Public sector/benefits to be savaged FT article

CLAPTON

What I believe I was saying was that the conservatives were not be cagey about cuts ; they were explicitly promising to maintain labour spending plans and indeed promising to expand state spending although at a lower pace than the general growth in the economy.

All very well now claiming that they were in favour of balanced budget, reduced spending, more regulation, restricts on state pensions etc etc but that was not what anyone was saying 18 months ago.

Now I dont' know whether in practice they would have expanded the state the way labour did... but I don't believe there would have been much difference in practice if they had been in power.
The huge rise in state borrowing has been to bail out the banks which I believe any party in power would have done.

I certainly hope that whoever is in power in the future reduces the state control and the dependancy culture too.... but simply believing that anyone's better than the current lot may or may not turn out to be right.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Now I dont' know whether in practice they would have expanded the state the way labour did... but I don't believe there would have been much difference in practice if they had been in power.
The huge rise in state borrowing has been to bail out the banks which I believe any party in power would have done.

2 points:

- The Tories wouldn't have bloated the state in the way Labour has. They have never done so before so it's hard to see why they would have this time.
- A part of the increase in debts is due to bank bailouts. Almost all the predicted rise in Government debt is going to be due to an excess of spending over taxes.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

2 points:

- The Tories wouldn't have bloated the state in the way Labour has. They have never done so before so it's hard to see why they would have this time.
- A part of the increase in debts is due to bank bailouts. Almost all the predicted rise in Government debt is going to be due to an excess of spending over taxes.

Obviously the predicted rise in government debt is the result of the excess of spending over taxes.. how could it be otherwise.
My point is that a large part of that is due to bailing out the banks which I believe would have happened whoever was in power.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Obviously the predicted rise in government debt is the result of the excess of spending over taxes.. how could it be otherwise.
My point is that a large part of that is due to bailing out the banks which I believe would have happened whoever was in power.

I think I phrased myself badly. I meant that most of the predicted rise in the deficit in future is going to come from general spending being higher than taxes rather than a one-off such as the bank bailout.

Borrowing for a one-off isn't so bad necessarily. Borrowing just to keep paying the bills is a big problem as anyone on the DFW board will tell you.

geoffky

When will people get it. that the social security bill is the price we have to pay to keep the unemployable from causing social unrest and massive crime problems..If we cut it expect them to come knocking and wanting a share of our wealth.

JACKBLACK

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

We're knackered because nu-labour didn't put anything away for a rainy day, didn't fix the leaky roof while the sun was shining and built a house of straw while they should have been building one from bricks. etc. etc.

I think we're knacked because too many people in this country aren't paying their fair share of taxes...too many evading and avoiding tax imo. Don't you agree?

Count_Dante

geoffky wrote: »

When will people get it. that the social security bill is the price we have to pay to keep the unemployable from causing social unrest and massive crime problems..If we cut it expect them to come knocking and wanting a share of our wealth.

Yeah, but most aren't really unemployable. They just prefer to get diagnosed with silly pseudo-illnesses and live off incapacity benefit.

Dylanwing

As usual, let's just go for the easy scapegoats. Sack a heap of Public Sector Workers and little is achieved as they head onto the benefits budget. Yes there are savings in benefit to be made, but they are probably not that great, and if people who want jobs can't find one, how will the work-shy?
You want big savings, try looking at Computer Systems, ID Cards etc. Want to see the waste, look at PFI projects & Consultants in Government Departments. Want scroungers costing billions, look at tax evasion/ avoidance. Or low-level scroungers, look at MP's.

Braveheart100

TBH I think both parties know that they will have to cut spending in the 5 years after the next election. Surely it would be electoral suicide to go on about it too much? I'll be amazed if any party set out detailed plans of what part of the public sector they are going to axe.

Both parties know that voters vote against recessions not budget deficits.

JACKBLACK

Dylanwing wrote: »

As usual, let's just go for the easy scapegoats. Sack a heap of Public Sector Workers and little is achieved as they head onto the benefits budget. Yes there are savings in benefit to be made, but they are probably not that great, and if people who want jobs can't find one, how will the work-shy?
You want big savings, try looking at Computer Systems, ID Cards etc. Want to see the waste, look at PFI projects & Consultants in Government Departments. Want scroungers costing billions, look at tax evasion/ avoidance. Or low-level scroungers, look at MP's.

Furthermore, any government should take a look at people who are not paying PAYE - none of these people are paying their fair share of tax. People dealing in cash on a day to day basis especially - they pay hardly any tax at all. Plus all those people who pretend to run companies but in reality are just sheltering their pay from the tax man. Of course it's easier to blame the poor for life's ills.