Osborne's plan to spend his way out of trouble

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Hence why this is so entertaining to watch.

Meanwhile the UK continues to burn. As everybody considers solving the issues not their problem.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So which off your lists are putting the country into recession? Is it:
A) The Conservatoire for Dance and Drama
Patterdale public toilets
.

Poor Graham, extremely poor.

Try these on for size.....

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service is cutting 170 posts, including 92 firefighters.

West Yorkshire Fire Service is suspending recruitment of full-time firefighters and cutting 150 support posts in 2011/12.

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service faces cuts of £23m over from 2011-15.

East Sussex County Council, 150-200 jobs are expected to be cut during 2011/12. 315 job losses are expected in the council’s children’s services department …

Around 100 staff at Liverpool Hope University are to lose their jobs by September 2011.

Cheshire Police are losing 750 staff, one-third of whom are officers.

Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust’s savings plan equates to a staffing reduction of 1,115 full-time equivalent posts …

Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is forecasting a net staffing reduction of just over 680 full-time posts …

1,453 staff at the Home Office UK Border Agency in Croydon were told in a meeting on 1st March 2011 that 776 of their posts would go...

But don't worry, they're not cuts, just "grants not being renewed", right???

Graham_Devon

And?

These cuts happen all the time. Regardless of the government.

One for instance in your list. RD&E NHS Foundation trust. It's not cuts, it's SAVINGS. They have achieved hundreds of thousands of pounds in savings just by extendeding their computer upgrade and replacement plan by one extra year. They are not cutting that many staff, that's emotional hyperbole that frankly I'm not surprised to observe you stooping to. They are finding savings elsewhere. It's a massive trust.

You've even gone as far as editing out the rest of the sentence to make it look worse than it is. Here it is in full, and I have highlighted the bits you, or the author you have cut and paste from has cut out due to their political agenda which are the most important. You are an incredibly silly boy.

Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust’s savings plan equates to a staffing reduction of 1,115 full-time equivalent posts between 2011 and 2014. This is an assumed figure but is not final, and given the Trust’s level of natural turnover, redundancies may be avoided.

I give up. It's pretty clear you are simply going to copy and paste half of the story without actually discussing anything.

jamespir

they just dont have a f ing clue stop spending save the money

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And?

These cuts happen all the time. Regardless of the government.

One for instance in your list. RD&E NHS Foundation trust. It's not cuts, it's SAVINGS. They have achieved hundreds of thousands of pounds in savings just by extendeding their computer upgrade and replacement plan by one extra year. They are not cutting that many staff, that's emotional hyperbole that frankly I'm not surprised to observe you stooping to. They are finding savings elsewhere. It's a massive trust.

Wow....

A complete 180 degree U-Turn from Mr Muddle.

This was you last year.....

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I keep seeing this. "Natural wastage, people will retire".

But the crux is...normally, those jobs, through natural wastage, would be avaliable for someone else.

However, they won't now. So whichever way you put it, it puts the unemployed numbers up.

As people retire, people arrive at working age to take their place. That's how things have always happened, and will continue to do so.

It's 490k jobs gone, whether it's through natural wastage or retirement, as it's 490k less jobs than there would normally have been for those coming into the workforce.

Example: Say there are 35 million people wanting to work, or in work and currently 33 million work places.

At the end of 4 years, there will still be 35 million people wanting to work, or in work, and 32.5 million work places.

Whichever way you look at it, it's less people employed.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wow....

A complete 180 degree U-Turn from Mr Muddle.

This was you last year.....

If you say so Hamish.

As the "Mr Muddle" line has come out, I know you are absolutely screwed for anything left to say, or to tell us which cuts are sending us back into recession.

And to think...I didn't een get to questionning you on your amazing new economic plan, which just means spending money you don't have....continally, to avoid recessions.

I bet you couldn't even begin to explain how I have apprently "U-Turned". I was talking about natural wastage employment. Not cuts sending us back into recession. Also, be careful linking up to threads which show you areguing against what you are now arguing in this thread.

macaque_2

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean the same Maggie who did this (from davey's post above)

We seem to live in the age of the 'X Factor' Prime Minister. If we continue electing leaders whose first concern is personal popularity, we put democracy at risk (as Greece and Italy have discovered).

Maggie made her fair share of mistakes but she was not afraid of making herself unpopular when something needed to be done. That is leadership.

System

Surely anything that's a cut means less spent which means lower GDP... So, all of them? I'll be generous, 95%

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Surely anything that's a cut means less spent which means lower GDP... So, all of them? I'll be generous, 95%

Of course it does.

When we refer to cuts, we are talking about cuts in spending.

End of.

wotsthat

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Surely anything that's a cut means less spent which means lower GDP... So, all of them? I'll be generous, 95%

Apparently there have been no cuts but there have been lots of savings. I thought the words were interchangeable but the difference is very very important. Cuts, which haven't happened, don't affect GDP and savings, which happen all the time, don't affect GDP.