Tory cuts could be mighty unpleasant

robin_banks

Being a resident of Notting Hill is at times confusing for Mr Cameron.

Come festival time he doesn't know which bandwagon to jump on.

kabayiri

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

A smaller state is a fine principle - withdrawing from certain things to allow charity and community solutions to emerge. The problem is that we have trained several generations of grasping middle-class !!!!!! to believe in themselves and noone else - there will be no charity to fill the gap because too many people couldn't give a flying !!!! about other people.

I agree. It is a fine principle.

The mechanism by which people fundamentally change their attitude to debt, consumerism, well-being for others, is in my view a spot of 'cold turkey'.

I have had it, and you see it on Spendaholics (cant believe I'm citing a BBC 3 program!). People change their lifestyle habits, often for the better.

The thing is, most people have been sheltered from this process. They therefore dont see the need to do anything. We all expect things to 'return to normal' without questioning our ability to return to what we now consider normal spending.

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

There wouldn't have been a surplus. Governments elected to massively invest in infrastructure and public services do not run a budget surplus and survive in the long term. Money gets spent on the things that need money spending on them. Various NHS trusts and even the odd central government departmental budget ran to surplus and were flayed alive in the press for not spending available money when people were still waiting for operations.

Wookie is bleating on about illiteracy by painting a political scenario which could never exist. Even the Tories didn't run a budget surplus by cutting back spending - Thatcher grew the size of the state during her tenure. So the notion that the state would/could/should have been smaller is the delusion.

A delusion shared by Cameron apparently. His speech was cracking. On one hand he berated the power of the state and railed against its growth in size. On the other hand he lauded the NHS, Surestart, the minimum wage and an explosion in apprenticeships - all the products of the big state he is supposedly opposed to.

A smaller state is a fine principle - withdrawing from certain things to allow charity and community solutions to emerge. The problem is that we have trained several generations of grasping middle-class !!!!!! to believe in themselves and noone else - there will be no charity to fill the gap because too many people couldn't give a flying !!!! about other people.

Again, you are missing quite an important concept: living within your means. Your post just goes to prove it.

Sir_Humphrey

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

There wouldn't have been a surplus. Governments elected to massively invest in infrastructure and public services do not run a budget surplus and survive in the long term. Money gets spent on the things that need money spending on them. Various NHS trusts and even the odd central government departmental budget ran to surplus and were flayed alive in the press for not spending available money when people were still waiting for operations.

What I am getting is that spending money heavily on services was necessary and should have been raised through taxation rather than borrowing. This would have given Labour smaller majorities, but I sure that they would happily trade 25 seats in 2005 for a working majority in 2010! Chasing headlines is no substitute for leadership. No-one said it was easy governing.

inspector_monkfish

premiership back tomorrow

adjust your teams....

http://fantasyfootball.skysports.com/

Rochdale_Pioneers

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

What I am getting is that spending money heavily on services was necessary and should have been raised through taxation rather than borrowing. This would have given Labour smaller majorities, but I sure that they would happily trade 25 seats in 2005 for a working majority in 2010! Chasing headlines is no substitute for leadership. No-one said it was easy governing.

Agreed - we were paranoid about tax and spend despite having two landslides. Taxes should have been higher to cover much of the cost of renovating schools and hospitals.

This is the real tragedy of Labour - so much power and so little done. Plenty of good work around the fringes - minimum wage, tax credits, sure start etc. But there could have been so much more - a new constitutional settlement with PR and no Lords. A rebuilt simplified tax system. A consumer revolution in public services - whilst I am anti-league tables and choose your own hospital I am not anti choice. I just want it to be a choice of good options rather than chasing the handful of decent school or hospital places.

chucky

robin_banks wrote: »

Being a resident of Notting Hill is at times confusing for Mr Cameron.

Come festival time he doesn't know which bandwagon to jump on.

he actually lives in North Kensington on the other side of Ladbroke Grove not Notting Hill. a nice enough area mind you.

Spiv_2

Budget Deficit in US widens to $1.42 trillion on Crisis Spending

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the U.S. must reduce its record budget deficit as soon as the economy returns to a sustainable growth rate without relying on government assistance. “Americans understand that we have to go back to living within our means as a country,” he said in an interview broadcast today on CNBC. “When we have an economy that’s growing again and we get unemployment down, we’re going to have to bring those deficits down.”

The shortfall for the 12 months ended Sept. 30 was more than triple the $455 billion record set a year earlier, the Treasury Department said today in Washington.

Gulp!:eek:

Geithner cautioned that a lack of confidence that the U.S. will return to fiscal sustainability may lead to a weaker economic recovery, higher interest rates and constrained investment.
“That’s why deficits matter. That’s why deficits in the end can be very damaging to growth,” he said. “That’s why you cannot live with future deficits as large as ours are likely to be.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aOWY.L8unNU8

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Governments elected to massively invest in infrastructure and public services do not run a budget surplus and survive in the long term.

Spending on salaries isn't investment, it's spending.

Only spending on assets (schools, hospitals, roads for example) is investment.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Only spending on assets (schools, hospitals, roads for example) is investment.

And, sadly, the investment in schools, hospitals, and waste management has been achieved through PFI (246bn and rising).

These PFI deals have locked-in costs. Unless we renege on the deals with the suppliers, we have to pay the costs of these deals. We can't slim down the services in this area.

PFI is a very poor deal for the taxpayer indeed, and interestingly it is one area every major party is likely to continue using!