Labour: Borrow more now, Spend more now, Cut more later

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

heathcote123 wrote: »

I thought you were a 'borrow lots of money and do big infrastructure projects' kind of guy? (a bit like the labour guy in the op)

I am.

But I'm also a "smaller state is good in the long term" kind of guy.

Rather than point out where they're all wrong (it's a long list), it's easier to point out where they're right.

The Tories are right about needing a smaller state with less government interference and red tape, and needing a bigger wealth generating private sector to pay for it. In the long term.

Labour are right about the need for countercyclical spending and that the current austerity plan is just not working. You can't cut your way out of a recession. And you need growth in order for the books to balance long term as well.

Graham loves to point out that the US economy is recovering faster than we are... What he doesn't point out is that it's because the US has taken a "damn the torpedoes" and "full speed ahead with stimulus spending" approach. So much so they lost their AAA rating from one of the three agencies.

Of course if it works, that won't matter....

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Graham loves to point out that the US economy is recovering faster than we are... What he doesn't point out is that it's because the US has taken a "damn the torpedoes" and "full speed ahead with stimulus spending" approach. So much so they lost their AAA rating from one of the three agencies.

Just one of many differences Hamish.

Also, you are being pretty disingenious there in what you suggest I have said. Again, may I point out to you (probably for the fifth time in 2 days) that I have only compared the housing market to their growth. Doubt it will make any difference pointing this out to you again though.

Jennifer_Jane

What a great pity that Gordon Brown e-Bayed the gold reserves.

I would like to see Ed Balls contact the Debt-free Wannabe's to ask their advice. Usually, they say cut back on your expenditure. They don't say invest in Sky TV; iPads etc. The first thing is always to cut expenditure.

The White Horse is right - we need an attitude change, starting with the public sector Chief Executives (and Trade Unionists) who having been living high on the hog without adding value to the Nation. It should also include ordinary people taking more responsibility for their health, pensions, life in general.

pqrdef

The_White_Horse wrote: »

no one in local council should be on more than 50k EVER. it should be voluntary really.

Nurse! Fetch the pills, he's rambling again

The_White_Horse

pqrdef wrote: »

Nurse! Fetch the pills, he's rambling again

do you honestly believe these town hall mandarins on 200k are needed?

why not have one person in whitehall deciding policy on say, schools. then that policy will be implemented by all heads. the end. or better still, let the (overpaid) head actually run the school s/he is in charge of as s/he wants.

Here you go head, here is £2m (or whatever) please run your school. We will check the results and if they are good, you can keep your job and if they are bad, you will be fired. The end.

Easy. But as this is public sector, you need 135 employees and 75 committees and sub committees to do the same thing - oh except get rid of anyone for poor or substandard performance.

N1AK

The government should be taking a long term view on what it could spend money on over the last, and next, couple of years that would benefit the economy and people's lives.

If upgrading transport infrastructure, hospitals, comms infrastructure helps to do that then cutting it now is unlikely to be wise; unless the risk of not cutting is that we break the country financially.

Jennifer_Jane

The_White_Horse wrote: »

do you honestly believe these town hall mandarins on 200k are needed?

why not have one person in whitehall deciding policy on say, schools. then that policy will be implemented by all heads. the end. or better still, let the (overpaid) head actually run the school s/he is in charge of as s/he wants.

Here you go head, here is £2m (or whatever) please run your school. We will check the results and if they are good, you can keep your job and if they are bad, you will be fired. The end.

Easy. But as this is public sector, you need 135 employees and 75 committees and sub committees to do the same thing - oh except get rid of anyone for poor or substandard performance.

The private sector also has massive wastage too (but that's for the shareholders, not the taxpayer). I worked for a large multi-national which was categorised by travel (a decade ago the annual travel budget was over £8 m, meetings, duplication of roles as each department needed it's own finance, purchasing, HR, training and learning, knowledge management and other support groups, with consequent extra admin. Also, the rip-off suppliers whose main thought was this is a big rich Company, how can we charge them the most for everything. The top executives are all multi-millionaires.

The_White_Horse

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

The private sector also has massive wastage too (but that's for the shareholders, not the taxpayer). I worked for a large multi-national which was categorised by travel (a decade ago the annual travel budget was over £8 m, meetings, duplication of roles as each department needed it's own finance, purchasing, HR, training and learning, knowledge management and other support groups, with consequent extra admin. Also, the rip-off suppliers whose main thought was this is a big rich Company, how can we charge them the most for everything. The top executives are all multi-millionaires.

exactly, but as you say, the private sector's waste is not my concern. it is the shareholders. if the private sector company is not providing value for money in terms of their product I will use another provider. unfortunately we don't have that choice in the public sector.

coastline

When you look at a chart over the last 30 years or so you'll see Labours overspending wasn't much different to previous cycles..
Yet we continue to hear how reckless they are...not that I'm bothered about politicians ...from 2008 things went badly wrong as we all know and the government as usual picks up the tab..
Look at the Tories overspending in 1992...8% of GDP...and not a financial crisis in sight...strange how that happened when they claim to be the party of money control...

pqrdef

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

The private sector also has massive wastage too (but that's for the shareholders, not the taxpayer).

I don't agree. Waste in the private sector concerns everybody, because it's just as much a drain on the nation's resources as waste in the public sector. There's no useful distinction.

If shrinking the public sector makes people and money available for more productive use, the same goes for the bloat in the private sector.