How would you help George Osborne distribute the cuts in spending?

mbga9pgf

Stop giving old codgers drugs for cancer when they will be dead in 6 months of senility or a heart attack anyway.

bigheadxx

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

As loathe as I am to side with a Labour bunkerbot but Steve J is correct.

It has simply become received wisdom that the Tories had to clean up a Labour mess in 1979 and this was not the case. The real issue was Labour 4 years earlier had to clean up a Tory mess caused largely by the Barber boom where Tory Chancellor Anthony Barber just printed money which was great but it was also inflationary. As a consequence inflation skyrocketed in the mid seventies (this was not the only cause but it was a major player) and Labour under the shrewd stewardship of Dennis Healey were tackling this. Inflation had halved from its peak in 1975 by the time the Tories took charge, government spending was under control. Healey had been cutting government expenditure since mid 1976. The IMF loan was never touched and was not needed. In todays environment it would never have happened.

Labour had the economy on the right track in 1979. Inflation was coming under control and government spending was coming under control. The real villains of the piece were the Heath Tory government and the brothers for not supporting Labour on pay restraint.

I do not blame Cameron and co for trotting out the line. Most people believe it to be true and it is a powerful reminder of what people tend to remember of the Callaghan administration. However it does not make it true. For example Sunny Jim never said "Crisis, what crisis".

Its also conceived wisdom to blame the conservatives in the 1980's for the decline in manufacturing and exports. However from the early 1980's, with the advent of North Sea oil, sterling became an important "oil" currency with its value soaring from $1.50 to $2.50 thus effecting its ability to compete.

The greatest loss of manufacturing jobs actually occurred under the last Labour government.

The real problem of the 1970's was the power that trade unions wielded. Both Labour and Conservative governments had tried and failed to do something about this. Labour could never have done it and even Mrs T wasn't expected to succeed.

StevieJ

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

As loathe as I am to side with a Labour bunkerbot but Steve J is correct.

Just to put the record straight I voted LibDem, the rest of your synopsis was a lot more accurate.

kennyboy66_2

bigheadxx wrote: »

Its also conceived wisdom to blame the conservatives in the 1980's for the decline in manufacturing and exports. However from the early 1980's, with the advent of North Sea oil, sterling became an important "oil" currency with its value soaring from $1.50 to $2.50 thus effecting its ability to compete.

Sterling peaked in 1980/81 as a result of the absurd focus on money supply by the Thatcher government at the time. It was this policy that made Sterling so strong and cemented in the 1981 recession. Petro-currency is just revisionist nonsense.
It was only when the money supply targets were largely abandoned that Sterling went into free fall ($1.05 in early 1985).
Of course we were still exporting oil then but somehow magically stopped being a petro-currency.;)

Then again, some would have you believe currency crisis are the sole preserve of Labour governments.

Spartacus_Mills

StevieJ wrote: »

Just to put the record straight I voted LibDem, the rest of your synopsis was a lot more accurate.

So what, you could vote tactically.

StevieJ

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

So what, you could vote tactically.

But LibDem were a poor third in my Constituency, obviously I am not very tactically aware

chucky

StevieJ wrote: »

Just to put the record straight I voted LibDem, the rest of your synopsis was a lot more accurate.

it's funny because i'm also considered to be a staunch Labour party card carrying member just because i don't think much of neither Osborne or the Lib Dems.

lesson to be learnt from this - the coalition government can do no wrong in some people eyes... :eek:

new_home_owner_3

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Stop giving old codgers drugs for cancer when they will be dead in 6 months of senility or a heart attack anyway.

Not only are you a bullsh!tter, your a complete arxehole, i hope none of your elderly relatives become ill, mind you i could imagine you being there hovering over them like a vulture, waiting for the inheritance so you can finally buy a real house.

you are one sad individual, like your mate neas, i just hope everything stays sweet for the both of you.

marklv

new_home_owner wrote: »

Not only are you a bullsh!tter, your a complete arxehole, i hope none of your elderly relatives become ill, mind you i could imagine you being there hovering over them like a vulture, waiting for the inheritance so you can finally buy a real house.

you are one sad individual, like your mate neas, i just hope everything stays sweet for the both of you.

There is actually a serious point behind what he said. People who are incurably and terminally ill should not receive ultra-expensive drugs on the NHS that will not cure the disease but only postpone death by a few months. This is not being inhumane but weighing up the cost benefits. The money is better spent on the treatment of individuals who are in pain or severe discomfort, and can be cured through drugs or surgery. For terminally ill people the emphasis should remain on palliative care until such time as proven cures are found.

A._Badger

marklv wrote: »

There is actually a serious point behind what he said. People who are incurably and terminally ill should not receive ultra-expensive drugs on the NHS that will not cure the disease but only postpone death by a few months. This is not being inhumane but weighing up the cost benefits. The money is better spent on the treatment of individuals who are in pain or severe discomfort, and can be cured through drugs or surgery. For terminally ill people the emphasis should remain on palliative care until such time as proven cures are found.

All of which may be true. But there was still no excuse for his having put it in such a revolting way.