Where will the cuts fall

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

Actually, I think it is.

If you believe that we need to get PSND "down to below 50% of GDP before 2025" then you are going to have to cut even faster.:)

Not at all. You'd have to cut more over the next decade; but that does not require cuts to be made faster as the current cuts are heavily front loaded. Policies like, for example, removing the pension triple lock, and replacing with a cost of living increase, would save comparatively little in the next 3 years but would have a big impact on spending over 10 years.

Thrugelmir

N1AK wrote: »

Why do you think that the conservatives 'know' they're going to cut £12 billion from welfare, 'know' it won't be the elderly that pay, but pretend they don't know where it will come from?

I doubt they do. There's no single solution. The impact of the economic levers already pulled have yet to filter through. Part of the Governments role is to influence culture. As it's people themselves that need to adjust to reality.

N1AK

kabayiri wrote: »

The promises a party has to make to win power seem to be creating the constraints that stop them from succeeding. As you say political parties are not stupid, but they are self-motivated.

I just don't think we can ring fence the big ticket spend areas like NHS and education. We are not being honest about the challenges we face.

Voters are self-motivated, so we can hardly act shocked that political parties are. Boil down most people's reasons for supporting a party and you usually end up with a self-serving reason, even if they aren't consciously aware of it.

There's nothing wrong with promising to ring fence budgets. Personally I'd be much more willing to vote for a party who promised to do that to education spending. The issue is that people want 'the wrong thing' protecting. It'll cost a political party far more votes to cut spending on pensioners (even just changing the triple lock to a cost of living link) than it does to cut education spending in real terms; but cutting education spending will have long term costs to the productivity and well-being of society.

N1AK

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I doubt they do. There's no single solution. The impact of the economic levers already pulled have yet to filter through. Part of the Governments role is to influence culture. As it's people themselves that need to adjust to reality.

That just isn't a realistic position. This is too much money for them to know they intend to cut it, but not have a strong idea where they are going to cut it from. It's not like these cuts are a decade away, they'll be starting soon. They already 'know' it won't be pensioner benefits. They already 'know' they won't raise income tax. You can't honestly think they don't already have any idea if they might do anything to disability payments for example.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Voters are self-motivated, so we can hardly act shocked that political parties are. Boil down most people's reasons for supporting a party and you usually end up with a self-serving reason, even if they aren't consciously aware of it.

There's nothing wrong with promising to ring fence budgets. Personally I'd be much more willing to vote for a party who promised to do that to education spending. The issue is that people want 'the wrong thing' protecting. It'll cost a political party far more votes to cut spending on pensioners (even just changing the triple lock to a cost of living link) than it does to cut education spending in real terms; but cutting education spending will have long term costs to the productivity and well-being of society.

what proven relationship is there between spending and educational outcomes.
In fact most of the innovations over the last 20 years have shown not improvement in outcomes : just a waste of money.

Cyberman60

I would have thought that stopping foreign aid and saving 11 Billion a year would be a good start, then WTCs, then child benefit. Then exit the EU and save another 15 Billion a year or so.

No need to touch people's hard-earned pensions, thanks.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

what proven relationship is there between spending and educational outcomes.
In fact most of the innovations over the last 20 years have shown not improvement in outcomes : just a waste of money.

Ultimately you're starting from a false premise which I don't accept. How well money is spent is clearly more important than how much money is available, and we should of course look to ensure that money is spent well in education, but that can be done irrespective of total education spending.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Ultimately you're starting from a false premise which I don't accept. How well money is spent is clearly more important than how much money is available, and we should of course look to ensure that money is spent well in education, but that can be done irrespective of total education spending.

indeed so but doesn't seem consistent with your previous position

; but cutting education spending will have long term costs to the productivity and well-being of society.

Cyberman60

cells wrote: »

I don't know, its a bit like a continuous loop on a programming error

cut the deficit and you cut that much flowing into the economy countering some/most/all of that saving so that is not good

but the reverse of just spend more and more and live happily ever after just intuitively doesn't seem like it could be right

so i am stuck in the middle of I just don't know



I lean ever so slightly to the "spend spend spend" camp as I think maybe taken to its simplest form deficit spending like like promising yourself a vacation later for doing work now. it brings forth production to now and a bird in the hand is worth 1.02 birds next year........

If you want some idea of what happens when debt is out of control just look at Germany in the 1920s/30s or Argentina in the 1990s. :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998%E2%80%932002_Argentine_great_depression

Thrugelmir

N1AK wrote: »

That just isn't a realistic position.

For many in the public sector it's now a full time job. Restructuring is a slow long winded process. You'd be shocked at the waste, lack of productivity, abuse etc that exists. Unfortunately cutting headcount is an expensive business. As redundancy terms are extremely generous. So the payback takes some years to filter through.

Change the annual state pension increase to CPI. Would have a significant impact. Particularly if we enter a period of Japanese style stagnation.