public time, please.

"It's blatantly ideological."

In the words of Ed Balls... "so what?"

where the hell is the Dearne Valley anyway???

Al is a decent bloke I'm sure, but he admits he doesn't know anything about economics.

Labour can NEVER be trusted on the economy (as those with longer memories knew from last time they were in office)

If Labour ever want to be taken seriously again, they must prove that they have learnt the lessons of their fiscal incompetence - and apologise to the country for the mess they have left behind.

Al seems to be offering more of the same. No thanks!

Labour created the problem but still blame everybody else and they have still not told us, specifically, what they would tax and cut.

What an excellent analysis from Nick Robinson. It is very much Labaour preparing for an "I told you so" strategy. To win the next election Labour simply has to do nothing and say little because the cuts will hurt so many voters that an increase in tgovernment/coalition support is unlikely.

This is the first display of why Ed Milliband chose Johnson over Balls/Cooper. Style not substance. He is the warm avuncular postman to relate to the population that do not understand the details of macro - economic policy, which is of course most of us. AJ could however be made to look very shallow if put on the spot and we can expect many a cliched response in Parliament and to the media. What exactly would you do Labour? Lots of words but nothing suggested.

Having read the New Labour arguments, it seems to be taking the line of simply saying "The government is wrong, there is an alternative but we're not really going to tell you what it is."

Now that is what I call playing politics, they're simply talking and saying things without spelling out the details.

We would grow, not cut. How? Where will all the money come from? If the answer to dealing with debt is more debt then how is this the solution?

All they want is to be able to say "I told you so." having offered no credible alternative beyond saying "Well we wouldn't have done that."

Completely pointless, when Labour stop playing their games then maybe they will make a useful opposition to keep the government in check.

After 13 years thats right 13 years (so no blaming it on the thatcher years please) on Crash Gordons investement (spend,spend,spend and tax tax tax) we have polish workers doing the welding on the aircraft carriers apparently getting the going rate of around £15pH around £30k per year. But then you can get that kind of package on the dole and for doing nothing.

Wonder what the posties view of that is , as apparently its racist to suggest that the forigen workers should not be here , ah did not Brown call someone a bigot for suggesting that.


Seems that the answer is quite simple really

Alan Johnson supported Brown and is therefore culpable for the mess left by labour.
How dare Johnson lecture anybody on economics, what audacity, what typical labour drivel.
Labour should never be elected again!

I thought he promised to read 'economics for dummies' before he would start making speeches.

He should also do his o level maths while he is at it.

Labour really do look like the muppet show these days.

No one in Govt is qualified to make the right decisions - the Conservatives are too privileged to understand what its like in the real world and the Lib Dems since they have had a sniff of power are like the pigs in the book Animal Farm "...some are more equal than others".

Does Alan have to say anything about this?

Was there any alternative to the way his government behaved?

https://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/inside-outsourcing/2010/10/105-facts-about-government-it-contracts-that-send-shudders-down-your-spine.html

I'm no fan of labour, but lets be clear: it is not the job of the oposition to put forward detailed proposals for public spending.

That is is the job of the government - and we are still waiting.

Does nobody in Government or politics have a calculator?
Put simply.... £85,000,000,000 divided by 5 years reduction programme, divided by 50,000,000 people in th UK, divided by 52 weeks.
This is equal to a required weekly debt reduction of just £6.54 per person!
If we do believe in a "united kingdom" and a "Big Society" then we should be able to solve this between us - either through paying a few pounds more tax each week or accepting a few pounds less services (or a sensible combination of both).
Cameron, Osborne (et al)... How can this be so difficult?

I find it hard to believe that Labour are complaining on lack of action on recouping cash from the bankers. Agreed they (the bankers) should be paying far more than they are towards the clean up however .......... Can we just have a quick recap on who gave the banks all our money with minimal mechanisms in place to get either the money back or for the government to be rewarded for providing the insurance policy to keep all banks afloat - ermmmm wasn't that New Labour?

#20 mibren

"He must think we were all born yesterday"

If Labour had its way, voters WOULD be born yesterday (or near enough)

In Labour's 2010 manifesto, they propose lowering the voting age to include children of 16. (Chapter 9:2) These young voters would conveniently have no first-hand memories of just how incompetent Labour was when last in office.

Personally, I'd like to see the voting age increased. Around 35 would seem reasonable to me...

29#

You really dont have anything to contribute to the debate, do you lefty?

#Lefty10

"its about how you do it while protecting low paid and vunerable people and making sure those who can afford it contribute their fair share"

Is that by insisting standard rate taxpayers subsidise higher rate taxpayers by continuing to give them child benefit as Labour support?

Is that by borrowing billions more over the next 4 years, therebye reducing the amount of money available for the less well off as labour support?

I can remember Toni Blair saying the previous government John Major had doubled the debt. Just now Clegg is saying similar things interest repayment £40 billion which is about 2.85% of gdp. I seem to recall the interest on the national debt was 3.9% of gdp, have I got it wrong or because of the growth in gdp over the last 13 years and lower interest rates we are paying less now than in 1997. Any comments Nick.

32#

Ah, Page 34 of the Labour Spin Manual.... "slag the tories off about it and say that they'd have been just as crap as we were, if not crappier."

Yep, great effective defence that. The plebs lap it up. Every time.

30. At 1:14pm on 18 Oct 2010, Rod wrote:
"I may not like the bonuses bankers get, but banking is probably the only industry capable of delivering growth in a short enough time."

But why pay them so much? Why reward them with such ridiculously high amounts of money? It's just not necessary!

Of course it's politics not economics!

Political ineptitude coupled with greed both in Parliament and in financial institutions caused the current situation - and guess who are the ones NOT shouldering their fair share of cutbacks and economies?

All glibly say that there must be cuts in public spending... yet there are no signs of cuts being made in payments to financial institutions - anyone else in debt meets their own obligations first and then uses the surplus to pay off debts as best they can rather than enjoy the pleasures of life. The government seems to think that it is more important to pay debts than to meet their obligations to the citizens of this country... and are not even prepared to ensure that the citizens are not disadvantaged by their failure by ensuring that they are protected from the likes of greedy financial institutions.

Alan Johnson is a prat, he like the rest of the Labour party are the ones who got us into this mess and who are all now in denial. No one can argue against the present government making serious cuts. How anyone can listen to the Labour has-beens who for thirteen years had it within their control to enrich this country instead they dragged it down.
It really is beyond belief anyone could ever contemplate voting Labour again while they have the same tired old cabinet singing the same tired old song full of lies and deception. Until these fools such as Alan Johnson are well and truly gone from a public life where they can have an influence on our lives then I for one will dismiss anything they say.
Say what may George Osborne is being up front and not withholding the truth of the pain we will face unlike Johnson who will tell the suckers out there just what they would like to hear.

7. Forlornehope
Of course this strategy could leave Labour looking pretty silly if the economy is recovering strongly by 2015.
----------------
yes.. if you live in a nice house (gated probably) with no money worries..read the daily mail, holiday 3/4 times a year, drive a merc...then its quite possible that the misery and destruction to peoples lives caused by over cutting and ignorant and selfish ideology may pass you by. of course its not just about how to get the economy back into shape...its about how you do it while protecting low paid and vunerable people and making sure those who can afford it contribute their fair share..

I agree that the vulnerable need to be protected, but the problem is that the part of society not working and instead sponging of the rest of us still think they have a right to own a flat screen tv, a playstation and order in pizza once a week. If you don't add to the pot then you should be living a lower quality of living than someone who works 60 hours a week so he can own their "nice house". I work hard for my money, so why should I have to give more than 1/2 of it to the lazy sods who can't he backsided to get out of their bed and do a proper days work.
Life should always be worse on benefits than off it, that balance needs to be fixed and the best way to fix that is to lower benefits.

If Labour are so concerned about making the bankers pay, why did they not include stipulations into the bailout to stop excessive bonuses, terms of interest on repayments, etc?

#14 Fubar_Saunders

I disagree entirely, but then again you offer no argument.

Everybody must think of it by their own, not by my words or written article. It is not special from me, it is facts of life. We all know cut is required but cut should be CUT where it should be cut. THINK AGAIN, TIME HAS NOT BEEN PASSED AWAY AND DO APPLY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

Another cut. Cut on Child's benefit. It's now all cut cut cut and cut.............. Interestingly, it is all on related to Children, family and society. I think that thinking should be in the wider perspective not narrowing down to only with figure of 1 billion pound saving or less.
Today's life in UK and economic slowdown, we all discussed about spending cuts, job redundancy, tax payer's income, but I think no one realises the fact that Doctor for example GP are earning salary like anything. Five years back Doctor's avg salary was in the range of 50 to 60 thousand pounds and within four to five years of time it has now gone up to avg salary of 100000 pounds. We all know it needs improvement in NHS, but that does not mean it has to be given back to Doctor's pocket. Furthermore, option of giving more power to Doctor means more money to go to Doctor's pocket. That is extremely bad effect. We all talked about the improvement of NHS and further improvement but all by expense of poor people's salary, tax payer money and all sorts of spending cuts child benefits, job redundancy of public service etc etc. No one really think that part of this spending cut money will go to doctor's (especially GP's) pocket. I think politicians all know the fact but no one seems to talk about that or no one taking any responsibility to figure out the real true story, where there is bigger picture of spending cut. Last three to four years there is a substantial and exorbitant salary jump for the GPs and still they are earning more.
As part of their work in NHS, they work morning and afternoon and see some patients like other professional jobs. For complicated case or in failure cases, patients will automatically get another GP in NHS for their cure or go to hospital for further heal up. Doctors do refer to Hospitals and do escape from their bindings and responsibilities and they earn average 100 thousand pounds per annum. It’s amazing!!! Their salary should be compensated by their work and their duties. Definitely not. By spending cuts from the normal people and goes into NHS and then to GP's pocket, I think everybody must understand the facts of life and do the needful cut where it is absolutely required and do proper justice for the beneficial of this country and to the society.
Think about the case and realize. Time still has not passed away but it is in danger zone. So message to all people, salaries of doctors (especially GPs) should be reviewed and spending cut need there drastically.
IMPROVEMENT IN NHS IS REQUIRED BUT NOT BY THE EXPENSE OF CUTTING PUBLIC MONEY THROUGH TAX PAYERS MONEY AND BACK TO DOCTOR'S POCKET FOR THE SAKE OF NHS IMPROVEMENT. THIS IS NOT ACTUAL IMPROVEMENT.

PLEASE TAKE NECESSARY DECISION BY 20TH OCT 2010 UNLESS ANOTHER CUT WILL ARISE NOT BY SPENDING CUT, BUT BY NATURAL CUT SPONTANEOUSLY DUE TO INDEIRECT EFFECT OF DIRECT SPENDING CUT THROUGH LESS JOBS, LESS GROWTH AND LESS OPPORTUNITY AND THUS LESS REVENUE AND SO ON.............

Regards
RESIDENT UK

#11
How would doing nothing lead to us following Ireland, when Ireland introduced massives cuts?


Because it was doing nothing about their financial problems that got the Irish and Greeks into the over-borrowed mess in the first place. And Labour are only too willing to get us into the same position. It's not rocket science.

28. At 1:12pm on 18 Oct 2010, Paul T Horgan wrote:
Labour's strategy is to depend on the coalition losing the next election instead of them winning it.
=============================================

Yep.

If the public schoolboys trash the economic recovery they inherited then that is all the strategy that labour need.

It's a great time to laugh at the tories.

I like Alan Johnson, he comes across as a personable guy who I think most people could enjoy a pint with down the pub. However it does seem that whoever is advising him on what to say on economic matters is definitely "in denial" about the deficit. It is very true that if you con't pay a credit card bill off in good time your debt grows and grows quickly, most of us are well aware of that.
If we are paying so much money in interest on the debt then surely not paying it off as quickly as possible will incur even more interest which in turn will acrue yet more interest.
I really don't think that taxing the banks more and increasing capital gains tax will really make much of a dent in the deficit, anyway you can bet your life that the banks will just increase their charges to customers to offset some the tax increase thus making us pay even more for their services.

"sagamix wrote:
Andy, I'm surprised (and not a little gratified and flushed of face) to see you arguing for greater state planning of the economy - there at 31."

To paraphrase Churchill, at times you come across as a buffoon, wrapped in an idiot, inside a nincompoop.

The actions of any Government affect the economy. You are (I am sure deliberately) confusing 'planning' with 'interference'.

Finally, please don't ever again indicate that you are 'flushed of face' after reading one of my posts. I do not wish to be associated with a physical reaction of yours that I am sure occures most frequently when you are looking at a poster of Harriet Harman.

"Johnson did not spell out an alternative policy but sketched out an alternative approach"

I am sure he did. In the same way that a child will produce a crayoned drawing of a round object with sticks protruding from it and rudimentry facial features when asked to sketch a cow.

While I'm not against some of the things he has said, I do wonder just what qualifies him for this job. His first words were, more or less, that he knew nothing about it but would read up on it. What sort of qualification is that for appointing someone to a job that potentially puts him in charge of the Treasury? I can't claim to have seen every interview, obviously, but how many broadcasting journalists really put him through the mill on this question? How many asked how he could hope to serve the country as the shadow spokesman on the economy, taxation and what have you when he would have to consult an idiot's guide in order to begin work? Has Ed Miliband been similarly, thoroughly grilled on this appointment. I think we let our politicians off too lightly.

So, while I do agree with some of what Johnson has had to say (and I'd put a poodle into power rather than the Tories, any day), I tend to believe they are words fed to him by civil servants. I doubt he's got through the idiot's guide yet.

he seems like a decent enough chap but, oh dear, he's out of depth on financial matters

that said, he's an astute political operator and, no doubt, will have a field day blaming the coalition whenever anything goes wrong.

lets not forget tho folks that the root of the problem is Gordon Brown's belief that he had single handedly eliminated boom and bust. That was never, and could never be, going to happen. We live in a global economy and are subkect to the normal cycles of the world economy.

The bankers' bonuses are just cheap politics - playing to the gullible gallery - compared with the years of overspend by Brown et al during the good years.

What madness! every intelligent person knows that when times are good, you salt a little away to cover tough times if they come along.

5 - "In answer to question how would Labour cut the deficit - bash a banker! That is going to be very popular with the voters - my sense of it is that they are hated even more than politicians. What makes it even better is that the bankers will continue to be their own worst enemies - paying out huge bonuses and threatening to take their bat and ball and go home if they do not get what they want."

I shall give up trying to educate you if you do not learn!

Huge bonuses are a good thing. The Government currently get 51% of big bonuses. In fact it's better than that. If a banker has earned (say) £500,000 for his bank and is paid all of it, the Government will get around £280k of it because of employers' NIC, income Tax and employees' NIC.

If the banker takes his bat and ball and goes home we get nothing. A UK bank would still get a CT deduction for payments to a Swiss resident banker.

It might be popular with the screeching voices of the left but it would be an idiotic policy. We have a golden goose in the city of London which at its peak was worth £60bn a year in taxes.

£280k

or nothing.

Which would you think was best?

"To win the next election Labour simply has to do nothing and say little because the cuts will hurt so many voters that an increase in tgovernment/coalition support is unlikely"

ALmost worked for the Tories as well. They got in because they weren't Brown. Not because they were perceived to have been detoxed or any good...

"8. At 12:35pm on 18 Oct 2010, Thom Brooks wrote:
Further reason why Ed Miliband's choice of Alan Johnson was an excellent one."

What? That Alan Johnson thinks the banking sector's contribution in taxes is £2.4bn?

hahahahahaha

That's the windfall tax on bonuses alone. Without all the other Corporation Tax, VAT, business rates, income tax on salaries employers' and employees' NIC and a dozen other taxes. Even now, with the banking sector recovering, the amount is more likely 20 or 30 times the idiotic figure given by Johnson.

And that fills you with confidence?

What would worry you?

"45. At 1:41pm on 18 Oct 2010, jon112dk wrote:

I'm no fan of labour, but lets be clear: it is not the job of the oposition to put forward detailed proposals for public spending."

Thats an interesting position to adopt. I bet you a pound to a pinch of guano that if I go back to a post of yours lets say, four to six months before the election I would find something along the lines of:

"well, what are the tories going to do about it thats better than Labour's solution?"

In fact, I might just do that, whilst I'm waiting for this moderation queue to subside....

"44. At 1:40pm on 18 Oct 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
Does Alan have to say anything about this?

Was there any alternative to the way his government behaved?

https://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/inside-outsourcing/2010/10/105-facts-about-government-it-contracts-that-send-shudders-down-your-spine.html"

Whenever I see reports like this I always think the author has a motive.

In this case, I suspect the motive was the desire to prove that Labour in power were a bunch of financial cretins who shouldn't be left in charge of a school tuck shop, never mind anything else.

In which case, point proved.

Political posturing or not, there are some simple facts to consider here...

The current "short, sharp, shock" approach of deep and rapid cuts is NOT the only way to cut the deficit (a deficit caused by the huge amount of money spent on bailing out the banks; money they promised to start lending with, but have yet to do so - just thought I should clear that up).

The reason for the current Tory/Lib Dem strategy is one of Tory political goals. The party wants a smaller state - it's always wanted a smaller state! - and talk among tories is currently, "if not now, then when?" The political aim here is to reduce the state to such an extent that it will change the face of Britain forever. And now is THE golden opportunity for Tories to achieve this aim. Hence, the depth and speed at which the cuts are currently planned,

What irks me considerably is that the majority of Tory voters (average age 65 as of 2010) will be facing the cuts in their retirement - the average Tory does not have to worry about his or her job being lost, because they are already retired. But anyway...

The future of our country is being decided by a small demographic of people - and when the cuts starts to bite, I think even the most die-hard Tories will have to work hard in order to conceal their concerns.

Nobody voted for this. And of course there are other ways of approaching the deficit. For example: make the banks pay. Why not? - because we're afraid of rocking the boat and upsetting our financial masters?? What a pathetic excuse... now is the time to reform the banking sector - NOT the time to strip away the state. This is the proverbial "elephant in the room" that neither party seems willing to address, and because of that, we must all dig deep into our pockets and pay for it.

Vive la revolution! (and I'm only half-kidding there...).

45. At 1:41pm on 18 Oct 2010, jon112dk wrote:
I'm no fan of labour, but lets be clear: it is not the job of the oposition to put forward detailed proposals for public spending.

That is is the job of the government - and we are still waiting.

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

What is the oppositions job then? To just tell us that everything the government do is wrong, but give absolutely no reasoning?

This country would be in a much better state if Labour learnt to put the people of this country first, rather then their pathetic party and its 'principles'. If that means accepting occasionally that their opponents may be right and going along with their policies then so be it.

To those of you referring to the current chancellor rather condescendingly as 'postie', can I assume you do so because a postman is a, somehow, lower class job, somewhat beneath one? And not one that a senior Minister of Her Majesty's government should really have been doing?

Hmm what would we call Cameron or Osborne if playing a similar rib-tickling game? Er.. er.. tricky isn't it? They haven't done anything.

Dearne valley is ex mining country Fubar, no wonder you've never heard of it.

Bashing bankers is not the answer much as we all wish it were - to do so would result in them fleeing the UK for less harsh tax regimes. The exodus has already begun (not of bankers yet, but look at INEOS).
We need to tackle the fundamental banking issue and that is unclear to me. These investement bankers do not generate wealth for society - they mearly grab a small slice off a large amount for their benefit. As such, it is society that bears their costly salaries and bonuses albeit in a completely opaque way such that we cannot stop them nor recognise the extent of that on-cost. They are more akin to leeches.
If governments could agree a strategy to stop their speculation then we all could benefit from curtailing their blood-sucking attributes. How about putting a tax of 50% of the profit on all financial transactions (hedging, options, derivatives,etc..)that have a duration of less than 3 months and on profits on equities held for less than 3 months? If all major western economies did this then where would these leeches look for their blood-sucking opportunities?

"Optimism vs Pesimism" This is labour's strategy. And I believe it is more that a slogan. Any economist would probably agree that psychology is a factor in economics. The current government wants to send a strong message to the international investors "We are taking matter into our hands", but then the message, nationally is: "We are broke, we have no money, there is no alternative". While this may work for the workers (They might not complain when all their hardly won rights are axed) it might be an issue to convince the small business man (the backbone of our economy, unlike international investors) to invest their money in this risky and pesimistic environment. And it may scare consumers off (it is scaring them already!). If the cuts don't result in IMMEDIATE and TANGIBLE growth, the plan will backfire.

"46. At 1:44pm on 18 Oct 2010, Simon Simple wrote:
Does nobody in Government or politics have a calculator?
Put simply.... £85,000,000,000 divided by 5 years reduction programme, divided by 50,000,000 people in th UK, divided by 52 weeks.
This is equal to a required weekly debt reduction of just £6.54 per person!"

I make it £6.53846 myself so your suggested amount would result in a surplus of £20,000,000 which could be used (perhaps) to build a free fun park, preferably close to London.

But your point is a good one. We should all be in this together. Labour's solution would be to try to get one in a thousand to pay £6,540 a week. It's just the way Labour are.

I just did a simple math 6.54/week family of 4 that is 26.16/week 5 years are 6800 pounds. what can I do with that sort of money, (ask the dragons) not enought for me to get a holiday, since i am a milionair.

What the heck are you expecting Nick. Alistair Darling set out Labour's plans in some detail before the election, with a slower rate of defecit reduction than Mr Osborne notified the country of in June - AFTER the election. As we know, with the appointment of AJ, the new Labour front bench have endorsed the previous government's approach to defecit reduction.

It is right and proper for the opposition to challenge TINA, just as it is right and proper to challenge the basis for it - namely that without the support of the bond market, the country is destined for the rocks.

As important as this segment of the economy may appear to be, it can not be viewed in isolation. Just as crucial is how the ordinary citizen will feel about their lot, and their future prosperity. Without any realistic sense of confidence in one's immediate short term future, the result will not be conducive to economic well being. Net personal debt is already decreasing (an unheard of phenomenon before the crisis) as more people pay off debts than spend on goods and services. On top of that, I am pretty sure that each one of us would not need to look too far to find someone we know deferring a major expenditure for the foreseeable future. Add in the unremitting doom that is the message of the government, and it is not unreasonable to ask wherein lies the incentive to spend - especially if one fears for one's job.

Extrapolating that attitude across the country as a whole, and the impact on aggregate demand would be truly staggering - and raises the spectre of deflation. On top of that, with loans very hard to come by, both for individuals and SME bubinesses (and the new business loans scheme announced last week is but a sticking plaster for a major economic trauma - too little, too late), and in real terms very expensive, where will new business investment come from, and just as importantly, what will happen to the housing market. If house prices fall, as "those in the know" predict, banks will be left with a shrinking asset base and the risk of a second "banking crisis" will hit the economy like a train wreck.

As those in the BoE and The US Federal Reserve know, confidence is all. But it is foolish to belive that cheering up a few bond dealers alone will solve all our medium/long term economic ills. It is people who spend money, albeit in small sums individually, that propels the economy forward. Alienate them and make them fearful for their livelihoods, and we we will be doomed.

I'm sure I read an article recently that said there is a sheep like mentality in the way markets work that defies their underlying strengths and weaknesses - to buy or sell based has more to do with what everybody else is doing, rather than hard economic data. So it is with ordinary people, tell them "we're all doomed", and it will spread like a contagion until it becomes a self-fulfilling reality.

Somebody needs to stand up and say "There is an alternative", and "No, we are not all going to die". If the government ignores people in favour of placating those who got us into this mess, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the end result is a lot worse than even the government's doomsayers are telling us.

We need hope, and so far there has been precious little!

45 jon112dk

I'm no fan of labour, but lets be clear: it is not the job of the oposition to put forward detailed proposals for public spending.

That is is the job of the government - and we are still waiting.

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

If the opposition claims that there is an alternative way forward, then it might be useful for them to set out what that alternative is.

Unless of course, they haven't really got a credible alternative, in which case its probably wisest to to avoid any serious scrutiny of their "plan".

I'm trying to imagine how the Labour apologists would have defended Peter Sutcliffe in court. There would have been a two pronged approach.

1 - "We admit our client killed all those women but look at that bloke over there in the public gallery. I bet he would have done it as well"

2 - "We admit our client killed all those women but look at this. A list of all the women living in the UK that he DIDN'T kill."

"We argue for a slower pace of deficit reduction"

Spot the difference:

"We argue for gradual cold-turkey"

"We argue for one finger in the damn, not blocking the flow altogether"

"We argue economic nonsense just like we did when we were in government"

This is the shambolic state of the labour party; reduced to having no policy except to oppose everything the coalition sets out to do.

A minister without any secondary or tertiary qualifications talking about a subject he barely unsderstands trying to sound persuasive. A minister with a recird of spending so much money for so many years now expects us to take him seriously about cost savings and cuts.

This is Jack the Ripper giving advice on Women's welfare. It's so calamitously badly judged one struggles to understand who on earth came up with this script. Labour now look like they genuinely want to remain in opposition for many years to come. Well, I for one hope their dreams come true.

As for the ludicrous psotings on here suggesting banking deregulation was the tories fault - this is just another example of the total denial of the labour party. Either you had a brilliant chancellor or you didn't but if he was so brilliant why didn't he spot that banking leverage had got completely out of control? More importantly why didn't he listen to the Bank of England when they told him as much?

Labour are now hopelessly out of touch with every issue that matters. They screwed us all and left someone else to sort it out.

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

"If the public schoolboys trash the economic recovery they inherited then that is all the strategy that labour need."

How tedious.

I believe Fettes College is everso slightly outside the state system.

Mind you, I don't hold it against Blair that he went there. Only an idiot tries to make an argument out of where someone went to school.

Now where have a heard about a vague economic policy before? Are yes, in the run up to the election. Neither party was particularly clear about what they meant by cuts. Labour because they were scared that they would get the blame anyway. The Tories because they 'hadn't seen the books', which was rather pathetic as they they could have at least worked to the figures that were available. In reality their silence was a political postion and it is easy to understand why.

Now Labour have restated their well known position and have been vague for political reasons. In three days time we will know what the coalition's battle plan is. They have to be more specific than Labour were before the election. Only then can Labour work out their response. If they had come out with a plan before the Review, there could have been many phrases such as , "Like Labour we will cut ....." and "This cut is along similar lines to the plans announced by Labour." and so on.

By going for 5 year Parliaments, David Cameron is giving Labour a chance to retrench. All eyes are on 2015. Labour hasn't got to panic and get too specific. If there was a fear that there could be a General Election in 2011, Labour would have had to try to appear to be a potential government much more quickly. Obviously they would have failed, changed their leader and allowed DC to remain as PM for longer.

The heavy blows that need to be delivered to win the next election need to be timed for when there is no time for recovery.

In terms of how the spending review affects you and me in the next year or so, what Labour says is totally irrelevant. To jusify a plan by saying that it better than Labour's plan doesn't mean that it is a good workable plan. In football terms some (probably very few) might say that Roy Hodgson is a better manager of Liverpool than Rafa was. But it still doesn't mean he is any good at his job.

"57. At 2:16pm on 18 Oct 2010, danh1980 wrote:
If Labour are so concerned about making the bankers pay, why did they not include stipulations into the bailout to stop excessive bonuses, terms of interest on repayments, etc?"

You may as well ask why headless chickens run round in circles rather than making a dash for the door.

I can't believe some of the comments posted here. Does nobody actually engage their brains anymore? If it was Labour's fault for the economic mess then they must be responsible for the economic problems in Greece, Irelnd, USA etc. The current economic down turn in Britain is part of a worldwide situation and caused by the BANKERS.
Surely if you take so much money out of the economy so quickly as the government seems intent on doing, there will certainly be less people buying and therefore business will suffer. More people out of work will surely mean more expense for the tax payer?
Just a couple of points that need some critical thought. I don't know the answers but I am not simply going to accept everything the goverment tell us needs to be done.
Nick is wrong to separate politics from economics - it is afterall political ideology that determines economic decisions. I'm not surprised business leaders are backing the cuts - cuts rather than tax will be very healthy for their shareholders!
Britain - think!

My apologies for being unable to spell don't!

"58. At 2:17pm on 18 Oct 2010, Thom Brooks wrote:
#14 Fubar_Saunders

I disagree entirely, but then again you offer no argument."

Hmmmm....I know the frustration of comprehensively demolishing someone's argument, only to be ignored.

Referring to Johnson as 'postie' doesn't add to anything to the debate.
It's snobbery. Throughout the history of international politics many influential and inspiring leaders have come from humble or modest backgrounds.

The fact that he's not one of the above has nothing to do with his early history of employment.

61 jon112dk

If the public schoolboys trash the economic recovery they inherited then that is all the strategy that labour need.

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

You think the public will give the keys straight back to the people who crashed the car?

"74. At 2:55pm on 18 Oct 2010, Laughatthetories wrote:
To those of you referring to the current chancellor rather condescendingly as 'postie'"

Only in your dreams. "Shadow" is the missing word.

Oh and Cameron worked for seven years as Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications. Osborne had brief spells as a data inputter for the NHS and at Selfridges.

I agree that we shouldn't be condescending towards Johnson because of his previous jobs. There are lots of much better reasons to be condescending towards him.

26. At 1:07pm on 18 Oct 2010, AS71 wrote:
Labour's policy in a nutshell:

"There is an alternative, we've got one but we aren't going to tell you what it is."
======================================

Fairs fair, that was the Conservative line during the credit crunch and seems to have worked out OK for them.

72. At 2:50pm on 18 Oct 2010, Skol303 wrote:
Political posturing or not, there are some simple facts to consider here...

The current "short, sharp, shock" approach of deep and rapid cuts is NOT the only way to cut the deficit (a deficit caused by the huge amount of money spent on bailing out the banks; money they promised to start lending with, but have yet to do so - just thought I should clear that up).

-- Thanks for clearing that up. Could you now tell us how much debt Gordons overspending left us in. Could you clear that up too?

The reason for the current Tory/Lib Dem strategy is one of Tory political goals. The party wants a smaller state - it's always wanted a smaller state! - and talk among tories is currently, "if not now, then when?" The political aim here is to reduce the state to such an extent that it will change the face of Britain forever. And now is THE golden opportunity for Tories to achieve this aim. Hence, the depth and speed at which the cuts are currently planned,

-- How large a state do you believe we should have? One exactly the right size to provide the service we need, or one twice as big? Or how about twice as big as that? Or do you confuse the word ideology with the concept of common sense when it comes to the tories?

What irks me considerably is that the majority of Tory voters (average age 65 as of 2010) will be facing the cuts in their retirement - the average Tory does not have to worry about his or her job being lost, because they are already retired. But anyway...

-- Do you live on the isle of wight or something? I assume you've got some statistics to backup your claim.

The future of our country is being decided by a small demographic of people - and when the cuts starts to bite, I think even the most die-hard Tories will have to work hard in order to conceal their concerns.

-- So the tory voters are a small demographic as well as being half the people who voted tory (who were nearest to winning the election BTW). Did you do maths at school?


Nobody voted for this. And of course there are other ways of approaching the deficit. For example: make the banks pay. Why not? - because we're afraid of rocking the boat and upsetting our financial masters?? What a pathetic excuse... now is the time to reform the banking sector - NOT the time to strip away the state. This is the proverbial "elephant in the room" that neither party seems willing to address, and because of that, we must all dig deep into our pockets and pay for it.

-- Actually people did vote for this - thats why labour are out isn't it, and if now is the time to reform the banks they why didn't labour do it as a condition of the money they plowed in? That seems the obvious thing to do to me and many others, and an even better 'time to do it' but it can't be right can it, because your beloved labour didn't do it.

79 PaulRM

Somebody needs to stand up and say "There is an alternative"

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

Johnson has done this, unfortunately he will not tell us what the alternative is.

Imagine being in a burning building with him - "You're going the wrong way. I know where the fire escape is... but I'm not going to tell you"

74. At 2:55pm on 18 Oct 2010, Laughatthetories wrote:
To those of you referring to the current chancellor rather condescendingly as 'postie', can I assume you do so because a postman is a, somehow, lower class job, somewhat beneath one? And not one that a senior Minister of Her Majesty's government should really have been doing?

======

No one is referring to the current chancellor as 'postie'.

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

77. At 2:59pm on 18 Oct 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
"46. At 1:44pm on 18 Oct 2010, Simon Simple wrote:
Does nobody in Government or politics have a calculator?
Put simply.... £85,000,000,000 divided by 5 years reduction programme, divided by 50,000,000 people in th UK, divided by 52 weeks.
This is equal to a required weekly debt reduction of just £6.54 per person!"

I make it £6.53846 myself so your suggested amount would result in a surplus of £20,000,000 which could be used (perhaps) to build a free fun park, preferably close to London.


=======================================
Excepting that the reduction in expenditure in the final year is 85bn less than it is today, it just builds to that annual difference from now. So you don't divide it by 5, making the figure 32.69 GBP per person per week in the final year. That is an order of difference.

Or if it were to be funded by every one of the 50,000,000 paying extra tax or giving up benefits to cover our share - thats 1700 quid per person.

70. At 2:48pm on 18 Oct 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
I bet you a pound to a pinch of guano that if I go back to a post of yours lets say, four to six months before the election I would find something along the lines of:

"well, what are the tories going to do about it thats better than Labour's solution?"
=========================

Don't spend too long looking - you're more likely to find something like 'sooner we get rid of labour the better.'


But generally to the tory cheerleaders (73,80) - have the tory GOVERNMENT provided a detailed plan yet?

I thought we were still waiting for them to finish their review before we know the detailed plan?

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

sandy winder wrote:
Britain would only follow Ireland's path if we adopted Labour's policy of doing nothing about the debt problem. The fact that Labour still don't get this shows why they are unfit for government. Ever.
.
.
.
.
????????? Sandy if you read the facts properly you will find that Ireland has prescribed everything that Messrs Cameron, Osbourne and Cable are now preaching. Ireland were forced into a making their cuts early, over 2 years ago now, when they were unable to provide stimulus and locked into the Euro. The result - little growth, increasing debt relative to GDP, revised credit rating, a depressed commerical and consumer property market, high unemployment, mass public sector protests etc. etc.

https://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/in-ireland-the-high-cost-of-austerity/

Osbourne prefers to pulls the wind over everyones eyes and talks about Canada as a perfect role model example - when really its a recesssion with no comparison and was not during a major financial downturn. Do say you haven't been warned.