Postpone some of the cuts?

DervProf

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Anyone watch the second half of question time last night?

Andy Burnham suggests cuts are bad.....bad bad bad, all cuts. Massive clapping from the audience. Cheers too.

Yes Graham, I saw it.

Now I understand that a lot of the general public are really bad at financial management. We know that there was a surge in private debt over the past decade, and a fair few people have got into trouble with credit cards etc. Seems like the public's understanding of debt it very poor. What part of "the level of public spending is more than the amount coming in from taxation etc. The existing public debt is a lot of money." do people not understand ? At some point, someone has to take control and reduce the defecit, preferably remove it all together. The current government are taking steps to reduce the defecit, but as far as I understand, the cuts in spending aren't going to make a massive difference. People want to think themselves lucky that the cuts aren't more severe. New Labour racked up large defecits, most of the time they were in power. Yes, this created "growth", and Joe Public was lovin' it. I'd be "lovin' it" if I went on a spending spree, but the day comes when the bill has to be paid. It's OK arguing that growing the economy will help to reduce the defecit, but wasn't the economy growing when Labour were increasing the defecit ? They left the new government with one hell of a problem.

Graham_Devon

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I really agree with you on this one.

Labour sold the 'family silver' now they intend to sell our national heritage. They are all as bad as each other as far as I am concerned.

Well I can see the point of selling it. The actual policy of what it could be used for and the restrictions are quite easy to digest. Just that some are not interested in that, see it as a way to simply attack, and will do so, regardless.

Labour also sold off forests, so they need to be careful not to attack too much on it, as they thought it was a good idea themselves....as they did it, just in smaller numbers.

It's like Andy Burnham commented last night "the public simply don't want to pay to park to use a forest". Damien hit him back with this one, as most of the forests labour sold off, ended up with the public having to pay to park. Andy knew at that point to simply say nothing and let it pass quickly.

The forests thing does make sense. We've got a cartel system at the moment.

However, it does not make sense to do it now, at a time where you are already unpopular and always would be. It really doesn't achieve anything towards the more pressing issues on our hands at the moment.

It could be that the coalition thought it a good idea to focus attention away from cuts and onto this, I don't know. Was misguided if that was the attention, as it's just waving a larger red flag at a bull, and giving labour yet something else to simply attack endlessly on.

That's why I said they need help with presentation at the moment.

They could make great use of technology, and give us a chance to vote on what they are saying, get real results from real polls, on real issues.

I'd like to see them change their tune on the forests....and watch labour then simply attack them for u-turning and trying to apply a slur to the party that they don't know what they want etc.

Theres a time when you know your beaten, hopefully they will act on this. May make sense....but not right now.

On a seperate note, theres been a big meeting today, and our tax money used, only for labour to come out and, well, attack again. Absolutely no policy, all our money used, they've put their heads together, and guess what, the conclusion is, the coalition is wrong. Waste a freakin time and a complete waste of our money. I just wish something would happen for labour to actually give an opinion on moving forward.

Wookster

Interesting replies.

I think actually what the UK needs is another Labour term, which should lead to a bond crisis.

I think people need to be reminded every 30 years what Labour does with the public purse.

LauraW10

Wookster wrote: »

I think actually what the UK needs is another Labour term, which should lead to a bond crisis.

I think people need to be reminded every 30 years what Labour does with the public purse.

Looking at the polls, that is the most likely outcome at the moment.

So, surely what you meant to say is that people needed to be reminded every 13 years just how incompetent the Conservatives really are at managing the UK economy.:)

IronWolf

Hopefully the AV bill will come in before then, and redraw the constituencies which Labour fiddled to give them more seats.

Wookster

LauraW10 wrote: »

Looking at the polls, that is the most likely outcome at the moment.

So, surely what you meant to say is that people needed to be reminded every 13 years just how incompetent the Conservatives really are at managing the UK economy.:)

So laura, how does adding to the national debt help to reduce the national debt?

:rotfl:

You're not very bright are you?

Sir_Humphrey

Wookster wrote: »

So laura, how does adding to the national debt help to reduce the national debt?

:rotfl:

You're not very bright are you?

Businesses borrow money to make money - are they not very bright either?

IronWolf

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Businesses borrow money to make money - are they not very bright either?

Yes because businesses never default

oh wait

Sir_Humphrey

IronWolf wrote: »

Yes because businesses never default

oh wait

It is how Capitalism works. Are suggesting that businesses should not borrow? Or are you saying that businesses should borrow, but governments should not, even though governments are less likely to default?

Actually, what is your point exactly? :think:

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Businesses borrow money to make money - are they not very bright either?

The Government isn't borrowing to invest in something that generates a return.

Businesses that borrow to cover their day-to-day running costs are either in the start-up phase or insolvent.