Bolitics The New Condem Government

[kidlewis]

at least they will save £520m next year when they get rid of the child trust fund. I only hope they shut down various IT projects that have been screaming over budget for years.

I still cannot believe that crap transport direct website cost over £1m let alone over £50m. And to think they only get 1m users a month is quite laughable.

times that project by the number of areas in government and I bet you these projects could save a considerable amount.

It will be hard for people in departments like the people who manage the child trust fund, but I don't believe keeping people in a job is enough to justify something which shouldn't have existed in the first place. I imagine though with this taking well over 12 months to shut down, people will move departments or jump ship before the end. I imagine the amount of people getting made redundant will be about half of the current staff.

I was made redundant from a bank in 2005 and by the time 7 months had passed half the building had already moved on. It was only people like me waiting to coin in the redundancy cash that were waiting for the ship to go down.

I can't imagine Labour would have done much different to be honest. They will probably come out and say 'oh they've cut this and that and it's terrible'. well I am afraid chaps it's the only option. Even if you take out the interest payments on the debt there is still a budget deficit of over £100bn, what they hell were they doing?

Did they just presume we would have a constant booming economy with a huge GDP to sustain such a large government? I don't understand how they managed to get government so massive and then somehow think that if a recession did come, they could cope with it and not have to borrow such massive amounts and not have such a huge deficit.

[wiganvillain]

Did they just presume we would have a constant booming economy with a huge GDP to sustain such a large government?

Yes they did, don't you remember the boastful cry of "no more boom and bust"

[Awol]

What's funny os your continued insistence, despite being shown time and again why you are wrong, that the two parties have merged. A coalition is not a merger.

And as pointed out to you the other day even the definition is the same. The fact that the LibDems are now so happy to embrace the Tory policy which is a complete U turn from their pre election and long held policy shows that they are one and the same now.

Obviously you'll continue to argue that black is white here so there is little point in discussing that further. Suffice to say that the fact they remain independent political parties illustrates why you are completely wrong.

However, due to Labour's policy of spending everything during the boom, borrowing more then spunking that as well, we were very poorly placed when the recession hit. 'First in, last out' is a badge of pride in the military, in a recession it's the mark of incompetence.

Largest debt in Europe, largest deficit in Europe..that my old mukker is down to Gordon the terrible.

Oh dear we are now into Daily Mail territory with words like that and frankly its concerning. But again old old ground and you can spout out that stuff as much as you like

The "old ground" as you call it is the economic reality of the situation, supported (inconveniently for you) by the facts. It is concerning, but not for the reasons you seem to think.

I believe your solution, ie, don't cut as much and cut later would see us dry raped by our creditors. That much should be obvious to anyone with a passing interest in the situation. Besides which 6 billion is barely scratching the surface and is effectively only two weeks worth of borrowing at legacy levels. I honestly believe Ian that you're another one who has no idea quite how much trouble we are in.

So as for being "raped" by our creditors I really do think you are living in some fanciful world where the "bailiffs" will be send round in a Eastenders special. If we were in that much trouble as you mak out, and Jon I still do remember your predictions re Northern Rock and the advice for taking money out and keeping it under the bed :wink:, why are these "creditors" not "raping" us now?

Our creditors are not currently taking us to the cleaners precisely because the government have said they will drastically reduce our deficit and have just made a symbolic start in doing so. They don't need balliffs Ian, they just stop lending to us.

As for NR, who was to know that we'd see the largest robbery of the poor to prop up the rich in history? Taking the debt of the banks and nationalising it without actually taking control of the institutions themselves is mind boggling. I think historians will look back at this period in amazement.

I'm still totally convinced that the safest place for anyone's money right now is in physical assets that can be metaphorically be "kept under the bed", specifically land and gold. If I had savings or investments worth worrying about then I'd not be trusting or holding large amounts of any paper currencies. I think there is a strong chance of a major global depression in the next few years and the remedial action taken to secure the banks has only raised the distance we (in the UK) will eventually have to fall.

The simple facts are being conveniently overlooked by you again and again, this is a world problem and very few exceptions are actually not suffering from it. We are part of a set of events that being impacted by happenings globally

Yes there has been a global recession and no that was not the fault of New Labour. However, their stewardship of the economy prior to the recession (spend everything, borrow more and then spend that too) left us very badly placed to weather the storm. The structural deficit and estimated 1790 billion debt has not appeared out of thin air and the extent of this is largely due to the policies of the previous government. These are simply the facts and siezing on "Daily Mail" language to try and divert attention doesn't make them any less real.

The actions being put in place now by Gideon and his party leaves us massively exposed - but we have to wait and see what exposure this will bring.

Leaves us massively exposed how? Please explain.

[Richard]

Apparently - from a "friend" in the know - all travel has to go through more levels of approval now which inhibits it in real terms - its a trick we have seen in various companies when the bean counters start their ideas - they always seem to think that travel = jolly when the reality is that it aint the case

In line with the expenses debacle I would have thought we would want to have more control on excessive travel requests across all lines of public sector. In addition if the travel is justified then surely the approval would be forthcoming.

Can't see the issue to be honest with behind the scenes travel restrictions

[lapal_fan]

Right chaps,

I know barely anything about politics - but I do find it interesting.

The question I would like to ask somebody is, if our country owes 160 billion to what I'm thinking is the world bank (??) but our debt is worse than anyone else's in Europe, what country doesn't owe money?

Are there a few countries that dont owe diddly squat? In my head I can only think of the Arab states that probably wouldnt owe anybody anything.

[Richard]

Simple facts? Simple facts

[Richard]

Right chaps,

I know barely anything about politics - but I do find it interesting.

The question I would like to ask somebody is, if our country owes 160 billion to what I'm thinking is the world bank (??) but our debt is worse than anyone else's in Europe, what country doesn't owe money?

Are there a few countries that dont owe diddly squat? In my head I can only think of the Arab states that probably wouldnt owe anybody anything.

I'm afraid the level of pur debt is actaully showing at around 1 Trillion and more likely actually 1.75Trillion.

The deficit is around 170bn.

Most of our debt is owned by China actually which is really interesting and worrying actually, if you see where most of our manufacturing plant goes once it is decommissioned here you'll understand why

I think the link I have posted at the top of this page will answer lots of your questions, but no doubt some will view it as biased anti Labour propoganda

[snowychap]

The deficit is around 170bn.

Last year's deficit was revised down by the ONS to about 156, I believe.

[lapal_fan]

Thanks Richard

One question on that site that I cannot see is.

How will it affect us though? (I know taxations etc) I mean I'm realistic enough to know that debt wont be paid off even in my lifetime but are we managing it?

What will happen if we cannot pay it off?

Is it a good time to **** off to Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc???

Its sad to see us in this situation though isnt it?

[Richard]

The deficit is around 170bn.

Last year's deficit was revised down by the ONS to about 156, I believe.

What's 14BN amongst friends ? :winkold:

[snowychap]

The deficit is around 170bn.

Last year's deficit was revised down by the ONS to about 156, I believe.

What's 14BN amongst friends ? :winkold:

A lot of 'efficiency savings'. :winkold:

[avfc89]

We need people to continue spending, and not be scared by the Tory Dem's negativity on the Economy. I think Labour's plan was right in the long term over the Economy, I think we will see a lot of jobs lost with this Government and, maybe, another recession. All in all, I think the Government need to keep mute about the Economy, it won't help in the long term or the short for growth.

[Richard]

Great idea lets not tell anyone the true scope of Labour incompetence. WHo will that serve? Noone but Liebour.

I have been humming D Ream Things can only get better for the last few hours

[drat01]

Bloody hell if you listened to the ConDem party (oh and by the AWOL did you see Clegg's comments about a joint party yesterday?) you would have them believing that this country is completely and utterly shagged beyond belief. The reality though is far from that, while still very vulnerable to world events - and hang on I remember another bit of advice about how markets would "rape" us if the Con's were not in charge, stange how those damn pesky markets have behaved since the ConDem's got in charge, or is the fault the Dem's? - the emphasis must be or at least should have been not to expose us further to these market forces. Before the Dem's joined the Tory party they were saying the same, but obviously have filed that under the 5 minute manifesto pledges.

The speech today has more holes in it than a swiss cheese and smells just about the same. Why is there no policy about a major source of billions of pounds lost in things like tax avoidance? - There was a good story in the Grud last year about this link - could it be that would be hitting the paymasters?

Special Advisors were another headline that Cameron used pre election - it seems that he was telling porkies link - or is this as it says "work in progress"?

There are so many lies and U Turns from both parts of the new party, it's difficult to know what to believe from them any more - I suppose it has been a few days since the election so we should expect them to change from their manifesto

[Richard]

Why is there no policy about a major source of billions of pounds lost in things like tax avoidance? - There was a good story in the Grud last year about this link - could it be that would be hitting the paymasters?

Interesting, is that the reason Liebour did nothing about in 13 years either do you think, those pesky paymasters

[Richard]

Oh and bloody hell if you listened to the Liebour party you would have them believing that this country is absolutely fine and dandy and in a brilliant state. The reality though is far from that.

I think that makes more sense actually

[bickster]

Regardless of what I think of this coalition I did find the sight of Nick Clegg trying to get seen by the camera whilst Cameron was answering questions on the QS in parliament highly amusing. Gideon to the left Cameron centre stage and Clegg shuffling about behindCameron trying to get his face in shot and failing miserably

A real Spitting Image moment, if only Fluck and Law were still doing SI, they'd be entering a new golden period I think (taking the piss out of all three sides) as theres plenty to be satirical about these days and I think people got bored of SI as the politicians got more polished and less individual (or was that lacking in personality)

[avfc89]

Great idea lets not tell anyone the true scope of Labour incompetence. WHo will that serve? No one but Liebour.

I have been humming D Ream Things can only get better for the last few hours

We know the true scope of the Economy, why do we need to be forced to hear it again and again? We need people to spend, if they don't spend the Economy won't grow, and scaring people will rise prices and make the standard of living much more tougher for the people at the bottom of the ladder, like me and my family.

What will cutting jobs gain? A little figure on a sheet of paper; people's lives are so much more important than a few digits.

[thetrees]

Great idea lets not tell anyone the true scope of Labour incompetence. WHo will that serve? No one but Liebour.

I have been humming D Ream Things can only get better for the last few hours

We know the true scope of the Economy, why do we need to be forced to hear it again and again? We need people to spend, if they don't spend the Economy won't grow, and scaring people will rise prices and make the standard of living much more tougher for the people at the bottom of the ladder, like me and my family.

What will cutting jobs gain? A little figure on a sheet of paper; people's lives are so much more important than a few digits.

Stupid question, but what are people going to spend?

During the golden "no more boom and bust" years they were spending heavily on the credit card and releasing the 'equity' in their homes to pay them off.

The credit cards are long cut up and the 'equity' in their homes became negative in the blink of an eye.

Harsh fact but the 'boom' was fuelled by money and wealth that didn't actually exist. Of course our government knew this was the case, but were happy to let it continue unchecked, as it made them look successful (not party political as I have stated that any party in government would have allowed it to continue)

Much as Liam Byrne's note was in bad taste, it was totally correct

[avfc89]

What are they going to spend? Their wages? Do you want a loaf of bred to be £5 because the public aren't spending? It's crucial people spend more to sustain the Economy in this Country.

Overall, these cuts won't make a big difference, only harder for the people at the bottom. We need bigger diverse thinking in the long term.