Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Froggitt

.string. wrote: »

I agree that "austerity" needs examination.

Was it caused by the financial disaster that happened or was it a deliberate policy by the Tories to make the poor and vulnerable pay for the mistakes of the rich?

What is austerity: is it something caused by the policies of the Coalition Government or is it a statement of what it has always been like to be poor?

Who is poor and vulnerable and is it true that the poor and vulnerable have suffered more than anyone; Who are rich and is it true that they have benefited from the financial disaster?

Does austerity really exist? Is there a better word for what we are going through?

Austerity is

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."

the way of balancing the books before the national debt gets so far out of hand that the country goes bust. We currently pay £70bn per annum on servicing the interest on the national debt. How much NHS spending could we do if the national debt was wiped out through continued "austerity" and that £70bn was available for spending on good things?

Generali

Froggitt wrote: »

Austerity is
the way of balancing the books before the national debt gets so far out of hand that the country goes bust. We currently pay £70bn per annum on servicing the interest on the national debt. How much NHS spending could we do if the national debt was wiped out through continued "austerity" and that £70bn was available for spending on good things?

Since 1979, the UK has run a budget surplus in 3 or four years:

1. During the massive boom engineered by the housing bubble created by the abolition of MIRAS
2. When Labour agreed to stick to Tory spending plans after the 1997 election
3. In the year of the 3G auction

Both Con and Lab have borrowed money hand over fist in good times and bad to fund their hare brained schemes. At least the Tories and Greens have belatedly realised that this is a dumb idea. As far as I can tell all other parties believe that they can continue to borrow huge amounts of money indefinitely to wee up the wall.

Froggitt

Greens? Next stop for the annual deficit is £200bn with the greens. Do you mean UKIP possibly?


An annual balance or surplus ought to be written into law IMHO
a) to pay down the national debt to zero, which will probably take 20 years or so
b) once paid off, to invest in a revenue earning wealth fund

michaels

The Greek voters bought the line that austerity was an evil that could be avoided. Unfortunately it turns out there is no magic money tre and you can only spend more than you earn if someone is willing to lend you the difference (or give you the difference in the case of the SNP).

And yet 4 of the 7 patries in the 'debate' pushed the line that fiscal responsibility is a choice not a reality and these are the ones that are proving most popular - indeed Labour are able to look 'responsible' because they are half way between parties who say they will spend the most one ones that say they will balance the budget whereas the reality is that the most frugal will deliver something that is outside of long term affordability with the other parties merely in a race to see who can get to Greece quickest.

Generali

Froggitt wrote: »

Greens? Next stop for the annual deficit is £200bn with the greens. Do you mean UKIP possibly?


An annual balance or surplus ought to be written into law IMHO
a) to pay down the national debt to zero, which will probably take 20 years or so
b) once paid off, to invest in a revenue earning wealth fund

Nope, the Greens.

The Greens have a recognition in their manifesto that the deficit has to be addressed. It's why they changed their position from the Euros when they said that GDP growth had to stop.

Now they believe that GDP growth will have to stop once the Government is back at a neutral fiscal position as apparently the whole point of the economy is to provide the Government with money to spend.

Froggitt

Greens? "We will end austerity and restore the public sector creating 1 million jobs paying at least a living wage" "rapid transition to zero carbon economy" "invest in a public programme of renewables" "scrap tuition fees" "build 500,000 social rented homes" "cut rail fares by 10%" - as far as I can tell, its all on the never never.

Generali

Froggitt wrote: »

Greens? "We will end austerity and restore the public sector creating 1 million jobs paying at least a living wage" "rapid transition to zero carbon economy" "invest in a public programme of renewables" "scrap tuition fees" "build 500,000 social rented homes" "cut rail fares by 10%" - as far as I can tell, its all on the never never.

They claim that their manifesto is costed and further that they want rid of the deficit.

I have no idea as to whether their claims are correct and certainly won't be voting for them, mostly because I live in Australia and so won't be voting in the upcoming election.

Froggitt

Yup. £5.5bn saving due to "Prison savings due to fewer inmates". Not sure whether barmy or bonkers best describes this lot. We could have a programme on telly, similar to XFactor where people text in their votes for who to release on this weeks show.


Is it Ronnie the Rapist or Bob the Burglar - you decide.

kabayiri

Didn't we have the same sort of feeling in 2010?

Ie, all the main parties at the time were talking nice things, courting and coaxing the voters with soothing words.

As soon as the election was over, the tone changed completely.

It is probably cynical but I don't have any confidence in the fiscal plans of most of them. (Least of all the SNP because they plan to coax us all into more spending before bu**ering off saying "so long and thanks for all the fish")

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

They claim that their manifesto is costed and further that they want rid of the deficit.

I have no idea as to whether their claims are correct and certainly won't be voting for them, mostly because I live in Australia and so won't be voting in the upcoming election.

Greens can defy the law of Physics. They don't understand the concept of action and reaction for example.

They will happily assume the wealthy UK people and companies will just stump any additional tax required and not try find dozens of ways around not paying extra.

We say exactly this with the 50p rate. I don't think the Child Ben changes for higher earners delivered the intended revenue either.

Costed? Optimistic guesswork more like.