cleggercon double dip here we come!

chucky

Jonbvn wrote: »

Just think of all those outreach coordinators quaking in their boots this morning.

Guess the gruaniad jobs pages will be sparse from now on.

at least all the tories on here won't be in a state of panic that they had missed out on winning another election again.

bioboybill

Blacklight wrote: »

There was far too much spending on the public sector by Labour. Bloated departments full of no-jobbers teaching other no-jobbers outdated American management styles from textbooks printed in the 80's, thinking they were doing something new and revolutionary.

All these people who worked in large private companies were sacked (rightly so) during 2008. Police, councils, the NHS haven't seen these cuts yet and the no-jobbers and sitting around taking a fat wage and a final salary pension at the cost of £165bn a year.

What's needed (as Cameron has identified) is a shift from government spending on these leeches to jobs in an expanded private sector.

The effects are twofold - less government spending and more tax receipts from the private companies.

The plan is not to replace anyone in backroom jobs (lazy no-jobbers) and create a larger workplace for their would-be successors to find employment in. Privately run council services and schools is a start.

In short there won't be any massive job cuts like there would have been under Labour. Nor will there be any economic decline. Sorry.

You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think there won't be massive job cuts. I was talking to a friend last night who is a senior manager who is already planning where these huge job cuts are going to take place in local government and the NHS. He said that there was a 4 year plan of job cuts if labour got in, but this plan will be rushed through "probably within a year" with a Tory government.

Two other people who were there were telling me that they work for private companies that do loads of work for the public sector (in IT infrastructure and building projects) and they believe they will have to shed loads of jobs under a Conservative government and were worried about how they would pay their mortgages.

It's strange that the new government are talking about a new kind of politics of collaboartion etc, but in reality many of their supporters (certainly on this board anyhow) are frothing at the mouth about how they are looking forward to cutting all these "overpaid and underworked" public sector jobs.

This sounds like when Thatcher came into power saying, "Where there is despair may we bring hope. Where there is discord may we bring harmony". Then she went on to wreak havoc amongst the working classes in the North.

Why can't we see some of this compassion on here instead of looking to do people down? Huge cuts in the public sector will undoubtedly feed down into the private sector, people will spend less and we could definitely have a double dip if we slash and burn. Of that I have no doubt.

Spartacus_Mills

tomterm8 wrote: »

So, why is it that America, Spain, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, France, Latvia, Lithuania, and dozens of other nations all had systemic banking crises if it was all caused by James Gordon Brown's banking regulations?

Are you seriously claiming with tighter and more stringent regulation we would still have had the scale and depth of financial crisis and recession we have just gone through ?

Really2

bioboybill wrote: »

Two other people who were there were telling me that they work for private companies that do loads of work for the public sector (in IT infrastructure and building projects) and they believe they will have to shed loads of jobs under a Conservative government and were worried about how they would pay their mortgages.

I sell to the public sector and think that the torys will save jobs..
Labour were centralising contracts more and more in reality the bigger were getting bigger the smaller were getting smaller.

Now departments may have the handle to buy from where they want rarther than where they are told may not only save money in terms of the end products but also waste from people not needed to set up such "one size fits all" contracts.

It was already stated it would have saved £bns had the NHS database been done on a local level rather than centralised to one company.

Why do so many on here focus on one party doing cuts and not the actual reason why they have to be made??

grubby23

ninky wrote: »

with clegg going for jobs for the boys over policy or principles it seems that big cuts in public spending are sure to happen. how can this not create a double dip?
.

Come on Labour supporters, lets get real: We borrowed and printed lots and lots of money last year (we all know that we have a deficit of over 163 Billion pounds and printed money worth 12% of GDP through QE). And what was the return: Artificial growth of 0.5%.... So much better would be to have a double dip while we cut aggressively our borrowing. Let's hope David an Co start dealing immediately with the mess that Gordon Clown left us.

StevieJ

DigitalJedi wrote: »

Public spending was going to be cut anyway whichever of the parties got into power. The only questions were how and by how much.

The root of the problem is that New Labour has been spending money faster than we've earned it. Now they've done what I think is an incredibly smart thing and left someone else holding the check.

Its a bit like having a joint account with someone who's spent like a looney for 13 years and now have p***ed off leaving you to make up the overdraft.

It is inevitable that some will lose their jobs but who's to blame? The guy who made the overdraft or the guy who has to pay it back?

The money spent by Labour during the recession has in general been well spent, the problems occurred earlier with wasted funds, classic example is agreeing large increases to GP's for an inferior service:eek:

tomterm8

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Are you seriously claiming with tighter and more stringent regulation we would still have had the scale and depth of financial crisis and recession we have just gone through ?

Of course tighter regulation wouldn't have stopped a financial crises. Or a banking crises. We have 200 years of history on this, banking crises have happened over that 200 years with depressing regularity. They have happened whatever scheme of regulation you chose. They have happened to pretty much every capitalist society at one point or another. It is a feature of the capitalist system. The only way to get rid of them is to get rid of capitalism.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

The money spent by Labour during the recession has in general been well spent, the problems occurred earlier with wasted funds, classic example is agreeing large increases to GP's for an inferior service:eek:

I would go further and say the deficit built up from 2002 was the problem not the recession.

Had they built up a surplus in the boom cuts would only have to be minimal now.

Spartacus_Mills

Really2 wrote: »

My view on it.





So basically any one blaming the current government for cuts is wrong and ignorant. The problem is all of labours doing.
8 years of deficit meant there was no surplus to cushion the recession. Cuts had to happen whoever won, doing it earlier means they will most probably not have to be so deep later on.

For me one of the most telling comments was the accusation of Brown that he failed to mend the roof when the sun was shining. Adding to government debt in the good times, by excess of £30Bn per year, great if you can pay it off and have really abolished Tory boom and bust but if not.....

We also have the legacy of PFI to look forward to. That is going to be a mess as well (however all three main parties were fans of that so no real condemnation of Brown).

Sweden managed to have two years of very deep cuts and then reverted back to normal and by and large got out of their problems as they had similar issues a few years back.

Spartacus_Mills

Really2 wrote: »

I would go further and say the deficit built up from 2002 was the problem not the recession.

Had they built up a surplus in the boom cuts would only have to be minimal now.

Annual deficit of over £30Bn a year from 2002 to 2007. As discussed by Jeff Randall and Alistair Darling on SKY about 2 months ago.